292 MASS shootings so far this year in the United States

Trump's rhetoric causes blacks to shoot other blacks?

 

No, you haven't understood. Trump's rhetoric directly increases the number of mass shootings. Trump has a target audience and he knows what he is doing. He weighs up the cost of increase in mass shootings with increase in votes and considers that it is a price worth paying for

 

Why don't you care about the violence in Democrat run cities? USA Today has ranked the top 25 most dangerous cities for violence and 23 out of the 25 are run by Democrats. I think that suggests that Democrats are violent, don't you? whether it's gang related or drug related or a nut who's racist----dead is dead and these people in the Democrat cities don't seem to care if their people die unless they can blame it on Trump. What's on the jam-packed agenda for the offenderatti today? We have done racist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic, white supremacy, etc. to death. What's left? What marching orders did your handlers give for today? It's exhausting, hysterical and hilarious at the same time. Do Democrats act this way when they are face-to-face or do they get their "courage" when they are spewing this garbage anonymously behind a monitor? Thank goodness, craziness isn't contagious...

 

Well, if that's the case, Obama's divisive rhetoric about the police starting with the slur on the Boston police and his rhetoric concerning how the police officer killed an "innocent" "child" (michael Brown) in Ferguson causing riots which was bogus or his divisive rhetoric which caused 5 Dallas police officers to be killed. The list goes on. Black Lives Matter was formed because of his lies about Ferguson. The war on police is still going on today. Obama did irreparable harm. I guess Democrats have selective memory delete on all things Obama their messiah. The guy stoked hate. There were also terrible mass shootings during his regime. Look how he weaponized the Justice Dept. and FBI against Trump and we had to endure this crazy hoax for over 2 years.

 

Of course.
Were nuke bombs thought of at the writing of 2A?
Or do you think owning nukes is just fine for us civilians?

 

If it only includes what you think, as written at that time, then any discussion on semi autos or so called 'assault rifles', would not be a hot topic. As those weapons did not exist 250 yrs ago.

 

So, you are advocating limiting the free press, so as there will be no restrictions on 2A? Seems rather hypocritical.

 

Your link is nearly 2 years old!

and what is your point?

 

I think it would be foolish to believe that the Republic wrought and designed by our forefathers was established by men of limited vision. Do you think they knew that there would never be any technical advances in firearms (say rifling during their lifetime, for instance)? Our Constitution was written for the Ages or at least for as long as we honored it. I suspect that they would have thought let the people be armed as the contemporary soldier is armed, with a rifle, pistol and knife, as the 2A was intended (in addition to being a personal, individual right) to act as an inhibition against an army from oppressing the People, or at the very least give the People a means to resist tyrannical oppression.

Btw I cannot afford an assault weapon as any fully automatic weapon (aka assault weapon) eats up the rounds (and the contents of one's pocketbook) so quickly. I would not forbade others from possessing it as they were able to do before the first national gun/firearms act was passed. Another right to a firearm imposed on the people for the acts of criminals. Saw something recently- Want to stop drunk drivers from killing sober drivers? Ban sober drivers from driving! That's How Gun Control Works.

 

If Trump's rhetoric directly increases the number of mass shootings, what on earth did Obama say and do!!

 

As you say, its only your thought.
My thought? No limit. Own nukes per written constitution.

 

As 1 link/poster showed, 162 attacks in 8 yrs under Obama, 292 to date this yr per OP.
So to answer your question, not much.

 

No I'm with you. It's just for some reason I thought that you weren't okay with the law limiting the 2A.

 

Is there any evidence that "plastering the air waves with gun coverage just creates more gun violence?"

 

Really? An ICBM?

 

And would you say that civilians should be able to carry them too?

 

If the soldier of the day carries it, then in a word, yes, however in line with the legislation that is currently enforced (automatic stamp tax) you will be limited to a semi-automatic laser unless you pay the automatic laser gun stamp tax and jump through those bureaucratic hoops. One of the thoughts (only one? don't know) behind the automatic machine gun tax stamp was to put it out of reach for the common American citizen of the day. It was $300.00 USD (criminals could afford this cost) when it was implemented in 1934 (thinking this was the exact year). It has not been increased as far as I know. Organized criminals were using automatic weapons in pursuit of improving their 1930's business model and expanding their market area soooooooooo the government decided that law abiding Americans must have their right to this particular "arms" infringed so it could deal with criminals. Sound familiar?

Did you know that the sawed-off shot gun was deemed illegal in the USA because a/the justice/(s), I belief of SCOTUS, decided it had no military value/function/use? They were blissfully unaware of it's use in the Trench Wars of WWI. SO it sounds to me like a decision made on inaccurate/faulty/100% wrong information. A decisional foundation built upon shifting sand and we live with that decision to this day.

 

Per constitution, there is no limit.

 

Why not? Constitution allows it. Right?

 

It has been more than four decades since I served. A nuke is not an item, I believe, the contemporary soldier would carry. I never did, nor anyone else I personally served with.

Perhaps, though supposedly the constitution was written in plain language for the common man’s understanding and I am a common man, if you see the right to a nuclear weapon in the constitution then your understanding of it is much more in-depth than mine.

 

What part in constitution limits arms to what a soldier carries?
Soldiers carry claymores, can you own one.

 

2A would, in its original meaning. I would venture to say the “keep and bear” part in context as it was written and understood. A constitutional originalist scholar may be best able to help you with your question.

 

When you are the captain (Trump) of the ship; you are responsible for the actions of the crew (Citizens).

 

President Trump is the President of a free willed People. He is not their master. If your statement is valid is the obvious converse true? Simply suggesting to point out the hundreds of millions of “crew members” who have not committed a heinous crime? Statistically a big winner for the crew chief.

Thankfully TDS only rages in the hearts and minds of a very small and polarized minority of ill minded people. Unfortunately they are over-represented in the media and the most vocal of the Hate America (then Trump) crowd.