George Zimmerman back in the news: another shooting incident

[Wry Catcher]

Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.

Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.

Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.

That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.

In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.

Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.

I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?

I've been to NYC (have you) and walked around Manhattan during the day, on weekends and late into the evening, and, I've never felt threatened. I've stayed in Brooklyn and Queens and never had a problem, and I've gone to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, and other than feeling like a sardine on the subway, was never uncomfortable. Maybe you're like GZ, and walk around with a chip on your shoulder, looking for trouble 'cause you have a gun hidden in your pants; or maybe your'e just a coward.

1. That wasn't the question.

2. I was born in Manhattan, and lived there, and in the Bronx, for 30 years.

3. Getting back to the question >> Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ? Let's see if you can answer a question, rather than dodge it, "or maybe your'e just a coward."

Sure, I don't believe ordinary law abiding citizens ought to be walking around Manhattan or any other city, town or village with a gun.

Imagine the carnage when someone lets loose with with a full magazine on any avenue in Manhattan because they were robbed? Not only will a round or two or three likely hit someone on their way to buy a slice, but the ensuring panic will surely cripple many more.

A police officer is trained, has a use of force policy and usually responds sensibly. The typical cowboy, who dreams of killing a bad guy, may have spent hours on the range, but has not the training or guidelines drilled into armed officers at the academy, and during their on going training.

And if such a law were repealed, anyone can carry a loaded weapon on the streets of NYC. Having lived in the Bronx and Manhattan you must admit that some of the millions walking the streets on any given day or night, in any of the boroughs of greater NY ain't quite right. A second factor to consider is that guns will become more and more ubiquitous, as fear invades the many. Much like a dog, a scared person is dangerous too, and fear negatively effects judgment.

Idiotic argument. The "bloodbath" you Leftwats predicted over and over would occur if people on the streets carried guns never happened. And it never will. It's a Leftist myth and one of a LONG list.

"Leftwats"? "Leftist myth"? You are a lunatic and a proud and loud member of the Crazy Right Wing, aka, the Idiot Fringe.

Thus, this list is not for you. Or even the willfully ignorant:

25 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

 

[Wry Catcher]

Zimmerman, a hero to racists, and should be but isn't, an example of why there ought to be an open debate on gun control.

There is plenty of debate.

There is plenty of emotional back and forth, only M14 shooter has made the effort to provide a rational argument opposed to gun control, yet even he needed to default to ("because mom said so") the Second Amendment.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?

I've been to NYC (have you) and walked around Manhattan during the day, on weekends and late into the evening, and, I've never felt threatened. I've stayed in Brooklyn and Queens and never had a problem, and I've gone to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, and other than feeling like a sardine on the subway, was never uncomfortable. Maybe you're like GZ, and walk around with a chip on your shoulder, looking for trouble 'cause you have a gun hidden in your pants; or maybe your'e just a coward.

1. That wasn't the question.

2. I was born in Manhattan, and lived there, and in the Bronx, for 30 years.

3. Getting back to the question >> Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ? Let's see if you can answer a question, rather than dodge it, "or maybe your'e just a coward."

Sure, I don't believe ordinary law abiding citizens ought to be walking around Manhattan or any other city, town or village with a gun.

Imagine the carnage when someone lets loose with with a full magazine on any avenue in Manhattan because they were robbed? Not only will a round or two or three likely hit someone on their way to buy a slice, but the ensuring panic will surely cripple many more.

A police officer is trained, has a use of force policy and usually responds sensibly. The typical cowboy, who dreams of killing a bad guy, may have spent hours on the range, but has not the training or guidelines drilled into armed officers at the academy, and during their on going training.

And if such a law were repealed, anyone can carry a loaded weapon on the streets of NYC. Having lived in the Bronx and Manhattan you must admit that some of the millions walking the streets on any given day or night, in any of the boroughs of greater NY ain't quite right. A second factor to consider is that guns will become more and more ubiquitous, as fear invades the many. Much like a dog, a scared person is dangerous too, and fear negatively effects judgment.

Idiotic argument. The "bloodbath" you Leftwats predicted over and over would occur if people on the streets carried guns never happened. And it never will. It's a Leftist myth and one of a LONG list.

"Leftwats"? "Leftist myth"? You are a lunatic and a proud and loud member of the Crazy Right Wing, aka, the Idiot Fringe.

Thus, this list is not for you. Or even the willfully ignorant:

25 Deadliest Mass Shootings in U.S. History Fast Facts - CNN.com

To the Leftwat.

No mass shooting has ever been caused by the lawful carry of firearms in public. It's a Leftist delusion and you are positively smitten.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.

Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.

This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?

You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.

You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?

Thus the strength of your argument....

...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.

Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners

If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?

In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...

As if this is a failing.

The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.

As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.

And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position

In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).

I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.
That being the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot address what I said and chose to let it stand.

We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives

And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.
What does that tell an honest person in an honest debate?

Your position is simple, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct....

All rights are.
You disagree, believing that the RKBA does not deserve the same consideration of the others, regardless of the fact that is is a fundamental right of the people, specifically protected by the constitution.
My position: consistent. Your position: arbitrary.

....mine is that if sane debate and sane policies....

"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

are not compatible with the Second Amendment, than the Second is wrong and needs to be changed.

If that's the case, look up article V of the US constitution and do something about it.
Until then, you do not get to pretend that the 2nd does not exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sure, I don't believe ordinary law abiding citizens ought to be walking around Manhattan or any other city, town or village with a gun.

Millions of people carry gun sin cities towns and villages all across the country,, every day, without incident.
So... why do you feel this way?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Zimmerman, a hero to racists, and should be but isn't, an example of why there ought to be an open debate on gun control.

There is plenty of debate.

There is plenty of emotional back and forth, only M14 shooter has made the effort to provide a rational argument opposed to gun control, yet even he needed to default to ("because mom said so") the Second Amendment.

And has done so with all the legitimacy in the world.
You don't like it because you know you cannot argue around it - because you know your suggested policies violate it.

It is impossible to soundly argue that the 2A has no place in a discussion of gun control.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose.

This means you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position. Right?

You cannot place conditions on the exercise of a right just because you think it might be a good idea and they might have some positive effect on some broadly described issue, as these restrictions must pass strict scrutiny; if you cannot argue the points of that test, then you cannot, honestly, believe that the restriction in question does not unnecessarily and unconstitutionally violate the right.

You more or less admit that you cannot successfully argue that your license requirement passes strict scrutiny; why then do you believe that the license requioement you want does not violate the right to arms?

Thus the strength of your argument....

...is that you have failed at your attempt to meet the conditions of strict scrutiny. A great strength, that.

Is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners

If these infringements do not pass strict scrutiny and therefore violate the constitution, why should I?

In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment...

As if this is a failing.

The RKBA is a fundamental right of the people specifically protected by the 2nd; any attempt to ignore this fact in a discussion about gun control is a defacto an admission that the gun control under discussion violates the constitution.

As an honest person wanting an honest debate, surely you do not mean to do this, and so you will agree that the 2nd is indeed a legitimate component of any conversation regarding gun control.

And so... again... you, an honest person in an honest debate, need to re-examine your position

In fact I've examined my position, and my position is focused on social policy. I've posted that I support the Second Amendment in terms of personal security, for those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control; yet, you only see it as your right, and frankly, you don't give a damn about the rights of citizens who won't or can't carry a weapon to defend themselves (think of 20 kids in kindergarten or the students at Columbine or those in a theater in CO).

I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.
That being the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot address what I said and chose to let it stand.

We can never have a debate, since we have totally different perspectives

And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.
What does that tell an honest person in an honest debate?

Your position is simple, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct....

All rights are.
You disagree, believing that the RKBA does not deserve the same consideration of the others, regardless of the fact that is is a fundamental right of the people, specifically protected by the constitution.
My position: consistent. Your position: Arbitrary.

....mine is that if sane debate and sane policies....

"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You have not done so.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.

are not compatible with the Second Amendment, than the Second is wrong and needs to be changed.

If that's the case, look up article V of the US constitution and do something about it.
Until then, you do not get to pretend that the 2nd does not exist.[/QUOTE]

I'm not pretending the Second doesn't exist, what I'm saying is the Second is outdated and the Supreme Court has expanded this right far beyond anything imagined by the authors and the signers of the COTUS.

Maybe I misjudged you, since the emotional argument seems to have taken over you. You seem to agree, or ought to, that there are mentally unstable and violent people in our population who should never own a firearm. Yet, "ain't it awful" is worthless; limits on guns need to be addressed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm not pretending the Second doesn't exist, what I'm saying is the Second is outdated and the Supreme Court has expanded this right far beyond anything imagined by the authors and the signers of the COTUS.

Interesting (and generally unsupportable) commentary, but meaningless to the discussion.
The 2nd protects a fundamental right; you don;t get to limit a fundamental right simply because you think it is a good idea to do so.

Maybe I misjudged you, since the emotional argument seems to have taken over you.

Cop-out. Nothing I have stated here has anything to do with emotion.
YOU, on the other hand, wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You seem to agree, or ought to, that there are mentally unstable and violent people in our population who should never own a firearm.

And it is against federal law for certain people to have a gun. No issue with this. Where's your point?

 

[Yurt]

These incidents sure seem to follow George Zimmerman:

George Zimmerman hurt in Florida shooting incident - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

This time, he was shot at, in a dispute with another person.

Details, but not many at this time, at the link....

lol....

i'm not surprised you find this funny

I never said I found it funny. You just lied. As usual.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

really? let me quote what you wrote asshole:

lol....

you wrote "lol...."

yeah, you found it funny....and you LOL'd

fuck you for calling me a liar

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm not pretending the Second doesn't exist, what I'm saying is the Second is outdated and the Supreme Court has expanded this right far beyond anything imagined by the authors and the signers of the COTUS.

Interesting (and generally unsupportable) commentary, but meaningless to the discussion.
The 2nd protects a fundamental right; you don;t get to limit a fundamental right simply because you think it is a good idea to do so.

Maybe I misjudged you, since the emotional argument seems to have taken over you.

Cop-out. Nothing I have stated here has anything to do with emotion.
YOU, on the other hand, wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

You seem to agree, or ought to, that there are mentally unstable and violent people in our population who should never own a firearm.

And it is against federal law for certain people to have a gun. No issue with this. Where's your point?

The 1968 gun act is rarely enforced by US Attorney's. It is illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun (own, possess or have in custody and control) in CA's Penal Code, so the Feds don't become involved unless there is a pressing (as in a big news story and they want credit) involved. Better in their mind that the CA taxpayer pay for the prosecution and incarceration than the feds.

You default to the Second, my opinion is the Second is outdated. The hurdle to change it is too high, the NRA would put billions into defending it. So, it is best in my opinion to do what we can on the State Level.

The irony of this entire argument is gun owners demand their rights, and the first thing the NRA does after a mass murder is demand the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

 

[Statistikhengst]

These incidents sure seem to follow George Zimmerman:

George Zimmerman hurt in Florida shooting incident - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

This time, he was shot at, in a dispute with another person.

Details, but not many at this time, at the link....

lol....

i'm not surprised you find this funny

I never said I found it funny. You just lied. As usual.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

really? let me quote what you wrote asshole:

lol....

you wrote "lol...."

yeah, you found it funny....and you LOL'd

fuck you for calling me a liar

That can have many connotations, you fucking asswipe.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Yurt]

These incidents sure seem to follow George Zimmerman:

George Zimmerman hurt in Florida shooting incident - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

This time, he was shot at, in a dispute with another person.

Details, but not many at this time, at the link....

lol....

i'm not surprised you find this funny

I never said I found it funny. You just lied. As usual.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

really? let me quote what you wrote asshole:

lol....

you wrote "lol...."

yeah, you found it funny....and you LOL'd

fuck you for calling me a liar

That can have many connotations, you fucking asswipe.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

do tell asshole

LOL

 

[PredFan]

Idk if anyone has update this tread yet but the guy who shot at ZIMMERMAN was arrested last night. I don't have the details yet but it appears that GZ might burn the liberal haters once again.

 

[Yurt]

These incidents sure seem to follow George Zimmerman:

George Zimmerman hurt in Florida shooting incident - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

This time, he was shot at, in a dispute with another person.

Details, but not many at this time, at the link....

lol....

i'm not surprised you find this funny

I never said I found it funny. You just lied. As usual.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

really? let me quote what you wrote asshole:

lol....

you wrote "lol...."

yeah, you found it funny....and you LOL'd

fuck you for calling me a liar

That can have many connotations, you fucking asswipe.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

come on scat...how many connotations does "lol" have.....

LOL

 

[protectionist]

Its a crime only because they are unlicensed. That it will be a crime to sell to the unlicensed does not justify the license itself; such circular reasoning will never pass strict scrutiny.
Its is, after all, already illegal yo sell or otherwise give a gun to people you know cannot legally own a gun.

Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.

Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.

Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.

That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.

In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.

Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.

I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?

I've been to NYC (have you) and walked around Manhattan during the day, on weekends and late into the evening, and, I've never felt threatened. I've stayed in Brooklyn and Queens and never had a problem, and I've gone to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, and other than feeling like a sardine on the subway, was never uncomfortable. Maybe you're like GZ, and walk around with a chip on your shoulder, looking for trouble 'cause you have a gun hidden in your pants; or maybe your'e just a coward.

1. That wasn't the question.

2. I was born in Manhattan, and lived there, and in the Bronx, for 30 years.

3. Getting back to the question >> Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ? Let's see if you can answer a question, rather than dodge it, "or maybe your'e just a coward."

Sure, I don't believe ordinary law abiding citizens ought to be walking around Manhattan or any other city, town or village with a gun.

Imagine the carnage when someone lets loose with with a full magazine on any avenue in Manhattan because they were robbed? Not only will a round or two or three likely hit someone on their way to buy a slice, but the ensuring panic will surely cripple many more.

A police officer is trained, has a use of force policy and usually responds sensibly. The typical cowboy, who dreams of killing a bad guy, may have spent hours on the range, but has not the training or guidelines drilled into armed officers at the academy, and during their on going training.

And if such a law were repealed, anyone can carry a loaded weapon on the streets of NYC. Having lived in the Bronx and Manhattan you must admit that some of the millions walking the streets on any given day or night, in any of the boroughs of greater NY ain't quite right. A second factor to consider is that guns will become more and more ubiquitous, as fear invades the many. Much like a dog, a scared person is dangerous too, and fear negatively effects judgment.

So you're in favor of having all the miscreants, criminals, drug loons , etc, have guns, with all the law abiding, sane people unarmed, and unable to defend themselves. Charming!

What I imagine is, what I, with a CCW permit, and a .380 in my pocket, will happen if some lunatic charges at me, in full-blown hostility. He gets a .380 hollowpoint square in the gut, which stops him cold, saving my life, and the hollowpoint stays inside him, not harming anyone else. By your prescription, I'd be shot, stabbed, slashed, clubbed, or whatever. As for "training", it doesn't take much "training to shoot somebody who's attacking you, and is less than 10 feet away from you.

I wonder how many people in NYC are dead now due to the blockheads who set up the law according to your notion.

 

[protectionist]

It must really irk the Right that some of their heros, like Zimmermann und Bundy, are such incredible fuckups.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

I don't see where Zimmerman fucked up here, or in his encounter with Trayvon Martin either.

 

[protectionist]

I really don't see how any of this stems from or relates to anything I said; it certainly does not respond to or address anything I said.
That being the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that you cannot address what I said and chose to let it stand.
And the difference these perspectives? I can effectively argue and substantively support my position, whereas you cannot.
What does that tell an honest person in an honest debate?

Your position is simple, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct; mine is that if sane debate and sane policies are not compatible with the Second Amendment, than the Second is wrong and needs to be changed.

The Second Amendment is fine. Like any other amendment it is a general statement that needs to have common sense applied to it. Those who have violated societal laws with violence, and those who are mentally deranged, should not get gun licenses, or buy guns. Of course not.

Most of the guns used in mass murders have been legally obtained. My suggestion on licensing is not a cure all, it will simply hold those accountable who sell, loan, etc. a gun to someone unlicensed, and add enhancements to anyone convicted of having a gun in their possession in the commission of a crime.

It would also, IMO, require a person who wants a license to have completed a course in firearm safety, including the laws of use of force and civil penalties when someone is injured. A license would also be suspended or revoked after due process when convicted of a crime of violence, arrested for drunk in public, DUI or other elicit drug activities or detained as someone a danger to themselves or others.

In most states (if not all), it is only necessary to have a license to carry a gun. It is not necessary to have a license to buy a gun (including handguns) which can be kept in home, car, or business.

And that is something that needs fixing. In order to own, possess or have in ones' custody and control a license should (IMO) be required.

For what reason ?

 

[protectionist]

Idiotic argument. The "bloodbath" you Leftwats predicted over and over would occur if people on the streets carried guns never happened. And it never will. It's a Leftist myth and one of a LONG list.

Actually, just the opposite has happened. Since the CCW laws came into effect and people started carrying guns, street crime has gone down immensely, all over the country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 1968 gun act is rarely enforced by US Attorney's. It is illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun (own, possess or have in custody and control) in CA's Penal Code, so the Feds don't become involved unless there is a pressing (as in a big news story and they want credit) involved. Better in their mind that the CA taxpayer pay for the prosecution and incarceration than the feds.

Ok.... and?

You default to the Second, my opinion is the Second is outdated. The hurdle to change it is too high, the NRA would put billions into defending it.

Unfortunately (for you), your opinion here doesn't mean a lot -- you can't change the constitution w/o amending it.
And, of course you fully agree that the NRA has every right under the 1st amendment to oppose that change.

So, it is best in my opinion to do what we can on the State Level.

The states are bound by the 2nd as well, applied to them thru the 14th amendment,.

The irony of this entire argument is gun owners demand their rights, and the first thing the NRA does after a mass murder is demand the rights of the mentally ill be infringed.

Unsupportable nonsense.

YOU wanted an honest, open debate and yet refuse to re-assess your positions when you find you cannot support them as needed.
Where's the honesty?
"Sane" debate means looking at the fact you cannot support your position as needed by the topic and making changes accordingly. You refuse to do this.
"Sane" policies mean respecting the fact that the RKBA is a fundamental right specifically protected by the constitution and may only be limited under the same conditions as all other such rights. You refuse to do this.
Where, then, does the insanity lie here?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Look, I can't answer ever problem you seek to pose, and we both know the sale of guns is done illegally often, if not daily in our country. Since there is no way to track illegal sales, there is no solution to gun control, and that is what you seem to want, a lassiez faire system wherein guns remain available to those who ought not have them.

Something you and the NRA will deny, but that is the outcome as any honest person without an agenda understands and will acknowledge.

Thus the strength of your argument, so to speak, is you will entertain no idea which infringes on the rights of gun owners, and conversely, no ideas will ever fit the needs of innocent victims and their loved ones. because you want to believe, and have others believe such an outcome is impossible, so why try anything.

That is why I believe the NRA is a terrorist organization. They will use their money and the power money provides them to influence elections, no matter what the consequences may bring as long as they get their way.

In summary, as I'm headed to the dog park, your argument falls once again to the Second Amendment, since their is no other authority or idea which will ever satisfy you.

Finally i suggest you read some of the post by others on your side of the argument, calling them dumb is too kind.

I'm curious what YOUR side of the argument is with regard to what I said in post # 50. Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ?

I've been to NYC (have you) and walked around Manhattan during the day, on weekends and late into the evening, and, I've never felt threatened. I've stayed in Brooklyn and Queens and never had a problem, and I've gone to Yankee Stadium in the Bronx, and other than feeling like a sardine on the subway, was never uncomfortable. Maybe you're like GZ, and walk around with a chip on your shoulder, looking for trouble 'cause you have a gun hidden in your pants; or maybe your'e just a coward.

1. That wasn't the question.

2. I was born in Manhattan, and lived there, and in the Bronx, for 30 years.

3. Getting back to the question >> Do you agree with gun laws as there are in New York City, where law abiding citizens cannot even possess a handgun, let alone carry one around to defend themselves with ? Let's see if you can answer a question, rather than dodge it, "or maybe your'e just a coward."

Sure, I don't believe ordinary law abiding citizens ought to be walking around Manhattan or any other city, town or village with a gun.

Imagine the carnage when someone lets loose with with a full magazine on any avenue in Manhattan because they were robbed? Not only will a round or two or three likely hit someone on their way to buy a slice, but the ensuring panic will surely cripple many more.

A police officer is trained, has a use of force policy and usually responds sensibly. The typical cowboy, who dreams of killing a bad guy, may have spent hours on the range, but has not the training or guidelines drilled into armed officers at the academy, and during their on going training.

And if such a law were repealed, anyone can carry a loaded weapon on the streets of NYC. Having lived in the Bronx and Manhattan you must admit that some of the millions walking the streets on any given day or night, in any of the boroughs of greater NY ain't quite right. A second factor to consider is that guns will become more and more ubiquitous, as fear invades the many. Much like a dog, a scared person is dangerous too, and fear negatively effects judgment.

So you're in favor of having all the miscreants, criminals, drug loons , etc, have guns, with all the law abiding, sane people unarmed, and unable to defend themselves. Charming!

What I imagine is, what I, with a CCW permit, and a .380 in my pocket, will happen if some lunatic charges at me, in full-blown hostility. He gets a .380 hollowpoint square in the gut, which stops him cold, saving my life, and the hollowpoint stays inside him, not harming anyone else. By your prescription, I'd be shot, stabbed, slashed, clubbed, or whatever. As for "training", it doesn't take much "training to shoot somebody who's attacking you, and is less than 10 feet away from you.

I wonder how many people in NYC are dead now due to the blockheads who set up the law according to your notion.

How often do you imagine this scenario, and how often do you kill this mythical assailant? Is this your dream? Pardon the comparison but you sound like a George Zimmerman, and that is no compliment.