And it starts.......

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

That's a great question, but unfortunately, I think it's far greater than "making people understand".

It's become a way of life for most people.

Change is not going to start with government. Unless the people see that this is not the direction we want to go, we will continue on this course. It's up to us - the people.

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Change is not going to start with government. Unless the people see that this is not the direction we want to go, we will continue on this course. It's up to us - the people.

I agree, but when the govt. is giving many people something, do you think they will vote to take it away?

Personal responsibility is on the decline. With that, the govt. can get away with convincing the public that they know what's best for us.

[GURPS (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

If our elected officlas feel they can pick and choose what the Constitution means, so will the people.

the NON Twisted meanings of the English 'Common' Language - of the late 1700's

[no high fluetten big words, basic English - understand able by 99% of the population]

Shall NOT be Infringed ....

[abcxyz]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Care to place a little wager on how far any of those bills go?

I wish I were as optimistic, We The People have spoken against common sense more often than not in these modern times.

[BigBlue]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

Change is not going to start with government. Unless the people see that this is not the direction we want to go, we will continue on this course. It's up to us - the people.

And people want change,



Majorities support some new gun laws, not bans - latimes.com

By contrast, when asked whether allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country safer or more dangerous, Americans by more than 2-to-1 said more dangerous. Even those who put a priority on protecting gun rights divided evenly on the question about assault weapons, an indicator that new restrictions on at least some of those weapons could gain majority support.

[glhs837]

Originally Posted by BigBlue

And people want change,



Majorities support some new gun laws, not bans - latimes.com

By contrast, when asked whether allowing citizens to own imaginary weapons that are functionally identical to millions of other weapons makes the country safer or more dangerous, Americans by more than 2-to-1 said more dangerous. Even those who put a priority on protecting gun rights divided evenly on the question about imaginary weapons that are functionally identical to millions of other weapons, an indicator that new restrictions on at least some of those weapons could gain majority support.

There, fixed it for you.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by BigBlue

And people want change,
.

You poor sap. Can't even read/comprehend your own sources:

By contrast, large majorities oppose more far-reaching steps, such as a ban on private ownership of handguns. The public remains closely divided on the issue of banning semiautomatic guns, with poll results varying in part on the wording of the question.

So..you taking that bet?

[aps45819]

Originally Posted by BigBlue

And people want change,


By contrast, when asked whether allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country safer or more dangerous, Americans by more than 2-to-1 said more dangerous. Even those who put a priority on protecting gun rights divided evenly on the question about assault weapons, an indicator that new restrictions on at least some of those weapons could gain majority support.

LA wants change.

... and in a few months they'll be insisting you fund their exorbitant union pensions.

The problem is not guns, it's irresponsible people. The progressive agenda is to make people less responsible for their actions so expect ever increasing insanity.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

You poor sap. Can't even read/comprehend your own sources:






So..you taking that bet?

What I also found interesting is this:

A ban on bullets that can penetrate bulletproof vests also gets strong public support in recent surveys.

As I understand it, Adam Lanza was wearing a bulletproof vest. So, under this ban, even if teachers were armed in the schools, they wouldn't have been able to stop him unless they could hit him in the head. People like BB will never get that bans only embolden the criminal.

[Gilligan (Premo)]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

What I also found interesting is this:
As I understand it, Adam Lanza was wearing a bulletproof vest. So, under this ban, even if teachers were armed in the schools, they wouldn't have been able to stop him unless they could hit him in the head. People like BB will never get that bans only embolden the criminal.

I thought it turned out that he was only wearing a camo hunting vest....no?