Gun Control

[Woodruff]

Yes, and that reason is that you are a coward.

I do not read your posts. You are Foed for a reason.

Your willingness to change my quotes that you're not reading really doesn't make you less of a chickenshit.

[Night Strike]

We never said that.

But just because it's an Amendment does not make it Holy. You can't appeal to the Constitution as your excuse for why something should or shouldn't be legal. Remember, slavery was legal under the Constitution and the Confederacy made appeals to the Constitution for why it should remain legal. It's protection under the Constitution was part of the majority argument in the Dredd-Scott decision.

The Amendments should stand or fall on their own merits. Maybe it had some strong merits when it was written, but that's not to say the benefits are the same today. Guns are different, the wars are over, citizens do not belong to militias anymore, violence is different, and our cities have changed. We can't look at modern gun control prohibitions through the eyes of a 17th century dandy.

If you don't believe the 2nd amendment should exist, then why aren't you supporting repealing it through the proper protocol? Why do you want to just pass laws and regulations until people are practically banned from exercising that right? We have a process for properly amending the Constitution; Congressional laws and administration regulations is not the proper process.

Therefore, the other 309,999,988 people cannot defend themselves?

Are guns used for defense? Well yeah, but only 2.2% of the time a gun takes a life. The logic doesn't hold fast.
"We need more guns to protect ourselves from all the people who have guns"
You take gun rights away from criminals to protect yourself, but then you do nothing to stop them from acquiring guns through a medium. You're creating the violence.

Why does the gun have to be used to kill somebody to count as using it in self defense? Most criminals are cowards. If their victims fight back, they'll run away to find someone easier to victimize. The easiest way for people of all shapes, sizes, and strengths to defend themselves against anyone is with a gun, so why do you want to get rid of the easiest method of self defense? Just showing the gun is often enough to get the cowardly criminal to back away.

Take the shooting in the Oregon mall a few months ago. Only 2 people died because someone used a gun to confront the shooter. The defender never had to actually fire his gun, yet the shooting spree was stopped because of the confrontation. Does that not count as legitimate self defense to you since the defender didn't shoot the assailant?

Your 2.2% stat is irrelevant to whether or not a gun can be used as self defense because firing it has never been a condition of successful self defense.

[Juan_Bottom]

JB you've sunk to an all time low

I could just as easily post a bunch of pictures of disarmed Jews, disarmed African American slaves, disarmed Native Americans, who all met a similar fate to each person you are exploiting with that picture. Except there is one difference, and it's all the difference in the world.

The people you are exploiting are accidents. The people who have died after being disarmed was systemically implemented, and numbers in the hundreds of millions.

Context JB. In your lifetime, get some

Remember who you're talking to. My grandfather was a Norwegian partisan, who's entire family died in Norway. He fought with the Norwegians, the English, and the Americans. My grandmother was a Chippewa, who's brother was killed by the KKK for refusing to give up a white prisoner. That happened in the 1960s.

With the exception of the Jews living in Germany, and the territories annexed by the Nazis, all of those people were militarily defeated and disarmed. Yet it's probably also important to mention that the German-Jews living in Germany and Austria who were decorated in WWI were never sent to concentration camps. All the rest were defeated in battles or had no hope of victory and surrendered. That means they all had guns to start with.

Now, maybe we should contemplate the Africans who were born in America who did not have access to guns. Their slavers had guns.... guns were used to take away their rights, and using guns didn't get them back those rights. The Civil Rights movement was a peaceful movement.


Those shooting victims above are not accidents. You're blocking background checks, and rational gun control legislation. That's how kids die. You do that. All this bullshit you spew about protecting rights, what about protecting our kids? There's never ever been an American tyrant, because our government isn't conducive to one. And only 2.2% of shootings across the entire country are justified. Meanwhile more American civi's have been killed by guns than all American soldiers killed in every American war combined.
Mass shootings are on the rise. And all these armed American Civilians have done nothing to stop them. But you're doing something to enable them.

[Night Strike]

Those shooting victims above are not accidents.

They're killed because of the actions of criminals. Why do you want to treat the entire population as criminals and deny our Constitutional rights? Why do you let the criminals dictate the freedom's for everyone else?

All this bullshit you spew about protecting rights, what about protecting our kids?

Why do you care so passionately about protecting kids yet just as passionately protect killing them before they're born? If gun control is about saving just one kid's life, even though very few guns actually kill kids, why aren't you actively promoting abortion control since every abortion kills a kid?

[Juan_Bottom]

If you don't believe the 2nd amendment should exist, then why aren't you supporting repealing it through the proper protocol? Why do you want to just pass laws and regulations until people are practically banned from exercising that right? We have a process for properly amending the Constitution; Congressional laws and administration regulations is not the proper process.

I'm not saying that it shouldn't exist. Each state should be allowed to keep it's own armories for it's Militia (National Guard). That's what I consider an important and logical state-right.
I also believe that individuals should be allowed to own guns, but not that every individual should be allowed to own any gun.

And the Constitution does allow the Executive to regulate which guns the individual can keep. Most recently, this was upheld when Reagan was president and attempted to pass gun control laws. So we don't need to change the Amendments to get sensible gun control.

Why does the gun have to be used to kill somebody to count as using it in self defense? Most criminals are cowards. If their victims fight back, they'll run away to find someone easier to victimize. The easiest way for people of all shapes, sizes, and strengths to defend themselves against anyone is with a gun, so why do you want to get rid of the easiest method of self defense? Just showing the gun is often enough to get the cowardly criminal to back away.

Take the shooting in the Oregon mall a few months ago. Only 2 people died because someone used a gun to confront the shooter. The defender never had to actually fire his gun, yet the shooting spree was stopped because of the confrontation. Does that not count as legitimate self defense to you since the defender didn't shoot the assailant?

Your 2.2% stat is irrelevant to whether or not a gun can be used as self defense because firing it has never been a condition of successful self defense.

Sensible gun control and background checks could prevent criminals from ever getting a gun.
The Calackamas Mall shooter wasn't stopped by a civilian with a concealed gun. He ran out of targets and committed suicide with his AR-15. I can only imagine that a shoot-out in a mall would have made things worse.
If that stolen AR had insurance, the victims would all have received insurance payments to help rebuild their lives. That's sensible.

What are the stats for people who defend themselves with guns but don't fire a shot? If criminals are cowardly, and naturally they should be, then wouldn't a phone do the same trick as a gun? And wouldn't a hunting rifle be just as good as a handgun or AR-15?

[Woodruff]

Why does the gun have to be used to kill somebody to count as using it in self defense? Most criminals are cowards. If their victims fight back, they'll run away to find someone easier to victimize. The easiest way for people of all shapes, sizes, and strengths to defend themselves against anyone is with a gun, so why do you want to get rid of the easiest method of self defense?

The easiest way for people to defend themselves is actually to simply be more aware of their surroundings. Most people who are victimized by crime outside of their own homes are victimized because they're not paying attention as well as they should be, for whatever reason.

Note that I'm not at all excusing the criminal or blaming the victim. It's simply reality that awareness of surroundings is very important to your personal safety, and most people are exceptionally lazy about it.

[Woodruff]

Those shooting victims above are not accidents. You're blocking background checks, and rational gun control legislation. That's how kids die. You do that.

Gun control laws aren't going to stop accidents, which many of those were. Accidents are accidents because they're...accidental.

I agree with reasonable gun control ideas, and certainly with background checks for any purchase. But your statements don't really tie that together.

[Juan_Bottom]

Oh ya, maybe.
I thought he was talking only about that picture he removed from my quote.

[Woodruff]

Sensible gun control and background checks could prevent criminals from ever getting a gun.

That's a pretty big "could". I agree with reasonable gun control and background checks because they will make it more difficult for many criminals to get their hands on a gun, and I consider that a worthy goal. But a determined criminal will still be able to get a gun via illegal means, despite reasonable gun control laws and background checks.

What are the stats for people who defend themselves with guns but don't fire a shot? If criminals are cowardly, and naturally they should be, then wouldn't a phone do the same trick as a gun?

Um...what? I don't understand your point here.

And wouldn't a hunting rifle be just as good as a handgun or AR-15?

If they're carrying it, I suppose. But it would be much more difficult for someone to carry, thus they would be less likely to do so.

[Phatscotty]

It's all just talk at this point. You gun controllers got your straight up vote, and you lost. You couldn't pass a single thing, not even in a Democrat controlled Congress, not even close.

Now stfu and let Freedom ring

[Woodruff]

It's all just talk at this point. You gun controllers got your straight up vote, and you lost. You couldn't pass a single thing, not even in a Democrat controlled Congress, not even close. Now stfu and let Freedom ring

Obamacare, motherfucker.

[Night Strike]

Why does the gun have to be used to kill somebody to count as using it in self defense? Most criminals are cowards. If their victims fight back, they'll run away to find someone easier to victimize. The easiest way for people of all shapes, sizes, and strengths to defend themselves against anyone is with a gun, so why do you want to get rid of the easiest method of self defense?

The easiest way for people to defend themselves is actually to simply be more aware of their surroundings. Most people who are victimized by crime outside of their own homes are victimized because they're not paying attention as well as they should be, for whatever reason.

Note that I'm not at all excusing the criminal or blaming the victim. It's simply reality that awareness of surroundings is very important to your personal safety, and most people are exceptionally lazy about it.

How is a woman being aware of a man twice her size nearby her actually make her any safer if he chooses to attack her? Awareness is a state of being; a carried gun is a tool to respond to the things a person is aware of if necessary.

The Calackamas Mall shooter wasn't stopped by a civilian with a concealed gun. He ran out of targets and committed suicide with his AR-15. I can only imagine that a shoot-out in a mall would have made things worse. If that stolen AR had insurance, the victims would all have received insurance payments to help rebuild their lives. That's sensible.

Insurance doesn't pay out for criminal activities. And why would the person who stole the gun have insurance anyway? And why do you want to blame the owner of the gun for the crimes instead of the actual criminal? Why should the owner of the gun be punished with paying for insurance when he's not the one committing the crime?

And the person ran out of targets because someone else confronted him with a gun while others were getting away.

What are the stats for people who defend themselves with guns but don't fire a shot? If criminals are cowardly, and naturally they should be, then wouldn't a phone do the same trick as a gun? And wouldn't a hunting rifle be just as good as a handgun or AR-15?

I didn't know a rifle could be concealed to be used in public. And how does a phone provided physical protection?

[Nobunaga]

... And how does a phone provide physical protection?

You can smack someone in the head with it!! The older, heavier phones are better for this.

[Woodruff]

Why does the gun have to be used to kill somebody to count as using it in self defense? Most criminals are cowards. If their victims fight back, they'll run away to find someone easier to victimize. The easiest way for people of all shapes, sizes, and strengths to defend themselves against anyone is with a gun, so why do you want to get rid of the easiest method of self defense?

The easiest way for people to defend themselves is actually to simply be more aware of their surroundings. Most people who are victimized by crime outside of their own homes are victimized because they're not paying attention as well as they should be, for whatever reason.

Note that I'm not at all excusing the criminal or blaming the victim. It's simply reality that awareness of surroundings is very important to your personal safety, and most people are exceptionally lazy about it.

How is a woman being aware of a man twice her size nearby her actually make her any safer if he chooses to attack her? Awareness is a state of being; a carried gun is a tool to respond to the things a person is aware of if necessary.

You don't seem to understand what situational awareness is, which I find surprising. If that man twice her size managed to get that close to her, then she probably wasn't exercising it or acting on it. She may have been, of course...obviously, these things aren't always easily avoidable. Situational awareness, however, is about avoiding putting yourself into those situations.

The Calackamas Mall shooter wasn't stopped by a civilian with a concealed gun. He ran out of targets and committed suicide with his AR-15. I can only imagine that a shoot-out in a mall would have made things worse. If that stolen AR had insurance, the victims would all have received insurance payments to help rebuild their lives. That's sensible.

Insurance doesn't pay out for criminal activities.

My homeowners insurance does. Is there a reason why weapon insurance couldn't?

And why would the person who stole the gun have insurance anyway? And why do you want to blame the owner of the gun for the crimes instead of the actual criminal? Why should the owner of the gun be punished with paying for insurance when he's not the one committing the crime?

I tend to agree with Night Strike on this one. That being said, if a car is stolen, isn't it the car owner's insurance who usually ends up paying for things? (Actual question, since I don't, not having had my car stolen.)

What are the stats for people who defend themselves with guns but don't fire a shot? If criminals are cowardly, and naturally they should be, then wouldn't a phone do the same trick as a gun? And wouldn't a hunting rifle be just as good as a handgun or AR-15?

I didn't know a rifle could be concealed to be used in public. And how does a phone provided physical protection?

It can, bit it sure isn't as easy.

[AndyDufresne]

It's all just talk at this point. You gun controllers got your straight up vote, and you lost. You couldn't pass a single thing, not even in a Democrat controlled Congress, not even close.

Now stfu and let Freedom ring

--Andy

[Evil Semp]

It's all just talk at this point. You gun controllers got your straight up vote, and you lost. You couldn't pass a single thing, not even in a Democrat controlled Congress, not even close.

Now stfu and let Freedom ring

So the gun controllers lost the vote so now they can't express their opinion? Let freedom ring only for those who agree with you?

[notyou2]

It's all just talk at this point. You gun controllers got your straight up vote, and you lost. You couldn't pass a single thing, not even in a Democrat controlled Congress, not even close.

Now stfu and let Freedom ring

So the gun controllers lost the vote so now they can't express their opinion? Let freedom ring only for those who agree with you?

That's the Phatty way. Now stfu and go away.

[Night Strike]

I guess if the government can force you to buy insurance simply for breathing, they could grant themselves the authority to force you to buy insurance to exercise a Constitutional right.

[Woodruff]

I guess if the government can force you to buy insurance simply for breathing, they could grant themselves the authority to force you to buy insurance to exercise a Constitutional right.

Much like owning a car, it is still a choice as to whether one owns a gun or not.

I recognize that there's a difference as it is considered a Constitutional right to own a gun, but the choice is still there.

[Phatscotty]

It's all just talk at this point. You gun controllers got your straight up vote, and you lost. You couldn't pass a single thing, not even in a Democrat controlled Congress, not even close.

Now stfu and let Freedom ring

So the gun controllers lost the vote so now they can't express their opinion? Let freedom ring only for those who agree with you?

Winners get the win, and the losers have to lose.

If you want to keep making the losing argument, yes, you have the freedom to let it ring. But it's a loss.

Gay marriage just passed in Minnesota. As for myself I'm giving it a rest and we're gonna live and let live. My people voted on it and it passed and I don't have any problems with the process. I'm proud of the way we handled it. Should I keep going on and on and on about it???? Or do you think, if I did keep going on and on and on about it, that it would be called for for the same-sexers to tell me to STFU?

xactly

[Night Strike]

I guess if the government can force you to buy insurance simply for breathing, they could grant themselves the authority to force you to buy insurance to exercise a Constitutional right.

Much like owning a car, it is still a choice as to whether one owns a gun or not.

I recognize that there's a difference as it is considered a Constitutional right to own a gun, but the choice is still there.

So why do you support massive government-imposed costs to exercising one right, yet you oppose a very small cost to get an ID to vote? It doesn't make sense to me.

[Woodruff]

I guess if the government can force you to buy insurance simply for breathing, they could grant themselves the authority to force you to buy insurance to exercise a Constitutional right.

Much like owning a car, it is still a choice as to whether one owns a gun or not.

I recognize that there's a difference as it is considered a Constitutional right to own a gun, but the choice is still there.

So why do you support massive government-imposed costs to exercising one right, yet you oppose a very small cost to get an ID to vote? It doesn't make sense to me.

You don't seem to understand my position. Take a look again and see if you still think I'm saying that I agree that gun owners should be required to buy insurance. Seriously dude, it's pretty easy reading.

EDIT: In fact, looking back over the thread, I just a few posts ago stated that I agreed with you regarding insurance. Jesus.

[Woodruff]

I realize this doesn't apply throughout the U.S., because every area is going to have their own rules. However, at the very least, North Carolina needs to seriously reconsider the idea that a gun permit can substitute for a background check OR there needs to be some sort of a cross-check system in place when someone is convicted of a felony:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/05/12/4036604/dozens-of-felons-hold-gun-permits.html

[thegreekdog]

You have seen which way the ball is rolling. We are winning, and now we are going to seal the deal.

According to Slate’s gun-death tracker, an estimated 3,803 people have died as a result of gun violence in America since the Newtown massacre on December 14, 2012.

Manassas Woman Sentenced To 18 Months For Illegally Buying And Selling More Than 31 Handguns In 15 Days
(no background checks allowed her to legally purchase guns for criminals)

Six-year-old girl shot by 13-year-old brother, listed in critical condition

Babies Killing Babies: Two More Shootings Involving Children, Three-Year-Old Dead.

Four-year-old shot in Tuckahoe, family speaks

Kentucky Shooting: Boy, 5, Shoots And Kills 2-Year-Old Sister, Police Say

Cincinnati School Shooting: La Salle High School Student Shoots Self Inside Classroom, Authorities Say

Mother Describes Day Her Daughter was Killed with Her Own Gun

Gun Violence And 1 Teenager's Death: 48 Shots Documented In Crime Scene Photos (GRAPHIC)

Boy, 12, Shot In Face With Gun By 11-Year-Old In Camden

Further background and context necessary:

Manassas Woman Sentenced To 18 Months For Illegally Buying And Selling More Than 31 Handguns In 15 Days
(no background checks allowed her to legally purchase guns for criminals)

I note that the article uses the term "illegally buying" and JB uses the term "legally purchase." I trust the ATF over JB, but I leave that up to youse.

Six-year-old girl shot by 13-year-old brother, listed in critical condition

http://aattp.org/babies-killing-babies-two-more-shootings-involving-children-three-year-old-dead/

Babies killing babies, brought to you by right wing gun-worshipers, the GOA, NRA, Congressional Republicans and Democrat enablers.

Oakland Park, Florida: Officials are talking to a 13-year-old boy who shot his 6-year-old sister on Saturday. The children were left home alone. It is unknown if the shooting was accidental or intentional.

http://www.nbc12.com/story/22095720/juvenile-shot-in-tuckahoe-believed-accidental

The child's father, Willie Alley, says he always keeps his gun locked away

Except this time apparently. So now you're going to jail Willie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/cincinnati-la-salle-school-shooting_n_3177836.html

Suicide.

Boy, 12, Shot In Face With Gun By 11-Year-Old In Camden

The Prosecutor’s Office says the 12-year-old’s 19-year-old brother was home at the time, but authorities do tell Eyewitness News for now they are still looking for him. New Jersey law does prohibit unsecured firearms from being within reach of minors.

I suspect the gun was owned illegally.

In any event, all of these stories dealt with the illegal use of guns (i.e. all of the adults were breaking the law). Further, and I apparently cannot emphasize this enough - THE LAWS BEING PROPOSED IN CONGRESS WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED ANY OF THESE... including the ones I did not provide further explanation for.

The only way that these types of incidents would stop is if all guns were made illegal and all guns were confiscated, including from police officers and military personnel.

[Evil Semp]

It's all just talk at this point. You gun controllers got your straight up vote, and you lost. You couldn't pass a single thing, not even in a Democrat controlled Congress, not even close.

Now stfu and let Freedom ring

So the gun controllers lost the vote so now they can't express their opinion? Let freedom ring only for those who agree with you?

Winners get the win, and the losers have to lose.

If you want to keep making the losing argument, yes, you have the freedom to let it ring. But it's a loss.

Gay marriage just passed in Minnesota. As for myself I'm giving it a rest and we're gonna live and let live. My people voted on it and it passed and I don't have any problems with the process. I'm proud of the way we handled it. Should I keep going on and on and on about it???? Or do you think, if I did keep going on and on and on about it, that it would be called for for the same-sexers to tell me to STFU?

xactly

So your record is 1-2. You win the gun control argument and lose the gay marriage and Obamacare.