College Conservative

The neocon howler monkeys aren't going to like this. I'd like to upvote it a thousand times though.

Wrong. Guns are regulated mass shootings happen in countries, still, where they are band. To wit, it is easier monitor and control a bathroom using non-dnc moral judgement. Try walking into an opposite sex bathroom now when it is busy at a retail store at the mall.

Australia strengthened gun laws after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. And guess what? No mass shootings in 20 years. He's right about the restroom law (at least North Carolina). I could SAY I was a woman who underwent a sex change op (I'm not), and walk right into the ladies room. What are they going to do, make me drop my pants?

Might want to check again. There have been 8 mass shootings and s couple of just massacres. One was a uni.

What was your source? Because I saw a couple of multi murders with guns but nothing on the level of Port Arthur or Orlando.

Do you know what constitutes a mass murder?

The deaths of more than one person at the same time, generally by the same person (I thought that up on my own, are you proud of me?)

Wouldn't that be a multi-murder?

Mass murder (sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in close geographic proximity. (Wikipedia).
So wouldn't mass murder and multi murder be the same?

They are. Conventionally, more than two.

So why font we just make it easier for these perverts and rapists to threaten our women. Yeah, because that makes a lot of sense to wack job liberals. As long as we make the 0.01% feel better.

Just like we should make it as easy as possible for criminals and people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns, as long as it makes the NRA and gun lobby feel better?

Who's making it easier for terrorists to get guns?

Oh wait, that would be Hillary Clinton. Nevermind.

Could you explain how expanding background checks so they're more efficient and gun shows must do them when selling guns makes it easier for terrorists to get guns? Could you also explain how propagating background checks as "Liberals coming to take our guns" and preventing any gun control legislation from being passed isn't trying to make it as easy as possible for criminals to buy guns?

Actually, the 2nd amendment does not say anything about any form of gun control. You're all for re-writing the amendment? That doesn't fly with me. I'm a constitutionalist.

And I didn't say liberals were coming to take my guns. You being a liberal (I'm only assuming based off your meme and your comments) I don't believe you personally and your liberal friends are coming to take my guns. Noooooo, that's the government's job. The same people you voted into office.

When did I say anything about "rewriting the second amendment"? I only talked about background checks and proposed bans on fully automatic assault rifles designed for the military. Besides, even if I were talking about it the founding fathers included the amendment because the British had tried to take away the colonists weapons when they heard about a planned rebellion. Also, I don't believe the former colonies were experiencing an outbreak of mass shootings at the time the constitution was drafted. Also, "rifles" back then were single fire, needed to be loaded with gunpowder, and slower and had less range than rifles nowadays. But that's beside the point because I never said anything about overturning or rewriting the 2nd amendment. Even if I was, if there was no such thing as adding new amendments that overturn or change others we'd still be in prohibition and black slaves would be considered as property and not citizens and we'd have slavery.

And I never said YOU said Liberals were coming to take our guns, only that the NRA, quite a few (*understatement) of the conservative memers on this site, and most conservative politicians do.

The founders of this country created the 2nd amendment so that this country's citizens could protect themselves from a rogue government that tries to strip them of their God given rights. It had nothing to do with the King of England. The 2nd amendment was written to protect the citizen's right to every other amendment. Without the 2nd amendment the other amendments aren't worth the paper they were written on.

And this anti-gun propaganda about single fire muskets is lame. You do realise they had sub machine guns in the 1700's, right? I'm guessing you have no clue.

Here's one of those sub machine guns that was quite useful back in the 1700's to mid 1800's.

You're right. It's for protection against a tyrannical government taking away the rights of it's citizens and not giving them any representation. A.K.A.: The very government colonists protested and rebelled against before going to war with it. The founders wanted to make sure that, in the event that this government were to be controlled by tyranny, it's people would be protected from losing their rights, a protection that the colonies simply didn't have. But anyway, once again I still don't dispute the importance of the 2nd amendment nor did I ever mention changing it.

As for your "sub machine gun", I believe the gun you have pictured is the "Puckle Gun", or "Defense Gun". It was indeed patented 1718, long before the American Revolution, and is often referred to as a machine gun. However, the cylinder had to be moved from chamber to chamber by hand and you had to spin the crank in the back to line the cylinder up with the gun barrel. And then you had to prime it. And you had to do all this in between shots. So while it was faster than traditional muskets (it still fired muskets) it only averaged at around 9 rounds per minute and was far from being an automatic weapon. It would be semi automatic, which isn't a machine gun. It's more like a strange looking revolver on a mini tripod. Did I also mention that it was handgun sized? And with the fact that it had to be standing on something to be used comfortably isn't exactly a good thing if you tried using it in close combat. And saying that it was "quiet useful" isn't exactly correct, as it was designed and advertised as an anti boarding weapon for ships. Also, it wasn't very popular. At all. It was never mass produced and almost no one invested in it. The only record of it being bought was when John Montagu bought two for an expedition (that failed) to capture the countries of St. Lucia and St. Vincent, and there's no evidence that they were ever even used in battle. Other weapons that used the same design were revolving pistols such as the Flintlock or Colt, which were invented in the 1800's and of course were pistols.

I know about the gun. I also know that in 2016 that gun would be laughable if you aimed it at someone. In the 1700's it was far more dangerous.

The point I'm making is the 2nd amendment was not writting just for muskets as most gun control advocates will argue. The founders weren't stupid and knew that with time technology would improve, including weapons. The 2nd amendment was not just about guns.

I don't dispute that the founders knew technology would eventually advance, I'm just saying that I believe that if they had the same problems we did today they may have been a little more detailed about what is covered under the right to bare arms. If we're being honest, the 2nd amendment could also justify having unclear weapons in your basement, but of course that doesn't happen today (or does it?).

Nuclear arms is a far cry from pistols, grenades, and even automatics.

Strange. It won't let me reply to your comment. I guess you might not see this then. Anyway, that was my point. It's vague about what "arms" it entails. All we can really go off of is that arm means weapon. The question is what weapons are protected, something that's completely left to interpretation.

So far 30,000 people a year have died from guns since 1980, for a total more than all American war casualties combined. Number of people raped by transgender people? Hovering around Zero. What seems to be the immediate danger here? Definitely not the bathrooms. But as long as whack job conservatives make the 1% happy, I guess. By the way, the number of trans people in the US is around 0.3%, with probably about 30% liberal party support, so REALLY you would be making the 30.3% happy.

Umm... I don't believe that transexuals are perverts because WHEN have they ever hurt someone in the way you imagine?! I also have living proof that they aren't perverts.

You do realise my problem with this is those perverts that will take advantage of the law, right? Making it easier for perverts to harrass my daughter isn't very bright. It's not about whether or not transsexuals are perverts or not, but the fact the law would make it easier for perverts to do what they do.

That's stupid .

Actually, the least likely place for perverts is the bathroom.

anecdotal evidence*

How often do you see grown men actually in the woman's bathroom (who aren't trans-men under the HB2 law)?

If anything, it's up to the states or the business.

None. I'm not anti-trans bathrooms. It's a private business issue. Currently, nothing forces you to use the proper bathroom. As I've said before, I'm not a conservative.

Fair point, it's an issue mainly among private businesses.

You DO realize that there aren't any laws about bathrooms, right? It's a private business issue.