Whose Child is Next?

[Amadeus]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know exactly what you were proposing to have drawn that reaction.

I said that lawful folk should be able to protect themselves, and that measures should taken to mitigate a criminal's access to firearms.

 

[VanceMack]

Of course not. It wouldn't be murder.

I believe in cases like this the gun owner should absolutely be charged with at least reckless endangerment.

 

[Goshin]

I said that lawful folk should be able to protect themselves, and that measures should taken to mitigate a criminal's access to firearms.

Yup. Thing is, while that is nice in theory, the devil is in the details... and virtually everything that has been proposed in recent years would have little impact on crime while primarily impeding the law-abiding.

 

[Amadeus]

Yup. Thing is, while that is nice in theory, the devil is in the details... and virtually everything that has been proposed in recent years would have little impact on crime while primarily impeding the law-abiding.

I can't say I'm too sympathetic if the impediment is a mere inconvenience...

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yup. Thing is, while that is nice in theory, the devil is in the details... and virtually everything that has been proposed in recent years would have little impact on crime while primarily impeding the law-abiding.

Not just in recent years though, the entire history shows plenty of law that does nothing. Only the most organized criminals(which tend to attack specific targets) use full auto , and that is to make a statement rather than to enhance their odds of attaining a goal, but yet autos are heavily restricted(though readily available on the black market) while the random street thug looking to rob a store uses a disposable junk piece. The Gun Control Act accomplished nothing, and it's close to fifty years old, Brady has showed no causal benefit and a laughable enforcement history, but it remains on the books.

The only thing that I feel can have success is due process law, but prior restraint is what the politicians want. Instead of banning this or that, make sentences hurt, take away some things from inmates and make the terms they serve so miserable they don't want to go back..........bad food, no cable, exercise limited to walking and maybe a couple of sports here or there, reading material, rocks to bust, etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

A 3-year-old Florida boy fatally shot himself Tuesday using a gun he found in the bedroom that he shared with his uncle. Jadarrius Speights accidentally discharged an "unsecured 9mm handgun" left in a backpack that belonged to his uncle. Police arrested the boy's uncle, Jeffrey D. Walker, 29, Tuesday night and charged him with culpable negligence. Walker purchased the weapon at a Tampa Bay area gun shop and does possess a concealed weapons permit, according to authorities. The boy's parents, Jasmine Bell, 21, and Trentin Speights, 22, were in their bedroom when the shooting happened. Speights passed away after emergency responders rushed him to Florida Hospital Tampa.

Also on Tuesday, a 7-year-old boy in northeast Houston was shot by his 5-year-old brother when their mother stepped away while the boys bathed. The older boy is expected to recover.

On Saturday, a 13-year-old boy shot his 6-year-old sister with a handgun they found in their Florida home. The girl was in critical but stable condition.

Jadarrius Speights, Florida 3-Year-Old, Fatally Shoots Himself With Uncle Jeffrey D. Walker's Gun

I guess when all the facts are against you and a most recent Justice Department study hit the anti gun idiocy like a wet pontoon, all you have left are moronic appeals to emotionally frail low wattage voters

 

[TurtleDude]

I've been bombarded with accusations that I'm not just disarming lawful folk, but actively and maliciously arming criminals. I'm not saying one side is worse than the other, I can only go by personal experience.

I see those who want to disarm law abiding people as in a conspiracy with the criminals.

 

[Ikari]

I said that lawful folk should be able to protect themselves, and that measures should taken to mitigate a criminal's access to firearms.

Within the proper limitations and restrictions on government power, yes.

 

[Ikari]

I can't say I'm too sympathetic if the impediment is a mere inconvenience...

Yeah, I'm not too sympathetic towards low probability events which may occur as a consequence of liberty.

 

[TurtleDude]

Within the proper limitations and restrictions on government power, yes.

the problem is, the anti gunners have yet to come up with ANY solutions that actually will impact criminals more than the law abiding. But since the anti gunners really have little or no use for legal guns, they don't care for its easy to trade away rights they don't value even if there is no real chance that such a trade will create any objective benefits

 

[Amadeus]

I see those who want to disarm law abiding people as in a conspiracy with the criminals.

Explain this conspiracy to me. Lets put aside the fact that I've never suggested disarming law abiding people.

 

[Amadeus]

Yeah, I'm not too sympathetic towards low probability events which may occur as a consequence of liberty.

Which liberty? The one which grants you unlimited convenience?

 

[TurtleDude]

Explain this conspiracy to me. Lets put aside the fact that I've never suggested disarming law abiding people.

most gun banners conceal their ultimate goals.

if Obama, Biden and the rest of that pack of scum were honest about their goals, they never would have been elected

 

[Ikari]

Which liberty? The one which grants you unlimited convenience?

Perchance not completely unlimited. But that certainly allows full exercise of my rights so long as I am not infringing upon the rights of others in the process.

 

[Amadeus]

most gun banners conceal their ultimate goals.

I don't believe in telepathy.

 

[LaMidRighter]

the problem is, the anti gunners have yet to come up with ANY solutions that actually will impact criminals more than the law abiding. But since the anti gunners really have little or no use for legal guns, they don't care for its easy to trade away rights they don't value even if there is no real chance that such a trade will create any objective benefits

I'll give you a funny one, a Gannett newspaper employee sits on some journalism board in La. and is upset that the state passed a prohibition on news sources publishing the names of legal CCW holders like the New York incident. The stupid bastard even went as far as to say no prior restraint law should be applied to journalists and it would affect their ability to report news because of it, but he works for a paper that has engaged in every dishonest tactic to do the very same prior restraint debarring of firearms from us.

I have a message for the little jerk though. "You didn't protect our rights, so I'm not crying when you got popped for someone else's abuse of yours".

 

[TurtleDude]

I'll give you a funny one, a Gannett newspaper employee sits on some journalism board in La. and is upset that the state passed a prohibition on news sources publishing the names of legal CCW holders like the New York incident. The stupid bastard even went as far as to say no prior restraint law should be applied to journalists and it would affect their ability to report news because of it, but he works for a paper that has engaged in every dishonest tactic to do the very same prior restraint debarring of firearms from us.

I have a message for the little jerk though. "You didn't protect our rights, so I'm not crying when you got popped for someone else's abuse of yours".

some gun owner should put a big sign on that asshole's lawn saying he is a coward and doesn't own a gun

 

[Ikari]

I have a message for the little jerk though. "You didn't protect our rights, so I'm not crying when you got popped for someone else's abuse of yours".

I believe that undermines the ideals of freedom and liberty.

 

[BretJ]

Quick, abolish the death penalty.

???? Quick, explain to me how it enforceable.... You can already be charged with manslaughter in these circumstances.....

 

[LaMidRighter]

I believe that undermines the ideals of freedom and liberty.

But it is an age old warning that the little jerk didn't heed. "At the end, no one was left to protect my rights when they came for me", to paraphrase. The whole idea is that these media clowns only care about rights when they use them, so I'm not exactly going to cry when it's their turn to take the medicine.

 

[LaMidRighter]

some gun owner should put a big sign on that asshole's lawn saying he is a coward and doesn't own a gun

I thought about emailing him and saying "enjoy losing part of your rights jackass, remember that next time you attack mine".

 

[Ikari]

But it is an age old warning that the little jerk didn't heed. "At the end, no one was left to protect my rights when they came for me", to paraphrase. The whole idea is that these media clowns only care about rights when they use them, so I'm not exactly going to cry when it's their turn to take the medicine.

I understand that, but for those who choose to champion freedom we have no choice but to stand up for this guy should it be necessary. It's the burden of the higher road.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I understand that, but for those who choose to champion freedom we have no choice but to stand up for this guy should it be necessary. It's the burden of the higher road.

Fair enough, they are complaining because they can't "expose to embarass" gun owners anymore, but the reason this actually works IMO is because it specifically targets an endangering behavior that their industry already engaged in for political purposes, I would love to say "no, they have a right to publish that information" but considering they've already abused it then **** 'em on this one.

 

[Ikari]

Fair enough, they are complaining because they can't "expose to embarass" gun owners anymore, but the reason this actually works IMO is because it specifically targets an endangering behavior that their industry already engaged in for political purposes, I would love to say "no, they have a right to publish that information" but considering they've already abused it then **** 'em on this one.

In this case, there is legitimate argument for restricting the publishing of these, though most of these are public record (I have similar opinions on pretty much all government lists). But if the dude was ever in need, or his rights were being infringed upon, we couldn't sit back and say "serves you right!"; we'd have to intercede to stop it. Rights are rights and must be protected to their fullest.

 

[LaMidRighter]

In this case, there is legitimate argument for restricting the publishing of these, though most of these are public record (I have similar opinions on pretty much all government lists). But if the dude was ever in need, or his rights were being infringed upon, we couldn't sit back and say "serves you right!"; we'd have to intercede to stop it. Rights are rights and must be protected to their fullest.

You are right of course, but honestly I've gotten to the point that I almost want the statists to get their way in a manner they don't like and let them drown in it, maybe then they'll start to see the truth behind what they've been warned against.