Gen X will never be considered a great generation but due to our small size we could never have done the damage to this country done by Baby Boomers. Boomers started with great generosity from prior generations and pulled up the ladder behind them every step of the way. A $30 trillion debt is their gift to America's future. There was very little debt when they became the main voting block. Sadly, very little of the debt were investments that will benefit the future - in fact, it is the opposite. Country eroding greed will be their hallmark. Everyone younger than Boomers will be there to agreeably write the history.

The Greatest Generation had lots of choices. They chose an economy that paid the middle class, they chose affordable colleges, they chose social security and Medicare. They chose a free Europe. They chose wisely.

bearister said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

When the Baby Boomers (on average) came out against Vietnam and for civil rights many thought they were about progress, but time has shown their motivating force has always been individual selfishness

---

Thank God the Millennials are so selfless and made of very stern stuff. Basically a generation made of iron.

---

They're sharper than you think. Millennials have consistently shown low rates of crime and drug use and high rates of education, throughout their lives.

It's not their fault that they entered the workforce in the face of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

---

The best part of most of them dribbled down their dads' legs.

---

I don't even know what this means.

Bearister has a bad hand here. Two ******bags like Clinton and Trump as Presidential candidates pretty much means you don't ante. OTOH, the whole greatest generation bulls$it is Tom Hanks mythology. The soldiers that fought in Iraq are far superior braver and capable than the "greatest generation." They just had s$itty leaders and a hopeless mission.

dajo9 said:

---

Nothing personal bearister, but your generation will go down as one of the worst on history.

---

I'm technically a boomer, but born at the very end. I'm not taking blame on that stuff. It was the early boomers and the Greatest Generation who combined to make much of the post WWII policy. Yes the GG saved the US but in many ways, and generally they drove progressive policies (SS, Medicare, as you mentioned) because they lived through the Great Depression and it was bad and left scars.

That said, their success with WWII gave them lots of leverage to do what they wanted...like the Military Industrial Complex, which takes HALF of the US budget annually. So GG gets big props for SS, Medicare, education...but the MIC isn't a great thing IMO.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bearister has a bad hand here. Two ******bags like Clinton and Trump as Presidential candidates pretty much means you don't ante. OTOH, the whole greatest generation bulls$it is Tom Hanks mythology. The soldiers that fought in Iraq are far superior braver and capable than the "greatest generation." They just had s$itty leaders and a hopeless mission.

---

Whats your thinking in your soldier comparison?

Another Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Nothing personal bearister, but your generation will go down as one of the worst on history.

---

I'm technically a boomer, but born at the very end. I'm not taking blame on that stuff. It was the early boomers and the Greatest Generation who combined to make much of the post WWII policy. Yes the GG saved the US but in many ways, and generally they drove progressive policies (SS, Medicare, as you mentioned) because they lived through the Great Depression and it was bad and left scars.

That said, their success with WWII gave them lots of leverage to do what they wanted...like the Military Industrial Complex, which takes HALF of the US budget annually. So GG gets big props for SS, Medicare, education...but the MIC isn't a great thing IMO.

---

GG also has to take some blame for producing Richard Nixon, probably our most treasonous president until . . . well, you know.

Boomers have produced three presidents, giving us the Clintons, Bush 2, and Trump. So that's not a shining track record either. (Some might classify Obama as a late Boomer, but I'd say his life story hews more closely to that of a Gen-Xer.)

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bearister has a bad hand here. Two ******bags like Clinton and Trump as Presidential candidates pretty much means you don't ante. OTOH, the whole greatest generation bulls$it is Tom Hanks mythology. The soldiers that fought in Iraq are far superior braver and capable than the "greatest generation." They just had s$itty leaders and a hopeless mission.

---

Whats your thinking in your soldier comparison?

---

By any measure today's professional soldiers are better trained, educated, bigger and better equipped. Desertion rates are also much less. They also can fight along side their fellow Americans and not be separated by race as black and Japanese units were in that war, nor are we interning whole segments of the populations or excluding others (women). I believe the "greatest generation" was great but no greater than those fighting multiple missions in Iraq in a less than great cause with criminal leaders.

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Nothing personal bearister, but your generation will go down as one of the worst on history.

---

I'm technically a boomer, but born at the very end. I'm not taking blame on that stuff. It was the early boomers and the Greatest Generation who combined to make much of the post WWII policy. Yes the GG saved the US but in many ways, and generally they drove progressive policies (SS, Medicare, as you mentioned) because they lived through the Great Depression and it was bad and left scars.

That said, their success with WWII gave them lots of leverage to do what they wanted...like the Military Industrial Complex, which takes HALF of the US budget annually. So GG gets big props for SS, Medicare, education...but the MIC isn't a great thing IMO.

---

GG also has to take some blame for producing Richard Nixon, probably our most treasonous president until . . . well, you know.

Boomers have produced three presidents, giving us the Clintons, Bush 2, and Trump. So that's not a shining track record either. (Some might classify Obama as a late Boomer, but I'd say his life story hews more closely to that of a Gen-Xer.)

---

I don't know if it was you I had this back and forth with re: generations, but I'm a strict generational adherent.

Mainly:

Baby boomers: 1946-1964
Generation X: 1965-1981
Millennials: 1982-1999
Generation Z: 2000-

Generations were meant to cover a wide swath of time, at least a decade and a half. And the people born at the beginning of a generation will of course not have the same experience as somebody born at the end of a generation.

Baby boomers were defined by troops coming home from World War II and having lots and lots of babies over nearly two decades, which is why the generation begins in 1946*.

(*It is really odd that the United States is in its 18th year of being run by a president born in the summer of 1946.)

Obama was born in 1961. I'd bet a substantial number of 1961-born babies were born to World War II veterans. The youngest WWII vets were born around 1926. So they would've been 34 or 35 in 1961, prime fatherhood age.

In fact, Obama's maternal grandfather, who served in the U.S. Army in WWII, was 43 when he was born and his maternal grandmother was 38 (a bit older than Kristen Bell and Kim Kardashian, who both turn 38 this year, are now). And still able to give birth to babies. Obama's grandparents would be young enough to be his parents.

Anyways, I know you'll disagree with me. But the whole generation thing is one of my pet peeves.

Nice try Okaydo but we all know that Kenya doesn't have Baby Boomers.

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Nothing personal bearister, but your generation will go down as one of the worst on history.

---

I'm technically a boomer, but born at the very end. I'm not taking blame on that stuff. It was the early boomers and the Greatest Generation who combined to make much of the post WWII policy. Yes the GG saved the US but in many ways, and generally they drove progressive policies (SS, Medicare, as you mentioned) because they lived through the Great Depression and it was bad and left scars.

That said, their success with WWII gave them lots of leverage to do what they wanted...like the Military Industrial Complex, which takes HALF of the US budget annually. So GG gets big props for SS, Medicare, education...but the MIC isn't a great thing IMO.

---

GG also has to take some blame for producing Richard Nixon, probably our most treasonous president until . . . well, you know.

Boomers have produced three presidents, giving us the Clintons, Bush 2, and Trump. So that's not a shining track record either. (Some might classify Obama as a late Boomer, but I'd say his life story hews more closely to that of a Gen-Xer.)

---

I don't know if it was you I had this back and forth with re: generations, but I'm a strict generational adherent.

Mainly:

Baby boomers: 1946-1964
Generation X: 1965-1981
Millennials: 1982-1999
Generation Z: 2000-

Generations were meant to cover a wide swath of time, at least a decade and a half. And the people born at the beginning of a generation will of course not have the same experience as somebody born at the end of a generation.

Baby boomers were defined by troops coming home from World War II and having lots and lots of babies over nearly two decades, which is why the generation begins in 1946*.

(*It is really odd that the United States is in its 18th year of being run by a president born in the summer of 1946.)

Obama was born in 1961. I'd bet a substantial number of 1961-born babies were born to World War II veterans. The youngest WWII vets were born around 1926. So they would've been 34 or 35 in 1961, prime fatherhood age.

In fact, Obama's maternal grandfather, who served in the U.S. Army in WWII, was 43 when he was born and his maternal grandmother was 38 (a bit older than Kristen Bell and Kim Kardashian, who both turn 38 this year, are now). And still able to give birth to babies. Obama's grandparents would be young enough to be his parents.

Anyways, I know you'll disagree with me. But the whole generation thing is one of my pet peeves.

---

I am a fan of the Strauss-Howe approach to defining a generation, as it's based not on literal demographic trends but rather on how historical events shape people at different points in history.

So yes, I'm aware that Obama's birth year places him at the end of the "baby boom" years of increased birth rates, but IMO his experience of the world gives him something closer to the personality of a Gen-Xer. Being born in '61 would make him too young to remember the Kennedy Assassination, or most of the post-WW2 economic high. He would have been a child during the counter-culture revolution of the late 60s/early 70s, too young to take part. I think that's why Strauss-Howe placed their border between Boomers and Xers at a 1960 birth year, not 1964.

Obama's life experience also seems to better fit the Gen-X paradigm: raised in a mixed-race household with an absent father and non-traditional family unit. He lived a nomadic lifestyle, moved around to a lot of different places.

That said, any person who studies generations will tell you that the definitions are fluid on the edge. Obama does also display some traits of a Boomer. (I was born in 1980, so I also feel a little bit Gen-X and and a little bit Millennial.)

I was born after Obama. Besides not experiencing or remembering Kennedy, there was no Viet Nam draft for young men at the end of the BB. Not dealing with the draft is a significant shift in experience. That to me is the biggest thing that separates full Boomers from tail end or Gen-X'ers.

https://www.snopes.com/trump-sign-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-illnesses/

sycasey said:

---

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Nothing personal bearister, but your generation will go down as one of the worst on history.

---

I'm technically a boomer, but born at the very end. I'm not taking blame on that stuff. It was the early boomers and the Greatest Generation who combined to make much of the post WWII policy. Yes the GG saved the US but in many ways, and generally they drove progressive policies (SS, Medicare, as you mentioned) because they lived through the Great Depression and it was bad and left scars.

That said, their success with WWII gave them lots of leverage to do what they wanted...like the Military Industrial Complex, which takes HALF of the US budget annually. So GG gets big props for SS, Medicare, education...but the MIC isn't a great thing IMO.

---

GG also has to take some blame for producing Richard Nixon, probably our most treasonous president until . . . well, you know.

Boomers have produced three presidents, giving us the Clintons, Bush 2, and Trump. So that's not a shining track record either. (Some might classify Obama as a late Boomer, but I'd say his life story hews more closely to that of a Gen-Xer.)

---

I don't know if it was you I had this back and forth with re: generations, but I'm a strict generational adherent.

Mainly:

Baby boomers: 1946-1964
Generation X: 1965-1981
Millennials: 1982-1999
Generation Z: 2000-

Generations were meant to cover a wide swath of time, at least a decade and a half. And the people born at the beginning of a generation will of course not have the same experience as somebody born at the end of a generation.

Baby boomers were defined by troops coming home from World War II and having lots and lots of babies over nearly two decades, which is why the generation begins in 1946*.

(*It is really odd that the United States is in its 18th year of being run by a president born in the summer of 1946.)

Obama was born in 1961. I'd bet a substantial number of 1961-born babies were born to World War II veterans. The youngest WWII vets were born around 1926. So they would've been 34 or 35 in 1961, prime fatherhood age.

In fact, Obama's maternal grandfather, who served in the U.S. Army in WWII, was 43 when he was born and his maternal grandmother was 38 (a bit older than Kristen Bell and Kim Kardashian, who both turn 38 this year, are now). And still able to give birth to babies. Obama's grandparents would be young enough to be his parents.

Anyways, I know you'll disagree with me. But the whole generation thing is one of my pet peeves.

---

I am a fan of the Strauss-Howe approach to defining a generation, as it's based not on literal demographic trends but rather on how historical events shape people at different points in history.

So yes, I'm aware that Obama's birth year places him at the end of the "baby boom" years of increased birth rates, but IMO his experience of the world gives him something closer to the personality of a Gen-Xer. Being born in '61 would make him too young to remember the Kennedy Assassination, or most of the post-WW2 economic high. He would have been a child during the counter-culture revolution of the late 60s/early 70s, too young to take part. I think that's why Strauss-Howe placed their border between Boomers and Xers at a 1960 birth year, not 1964.

Obama's life experience also seems to better fit the Gen-X paradigm: raised in a mixed-race household with an absent father and non-traditional family unit. He lived a nomadic lifestyle, moved around to a lot of different places.

That said, any person who studies generations will tell you that the definitions are fluid on the edge. Obama does also display some traits of a Boomer. (I was born in 1980, so I also feel a little bit Gen-X and and a little bit Millennial.)

---

You, like me, are a .... https://www.google.com/search?q=xennial

The word millennial gets thrown around too much. Many of the kids who died last week were born in 2003 (or 2004), yet I've seen some of them "millennials."

Joe Kennedy III, born in 1980, is sometimes labeled a millennial. So is his fellow 1980-born Furd, Chelsea Clinton.

But people born in 1980 generally started college in 1998 (Chelsea entered Stanfurd in 1997). And 1998 is 20 years ago! And it's weird to put them in the same category as today's college students.


https://instagr.am/p/BUcbF-0D41H

Banks vs Guns?




https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/business/banks-gun-sales.html

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

okaydo said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Nothing personal bearister, but your generation will go down as one of the worst on history.

---

I'm technically a boomer, but born at the very end. I'm not taking blame on that stuff. It was the early boomers and the Greatest Generation who combined to make much of the post WWII policy. Yes the GG saved the US but in many ways, and generally they drove progressive policies (SS, Medicare, as you mentioned) because they lived through the Great Depression and it was bad and left scars.

That said, their success with WWII gave them lots of leverage to do what they wanted...like the Military Industrial Complex, which takes HALF of the US budget annually. So GG gets big props for SS, Medicare, education...but the MIC isn't a great thing IMO.

---

GG also has to take some blame for producing Richard Nixon, probably our most treasonous president until . . . well, you know.

Boomers have produced three presidents, giving us the Clintons, Bush 2, and Trump. So that's not a shining track record either. (Some might classify Obama as a late Boomer, but I'd say his life story hews more closely to that of a Gen-Xer.)

---

I don't know if it was you I had this back and forth with re: generations, but I'm a strict generational adherent.

Mainly:

Baby boomers: 1946-1964
Generation X: 1965-1981
Millennials: 1982-1999
Generation Z: 2000-

Generations were meant to cover a wide swath of time, at least a decade and a half. And the people born at the beginning of a generation will of course not have the same experience as somebody born at the end of a generation.

Baby boomers were defined by troops coming home from World War II and having lots and lots of babies over nearly two decades, which is why the generation begins in 1946*.

(*It is really odd that the United States is in its 18th year of being run by a president born in the summer of 1946.)

Obama was born in 1961. I'd bet a substantial number of 1961-born babies were born to World War II veterans. The youngest WWII vets were born around 1926. So they would've been 34 or 35 in 1961, prime fatherhood age.

In fact, Obama's maternal grandfather, who served in the U.S. Army in WWII, was 43 when he was born and his maternal grandmother was 38 (a bit older than Kristen Bell and Kim Kardashian, who both turn 38 this year, are now). And still able to give birth to babies. Obama's grandparents would be young enough to be his parents.

Anyways, I know you'll disagree with me. But the whole generation thing is one of my pet peeves.

---

I am a fan of the Strauss-Howe approach to defining a generation, as it's based not on literal demographic trends but rather on how historical events shape people at different points in history.

So yes, I'm aware that Obama's birth year places him at the end of the "baby boom" years of increased birth rates, but IMO his experience of the world gives him something closer to the personality of a Gen-Xer. Being born in '61 would make him too young to remember the Kennedy Assassination, or most of the post-WW2 economic high. He would have been a child during the counter-culture revolution of the late 60s/early 70s, too young to take part. I think that's why Strauss-Howe placed their border between Boomers and Xers at a 1960 birth year, not 1964.

Obama's life experience also seems to better fit the Gen-X paradigm: raised in a mixed-race household with an absent father and non-traditional family unit. He lived a nomadic lifestyle, moved around to a lot of different places.

That said, any person who studies generations will tell you that the definitions are fluid on the edge. Obama does also display some traits of a Boomer. (I was born in 1980, so I also feel a little bit Gen-X and and a little bit Millennial.)

---

You, like me, are a .... https://www.google.com/search?q=xennial

The word millennial gets thrown around too much. Many of the kids who died last week were born in 2003 (or 2004), yet I've seen some of them "millennials."

Joe Kennedy III, born in 1980, is sometimes labeled a millennial. So is his fellow 1980-born Furd, Chelsea Clinton.

But people born in 1980 generally started college in 1998 (Chelsea entered Stanfurd in 1997). And 1998 is 20 years ago! And it's weird to put them in the same category as today's college students.


https://instagr.am/p/BUcbF-0D41H

---

Yes, similar to the term that has been coined for those on the Boomer/Gen-X border: Generation Jones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones

Just 3% of American adults own half the country's guns. Most gun owners have just one or two, but a tiny group of super-owners, who have an average of 17 each, collectively own half of the country's 256m guns. The Guardian

bearister said:

---

Just 3% of American adults own half the country's guns. Most gun owners have just one or two, but a tiny group of super-owners, who have an average of 17 each, collectively own half of the country's 256m guns. The Guardian

---

Yes, and the number of households with guns has been shrinking.

We really are talking about an extremely passionate minority propping up an industry and carrying outsized political power, preventing all attempts at legislative reform. This state of affairs is not sustainable.

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Just 3% of American adults own half the country's guns. Most gun owners have just one or two, but a tiny group of super-owners, who have an average of 17 each, collectively own half of the country's 256m guns. The Guardian

---

Yes, and the number of households with guns has been shrinking.

We really are talking about an extremely passionate minority propping up an industry and carrying outsized political power, preventing all attempts at legislative reform. This state of affairs is not sustainable.

---

...and the SCOTUS weaponized (pardon the pun) it all with its decision in Citizens United.

Shrinking? Really

going4roses said:

---

Shrinking? Really

---

Yup.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Just 3% of American adults own half the country's guns. Most gun owners have just one or two, but a tiny group of super-owners, who have an average of 17 each, collectively own half of the country's 256m guns. The Guardian

---

Yes, and the number of households with guns has been shrinking.

We really are talking about an extremely passionate minority propping up an industry and carrying outsized political power, preventing all attempts at legislative reform. This state of affairs is not sustainable.

---

The best way to win this argument is to avoid talking about taking away all guns or saying that guns are the only reason for the massacres.

There are legitimate reasons for having hunting guns. There are no legitimate reason for having any semi-automatic weapons. No one would argue that the benefits of being able to be unsportsmanlike in using semi-automatic weapons to shoot unarmed innocent animals is worth adding even an iota of the reason (not the only reason) our kids are getting massacred.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearister said:

---

Just 3% of American adults own half the country's guns. Most gun owners have just one or two, but a tiny group of super-owners, who have an average of 17 each, collectively own half of the country's 256m guns. The Guardian

---

Yes, and the number of households with guns has been shrinking.

We really are talking about an extremely passionate minority propping up an industry and carrying outsized political power, preventing all attempts at legislative reform. This state of affairs is not sustainable.

---

The best way to win this argument is to avoid talking about taking away all guns or saying that guns are the only reason for the massacres.

There are legitimate reasons for having hunting guns. There are no legitimate reason for having any semi-automatic weapons. No one would argue that the benefits of being able to be unsportsmanlike in using semi-automatic weapons to shoot unarmed innocent animals is worth adding even an iota of the reason (not the only reason) our kids are getting massacred.

---

I agree with that. If only the gun lobby would allow this reasonable solution to be discussed by our lawmakers.

I agree with Newt. I think they should put an AR-15 under the desks of certain teachers. Keep it under lock and key. That way we could avoid these mass shootings.

calbear93 said:

---

The best way to win this argument is to avoid talking about taking away all guns or saying that guns are the only reason for the massacres.

There are legitimate reasons for having hunting guns. There are no legitimate reason for having any semi-automatic weapons. No one would argue that the benefits of being able to be unsportsmanlike in using semi-automatic weapons to shoot unarmed innocent animals is worth adding even an iota of the reason (not the only reason) our kids are getting massacred.

---

I like where you are going since I don't really buy into guns as self-defense, but I don't think we will see a ban on all semi-automatic guns in our lifetime. Unless you repeal the second amendment, I don't see how any SCOTUS would take semi-automatics off the table since my understanding is that they make up the vast majority of handguns purchased for self-defense. Now if we are talking about limits on semi-automatics in terms of the size of clips, etc. I think there may be something that could be done, but I don't see a blanket ban happening absent some sort of repeal.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

The best way to win this argument is to avoid talking about taking away all guns or saying that guns are the only reason for the massacres.

There are legitimate reasons for having hunting guns. There are no legitimate reason for having any semi-automatic weapons. No one would argue that the benefits of being able to be unsportsmanlike in using semi-automatic weapons to shoot unarmed innocent animals is worth adding even an iota of the reason (not the only reason) our kids are getting massacred.

---

I like where you are going since I don't really buy into guns as self-defense, but I don't think we will see a ban on all semi-automatic guns in our lifetime. Unless you repeal the second amendment, I don't see how any SCOTUS would take semi-automatics off the table since my understanding is that they make up the vast majority of handguns purchased for self-defense. Now if we are talking about limits on semi-automatics in terms of the size of clips, etc. I think there may be something that could be done, but I don't see a blanket ban happening absent some sort of repeal.

---

I think you can argue to SCOTUS that semi-automatics present a clear danger to society that justifies curbing a Constitutional right, as has been done in other cases ("free speech" curbed when it is an incitement to violence, libel/slander, etc.). Much as we'd like to believe they are, SCOTUS is also not immune to feeling the pressure from political winds. If there is enough of a mandate from the public for gun control, I don't think they stand in the way.

At least 15,549 people were by guns in the United States in 2017, excluding most suicides.
During the September 11 attacks of 2001, 2,996 people were killed. We went to war over the attacks.
There are an estimated 330 million guns in this country

Seems like we should go to war with the gun lobby and reduce the numbers of people killed by guns in this country.

I read the article and I don't believe it at all not according to what I see and hear. Gun shops that my family frequent have had a boom in sales in the last 24 mos

It may appear that way based on that data but in the real time/world what I see and hear with my own eyes is quite the contrary.

Same as unemployment numbers are nowhere near accurate for many reasons.

BearNIt said:

---

At least 15,549 people were by guns in the United States in 2017, excluding most suicides.
During the September 11 attacks of 2001, 2,996 people were killed. We went to war over the attacks.

Seems like we should go to war with the gun lobby.

---

This is one of the ways to lose the gun argument. If you start with the premise that gun lobby is the same as violent terrorists, people have already stopped listening to you. If you start with a false premise that we are just trying to stop death, then someone will bring up cars, liquor, etc. and people will have already stopped listening to you.

What we all need to do is start with something we can all agree on. Our kids need to be protected and we need to feel safe dropping our kids off at school without wondering if that is the last time we will see them. We need to start with acknowledging that guns have served an important part of our history and that they do at times serve a good purpose. We are not trying to take away all guns. However, when we are weighing what we need to get done as soon as possible and what we may have to sacrifice to get to that essential purpose (namely protect our kids), semi-automatic weapons, together with greater service for those with mental issues, more restrictions on what damage Hollywood and Silicon Valley can do to our kids, etc. It doesn't have to be one or the other. None of us should have a sacred cow that is more important than not allowing our kids to be shot by a mad killer.

going4roses said:

---

I read the article and I don't believe it at all not according to what I see and hear. Gun shops that my family frequent have had a boom in sales in the last 24 mos

It may appear that way based on that data but in the real time/world what I see and hear with my own eyes is quite the contrary.

Same as unemployment numbers are nowhere near accurate for many reasons.

---

You'll excuse me if I don't take "going4roses' anecdotal evidence" as a reasonable counter to broad-based polling and statistical analysis.

Besides, the article I posted addresses the increase in gun sales. It says that the increase in sales is largely happening with the same people who already own guns. My point is that there are fewer NEW gun owners than before.

Since 2001 there have been 225,435 individuals have been killed due to of gun violence in the U.S..
Less than 7000 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan

Just something to think about.

Lets see if there's more follow-through on this than the transgender in the military ban.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Lets see if there's more follow-through on this than the transgender in the military ban.

---

After the Las Vegas shooting it looked like at least bump stock would be banned. Sorry, that didn't happen. Not sure what would make this shooting different. Mid-term year?

calbear93 said:

---

.....There are no legitimate reason for having any semi-automatic weapons.......

---

Untrue. When the Deep State takes over and installs HRC as Queen, Her Majesty's first move will be to take our guns. There will be urban door to door fighting. All true patriots will need an automatic long rifle in defense of the Homeland.

When they kick at your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun
When the law break in
How you gonna go?
Shot down on the pavement
Or waiting on death row
You can crush us
You can bruise us
But you'll have to answer to
Oh, the guns of Brixton
-The Clash, Guns of Brixton