Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, royiv said:

IDGAF about your hearing.

Indeed not, but why are suppressors regulated? It benefits nobody unless your goal is to own the cons. 
For everyone else,  this is political capital to be deployed. Would you trade that to get robust red flag laws and waiting periods? I would. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Posted
Ana, first off, I appreciate you actually taking this discussion seriously -- unlike others on this thread (fatty calling a suppressor/silencer "ear protection" GTAFOOH). You get beat up quite a bit as a pusher (fair or otherwise) of both sides-ism. Whatever.
There are alternatives to kids using AR's as deer rifles. Period. I'm really sorry but the wackos of the world have ruined the fun for the rest of the AR community. They need to go IMO. Or, here's a thought. Maybe somebody can take that exact body/specs and make a rifle that functions like a bolt-action rifle. Three or four rounds max per magazine, or have it load like a traditional bolt-action rifle. What needs to happen is the rate of fire needs to dialed back, however you do it. You don't need something that can pop off 30 rounds in 30 seconds to take down whitetail deer. I eagerly await fatty and DalTx to come after this guns a-blazin' so to speak.

Agreed, which is why I think that a simplistic “ban the AR”approach will not be very effective and shouldn’t be the focus. Focus on what makes an AR-15 such a concern and ban those features across the board. I’m talking about the high capacity mags.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Indeed not, but why are suppressors regulated? It benefits nobody unless your goal is to own the cons. 
For everyone else,  this is political capital to be deployed. Would you trade that to get robust red flag laws and waiting periods? I would. 

Maybe, but the gun nuts won't negotiate so fuck 'em.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, royiv said:

Maybe, but the gun nuts won't negotiate so fuck 'em.

Actually, fuck you and fuck everybody who is getting killed because while the gun fetishists won't negotiate, neither will prohibitionists, which means that normies who actually understand gun violence as a subject matter can't negotiate with each other. 
Right now weirdo gun fetishists and prohibitionists are a defacto coalition obstructing solutions to curb gun violence. And to the extent that prohibitionists have a kind of moral superiority, it is utterly negated by their service to the status quo. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Actually, fuck you and fuck everybody who is getting killed because while the gun fetishists won't negotiate, neither will prohibitionists, which means that normies who actually understand gun violence as a subject matter can't negotiate with each other. 
Right now weirdo gun fetishists and prohibitionists are a defacto coalition obstructing solutions to curb gun violence. To the extent that prohibitionists have some kind of moral superiority, it is negated by their service to the status quo. 

I know you like to put yourself out as a gun enthusiast that is for sensible gun laws, but until the gun lobby is in your corner, I have a hard time giving a fuck about your gun accessories.

Posted
6 minutes ago, royiv said:

I know you like to put yourself out as a gun enthusiast that is for sensible gun laws, but until the gun lobby is in your corner, I have a hard time giving a fuck about your gun accessories.

I'm not a "gun enthusiast" and I'm pretty vocally critical of the whole culture of tacticool accessories, but I agree that gun owners are pretty generally useful idiots. 

  • Like 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

while the gun fetishists won't negotiate, neither will prohibitionists, 

What would you say the ratio of gun fetishists to gun prohibitionists is?  I mean, I just joined the latter, because fuck guns, but I think I'm pretty rare.

  • Like 1
Posted
What would you say the ratio of gun fetishists to gun prohibitionists is?  I mean, I just joined the latter, because fuck guns, but I think I'm pretty rare.

As a gun owner - I’m now in the Prohibitionist camp. I’ll turn mine in when it’s time. Till then, they are in a safe.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What would you say the ratio of gun fetishists to gun prohibitionists is?  I mean, I just joined the latter, because fuck guns, but I think I'm pretty rare.

Prohibitionist are a much larger group, I’d say. Actual gun fetishists aren’t super common but they wield enormous political and economic power, because normie gun owners are so dumb and have been co-opted by a minority of weirdos.  

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 hours ago, royiv said:

IDGAF about your hearing.

I get it. The same way IDGAF about your thoughts or concerns on the issue.  Mad because I can get an AR in an hour at the 7/11? I couldn’t find a fuck to give if you gave a barrel of fucks to me.  But eventually the youth will save us!!1!

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What other reasons are there, other than hearing protection and courtesy? Serious question. 

AcCeSsOrIeS!!1! TaCtICoOL  #gravyseal hrrrdrrr 

who upthread was sucking NZ over their gun laws?  Might want check on their feelings on suppressors. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Actually, fuck you and fuck everybody who is getting killed because while the gun fetishists won't negotiate, neither will prohibitionists, which means that normies who actually understand gun violence as a subject matter can't negotiate with each other. 
Right now weirdo gun fetishists and prohibitionists are a defacto coalition obstructing solutions to curb gun violence. And to the extent that prohibitionists have a kind of moral superiority, it is utterly negated by their service to the status quo. 

Not real sure how to respond to this without getting some time off from the site. But fuck it, whatever.

You're the status quo. Your money and your fucking votes built the machine. Your money and your votes helped push reactionary legislation and impact litigation through Washington. Heller and McDonald and all the senseless fucking deaths in their wake exist solely because of the people you enabled. Your ilk fucking denied Sandy Hook ever. fucking. happened.

Now you want to prattle on about magazine capacity and lecture the rest of us because we're just too damn dumb to "get gun violence", all while clutching your AR15 to your chest like an aggy with his favorite possum carcass. Because we're the ones with all the legislative power in this fucking scenario? Contemptible and pathetic.

Fire up some more bar graphs and memories of whatever random animal a random member of your family managed to kill. I'm sure you modern day warriors have all sorts of articles about Chicago and crisis actors and capacity and cartridge and clips and blah blah fucking blah how it's everyone else's fucking fault except you responsible gun owners. That shit goes a long way to justify your position to the folks getting gunned down in schools and outlet malls and basically wherever the fuck else more than three people may gather.

Well, not everywhere since the NRA, CPAC, and RNC don't allow firearms at their conventions. They just like to take pictures with them out on the sidewalk I guess.

Clean up the mess in your fucking interest and lobbying group. You're the one with the fucking access. Move, be moved, or fuck off.

  

Posted (edited)

Lol. Bozo comes into this thread a few different times and just drops some political reality on people, and there are some posters that react by losing their fucking minds and all context from his posting history. 

Edited by Anastasis
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Lol. Bozo comes into this thread a few different times and just drops some political reality on people, and there are some posters that react by losing their fucking minds and all context from his posting history. 

I'm aware of his posting history, as I am of yours, across three fucking websites. The point was his posting history and the nonsensical notion that not-gun-owners are to blame for this shit show.

As for political realities, you're welcome to wade through the existential dread of all the bomb and shooter threats and swats that we've been dealing with here in OKC the last two weeks at your own leisure.

Just me losing my mind. 

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

You're the status quo. Your money and your fucking votes built the machine. Your money and your votes helped push reactionary legislation and impact litigation through Washington. Heller and McDonald and all the senseless fucking deaths in their wake exist solely because of the people you enabled. Your ilk fucking denied Sandy Hook ever. fucking. happened.

 

Actually I’ve spent my own money advocating for red flag laws and waiting periods, but go on.

37 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Now you want to prattle on about magazine capacity and lecture the rest of us because we're just too damn dumb to "get gun violence", all while clutching your AR15 to your chest like an aggy with his favorite possum carcass.

Im for regulating high cap magazines and make fun AR15s, including my own AR15, including in this very thread. But do go on!

37 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Fire up some more bar graphs and memories of whatever random animal a random member of your family managed to kill.

I don’t hunt, but I do find data useful. Guilty! Please do continue. 
 

 

37 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Clean up the mess in your fucking interest and lobbying group. You're the one with the fucking access. Move, be moved, or fuck off.

Ma’am, this is an Arby’s.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Actually I’ve spent my own money advocating for red flag laws and waiting periods, but go on.

Im for regulating high cap magazines and make fun of my own AR15, including in this very thread. But do go on!

I don’t hunt, but I do find data useful. Guilty! Please do continue. 
 

 

Ma’am, this is an Arby’s.

I think I actually typed this out at one point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Thanks, errybody.  I DGAF about rep, but I enjoy debate and would like to honestly discuss the difficult issues that we deal with in our country.

I seem to be swimming upstream against the prevailing political orthodoxy here.

Great that Texas Football starts on September 2nd!  Hook 'em!

IMG_2648.thumb.png.eafcc453768d899bb27b1de4ce57d18b.png


IMG_2650.thumb.png.9583b3603cf503cd6fdb330af08a9944.png


IMG_2652.png.fe3e397f7d0097a4c140a4219d960ec8.png

You say you want an honest discussion.  In that spirit, I have two simple and direct questions for you.  First, do you see the trends in the above graphs as a problem that society needs to solve?  Secondly and if so, what actions do you see that society can take to curb those trends?

So far you have only wanted to talk about your 2nd amendment rights.  Rights that are still firmly intact.  You have yet to offer up any ideas for how society can protect the right of shooting victims TO LIVE.  There are an awful lot of people across the country that have or know someone who has had that fundamental right taken away from them through gun violence.  So here is your chance to meet them somewhere in the middle: what ideas do you have about how those victims rights to live can be protected that might leave your 2nd amendment rights intact?

Tick tock, tick tock.  I eagerly await your honest engagement on the subject.

Edited by Goredho
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Goredho said:

IMG_2648.thumb.png.eafcc453768d899bb27b1de4ce57d18b.png


IMG_2650.thumb.png.9583b3603cf503cd6fdb330af08a9944.png


IMG_2652.png.fe3e397f7d0097a4c140a4219d960ec8.png

You say you want an honest discussion.  In that spirit, I have two simple and direct questions for you.  First, do you see the trends in the above graphs as a problem that society needs to solve?  Secondly and if so, what actions do you see that society can take to curb those trends?

So far you have only wanted to talk about your 2nd amendment rights.  Rights that are still firmly intact.  You have yet to offer up any ideas for how society can protect the right of shooting victims TO LIVE.  There are an awful lot of people across the country that have or know someone who has had that fundamental right taken away from them through gun violence.  So here is your chance to meet them somewhere in the middle: what ideas do you have about how those victims rights to live can be protected that might leave your 2nd amendment rights intact?

Tick tock, tick tock.  I eagerly await your honest engagement on the subject.

Presented with reason and logic, they cower and hide. Same with my posts pointing to other countries enacting gun control measures and their outcomes. They have no real refute, so they ignore and strawman.

And they are a significant part of this country.

Posted

Yeah, Bozo has pretty much the perfect temperament on all of this. Basing more of the messaging around his perspective--and less around anything that could be mildly construed as taking guns--still wouldn't help because of the GOP and gun lobby's adherence to the extremists and status quo*...but at least it wouldn't actively hurt.

*see the reaction to Gavin Newsome's relatively mild proposal

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Yeah, Bozo has pretty much the perfect temperament on all of this. Basing more of the messaging around his perspective--and less around anything that could be mildly construed as taking guns--still wouldn't help because of the GOP and gun lobby's adherence to the extremists and status quo*...but at least it wouldn't actively hurt.

*see the reaction to Gavin Newsome's relatively mild proposal

Getting strong red flag laws and waiting periods would help a lot, and trying to do impossible things at the cost of doing what is possible is worse than doing nothing. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
45 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Getting strong red flag laws and waiting periods would help a lot, and trying to do impossible things at the cost of doing what is possible is worse than doing nothing. 

Since when are those things possible?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

4) Red flag laws
But the gun lobby would never let that happen, because they exist to serve the status quo and fuck the gun owners if they want something else. 

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Getting strong red flag laws and waiting periods would help a lot, and trying to do impossible things at the cost of doing what is possible is worse than doing nothing. 

28 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Since when are those things possible?

They are not possible.  I hear plenty of gun owners who are okay with red flag laws, as they know that reducing the amount of crime/mass shootings/whatever is going to benefit them. Maybe it's selfish and more about relieving pressure on them and what they can buy and not out of a "would this improve society" kind of thing, but whatever, they still support it.  A lot of these guys are older though, and I wonder if it's an age thing.

But holy fuck I also hear plenty that are completely opposed to any red flag laws because they can be "abused" by "the state".  And tying into the above, it seems like all of these types are under the age of 55 or so (although not all under that age are against them). 

My gut tells me that they think they or a family member might run afoul of a red flag law, whether it's an issue of them getting into a domestic altercation that ends up with a visit by the local law enforcement, or some other legal altercation, or maybe somebody (or them) being on some kind of medication for a mental illness. For a handful of  relatives/high-school friends that said they opposed them, I've been able to verify they've had run-ins with the law through online records, but not enough of a run-in to currently get their guns taken away.

The thing is - the people I've talked to who oppose them, oppose them completely.  None of them have said "oh, okay, some schizo is on medication, he shouldn't have access" or "somebody knocks their wife around and gets a visit from the cops should be on a list". You would at least think that some of them would be okay with red flag laws for somebody with serious mental issues or somebody who has shown themselves to become violent/out-of-control, but it's a fucking line in the sand with them.

This is all anecdotal obviously, and these conversations have taken place over several years (Facebook, family reunions, etc.) and are limited to my family/friends/co-workers that I've talked to.

Posted

There will never be any sensible gun controls laws because no Republican will ever get elected that wants sensible gun control. Even if the majority of voters responsible gun owners want it. The crazy 2A people will brand them as “coming for our guns”. They will never make it past a primary. 

Gun control will come from a Democratic super majority. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

statesman just reported now that the Arboretum gunman was killed by police.  WTF?  That places is teeming with store cameras and witnesses, why is this story still so fucked up?  Now they're debating about why they didn't deploy the active shooter alert to people's phones in the area.  Shooter's name was Tang-Kang Dave Chang.  

Police calling it a "random shooting."  A curious term considering how bullets work.  

Posted

So after climbing down a bit, I think I’m just going to have to bow out of this conversation for a bit.

The events going on in my little corner of the world haven’t left much room for me to be objective or level-headed on this particular subject  

Apologies to @Bozo_Casanova and @Anastasis for coming in like a house on fire and out of line. 

wellbye.jpeg and all that. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Stilicho said:

So after climbing down a bit, I think I’m just going to have to bow out of this conversation for a bit.

The events going on in my little corner of the world haven’t left much room for me to be objective or level-headed on this particular subject  

Apologies to @Bozo_Casanova and @Anastasis for coming in like a house on fire and out of line. 

wellbye.jpeg and all that. 

Not necessary. There's a lot of hurt and trauma out here, and it's weighing heavily on all of us.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Not necessary. There's a lot of hurt and trauma out here, and it's weighing heavily on all of us.

Shit’s just mean and cruel out there. That it’s purposefully driven that way is maddening, but…it can’t last forever. That’s what I tell myself, at least.
Posted
11 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Yeah, Bozo has pretty much the perfect temperament on all of this. Basing more of the messaging around his perspective--and less around anything that could be mildly construed as taking guns--still wouldn't help because of the GOP and gun lobby's adherence to the extremists and status quo*...but at least it wouldn't actively hurt.

*see the reaction to Gavin Newsome's relatively mild proposal

It's really hard to have a calm and rational demeanor when the pro-gun people are completely obstinate.  I'm 100% gun prohibition now purely because these people have behaved so ghoulishly.  Fuck em.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

They are not possible.  I hear plenty of gun owners who are okay with red flag laws, as they know that reducing the amount of crime/mass shootings/whatever is going to benefit them. Maybe it's selfish and more about relieving pressure on them and what they can buy and not out of a "would this improve society" kind of thing, but whatever, they still support it.  A lot of these guys are older though, and I wonder if it's an age thing.

But holy fuck I also hear plenty that are completely opposed to any red flag laws because they can be "abused" by "the state".  And tying into the above, it seems like all of these types are under the age of 55 or so (although not all under that age are against them). 

My gut tells me that they think they or a family member might run afoul of a red flag law, whether it's an issue of them getting into a domestic altercation that ends up with a visit by the local law enforcement, or some other legal altercation, or maybe somebody (or them) being on some kind of medication for a mental illness. For a handful of  relatives/high-school friends that said they opposed them, I've been able to verify they've had run-ins with the law through online records, but not enough of a run-in to currently get their guns taken away.

The thing is - the people I've talked to who oppose them, oppose them completely.  None of them have said "oh, okay, some schizo is on medication, he shouldn't have access" or "somebody knocks their wife around and gets a visit from the cops should be on a list". You would at least think that some of them would be okay with red flag laws for somebody with serious mental issues or somebody who has shown themselves to become violent/out-of-control, but it's a fucking line in the sand with them.

This is all anecdotal obviously, and these conversations have taken place over several years (Facebook, family reunions, etc.) and are limited to my family/friends/co-workers that I've talked to.

Politics is the art of the possible, and it's more about who than what. Right now gun owners broadly align themselves with gun fetishists and the gun lobby because they think it's in their interest and prohibitionists make sure they think that by dragging incrementalist Democrats, despite the fact that it gets prohibitionists literally nothing. 

So the play, in my mind, is to put deals on the table to separate the interests of normie gun owners and law enforcement from fetishists and force the gun lobby to choose sides, and there are plenty of fractures to work with in this exceptionally vulnerable coalition if gun prohibitionists would stop imposing purity tests on elected Democrats:

Red Flag laws:
Supported by large majorities of gun owners
Supported by law enforcement
Opposed by fetishists
Concern trolled to death by gun lobby

Safe storage laws:
Strongly supported by larg majority of gun owners
Strongly supported by law enforcement
Opposed by fetishists
Weakly supported by gun lobby

Deregulating suppressors and SBRs:
Strongly supported by large majorities of gun owners
Strongly supported by fetishists
Weakly supported by gun lobby in theory
Strongly opposed by law enforcement

Regulating high cap magazines:
Fairly Acceptable to gun owners
Totally unacceptable to fetishists
opposed by gun lobby
Strongly supported by law enforcement

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Shit’s just mean and cruel out there. That it’s purposefully driven that way is maddening, but…it can’t last forever. That’s what I tell myself, at least.

"Hold my beer"
Ted-Cruz.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=1200

  • Like 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Apologies to @Bozo_Casanova and @Anastasis for coming in like a house on fire and out of line. 

None necessary. My response was largely a reaction to framing people on this board and on the “other” side of the discussion as sandy hook deniers. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

It's really hard to have a calm and rational demeanor when the pro-gun people are completely obstinate.  I'm 100% gun prohibition now purely because these people have behaved so ghoulishly.  Fuck em.

I get it. And, even in a world where every single gun control advocate took Bozo's reasoned, compromise approach, the GOP would still drum up fear about Democrats wanting to come door-to-door to snatch up your guns. Because they're fundamentally dishonest, and it would continue to work because a large chunk of their voters are emotionally-charged idiots.

But Bozo is one of the few who I would bet puts his actions and his vote where his mouth is.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Getting strong red flag laws and waiting periods would help a lot, and trying to do impossible things at the cost of doing what is possible is worse than doing nothing. 

@Bozo_Casanova can you explain what you mean here? It sounds like you’re blaming people who want gun reform on the lack of gun reform?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Politics is the art of the possible, and it's more about who than what. Right now gun owners broadly align themselves with gun fetishists and the gun lobby because they think it's in their interest and prohibitionists make sure they think that by dragging incrementalist Democrats, despite the fact that it gets prohibitionists literally nothing. 

So the play, in my mind, is to put deals on the table to separate the interests of normie gun owners and law enforcement from fetishists and force the gun lobby to choose sides, and there are plenty of fractures to work with in this exceptionally vulnerable coalition if gun prohibitionists would stop imposing purity tests on elected Democrats:

Red Flag laws:
Supported by large majorities of gun owners
Supported by law enforcement
Opposed by fetishists
Concern trolled to death by gun lobby

Safe storage laws:
Strongly supported by larg majority of gun owners
Strongly supported by law enforcement
Opposed by fetishists
Weakly supported by gun lobby

Deregulating suppressors and SBRs:
Strongly supported by large majorities of gun owners
Strongly supported by fetishists
Weakly supported by gun lobby in theory
Strongly opposed by law enforcement

Regulating high cap magazines:
Fairly Acceptable to gun owners
Totally unacceptable to fetishists
opposed by gun lobby
Strongly supported by law enforcement

Dude come on. You’re blaming dems for the gun extremists. That’s bullshit.

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

@Bozo_Casanova can you explain what you mean here? It sounds like you’re blaming people who want gun reform on the lack of gun reform?

Obviously they aren’t primarily responsible, but the strident opposition to political gun realism among prohibitionists is a huge contributor to why Democrats can’t accomplish anything meaningful. 
Do you remember, for example, the way Bernie Sanders was excoriated for his position that rural areas in rural states could have different regulatory regimes than the largest cities in the bluest states?

I’ve talked to elected democrats about this stuff. They will get lit up if they give anything (like suppressors and SBRs) to get anything. There’s NO upside for them to pursue things that could actually pass, even though stuff is available.

Look at this thread. Now imagine you are a Democrat congressman. Would you put silencers on the table?

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Dude come on. You’re blaming dems for the gun extremists. That’s bullshit.

No. I’m saying prohibitionists are politically useful to the gun lobby, because they are. They do the heavy lifting to keep Democrats in line. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Obviously they aren’t primarily responsible, but the strident opposition to political gun realism among prohibitionists is a huge contributor to why Democrats can’t accomplish anything meaningful. 
Do you remember, for example, the way Bernie Sanders was excoriated for his position that rural areas in rural states could have different regulatory regimes than the largest cities in the bluest states?

I’ve talked to elected democrats about this stuff. They will get lit up if they give anything (like suppressors and SBRs) to get anything. There’s NO upside for them to pursue things that could actually pass, even though stuff is available.

Look at this thread. Now imagine you are a Democrat congressman. Would you put silencers on the table?

I see your points here. I think where I would disagree is that if, today, a bill went to the floor with all the things we universally agree on every Democrat would support it and the large majority of the Republican Party would not.

Also, they really shouldn’t have to give up anything to pass common sense legislation. 

Prohibitionists and extremists are both problems, but one is certainly less of a problem than the other, both politically and in terms of safety for our citizens.

Edited by hobbes2702
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's as if you think the "fetishists" are the only ones impeding gun reform.

This is largely my point. Fetishists aren’t the problem for the Republicans. 

Posted

Republicans are the only people stopping gun reform. It’s not Democrats. It’s not Prohibitionists. It’s not AOC. It’s not the crazy libs on this board. 

stop gaslighting 

Republican use whatever boogeyman de jour (“the prohibitionists”) to blame others why they won’t agree on ANYTHING 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Republicans are the only people stopping gun reform. It’s not Democrats. It’s not Prohibitionists. It’s not AOC. It’s not the crazy libs on this board. 

stop gaslighting 

Republican use whatever boogeyman de jour (“the prohibitionists”) to blame others why they won’t agree on ANYTHING 

No offense but that's very naive. Let's try this thought experiment:
Imagine that you are a Democratic congressman from, say, Dallas or Houston, and you think some large-scale grand bargain is possible involving requiring shorter wait times and lower taxes for NFA items in exchange for taxing high cap magazines under NFA and start pitching it to Democrats and Republicans, and you think you have some early support. 
What do you think happens next? This isn't hypothetical, BTW - I was told what happened next, but I'm curious what you think happened and why.
 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...