By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Texas church shooting leaves many dead (atleast 27).

SpokenTruth said:

That's bullshit.  Because Republicans never come to the table to start with.  They never bring up their own gun regulations.  Saying nothing happens because Democrats are not reasonable enough is a cop out of monumental proportions.  Republicans care more for guns than they do lives.  It's a truth they want to avoid but can't. They accepted the death of dozens of children and provided absolutely nothing to prevent a further incident. Blaming Democrats for being overly zealous in their demands or polls showing they no longer want a weapons assault ban (more bullshit) says nothing about Republicans sitting back and doing nothing but polishing their guns while people die.

Republicans value guns over the lives of children.  Period.  We have had far too many mass shootings and child deaths by guns were Republicans turned a blind eye, tried to change the debate to black on black Chicago crime or some other irrational and irrelevant debate that they can no longer not be held responsible for enabling more death.

If you are not willing to give up guns to prevent death, you enable that death.  You accept it as part of the right to own it.  Whataboutisms, diversions of race/class issues, Constitutional rights, etc...are blankets to snuggle under so you don't have to face the reality that this nation has a problem with using guns to kill people. 

 

Real men admit when there is a problem, cowards hide them.  I'll let you try figure out who is who.

Except they did bring up their own versions. Last year Senator John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley both proposed gun control legislation and Democrats voted it down. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/

The same happened the December before. Grassley's proposal didn't pass because "Democrats don't think it does enough to expand background checks because, well, it doesn't expand background checks. It simply tries to improve the system we have now."

Cornyn's ammendment didn't pass because Democrats didn't think it gave the attorney general enough power outside of due-process. This is despite the ACLU criticizing such a position. 

Your side-stepping Gallup polls, which are generally well esteemed, is no different from the Breitbart guys calling polls "fake news." Gallup polls are well-substantiated and their methodology is sound. 

The rest of your post was just fear-mongering drivel filled with propagandic emotional pleads and dichotomous black and white thinking. Pure partisanship rather than a reasonable analysis of the current situation. 

And then it is ended with a sexist statement  "real men admit when there is a problem." 

I am glad that you, and the rest of the faux-left, admit that "if you are not willing to give up guns ...." which implies that "give up guns" is the ultimate goal. Yes, so that the plutocrats, like Bloomberg, can consolidate their political power further. 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 12 November 2017

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

The republican offers are barks with no bites.  They are put together to appear to do something for the people while appeasing the NRA by doing absolutely nothing.

And yes, it is partisanship now.  Watch this and tell me it's not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEczkhfLwqM

As for my final statement, that's not sexist because it says nothing negative about women. 

And no, giving up guns is not the ultimate goal, managing who owns, who uses, what for, why , when and where...are the goal. It's not a ban, it's a control.

Considering that the most recent shooting happened because there was no communication between different parts of the system, it seems like the Grassley amendment wasn't a "bark with no bite." Fixing the current system is a good idea before we force everyone to use it. And improving the background check system as Grassley's amendment was suppose to do, might prevent another Texas situation if it wouldn't have prevented Texas in time.  

One can argue the Cornyn amendment won't work, but that is because the original idea was flawed in the first place. 

"As for my final statement, that's not sexist because it says nothing negative about women. "

Stating that there is a standard to which all men must arise, or otherwise they are not "real men" is sexist. You can read this editorial from the Huffington Post about why that is the case. 

Real Men Don't Exist. 

And no, giving up guns is not the ultimate goal, managing who owns, who uses, what for, why , when and where...are the goal. It's not a ban, it's a control.

Then why set up the false dichotomy between "giving up guns" and "enable death" only to throw your constructed dichotomy to the wayside?