zappasguitar
Well-known member
Riiiiight...it's just that whenever anyone mentions any kind of regulation whatsoever, no matter how innocuous, it's immediately shot down with fear-mongering, fearful wails of "confiscating every gun" in the country.
Another Day-Another child falls thanks to gun nuts selfish refusal to compromise.
- Thread starter zappasguitar
- Start date
Riiiiight...it's just that whenever anyone mentions any kind of regulation whatsoever, no matter how innocuous, it's immediately shot down with fear-mongering, fearful wails of "confiscating every gun" in the country.
maineman
Banned
his is not simply talking about training. His statement was: "I am by no means advocating MANDATORY anything"
NOTHING about gun ownership should be mandatory. NOTHING. That is his stated position.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
We have asked you many times on this thread what regulation you think could exist to prevent this from happening. You run away from answering it every single time. Because you know we are right. If you thought otherwise, you would produce the regulation that will end parental irresponsibility with guns.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Why, because you don't have enough excuses to belittle and demean me already?
No, I don't think so...you have never even attempted honest discussion with me, you've laughed, belittled and taunted me whenever I have tried in the past and I'm not opening myself up to more ridicule by attempting honest discussion again.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Hey, you guys have shown you think you've got all the answers already...you tell me.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That is what I thought. You have nothing. Not one single idea that could have prevented this. You are the only one of the two of us to lack honesty in this discussion.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
there is none, that is the point. You can't regulate irresponsibility. No matter what law you come up with, an irresponsible parent is still going to be a threat to the kid. No gun law would have prevented this. The idiots left loaded weapons in reach of kids. No background check will prevent that. No gun lock is going to prevent it.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
And there you have it...proof SF believes he's got all the answers.
In truth, a gun lock with a biometric thumb print on the gun would have prevented it...but you know it all already.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LOL... so the irresponsible parent was going to turn responsible and put a gun lock on the gun?
Putting the gun out of reach would also have solved the problem. The point is, you can't regulate away stupidity. They left a loaded weapon in reach of the kid. Completely irresponsible, yet you somehow think that a law mandating a gun lock would have made that person responsible.
There are a 100 different things that parent COULD have done to prevent this, but all of them require the parent to be responsible. Something they have proven not to be.
Steelplate
New member
No...you can't regulate away stupidity...but you can hold them accountable for it. You can try to minimize it by educating the idiots...and you mort certainly can minimize people who shouldn't have guns getting them as easily as they do now.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that is absolute nonsense. the constitution forbids states from having their own armies. the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the military or national guard. it's a right of we the people. your milita act does not affect the 2nd Amendment in any way.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
learn history, fool. regulated also meant trained and functional.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Thank you for proving once again there is no regulation you are willing to discuss with any civility.
What was I thinking? I forgot you can see into the future and therefore already know the outcomes of any and all attempts at regulating firearms...so I apologize for wasting your time.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
maineman
Banned
But, somehow, it DIDN'T mean regulated???
zappasguitar
Well-known member
That's why they used the word "regulated"...because they didn't mean regulated at all...they MEANT "trained".
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
There are laws that hold them accountable.
As for the minimizing people who 'shouldn't have them'... that is great... we have been asking the liberals on this and many other threads to provide an example of how you would do so that would prevent these irresponsible people from getting them.
They go on and on about needing to, but have yet to provide an example of HOW. That is the point of frustration that we are having with them.
cawacko
Well-known member
Interesting that you feel someone who knows this information and knows criminals know this information and might want to arm himself is a 'gun nut'.
Report: Why Oakland barely investigates burglaries
Oakland police assigned only one part-time investigator to handle 10,000 reported burglaries last year, a stunning deficiency discovered by police consultants who were hired by the city to find solutions to the crime problem...
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Report-Why-Oakland-barely-investigates-burglaries-4503461.php
There is nothing about "joining" a militia. A basic translation into today's English of the 2nd Amendment would sound something like this:
Because we may find it necessary to call up and train a militia of citizens, the citizens' right to own and bear arms shall not be compromised.
Actually ignoring that they had recently fought a war against their own government which had turned to tyranny seems to be a regular infantile fantasy of the "left"... The idea that you should want to ban guns because you chose a blue jersey over red is just idiocy. Stop falling for everything people say and start thinking. That goes double for my side, stop promoting nonsense because it is a platform plank...
Nobody believes in every plank of a platform, why somebody who swore to uphold the constitution would promote this inane "only if you are in a militia" crap is beyond me. Your oath did not have an expiration date.