Gun Control, but not Abortion Control?

[BotanyBoy]

If you didn't you'd strive for Utopia and still own own your gun because there are lots of fun reasons to have one. Sorry, you lose.

No, I don't strive for Utopia b/c it's an unrealistic delusional idea supported by unrealistic and delusional people.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, I don't strive for Utopia b/c it's an unrealistic delusional idea supported by unrealistic and delusional people.

Flight was unrealistic, so was reaching the moon, so was reaching the US and splitting the atom. You don't strive because you think the world is perfect, either that or your a quiter. Take your pick. There is no third option, at least not a third that is open to men, perhaps to beasts.

 

[UrsulaX]

As you aptly demonstrate with such an irrelevant and immature line...

...there's a reason the word "little kids" applies to some, but not all.

You really wanted me to reply seriously by speaking for the dead? Fine, I think they would agree with me. It never should have come to that. No one in elementary school or anywhere else, for that matter, should have to defend against a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, a Glock 10 mm handgun, a Sig Sauer 9 mm handgun, or any other firearm. And yes, it was the guns that killed. A man in China assaulted 22 elementary school children with a knife on the same day, and no one died.

Your "probably" only proves your disingenuousness more...

...you are prototypically utopian and, thus, fated a statist.

My "probably" means I don't usually label myself, and I don't think I easily fit into a single category. Labeling is apparently your thing.

It's your enabling socialist attitude - your progressivism - that is secondarily responsible for the 26 dead @ Sandy Hook...

...just as it is your progressivism which is secondarily responsible for the intentional murder of 55 million others since 1973.

You are a progressive enemy to the unalienable individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

...deal with it.

Where's your proof? Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. Ha! Can the right-wing motherboard process Latin?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Flight was unrealistic, so was reaching the moon, so was reaching the US and splitting the atom.

Then tell me Sean, how are we supposed to make every single human being on earth behave perfectly without totally destroying everyone's individuality?

You don't strive because you think the world is perfect, either that or your a quiter.

Oh now you are a mind reader too? Impressive....

Take your pick. There is no third option, at least not a third that is open to men, perhaps to beasts.

No practical solutions with realistic goals? All or nothing hua? Yea you are sane....LMFAO

 

[RobDownSouth]

With regard to the original post, it never ceases to amaze me how the right wing in America believes that more laws will stop abortion, yet more laws won't stop gun violence.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Then tell me Sean, how are we supposed to make every single human being on earth behave perfectly without totally destroying everyone's individuality?

That's not even necessary to a even a theoretical utopia. Who taught you such ignorant things? We'd probably take great strides if simply started with the goal of getting people (not just Americans in the long run but obviously you start close to home. Food, shelter and health care. It seems to be fairly well agreed upon that mental health care in this country is a joke and we might prevent not only some of these massacres but quite possibly some suicides and homicides.

Or you could suggest something beyond "HAHAHAHAHAHA stupid fucks thing everything isn't perfect as is HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA"

Oh now you are a mind reader too? Impressive....

Isn't it though? It's not even complicated. There are those who strive to make things better and those who don't. It's not so much mind reading as it is looking objectively at reality and drawing conclusions.

No practical solutions with realistic goals? All or nothing hua? Yea you are sane....LMFAO

Yeah, you strive or you don't. It is that simple. I know we never got to the moon cus that's impossible. I know where on the Universal lot it was filmed. I can take you there. You might never get there but you set a goal realistic or not, and then you work towards it. Pick a goal, any goal. There might never be peace in the Middle East and perhaps the smartest thing we can do is simply get on green energy so we can let them have an epic war and finally mellow out (what it seems to have worked in Europe and to a lesser extent in Asia) maybe they just need to actually have a real war against each other. Maybe we should keep striving for peace there. The correct answer is never do nothing.

 

[badbabysitter]

With regard to the original post, it never ceases to amaze me how the right wing in America believes that more laws will stop abortion, yet more laws won't stop gun violence.

right wing meme 101 =

guns dont kill kids, women do

 

[UrsulaX]

Blah, blah, blah, blah...

...a utopian presidential committee begot specifically to "think constructively" to "prevent" the next Sandy Hook by addressing "the root causes of gun violence" just adjourned - without recommending one practical proposal that will prevent the next Sandy Hook.

Meanwhile, the most practical solution to stop one murdering individual from violating the unalienable right to life and liberty of any other individual is for that law-abiding individual to exercise his natural right to defend his own life and liberty with/by equal and/or greater force...

...and in the specific case of Sandy Hookesque potential instances, that practical solution is to arm the adults to defend the lives and liberties of their young charges.

Well, I guess if you never work to change anything you don't have to worry about unproductive meetings. So you would arm the teachers? You would have to increase their salaries.

 

[UrsulaX]

Negative, I never touch a trigger until I have positive ID on my target and with a decade of military/law enforcement service I have never ever fucked up.

Because most victims don't know wtf they are doing...that's why they are victims.

No...and I avoid confrontation at all cost. Funny the "social" pen pushers who talk shit about violence all the time don't have a single fucking problem with sending others to do violence on their behalf just like they love to spend money that isn't theirs. Funny how that works....

Security failure is when no one responds to an intruder..... disemboweling them with a .308 round at point blank range is security in action.

I'm not against prevention, but it doesn't always work. So when all the prevention in the world goes out the fucking door as someone is breaking it down......what then?

What sob stories? State law is clear here...you break into someones home you may be forfeiting your life, there is no duty to retreat. If I caught someone stealing my hub caps right now I would just turn on the video cam, blow their head off and call the cops to come scrape the piece of shit up..... zero days in jail.

If you shoot the guy before he's on the premises, isn't it murder? If you shoot the guy once he's already inside, you failed to stop him. Either way, you did not successfully prevent a home invasion, which is what I mean by security failure.

 

[eyer]

You really wanted me to reply seriously by speaking for the dead? Fine, I think they would agree with me. It never should have come to that. No one in elementary school or anywhere else, for that matter, should have to defend against a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, a Glock 10 mm handgun, a Sig Sauer 9 mm handgun, or any other firearm. And yes, it was the guns that killed. A man in China assaulted 22 elementary school children with a knife on the same day, and no one died.

"It never should have come to that. No one in elementary school or anywhere else, for that matter, should have to defend against...any...firearm."

I understand...

...you also want to teach the world to sing in 3-pt. harmony and buy everyone a Coke. So, I am not surprised you also imagine dead people agreeing with you...

...you're a utopian - we've already covered that fact. Let's deal with reality, though, huh?

Fact is, one armed and trained police officer, one armed and trained teacher, one armed and trained administer, one armed and trained janitor...

...any one could've easily taken-out that 20-year old murderous punk before he got close to the kids.

But, you utopians prefer to imagine that the 26 killed would rather see the fantasyland you do ...

...instead of them being alive today, safe with their families tonight, getting ready for a new school week tomorrow, and thankful to those who risked their own lives to save theirs.

How many firearms are in circulation in America today? How are you going to practically deal with that fact of life?

Wave your utopian wand and make them all disappear?

My "probably" means I don't usually label myself, and I don't think I easily fit into a single category. Labeling is apparently your thing.

No...

...your "probably" is your full absence of courage to actually stand-up for what you spout: you don't walk like you talk.

Now, with utopianism, that's fully understandable because there is no practical walk associated with fantasy.

But what you're actually championing - without the fortitude to stand-up for it - is the absolute elimination of an American's unalienable right to bear arms and, of course then, the repeal of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America which prevents any individual or government from infringing on that unalienable right in the first place.

So, like all other statists (to varying degrees), you're both a utopian and a champion of lawlessness...

...you aim to employ the force of the collective to illegally deny an individual his unalienable right to defend his own individual liberty and the individual liberty of others (like the 26 dead in Newton) against any and all enemies.

And anyone even wonders why the framers' specifically enshrined the right to bear arms as the primary weapon to defend against such evil tyranny?

Where's your proof? Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. Ha!

A "proof" request from a utopian?

Now...

...that's friggin' funny.

As far as Latin goes: I leave dead languages to Byron; you should tell him you champion denying him his unalienable right to bear arms and see how that goes.

Can the right-wing motherboard process Latin?

I'm about as "right-wing" as you are a lover of individual liberty.

 

[about_average]

"Threatened victim" was a poor choice of words. Self-proclaimed victim or threatened individual would have more adequately captured the subjective nature of victimhood.

I don't think it's subjective she was about to become a victim.

What is "reasonable force?" There must be thousands of court cases discussing this, in various situations. The idea is that the level of force used in self-defense should be commensurate with the perceived threat level at the time.

Police are trained to shoot the center of the body when shooting in self-defense, and to shoot a person armed with a knife within striking distance. That could be reasonable force. No one wants to end up in a case where a jury has to decide "was it reasonable?" given the threat presented at the time. If you are defending yourself or others from a violent attack, however, even deadly force can be reasonable.

And that's exactly what she did. Center mass, at least as best as she could under the circumstances.

I doubt many people, including me, would fault the Loganville woman for her actions, but a few aspects of the scenario bother me. Supposedly, the burglar knocked on the door, presumably to see if anyone was home. She called her husband, who instructed her not to answer. When she saw the stranger go to his car to grab a crowbar, why did she not leave the house with her children via an alternative exit or at least try to contact a neighbor for help? What if she had grabbed her gun, stood at the doorway as he approached, and shouted at the top of her lungs? Would she have had to fire? Obviously, he intended to break in, and he said in the ambulance that his purpose was theft. If he broke in believing no one was home, is it wrong to think he would have fled the scene once she appeared outside with enough bluster to attract attention? Who knows what happened inside? Maybe he heard her on the phone and decided to attack her. Maybe he had no idea she was hiding. Armed assault? He had a crowbar, which is useful for breaking and entering, or so I’ve heard. I’m aware her husband believed it improbable that a burglar would go to the attic room, but maybe he was simply reticent to acknowledge the faults of his plan. (It was pretty convenient they were so prepared thanks to recent target practice. Seriously, how dangerous is living in Georgia, anyway? Remind me not to move there.) Why does everyone responding to the story assume she and her children were basically dead without a gun?

Wait, you said people should retreat. Standing in the door brandishing a gun isn't retreating.
How would he have no idea she was hiding? How many people, when the leave the house, lock the bathroom door, then lock the bedroom door?
Have you ever been hit with a wrecking bar (commonly called a crowbar but entirely different, a crowbar is straight and typically about 5-6' long)? I have. It was a light hit and hurt like hell. Someone wielding a wrecking bar when attacking someone is, indeed, armed with a very deadly weapon.

I just find it weird that one’s natural reaction is not “Wow, she had to shoot the guy? In front of her kids? That’s tough.” Instead, imitators are purchasing guns to mimic her feat. Bring on the burglars! I’m happy I don’t know any of these people.

Different people have different reactions. My thoughts were, "Thank god she was armed and knew how to use it, thank god they are all safe, I feel bad for her, I hope I never have to shoot someone, I hope the kids didn't actually see it, and if they did I hope their parents can help them deal with it."

When I mentioned a secret escape route, I was thinking of a normal side room with a lockable door and a rope ladder out the back.

Have you ever climbed down a rope ladder? It's not that easy, especially when against a building. Trying to help two kids negotiate one, without one or more of you falling, and getting it all done before someone gets you wouldn't be easy.
Then who's to say she didn't have one, but decided being exposed at a window in a room where the attacker would have room to maneuver was a greater risk than hiding in the attic where her attacker had to come through a confined space.

When I mentioned that guns “may be debatable sources of animal control or protection,” I was alluding to hunting intended to control animal populations.

When I said non-trophy hunting I was including sport. I don't like trophy and sport hunting. I have mixed feelings about it for animal control. But many people hunt for food, many needing it to make ends meet. Not everyone can run to the store for food any time they want. Many people don't like factory farming and choose to eat wild and home grown food. They should have that right and not be forced to spend money at a grocery store.

A police officer still performs a public service intended to help civilians, regardless of whether he/she is constitutionally bound.
Supreme Court rulings on negligent officers who fail to respond to domestic disputes are complicated by legal precedents I know nothing about (I have no legal background), but I assume you are referring to Colorado V. Gonzales (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525280/). Though using the case to reinforce distrust in public servants is predictable

Distrust? I said nothing whatsoever about distrusting them. The fact of the matter is that it's not possible for law enforcement to take on the responsibility of protecting everyone. The country couldn't afford it and people wouldn't want that many police around anyway.
As for community support and infrastructure. I don't know what you mean. Walls with glass shards on them around all houses? 10' chain link with razor wire? I don't know? For me the risk of home invasion is low enough that the cost benefit comes down on the side of a gun, if I move I can easily take it with me. Also many neighborhoods have covenants and it might be hard to get approval for either of the above.
Community support? So only people living in isolated locations should be allowed to be armed in their homes? What if you live in a neighborhood and everyone has gone to the 4th of july parade in town while you're home sick?

For me, shooting someone would be an absolute last resort. Would I retreat first? Yes, if possible. Would I hate to have to shoot someone, absolutely. Would I do it if I had to? I sure hope so.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's not even necessary to a even a theoretical utopia. Who taught you such ignorant things? We'd probably take great strides if simply started with the goal of getting people (not just Americans in the long run but obviously you start close to home. Food, shelter and health care. It seems to be fairly well agreed upon that mental health care in this country is a joke and we might prevent not only some of these massacres but quite possibly some suicides and homicides.

Or you could suggest something beyond "HAHAHAHAHAHA stupid fucks thing everything isn't perfect as is HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA"

I agree and think it would be of great benefit, that's why I support things such as UHC, education etc....however I don't think throwing good money after bad (serious problem with our HC/education atm) is any kind of solution. Just like I think training/licencing standards for all gun owners would be a great idea. But a rifle accessories ban that has failed repeatedly? 7 round instead of 10? Come the fuck on...it's a retarded policy, we should be demanding our leaders do better than shovel old fail on us.

Isn't it though? It's not even complicated. There are those who strive to make things better and those who don't. It's not so much mind reading as it is looking objectively at reality and drawing conclusions.

Oh, so we are a master of deductive reasoning now hua?

Then riddle me this high speed, if I were such an apathetic dirt bag then why the huge need to give back to my community? I'm a retired vet, nothing better to do....the public pays my living and I only feel right to give back. Granted most of my efforts are toward environmental clean up/monitoring/data logging, specifically in aquatic environments. Sure it's not very humanitarian but I'm a biologist....not a social worker. Everyone has their role I'm just filling mine.

I care about my community and the people in it......to do so does not require pie in the sky dreams of changing the world.

Yeah, you strive or you don't. It is that simple. I know we never got to the moon cus that's impossible. I know where on the Universal lot it was filmed. I can take you there. You might never get there but you set a goal realistic or not, and then you work towards it. Pick a goal, any goal. There might never be peace in the Middle East and perhaps the smartest thing we can do is simply get on green energy so we can let them have an epic war and finally mellow out (what it seems to have worked in Europe and to a lesser extent in Asia) maybe they just need to actually have a real war against each other. Maybe we should keep striving for peace there. The correct answer is never do nothing.

Never said it was....just that if what your doing doesn't work, the 5 min spent figuring out wtf might work and giving it a try is far from doing nothing and much better than persisting in fail hoping that it eventually works out.

If you shoot the guy before he's on the premises, isn't it murder?

Yea...but my premises start at the fence with the no trespassing sign and extend to my vehicle and everything in it .

If you shoot the guy once he's already inside, you failed to stop him. Either way, you did not successfully prevent a home invasion, which is what I mean by security failure.

True...but security is re-established the second you waste said baddie, without that option of a paddle shit creek is a bad place to be.

 

[bernett69]

Right, and didn't that woman have a Bushmaster AR-15 with a 100-clip magazine?

no such thing as a 100 clip magazine....


it would actually take 10 clips to fill a 100 round magazine. stripper clips come standard with 10 rounds that are then pushed into the magazine. or you can load 100 loose rounds one at a time

just a FYI

 

[BusyAfternoon]

What a

surprise!!!!! We have been mislead....

Did you know.....• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl , Miss.,

was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt

.45 he kept in his truck.






• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard

gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.






• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by

an armed teacher and a school guard.






• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy,

Va. , came to an abrupt

conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.






• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden ,

Utah , ended when an armed

off-duty police officer intervened.






• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston ,

Texas , was halted by two

coworkers who carried concealed handguns.






• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora ,

Colo. , was stopped by a

member of the congregation carrying a gun.






• At the recent mall shooting in Portland ,

Ore. , the gunman took his

own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a

concealed weapon.






2500 times last year alone, legal gun owners stopped violent crime when

confronted with it, long before any police assistance ...


Of course, you probably didn't

know any of this because mainstream media doesn't find it worth

reporting. It's not sensational enough and doesn't fit with their

agenda.



What's insane is people who think removing

rights from responsible people will somehow keep them safe.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, I'm sure your denial of reality wouldn't change based on the amount you wager, but I could use the $10,000.
So, you going to wager?

Make the wager whatever you wish. It won't magically make the law exist.

 

[about_average]

Make the wager whatever you wish. It won't magically make the law exist.

You are the one who said he'd wager heavily, so I'm waiting to see your wager. Once I do I'll show you proof the laws exist and you can do a wire transfer to my bank.

 

[Sean Renaud]

no such thing as a 100 clip magazine....


it would actually take 10 clips to fill a 100 round magazine. stripper clips come standard with 10 rounds that are then pushed into the magazine. or you can load 100 loose rounds one at a time

just a FYI

Bullshit. There are 30 round clips that are easily obtained. Try again liar.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You are the one who said he'd wager heavily, so I'm waiting to see your wager. Once I do I'll show you proof the laws exist and you can do a wire transfer to my bank.

Sorry. There's no law which requires a private individual from making sure they aren't selling to a convicted felon.

If you still want the action name your wager.

 

[bernett69]

Bullshit. There are 30 round clips that are easily obtained. Try again liar.

you sir are trying to talk about magazines. once again you people don't have a damn clue what comes out of your mouth.

there are two things that exists here .

A CLIP - a disposable device used to quickly load cartridges into a magazine.

examples. the M1 Garand 8-round en-bloc clip. filled the internal magazine of the rifle and ejected after the 8th round fired.

stripper clips for AR15 and M16 type rifles are long thin brass strips that hold ten rounds by the rim of the cartridge and are used to quickly load magazines... 10 at a time for those who need the extra help, to fill any size magazine.

there are all types of firearms that use clips and stripper clips. but they all fill magazines either internal or removable. they come in all sizes but I am not aware of any being larger then 10.


A MAGAZINE - is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines may be integral to the firearm (fixed) or removable (detachable). The magazine functions by moving the cartridges stored in the magazine into a position where they may be loaded into the chamber by the action of the firearm.

they come in all sizes 3 rounds to a hounded. there maybe something out there larger but with weight its probably too heavy.


try again mr. I'm ignorant about firearms yet wish to argue about them


Proud American

 

[Ishmael]

Sorry. There's no law which requires a private individual from making sure they aren't selling to a convicted felon.

If you still want the action name your wager.

While your statement is true, it still avoids the facts of the current debate. It like saying, "So, a mental defective stole his Mommy's gun, turned her head into hamburger and went to a school and tried to do the same with the children there. Obviously gun shows and private transfers of ownership are the reason."

That whole train of thought is right up there with, "Thirty days hath Septober, April, June, and no wonder. All the rest eat peanut butter, except my aunt, she drives a Buick."

There is no evidence that gun shows, or private transfers, are problematic beyond the fertile minds of the terminally paranoid.

Ishmael

 

[bernett69]

also it is illegal for a FELON to purchase a firearm already. the law already exists that makes it a bad thing to do. any felon going into any gun shop and doing as little as filling out the paperwork to "try" to buy a gun is breaking the law. the background check should work and prevent him from getting one but he is already in violation of the law.

I would think that most people who do private sales know the person buying the gun in the first place. I know its not always the case but usually it is. close friend or family most of the time

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

While your statement is true, it still avoids the facts of the current debate. It like saying, "So, a mental defective stole his Mommy's gun, turned her head into hamburger and went to a school and tried to do the same with the children there. Obviously gun shows and private transfers of ownership are the reason."

That whole train of thought is right up there with, "Thirty days hath Septober, April, June, and no wonder. All the rest eat peanut butter, except my aunt, she drives a Buick."

There is no evidence that gun shows, or private transfers, are problematic beyond the fertile minds of the terminally paranoid.

Ishmael

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...gun-shows-in-north-carolina-ohio-indiana?lite

 

[bernett69]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...gun-shows-in-north-carolina-ohio-indiana?lite

people are killed everyday by cars and trucks yet we don't ban them. if we are really talking about saving lives we can do that just by keeping people of the roads when it snows. that would save more lives then any gun ban ever would.

your article is what, true? accidents happen all the time. these were how ever negligent discharges. no excuses for any of them but things do happen. you could just as easily say that being home during a structure fire would more likely cause serious burns.

ever been to a hot air balloon festival ? they are so beautiful to see all the balloons rise up together. but wait. more then a few times they crash killing those on board and innocent by standers. you are surely not suggesting we stop having those because of that are you?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

people are killed everyday by cars and trucks yet we don't ban them. if we are really talking about saving lives we can do that just by keeping people of the roads when it snows. that would save more lives then any gun ban ever would.

your article is what, true? accidents happen all the time. these were how ever negligent discharges. no excuses for any of them but things do happen. you could just as easily say that being home during a structure fire would more likely cause serious burns.

ever been to a hot air balloon festival ? they are so beautiful to see all the balloons rise up together. but wait. more then a few times they crash killing those on board and innocent by standers. you are surely not suggesting we stop having those because of that are you?

Great point. Cars & trucks are heavily regulated. I'm guessing you won't object to regulating guns.

 

[bernett69]

Great point. Cars & trucks are heavily regulated. I'm guessing you won't object to regulating guns.

besides the fact that they already are and owning a car or truck isn't a right that shall not be infringed.

a privilege and a right are different

civilians can't own any automatic firearms made after 1986 period. only the military and some police depts have access to those.