GingerBear
banner
gingerbearfoz.bsky.social
GingerBear
@gingerbearfoz.bsky.social
330 followers 300 following 890 posts
What can I tell you? I'm a dog dad 🐕, I'm a Forester lover, an off-roader🚙, I'm a Brother with the Sisters SPI 🤡, I'm a bear🧸, I'm a dj🎧, I'm a photographer 📷, a gaymer 🎮 and I'm LGBT 🏳️‍🌈 and oso much more. Sometimes geeky, sometimes sexy, often interesting.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Read my post - the “like what” is right there.
And - again - you willfully ignore the point. For every law out there, there are the letter and the spirit of the law, the intent of the law. And these are often based upon the time and situation the law is about. 1791 and 2025 are NOT equal in the intent of the law.
The majority of people that want gun reform are not trying to take away your guns. Their looking for common sense reforms that don’t let you just get a license or a background check or find some other way to keep guns out of the hands of folks that shouldn’t have them, like those folks from my post.
Yes, actually, it does. And some of those same “shall not be infringed“ things are not just about gun ownership. It’s also about freedom of religion and free speech and free assembly and redress of grievances and all the other “things”
In the amendments.
But you still willfully miss the point. The 2nd amendment has NOT kept up or been adjusted based on advances in firearm technology. The framers of our constitution had single shot rifles (or similar) or small single shot revolvers or pistols. And they Ives in a much different place and time in 1791
Assault type rifles are more cumbersome and take up a bit more space, where a handgun can easily be concealed in a drawer or a pocket or down the back of your shorts. A rifle? Not so much.

Look, either way, there are far too many guns in the US and far too many shootings. Period.
Ah, but I was talking about mass shooter events. I can concur that most person on person gun violence committed is by a handgun - even if simply by the numbers.

And logic would dictate that an assault type rifle is far less accessible to use in a spousal or family argument that results in shooting
And those “at home” rifles and handguns need maintenance and upkeep, also. And many probably don’t get that. Maybe both of you do, but how about those other Mullins of vets and their families?
No, actually, I don’t. I’m one of those families. My father served and one of my brothers served. And like millions of other vets, they didn’t keep guns outside of their service, with the exception of my brother that did some hunting.

Not every vet keeps guns or uses them regularly.
The most common gun in the US: a handgun or pistol at about 70% of gun owners reporting. Over 60% of gun owners report having rifles and over 50% own shotguns.

But to continue your train of thought: about 70% of mass shootings use handguns BUT more deaths and injuries come from assault type rifles.
What’s your question again?
Here are some pretty alarming statistics on mass shootings over a number of years.

First is based on number of deaths.

2nd, 3rd and 4th show 25 years of mass shooting events. Interesting how many use semi-auto rifles and handguns up to 2023.

How many more need to die before we review the 2nd?
Exactly.

The pissed off teen can’t go on a spree at high school with daddy’s car.

The love-crazed loner can’t go shooting up his wife’s office with a steak knife.

A disgruntled guy can’t go shooting up a movie theater with a bucket of popcorn.

But give them an AR15 or similar and those change.
No opinion is moot.

But still….

US military vs regular population with guns…? The military wins. They have the better toys, they’re trained to use them. Bob in Ohio and Bubba in Georgia can shoot the hell out of a beer can or a squirrel. But against a live and ARMED and TRAINED opponent? Nope.
No. They are based on military weapons and can be easily modified to be used as a fully automatic weapon.

The 2nd amendment also doesn't say anything about want. The time of the second amendment is very different from today. Your akm and AR 15 did not exist in 1791. Neither did the technology.
"assault weapon" is not a made-up term. It is a type of weapon that is based on military type weapons that are not available or needed by the general public. That's why they'll say "AR-15 style" or "assault type rifle" or "military grade".

They were not weapons designed for the general population.
The ban's limited impact on total firearm homicides was primarily due to its narrow scope, which exempted millions of pre-existing weapons and large-capacity magazines already in circulation.
From a simple search - which most NRA folks should understand:

While evidence suggests the 1994 FAWB was associated with a decrease in public mass shootings, studies found inconclusive or minimal effects on overall gun violence and crime.
To those of you with your stance on “how great guns art" (given many of you worship at the altar of the NRA), tell us all why you NEED to have a military grade or military style (aka assault rifle) gun.

'Cuz if you need 50 bullets per second to hunt a deer, maybe hunting ain’t your sport, sport.
The NK Protests lifted my spirits. But watching Ontario, Canada dickslap Trump/MAGA with Ronald Reagan's cock (on the FOX Network no less) during Game 7 of the ALCS? Now THAT is some "Must-See TV!"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN_C...
Ontario launches $75 million ad campaign using the words of Ronald Reagan to argue against tariffs.
YouTube video by Toronto Sun
www.youtube.com
Let’s go bloomfies (did I use that right?) ….

Let’s get under the skin of trump and his team of reprobates by mail g this go viral…

Even if it’s not true, let’s make it true by repetition, just the way trump minions spew lies all about…!
Let’s make it go viral for her…
I’m so enthralled (not in a good way) by these trump supporters that will denigrate military service to our nation or loyalty to our country and our Constitution, by disagreeing with the dolt at 1600 PA Ave.

Don’t judge our patriotism, you lame trumpets, because we find trump to be vile and slimy.