We write about “Ellen” producer Andy Lassner quite a bit because he’s a flaming liberal and makes no attempt to hide it. He almost seems to be asking for a compromise on gun control on Monday, though … how about if we just “try” some stricter gun control and then if we don’t like it, get rid of it?
Because the government’s famous for just trying things out on a trial basis and is always so quick to fix legislation that had unintended consequences. Look at Obamacare.
How about we try stricter gun laws for a finite period of time?
And if nothing changes, we go back to the laws as they stand.
— andy lassner (@andylassner) August 4, 2019
So, the government institutes a mandatory buy-back of everyone’s “military-style” AR-15s and then returns them once it turns out the crime statistics don’t change at all.
I’m not even opposed to this. The details are of course important but if we can get safeguards in place to roll back ineffective restrictions, I’m much more open to new gun laws. Maybe a super majority needed in Congress to extend etc
— Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) August 5, 2019
“If we can get safeguards in place…”
Are you ok? Did someone hack your account?
I’m kidding and you know it.
Hope all is well, my friend.
— andy lassner (@andylassner) August 5, 2019
Sure, Andy. Let's just stick the fork in the electrical outlet for a shorter period of time just to see if we can avoid all the negative effects.
— D.W.Robinson (@_DWRobinson) August 5, 2019
How about banning murder?
— [shrug emoji] (@jtLOL) August 5, 2019
"Let's pass a law and if it turns out to be a bad idea or counterproductive it could always be repealed, but probably wouldn't be." #WhatCouldPossiblyGoWrong
— Doug Powers (@ThePowersThatBe) August 5, 2019
Recommended
We did that! There was an assault weapons ban in place during Bill Clinton's tenure. It was allowed to expire because it had NO – as in ZERO – impact on gun violence. NONE.
— P Henry Martin (@PHenryMartin1) August 5, 2019
We did this from 1994 to 2004 with the assault weapons ban.
It failed miserably. Statistics clearly show no impact at best.
This is the case because rifles aren't a major source of violence, in fact they're less deadly than hands, fists, and feet. pic.twitter.com/CHSwaXGwE1
— Andrew Follett (@AndrewCFollett) August 5, 2019
Its been done. It did nothing.
— GobrinSrayer (@oddsocksrock) August 5, 2019
California called, they left a message… it says "we did all that, even restricted ammo purchases, it changed nothing".
Do you want to call them back?— Roger C (@floplag) August 5, 2019
Been there done that. A gun ban is not a solution. It’s not even a good band aid. It’s a feel good measure that will solve zero and likely have huge unintended consequences sequences.
— Tim H (@TimHumphrey99) August 5, 2019
It's not working in California or Chicago or Baltimore.
— Hell O'Copter (@hell_o_copter) August 5, 2019
It's tried constantly. Just look at Chicago. Total gun ban. How is that working?
— LeroyXII (@LeroyXII) August 5, 2019
How about we test these stricter gun laws in areas on concern like…Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, NY, and use their results to gauge the effectiveness across the country?? Hmm? ?
— Christian J., CRNA (@cevanj) August 5, 2019
Use your home state as a testbed and then get back to us.
— Mr. Scott (@LeroyFunkafied) August 5, 2019
We've done that. And we have evidence from other nations. No effect on pre-existing violent crime and homicide rates. No net increase in public safety. Just a waste of limited time and resources focussing on objects instead of underlying social causes.
— Matthew Carberry (@CarberryMatthew) August 5, 2019
Been there, done that. Epic fail.
— Daniel Pennell (@DanPennell) August 5, 2019
California did that. Nope.
— Veterans for Liberty (@Vets4AP) August 5, 2019
We did at the Federal level. It didn't work. California has it and it hasn't worked.
Meanwhile defensive use of firearms is anywhere from 1.8 to 3.0 million, per year, based on the projections of 29 separate surveys conducted by various academics.
— Chef Zhorge (@MosesZD) August 5, 2019
Because once laws are in place, they are nearly impossible to be rid of.
— Dale (@freeburlington) August 5, 2019
That’s unbeatably naive. Once taken away it will never come back. The government is a lot like a Black hole, if it takes something it never comes out. We can’t surrender our constitutional rights, because once you start it won’t end.
— By the numbers (@TheRealFixNow) August 5, 2019
Keep gun laws the same – everything stays the same. Try something different.
— Malmaison (@Malmais24189439) August 5, 2019
We did do that, and nothing changed.
Hmmm… What to do? What to do?
Think, think, think…
I know! Let's make it illegal to break the law!!
Well? It's great, right?
Oh… You have a point there…
Let's just say it's a work in progress.
— Redcloak the Unruly (@BrewingAle) August 5, 2019
How about we try stricter laws with no sunset and then follow the evidence? Don’t give these people a chance to let the law lapse.
— ljl ? (@ljl_york) August 5, 2019
How about no.
We should ban drugs too, because that will solve the overdose problem. Let's give that a try
— It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing (@Healthypauper) August 5, 2019
How about we ban abortions for that time frame too? Everybody deserves a chance to live.
— James Slim (@cowboyjslim) August 5, 2019
Related:
HOLY CRAP! Kamala Harris’ plan on HOW she’ll confiscate guns serves as a TERRIFYING reminder of who she really is https://t.co/tCNv4A3JS1
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 5, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member