Another Day, Another Shooting

[blackjack50]

Where did I say anything about "gun bans"?

Stopping the manufacturing of firearms IS a gun ban. That would be banning guns manufacturers from producing firearms.

In the 80 or so years of gun control...has it EVER worked? Have you ever considered demanding better and more reasonable treatment of people with anti social personality disorders and other physiological issues? This guy had a criminal record btw. Like I said: warning signs.

 

[blackjack50]

The difference is that we have a second amendment and more constitutional freedom. We are citizens. Not subjects. How about the Burka ban they are talking about in the U.K. and in other "progressive" European nations?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095

 

[jamesrage]

Meanwhile the firearms death toll continues...but, hey. "Mexicans and Muslims. We need walls and travel bans, but there's no need for sensible gun control."

1. Those numbers are the average for this.They are not rising.We generally been having 30 something thousand firearm deaths with nearly two thirds of those being suicides,nearly the rest being homicides, and a handful of accidental shootings. Our suicide rate is about the same as many countries with draconian gun control laws.So we can't do nothing about suicides.Considering all the gangs and other criminals we have in this country we would only be changing the weapon being used in homicides if we banned and removed firearms. And the occasional mass shooting would change into the occasional mass stabbing, bombing, or mass vehicular homicide or some other means which people will use to kill a bunch of people at once.According the CDC we have around a 136,000 accidental deaths a year. So banning guns won't even make a noticeable dent int he accidental death rate.

2.Gun are are a right in this country.Foreigners however do not have any right what so ever to come into this county. unless we grant the privilege of coming into country,which we may revoke at anytime. I realize that open borders pieces of **** and globalist ********ers don't seem to understand the fact that countries have a right to say who can and can't come into their country.

3.The "we already got Americans doing bad **** so illegals committing crime is no problem" argument by pro-illegal alien testicle lickers and open borders **** suckers is a moronic argument. Because using their logic other crimes shouldn't be a dig deal if you got a little kid at home who scribbles on the walls, an office employee who makes off with the pens or some other **** a kid or employee might do.Its our government's job to keep out trespassers.Heck its the job of every government to keep out trespassers and to protect their people from outsiders regardless if that government a democratic republic like ours,Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy like the UK or an oppressive dictatorship like North Korea. That government is basically like a security guard of a building.So when a trespasser comes in does and some **** they are not supposed its the fault of the government for allowing that to happen.So it doesn't matter what citizens IE people who have a right to be there are already doing in regard to who we do or don't let in.

4.Illegals do more than just break the law. They drive down wages, take jobs Americans could be doing, use tax services meant for Americans, and pay little to no taxes seeing how they are working for substandard wages either under the table so no taxes are taken out, work as contract so that no taxes are taken out or lie on a w-2 form using a fake identity and have little to not taxes taken out.

 

[Winston]

The difference is that we have a second amendment and more constitutional freedom. We are citizens. Not subjects. How about the Burka ban they are talking about in the U.K. and in other "progressive" European nations?

Odd, I thought the difference was one guy had an AR-15 and the others had knives.

 

[americanwoman]

Meanwhile the firearms death toll continues...but, hey. "Mexicans and Muslims. We need walls and travel bans, but there's no need for sensible gun control."

What kind of sensible gun control do you advocate?

 

[matchlight]

Ah, but for some reason, gun rights folks have no issue with banning Muslims in the mistaken belief that doing so will keep us safe. BTW, that's the First Amendment...an even more important one.

Guns kill several 100x more people in the US than Islam. But, you'd never know it by reading RW news.

Your comparison is false. Nothing about any Supreme Court decision on the First Amendment's religious clauses even implies that the President's executive order excluding certain aliens violates either of those clauses in any way. As to the Second Amendment, you could hardly make your disdain for the fundamental right it guarantees more clear. I doubt you have even read D.C. v. Heller or McDonald v. Chicago.

 

[calamity]

Your comparison is false. Nothing about any Supreme Court decision on the First Amendment's religious clauses even implies that the President's executive order excluding certain aliens violates either of those clauses in any way. As to the Second Amendment, you could hardly make your disdain for the fundamental right it guarantees more clear. I doubt you have even read D.C. v. Heller or McDonald v. Chicago.

I read enough of Heller to know that even Scalia agreed that the right to bear arms as expressed by the 2nd is not unlimited.

And, as to your First Amendment assertion, perhaps if Dumbo the Clown President had not bragged about imposing Muslim Bans during the 6 months he was running for office, this could have been a non-issue. But, the moron you voted for is too stupid to think ahead like that.

 

[blackjack50]

Odd, I thought the difference was one guy had an AR-15 and the others had knives.

So you plan on supporting Burka bans? Next up Muslims? What part of constitutional protection do you not understand? As usual liberal ******s don't want to solve the real problem because it will cost them voters.

 

[Winston]

So you plan on supporting Burka bans? Next up Muslims? What part of constitutional protection do you not understand? As usual liberal ******s don't want to solve the real problem because it will cost them voters.

I do not support Burka bans or gun bans. I'm just pointing out that guns are designed to kill people and they do so efficiently. It's okay to admit that.

 

[calamity]

What kind of sensible gun control do you advocate?

I don't know. We have not had a reasonable discussion on that matter yet. But, as mentioned above, even Scalia agree the 2nd is not unlimited. Where those limits are and should be is worth exploring. Absolutely so.

 

[blackjack50]

I read enough of Heller to know that even Scalia agreed that the right to bear arms as expressed by the 2nd is not unlimited.

And, as to your First Amendment assertion, perhaps if Dumbo the Clown President had not bragged about imposing Muslim Bans during the 6 months he was running for office, this could have been a non-issue. But, the moron you voted for is too stupid to think ahead like that.

"Shall not be infringed."

Yea. That's a really limiting phrase.

 

[calamity]

1. Those numbers are the average for this.They are not rising.We generally been having 30 something thousand firearm deaths with nearly two thirds of those being suicides,nearly the rest being homicides, and a handful of accidental shootings. Our suicide rate is about the same as many countries with draconian gun control laws.So we can't do nothing about suicides.Considering all the gangs and other criminals we have in this country we would only be changing the weapon being used in homicides if we banned and removed firearms. And the occasional mass shooting would change into the occasional mass stabbing, bombing, or mass vehicular homicide or some other means which people will use to kill a bunch of people at once.According the CDC we have around a 136,000 accidental deaths a year. So banning guns won't even make a noticeable dent int he accidental death rate.

2.Gun are are a right in this country.Foreigners however do not have any right what so ever to come into this county. unless we grant the privilege of coming into country,which we may revoke at anytime. I realize that open borders pieces of **** and globalist ********ers don't seem to understand the fact that countries have a right to say who can and can't come into their country.

3.The "we already got Americans doing bad **** so illegals committing crime is no problem" argument by pro-illegal alien testicle lickers and open borders **** suckers is a moronic argument. Because using their logic other crimes shouldn't be a dig deal if you got a little kid at home who scribbles on the walls, an office employee who makes off with the pens or some other **** a kid or employee might do.Its our government's job to keep out trespassers.Heck its the job of every government to keep out trespassers and to protect their people from outsiders regardless if that government a democratic republic like ours,Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy like the UK or an oppressive dictatorship like North Korea. That government is basically like a security guard of a building.So when a trespasser comes in does and some **** they are not supposed its the fault of the government for allowing that to happen.So it doesn't matter what citizens IE people who have a right to be there are already doing in regard to who we do or don't let in.

4.Illegals do more than just break the law. They drive down wages, take jobs Americans could be doing, use tax services meant for Americans, and pay little to no taxes seeing how they are working for substandard wages either under the table so no taxes are taken out, work as contract so that no taxes are taken out or lie on a w-2 form using a fake identity and have little to not taxes taken out.

Hence my use of "continues" in the post you replied to.

So, we should shrug off 30,000 gun deaths but freak to high heaven because there are a few terrorists and "bad Hombres"?

 

[calamity]

"Shall not be infringed."

Yea. That's a really limiting phrase.

Ah. I see that someone obviously did not read Scalia's opinion in Heller. I suggest you do. You may learn something. He addresses that very issue. Rather well, I might add...almost to the point where I now understand why so many Wingnuts loved the guy. He certainly had a well-tuned legal mind. But, I doubt that is why Wingnuts slobbered over his every word. Chances are most never read even a fraction of his every written word.

 

[ocean515]

So we should ban both guns, trucks and knives.

Tough to question the logic...

 

[jamesrage]

Hence my use of "continues" in the post you replied to.

So, we should shrug off 30,000 gun deaths but freak to high heaven because there are a few terrorists and "bad Hombres"?

2.Gun are are a right in this country.Foreigners however do not have any right what so ever to come into this county. unless we grant the privilege of coming into country,which we may revoke at anytime. I realize that open borders pieces of **** and globalist ********ers don't seem to understand the fact that countries have a right to say who can and can't come into their country.

3.The "we already got Americans doing bad **** so illegals committing crime is no problem" argument by pro-illegal alien testicle lickers and open borders **** suckers is a moronic argument. Because using their logic other crimes shouldn't be a dig deal if you got a little kid at home who scribbles on the walls, an office employee who makes off with the pens or some other **** a kid or employee might do.Its our government's job to keep out trespassers.Heck its the job of every government to keep out trespassers and to protect their people from outsiders regardless if that government a democratic republic like ours,Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy like the UK or an oppressive dictatorship like North Korea. That government is basically like a security guard of a building.So when a trespasser comes in and does and some **** they are not supposed its the fault of the government for allowing that to happen.So it doesn't matter what citizens IE people who have a right to be there are already doing in regard to who we do or don't let in.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

First step would be to stop manufacturing more. Otherwise, next up will be 500 million guns floating around.

Here is 1 gun you can start with. Tell us you plan to remove this one gun from the thousands produced all over the world.

The AK-47 has made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the most widely spread weapon in the world, with 100 million Kalashnikov rifles currently in use.

Russia not only distributes the Kalashnikov rifles all over the world, but also licensed its production in over 30 other countries, including China, Israel, India, Egypt and Nigeria.

It is believed that AK-47s have caused more deaths than artillery fire, airstrikes and rocket attacks combined. An estimated quarter of a million people are gunned down by bullets from these guns.

Nobody has a clue how many of these rifles were given away by the USSR and Russia to enemies of the US. If you believe that cutting production of guns in this country will cut back on the number of guns in the world or here you are delusional. The void would be immediately filled by less responsible manufacturers all over the world.

 

[Winston]

So we should ban both guns, trucks and knives.

Tough to question the logic...

Strawman...

Pointing out facts of gun violence is an introduction of the elements of an argument, but, I never introduced them for the purpose of advocating a gun ban. How come anytime anyone even points out that gun violence is high in the United States, gun nuts fly into hysterics.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't know. We have not had a reasonable discussion on that matter yet.

That's because of threads like this one, started with no intention whatsoever of being "reasonable."

 

[Harshaw]

Here is 1 gun you can start with. Tell us you plan to remove this one gun from the thousands produced all over the world.

The AK-47 has made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the most widely spread weapon in the world, with 100 million Kalashnikov rifles currently in use.

Russia not only distributes the Kalashnikov rifles all over the world, but also licensed its production in over 30 other countries, including China, Israel, India, Egypt and Nigeria.

It is believed that AK-47s have caused more deaths than artillery fire, airstrikes and rocket attacks combined. An estimated quarter of a million people are gunned down by bullets from these guns.

Nobody has a clue how many of these rifles were given away by the USSR and Russia to enemies of the US. If you believe that cutting production of guns in this country will cut back on the number of guns in the world or here you are delusional. The void would be immediately filled by less responsible manufacturers all over the world.

You're forgetting the nomenclature. They're "Kalashnikovs" when they're being used by people the media likes, like "freedom fighters" against right-wing regimes. But in the hands of anybody they DON'T like, they're the deadly, evil, "AK-47s."

 

[natsb]

What could've been done to prevent this?

Raises hand... I know how to prevent it. We should make murder illegal. That way people might focus on the fact that lives were taken instead of how they were taken.

 

[calamity]

That's because of threads like this one, started with no intention whatsoever of being "reasonable."

Facts with biting sarcasm in the op, it's good to get that out there. Why? Because the facts show that biting sarcasm is in order. And, with people, like the poster above, readily willing to dismiss 30,000 gun deaths as "normal," I'm going to have to question whether anyone here even wants to approach discussing this issue in a reasonable manner.

For example, we can make it harder for people to get guns. We can put restrictions on private sales. We can limit the number of gun shops and require them to have bars on the doors and windows. We can do a lot of things. Will the NRA and their million minions go along with any of it? I doubt it.

 

[Josie]

Facts with biting sarcasm in the op, it's good to get that out there. Why? Because the facts show that biting sarcasm is in order. And, with people, like the poster above, readily willing to dismiss 30,000 gun deaths as "normal," I'm going to have to question whether anyone here even wants to approach discussing this issue in a reasonable manner.

For example, we can make it harder for people to get guns. We can put restrictions on private sales. We can limit the number of gun shops and require them to have bars on the doors and windows. We can do a lot of things. Will the NRA and their million minions go along with any of it? I doubt it.

You forgot to mention that you want a ban on manufacturing of more guns.

 

[sookster]

Here's the problem. There is no doubt society would be better off with complete gun control. In a hypothetical world, with no guns, the bad guys always don't have a firearm. In this society, we as a nation need more exercise, so we would teach self defense in public schools. Society is a lot less violent when there are absolutely no guns on the streets.

But in practicality, this will never happen? Why? Because the NRA has mass produced firearms to the point that complete gun control will never happen. They did that intentionally of course.

And do you know what else would make life safer?

A travel ban. Keep people from those areas of the globe from entering our or our allies' borders. It makes sense. There's this ideological thing where we are all equal and we shouldn't discriminate but I hate to break it to you, we are and have been at war. I don't understand this divide at all.

So again, complete gun control is way better. Your "enemy" will never have a gun. But that isn't possible. And keeping people from the middle east from entering our country is a good and safe thing to do.

 

[blackjack50]

Ah. I see that someone obviously did not read Scalia's opinion in Heller. I suggest you do. You may learn something. He addresses that very issue. Rather well, I might add...almost to the point where I now understand why so many Wingnuts loved the guy. He certainly had a well-tuned legal mind. But, I doubt that is why Wingnuts slobbered over his every word. Chances are most never read even a fraction of his every written word.

Again..."shall not be infringed."

Such a limiting phrase.

:eye roll:

As usual...cowardly liberals must do back flips to contend with the idea that governmental power is NOT unlimited power.

 

[blackjack50]

Facts with biting sarcasm in the op, it's good to get that out there. Why? Because the facts show that biting sarcasm is in order. And, with people, like the poster above, readily willing to dismiss 30,000 gun deaths as "normal," I'm going to have to question whether anyone here even wants to approach discussing this issue in a reasonable manner.

For example, we can make it harder for people to get guns. We can put restrictions on private sales. We can limit the number of gun shops and require them to have bars on the doors and windows. We can do a lot of things. Will the NRA and their million minions go along with any of it? I doubt it.

Why should we bother? You don't want to negotiate. You want total banishment. You don't want to address real problems. You will do back flips to ignore the glaring problems with welfare and education and how the inner city (read as democrat controlled urban sprawl) is FILLED TO THE BRIM with the vast majority of the murder. You don't seem to want to discuss failed drug war policies or how gangs contribute to our violence. You don't care about the anti social personality disorder problem that makes recruiting gangs easy...and causes people to decide human life isn't all that great and go on a shooting spree. Further. You want to blame suicide on guns...which is stupid. South Korea has a terrible suicide problem and a lot less guns. All this information just flies in the face of all the stupid ass logic gun banners want to propose. All this feel good legislation that never real hits the problem (their voting block).

So why should we negotiate? We have guns. You don't.