Just another mass shooting.

[TurtleDude]

Make your case for Philippines style "war on druggies" then.

The only people who deserve to be shot are those committing a serious crime. Buying drugs for one's own consumption is not a serious crime and in some states isn't a crime at all.

Also consider that alcohol is by medical definition a recreational drug. OK to shoot up a bar, then?

The poster I was responding to is suggesting that gun owners are contributing to gun violence. I am suggesting those who engage in buying narcotics are more responsible. Now I support ending the war on drugs-especially the type that are consumed in "bongs". But the fact is this-the illicit narcotics trade is responsible far more for violent crime than anything else in America

 

[RF667799]

People who buy narcotics are contributing to gun violence and deserve to be shot?

That's so wrong. The government which bans recreational drugs — denying traffickers and dealers legal protection when violent criminals rob them or try to extract protection money from them — are to blame for the violence. Drug users would obviously prefer to buy drugs in a shop than to deal with criminals.

America should learn from the experience of the Netherlands, where legalization in too small a country with open borders led to an influx of crime. Drugs should be legalized NATIONALLY not state by state.

That's very true that not having access to the justice system leads the black markets to depend on self-protection. However, the traffickers, dealers, and violent criminals are often one and the same.

 

[bongsaway]

How many people have to die because of alcohol before you'll agree that it's time to repeal the 21st amendment?

Where did I use the word repeal in the same sentence with the second amendment?

I don't know how many people die each year from alcohol and how, do you? Most people who die from gunshot wounds, we don't have to wonder how they died.

I personally have always thought the combo of guns and alcohol are a winning ticket.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Where did I use the word repeal in the same sentence with the second amendment?

I don't know how many people die each year from alcohol and how, do you? Most people who die from gunshot wounds, we don't have to wonder how they died.

I personally have always thought the combo of guns and alcohol are a winning ticket.

You referred to second amendment rights, and gun control in the comment to which I responded. If you meant gun control measures that don't violate the 2nd Amendment, so be it. Then we can also talk about enacting sensible alcohol control measures that are on par with the supposedly sensible gun control measures you probably support (like making drunk driving a felony, after which you lose your right to drive for life, and banning any alcoholic beverages with more than 13% alcohol), instead of repealing the 21st amendment.

Alcohol kills about 100,000 people every year, more than double the number of gun deaths. About 10,000 of those are victims of drunk drivers, and thousands more are the result of alcohol-fueled murders.

 

[bongsaway]

You referred to second amendment rights, and gun control in the comment to which I responded. If you meant gun control measures that don't violate the 2nd Amendment, so be it. Then we can also talk about enacting sensible alcohol control measures that are on par with the supposedly sensible gun control measures you probably support (like making drunk driving a felony, after which you lose your right to drive for life, and banning any alcoholic beverages with more than 13% alcohol), instead of repealing the 21st amendment.

Alcohol kills about 100,000 people every year, more than double the number of gun deaths. About 10,000 of those are victims of drunk drivers, and thousands more are the result of alcohol-fueled murders.

Lol, what gun control measures in your opinion do not violate folks second amendment rights? Any suggestions I've put forward have all been shot down. Who needs thirty round magazines? Do hunters use ar-15's or ak-47's to hunt? How many shots does a hunter normally get at a deer?

In our plethora of rights we have choices that can lead to the death of others, that does not mean guns or alcohol should be outlawed but the punishment for such decisions should meet the offense. If you drive drunk and kill someone, yes, you should spend years in prison. If you shoot and kill someone, yes, you should spend years in prison.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Lol, what gun control measures in your opinion do not violate folks second amendment rights? Any suggestions I've put forward have all been shot down. Who needs thirty round magazines? Do hunters use ar-15's or ak-47's to hunt? How many shots does a hunter normally get at a deer?

Since when do our rights have to do with what we "need?" And since when did the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting?

Do you "need" a car that can go 120mph? Do you "need" a 1.5L bottle of whiskey? Do you "need" to be allowed to drive with a 0.3% BAC?

If we ban 30-round magazines and AR-15s, how will you define the limits on magazine capacity or what is and is not an "AR-15." What should be the penalty for having one?

Correspondingly, how will you define the speed and BAC limits? What should be the penalty for speeding or driving drunk?

I don't think that laws prohibiting violent felons and the mentally unstable from owning firearms violate the 2nd Amendment. I'd love to see those laws enforced in a way that doesn't affect people who aren't violent felons or mentally unstable.

 

[TurtleDude]

Since when do our rights have to do with what we "need?" And since when did the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting?

Do you "need" a car that can go 120mph? Do you "need" a 1.5L bottle of whiskey? Do you "need" to be allowed to drive with a 0.3% BAC?

If we ban 30-round magazines and AR-15s, how will you define the limits on magazine capacity or what is and is not an "AR-15." What should be the penalty for having one?

Correspondingly, how will you define the speed and BAC limits? What should be the penalty for speeding or driving drunk?

I don't think that laws prohibiting violent felons and the mentally unstable from owning firearms violate the 2nd Amendment. I'd love to see those laws enforced in a way that doesn't affect people who aren't violent felons or mentally unstable.

anyone who supports magazine limits is essentially a gun banner.

 

[bongsaway]

Since when do our rights have to do with what we "need?" And since when did the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting?

Do you "need" a car that can go 120mph? Do you "need" a 1.5L bottle of whiskey? Do you "need" to be allowed to drive with a 0.3% BAC?

If we ban 30-round magazines and AR-15s, how will you define the limits on magazine capacity or what is and is not an "AR-15." What should be the penalty for having one?

Correspondingly, how will you define the speed and BAC limits? What should be the penalty for speeding or driving drunk?

I don't think that laws prohibiting violent felons and the mentally unstable from owning firearms violate the 2nd Amendment. I'd love to see those laws enforced in a way that doesn't affect people who aren't violent felons or mentally unstable.

 

[bongsaway]

anyone who supports magazine limits is essentially a gun banner.

As I've said before and I'll say it again, any gun control measure is an affront to your idea of the second amendment. Guns before lives, keep america free.

 

[bongsaway]

Since when do our rights have to do with what we "need?" And since when did the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting?

Do you "need" a car that can go 120mph? Do you "need" a 1.5L bottle of whiskey? Do you "need" to be allowed to drive with a 0.3% BAC?

If we ban 30-round magazines and AR-15s, how will you define the limits on magazine capacity or what is and is not an "AR-15." What should be the penalty for having one?

Correspondingly, how will you define the speed and BAC limits? What should be the penalty for speeding or driving drunk?

I don't think that laws prohibiting violent felons and the mentally unstable from owning firearms violate the 2nd Amendment. I'd love to see those laws enforced in a way that doesn't affect people who aren't violent felons or mentally unstable.

 

[bongsaway]

Since when do our rights have to do with what we "need?" And since when did the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting?

Do you "need" a car that can go 120mph? Do you "need" a 1.5L bottle of whiskey? Do you "need" to be allowed to drive with a 0.3% BAC?

If we ban 30-round magazines and AR-15s, how will you define the limits on magazine capacity or what is and is not an "AR-15." What should be the penalty for having one?

Correspondingly, how will you define the speed and BAC limits? What should be the penalty for speeding or driving drunk?

I don't think that laws prohibiting violent felons and the mentally unstable from owning firearms violate the 2nd Amendment. I'd love to see those laws enforced in a way that doesn't affect people who aren't violent felons or mentally unstable.

Where in the constitution does it limit felons or the mentally unstable from owning firearms? If those limits can be put on the second amendment, so can others.

Anyway your response was expected. Defend your right to own a firearm over the rights of kids to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because guns are much more important.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

I don't blame you for shooting people, I blame you for your unwillingness to change anything about firearms because of your beloved second amendment. Guns before lives.

What sort of changes would even make any difference?

Note that if a gun law demonstrably could make a difference, it is probable that that law would pass muster with Strict Scrutiny and therefore not violate the Second Amendment.

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lol, what gun control measures in your opinion do not violate folks second amendment rights?

Let's start with any gun law that can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

Who needs thirty round magazines?

What is this "need" nonsense?

They are clearly useful for self defense given that the police use them for defense.

Do hunters use ar-15's or ak-47's to hunt?

It depends on the size of the game animal, but those two rifles are weak and underpowered, so usually not.

An AR-10 platform firing 7mm-08 would be more useful.

How many shots does a hunter normally get at a deer?

You do realize that someone who was hunting with an AR rifle would use a small magazine consistent with hunting regulations?

Where in the constitution does it limit felons or the mentally unstable from owning firearms?

Actually the Constitution probably doesn't allow limiting guns from felons or the mentally unstable if they are non-violent.

But if someone is a danger to themselves or others, the government has a compelling interest in protecting against that.

If those limits can be put on the second amendment, so can others.

Only if the limits pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

Anyway your response was expected. Defend your right to own a firearm over the rights of kids to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because guns are much more important.

Well, guns are in fact more important.

But considering that Strict Scrutiny will allow laws that actually save lives, is there even any conflict between guns and kids?

 

[bongsaway]

What sort of changes would even make any difference?

Note that if a gun law demonstrably could make a difference, it is probable that that law would pass muster with Strict Scrutiny and therefore not violate the Second Amendment.

Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let's start with any gun law that can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.



What is this "need" nonsense?

They are clearly useful for self defense given that the police use them for defense.



It depends on the size of the game animal, but those two rifles are weak and underpowered, so usually not.

An AR-10 platform firing 7mm-08 would be more useful.



You do realize that someone who was hunting with an AR rifle would use a small magazine consistent with hunting regulations?



Actually the Constitution probably doesn't allow limiting guns from felons or the mentally unstable if they are non-violent.

But if someone is a danger to themselves or others, the government has a compelling interest in protecting against that.



Only if the limits pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.



Well, guns are in fact more important.

But considering that Strict Scrutiny will allow laws that actually save lives, is there even any conflict between guns and kids?

Anyone with a gun is potentially dangerous to themselves and others, what's your suggestion for our government to protect against that? How many of these mass shooters have been law abiding citizens right up until the second they weren't?

 

[RF667799]

Anyone with a gun is potentially dangerous to themselves and others, what's your suggestion for our government to protect against that? How many of these mass shooters have been law abiding citizens right up until the second they weren't?

Most human adults are potentially dangerous to themselves and others; no matter whether they have a gun, a knife, a ball bat, a car...or just their bare hands and their ingenuity. They're particularly dangerous in groups.

 

[bongsaway]

That's very true that not having access to the justice system leads the black markets to depend on self-protection. However, the traffickers, dealers, and violent criminals are often one and the same.

Lol, all one and the same huh? So I'm a trafficker selling five hundred pounds of coke, am I selling it to myself, the dealer and then becoming a violent criminal shooting the trafficker? Sounds like a me, myself and Irene scenario.

Easy solution, legalize all drugs.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Anyone with a gun is potentially dangerous to themselves and others,

No they aren't. Most people are responsible around guns.

what's your suggestion for our government to protect against that?

The government is not permitted to get involved.

How many of these mass shooters have been law abiding citizens right up until the second they weren't?

I would guess about half of them.

 

[RF667799]

Lol, all one and the same huh? So I'm a trafficker selling five hundred pounds of coke, am I selling it to myself, the dealer and then becoming a violent criminal shooting the trafficker? Sounds like a me, myself and Irene scenario.

Easy solution, legalize all drugs.

Traffickers do sometimes shoot dealers. Dealers and traffickers are often violent criminals. The categories aren't exclusive of each other.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Where in the constitution does it limit felons or the mentally unstable from owning firearms? If those limits can be put on the second amendment, so can others.

There are no limits in the Constitution on punishing people for crimes or dealing with people who are adjudicated mentally unstable, except for the restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment. If a person can be locked up in a cage against their will, they can certainly be subjected to lesser restrictions on their freedoms for the same reasons.

Anyway your response was expected. Defend your right to own a firearm over the rights of kids to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because guns are much more important.

Just like you no doubt would defend your right to drink alcohol or own a 100+mph car over those rights?

 

[bongsaway]

There are no limits in the Constitution on punishing people for crimes or dealing with people who are adjudicated mentally unstable, except for the restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment. If a person can be locked up in a cage against their will, they can certainly be subjected to lesser restrictions on their freedoms for the same reasons.



Just like you no doubt would defend your right to drink alcohol or own a 100+mph car over those rights?

No dude, I would not choose a drink over a kid's life.

 

[Noodlegawd]

No dude, I would not choose a drink over a kid's life.

Really? So if President Biden came out tomorrow and gave a speech telling us how important it is to ban alcohol and cars that are capable of going faster than 55mph, you'd be right on board without a whisper of disagreement?

 

[bongsaway]

Really? So if President Biden came out tomorrow and gave a speech telling us how important it is to ban alcohol and cars that are capable of going faster than 55mph, you'd be right on board without a whisper of disagreement?

? Last telling it was cars that went over a hundred, what happened?

Yes, I would protest and hope we could settle on cars going over seventy five.

How do any of your scenarios have anything to do with another school shooting?

 

[Noodlegawd]

? Last telling it was cars that went over a hundred, what happened?

Yes, I would protest and hope we could settle on cars going over seventy five.

How do any of your scenarios have anything to do with another school shooting?

Why do I have to limit my comments to a school shooting? Why do you care if there's another school shooting?

 

[bongsaway]

Why do I have to limit my comments to a school shooting? Why do you care if there's another school shooting?

I think the thread is about a school shooting and you want to compare it to alcohol and car bans?

Why do I care if there is another school shooting?

I think that might be one of the most insensitive comments I've read since being on debate politics. I care because nobody should have to endure such pain because of a gun. I wonder if you would feel differently if your young child was killed in a school shooting?

 

[Noodlegawd]

I think the thread is about a school shooting and you want to compare it to alcohol and car bans?

I compared it to those things because you made a comment setting a standard based on "need," and I pointed out the blatant double standard in that.

Why do I care if there is another school shooting?

I think that might be one of the most insensitive comments I've read since being on debate politics. I care because nobody should have to endure such pain because of a gun. I wonder if you would feel differently if your young child was killed in a school shooting?

You wonder if I would feel differently about what? It was a simple question, and you proved my point beautifully. You didn't say that you care about it because you, like everyone, don't want to see children killed. You said "because of a gun," as if other reasons that kids are killed are somehow no big deal.

 

[bongsaway]

I compared it to those things because you made a comment setting a standard based on "need," and I pointed out the blatant double standard in that.



You wonder if I would feel differently about what? It was a simple question, and you proved my point beautifully. You didn't say that you care about it because you, like everyone, don't want to see children killed. You said "because of a gun," as if other reasons that kids are killed are somehow no big deal.

Another willfully obtuse righty. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Would you feel differently if your kid was killed at school? I thought I made that question crystal clear the first time I asked you?