Biden Gun Speech Thoughts?

[jakefest]

I don't know that it will make a lot of difference, but there at least is a requirement of more maturity at 21 to purchase and own a weapons that is more capable of killing multiple people quickly.

For the Texas tragedy, the red flag law would have helped if someone had turned this kid in when he was killing cats and making veiled threats at 17, which makes me wonder if a family member would come forward or if a friend, neighbor, teacher etc. Would love to see a stat on how many of these shooters come out of broken homes, poverty, etc. Maybe the answer is to start holding parents responsible where there is hard evidence of known issues? Don't know how I feel about that in all honesty but it sure does seem like we could prevent some of these if the parents were more active and top of their kids.

The next big issue is going to be if local authorities have the appropriate resources to perform due diligence on each person flagged, this has been proven to be a big gap in previous incidents where there was suspicion around intent to harm. Feels like we are missing the infrastructure to support the flagging and prevention mechanisms post being flagged so that's something that has to be considered for future efforts.

What does somewhat worry me is you can ruin someone's life pretty quickly if you flag someone out of spite, revenge, as a joke etc but I still think this law has to be enacted. Almost every one of these tragedies is followed by a long list of prior incidents that should have tipped off parents, family, friends, teachers etc. Hindsight should haunt some of these folks.

The next big issue is going to be our incarceration system which alarmingly, I'm seeing more and more repeat violent offenders out on bail, early released etc who go on to commit violent crimes. The subway shooter, the guy who drove a truck through a parade, the guy who shot a cop in Brooklyn, etc all violent people, all with at least a dozen arrests, all out of jail early.

There are a ton of points to address as a nation so the daunting question is where do you start and how do you make a critical impact without infringing on the rights of the 99%? Personally, I think an incremental plan to build up to a long term goal is the best way forward. If you go straight to "all in" you're going to lose the majority of the country. Small changes that eventually amount to big impact is the way forward.

 

[jakefest]

1. Not only do I have an idea, I do in fact know this. I was there at my school and saw the guns with my own eyes. It was very likely more than 100, but I purposefully accounted for what I was sure of. I knew at least 25 kids that brought multiple guns, particularly during hunting season. You abjectly wrong here.

2. Deaths by gun type are tracked and reported. Less than 3% of gun deaths are from what are considered long guns. This includes all rifles, which account for a significant number of that 3%. So to even imply a significant percentage number of gun deaths are related to lifting the assault weapons ban id provably false. There is data to prove it. It is not even a question.

another interesting stat, there were almost 1800 deaths via knife in 2020, that's 1400 more than rifles for example.

Guns should be hard to obtain. I have an arsenal, all of which are at my parent's house in Alabama and one or two of them my Dad doesn't even want in his house which is a problem I need to solve at some point. I grew up hunting from the time I could walk, learned how to shoot at 5 or 6 and went through 3 of the hardest military selection schools out there. As much as I love shooting, I don't have a single weapon in my house here in NJ. That's partially due to a wife that hates guns and partially due to how hard it is to license them in the state. I can't be bothered to go through the process and quite honestly, I don't really have time to go to the range or hunting anyway and decided to take up golf to replace that hobby. If I had a gun on the golf course, I'd shoot my clubs almost every round so probably better that I don't.

The only thing I think NJ gets wrong is banning certain types of single pull rifles (AR's are not the problem) but I think their process is robust enough that it likely deters some violence. Many 2A folks won't agree with me there and that's perfectly ok, they will make valid points as many already have on here but that's my opinion.

 

[Cocks are Number 1]

I'll ask you this also. When I was in school, there were 100+ guns in student cars in the parking lot almost daily. Many in plain sight of every student that walked by the vehicle. You basically had unfettered access to guns on a daily basis at thousands of school across the country for decades. If access to guns is the cause of school shootings, why were there not multiple times the number of school shootings then than thee are now?

The truth.

 

[dpic73]

Maybe I just don't remember them, but how many school shootings have there been with AR-15 type weapons? The most recent one in TX , stoneman douglas in Fla 4 yrs ago and Sandy Hook 10 yrs ago. That is three in 10 yrs what are the others? Not to say any life is meaningless, but that as close to statistically zero as far as gun deaths over the last 10 years.

Does it matter if it was only high schools?

 

[jakefest]

Does it matter if it was only high schools?

Now do handguns

 

[dpic73]

Now do handguns

Now do red herrings

 

[dpic73]

The problem is he and many others don't care about facts or results. They just want to pretend they are trying so they can feel good about themselves, I guess. The obsession to focus on the type of gun least responsible for gun deaths tells you the intellectual capacity of those running around screaming about "assault weapons".

It's like going and standing in front of a tsunami to try and mitigate the damage it will do. DW4 2016 would say you can't prove standing in front of a tsunami won't work, lol.

The problem with you is that you don't care about solutions. Your one and only goal is to push back against people you don't like and you will neurotically ramble on with your vapid manifestos until death by word salad ensues. At least that's your hope.

I have never seen such a negative Nancy in my life. In every thread with people looking for reasonable solutions your every response is peppered with:

"I just don't think"
"I bet it won't do any good"
"it won't make a difference"
"I fail to see"
"I'm willing to bet"

The truth is there have been laws that have significantly reduced mass shootings, like the assault weapons ban under Clinton. When Bush let it expire, mass shootings tripled. The gunman in Uvalde WAITED until the day after he turned 18 before he bought his AR-15 but you KNOW that it wouldn't have made a difference if the age requirement was 21. If that's the case and it would have been easy to get the gun before he turned 18, why did he wait?

There is always a solution if there is a will to do the right thing. Just admit that you don't care about the right thing when owning the libs is the goal. Fvck the lives that might be saved because winning an internet argument is so much more important.

 

[jakefest]

Now do red herrings

But it isn't a red herring......subway shooting (multiple) was a handgun, robberies aren't done with AR15's, car jacking's not done with AR15's, 99% of shootings in major cities are done with handguns.

You're conveniently focusing on mass shooting events while ignoring how many people are shot and killed by handguns EVERY SINGLE DAY.

10,000 + compared to 400

 

[dpic73]

But it isn't a red herring......subway shooting (multiple) was a handgun, robberies aren't done with AR15's, car jacking's not done with AR15's, 99% of shootings in major cities are done with handguns.

You're conveniently focusing on mass shooting events while ignoring how many people are shot and killed by handguns EVERY SINGLE DAY.

10,000 + compared to 400

Got it! Let's not try to fix anything if everything can't be fixed. Makes perfect sense!

 

[Boom4life]

I’ll admit that I have not read everything up to this point. I am absolutely against all of those except maybe raising the age for an ar to 21. The red flag law gives the government way to much leeway in saying who can have guns in my opinion. Lots of questions there and I see that law being an issue in the future. The 2nd didn’t say the right of the government to make laws on guns it said the right of the people to keep and bare arms “shall not be infringed”. Every single one of those laws infringes on my rights per the second amendment. The answer to this problem is not gun restriction. In that setting I could do just as much damage with a a shotgun, buckshot and a extended magazine tube.

 

[dpic73]

I’ll admit that I have not read everything up to this point. I am absolutely against all of those except maybe raising the age for an ar to 21. The red flag law gives the government way to much leeway in saying who can have guns in my opinion. Lots of questions there and I see that law being an issue in the future. The 2nd didn’t say the right of the government to make laws on guns it said the right of the people to keep and bare arms “shall not be infringed”. Every single one of those laws infringes on my rights per the second amendment. The answer to this problem is not gun restriction. In that setting I could do just as much damage with a a shotgun, buckshot and a extended magazine tube.

"well regulated"

 

[Boom4life]

Agreed, but to me this is something that should be federal for consistency.

I did agree. That’s not how our government was originally structured to work and is part of the problem now.

 

[Boom4life]

In the instance of the shooter in Texas it would have kept him from getting that weapon. He had already tried to get his sister to buy a gun for him at 17 and he waited until he was legally old enough to buy one. Three more years could have saved lives.

It won't make a massive difference probably,but any difference is better than no change. We have to do something, just saying people are evil and shaking our heads isn't ok anymore.

Or he waits till he’s 21 and does the same thing. Meanwhile law abiding citizens were robbed of 3 years of gun ownership for nothing. Oh you can go die in a war fighting for your country, but no you can’t own a gun. Gtfoh

 

[Boom4life]

"well regulated"

That doesn’t mean what you think it means and you might want to do some research on what a “well regulated militia” meant in the 1700’s.

The work around would be raising the age of majority to 21. That includes voting, enlisting, and many other things. Which I would be ok with.

 

[dpic73]

That doesn’t mean what you think it means and you might want to do some research on what a “well regulated militia” meant in the 1700’s

It sure as hell doesn't mean "unregulated"

 

[Boom4life]

It sure as hell doesn't mean "unregulated"

Again do some research. They wouldn’t have said shall not be infringed if it meant what you want it to mean. The first part of 2a is explaining why it is vital for citizens to own firearms.

Bees are legally considered fish in California

California’s Fish and Game Commission and agricultural groups have been fighting about the issue since 2019 when the commission added some bumblebees to the state’s endangered species act.

www.uppermichiganssource.com

Crap like this is why I am very hesitant to give any restrictions away especially when it comes to a given right that is specifically listed in the constitution at gun ownership.

 

[dpic73]

Again do some research.

Bees are legally considered fish in California

California’s Fish and Game Commission and agricultural groups have been fighting about the issue since 2019 when the commission added some bumblebees to the state’s endangered species act.

www.uppermichiganssource.com

Crap like this is why I am very hesitant to give any restrictions away especially when it comes to a given right that is specifically listed in the constitution at gun ownership.

I have done some research and the meaning is ambiguous at best. But the context in which it was used shouldn't apply today. Those were different times and I don't think the founders could foresee the carnage that has ensued since. At that time, slavery was common, blacks were 3/5ths of a person and women couldn't vote. History has a way of correcting terrible wrongs and this has gone terribly wrong.

 

[Boom4life]

I have done some research and the meaning is ambiguous at best. But the context in which it was used shouldn't apply today. Those were different times and I don't think the founders could foresee the carnage that has ensued since. At that time, slavery was common, blacks were 3/5ths of a person and women couldn't vote. History has a way of correcting terrible wrongs and this has gone terribly wrong.

We can agree to disagree on that. Preaching on mass murders that account for a very small percentage is insane with all the people being killed in Chicago. They also have some of the strictest gun laws btw. I seek to preserve the reason for the second in the first place. That’s to protect against a tyrannous government. You might say that will never happen. My response is history always finds a way of repeating itself. I’m sure Cuba and North Koreans would much rather have not gone down the road of giving up theirs.

that house magazine ban is set at 10 rounds. That’s outrageous. That’s over half the handguns on the market. That’s not trying to limit carnage that’s trying to take guns without actually doing it .

 

[yoshi121374]

We can agree to disagree on that. Preaching on mass murders that account for a very small percentage is insane with all the people being killed in Chicago. They also have some of the strictest gun laws btw. I seek to preserve the reason for the second in the first place. That’s to protect against a tyrannous government. You might say that will never happen. My response is history always finds a way of repeating itself. I’m sure Cuba and North Koreans would much rather have not gone down the road of giving up theirs.

that house magazine ban is set at 10 rounds. That’s outrageous. That’s over half the handguns on the market. That’s not trying to limit carnage that’s trying to take guns without actually doing it .

I would argue that no gun you can legally own today would protect you against our Government and Army were they to choose to stop you. You don't have tanks so that argument is tenuous at best.

Also, why is Chicago the rallying cry of 2a guys every single time any gun regs are brought up? Why not other countries such as the UK? As mentioned in this thread Chicago has a fairly median per Capita gun violence rate.

 

[Boom4life]

I would argue that no gun you can legally own today would protect you against our Government and Army were they to choose to stop you. You don't have tanks so that argument is tenuous at best.

Also, why is Chicago the rallying cry of 2a guys every single time any gun regs are brought up? Why not other countries such as the UK? As mentioned in this thread Chicago has a fairly median per Capita gun violence rate.

No because it’s equally as insane to believe that those soldiers would be willing to fire those tanks and warheads against their own people. So yes guns can go up against the government and are necessary to the freedom of the state. Hence the 2nd.

 

[Boom4life]

I would argue that no gun you can legally own today would protect you against our Government and Army were they to choose to stop you. You don't have tanks so that argument is tenuous at best.

Also, why is Chicago the rallying cry of 2a guys every single time any gun regs are brought up? Why not other countries such as the UK? As mentioned in this thread Chicago has a fairly median per Capita gun violence rate.

You can’t compare to uk and other countries because they don’t have a 2a. Half the laws they have would never fly. Just like the Canadian order to eliminate handguns. That would be considered unconstitutional in the us. See DC vs Heller. No one is argue if you ban all guns it will go down. We are arguing that it goes against the very principle this country was founded on. If you have a problem with that I suggest you pick up and go to your desired country. Mass shooting account for very little. I can’t see regulating law abiding citizens to try to stop a pshycopath that will find a way regardless of law. There is already a law against murder.

 

[jakefest]

I would argue that no gun you can legally own today would protect you against our Government and Army were they to choose to stop you. You don't have tanks so that argument is tenuous at best.

Also, why is Chicago the rallying cry of 2a guys every single time any gun regs are brought up? Why not other countries such as the UK? As mentioned in this thread Chicago has a fairly median per Capita gun violence rate.

You cannot win a war with rockets, air support and heavy artillery alone unless you're a total savage and have no regard for civilian life. Look no further than Afghanistan, Iraq, even Ukraine......you eventually have to send in ground troops to finish off or capture small, tactical armies or groups of fighters hidden within the populace. This is where folks have a broad misunderstanding of conflict.

Because Chicago has some of the most aggressive anti-gun laws and had over 700 gun deaths in 2021, New Orleans had just over 200 but has some of the most open gun laws. The "per capita" element is true but sort of gets marginalized when you compare gun laws by state, by city...etc.

 

[Boom4life]

Some one here are saying surely we can compromise, the left doesn’t want to compromise. They want to get what they can get today and chip away more tomorrow. The current gun bill shows this. That bill doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of passing.

 

[DW4_2016]

Let's say for example a woman has been stalked/harassed and has =gone to the police and has a protective order against her abusive ex. The ex ignores the order and still stalks and/or beats the woman up. She's already tried the police route and it didn't work, so why go that way again when she can arm herself? When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Let’s say he rapes and impregnates her. What then? Should she kill him so she doesn’t have to carry the rape baby?

 

[Boom4life]

S

Let’s say he rapes and impregnates her. What then? Should she kill him so she doesn’t have to carry the rape baby?

She should put a bullet in his head before he starts.

I for one am happy my wife packs heat. She also practices regularly. Best not mess with her. Yes it can be a double edge sword, lol

 

[yoshi121374]

Some one here are saying surely we can compromise, the left doesn’t want to compromise. They want to get what they can get today and chip away more tomorrow. The current gun bill shows this. That bill doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of passing.

But the left is literally.offering to compromise and you are saying "No Compromise" because they want more? That's asinine. The very concept of compromise is not getting everything that you want.

 

[DW4_2016]

S

She should put a bullet in his head before he starts.

I for one am happy my wife packs heat. She also practices regularly. Best not mess with her. Yes it can be a double edge sword, lol

That’s what jesus taught. Eye for an eye and all they jazz, right.

 

[CUT93]

Does it matter if it was only high schools?

I didn't ask about only high schools, so no. As for schools in general, which is what I asked, that was bc the post I was replying to specifically mentioned school shootings. However, focusing on a cause of death that is probably not in the top 10,000 causes of death is simply stupid. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[CUT93]

The problem with you is that you don't care about solutions. Your one and only goal is to push back against people you don't like and you will neurotically ramble on with your vapid manifestos until death by word salad ensues. At least that's your hope.

I have never seen such a negative Nancy in my life. In every thread with people looking for reasonable solutions your every response is peppered with:

"I just don't think"
"I bet it won't do any good"
"it won't make a difference"
"I fail to see"
"I'm willing to bet"

The truth is there have been laws that have significantly reduced mass shootings, like the assault weapons ban under Clinton. When Bush let it expire, mass shootings tripled. The gunman in Uvalde WAITED until the day after he turned 18 before he bought his AR-15 but you KNOW that it wouldn't have made a difference if the age requirement was 21. If that's the case and it would have been easy to get the gun before he turned 18, why did he wait?

There is always a solution if there is a will to do the right thing. Just admit that you don't care about the right thing when owning the libs is the goal. Fvck the lives that might be saved because winning an internet argument is so much more important.

I do care about solutions. However, when you are focusing on a problem that makes almost no difference even if you completely get rid of said problem, that is the first sign you are either not very bright or are just doing it for political purposes. If we were to get rid of every single "assault weapon" in the country it would save some fraction of 400 lives. Multiple times more people are going to die from lawnmower accidents, skiing/skateboard/ice skating accidents than from assault weapons. Why are there not national campaigns and congressional meetings on those things? The answer is bc statistically, those are almost meaningless categories for causes of death. The only difference with assault weapons is that it is apolitical issue dems think they can score points with.
On top of that, most of the "solutions" are not solutions at all and will likely make little difference. Even though I think most of what has been proposed will not work, I have also said to you and in numerous other posts that I am not opposed to background checks, raising the age to buy assault weapons to 21, or even reasonable limits to magazine capacities to what is typical for existing weapons.

You want solutions? How about calling out liberal DA's who are telling prosecutors not to even pursue cases for illegal gun possession. How about advocating for stiffer penalties for those who commit crimes where guns are involved and stiffer penalties for illegal possession of weapons. We don't enforce the gun laws we have now.

As far as the assault weapons ban, again the number of deaths from assault weapons is almost none existent. We have about 3 MILLION people die in the country every year. Why in the heck are we arguing about the cause of death for less than 300 people out of a population of 300,00,0000+. It's stupid. If you and others were not so easily led around by the nose by your party, you would be asking them why they are not focusing on something that will make a bigger difference - like requiring seat belts on lawn mowers, or requiring helmets when skateboarding, skiing, or ice skating.

If there is always a solution, as you say, why do we let so many people die of disease, and every other cause of death. What don't we find the solution for all of them? The answer is there is NOT always a solution.

 

[CUT93]

Got it! Let's not try to fix anything if everything can't be fixed. Makes perfect sense!

The point is not to try to fix anything. The point is to try and fix the most important problems - the ones that will impact the most people, save the most lives that the ones that the dem party thinks will score the most political points. The focus on assault weapons is purely political, there absolutely no other reasonable explanation when it impact such a tiny percentage of the population. It's just a bunch of disingenuous political hacks trying to score points with voters who make decisions based on feelings rather than on the impact of policies.

 

[CUT93]

I would argue that no gun you can legally own today would protect you against our Government and Army were they to choose to stop you. You don't have tanks so that argument is tenuous at best.

Also, why is Chicago the rallying cry of 2a guys every single time any gun regs are brought up? Why not other countries such as the UK? As mentioned in this thread Chicago has a fairly median per Capita gun violence rate.

Chicago ranks in the upper 20's in most gun homicides per capita in the country. There are certainly worse cities, and the volume of deaths is likely one one main reasons it is frequently mentioned, however it is nowhere near the median for us cities when it comes to gun homicides.

 

[DW4_2016]

The point is not to try to fix anything. The point is to try and fix the most important problems - the ones that will impact the most people, save the most lives that the ones that the dem party thinks will score the most political points. The focus on assault weapons is purely political, there absolutely no other reasonable explanation when it impact such a tiny percentage of the population. It's just a bunch of disingenuous political hacks trying to score points with voters who make decisions based on feelings rather than on the impact of policies.

Except the last time an assault weapons ban happened. Can you tell me if there was any correlation with overall gun violence?

 

[CUT93]

Except the last time an assault weapons ban happened. Can you tell me if there was any correlation with overall gun violence?

When the assault weapons ban was lifted, can you tell me if there was any correlation in gun homicides? I'll make it easy for you. Yes, after the ban was lifted, gun homicides decreased almost every year for the next ten years.

I guess that means we should start giving them out with lollipops at the bank if we want to decrease gun deaths, right? If you believe banning them had an impact, then you have to believe lifting the ban had an impact. Just bc one thing happens after the other, it does not mean there is a correlation.

Start thinking for yourself instead of just listening to people tell you what to think and believing things for which there is simply no logical basis to believe.

When Joe has a press conference tomorrow to tell you Trump and Putin sent Russian military planes to bomb his beach house yesterday and that he barley escaped ..........















don't believe him.

 

[97ClemsonMac]

This is kinda unrelated to guns, but for the Uvalde situation, I wish the focus would be on protection of the schools, not guns. One point of entry, metal detectors, switch up the timing of classes so it’s harder to predict when kids are in the school, etc. I can Assure you if so has such hate in their heart to harm children, they will find a way to do it whether that be a gun, machete, knife, bomb, etc. solution = keep the schools SAFE

 

[dpic73]

The point is not to try to fix anything. The point is to try and fix the most important problems - the ones that will impact the most people, save the most lives that the ones that the dem party thinks will score the most political points. The focus on assault weapons is purely political, there absolutely no other reasonable explanation when it impact such a tiny percentage of the population. It's just a bunch of disingenuous political hacks trying to score points with voters who make decisions based on feelings rather than on the impact of policies.

You continue to amaze. Thanks to you I have learned that trying to stop mass murders makes no sense because vending machines, ice skating and lawn mowers kill more people. Who cares about all the kids hiding under tables because a Frito-Lay machine might tip over and kill them anyway.

But I've seen the light. I think we should immediately let all the prisoners out of Guantanamo and stop our counter-terrorism efforts worldwide because more people die on skateboards. SMFH

 

[dpic73]

When the assault weapons ban was lifted, can you tell me if there was any correlation in gun homicides? I'll make it easy for you. Yes, after the ban was lifted, gun homicides decreased almost every year for the next ten years.

I guess that means we should start giving them out with lollipops at the bank if we want to decrease gun deaths, right? If you believe banning them had an impact, then you have to believe lifting the ban had an impact. Just bc one thing happens after the other, it does not mean there is a correlation.

Start thinking for yourself instead of just listening to people tell you what to think and believing things for which there is simply no logical basis to believe.

When Joe has a press conference tomorrow to tell you Trump and Putin sent Russian military planes to bomb his beach house yesterday and that he barley escaped ..........















don't believe him.

Except we're talking about mass shooting events.

"The death toll from mass shootings went from an average of 4.8 per year during the ban years to an average of 23.8 per year in the decade afterwards.

Many factors drive gun deaths. To help account for those, DiMaggio’s team put mass shooting deaths in terms of the total number of firearm homicides. Viewed that way, they found that between 1994 and 2004, the yearly rate fell by 9 people per 10,000 firearm homicides.

DiMaggio’s study concluded that mass shooting deaths were 70% less likely during the ban.

His isn’t the only study to find that fewer people died in mass shootings when the ban was in effect. In a 2019 article, Louis Klarevas, a Columbia University researcher, and his co-authors found that shootings in which six or more people died were less common and less deadly in the years during the ban."

Fact-check: Did the number of mass shootings triple after the assault weapon ban ended?

Joe Biden said mass shootings tripled when the assault weapon ban ended. They did

www.statesman.com

 

[Boom4life]

But the left is literally.offering to compromise and you are saying "No Compromise" because they want more? That's asinine. The very concept of compromise is not getting everything that you want.

The only way to fix this problem is not gun legislation. You are asking for compromise to fix an issue. We believe that lies in routes not names gun control that violate the 2nd. All the left wants to do is talk about gun control. Let’s talk about a system set up against a two parent home. Something that most gang members and mass shooters have in common. The Shooter had no parents even his mother was absent. He felt alone and like he had no one to turn to. That’s enough to make any one go mad. However people don’t want to talk about that.

 

[dpic73]

The only way to fix this problem is not gun legislation. You are asking for compromise to fix an issue. We believe that lies in routes not names gun control that violate the 2nd. All the left wants to do is talk about gun control. Let’s talk about a system set up against a two parent home. Something that most gang members and mass shooters have in common. The Shooter had no parents even his mother was absent. He felt alone and like he had no one to turn to. That’s enough to make any one go mad. However people don’t want to talk about that.

Except we do talk about it but your side has decided that we should force poor, unwed girls into having babies anyway and on top of that you won't dedicate resources for mental health so these children can get the help they need. Lives only seem to matter if they are in a womb, after that Repubs say f* em.

 

[97ClemsonMac]

The only way to fix this problem is not gun legislation. You are asking for compromise to fix an issue. We believe that lies in routes not names gun control that violate the 2nd. All the left wants to do is talk about gun control. Let’s talk about a system set up against a two parent home. Something that most gang members and mass shooters have in common. The Shooter had no parents even his mother was absent. He felt alone and like he had no one to turn to. That’s enough to make any one go mad. However people don’t want to talk about that.

And school safety as well. Agree with you pr point, while guns are part of the problem, they are just part of the problem. Several other factors involved

 

[clemsonalex]

Except we do talk about it but your side has decided that we should force poor, unwed girls into having babies anyway and on top of that you won't dedicate resources for mental health so these children can get the help they need. Lives only seem to matter if they are in a womb, after that Repubs say f* em.

What an incredibly racist and misogynistic answer…I expect nothing less from liberals.