Assault Weapons Ban Introduced In Dover

Filed in Delaware by on March 22, 2018

SB 163 (Townsend) was officially introduced today in Dover.  If you read the lengthy synopsis of the bill, you will notice that several court decisions are cited as precedents.  The Forces Of Evil plan to take no prisoners on this bill. From the News-Journal article:

“There is no room for compromise or amendments on this,” said Jeff Hague, president of NRA affiliate the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association. “This is bad legislation and we will not support it in any manner.”

OK. No room for compromise. I’m on board with that. Time to see who’s with us and who’s against us.

About the Author ()

Comments (77)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    The Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association supports mass murder. Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association gives aid and comfort to school shooters. It is that simple.

  2. Alby says:

    You might as well ask them to cut off their dicks.

  3. Dave says:

    While I am normally opposed to purity litmus tests, this is going to be an exception. Those who oppose this bill will be have been weighed and found wanting. Any other potential redeeming qualities will be dismissed. My money and my influence will be wielded as best I can to ensure those found wanting are out of office as soon as possible.

  4. Jason330 says:

    That’s a pretty bold stand … for Dave.

  5. RE Vanella says:

    Ha! I was thinking the same.

    I was going to award Dave an Order of Merit today. Knighting him Sir Neo Liberal of the Empire. Not now, folks. Not now.

  6. DavidC says:

    It’s official, liberialism is in fact, a mental disorder. First, get the terminology correct. “Assault weapons” is a made up term. That, already makes journalists, politicians, and the typical liberal look a fool. Like calling a car a “four wheeled thingy.” They think that the banning of possession, the sale, or purchasing of guns is going to cure the violence issue, they don’t seem to understand that criminals, nut jobs don’t comply with the law and obtain their guns illegally. Or they will use other means, bombs, knives, hands. Honest, law abiding people buy and sell guns legally with absolutely no ill intention. This proposed ban is just silly. Typical liberal mentally handicapped emotional feel good measures so they can get more votes next time. Go after the criminals. Incarcerate them. Don’t treat them with kid gloves. Consequences for doing a crime should be harsh, that in itself would be a deterrent. Realize that there are crazy people out there and the common folk need to have the ability to protect themselves as they see fit just as the idiot liberal politicians do. Are they behind secure doors with metal detectors and cops? Yes they are. Politicians are hypocrites. What gives them the authority to have whatever protection they want, and us constituents are restricted? If I feel an AR-15 is my preference for home protection or sport, then that is my preference. Now, if I commit a crime, then hell should rain down. Abolish some of the HIPAA regulations. If someone sees a mental health professional, that needs to be on their background check. Multiple reports of any type to law enforcement, that needs to be on a background check. All in all, this ban is just a granola utopian happy fix.

  7. Alby says:

    @DavidC: Or, quite a bit more easily, just ban the guns. Or would that leave you without your dick?

    “If I feel an AR-15 is my preference for home protection or sport, then that is my preference.”

    IF that’s your preference, you should be locked away for the safety of the rest of us. Don’t worry, all your fellow ammosexuals will be there with you so you can stroke each other’s…barrels.

    In truth, I doubt anything will happen on the gun control front. But I do so love to watch you ammosexuals try to chew through your restraints.

  8. Jason330 says:

    It’s official, liberialism is in fact, a mental disorder. First, get the terminology correct. “Assault weapons” is a made up term…..

    That’s when I stop reading. This bullshit tactic has been used for years by gun nuts. I’m not surprised that it is still a cherished go to.

  9. Alby says:

    You didn’t miss anything. The entire comment is a litany of gun-nut go-to alternate solutions. Anything is preferable to cutting off their dicks.

  10. Alby says:

    I did read the whole post. There’s nothing in it that hasn’t been said a million times by guys like you. Yours are the cookie-cutter talking points, fella.

    The Second Amendment says nothing about you being allowed to own an AR-15 or any other battlefield weapon.

    Here’s the reason your dick is going to be cut off:

    Overall, 69 percent say gun laws in the United States should be made stricter, while 9 percent say they should be less strict and 22 percent say they should be left as they are.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/23/1751409/-Support-for-stronger-gun-laws-is-huge-and-it-s-rising-poll-finds

  11. Alby says:

    Well, his comment is now gone, but he accused Jason and me of repeating “cookie-cutter talking points.”

  12. Jason330 says:

    Years ago, I’d have let him blabber on. these days, I’m just not interested in the NRA’s take on this.

  13. RE Vanella says:

    If foundational knowledge was a prerequisite for having any opinion Mr C would be shit out of luck, eh?

    I use the incorrect terminology on purpose to own the weirdo fetish set.

    My question is very simply. How much Gun Oil lube is required to slide your thingy into the barrel of your Mass Shooter thingy? Does the dry spunk cause firing issues?

  14. waterpirate says:

    I have a lot of problems with the bill, whether it gets traction does not bother me a bit.
    1. If you own it you can keep it
    2. It exempts law enforcement
    3. It exempts trained military

    That means the plethora of banned from future purchase and ownership guns are still readily available. How are local leos going to discern date of purchase should they encounter contraband guns?

    The thing missing in gun ownership is responsibility. The only way to achieve that end is through registration. Contrary to the popular slogan ” registration leads to confiscation”. The real slogan is registration demands responsibility. Only then can guns be tracked and people held truly accountable for the outcome of being irresponsible. Putting different levels of responsibility on certain kinds of guns would certainly meet that end, ala ATF only on a state by state venue.

    This bill only feels good, and falls short of accomplishing anything.

  15. Puh-leeze. The fact that the bill doesn’t accomplish EVERYTHING is far different than arguing that the bill doesn’t accomplish ANYTHING.

  16. Allie says:

    Would have liked to seen the whole discussion with DavidC, why was it removed? Would be interesting to see what this nut job had to say. Although I have to say the vulgarity and body part comments wasn’t very nice.

  17. jason330 says:

    “Would be interesting to see what this nut job had to say. ”

    Not really. Same boring NRA talking points and facile cliches ad nauseum. I’ve been blogging for a while and the script never changes.

  18. Allie says:

    Why did you censor him? Its all a part of the discussion. I too am liberal, but I don’t see his first statement as boring, certainly points to ponder. Censorship always sucks, because there’s always something missing.

  19. Jason330 says:

    I’m not a government. He is perfectly free to spout his NRA talking points. Just not here.

  20. meatball says:

    I was gonna tell DaveC that if he needed a 30 round assault rifle to defend his family, he should probably just move.

  21. jason330 says:

    lol. Yeah, he didn’t really knock himself out doing his due diligence when he bought his house.

  22. Alby says:

    Sorry, Allie, but his “points to ponder” are the same ones every pro-NRA person has made for years and years. You can find them almost anywhere online that gun nuts congregate.

  23. Rufus Y. Kneedog says:

    I see a bill like this and I’m instantly skeptical of potential grandstanding, destined for a desk drawer veto with no one then having to take a position for or against.
    Under El Som’s tutelage, I’ve learned to look a little closer; Longhurst is a sponsor and its going to the Senate “Judicial and Community Affairs Committee” chaired by Margaret Rose Henry who is a co-sponsor along with Marshall who is also on the committee (Ennis, Lavelle & Lawson round out the committee).
    I’d consider it a major victory if this bill made it to the floor for a vote – that way our representatives would at least be forced to identify themselves as for or against.
    I’m interested in El Som’s take – does this have a chance?

  24. You learned well, Rufus. When you realize that Ennis and Lawson will never go against the NRA, it’s likely up to whether Greg Lavelle will vote to let the bill out of committee.

    Meaning, it’s up to Lavelle’s constituents to bombard his office with phone calls, e-mails, etc, to demand that he allow a vote on the floor. If he stands with the NRA, he must be held accountable in November.

    The real villain here is Sen. Dave McBride. He decides what bills go into what committees. He chose to put it into a Senate committee that is less hospitable to this bill than most.

  25. Free thought says:

    Imagine a lion, the biggest lion that has ever walked the earth. Its roar so immense that the ground shakes and the trees bend. But this lion has no teeth, no claws. Do you still fear this lion? Does it matter how loud it roars? With out our ability to defend our rights we will loose them. Our voices will have no weight.
    Out of all of the horrific and inhumane acts that mankind has done to it fellow man, less then 3% is done by rouge individuals. The vast majority of mans sins have been done under the pretense of authority. Good men and women following orders, doing things that they would have never done other wise. Those that seek authority, power, will always become tyrants. And the will of tyrants will always subjugate the liberty of the people.
    Freedom is free! Until someone comes to take it from you. Then you are only free if you fight back. Remember, our former president did away with Posse comitatus. Our military, can once again, be used against the citizens, armed or disarmed. And if you don’t think these things are not possible, you’re just not paying attention to the world. Look at the corruption in our police forces, you don’t think it wouldn’t get worse? Take time to talk with a combat vet about what they did following orders.
    Our media is a propaganda machine. We are constantly being mislead with half truths and misused terms. Be freethinkers not sheeple. Search for truth and allow it to be self evident.
    Please, do not sacrifice liberty for the illusion of security. For that the evil, that does exist, will give you neither.

  26. Alby says:

    The paranoid delusionals are scared, it seems.

    You are not going to stand against the government. You, “free” thinker, are the one in mental chains.

  27. Kishe says:

    Interesting reading, Also so are pieces that are missing and it does seem ‘free thought’ as a whole is controlled.

  28. Jason330 says:

    This contrived pretext for the 2nd Amendment’s existence really takes the cake. The entire rest of the constitution is just a bunch of dumb and pointless legalese to these machine gun zealots.

  29. Alby says:

    Logic:

    “Out of all of the horrific and inhumane acts that mankind has done to it fellow man, less then 3% is done by rouge [sic] individuals. The vast majority of mans sins have been done under the pretense of authority. ”

    Therefore the reason to keep guns legal is so that “authority” does not have a monopoly on inhumane acts. Great argument ya got there, buddy.

  30. Free thought says:

    Paranoid? Delusional?
    You might as well add “conspiracy theorist” or “anarchist”. These are just simple terms to dismiss someone. With a simple word, an individual is labeled crazy and you don’t have to have an intellectual conversation to argue their statement.
    In 1934 my grandfather took his family and left Germany. Members of his on family told him that he was paranoid. He always said that he could see mankind making the same mistakes, as their fathers did, in the Great War. If we don’t learn from history, we are only do to repeat it.
    History shows that for most of mans existence the few have subjugated the masses through violence. This is still true to this day, just look at the prison state here in the US. This tragedy is still happening in a country that constitutionally protects free speech, due process and habeas corpus. Rights that are commonly taken away when governments become tyrannical.

    Willful blindness/ignorance
    The practice or act of intentional and blatant avoidance, disregard or disagreement with facts, empirical evidence and well-founded arguments because they oppose or contradict your own existing personal beliefs. A state of delusion.

  31. Alby says:

    Whatever, dude. I call them categories. If you think they carry negative connotations, that’s on you.

    I’m not disputing the truth of what you’re saying. I’m disputing its logic as you deploy it. I dispute your equation of firearms with liberty. I dispute your imagined attack of the US government on — whom, exactly? Most of the state violence in our society is the work of local police forces, not federal ones. Therefore I categorize you as paranoid. Are you going to stand up to their military-level force with your rifles? I think not. Therefore I categorize you as delusional.

    As for “well-founded arguments,” where does your statistic about “rogue individual” violence come from, and why does it pertain to gun control? Are you arguing that because we can’t disarm the state we should arm ourselves despite the mayhem? Sorry, no. We’re going to outvote you on that.

  32. Free thought says:

    I’m a member of the ACLU not the NRA.
    Gun bans and excessive legislation are only creating greater divide on the topic. Maybe if we started talking about proper education, we would start seeing progress.
    We can not act like children and ask for our parents to chase away what scares us. We must shed light unto the darkness and face what is there.
    I assume everyone here are adults, but we call each other names to insult or discourage. It feels more like a school playground and not a forum for serious conversation.

  33. jason330 says:

    “Gun bans and excessive legislation are only creating greater divide on the topic.”

    Won’t someone think of the tender feelings of the poor maligned machine gun lovers?

    “We can not act like children and ask for our parents to chase away what scares us.”

    That says more about you than it says about the merit of machine gun bans. You may not be a member of the NRA, but you seem to have internalized the very irrational fears that the NRA has been dishing out for years.

  34. Free thought says:

    To disput someone’s statement you need to give information that disputes the the statement.

    You are just disagreeing and calling names.

    America history is full of times that the government has abused the people. How many times in the past 10years we have seen national guard and militarized police used against peaceful protester. What about Wacko, Standing Rock or countless occupy protests.

    As I said before “freedom is free” I don’t need a gun to have liberty. The problem is when someone comes to take freedom away. You can guarantee that no one will impose there will against others?

    And yes I will stand and die fighting my liberty and the liberty of those around me. Even the rights of those that I don’t agree with.

  35. jason330 says:

    Such nonsense. Somehow Australia is not gripped by tyranny. Somehow Germans can still breathe free. But please enjoy your trembling fear of tyranny while you stroke your glock. I’ll be voting and urging others vote for gun sanity.

  36. Alby says:

    “Gun bans and excessive legislation are only creating greater divide on the topic.”

    “Only”? Only in your opinion. You can’t refute opinions, which is all you’ve spouted except for the fact that governments use force against citizens. Sometimes they are right to do so IMHO, if not yours.

    You addressed not a single one of my points. So fuck off, sporto. Your kind of “conversation” is “listen to me.” And this…

    “And yes I will stand and die fighting my liberty and the liberty of those around me. Even the rights of those that I don’t agree with.”

    …proves what’s really going on here. You nail yourself to your little cross of liberty. The rest of us are busy on Planet Earth.

    So fuck off.

  37. Alby says:

    I would also like to note that Mr. ACLU did NOT cite police assaults on citizens among his examples, even though such examples occur daily while his occur sporadically — and, it should be noted, are often incited by right-wing liberty loons.

    Mr. ACLU would also be well served by learning to distinguish between common homophones.

  38. RE Vanella says:

    This Free Thought character won’t do a goddamn thing. Soft. I can tell.

  39. Dave says:

    I fail to understand the logic of those free thinkers who believe their possession of a firearm is somehow an obstacle to a tyrannical government who has someone sitting in a bunker in Nellis AFB, Nevada controlling a RPV equipped with Hellfire missiles that they can send right through free thinkers front door without the free thinkers being aware of it until it’s their last moment on this earth.

    Sadly, there are those who continue to believe their firearm is what stands between liberty and tyranny. Our defense against a tyrannical government is the rule of law and a culture that prides itself on those rules and their equal application under the Constitution. In short, what protects us from tyranny is our adherence to the 14th Amendment. Not the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, the educational system produced a stock of citizens who could only get as far as 2 and they never made it to 14.

  40. jason330 says:

    FTR – I view any post that simply regurgitates NRA talking points as spam. I’m simply not interested in what the NRA has told you to say about anyone’s pressing need for machine guns.

  41. Alby says:

    I understand, but leave the spam up for a little while. I gauge their fear by how many of them show up to, um, air their concerns.

  42. jason330 says:

    Okay. I’ll let that guy back in for now. But he has to take the test to stay.

    I was trying to think of some circumstance under which I would tolerate having a conversation with some gun nut and I think they’d have to pass a test. It is a simple test, but I can’t imagine gun nut passing it. Here it is:

    1) Is easy access to guns in the United States a problem that needs to be solved? Yes/No (If the gun nut answers “No” they’ve failed, and there is no need to move on to question 2)

    2) List five gun control inititavies that you could potentially support. (If they can’t list five, they fail)

    If, as a gun nut, you agree that easy access to guns in the United States a problem that needs to be solved, and you have some thoughts on solving that problem, then we can talk. If not, take a hike.

  43. Alby says:

    @Dave: You apparently don’t understand. The government would already have its jackboot on our necks if it weren’t for Bobby Bunker and his arsenal. As soon as they’re gone, the government will turn fascist…oh, wait.

  44. Kishe says:

    The quiz: 1) yes. Easy is relative. It’s easy to head to MLK street and ask around, little bit o’ cash and eventually, one can be found and bought. At a gun store, there’s always a background check, but the problem is mental health is not tied to background checks. Nut job can see a shrink all the time and still pass a background check to buy a gun.

    2) Again, #1 get rid of the HIPAA wall, #2 machine guns, #3per month quantity, #4 bumpstocks (stupid accessory), and #5, range time and instruction requirements.

    Lifelong dem I may be, but I don’t want to be a Suzanna Hupp.

  45. jason330 says:

    Not bad. You set a high bar for your fellow gun nuts.

  46. RE Vanella says:

    “…head to MLK street…”

    I’d love to see this motherfucker head down there and ask around.

    It’s like racist fan fiction.

  47. lebay says:

    @RE Vanella–

    Nothing really happens on MLK in Wilmington other than panhandling. Kishe would have no problem “asking around”. He would be ignored, or met with a blank stare.

    No one is selling guns on MLK BOULEVARD in Wilmington. You have to go to 5th st. in West Center City for that. Or the North side, or the East side. And they won’t sell one to a white guy who they don’t know.

    Kishe is dumb, but not necessarily racist. He/she is referencing a Chris Rock joke from his 1996 HBO special “Bring the Pain.”

    You know what is sad, man? ??? Martin Luther King stood for non-violence. Now what’s Martin Luther King? A street! And I don’t give a fuck where you are in America, if you’re on a Martin Luther King Boulevard, there is some violence going down! It ain’t the safest place to be. You can’t call nobody telling them you’re lost on MLK … “I’m lost, I’m on the Martin Luther King …” “Run! Run! Run!”

  48. waterpirate says:

    Kishe used a bad analogy in MLK street. If the analogy had been the: fire hall, Elks lodge, golf course, bunch of people standing around drinking, it would be more accurate. Guns sold or given to others with no background check or knowledge of their situation.

  49. jason330 says:

    I was going to comment on the retrograde racism as well, but was pleasantly surprised by his being able to pass question one at all, and coming up with any gun conrtroll initiatvies he could support – let alone five of them.

  50. Free thought says:

    Now for the questions I must pass to be honored with a conversation.
    I do believe that we need gun law reform.
    We need to increase the legal age to purchase to 24. If your prefrontal cortex is not developed your not ready for a firearm. (That should also include voting, joining the military or law enforcement)
    The current classification for civilian firearms fall into two groups. There needs to be an additional class for high capacity firearms
    Requiring people to complete a gun safety course before they can purchase a firearm and requiring more extensive training for specialty weapons
    Promote more public education on gun safety and educate our children on gun safety (like the Swedes)
    Penalizing/ criminalizing government agents that are not following through with the legislation that is already on the books. We currently have great legislation that is not being upheld and those that do so need to be held accountable

  51. jason330 says:

    I do believe that we need gun law reform.. Pass

    1) We need to increase the legal age to purchase to 24.

    2) The current classification for civilian firearms fall into two groups. There needs to be an additional class for high capacity firearms
    Requiring people to complete a gun safety course before they can purchase a firearm and requiring more extensive training for specialty weapons

    3) Promote more public education on gun safety and educate our children on gun safety (like the Swedes)

    4) Penalizing/ criminalizing government agents that are not following through with the legislation that is already on the books. We currently have great legislation that is not being upheld and those that do so need to be held accountable

    That’s 4 – FAIL.

  52. jason330 says:

    #2 is bullshit by the way. A longstanding strategy of the NRA is to bog down progress by demanding everyone memorize some arcane, insider’s terminology. Machine gun, assault weapon, auto, full auto. It is all just a delay and distract operation.

  53. RE Vanella says:

    Oh, it was based a joke! I see. Most opinions articulated here seem fucking hilarious to me so I suppose I should have guessed.

    Why pick that joke, do you think?

    I live in Wilmington. No one needs to explain it to me. I was on MLK last night in fact. Train back from DC. Walked up Market St for a drink. After dark and everything.

  54. Free thought says:

    No that’s 5. Require safety course is separate from an additional class.
    Civilian legally owned guns are in two group long guns and short guns. I suggest a new class that include high capacity/specialized guns.
    And again it’s not an NRA propaganda and I do not support any lobbyists groups.

  55. jason330 says:

    Okay. But 3 is pure bullshit, so it is still 4. I’ll help you out. Why not something real like limit gun nuts to 1 gun purchase per month? Or 6 per year? Why not allow the CDC to study gun violence? Since they are only ever used for killing school children and concert goers, why not ban large-capacity magazines outright? Why not hold gun dealers accountable when they enable a crime? Why not lift the ban on suing gun makers on product liability grounds?

    None of these things would effect law abiding gun fetistists like yourself.

    Consider yourself on probation.

  56. Kishe says:

    Hold gun dealers liable. That’s plain stupid. Have to put car dealers, breweries, and pharmaceutical companies on that list as well. I don’t believe you actually said that, a totally ignorant liberal talking point. Geez with thinking like that I might have to follow along with DavidC and Free Thought. Jason330 that is really fucking stupid.

  57. RE Vanella says:

    They’ll give rim-jobs to Rugers to own the libs!

  58. RE Vanella says:

    …There are special circumstances with a gun “product”. I’d argue very special circumstances considering how extreme and dangerous. Guns slaughter by design. Or when you go play make-believe slaughter and call it sport.

    Furthermore, I’d argue Pharma should have more criminal liability today. And you know pretty soon they just may.

    Don’t be daft. To pretend the gun isn’t a very dangerous product is disingenuous. Companies that trade in the manufacture and sale of dangerous chemicals have significant criminal liability. Ask DowDuPont.

    You work backwards. You’ve been taught that the Moloch is a symbol of freedom and worthy of worship. It’s turned into a cult fetish and it’s dangerous. The entire discussion is inane on its face.

    It’s just boring and trope dependent and makes you look like a fool. It’s a good thing you’re all anonymous.

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch/

  59. jason330 says:

    Kishe passed the test but will not be around for long with the NRA talking points.

    Turns out, I mentioned dealer liability because it has actually worked.

    Hold gun dealers accountable

    Research has shown that in some cities, guns used to commit crimes often come from a small set of gun dealers. In Milwaukee, for example, a single dealer was linked to a majority of the guns used in the city’s crime.

    So how do we stop the flow of those guns? Hold dealers accountable.

    In 1999, the federal government published a report identifying gun shops connected with crime guns, including that Milwaukee dealer. In response to negative publicity, that dealer changed its sales practices. Afterward, the city saw a 76 percent reduction in the flow of new guns from that shop to criminals and a 44 percent reduction in new crime guns overall. But in 2003, Congress passed a law prohibiting the government from publishing such data, after which the rate of new gun sales from that dealer to criminals shot up 200 percent.

    Studies show that regulation of licensed dealers — such as record-keeping requirements or inspection mandates — can also reduce interstate trafficking. So can litigation against gun dealers that allow their guns to enter criminal markets. One sting operation conducted by New York City reduced the probability of guns from the dealers they targeted ending up in the hands of criminals by 84 percent.

    If all you have is “that’s stupid” you can kindly fuck off. Test or no test.

  60. Free thought says:

    Why are you censoring me again? Stop deleting my post. And let’s have s real debate!

  61. Free thought says:

    I was asked for 5 changes that I bake and I gave 5 examples of gun law reform. These examples will have far more success in being passed and show more evidence of creating real change in our gun violence issues. To have a real debate on the issue you can not just dismiss something by calling “bull shit” you need to explain why it’s bullshit.
    #3. Proper Education
    How is proper education BS. Again my example is Sweden, where they have already accomplished this. Far more progressive movements have been accomplished by unbiasedly educating the public, then with legislation.
    #4 Penalizing/ criminalizing government agents that are not following through with existing legislation.
    I will us the Parkland Shooting as an example. If the gun laws that are already in place where followed, that tragedy would have never happened. For any legislation to work people have to do there jobs. And if they don’t do there jobs, they have a responsibility in the tragedy. From local levels to the federal level there needs to be responsible.

    I was asked for 5 changes that I bake and I gave 5 examples of gun law reform. These examples will have far more success in being passed and show more evidence of creating real change in our gun violence issues. To have a real debate on the issue you can not just dismiss something by calling “bull shit” you need to explain why it’s bullshit.
    #3. Proper Education
    How is proper education BS. Again my example is Sweden, where they have already accomplished this. Far more progressive movements have been accomplished by unbiasedly educating the public, then with legislation.
    #4 Penalizing/ criminalizing government agents that are not following through with existing legislation.
    I will us the Parkland Shooting as an example. If the gun laws that are already in place where followed, that tragedy would have never happened. For any legislation to work people have to do there jobs. And if they don’t do there jobs, they have a responsibility in the tragedy. From local levels to the federal level there needs to be responsible.

  62. Free thought says:

    Sorry for the double. I don’t know what happened. I was not trying to be redundant.

  63. Free thought says:

    Why are you stopping my post from showing. You have deleted and are stopping my post from showing. And it’s only when I give arguments to jason330 am I being censored. To censor the voices of those who don’t agree with you is the behavior of a tyrant.

  64. Free thought says:

    As for the examples You feel I should have listed. Well, I don’t see them as realistic or effect measures.
    “Limiting the number of guns someone can purchase”. I don’t see how this will reduce gun violence. The number of guns someone has does change the possibility of them using them. There is also the fact that almost all gun crimes are committed with one weapon per shooter. As well as the majority of gun owners own less then three fire arms.

  65. Free thought says:

    Allowing the CDC to do studies on gun crime.” I can back this idea, but it won’t reduce violence. The CDC does have several studies on gun related deaths but these studies normally include suicide or accidental deaths. I believe, as of right now the only agency that directly deals with gun crime is the FBI. So to have another agency “fact checking” would be great. But again does not change gun violence.

  66. Free thought says:

    Making FFL dealers and gun manufacturers responsible” again does not reduce gun violence. Should a store be responsible for the sale of products that someone improperly uses to make bombs from commonly sold house hold products? These measures a just attacking the industry around firearms to shut down the domestic supply. 95% of modern mass shooters were on anti-depressants/other psycho active pharmaceutical within 30 days of their crimes. Less then 5% of legally owned guns are ever used in a violent crime. It sounds like Big Pharma has more to answer for. And yes the measures that were taken against some bad FFL dealers are still on the books across the country. The existing legislation needs to be enforced.

    And why do you need to finish with a derogatory remark towards me. I have shown no ill will to anyone. Please use that energy to explain why what I say is BS, instead of just calling it BS.

  67. RE Vanella says:

    Don’t censor this fucking guy. I said he sounds like a rube & he proves me right with every keystroke.

    Keep going, dummy.

    Also if you want to be a martyr for free speech and call Jason a tyrant use your name you fucking coward.

  68. Jason330 says:

    If I get tired of the bullshit and cut him off it won’t be censorship because I am not a state. It will be taking out the trash.

  69. RE Vanella says:

    You’re right, of course. It is mind-numbing garbage.

  70. Liberal Elite says:

    Delaware could the the “The First State” again if this can actually pass. Just think what a great ad that could be if we could tie the slogan to an assault weapon ban.

  71. Free thought says:

    Wow, again with personal attacks!
    If it’s garbage then it should be very easy to counter my statements. Tear my opinions apart! But instead you attack me personally.
    Now I’m a coward because I used a username like everyone else. And what am I cowering from? I never said one derogatory remark to anyone here. Why should I be afraid? It’s starting to feel like the derogatory tunes are becoming threatening?
    I did address the issue of censoring someone for just saying something you don’t agree with. When an individual in a possession of power behaves like this are normally called tyrants or tyrannical. And as of right now there are still three of my post pending moderation. That includes facts that disputed an incorrect statement that was made.

    What are our opinions worth, if we are not willing to have an intelligent conversation about them.

  72. RE Vanella says:

    I use my own name.

  73. Ben says:

    Jesus that was incoherent.
    I vote we take Free Thought’s guns first. make him watch as we melt them down.

  74. Jason330 says:

    “…but it won’t reduce gun violence.”

    Is mere opinion. Isn’t a statement worth countering.

  75. Ben says:

    I imagine any gun legislation would cause gun violence to increase temporarily as the ammosexuals throw a temper tantrum…. but it’ll level off and drop once natural selection takes a few passes.

  76. RE Vanella says:

    It’s the new world. If we don’t take his dumb old tropes seriously it’s somehow our problem.

    We’re shutting down the free exchange of ideas!

  77. Alby says:

    I’m sticking with my original diagnosis.