Have Republicans Gone Insane?

[MPaler 72]

Yup, that's one of the NRA talking points. When you make a school a "gun free zone" you turn it into a free fire zone for the crazies.

 

BULL HOCKEY. Talking points my azz. It's common sense. Which bank would you rob? The one with all the armed guards, or the one without? Which Schools have had shootings? The ones clearly able to be identified as "no guns allowed", or the ones where teachers are allowed to conceal carry and therefore might just cap your crazy azz before you can kill a few dozen children?

[MPaler 72]

To conservatives they view gun violence with hindsight. Everyone is a God fearing honest responsible citizen that owns a gun, unless they shoot someone. Then they are one of the crazies and all the God fearing honest responsible people need more guns, and more people to have guns, to protoct them from them. It never occurs to them that they are in fact arming people that will in fact use them purposefully, or accidently to kill people. Why they aren't for registration, safety, and protecting the actual responsible people is beyond me.

 

Alright, I got it!! At what point do the murder rate/violent gun crime rates drop in any area? When the gun laws/concealed-carry restrictions are relaxed. Wait, what? Why? Apparently, criminals are a bit more hesitant to shove a gun in the face of someone who might have a gun themselves. Isn't that strange? My. Imagine that. By the same token, they do not seem to have any problem shoving a gun in someones face when they are reasonably sure the person cannot get a permit, and therefore probably does not have a gun. Wow. Who would have thought that? So, how many of these violent street crimes are committed by "God fearing honest responsible citizen that owns a gun"...none? No, wait, that cannot be right....Well, then, why do criminals who are not legally able to purchase and/or own firearms risk going to jail by illegally obtaining guns? Why do those laws against them getting guns not work? Hmmm....I wonder, could it be....maybe....THEY DON'T CARE, BECAUSE THEY ARE FRIGGIN CRIMINALS? Wow. Hmmm....maybe we should just leave this all to the police. That's right. There you go! That's the answer!

"Say, Mr. Bad guy, could you do me a favor? Could you please wait 15 minutes? The police are on the way. You know, since I don't have a gun, and you are a "God fearing honest responsible citizen that owns a gun", would you mind waiting? Please? They shouldn't be long. Thanks!"

And here we have known all this since, well, FOREVER.

So, now, who has the hindsight problem? Or, maybe the left has a foresight problem.

[MPaler 72]

Conservatives are by their nature beholden to the evolutionary bindings of adhering to the group and incabable, similar to the mentally ill, of seeing outside those bindings. I believe this leads to my original premise on this thread, that indeed Republicans are mostly batshit crazy. Creationist, Climate Deniers, Conspricay theorists, and lovers of all thing Woo anymore. Thankfully, the youth of today simply won't abide by the idiotic theocratic and illogical ramblings of the whacked out blatantly false accusation and characterization of environmentalism you just spewed. Again, you are exhibit one of my case.

 

Creationist: Yep, that Einstein fellow believed in God. He was clearly a crazy, loony, nutjob wasn't he?

 

Climate Deniers: No, I will not deny it. We have climate. All over. Lots of it. Oh, wait, it's all man made and deliberately being ignored by all republicans? Well, ok, so you believe it's a conspiracy, right?

 

Conspiracy theorists: Yep, Hillary Clinton was always talking about that "vast right wing conspiracy". Which is odd, as that's a...oh, what is the term? Conspiracy theory? Yep, that's it.

 

"lovers of all thing Woo" Because you are incredibly self-centered, you assume we all know WTF that means. Guess what that is?

 

BATSHIT CRAZY.

 

The problem you Libs have is that you actually start to believe your own B.S. and end up sounding, not batshit crazy yet rather, well, just plain old crazy.

[GWCGWC 83]

Matt? I'm pretty sure that's Matt.

 

 

 

 

 

It's annoying when the gun control/gun ownership discussion starts and ends with you're a liberal or you're a conservative.

[MPaler 72]

Matt? I'm pretty sure that's Matt.

 

 

 

 

 

It's annoying when the gun control/gun ownership discussion starts and ends with you're a liberal or you're a conservative.

 

Nope. It's not "Matt". But he sounds like a nice guy.

[GWCGWC 83]

Alrighty, not Matt.

 

 

 

To conservatives they view gun violence with hindsight. Everyone is a God fearing honest responsible citizen that owns a gun, unless they shoot someone. Then they are one of the crazies and all the God fearing honest responsible people need more guns, and more people to have guns, to protoct them from them. It never occurs to them that they are in fact arming people that will in fact use them purposefully, or accidently to kill people. Why they aren't for registration, safety, and protecting the actual responsible people is beyond me.

 

I'm a "liberal" leftest leaning progressive pro-gun ownernut....weird.

 

It's a shame the Democrats have come down on the wrong side of this issue.

 

Colorado has passed legislation to ban the use of online classes to qualify for a concealed handgun permit. It's the only law on gun control passed in Colorado recently that makes a lick of sense.

[timwakefield 68]

Come on. I'm saying just what I said. No shooter has ever gone out and shot up a place that did not advertise "no guns". If you were a shooter, would you seek out a place LESS likely to have armed persons, or MORE likely to have armed persons? Less likely, of course. Duh. Which bank would you rob? The one with armed guards, or the one without? WTF you think? And that's not NRA, that's common @@#$ing sense.

 

Columbine High School had an armed guard. He exchanged fire with Eric Harris.

[GWCGWC 83]

Gun free zones are really dumb. There's a reason why sky marshals don't wear uniforms.

[Balloon guy 158]

Columbine High School had an armed guard. He exchanged fire with Eric Harris.

 

Resulting in fewer bullets for Harris to use on unarmed children.

 

The Blaze had a story a while back showcasing all the 'mass shootings' that never turned into 'mass' because of armed citizens.

 

 

Overall the fact is sometimes guns will prevent crimes, sometimes they will make a crime easier. We aren't going to remove all guns ever from society, so the best thing we can do is try to stop people from becoming liberal atheist pot smokers.

[timwakefield 68]

Resulting in fewer bullets for Harris to use on unarmed children.

 

The Blaze had a story a while back showcasing all the 'mass shootings' that never turned into 'mass' because of armed citizens.

 

 

Overall the fact is sometimes guns will prevent crimes, sometimes they will make a crime easier. We aren't going to remove all guns ever from society, so the best thing we can do is try to stop people from becoming liberal atheist pot smokers.

 

The guard did help in that he distracted them momentarily which is credited with saving at least one life, but they had an awful lot of bullets left when they finally offed themselves. Like most maniac mass shooters they brought a huge amount of ammo.

[mrdannyg 274]

Columbine High School had an armed guard. He exchanged fire with Eric Harris.

 

Nope, you're wrong. It has never happened once in history that a mass murder attacked a place that had armed guards. He said so. Must be true.

 

Resulting in fewer bullets for Harris to use on unarmed children.

 

The Blaze had a story a while back showcasing all the 'mass shootings' that never turned into 'mass' because of armed citizens.

 

 

Overall the fact is sometimes guns will prevent crimes, sometimes they will make a crime easier. We aren't going to remove all guns ever from society, so the best thing we can do is try to stop people from becoming liberal atheist pot smokers.

 

1) So, magazine limits are the key to preventing mass murders? Good to know which way you'll encourage Republicans to vote on that issue.

2) I'm interested in that story - have a link?

3) ok fine, that's funny and actually makes a relevant point. Kind of.

[Balloon guy 158]

Nope, you're wrong. It has never happened once in history that a mass murder attacked a place that had armed guards. He said so. Must be true.

 

 

 

1) So, magazine limits are the key to preventing mass murders? Good to know which way you'll encourage Republicans to vote on that issue.

2) I'm interested in that story - have a link?

3) ok fine, that's funny and actually makes a relevant point. Kind of.

 

1. One of the Columbine kids only had 10 round mags, the Virginia Tech guy has mostly 10 round mags, those were some of the worst in recent history. On top of that, every democrat bill after these events GRANDFATHERED in existing 'high capacity' magazines. So even if republicans voted for the bill, it would not do anything of substance, which is the trademark of a liberal effort to help. Link

2. The Blaze and The Goggle Link ( disclaimer, not a big Beck fan, but his site is pretty good )

3. Facts don't lie, as much as the liberal media hopes and prays for a white republican to kill people, it's usually a liberal pot smoking atheist. Not always of course, but it really throws a fly in the ointment when the emotional argument is used and not the factual one. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

The worst school killings happened in the 20s, and the guy used a bomb. The worst decade of mass shootings was the 20s as well.

 

 

Back to point one, you should understand that the Feinstein bill right after the Sandy Hook shooting was designed to fail. It was never going to pass the democrat side,WHICH controls the Senate. If every democrat supported it, it would have moved to the house, they didn't. It was written so the republicans would be forced to vote against it as a political maneuver, not because Feinstein cares about doing anything to make things better. Both sides do this, but on the gun issue, democrats and republicans in congress are pretty much on the same page, forced to accept that the second amendment means we don't have to let politicians control our lives. Every one of her 'new laws' grandfathered in all existing guns. Some law, These guns are bad, unless you already own one, then its okay.

[mrdannyg 274]

1. One of the Columbine kids only had 10 round mags, the Virginia Tech guy has mostly 10 round mags, those were some of the worst in recent history. On top of that, every democrat bill after these events GRANDFATHERED in existing 'high capacity' magazines. So even if republicans voted for the bill, it would not do anything of substance, which is the trademark of a liberal effort to help.

2. The Blaze and The Goggle

3. Facts don't lie, as much as the liberal media hopes and prays for a white republican to kill people, it's usually a liberal pot smoking atheist. Not always of course, but it really throws a fly in the ointment when the emotional argument is used and not the factual one. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

The worst school killings happened in the 30s, and the guy used a bomb.

 

 

Back to point one, you should understand that the Feinstein bill right after the Sandy Hook shooting was designed to fail. It was never going to pass the democrat side, let alone the republican side. It was written so the republicans would be forced to vote against it as a political maneuver, not because Feinstein cares about doing anything to make things better. Both sides do this, but on the gun issue, democrats and republicans in congress are pretty much on the same page, forced to accept that the second amendment means we don't have to let politicians control our lives.

 

I won't argue that magazine limits are stupid for a number of reasons. It is a classic case of "icky" - automatic guns with hundreds of rounds sure make us feel "icky" but there's no way banning them actually accomplishes anything. Any discussion of magazine limits is either misdirection, or someone wanting to make a name for themselves by having some meaningless changed.

 

So long as the government is spying on domestic calls and targeting domestics with drones and no trial, the absurdity of your explanation of the second amendment grows. The government can't control you...but they can monitor you in secret and kill you without a trial. Americans will continue to have guns because it is part of the culture. Referring to the constitution at this point is a joke.

[Balloon guy 158]

[Balloon guy 158]

I won't argue that magazine limits are stupid for a number of reasons. It is a classic case of "icky" - automatic guns with hundreds of rounds sure make us feel "icky" but there's no way banning them actually accomplishes anything. Any discussion of magazine limits is either misdirection, or someone wanting to make a name for themselves by having some meaningless changed.

 

So long as the government is spying on domestic calls and targeting domestics with drones and no trial, the absurdity of your explanation of the second amendment grows. The government can't control you...but they can monitor you in secret and kill you without a trial. Americans will continue to have guns because it is part of the culture. Referring to the constitution at this point is a joke.

 

 

 

I'm still not worried about their spying.

 

But the ability of the president to rain drone fire down on an American citizen without a rectal probe being force fed to his entire cabinet is a bad precedent.

[MPaler 72]

Columbine High School had an armed guard. He exchanged fire with Eric Harris.

 

I rest my case. Why did he exchange gunfire with Harris? Wasn't he the first victim- ie, Harris made sure he was first, then knew dead guard=no more resistance? So maybe, maybe, had the school been known to have several concealed carry licensed teachers, he would have..thought twice? Had more people shooting back at him?

 

Hmmm.....

[mrdannyg 274]

I rest my case. Why did he exchange gunfire with Harris? Wasn't he the first victim- ie, Harris made sure he was first, then knew dead guard=no more resistance? So maybe, maybe, had the school been known to have several concealed carry licensed teachers, he would have..thought twice? Had more people shooting back at him?

 

Hmmm.....

 

Are you sure he sought out Harris, as you propose? You made up your last "fact", so I'm going to assume you're just hoping for the best on this one too.

[timwakefield 68]

I rest my case. Why did he exchange gunfire with Harris? Wasn't he the first victim- ie, Harris made sure he was first, then knew dead guard=no more resistance? So maybe, maybe, had the school been known to have several concealed carry licensed teachers, he would have..thought twice? Had more people shooting back at him?

 

Hmmm.....

 

It's not even that I necessarily disagree with your ideas here, it's just that the other things you're saying are incorrect. Neither the guard nor the 2 shooters were hit in their exchange of fire, and he certainly wasn't "the first victim." He was uninjured. It's also not clear that Harris sought him out in any sense. Certainly they would have known about his presence since they were students there, but it seems like they just happened across him. He was randomly returning from buying his lunch at a nearby shop that day when he got the call, but usually he ate with the students in the cafeteria.

[MPaler 72]

Alright, clearly I screwed this one up. I stand corrected, he did not make the guard his first victim. With so many of these occurring, It's getting harder to keep them all straight. I apologize to all. Here is the excerpt:

"As Gardner steps out of his patrol car, Eric Harris turns his attention from shooting into the west doors of the high school to the student parking lot and to the deputy. Gardner, particularly visible in the bright yellow shirt of the community resource officer’s uniform, is the target of Harris’ bullets. Harris fires about 10 shots at the deputy with his rifle before his weapon jams.

· Gardner fires four shots at Harris.

· Harris spins hard to his right and Gardner momentarily thinks he has hit him. Seconds later, Harris begins shooting again at the deputy. Although Gardner’s patrol car is not hit by bullets, two vehicles that he is parked behind are hit by Harris’ gunfire. Investigators later found two bullet holes in each of the cars.

 

So, you are correct. He started in the cafeteria, and went on from there. Here is the entire timeline;

 

http://www.cnn.com/S...E.Time.Line.htm

 

Again, sorry. However, I do stand by my thesis: If you do not know how many or who has concealed weapons, your job just got a lot harder. If you publicly proclaim "no guns allowed", well, look below:

 

"As we have pointed out, the shooter at the theater in Aurora, Colo., had other theaters between his home and his ultimate target that he could have chosen. Yet, the one he picked was the one that publicly proclaimed itself gun-free.

We've also observed that in other school shooting incidents, such as at a high school in Pearl, Miss., the shooter's spree was cut short by the presence of an armed citizen able to shoot back."

And you can find that here:

http://www.freerepub...s/2972175/posts

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[NickCave 194]

I hate this argument so much, because everyone is so god damned horrible at it.

 

 

I'm pretty centrist. I tend to vote Democrat because I believe the influence of the Christian lobby destroys any chance the GOP has of governing responsibly. (Yes, I understand there are factions that own the Democrats, too, but I think the Christian right is the worst.) I vote Republican at a local level reasonably often, assuming the candidate doesn't run too far to the right. I suppose I am technically left of center, because I believe the worst of the right is worse than the worst of the left, but I have voted Republican quite often.

 

As far as the gun debate goes, I've done a 180 over the last year. I used to be hardcore gun control, but it was never a voting issue for me, because I grew up in a pretty gunless family. Until I was 21, I had never held a firearm. We didn't hunt or shoot or whatever, so I didn't care about guns. As far as I saw it, guns were, for the most part (and simplified past the point of reason) an instrument of death, not safety. For the most part, I thought 2nd Amendment was archaic, a relic of a different time. I've never been compelled by the "we need guns to defend ourselves against robbers and shit" argument. I've always found it philosophically and empirically lacking.

 

That being said, I honestly believe disarming the public is dangerous. Too often populations become too complacent too quickly. "Things have been fine for four generations? THINGS WILL ALWAYS BE FINE!" A populace capable of defending itself from the government, even when that government is checked and seemingly benign, is crucial to Democracy. The will of the people depends on the people being able to enforce their will. The previous sentence, a year ago, would have driven me insane if I'd read it, but now it makes sense to me. The 2nd Amendment was the Founders' way of ensuring the public could fight for the other 9, which is something I didn't really grok until lately.

 

Exactly how armed the public should be not an easy question to answer, which is why we have this debate, and I believe there should be more restrictions than there are in many cases, but I can respect the notion that gun ownership is an absolute, inalienable, fundamental right.

 

I never thought I would say that.

 

 

EDIT: I still don't own a gun, and I likely never will. Gun control is still way down the voting list for me.

 

 

MOST IMPORTANT EDIT:

 

Everything Balloon Guy and MPaler say is still fucktarded.

 

Jesus Christ, BalloonGuy, the reason Democrat-sponsored gun bills allow huge mags or assault weapons or whatever is because Republicans would never pass anything else. Even if the left has a majority, passing a tough gun bill is swallowed by politics moments after it's written. You know that, right? How politics works?

 

Jesus Christ, MPaler, what are you talking about?

[MPaler 72]

I hate this argument so much, because everyone is so god damned horrible at it.

 

 

I'm pretty centrist. I tend to vote Democrat because I believe the influence of the Christian lobby destroys any chance the GOP has of governing responsibly. (Yes, I understand there are factions that own the Democrats, too, but I think the Christian right is the worst.) I vote Republican at a local level reasonably often, assuming the candidate doesn't run too far to the right. I suppose I am technically left of center, because I believe the worst of the right is worse than the worst of the left, but I have voted Republican quite often.

 

As far as the gun debate goes, I've done a 180 over the last year. I used to be hardcore gun control, but it was never a voting issue for me, because I grew up in a pretty gunless family. Until I was 21, I had never held a firearm. We didn't hunt or shoot or whatever, so I didn't care about guns. As far as I saw it, guns were, for the most part (and simplified past the point of reason) an instrument of death, not safety. For the most part, I thought 2nd Amendment was archaic, a relic of a different time. I've never been compelled by the "we need guns to defend ourselves against robbers and shit" argument. I've always found it philosophically and empirically lacking.

 

That being said, I honestly believe disarming the public is dangerous. Too often populations become too complacent too quickly. "Things have been fine for four generations? THINGS WILL ALWAYS BE FINE!" A populace capable of defending itself from the government, even when that government is checked and seemingly benign, is crucial to Democracy. The will of the people depends on the people being able to enforce their will. The previous sentence, a year ago, would have driven me insane if I'd read it, but now it makes sense to me. The 2nd Amendment was the Founders' way of ensuring the public could fight for the other 9, which is something I didn't really grok until lately.

 

Exactly how armed the public should be not an easy question to answer, which is why we have this debate, and I believe there should be more restrictions than there are in many cases, but I can respect the notion that gun ownership is an absolute, inalienable, fundamental right.

 

I never thought I would say that.

 

 

EDIT: I still don't own a gun, and I likely never will. Gun control is still way down the voting list for me.

 

 

MOST IMPORTANT EDIT:

 

Everything Balloon Guy and MPaler say is still fucktarded.

 

Jesus Christ, BalloonGuy, the reason Democrat-sponsored gun bills allow huge mags or assault weapons or whatever is because Republicans would never pass anything else. Even if the left has a majority, passing a tough gun bill is swallowed by politics moments after it's written. You know that, right? How politics works?

 

Jesus Christ, MPaler, what are you talking about?

 

What am I talking about? Did you read my original post, #115? Maybe not, and even then, it did get sidetracked. Then again, you do know what the subject is of this post you are in, don't you? Yes? No? HOT TIP: If you can find that out first, it really helps. I recommend putting your bong to use after you have commented on subjects, or in the morning before you take your prozac. Let us pause a moment while you get your bearings for reading this: 1,2,3,4,5..ok? Ready? Good.

 

Now, what I was trying to do was look at this with a little logic. People think those are "insane Republicans" who want teachers in the classroom to have guns. It's actually not so "insane"; the only thing that ever stops a maniac with a gun who is shooting kids in a school is a non-maniac (police or civilian) shooting back at the nut and killing him. So, therefore, why wait until the police can get there? How many will dies as a result of that wait? Allow teachers to have a concealed carry permit or, yes, make that a term of employment. But as soon as you say this, since a good argument against what I just said cannot be found, apparently, they instead go off the deep end. They start talking about how "dangerous" this would be. What if a teacher goes berserk? What if...what if...what if....on and on. This argument is not "talking points" of the NRA or the Republicans, it is common sense thinking. Is common sense now a talking point? Is the clearly obvious a talking point for one side or the other? And even if it is, does saying that it is really make a good counterpoint to the argument? I don't think so.

 

Then I have to hear all those lame, stupid, nonsensical, OMG are you crazy, "what if's". So I try to point out, again the obvious, in response. And yet, some still insist they can deny this, or dismiss it entirely by finding one oddball exception, without taking into account why it failed in that one instance. That and the oh-so-marvelously-ingenious counter argument, "that’s just the NRA talking points." Yet, this is not "fucktarded", is it?

 

Speaking of that, as far as me sounding "fucktarded" goes; I find it hard to take offense at you for saying that. For one thing, I seriously doubt you have a large enough vocabulary that you can pick and choose from, in order to come up with any witty insults to hurl unless it is one you have heard some other person make before. For another thing, I therefore doubt that you are capable of understanding many, many things, as they are most likely "over your head", or your bong, or your meds. So, they just sound "fucktarded" to you. Well, of course they do!

 

Anyway, I am certain you will change your mind on this (me sounding "fucktarded"), as you seem to change your mind often and on everything, from what I read in your response. You are Republican, you are Democrat, you are left, you are right, you are "in the center" (are you "in the closet" as well? HOT TIP: you can come out now, it's quite acceptable nowadays). And you are also the only one who can "get this argument right". I can only guess, but you probably have contempt (pause for you to look up that word, 1,2,3,4,ok - got it? Good!) For those who dismiss an entire group based on one or two bad examples. For one instance, I would gladly wager that you do not think it "fair" that some dismiss one entire group out of hand because of a few bad examples. Unless of course, it is the "Christian Right"! Does that sound about right? Or is that too, oh, what’s a good word? fucktarded? Yes, is that too fucktarded for you to understand?

 

My advice is that you, you freshly squeezed loaf of donkey dough, well you should either shit or get off the pot (No, not the kind you smoke, the other one). Since you are such a little dingle berry already, might I suggest you lean towards getting off the pot and let someone else take a crap (again, not the kind you smoke, the other one; but that might help as well). Since I seriously doubt you are even close to being able to read all this and understand but a fraction of it, let me close by saying I hope you know, in all of this, that I am just kidding with you. I must be. How could such a fucktard be taken seriously by you, right? lol

[CaneBrain 95]

Welp, that answers the thread question. Shut er down.

[MPaler 72]

Welp, that answers the thread question. Shut er down.

 

Thanks! And I did it with facts and humor! Cool, huh? I just hope NickCave knows I was joking with him. I assumed he was when he called my response...well, anyway, I did actually put that in there. I am sure he knows. It might take awhile for him to respond, if he first has to amass a gaggle of fellow "centrists'" to come up with a reply.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Well, Ohio's Republican governor signed the new budget today which included a last minute abortion bill that wasn't debated anywhere. We now have the strictest abortion laws in the US. It includes 2.7 billion worth of cuts targeting the poor and middle class, tax cuts for the wealthy, and an increase in sales tax which is also regressive. The term pro-life has become such a joke, because Conservatives are anything but. They are anti-life when it comes to women, poor, and minorities. Closing Planned Parenthood and taking away health access for the poor is reprehensible. They also threw in raping the women with vaginal ultrasounds, waiting periods and if they are having a "crisis" they can't be sent to a public hospital, only a "private" read Christian hospital where they can't get a life saving abortion if needed. They have truly become the party of Fascism, Jesus Brotherhood, and the wealthy elite.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Alright, I got it!! At what point do the murder rate/violent gun crime rates drop in any area? When the gun laws/concealed-carry restrictions are relaxed. Wait, what? Why? Apparently, criminals are a bit more hesitant to shove a gun in the face of someone who might have a gun themselves. Isn't that strange? My. Imagine that. By the same token, they do not seem to have any problem shoving a gun in someones face when they are reasonably sure the person cannot get a permit, and therefore probably does not have a gun. Wow. Who would have thought that? So, how many of these violent street crimes are committed by "God fearing honest responsible citizen that owns a gun"...none? No, wait, that cannot be right....Well, then, why do criminals who are not legally able to purchase and/or own firearms risk going to jail by illegally obtaining guns? Why do those laws against them getting guns not work? Hmmm....I wonder, could it be....maybe....THEY DON'T CARE, BECAUSE THEY ARE FRIGGIN CRIMINALS? Wow. Hmmm....maybe we should just leave this all to the police. That's right. There you go! That's the answer!

"Say, Mr. Bad guy, could you do me a favor? Could you please wait 15 minutes? The police are on the way. You know, since I don't have a gun, and you are a "God fearing honest responsible citizen that owns a gun", would you mind waiting? Please? They shouldn't be long. Thanks!"

And here we have known all this since, well, FOREVER.

So, now, who has the hindsight problem? Or, maybe the left has a foresight problem.

England and Japan have a combined death from gun total of about 50 per year. Are those countries worried about being overthrown by their governments? And really, we aren't even talking about taking the guns away, simply some sensible precautions like we do for every other dangerous thing in the US. Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.