so what new gun laws do you want passed? - - - Updated - - - so what new gun regulations do you suggest?
100% WRONG, on both points. I think this subject is out of your league. You clearly have no knowledge of British gun rules, or crime rates in Europe.
Then tell your gun violence apologist buddies to ditch the lame analogies. They're not mine. Your gun rights have their limitations. You shouldn't feign ignorance of those. Or are you not?
You don't get to decide on those limitation, and IMO mistrust to anyone that does......even the courts.
I'd say that's more than likely BS, so you'll have to show me some validation of that. But I see you also miss the gist of my point. People with guns on the home are more likely to be injured by it than protected by it. I cited the studies more than once. I can't help you with your reading comprehension.
When you can't deal with the topic at hand, you resort to diversionary tactics. Now we can add cigarettes to swimming pools, cars, trips to the beach and knives. Have we covered ladders yet?
Actually, I have just as much say as you do. And here's a bit of advice. It's best to do what the courts hold as those limitations. That is, if you want to keep your Red Rider popgun in the first place.
No you don't.....the BoR's strictly prevents you from infringing on my rights. Also I and million other guns owner will refuse to submit....you do know that don't you?
No, No, No. The Bill of Rights does not say that Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly, and the Right to Bear Arms, are limitless.
Hey, try this little trick about testing the limitations. I suggested it to a local barrel-stroker, but I don't think he took me up on it since I never saw anything in the local newspaper about it. Go down to your local courthouse, or even better, a federal courthouse if there's one close. Conceal your popgun and step through the metal detector. At that point, you're free to discuss all of your uninfringed gun rights to your heart's content. Shout to the top of your lungs about your refusal to submit.
limiting firearm possession to law-abiding citizens over age 18 who can pass a thorough background check, is NOT an INFRINGEMENT!!!!!!!
Most courthouses even the police must submit. Their is a reason for that. But you want to use that as example to place farther restriction to disarm the populist. Which make those existing laws so dangerous.
The reason for that is what you seem to be in denial about. There are restrictions to your precious Second Amendment. I merely provided one example. There are plenty more. Challenge your uninfringed rights in those other situations, then. Or is it that your brazen claim to not submit is a little hollow?
We are working on it. Second Amendment foundation is trying to expand our rights where there has been restriction on ground of violating our civil liberties. In case you haven't noticed, the tide is turning against social authoritarianism.
Why do we have the Bill of Rights? When you know the answer to that question, and I already stated the reason, then you'll know why your comment is flawed.
Translation: Anything that erodes my argument that guns are the most dangerous things in America is considered diversionary tactics. Got it?
Sorry, but if one has to devolve into an absurd argument that we should ban trips to the beach because people drown, they have no business being on any adult forum. Discuss ladder accidents and the dangers of swimming pools elsewhere. Those are foolish arguments for the foolish. If you wish to present those because you have no viable argument, do so. And I will continue to call you on that diversionary BS. My argument is this: The 2A is an outdated and irrelevant vestige from the 18th century. It is no more necessary to the proper function of our society than the equally outdated 3rd and 7th Amendments. Other western countries function quite well without the overabundance of firearms or with strict control over their possession. That the oft-repeated mantra of protecting us from a tyrannical government is laughable. That the idea that a weapon somehow protects one is a myth. I have cited any number of examples from studies to personal experience. The bottom line - we have more gun violence because we have more guns. Plain and simple. To not realize that truth is to bury one's head in the sand. I see similar arguments from conservatives trying to justify their stance against gay marriage. They try everything from procreation to "special rights" to abominations to lame analogies into pedophelia and bestiality. All pitiable diversionary tactics because they can't address the issue head on. The same with gun violence apologists. They can't seem to come to grips with the uncomfortable truth, so they'll invoke anything to avoid it.
Gun control has saved all kinds of lives over the 20th century. http://www.weapon-blog.com/2013/01/firearms-save-lives/ 10,000 people a year is nothing compared to 56,000,000 over the 20th Century. You also aren't counting any of the lives saved by people having guns. Even if they could, nobody keeps those statistics. Every state that has implemented concealed carry in the last 25 years has seen a drop in crime. Cities and states who restrict the public from using guns to protect themselves from crime haven't faired as well. http://heyjackass.com/ I know it's irreverent, but there is a lot of data that has gone into this site.
all from an anti-gun rights mouth. I've had guns in my house since I was a young man of 22. Never one accident, not one person has been injured by weapons in my house. Not one. So your stats area lie. I have, however, used my firearm in self-defense. So that doesn't qualify as an accident. Two shot out, to shots in target.
time to make concealed carry legal for all Americans... no license needed, it's the respectful way to carry a gun - - - Updated - - - yes it is.... you want to make it a privilege like driving a car... rather than a right like freedom of speech .
Again, the gun itself is NOT to blame. This man was obviously mentally unstable. If guns were outlawed, he would've resorted to an alternative method such as stabbing. Better ban those kitchen knives too!
In your opinion, which IMO is narrow and completely out of context. You want to see this particular issue out of context but I'm certain any issue you favored would included context as support for your argument. This is the problem with fanatics, they broaden or narrower their focus depending on which works best for them. An normal adult recognizes that all issues have a context and the solution to any problems or desires to improve those issues relies upon a full understanding of that context. You see the OP murder/suicide as a direct consequence of the Second Amendment and you believe this violence would not happen if all guns were banned. That's a foolishly narrow point of view. As mentioned previously, if Spirit wanted to murder his family, there are other ways to do it such as poison, sleeping pills and setting the house on fire, driving entire family into a head on with a cement truck, etc, etc, etc. The problem with violence of any kind is twofold: criminal activity such as gangs and mental illness which I suspect is part of the problem with Don Spirit. You want to treat the symptoms instead of the disease. Specifically, you only want to treat one symptom, the use of guns in violent acts, to the exclusion of all other forms of violent acts caused by the same two problems mentioned. - - - Updated - - - Agreed, but try telling that to an anti-gun fanatic. You'll only be insulted and accused of disrupting the thread.
