quote:

Did you miss the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness part?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LOL i read bobby jindal say the father of the oregon shooter has no right to lecture on gun laws,
Weird but I thought all americans had rights to free speech
He has every right.
They know their rights, they howl them, but dont care about anyone elses.

Hmmm...One person says that, we all say it?

Then that means all liberals stand behind these statements?

“You know what I heard… that it’s not black on black crime that’s killing kids in Chicago, it’s actually cops shooting those kids.” (Chicago liberal Dem, Monique Davis)

"Single men often need maternity care" (Health and Human Services Chief and liberal Dem, Kathleen Sebelius)

Now then, it could be that Jindal thinks the father of a MURDERER ...who when finally approached by people armed like he was, turned coward and offed himself...and who had little contact with his don, should maybe keep his mouth shut. It could be that Jindal is an idiot. If the latter, he's in good company:

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.” (New York Mayor and liberal buttinski, Michael Bloomberg)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh we are talking about single deaths now???
Its amazing what you can achieve with a broken beer bottle and a broom handle...inside a vagina.
Ban broom handles and beer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh we are talking about single deaths now???
Its amazing what you can achieve with a broken beer bottle and a broom handle...inside a vagina.
Ban broom handles and beer?

did you read the op? From what I can tell Joe is describing one man killing another with a gun and then asks the question "had Mr. Jones not had a firearm, could he have inflicted as much damage?"

and you are right both those things could also be fatal. So I guess that means you agree that had Mr Jones not had a gun her could have inflicted just as much damage with something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh we are talking about single deaths now???
Its amazing what you can achieve with a broken beer bottle and a broom handle...inside a vagina.
Ban broom handles and beer?

did you read the op? From what I can tell Joe is describing one man killing another with a gun and then asks the question "had Mr. Jones not had a firearm, could he have inflicted as much damage?"

and you are right both those things could also be fatal. So I guess that means you agree that had Mr Jones not had a gun her could have inflicted just as much damage with something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They don't want to call anything a ban.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
But they want to ban entire classes of firearms like guns that resemble assault rifles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They want to tax firearms and ammunition to the point where most people can't afford them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They want people to prove they will never do anything wrong with them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They want to put so many restrictions on ownership that practically noone can own one. Then they can say see 6 people still own guns so we didn't ban them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The only way for a pro 2nd person to gain your trust is to ignore everything the writters of the 2nd wrote about it and declare it to be not a right, but a privilage for those people the government "trusts" to have weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
People like you who say that we should let the government do our thinking for us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
That's the Declaration of Independence.

quote:

One could argue that not being killed is one of the "certain rights" mentioned in the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

quote:

It's a stretch, but one could say that the Fourteenth Amendment's promise of "equal protection of the laws" would include laws (usually at the state level, I think) against murder.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

oh we are talking about single deaths now???
Its amazing what you can achieve with a broken beer bottle and a broom handle...inside a vagina.
Ban broom handles and beer?

did you read the op? From what I can tell Joe is describing one man killing another with a gun and then asks the question "had Mr. Jones not had a firearm, could he have inflicted as much damage?"

and you are right both those things could also be fatal. So I guess that means you agree that had Mr Jones not had a gun her could have inflicted just as much damage with something else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
That's the problem with these threads, dc. People want to bluster about how "it doesn't have to be a mass shooting," yet NONE of the anti gun crowd want to talk about the number of folks that get buried EVERY WEEK because former partners extinguished life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
Did you miss the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness part?

quote:

You have the opportunity for a unique perspective on these discussions, peon. Your father was a policeman for how many years? Thirty-five?

I know you've mentioned several times that he hates guns. I don't blame him, really. Have you ever asked him how many calls he went on where the victim could still be alive today if they had the means to protect themselves? I know you've mentioned several times that he hates guns. I don't blame him, really. Have you ever asked him how many calls he went on where the victim could still be alive today if they had the means to protect themselves?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They don't want to call anything a ban.


No, I think banning superPACs from giving politicians heaps of shadow money that come from unknown sources to be a bad thing for the nation. There you go again with that limited thinking process. Are you incapable of considering things? Because if we were to do things your way as it concerns firearms; they would all be ban. Yet, that is not the case in the nation. Many people want better rules concerning firearms. But if you cant handle that conversation like an intelligent, educated, adult, we'll just ban them.....

I would think you would be on board with better firearm laws. Keep firearms from falling into the wrong hands. Allowing Americans to have firearms provided they do not break the trust the nation has given them. That we keep firearms from individuals whom, not criminal by nature, could be a threat to themselves or others. Its really sort of sad that you can not handle this sort of conversation BamaD.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
But they want to ban entire classes of firearms like guns that resemble assault rifles.

Looking like and assault rifle, and being an assault rifle are two different things. I could take a .22 rifle. Strip the wood finishing of the barrel and stock. Place a rubber handle/mental pistol handle, bar stock, as sleek metal barrel with forearm grip, a holographic sight (or red dot), a bipod and maybe a flash suppressor (not that it needs it). Yeah, that would look menacing to the uneducated on firearms. An then there is an AK-47 that in its simplistic design, looks like something made for a soldier of war.

They want to ban guns that have the potential to unleash a HUGE amount of destruction in a very short time frame.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They want to tax firearms and ammunition to the point where most people can't afford them.

You can afford them. If you want the gun, you'll find a way to afford it. Can you buy a brand new car that costs $40,000? Yes. Can you buy one each month? No. Most people could not afford two in a year. By raising the price of firearms from current levels to a new artificial level does two things:

1 ) Raises money that could handle several different things (maybe free firearm safety courses? A federal voucher to lower costs of installing a gun locker in the house, etc.)
2 ) Forces the black market for firearms to rise. That criminal wants a gun, it'll cost him pretty heavily.

What does it do? You have your firearm, and its a good investment. The criminal, whom cant afford that gun has to break into your house with a club or knife. How good is a knife against someone armed with a shotgun?

Raising the cost on bullets would do two things:

1 ) By at the higher rate, or learn to make your own. Very helpful in the zombie apocalypse!
2 ) Forces you to AIM better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They want people to prove they will never do anything wrong with them.

How did this thread start, BamaD? Go read it. The person mention would never have killed someone with a gun. Yet he did! People in this nation are TIRED of hearing more gun violence on a daily basis. The 'clock' has already started for the next mass shooting to take place. That when it happens, we are not as horrified; meaning we have lost an unhealthy portion of our humanity. The arguments used by the right and the NRA are lame at best and insulting at worst. More and more people are siding with liberals after each such mass shooting. Do you want firearms to be ban? Because that's the current path this nation is on.

Or rather have firearms, with good laws that restore people's trust in each other (while making it hard for them to be misused)? Your fighting me on this idea, even though it BENEFITS you!!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They want to put so many restrictions on ownership that practically noone can own one. Then they can say see 6 people still own guns so we didn't ban them.

Funny that you mention six and banning guns. That's the exact number of owners that have an M134's civilian version before it was ban. The weapon appeared in Terminator 2. Weird trivia knowledge....

Did you ever stop and consider WHY these people are pushing this stuff? They do not trust YOU! You dont trust them. In fact, your political philosophy started the whole 'distrust everyone including the government'. Well, seems it has worked. Unfortunately, you thought you could distrust everyone but they had to give you unconditional trust. Sorry, but trust is a two way street. You want guns, you prove to me, why you should. You say its a right, I call bullshit. That's why those laws are being created. Because many Americans do not trust you with a firearm. You don't give them any reason to! When you behave threatening, intimidating, reckless or even as a child; there are many less individuals that will trust you with a firearm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The only way for a pro 2nd person to gain your trust is to ignore everything the writters of the 2nd wrote about it and declare it to be not a right, but a privilage for those people the government "trusts" to have weapons.

Are you part of "A well regulated militia..."? No? Then the 2nd amendment doesn't apply here! You can't just pick and choose which parts of the law your going to follow. Our society would break down into savages in less that two hours! Nope, you can not ignore those parts of the law that are politically inconvenient to you, BamaD. Because it states right in the amendment WHO protects the free state.

You want to gain my trust? Or keep fucking around? Gaining/restoring the trust of your fellow Americans allows you to have firearms. Fucking with us, will get firearms ban. Why do you think I'm in favor of better firearm laws rather than banning them? I would like to trust fellow Americans with private firearm ownership. But when met with huge resistance all the while mass shootings are taking place in the nation; it makes it seriously hard, objectively speaking, to take you seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
People like you who say that we should let the government do our thinking for us.

No, I saw 'We the People' should do our own thinking. Most of this nation's population never read the ACA or the Iran Treaty. There is a sizable amount of people against both. Why? Because they let a government organizations do their thinking for them. A corporation, is a form of government. A sole proprietor is the nice way of saying 'dictatorship'. Just because they are not directly part of the US Government, does not mean they are not a government onto themselves. Many of you have come onto these very boards with bullshit about the ACA that I KNEW you got from one of these 'governments' (i.e. FOX 'news'). Minus the political view, I would explain the nature of the law, because I read it (and therefore knew were to look up the information).

When the people of this nation are told what to think, rather than having develop the skills to think for themselves, and understand 'fact' from 'opinion'; its easier for bad government to take over good government. Right now, the GOP/TP in Congress have accomplished NOTHING in 10 months beyond a budget. But you dont really know that, because your 'government' tells you to think on something else. What was going on in the media when President Obama had his speech about 'Our routine views on firearm shootings'?

A ) Most of the non-conservative media was tuned in to the President.
B ) Conservative media was talking about the 1% popularity candidates for the GOP nomination.

For a philosophy that states its against a media giving them bullshit, you enjoy being fed bullshit 24/7/365. That you do not realize that conservative media is simply behaving like the Ministry of Truth from the book "1984".

You have to develop skills that can determine when to trust the government and when not to. You have not developed those skills evidently. Its one thing to have some distrust towards government. But you and many other conservatives have gone off the deep end of distrust. Your well past 'healthy distrust' and far beyond 'total paranoia'. The problem here is neither me nor the government, but you. Your voting in people that screw around with government!

So you do favor bans, you just pretend they don't count because they don't ban all firearms.
No they don't want to ban assualt weapons, they want to ban semi automatics that resemble weapons.
And no I can't afford a $40,000 car.
On top of that the only reason for your tax to jack up the price is to make it more difficult to buy them.
Your contention that this does not create a hardship for the less affluent of us is pure hypocracy.
It is an attempt at greatly restricting ownership and making it so, perhaps not only the rich, but only the upper classes, the self chosen elite can have them.
I would have never expected you to limits rights to the wealthy while denying them to the poor.
If you can't see this it only shows how disconnected you are.

I am on board for better firearms laws, but you haven't suggested one yet.
Don't you agree that the first thing that needs to be done is to make the NICS database work? Right now it is a mess. I understand that the Oregon shooter tried to commit suicide and was thrown out of the service with no better than a less than honorable discharge, if the database was working that would have stopped him from getting a gun.
Right you never said you should let the govenment do your thinking for you, you said conservatives and libertarians should let the govenrment do their thinking for them because we are all such low information types.
Fucking with you will not get firearms banned it will protect our rights and yours.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 10/12/2015 1:28:00 PM >

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The database is working as it was designed with strictures of law, it is not messed up other than by the intention of the NRA lobbied law.

You dont have to have an honorable discharge to own guns, in fact, the law is silent on that, so a dishonorable discharge would be good to go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Yep ... as others have stated: the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The first of the three terms .... It was taken as universally accepted, before the Constitution came into being, I suppose - but I do wonder frequently if it should have been spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. Impossible to prove, of course, but I just have this feeling that the taking of a life - by anyone, good guy or bad guy - might have become just that bit less easy to do.

quote:

I suspect he wouldn't know how to answer that - it's too large a question, and would demand that he think about a vast range of different contexts. However, I do think that he'd say something like 'with the widespread existence of guns, so many of the situations would have been deadly rather than just nasty'. In a society in which the good guys have guns, so do the bad guys. To add to that, this was his reason for not wanting to arm the police here: because he felt that as soon as the police got armed, so would many more thugs. You cannot have a situation where there's a big influx of guns and where they *only* stay in the hands of the good guys, he felt.

It wasn't entirely just an opinion on his part: in Northern Ireland, back during the times of sectarian violence, the forces of law and order (such as they were) were armed, much more ordinarily than the mainland police at the time. All sorts of weapons found their way into the hands of loyalist terrorists (or 'paramilitaries' - pick your term) that were seen to be 'on the side of' those forces of law and order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

oh, yeah have you been released under dishonorable, thats right, it does ask that. It would be doubtful that the dishonorable is available to NICS, so if you marked no, same as mental health things, you have a good chance of getting by that.

There are many questions, and other things on that form that cannot be asked, or found to be true by NICS and will only be seen 20 years after the fact.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/background-checks-nics-guns-dylann-roof-charleston-church-shooting/

This tells a little, think those states that did not expand medicare, or were on about Jade Helm, and the 4th of July, there is no cooperation required. So, much slips thru the crack.

And that thing they call bureaucratic about the 3 days, nope.......Brady Law. Not just a good idea, its the law. Inconvenient to a gun buyer, and many call that an abridgement already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Yep ... as others have stated: the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The first of the three terms .... It was taken as universally accepted, before the Constitution came into being, I suppose - but I do wonder frequently if it should have been spelled out explicitly in the Constitution. Impossible to prove, of course, but I just have this feeling that the taking of a life - by anyone, good guy or bad guy - might have become just that bit less easy to do.

Admission of mistake already done.

Your laws? Our laws? Don't y'all have anything over there about self defense/self preservation? If only one of you gets to walk away, don't you want it to be you?

quote:

I suspect he wouldn't know how to answer that - it's too large a question, and would demand that he think about a vast range of different contexts. However, I do think that he'd say something like 'with the widespread existence of guns, so many of the situations would have been deadly rather than just nasty'. In a society in which the good guys have guns, so do the bad guys. To add to that, this was his reason for not wanting to arm the police here: because he felt that as soon as the police got armed, so would many more thugs. You cannot have a situation where there's a big influx of guns and where they *only* stay in the hands of the good guys, he felt.

It wasn't entirely just an opinion on his part: in Northern Ireland, back during the times of sectarian violence, the forces of law and order (such as they were) were armed, much more ordinarily than the mainland police at the time. All sorts of weapons found their way into the hands of loyalist terrorists (or 'paramilitaries' - pick your term) that were seen to be 'on the side of' those forces of law and order.

It is a large question. In fairness, I really wouldn't want you to ask him the question. I'll bet over thirty-five years, the man doesn't want to recall certain things he's seen.

Mass shootings garner a lot of attention. It's sensationalized journalism. It sells papers and gets folks to boost the Nielsen ratings by watching the news. There are three former partners killings a week in the US. Some anti-gun folks don't want to be bothered with that.