Buffalo Shooting Adds Pressure on Joe Biden to Push for Gun Control Measures

That's enough.

The relevant quote is in bold and large font. I don't expect you to apologize, because only a serious poster would. You, on the other hand, are just the type that will deny reality without even thinking twice. But to use that to fabricate an insult is beneath even you. Well... maybe not beneath YOU. But just stop doing it.

Now... if you are implying that I MODIFIED the above quote, SAY IT! Explicitly!

 

No I'm not!

You said: "Gun control laws don't work, but that is by design. The strategy is to pass law after law after law until reaching the ultimate objective: a complete outlawing of gun ownership. [emphasis added]"

I responded: "A complete outlawing of gun ownership would DEFINITELY work to reduce the number of gun-related deaths. "

YOU took YOUR OWN post out of context when you shifted the conversation to "carrying a gun"
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ontrol-measures.599809/page-4#post-1073455767

"Carrying a gun" <> "Complete outlawing of gun ownership"

Now it's a good idea for you to apologize. And apologizing is not a detriment to you. In fact, it's an indication that you expect to be taken seriously. So I don't expect it from @Condor060 , but I still have high hope for you.

 

For this to be true, this outlawing would require the confiscation of all existing guns, as well as any newly manufactured guns.
It also does not account for the gun-realted deaths due to gun stolen from, or lost by, the state.
It also does not account for the number of deaths that will result from people unable to use a gun to defend themselves.
But, the real questions
How do you plan to confiscate all of the ~423,000,000 existing guns in the US?
How may people will die as a result of the wholesale confiscation of firearms across the US?
How is that cost worth the benefit you claim, especially taking into consideration the items you do not account for, above?

 

Do you really think holding Biden and democrats accountable for not enacting gun legislation should look like voting for people who have no interest in stopping gun violence? Holding someone accountable doesn't work if you turn around and vote for people who don't care about the same issue. That's straight up lunacy.

The real problem here isn't just with guns. The easy availability of guns results in more gun violence in this country, that's a given and an undeniable fact, but the easy availability isn't a root cause of shootings like this. I would prefer to keep people in office who see the situations and factors in society that feed these types of shootings and are willing to act on them as opposed to the politicians who want to ignore or dismiss them.

 

My question asks if will Democrats hold the Democrats who failed to enact all this gun control accountable by primarying the existing people and get True Believers in there.
My guess is no.

 

Some might. But your premise is that all democrats think guns should be more restricted than they are. That's not true. There are democrats who think there are enough protections of guns on the books as is.

 

Of course there are.
Just not many. And those in office dare not admit it in public.

 

What does Joe Manchin say about gun control? How about Tulsi Gabbard? And those are just two high profile ones at the national level. What about the ones at the local level whose names we've never heard? I think it's more than you're claiming. That said, I get your point, but I think, and I don't think I'm alone in this on the democratic side of things, that gun crime isn't purely a result of a lack of gun control. It's a result of many factors others of which probably have been ignored or neglected and we should shore those up because many of them are upstream of where gun control laws work, which is pretty far down the path.

 

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...reform-bill-in-wake-of-buffalo-mass-shooting/

https://www.ontheissues.org/2020/Tulsi_Gabbard_Gun_Control.htm

And they prove my point.

Unlikely.
But if you find someone, let me know.

Well sure - Democrats are also happy to point to poverty, lack of education, etc, as factors - and more than happy to offer spending bills to 'assist'.

 

Thanks to your cutting up of posts I had to go back and re-read what I said. Are you EVER going to stop?

I do find it funny that in this post you talk about things being binary for those on the right, and you consider me as being on the right...and yet I gave several examples of other things possibly being of consideration. Showing that I'm considering multiple things and not just a binary choice.

BTW, this is another example of you cutting up a post in order to take things out of context for your spin. The full post shows that I am considering multiple things. That snippet of my post with your response makes it out as if I am only considering a binary choice.

Ironically you're the one that is presenting a binary choice. Ban all guns or don't and we continue to have mass shootings.

 

In my opinion, your statement is fearmongering. There are some who would like to abolish all guns completely, but they are a small percentage of the population, of even the left. There are some out there on the right who thinks everyone should be forced to carry a gun, but, again, a small percentage.
But your statement exaggerates to make it sound like it's imminent that they will take your guns!, but in reality, most people just want better background checks and such. What is the effect? Just as you stated, don't give an inch. Consequently, nothing gets done.
Real life example: when Obama was elected, what did you hear about guns? "He's gonna take all your guns!"
How many did he take? Hint: the number is less than 1.
Yes, you are fearmongering, whether you realize it or not. Maybe you don't see it because you're fearFUL.

 

If you were actually a serious poster you wouldn't use your stereotyping political broad brush so often and you wouldn't feel the need to butcher up people's posts and remove key parts and quote them out of context.

Even your liberal buddies probably laughed quietly at your claim to be a serious poster. Lol

 

Except for the fact I have not exaggerated anything.

Note that I used the term 'anti-gun left" - this denotes a subset of the left that is, well, anti-gun.
And, as the restrictions get further way from "abolish all guns completely", the support for those unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by he law abiding increases.
I'm sure you agree.

Thus, I have not exaggerated anything; your explanation remains devoid of rational basis.

 

Wilson Sporting Goods Co does not manufacture products designed to kill people. Smith & Wesson does. They manufacture weapons designed to kill.

It's relatively difficult to kill a person with a baseball bat, or a car or ... with a cell phone. Because that's not what they are designed for. It's relatively easy to kill a person with a gun. There is NO reason why regular people would need a gun to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. So if Smith & Wesson does not do everything in their power to avoid these guns to be sold to the general public, or if they don't take the necessary steps to prevent guns from being modified so they can kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, they need to be held accountable. Just like Purdue Pharma is held accountable for not doing everything in their power to avoid OxyContin from being modified to produce a "quick fix" for drug addicts (plus other irresponsible actions)

 

Yes. To have a "A complete outlawing of gun ownership" like the poster I responded to mentioned, the outlawing would have to be... surprise surprise... complete.

I think you might want to tell HIM that that's impossible (if that's what you claim). Not to me.

 

Which answers the question "do you know what you're saying"?

Finding out what you said is the most basic of basic research.

Looks like you didn't bother to look back at what you said. I'll help you out. You said "Is that actually it?". The word "actually" implies that one of us is considering a binary choice. I merely pointed out that that is not me. Except if we were talking about computer languages or something like that, that is NEVER me.

Yes. But you also considered the possibility that that could be "it". And THAT'S what I responded to.

Looks like you are not understanding the concept of "binary thinking". Obviously you either ban all guns or you don't ban all guns. You're either pregnant or you're not pregnant. A binary choice would be to assume that the two choices were to ban all guns, or ban NONE.

Anyway... just having a little fun. Slow Friday evening. Your post contains no arguments worth debating.

 

Wow! YOU ACTUALLY POSTED most OF WHAT SOMEONE SAID!!!!!!!! Where's the emoji for a heart attack?

And yes, I did say "Is that actually it?". Because you are giving a binary responses. You can deny that if you wish. But that is what you're doing. You can't hide the fact that you want all guns banned and that you believe not doing so will lead to shootings. That is binary. So yes, it is you, while talking outside of computer language.

 

This might be illuminating in finding a response to why right-wingers use binary thinking so often (and any left wingers who use it, though I don't know many). At least one of the reasons: they don't understand what it means and, therefore, they can't avoid doing it. I'll try to explain it to them by calling it out whenever I see it. Who knows if that will work. Hint: it's only binary thinking when the person using it considers only two choices and there are many more.

A vs B, when there are choices or options C, D, E... is binary thinking.

A vs not A is NOT a binary choice. She is either pregnant, or she's NOT pregnant. There are no other possibilities. She cannot be "a little bit" pregnant.

Stick around... pay attention. I'm sure eventually you'll get it.

 

You’re unqualified to tell people what their rights are. Also, according to you the only job of forks is to make people fat.

 

Biden has no need for additional pressure. After all he appointed "I'm-going-to-get-the -guns" Beto as his gun czar. (BTW what ever happened to him???)

 

As a collectable, I could see investing in one of those, but for a range toy, they've got to kick like a MULE!

I was at the range one day when some youngsters were there who had rented one of those .50 cal monster handguns. They let me shoot it, and even though I almost hit myself in the head due to the kick (which probably would have knocked me out!), I managed to put a $2.50 round center of mass despite the fact that most of their shots hadn't even hit the entire silhouette. I chuckled under my breath about that lol...

 

These gun control discussions are worthless and pointless. Do you grasp that under Biden guns and ammo are being purchased at a record rate. Biden is the greatest gun salesman of all time. The fastest growing demographic for new legal gun owners are black women. As I keep telling libs, put up or shut up and go on record as wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment. See how that works out for you. lol

BTW, Half of the States (25) now have Constitutional Carry, i.e., a handgun can be carried without a permit and that number will soon be 26.

The second amendment applies to muskets like the first amendment applies to this.

 

Yes I understand that gun rights groups always scream democrats are going to do something to take guns away so they can boost sales to the uninformed and ignorant all the while Republicans are the ones that frequently implement actual legislation when they have power.

As to black women being the fastest growing demographic, good. They need to protect themselves from what the FBI and CIA have identified as the largest threat, white supremacist men.

 

Odd more people die from clubs then rifles about 3 tones as many die from knives then rifles .
So we should ban knives and clubs

 

Eh, your job isn't quite as done as you think. Simply owning a firearm that you can only have in your residence, meaning no going to the range, no traveling out of State, and as someone else mentioned, no chance whatsoever of getting a carry permit unless you're rich, famous, and very well connected, is a very expensive process.

The cost for the application (12 years ago when I still lived there, I'm sure it's much higher now) was $375, which is more than enough to purchase plenty of quality handguns, so they've doubled the price already. However, I was told by a former employee of the place that processes those applications that it is SOP to always reject the first one. Why? In the hopes that the person being denied their rights won't want to risk yet another $375 that could always be denied again. So, to get a license (that the Constitution says you don't need) to have a firearm that isn't allowed to leave your residence is not up to $750 plus the cost of whatever you're going buy. That's going to add up to well over $1,000, only a third of which is the actual cost of the firearm.

To me, that's coming dangerously close to completely outlawing gun ownership.