Women and young women will remember what Trump did with Roe v Wade when they vote
Women and young women will remember what Trump did with Roe v Wade when they vote.
shareThat's why he's calling himself a 'protector' of women.
shareAnd a protector of children. Why do you support child sacrifice?
shareWhat will your protector do about lax gun laws that allow lunatics to purchase AK47's to gun down children in schools?
What will be done to eliminate that form of child sacrifice?
Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
No amount of gun laws will prevent a lunatic or criminal from using a firearm to destroy. Common Sense.
The NRA mantra. Outdated and denying the issue. About as helpful as ‘thoughts & prayers’.
Gun laws have worked in others countries. Fact.
Gun laws have worked in others countries.
Yes, but not for the lunatics and criminals. Fact share
That is stating the obvious. There will always be lunatics and criminals.
So thanks for agreeing with my premise that gun laws reduce mass shootings.
You never had a premise or a point since gun laws don't reduce mass shootings caused by lunatics or criminals.
shareMass shootings are the act of lunatics. Why would any sane person commit such acts?
As originally stated, in other countries gun laws have reduced mass shootings. Stop denying it.
But it'll never work in the USA because it's out of control.
You have zero common sense.
How the hell does it reduce mass shootings from the lunatics and criminals that would still obtain firearms even if firearms were completely and 100% banned.
Did you know that fentanyl is 100% completely banned/outlawed and yet people are dying every year by the thousands from it?
Your rhetoric has never had any standing from everyone else that made the same retarded claims as yours.
"Other countries" don't have the 2nd Amendment.
We do have gun laws and plenty of them; both state and federal.
State:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1381099/us-gun-laws-by-state/#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20gun,open%20carry%20for%20all%20firearms.
Federal:
National Firearms Act (1934): Type II weapons need to be registered.
Federal Firearms Act (1938): Prohibits the transfer of weapons to certain persons. Dealers are required to have a license.
Omnibus Crime Control & Safe Streets Act (1968): Interstate handgun trade banned, Minimum age increased to 21 to purchase handgun.
Gun Control Act (1968): Interstate gun transfers are prohibited except for dealers.
Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986): Prohibits sale of automatic weapons to civilians.
Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Bans the sale and possession of guns with less than 3.7oz metal content.
Gun Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits possession of a firearm in a school zone.
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention act (1993): Background checks are required on gun purchases.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005): Dealers and manufacturers of firearms are exempt from negligence claims.
The question becomes, "How many more additional gun laws are needed to 'reduce mass shootings'"?
Also, "What is an acceptible amount of 'mass shootings' and number of victims to anti-gunners before they stop clamoring for even more gun laws?"
My guess is that anti-gunners want to restrict more and more 2nd Amendment freedoms until there is no more 2nd Amendment and all firearms are confiscated - eventually - because "everything else has been tried, and has failed to 'reduce mass shootings' to an 'acceptable' level."
The problem will then be that with open borders guns from other sources will flood into the country. Regular, law-abiding citizens will become crime victims with increasing numbers and severity with no way to defend themselves.
If the US really wants to address "gun violence" why not put effort into the population that statistics reveal?
For example, most gun violence and crime comes from young Black men killing/shooting other young Black men.
https://thegrio.com/2024/02/12/black-americans-gun-violence-data/
Why make more and more restrictive gun laws that target good, decent, law-abiding, productive members of society when they are not the root of the problem?
Why make more and more restrictive gun laws that target good, decent, law-abiding, productive members of society when they are not the root of the problem?
Exactly, It's common sense, don't expect them to have any. share
Why are you so desperate to have higher infant mortality rates and child poverty?
shareDo you think someone should have asked your mother the same question when she conceived you?
shareIf your petulant, desperate and kneejerk response made any sense at all, then that would mean you were replying to someone who died more than forty years ago.
Anyway. It just proves that cunts like you don't give a shit about children at all.
You asked a question and you didn't like my response. Facts are Facts. Cope and Seethe.
shareYour response didn't even have any facts in it...
shareA fact that he didn't like my response. Knuckleheads require everything spelled out and spoon-fed.
shareOkay I went back. Your response about child sacrifice? Lol still waiting on "Facts are Facts"
shareFact: 63+ million "child sacrifices" since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
shareOh haha. Even you put "child sacrifices" in quotes, knowing full well yourself it's not what they were. I'm not disputing the numbers, but them being sacrifices is definitely not fact.
shareThey use different labels to disguise it, but at the end of the day, it's child sacrifice, after all, every child was a fetus before they were born.
shareThe late great George Carlin had the perfect response for you pro-lifers:
Boy these conservatives are really something, aren’t they? They’re all in favor of the unborn. They’ll do anything for the unborn.....but to them, once you’re born you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. They don’t wanna hear from you. They don’t wanna know anything about you. No neonatal care. No daycare. No Head Start program. No school lunch. No food stamps. No welfare. Nothing. If you’re pre-born, you’re fine. If you’re pre-school, you’re fucked. Conservatives don’t give a shit about kids until they reach military age. At that age, they think you’re just fine. Just what they’ve been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. These conservatives aren't pro-life. They’re killing abortion clinic doctors. What kind of pro-life is that? So these conservatives will do anything to save a fetus but if it grows up to be an abortion clinic doctor they just might have to kill it? These conservatives aren’t pro-life. You know what they are? They are anti-woman. Simple as it gets. Anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women.
It sounds like he was speaking from experience as a liberal especially since he was never a conservative.
He was describing the progressives and liberals after the children are born.
No.
shareThat is... hilariously false. Like, could not be more opposite of what you're saying. What even goes through your head to say something like that?
shareAnd yet, you didn't provide any rebuttals.
shareRebuttal: Liberals don't want children to starve and conservatives don't care if they do.
shareYeah, like my goal in life is to see starving children. What a dopey thing to say.
No, actually conservatives would like to see the PARENTS of these children feed them! Why the hell have kids when you can’t feed , clothe or house them? Just stop screwing until you can afford the babies you may create.
The area I live in has food pantries, the churches have food pantries, once a month there is a free diaper giveaway, every kid gets free breakfast and lunch at school.
Meanwhile their loser parents are covered in tattoos, body piercings, carrying cellphones and cigarettes.
Conservatives want the greedy ass government to stop taxing us to death and for lazy folks to take responsibility for their lives and their own KIDS..
I have heard Kamala cackle about the “children of the community ARE the children of the community”.
Huh? What pearls of wisdom from a chick who has the I.Q. of granite.
I think you meant pearls of swine.
shareIf you cared about children so much then why are you all so against food stamps for parents struggling to feed their kids? Why are you all so against parental leave from work for mothers with newborns? Why are you all so against free school lunches for kids? And btw, I didn't see ANY of you show any real support for kids killed in school shootings other than just "thoughts and prayers" but when Trump was almost assassinated you all were more than happy to wear fake ear bandages to support him.
You all are so full of shit. You don't give a damn about children after they are born.