ENOUGH....Time for Gun Control....NOW

[Avatar4321]

Put bullets into the loved ones of the CEOs of weapons manufacturing corporations.

Give them a taste of their own freedom-loving medicine.

You'll see them change their business model.

How exactly does someone with a bullet in their head change their business model?

Put down your gun and pick up a book.

The loved ones of the CEOs, not the CEOs. Let the CEOs live a long, healthy life with the miserable knowledge of losing their loved ones for no real reason, with a gun made by the CEO because the rich prick only wants more money selling more death to more stupid unstable Americans.

I am not holding a gun. Which book would you like me to read? Considering I average a book every other week, sometimes more, I'm curious what you think i need to read.

So now you want us to kill the family of people who help provide us means of defending ourselves because you think that will end the violence?

How about people like you just don't go near guns if you have violent tendencies? Govern yourself and stop trying to prevent others from defending themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

I am not sure I believe in more gun control, but here is something I came up with:

1a. The English system--with very, very few exceptions, prohibit semi-automatic rifles and pistols.
1b. If mental issues are present, pass a severe psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun.

OK. Thank you.

2. One of the purposes of a government is to protect its people, and while most people are able to safely own a firearm, not all people are. It is fairly simple to obtain a gun if you have no criminal background.

This does not demonstrate the necessity of 1a/b.

3. A prohibition on semi-automatic rifles and pistols would help prevent these mass killings...

Except that they continue to happen where they are prohibited.

4. The Bill of Rights does not grant citizens a right to EVERYTHING.

You mean anything, not everything,. The government doe snot grant rights.

There are limits to Free Speech--you can't slander, lie, use fighting/offensive words, make threats, etc.

Because these things harm pothers or place them in a condition of imminent danger, Simple ownership/possession of a firearm does not, and so your example here does not follow.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right [to bear arms] is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," only weapons that are 'necessary,' as some people see fit, solely for lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

This is not what Heller says. Try again.

These semi-automatic weapons are not.

They are not.... what? In common use for traditionally lawful purposes?

Thank you for your attempt.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Another post void of logic. Amazing.

He just wants to kill people to protest gun violence.

Go figure.

Too much marijuana

THC has definitely had a negative effect on his neuron synapses.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Police: Shooter kills one, then dies at Oregon high school

By CNN Staff
updated 1:15 PM EDT, Tue June 10, 2014

(CNN) -- One student was killed at the hands of a shooter at a high school near Portland, Oregon, on Tuesday morning, police agencies said.

The suspected shooter is also dead, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office said. It was not immediately clear how the shooter died.

There was only one shooter involved in the incident, police said.

About an hour after the shooting, Oregon State Police said the area was secure and the situation was contained.

The shooting happened at about 8 a.m. (11 a.m. ET) at Reynolds High School in Troutdale, about 12 miles east of Portland, said Sue Strickland of the Troutdale Police Department.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun control will never work... except in all those places where there's gun control.

All those other places are not the United States.

You're right, and if the NRA were in those countries I bet everybody would have guns there, too.

How does being brainwashed by huge lobbyists like the NRA feel? Do you get dizzy, nauseous, or is like being high and giddy?

Post 118 awaits your response.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

He just wants to kill people to protest gun violence.

Go figure.

Too much marijuana

The legalization of marijuana will lower crime stats across the board. Example:

Colo. earns $7.3M in marijuana sales, crime rate down

So would the decriminalization of rape, murder and other crimes.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

All those other places are not the United States.

Is that because of that American exceptionalism that Americans are so proud of?

No. Mexico has strict gun laws. And lots of crime. South Aftrica has strict gun laws and lots of crime. Gun control doesnt work, period.

Mexico's crime rate is skewed from the Sinaloa drug cartel, not ordinary citizens sporting their assault weapons at local tacquerias, dumbass.

Mexicans are too poor to own guns in the first place. They save their money up to pay for the truck ride to the U.S. border. The relo-broker gets about $1000 a head. That's a LOT of pesos, honey.

 

[RDD_1210]

No sane person wants a complete gun ban. Be rational.

Correct, no sane people would want that, but many in the Democratic Party definitely do.

As an independent, I am curious: What is the danger in having A. background checks, B. psychological examinations, and/or C. a limitation or ban on military-grade, semi-automatic machine guns that nobody NEEDS (I can understand the need for some sort of weaponry, but personally I feel that it is a little extreme)?

It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.

I personally feel that one of the functions of a government is to protect their people, and these guns, clearly, endanger many people.

I can protect myself, thanks. Maybe that's a problem for you, but it's not for me.

Me! Me! Me!

Me the People....

You're a true patriot. Be proud.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is that because of that American exceptionalism that Americans are so proud of?

No. Mexico has strict gun laws. And lots of crime. South Aftrica has strict gun laws and lots of crime. Gun control doesnt work, period.

Mexico's crime rate is skewed from the Sinaloa drug cartel, not ordinary citizens sporting their assault weapons at local tacquerias, dumbass.

Mexicans are too poor to own guns in the first place. They save their money up to pay for the truck ride to the U.S. border. The relo-broker gets about $1000 a head. That's a LOT of pesos, honey.

Ever consider that the drug cartels wouldn't have the power they did if the average citizen could fight back?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Since criminals don't follow laws then what's the point of laws in the first place?

For most crimes, laws propose to punish the criminal, to provide a deterrent effect.

But with these mass murders, the shooter usually intends to die while committing his crime, so such laws obviously have no effect.

So why do the gun-haters keep proposing such laws for these mass murders, knowing they won't have any effect?

 

[RDD_1210]

Sorry, children. It's time to make it harder to get your shiny, dangerous toys. Too many loonies out there. Every week now.

It's a free country. You can keep wishing for that to happen, but it won't. And you referring to other people as children makes this the ironic post of the day.

The "GOOD GUY WITH A GUN" at Walmart ended up in the hospital in Las Vegas. SO there goes that Wayne LaPierre bullshit myth.

How so?

Face it, you are a child and you're throwing a tantrum when someone questions your maturity level to have your precious toys.

Keep crying baby.

 

[Avatar4321]

No sane person wants a complete gun ban. Be rational.

Correct, no sane people would want that, but many in the Democratic Party definitely do.



It's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.

I personally feel that one of the functions of a government is to protect their people, and these guns, clearly, endanger many people.

I can protect myself, thanks. Maybe that's a problem for you, but it's not for me.

Me! Me! Me!

Me the People....

You're a true patriot. Be proud.

A true patriot is focused on fulfilling his own responsibilities, including the one to defend himself and his family. If you spent more time trying to fix your own problems instead of trying to control everyone else's life, you'd be happy.

 

[KNB]

Go figure.

Too much marijuana

The legalization of marijuana will lower crime stats across the board. Example:

Colo. earns $7.3M in marijuana sales, crime rate down

So would the decriminalization of rape, murder and other crimes.

Hey, that's very good 1936 thinking there. Marijuana = rape, murder and other crimes.

Move just a few years into the future - 1942 - when America legalized "Marihuana" to defend democracy and freedom for your family.

 

[martybegan]

Gun control will never work... except in all those places where there's gun control.

All those other places are not the United States.

You're right, and if the NRA were in those countries I bet everybody would have guns there, too.

How does being brainwashed by huge lobbyists like the NRA feel? Do you get dizzy, nauseous, or is like being high and giddy?

A liberal accusing others of being brainwashed. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Keep baa'ing like the sheep you are.

 

[RDD_1210]

So still no clear explanation how passing laws keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens helps stop violent people from massacring others.

You're not going to get one. It's an emotional argument, not a logical one, made by weak minded people like the OP

And also because no one is trying to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. But then again you're not very smart and you're batting .000 today with your cry baby posts.

Keep crying baby boy.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Since criminals don't follow laws then what's the point of laws in the first place?

For most crimes, laws propose to punish the criminal, to provide a deterrent effect.

But with these mass murders, the shooter usually intends to die while committing his crime, so such laws obviously have no effect.

So why do the gun-haters keep proposing such laws for these mass murders, knowing they won't have any effect?

 

[Avatar4321]

Come on KNB, what book do you want me to read that is going to explain how keeping people from being able to defend themselves is going to make them safer?

 

[RDD_1210]

No sane person wants a complete gun ban. Be rational.

As an independent, I am curious: What is the danger in having A. background checks, B. psychological examinations, and/or C. a limitation or ban on military-grade, semi-automatic machine guns that nobody NEEDS (I can understand the need for some sort of weaponry, but personally I feel that it is a little extreme)?

I personally feel that one of the functions of a government is to protect their people, and these guns, clearly, endanger many people.

Common sense and critical thinking aren't supported here.

True. PeeParty lies about his own posts. Other simply repeat that we need to restrict guns from crazy people, like that's possible in any way. They're totally unhinged.

You are a perfect example of someone that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, let alone sell them.

You are the shining example of why kids die in school pretty much every day in this country.

 

[martybegan]

Common sense and critical thinking aren't supported here.

True. PeeParty lies about his own posts. Other simply repeat that we need to restrict guns from crazy people, like that's possible in any way. They're totally unhinged.

You are a perfect example of someone that shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, let alone sell them.

You are the shining example of why kids die in school pretty much every day in this country.

More die from food allergies than guns. BAN FOOD!

 

[tanfojam0]

I issue this challenge: present a sound argument for more gun control.

1: Define the additional gun control measures you seek
2: Show the necessity for these measures
3: Show that these measures will meet the need you described
4: Show that these measures do not infringe upon the rights of the law abiding
5: Do all of this without arguing from emotion, ignorance, dishonesty or any other logical fallacies.

I am not sure I believe in more gun control, but here is something I came up with:

1a. The English system--with very, very few exceptions, prohibit semi-automatic rifles and pistols.
1b. If mental issues are present, pass a severe psychological evaluation before purchasing a gun.
2. One of the purposes of a government is to protect its people, and while most people are able to safely own a firearm, not all people are. It is fairly simple to obtain a gun if you have no criminal background.
3. A prohibition on semi-automatic rifles and pistols would help prevent these mass killings, since they are the ones that can cause the most damage. All of the killers were mentally unstable, and many of these instabilities were known before the shooting. Obviously this wouldn't prevent them from taking the gun from someone else, but it would help prevent them from obtaining a gun legally, while the prohibition on the semi-automatics would keep them from taking it.
4. The Bill of Rights does not grant citizens a right to EVERYTHING. There are limits to Free Speech--you can't slander, lie, use fighting/offensive words, make threats, etc. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right [to bear arms] is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," only weapons that are 'necessary,' as some people see fit, solely for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. These semi-automatic weapons are not.

The police would have to follow the exact same restrictions, and you know that won't happen.

All you do when you ban semi-autos is make it easier for a criminal to out-gun a law abiding citizen, simple as that.

If they aren't available, how would the criminal be able to out-gun the law-abiding citizen? Obviously there is no immediate fix, since people already have the guns and you can't take them away, but in the long-term I don't see how this would be negative.