Quake3World

There is no "core" problem.

It's pretty obvious that religion is the core problem in this and many other incidents.

So fix religion and then no more gun crime?

Yeah, fixing one thing always fixes everything.

If we would just take all the religious ppl in the world and dump them on Antarctica then nuke it from orbit, the world would be forever fixed...

That too.

I dunno man, places with less guns have less mass killings. They even get to keep their cars and religion. What makes more sense, banning big guns or banning beliefs?

Not banning either.

So, we just learn to accept that there will be a mass shooting every once in a while?

Uh... Yeah... Don't u remember a classroom of first graders being mowed down and nothing changed? Why would it with a bunch of homos being slaughtered or anyone else?... this is it...

Nothing changed because there was no attempt to make a change. You're willing to just give up? What a pussy...

I should expect that from someone who is literally half the man I am.

Transient wrote:Nothing changed because there was no attempt to make a change. You're willing to just give up? What a pussy...

Attempts were made... Just becuz u didn't pay attention doesn't mean it didn't happen... Pussy...

The government is too ineffective to change shit. People have been screaming for change and Congress sits on their hands.

Transient wrote:So, we just learn to accept that there will be a mass shooting every once in a while?

No, did I say that?

Until people like you (on both sides) can discuss this topic without going from one extreme to the next, nothing will EVER get done. A BAN is NOT going to happen in our life time. Why argue for it? Argue for something that will do some good and is attainable.

Transient wrote:The government is too ineffective to change shit. People have been screaming for change and Congress sits on their hands.

The government is controlled by lobbyists. It doesn't matter what the "people" want. But I can tell you that there are WAY more American against bans (including me) than there are for them. However, there are many Americans like myself that think there should be stricter regulation on the sale of high capacity firearms. But it seems the extreme left that could find allies in the middle are too stupid to capitalize on that and keep screaming BAN.

My post was meant to illicit a suggestion at an alternative. Do you have one? I'll go check the last 4 pages and see if I missed it.

I think a middleground includes a ban of assault rifles and armor piercing rounds.

I've posted an alternative in several of these stupid threads. But since you seem to have missed it.
[lvlshot]https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/75306_10151331336563711_716358990_n.jpg?oh=88baa47faf3460e090188c2d52a5cad6&oe=58063C62[/lvlshot]

Transient wrote:I think a middleground includes a ban of assault rifles and armor piercing rounds.

A ban is NOT middle ground. A ban is an infringement on our constitution rights and will NOT go anywhere.

The Framers of the Constitution had no notion of assault rifles, and it was put in place right after a bloody war where our very existence as a country was on the line. Everyone seems to forget the "well regulated militia" part.

I remember that graphic, it doesn't go far enough, but it's a good start. Which is what I think I said last time.

The framers of the constitution wanted all citizen to be afforded the right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. No weapon stipulations needed. A militia would be ideal. But there is that part stating, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Which some people on the left also seem to overlook.

You watch too many TV shows.

those guns are going to save him from the evil gubberment dronez bro

I have news for you: if the government wants to take over, they're going to take over. I don't care how many assault rifles you have; they have an air force.