Colbert: Stop ignoring gun violence (new definition of insanity)

Most of the talk isn't to take away guns. But tougher restrictions on obtaining them.

 

What? What proof do you have of that? Yes they are absent of fathers, how did the dems cause it? Please be specific?

 

It won't ever make sense to the left.

 

Britain banned guns in 97'. There's a knife attack every 4 minutes. They have been trying to figure out how to ban all knives but the need to use knives in food preparation has prevented the ban. The government is offering a reward to the inventor who can come up with a device that can cut food but cannot be used to stab or cut a person.

In the mean time, the problem is still not being addressed.

 

Restrictions on the bill of rights defeats its purpose... perhaps we should restrict the other Amendments too, like the voting act.

 

Which one of the BoR is the "Voting Act"?

Any of the Amendments may be amended themselves and some have been repealed. While they hold the distinction of being the first, the BoR are not written as different from any of the rest.

 

Or anyone else. The right always tears up and says "It's MURICAN" when you bring that point up about their entire ideology

You can wrap (*)(*)(*)(*) in the flag all you want, it still smells the same

 

Can we all own tanks if we choose?

 

MOD EDIT - Rule 3
Crime Aus USA
Murder rate 1.3 5

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime
Here, prove your claim.

 

This is not Australia, this is America, where we have a 2nd Amendment, something Australia doesn't have. If you want a fix, do it right, through the amendment process, otherwise you progs are just attempting to turn our rights into privileges. Even fool progs should be able to figure out that is a bad idea...

 

It's an amendment! It's not set in concrete. What does amendment mean?

 

I was talking about amendments in general. BoR are different, they are different they can never be changed unless USA is disintegrated.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes and No.... tanks are vehicles and would require a licence to operate. You could own a Cannon though.

 

Specific? Try Google. It's an all day sucker.

 

Nothing there that contradicts a thing I said.

 

I greatly respect and admire Colbert, but he's barking up the wrong tree on this one.

If the law could really influence human behavior as written and intended, we would have no drugs or illegal immigrants in the country.

Gun laws exist, most of them fairly strict and well thought out, but none of them have ever stopped any shooting, mass or otherwise.

 

I wonder why these same psychos don't take their car and barrel through a crowd? You can kill/hurt a lot more people MUCH easier. But then, you can't OFF yourself when its over without the gun. Think about it.

 

And there are limits to that "right", just as there are with our other rights, particularly when one bumps into another. You may own an AR-15 now, and in the future. The difference will be that, given effective controls, you will be required to register that weapon, just like an automatic weapon (renew very so often) in order to keep it. If not, it goes because you are not trustworthy enough. And that, friend, WOULD be legal, tho the right would howl to the heavens.

 

What 'new gun laws' would have stopped the Oregon shooting?


All his firearms were obtained legally wth a background check,and no 'gun show loophole' was involved..

I notice however,no one seems to be whining for better mental health screening

 

That's because you chose some amateur graph that only goes back to 1993. Did you make that yourself? It's kind of hard to see a trend when you only take three data points.

Here, I'll help you out. This is actually from a gun-control lobbying group so you should have no objections:



See how that works? Now, tell me again how there wasn't a declining trend prior to the law going into effect.

 

lmao. That is total number of homicides by weapon type...not homicide rate.

You do know the difference, yes? If so, then you must now realize that a "gradual decline to where it had been" when comparing current homicides in the US to those that happened decades ago means that the rate went down since there are a lot more people in the US now than there was then!

Your graph doesn't even show the extent of it. If memory serves, the US recently hit a homicide rate so low that you'd have to go back 50 years to find a comparable one. Of course that's just actual data so you probably won't accept it since it is counter to the narrative that the political bosses are feeding the useful idiots nowadays.

Of course you can...because apparently you don't mind looking like a hypocrite. You were happy as a lark to insist that correlation equaled causation when it suited you but now you'll have none of it. Hilarious.

Gee, I have no idea where I got that from...hmmmm...maybe because you have Duluth, GA showing as your "location" in every one of your posts, and because Duluth, GA is an affluent suburb...nah that couldn't be it. I guess I just assumed that by how obvious it is that you've led a sheltered life.

Good for you...I also never posted whether or not you own any firearms. What did we win?!

Hardly. You've shown one of two things. Either,

1. You don't know how to look at data, determine its suitability, and then interpret that data in a useful manner; or,

2. You do know how to do those things but have no qualms about making statements that are blatant lies.

Either way, I'm here to help.

 

We keep hearing words like "sensible gun control laws". So what do you call sensible?

 

Please cite the laws.
For all 50 states, or the federal law.

 

So you don't even have one? LOL.
1 cause of fatherless home caused specifically by dems. Come on, you made the claim. Back it up.

 

Nothing I see backs up your claim. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Yeah there is a need. The Supreme Court already told several cities to (*)(*)(*)(*) off who tried to do the Australian thing. So your either going to have to amend the constitution or convince the military to over throw our democracy... Either way. You ban guns this country of ours breaks apart.

- - - Updated - - -

Australia doesn't have a second amendment.