#62
Post
by nausearockpig » Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:40 am
Jesus. I didn't think it was too hard a concept to grasp. Was I too subtle? Let me help you out.
The idea behind that broad and simplistic comment was to comment that it's clear that nobody in the USA is taking any action against, or responsibility at all for, the gun violence. Nor is anyone seemingly able to halt the violence you're all getting used to.
So, how about the body that is pro-gun be put in charge of halting the violence? Surely there are some big brains in the NRA that can help combat gun violence with say, some rules, enforcement of said rules, cleaning the streets of illegal guns, organizing regular mental health checks for gun owners ( ooh imagine the revenue generated from that?!?!?) ?
What is so wrong about that idea? Is it because if the NRA was held to task, with the possibility of things not going its way should it fail to curb violence that its members would be required to concede and hand back weapons?
Or maybe it's just OK to want & to have the guns* but managing them is "someone else's responsibility"?
BTW if as you say, the USA is rife with mental illness, and if it's a problem that's out of control, why on Bob's Green Earth would anyone not want to lock down who has access to guns?
*why do you all need them? I know it's in your constitution to bear arms against a govt that turns on its people( or whatever the wording is) but a) surely that's not a thing anymore and b) how would you all actually rise up in a coordinated manner, across the country to take down your govt? Come on, as if... But that's another bunch of questions that nobody can clear up for me)
Also, I'm five, and for my next birthday I want an Optimus Prime!