pretty much sums it up...

I guess 6 million Jews said the same thing these libs are saying now... How did that work out for them? People who don't know history are doomed to repeat it... And who's trying to change history? ....

And millions of German citizens died too.

yea, anyone who didn't fit into the master plan... I wonder what the master plan is now?...

WoW!

I'm actually surprised that there is still a gun debate.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people...DUH.

To fix people killing people requires a radical change in thinking in all people.

I own a gun. I don't kill people. I could own a tank or a RPG and I STILL wouldn't kill people.
My own morals and intelligence removes the possibility.
I choose not to kill people. I could, but I won't.

I know people that collect guns. They have assault rifles, some even have hand grenades.
They don't kill people either. They could, but they don't.

Its not the device or the access to the device that is the problem.
Its the mindset of the person holding the device.
A mindset that is driven by their personal morals and intelligence.
Morals and intelligence that is learned in their lives.
If there is even an option of killing someone on their table there is something wrong with their morals and intelligence according to our society's value system. They are anti-social to begin with. Personally, they may even be sociopathic or psychotic.

You wanna find a solution to gun violence, the place to look is at the people, not the guns.
Figure out how to identify those anti-social values that lead to gun violence.
Find a way to treat the disorder.
Figure out a way to prevent it from reoccurring in that person and the general population.

This is like getting hit on the left side of your head with a stick and looking for it on the right. Ya keep getting hit and you keep looking in the wrong place?
Quite comical if ya ask me...

except NO ONE here and next to noone in the public is advocating to take 'all the guns'

alcohol nor cars , because they are both inanimate objects, also dont kill people, but when people have ACCESS to them, they can DECIDE to use them in ways that harm others

its much more efficient and measurable to do something about the access and the object than it is to set about figuring out people's minds.

Where would that stop? Who would do the measuring? What would be the criteria. I mean if someone said crazy things, couldnt they argue against any type of evaluation because 'words dont kill people'


I think that argument and the 'criminals dont follow rules' could be applied to protest or avoid having any rules or laws, but I think it would lead to chaos as well, because it would remove societal boundaries altogether.

I mean ballots dont elect presidents, people do, but they still regulate the voting process.

And cars dont kill people, people do, but they still have measures in place for who can drive and safety standards for how to make cars.

that is not to say that I disagree that the mindset o a person is a PART of it as well, and that rethinking our educational process and our media boundaries may work well for future generations, but in the more immediate future, addressing access and manufacture should also be a part of progress ...

It's not about gun control, it's about people's mental health but we live in a world where people's health is less important than money and votes.

Also, no matter what feminists dream and wish, the father is needed in the home to raise these boys properly.

Until those two issues are dealt with, many more people will die needlessly.

I agree that mental health is a problem, but have you listened to our POTUS? I mean, who is gonna step up and declare what is 'mentally healthy'?

I think such things are just difficult to assess and agree upon in an unbiased way.


As far as children deserving a mother and a father, I whole heartedly agree
but,

it is not just feminists who are deciding a man is not needed in the home, but it is also men who dont step up to be in the home.

It is modern culture that is promoting the idea of family being about nothing but 'love' and roles being oppressive and unnecessary.

and it is a shift from community mind to the mind of 'I did it without help. I did it by myself and noone helped me" as a virtue. and needing help or receiving help as a character flaw or weakness.

my point is the NRA advocates carrying your weapon into
any state you so choose...

so that means if you buy your weapon in arizona where there is
no requirement to obtain a permit to own the weapon, nor need
to register it and can carry open or concealed with no permit..
(includes rifles and handguns) into say, the state of california
and ignore the laws established by that state...

how is breaking the state laws of calif, being a
responsible gun owner ??

this is exactly what the NRA is advocating for right now..
i can't wait to see the spin on this...maybe some more hitler memes ??

I agree.

When teaching a child not to touch something the best instruction is not to put the item out of reach, it is to teach them not to touch it in the first place.
When you put the cookie jar out of reach, it becomes a focus.
If you teach the child not to open the cookie jar in the first place, the cookie jar remains on the counter where it belongs, not hidden away in a cupboard.
This is called active parenting.
The lazy parent hides the cookie jar.

Banning guns is the lazy parenting method.
It will never be as effective as the active parenting method of changing the mind set.
Lazy is easy, active requires time, focus and patience.

Again, noone is talking about banning guns.

and eating a cookie is a much different level of concern than children losing their lives

not to mention it only involves one individual who also is the only one the choice impacts

whereas weapons involves the consequences OTHERS will receive upon them by another persons choice

literally, cookies and bullets ...

it always starts with rules and regulations first...then the excuse is made about how that didn't work, so they'll need to take everyone's guns... Think Hitler just decided one day to confiscate guns? No, it was planned years before that, just like now... Only difference is Trump isn't part of the NWO cabal...

Obviously you missed my point?

also, people don't use weapons to kill.
"A" person uses "A" weapon to kill.

Something I've noticed about hot topics is that no matter the reasoning presented, some people will argue no matter what.

Gun control debates are nothing new.
For all the hub-bub, no solution can be found.
When a viable solution is offered, that has nothing to do with guns, it is ignored or immediately shot down because it doesn't side with their particular side.

The FACT that there is still a debate is PROOF that the debates on the subject at hand are ineffective as a solution to the problem.
Why people can't see that is a mystery to me.
Lets just argue for the sake of arguing.
Meanwhile, another school, workplace or random killing happens.
Over and over, Death, Discussion, Death, Discussion...
LOL, its pathetic.

if California doesn't have an open carry law, then what makes you think you can? I don't know of any interstate check points to make sure your not carrying a weapon or anything else illegal in that state. Still not sure of your point here, they only know if your breaking a state law if they catch you doing it... The government can only do so much to a state that doesn't follow their laws, are they going to send troops to Colorado to make weed illegal again?

thats why there are no more toys, even though thousands have been recalled or stopped being sold

or why there are no more cars, because of safety regulations in their building or rules about their purchase

or why there are no more groceries, because the FDA didnt allow certain chemicals

oh wait, NONE OF THAT HAS HAPPENED.

I apologize if you felt I was ignoring your argument. I wasnt. And I am certainly not arguing 'just to argue'.

In fact, I have stated many times that the health of the person is a PART of the problem. What I debate (because I believe it is an important point to draw attention to) is that it is in any way the ONLY part that can or should be addressed.

By the nature of anything being inanimate it cannot 'kill' without being used by a person in some way. Poison does not kill people but people can be killed if served poison, therefore we regulate what is in our foods or drugs that might be poisonous.

That is the problem, for me, with the 'guns dont kill people' argument, because to me, it IGNORES the part that guns PLAY When people die by GUNFIRE.

and yet since the first gun laws in the 60's, and every progressive step taken since then how much has it helped? nadda so why would more of the same magically fix it now?
the wrong part of the equation is being addressed.
as tom so eloquently showed