Ex green beret shot dead by 4 yr old son

[Damocles]

Re other rights - we already restrict free speech rights. We aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater; we aren't allowed to threaten the life of the president or any other elected official; we aren't allowed to slander people; we have to get permits (usually) for rallies and parades. Heck, we put ratings on movies and don't let people in to see them if they aren't old enough; where's the free speech right for movie producers ? can't they show XXX to 4 year olds?

We also restrict gun rights, we make laws against owning them if you are a felon, etc. The argument isn't that everybody should have unfettered access, that is a childish straw man of its own.

SO YES we do restrict other rights.

So stop using that to try to divert the topic.

However, you do not restrict the right to travel between states due to "irresponsible" use of others. The point is, no other right do you use the childish argument that "because this guy over there drives drunk, we should get rid of all cars"... shoot you don't even need a background check to own one yet they kill exponentially more than guns on a per capita basis. Felons can drive one, even dudes who drive drunk can still use their cars, usually after a short period of denial.

Nor will we allow you to try to divert it to "nobody wants to take all guns" because that also isn't true. People on this board have made it clear that they would take every gun if they had their "druthers".

I will continue to point out the childish simplicity of this foolish argument, I will also continue to use other rights for which you would not abide the same argument made to point out the simple hypocrisy of the childish argument.

Imagine... the same childish argument used against the 4th: Some other guy used his apartment for a meth lab and it blew up killing others, so the police should be able to enter every home all the time!

 

[tekkychick]

However, you do not restrict the right to travel between states due to "irresponsible" use of others. The point is, no other right do you use the childish argument that "because this guy over there drives drunk, we should get rid of all cars"... shoot you don't even need a background check to own one, felons can drive one, even dudes who drive drunk can still use their cars, usually after a short period of denial.

Nor will we allow you to try to divert it to "nobody wants to take all guns" because that also isn't true. People on this board have made it clear that they would take every gun if they had their "druthers"...

Very major difference between cars and guns. Cars primary purpose is transportation. Guns primary purpose is to kill.

If it weren't for the 2nd amendment, I would probably call to ban them. They are a scourge upon our land. The number of people killed by them is abhorrent.

But since we can't ban them, I want things like the following:
> Uniform laws (similar to California's) across the nation - includes limit on number of guns purchased within a time period; limit on size of magazines; all sales go through background checks; etc.
> Background check system that is comprehensive, accurate and fast
> Funding for the CDC to study the causes of gun violence
> Massively funded PSAs to convince gun owners to store their guns safely. Education works.
> Technical advances to make it less likely that a gun will be fired when it shouldn't be -like when a 4 yr old picks it up - trigger locks, safeties that default to "on" and stay there if you haven't shot in X seconds (or whatever) (I'm sure the gun companies can be much more creative here)
> Laws with teeth in them to enforce responsible gun ownership - if you give a gun to someone else who uses it in a crime, you are in jail. If you leave a gun lying around and a kid picks it up and shoots someone, you are in jail. If you are cleaning the gun and shoot your 13 yr old sister, you are in jail. If you drop your gun in a theater and it goes off, you are in jail.

Those of you who are "responsible" gun owners can still have your guns. But hopefully we reduce the number of irresponsible ones or at least make it harder for them to kill people.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Once again all you've got to respond with is the same evasive, knee jerk response...typical.

And then of course no discussion with you is complete until you've once again fallen back on the same tired lie you've been falsely spreading around here for weeks...and you wonder why you can't have an "honest" discussion about guns?

why can't you answer the question then? why should cops get more leeway on mistakes when they've had extensive training to not make those mistakes?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Oh my lord you aren't really going to try and compare what an air traffic controller does with what the police go through, are you?

Seriously?

Yeah...staring at a tiny monitor and playing a video game is as terrifying as confronting a criminal in a dark alley...NOT!

Someone's got a SERIOUSLY overinflated sense of their self worth...LOL!

i'm thinking you have no clue at all how ATC works, do you? you do realize that even on that little screen, hundreds and hundreds of lives are literally in our hands and heads, right? and have you seen the air traffic around really busy airports? doubtful, or you wouldn't at all be spouting bullshit.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Re other rights - we already restrict free speech rights. We aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater; we aren't allowed to threaten the life of the president or any other elected official; we aren't allowed to slander people; we have to get permits (usually) for rallies and parades. Heck, we put ratings on movies and don't let people in to see them if they aren't old enough; where's the free speech right for movie producers ? can't they show XXX to 4 year olds?

SO YES we do restrict other rights.

So stop using that to try to divert the topic.

maybe you can show me WHERE in the constitutions of any state that has the footnote that says any statement that says the government shall not infringe or make no law means reasonable restrictions.

 

[Damocles]

Very major difference between cars and guns. Cars primary purpose is transportation. Guns primary purpose is to kill.

The main difference is that cars kill far more people even more efficiently than guns, regardless of their primary purpose.

If it weren't for the 2nd amendment, I would probably call to ban them. They are a scourge upon our land. The number of people killed by them is abhorrent.

Yet you find cars "not abhorrent" because you do not use logic, you use "feeling".

But since we can't ban them, I want things like the following:
> Uniform laws (similar to California's) across the nation - includes limit on number of guns purchased within a time period; limit on size of magazines; all sales go through background checks; etc.
> Background check system that is comprehensive, accurate and fast
> Funding for the CDC to study the causes of gun violence
> Massively funded PSAs to convince gun owners to store their guns safely. Education works.
> Technical advances to make it less likely that a gun will be fired when it shouldn't be -like when a 4 yr old picks it up - trigger locks, safeties that default to "on" and stay there if you haven't shot in X seconds (or whatever) (I'm sure the gun companies can be much more creative here)
> Laws with teeth in them to enforce responsible gun ownership - if you give a gun to someone else who uses it in a crime, you are in jail. If you leave a gun lying around and a kid picks it up and shoots someone, you are in jail. If you are cleaning the gun and shoot your 13 yr old sister, you are in jail. If you drop your gun in a theater and it goes off, you are in jail.

Those of you who are "responsible" gun owners can still have your guns. But hopefully we reduce the number of irresponsible ones or at least make it harder for them to kill people.

What you want is a full on ban for all guns, you've stated so. And you use the simplistic, hypocritical, and childish logic of "some other person used them irresponsibly, so responsible people must give theirs up!"

When you give up your car because others use theirs irresponsibly, when you argue that they should have stringent background checks for a purchase of a car, and make it clear that through that irresponsibility that they kill far, far, far more than guns ever will in this nation, then I may start to listen to you, otherwise, as I said before you can kindly, sweetly, and with great feeling, kiss my gun toting behind.

When you argue that people killed by illegal drug trafficking is a reason why you should have no 4th Amendment right, or need extensive background checks to live indoors... we may be able to hold a conversation...

Or, when you recognize the childishness and hypocrisy of this argument and start to reason rather than feel, we can then hold a conversation.

I've given you options, you just choose the "kiss my behind" option with great enthusiasm.

 

[Topspin]

I would disarm yuppy budhist first!

 

[Damocles]

I would disarm yuppy budhist first!

Instead you are first in line to pucker up.

 

[Howey]

The main difference is that cars kill far more people even more efficiently than guns, regardless of their primary purpose.

Ya know...you lose any and all credibility when you bring up shit like that, Damo.

If you can't defend guns on their own "merits", quit comparing them to something completely different and then say it doesn't matter.

 

[Damocles]

Ya know...you lose any and all credibility when you bring up shit like that, Damo.

You think facts make people lose credibility. That's saying something, Howey.

If you can't defend guns on their own "merits", quit comparing them to something completely different and then say it doesn't matter.

It's an apples to apples comparison, Howey using the criteria given by those who present the "Bob was irresponsible so Tom must give up his rights" argument.

If you want to efficiently save the most amount of lives by legislating away a right, the right that you should attack is the right to travel freely between the states, because through "irresponsible use" it kills far more efficiently than the right to own and bear arms. However, it isn't about "saving lives" it is about control.

 

[Topspin]

Instead you are first in line to pucker up.

You would know about those lines

 

[Damocles]

You would know about those lines

Yes. I would. It is my behind they're lining up to shine.

 

[Howey]

We also restrict gun rights, we make laws against owning them if you are a felon, etc. The argument isn't that everybody should have unfettered access, that is a childish straw man of its own.

Over 5,000 dead since Newtown.

Obviously what we have now isn't enough.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Very major difference between cars and guns. Cars primary purpose is transportation. Guns primary purpose is to kill.

If it weren't for the 2nd amendment, I would probably call to ban them. They are a scourge upon our land. The number of people killed by them is abhorrent.

But since we can't ban them, I want things like the following:
> Uniform laws (similar to California's) across the nation - includes limit on number of guns purchased within a time period; limit on size of magazines; all sales go through background checks; etc.
> Background check system that is comprehensive, accurate and fast
> Funding for the CDC to study the causes of gun violence
> Massively funded PSAs to convince gun owners to store their guns safely. Education works.
> Technical advances to make it less likely that a gun will be fired when it shouldn't be -like when a 4 yr old picks it up - trigger locks, safeties that default to "on" and stay there if you haven't shot in X seconds (or whatever) (I'm sure the gun companies can be much more creative here)
> Laws with teeth in them to enforce responsible gun ownership - if you give a gun to someone else who uses it in a crime, you are in jail. If you leave a gun lying around and a kid picks it up and shoots someone, you are in jail. If you are cleaning the gun and shoot your 13 yr old sister, you are in jail. If you drop your gun in a theater and it goes off, you are in jail.

Those of you who are "responsible" gun owners can still have your guns. But hopefully we reduce the number of irresponsible ones or at least make it harder for them to kill people.

would you ban them for governments, police, and military?

and what good is the 2nd Amendment if you want them restricted so much?

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. - thomas jefferson

 

[tekkychick]

I've given you options, you just choose the "kiss my behind" option with great enthusiasm.

And so the lowly demi-god Damocles, from his lowest of all low berths in the depths of juvenile posting hell, see "guns" and "ban" in the same post and is called to duty!

His eyes turn red, his face green with pustules, his head spins around three times and he spits out pea soup Linda-blairish and he says "This must not stand! I must heap abuse and divert the topic and not respond to the issues raised"!

Again he spins his head and says "Nay rather than looking at any reasonable ideas I must squash them by flinging my keyboard mightily around the room because my master, the NRA, demands regular sacrifices of stupid people with guns"

And so he rushes...and so he oozes off to write yet another flame-filled irrelevant post on yet another irrelevant message board and, having posted his missive (childish, off-topic, stupid) he slinks back into the lowest depths and looks around for some other straw dragon to burn and flay and pillage.

And he continues, in his limited understanding, in his den of filth, in his mushroom pit of irrelevance, to wonder why people say pro-gun people don't know how to debate the issue.....

 

[tekkychick]

and what good is the 2nd Amendment if you want them restricted so much?

Did you read my list? The only additional "restriction" I added - above and beyond making California gun laws across the nation, and those have NOT stopped responsible gun owners from owning guns in California - was some technical refinements to guns to keep them from firing accidentally. Does it cramp your style so much to have a gun a 4 yr old can't fire accidentally? Are you also against child-proof caps on medications?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Did you read my list? The only additional "restriction" I added - above and beyond making California gun laws across the nation, and those have NOT stopped responsible gun owners from owning guns in California - was some technical refinements to guns to keep them from firing accidentally. Does it cramp your style so much to have a gun a 4 yr old can't fire accidentally? Are you also against child-proof caps on medications?

californias laws only allow for those wealthy and politically connected enough to carry weapons for self defense. Is that what you're striving for? I nation of elites and peons?

a nation where people must ask permission to exercise a RIGHT? (again, what other rights would you accept background checks and licenses requirements?)

the CDC has already come out saying that gun violence is an epidemic. is crime a disease now?

and technical refinements? harsher punishments for accidents? when you require those for law enforcement as well, maybe we can talk.

 

[Howey]

And so the lowly demi-god Damocles, from his lowest of all low berths in the depths of juvenile posting hell, see "guns" and "ban" in the same post and is called to duty!

His eyes turn red, his face green with pustules, his head spins around three times and he spits out pea soup Linda-blairish and he says "This must not stand! I must heap abuse and divert the topic and not respond to the issues raised"!

Again he spins his head and says "Nay rather than looking at any reasonable ideas I must squash them by flinging my keyboard mightily around the room because my master, the NRA, demands regular sacrifices of stupid people with guns"

And so he rushes...and so he oozes off to write yet another flame-filled irrelevant post on yet another irrelevant message board and, having posted his missive (childish, off-topic, stupid) he slinks back into the lowest depths and looks around for some other straw dragon to burn and flay and pillage.

And he continues, in his limited understanding, in his den of filth, in his mushroom pit of irrelevance, to wonder why people say pro-gun people don't know how to debate the issue.....

POST OF THE DAY!

 

[tekkychick]

californias laws only allow for those wealthy and politically connected enough to carry weapons for self defense. Is that what you're striving for? I nation of elites and peons?

a nation where people must ask permission to exercise a RIGHT? (again, what other rights would you accept background checks and licenses requirements?)

the CDC has already come out saying that gun violence is an epidemic. is crime a disease now?

and technical refinements? harsher punishments for accidents? when you require those for law enforcement as well, maybe we can talk.

No, not just wealthy people carry and own guns in California.

When voting kills people, I'll be happy to require background checks.

NRA has pushed congress to ban CDC from investigating causes of gun violence. Without the knowledge, it's hard to make laws.

Technical refinements - to get a car to move, you have to have a key; you have to unlock the door; you have to put the key in the ignition; you have have to start it; you have to move the gear shift from park to drive or reverse (and with a manual transmission, you have to use the clutch). Do kids sometimes still get in and get cars moving? Yes, but it's pretty rare.

Harsher punishments? really? as a so-called-responsible-gun-owner you don't think people who misuse their guns should be punished? funny.

 

[/MSG/]

Did you read my list? The only additional "restriction" I added - above and beyond making California gun laws across the nation

Yes, if only we could emulate the successes of Los Angeles.....,

and those have NOT stopped responsible gun owners from owning guns in California

Uh huh, so that's why I can't buy this in Cali?

was some technical refinements to guns to keep them from firing accidentally.

You mean technology that does not exist?

Does it cramp your style so much to have a gun a 4 yr old can't fire accidentally? Are you also against child-proof caps on medications?

You weren't on board with my parental licensing idea, why are you on board with this?