Clinton did it

In case you missed it, gun bans and stiffer laws DO NOT STOP GUN VIOLENCE. EXECUTIONS haven't even touched it. Prohibiting anything doesn't work, as people will do what they do. Victimless crimes are only a deference to a political power that uses dumb laws to oppress people.

Every other country has diminished it greatly, the goal is to diminish it greatly. I know you scared little boys always use absolutes to be able to keep your manhood makers but you can be a man without one, I promise you this. You will be ok.

What didn't change was the overall murder rate under Clinton. It did go down, but at a lower rate than it had been before the ban. I am not claiming the ban slowed the overall murder rate decline, but I suggest it had almost nothing to do with murder rates.

It might make mass shootings and school shootings decrease. I guess we'll never know until we decide that kids dying at school is a bad thing that we want to stop at any cost. Until then, we'll prevent it with "thoughts and prayers," because that's worked so well until now...

I don't see how. Mass shootings are about 80% of the time comited by some nutcase with a small, cheap, handgun. Not any sort of rifle, let alone any sort of military weapon, or visual copy of a military weapon. Also, the place a child is least likely to die in America is a school.

It did not have mass shootings now

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Are you trying to claim there were no mass shootings under Clinton??

Stop believing everything you’re told by your liberal masters

Didn’t the Columbine shooting happen in 1999? The ban on assault weapons did nothing to stop that.

2nd Amendment is the law of the land. Clinton did it!

Just because it is law does not make it absolute, laws can be regulated. That meme is hilarious though.. We have no problem punishing our own, we are not in a cult.

I'm genuinely happy you liked it. I have a LOT more where that came from....always the bad boy. Can't help myself. ; )

According to Wiki: The AWB ban was not renewed as the evidence on its effectiveness was inconclusive. It saw a short-term decrease in the use of assault weapons in violent crimes, but by an amount too small (17%) to be deemed conclusive, and did not reduce overall rates of gun violence.

We've become a gun-fetish culture. The decrease when it was first enacted isn't the significant detail--it's how high it's climbed since it's lapsed.

While I agree with your point about fetish, an assault weapon ban is a chimera; the Supreme Court won't allow it. The 2A needs to be repealed. But cowardly politicians won't push for that. This is still theater, our version of "thoughts and prayers".

Cowards? or did you mean to say American politicians won't push for it.

Cowards. We elect cowards. Newsom is a coward. From a long line of cowardly politicians. Every citizen who doesn't speak up for these dead children to the faces of these gun nuts is a coward. The 2A needs to be repealed or amended. No effective gun control law can be passed and survive until then.

Are you ok? That is a lot of anger toward everyone.

I'm okay with being angry at cowardly politicians pretending that pushing for an unconstitutional assault weapons ban is "doing something" about the gun violence killing our children. Literally Shitlib Centrists' version of "thoughts and prayers". And angry at you for lapping it up. Hillary, gfy!

Here we see a textbook Nazi who wants Minorities disarmed and the federal government to retain its monopoly on Violence. Get fucked, Fashie Scum. The day of the rope looks for you Right wing, Minority hating cucks

I am a Marxist Revolutionary. I don't favor anybody having such lethality, including the police. A just government run by the People needs no such violent enforcement nor coercion. The gun industry is a tool of Capitalists that kills minorities most of all. Open your eyes.

Any good Marxist knows guns are needed. You are not a Marxist. "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx

What would a good American say?

Any good American knows "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

That's what's killing innocent kids. You are not a good person.

OMG. Never in a million years would I think America would have so many Commies in this country. Shame on you. You want to give all your money to the state? Have them take away all your possibilities of power through owning land and business? People don't smile in Romania.

You are having all your actual wealth stolen by oligarchs and your possibilities diminished to zero under late-stage capitalism. Who said anything about giving it to the State? And what does Romania have to do with it? Americans can no longer afford HOUSING. Tell me why you defend exploitation.

Don't worry btw, Im not a Commie, just well versed.

You are well-versed at telling lies. Especially the ones you tell yourself.

Any good Revolutionary knows that we don't need permission from anybody to use guns or violence against an oppressor. And personal firearms are currently useless in the Drone Age. Marx is historical. As is The Bible. Verbatim interpretations are silly.

"Guns are useless in the drone age" Lmfao. Maybe learn to aim? Have some situational awareness? That's like saying Tanks are useless in the Artillery age

Lol. You want to tell Ukraine they should stop using drones to repel Russia? All they need are rifles? And to "aim good"?

Marxists have not a good record with minorities and the last country the first country they took over is still terrorizing the planet Hard pass on your BS, thanks anyway.

Have Capitalists had a better record with minorities? What do you think Slavery was? Marxism isn't based in racism nor does it justify racism in any way. I don't think you've ever understood Marxism.

Guns have always been part of our culture. They were essential tools for survival in early America. Removing the rights of many based upon the actions of few is legislating on the lowest denominator. I.E.: You don’t ban all cars because a few can’t drive.

A couple of points here: 1) Cars and drivers are better regulated and they are purpose-built for transportation, not mass killing. 2) They were muskets and single-shot guns that are no longer needed as "essential tools." 3) Nobody is advocating removing all guns--just sensible gun control laws.

Every single other civilized country has figured this out. They all have mentally ill people, just like we do. It's a solvable problem with a proven blueprint, and we refuse to do the right thing because of our stubbornness and arrogance. Meanwhile, children continue to die and be traumatized.

Every other civilized country doesn't have a population of scared little boys who digest garbage news 24 hours a day. It is funny if they can't watch it when in the hospital, they demand to be moved and through toddler tantrums if they can't get it. They literally watch nothing else.

Interesting. Maybe the hospital should block FOX... They could probably justify it as "healthcare" or "crisis prevention." It feeds delusions.

Point 1. In the u.s. owning a gun is a right. It’s not subsidized by the government. Google “Waukesha attack”. Misuse of anything can kill. Guns, used properly provide food and protection. The “sensible” gun laws I see promoted do not enhance safety, they encumber it.

So is owning a car, just because you have a right does not make it absolute. How is this a hard concept to understand? Be a man already. You don't need guns to be one.

Agreed. But the “common sense” gun control legislation I’ve seen is not sensible or common, IMO. They can’t even define what an assault weapon is. You need knowledge, not feelings. Guns, BTW, don’t define me any more than the car I drive, which is 20+ years old. Well maybe it does a little. :)

Did you attach a domain for sale 🤣🤣🤣🤣 That sums up your side well

Sorry but I don’t own, sell, or otherwise have anything to do with domains. I do, however, have fat fingers and a small keyboard. My side may also have that issue but I’m not sure.

So it doesn’t save enough live so we can’t do anything about it. Let more people die or be severely maimed until we can prove it will save how many lives? Does it need to save 20% more? 60%? 1 child isn’t enough?

The effectiveness of the law weren’t proven, besides there is risk in everything. If you want to save children then ban pools. Drowning kills more children than guns.

No, it doesn't. Give it up

Your on the wrong site spew bullshit.

Did they actually use Wiki as a source 🤣🤣🤣🤣 You can't make this shit up.

Well that is a lie on several fronts, stop being scared of everything and actually work to save the lives of children. You don't need a million guns with only two hands 🤣🤣🤣🐔

A nonspecific reply. Where is the lie(s)? Guns aren’t scary objects, they are tools. If children are taught about guns they are safer. Knowledge is power. FYI , I own many tools despite having just two hands. Different tools for different uses. One size does not fit all.

You’re right about one thing. Guns are tools. Tools to kill.

Knives, hammers, axes once were expressly designed to kill as well. They are still dangerous tools. Restrict them as well? Guns provide food, defend against attack, and protect you and yours. Banning everything based on it possibly being misused will make life harder. I’ve evolved beyond that.

The people who say “come and take it” are the ones that say I need to protect against a tyrannical government. Well here’s their opportunity and they are no where to be found. Either they are too scared, hence the need for an armory, or they never meant it in the first place.

As a student of history I’ve found disarming the populous often leads to tyranny and genocide. The founding fathers saw this first hand and made the effort to prevent it from happening here. Better a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war. Why are mass shootings always in gun free zones?

Yes one person at a time after multiple swings, hits, and stabs. They were also generally no defined laws or courts, except for the few advanced societies in Rome, Athens, London, and the far east. Then guess what humans evolved into developing more efficient weapons.

True, what was once a battle implement is now a popular sporting arm. Laws should protect or enhance your rights, not hinder or remove them. Because you abuse something doesn’t mean I should be treated as if I abuse it as well.

We want to ban assault weapons, this is not a hard concept. Assault weapons do not provide food, the destroy the animal. Assault weapons do not defend against any attack in regular society, they inflict maximum damage on children in the US. You don't want to defend, you want to intimidate.

If you use the first defined assault weapon, the StG 44, as a guide nothing in the u.s. comes close. You can spend thousands and wade through a matrix of government red tape to own an assault weapon but it’s already out of the hands of the average Joe.

They also make him feel more manly, they are very scared otherwise.

Nobody said anything about guns being scarey, I accused you of being scared. I am a military vet and I know for a fact you only need one or two weapons. You link your manhood to the amount of guns you own because you are scared and weak. Tools have specific uses genius, good try to sound smart.

As for the law, it was proven to eliminate mass shootings and cut down on gun crime in general. Numbers don't lie, your feelings do. Bitchery has no place in society, man up.

That was Bill Clinton not Reagan. :)

California, black panthers 1960s ;)