Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then the Second Amendment is about Militias
[
Please leave the country, right now. You are a totalitarian, or at best an oligarch, who wants to be ruled by 5 of 9 unlected lawyers. You are hoping for a court to basically make stuff up because it suits your interest. You also want to re-write all forms of product tort, that say product is only liable if it malfunctions or if its danger is hidden (i.e tobacco years ago). Guns are neither of those.
The problem was, TObacco's dangers weren't "hidden". Everyone knew they caused cancer.
BUt the Tobacco companies were held liable because they INTENTIONALLY marketted their product to appeal to children.
Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
Incidently, you are the one hiding behind Heller.
If you put gun control up to a popular vote, it would win.
Most people don't want Aaron Alexis to be walking around with a gun because someone didn't file his "He's Batshit Crazy" form.
Most people don't want overt intrusions into their lives. Have fun sliding down your own honest-to-god slippery slope.
JoeB would gladly suck government dick if push comes to shove. He'd be the first to bend over and take it when the government removed his freedoms "for his safety"
Heck, I would love to see a class action lawsuit by the cities against the gun manufacturers. Let's expose all their internal documentation, that would be awesome.
[
1) Gee I was hoping you'd tell me, Joe. You liberals always seem to think you know what's best.
2) First off, even if I had supported austerity and tax breaks for the rich, can you make a direct correlation between the poor being poor and the rich being rich?
Um, yeah. When the rich move a factory overseas or replace an employee with a machine or reduce a department from 8 people to 3 (like has happened at my job), but still require them to do the same amount of work, but then they don't reduce the price for a good or service, that really is a transfer of wealth from the WORKING CLASS to the MONIED CLASS. (Let's use the proper terms here.)
[
3) Given that you want burger flippers to make $15 an hour, it shows you care more about greed than people. People like that aren't worth that kind of money. Basically all you're doing is paying them to sate America's deadly fast food habit. You accuse rich people of greed, yet you whine about the minimum wage not being enough. Since when has it ever been enough? That's greed. That's rank avarice.
No, that's actually paying them a decent wage for hard work. Again, going back to the Clinton years, those burger flipping jobs actually paid more than minimum wage. And we were better off for it.
Oh, the CEO of McDonald's made 8.25 million last year. I think that is a lot more obscene than paying a "burger flipper" (you know the guy who is actually preparing the food) a decent wage.
Oh, wait, didn't you say you don't even have a job?
4) Spare me your Occupy 1%er crap. That was so September of 2011. You don't care, you're proving each time you speak. Why is it they are still in poverty? Just what has welfare and foodstamps done to bring them out of it? You whine about wanting jobs, you blame the rich, but then you are passing healthcare plans that kill jobs and asking for insane wages that even the richest businessman would never pay you. Your own greed is killing the workforce. Never happy with what you have you make a habit of demanding more and more. Its as if you act like you don't have to earn what you 'work' for.
Blaming any policy for the greed of the rich is like blaming a short dress for a rape. The thing is these guys screwed their workers before ObamaCare, and they'd be screwing them ObamaCare or not.
You spend on infrastructure and education, THAT produces jobs, that increases competitiveness. Not some greedy CEO making 8 figures.
Oh, by the way, MOST other countries, the CEO don't make 8 figures. They usually make about six. Only in the US do we think rewarding greed is a good idea.
[
5) Your sarcasm is clear proof that your argument is weak. But then again, I never accused you of having any priorities for those poor folks out there.
No, my sarcarism is a reflection of having to try to argue with a young punk who really hasn't lived all that much, really hasn't been out there in the real world.
I'm 51. I've been working since I was 16. Worked from a little mom-and-pop Pizza place to today, where I work for a multi-national corporation and deal with associates all over the world. (This week, I worked on a project involving colleagues in Mexico, China and the Czech republic). Been in the military. Worked for both government and private entities.
And what have you done? Stayed at home, living off of others.
Seriously, just shut the fuck up.
[
Few people are armed on a Military base, certain locations like armories or security points have armed guards then there are MP's, the center where the Major opened fire had no armed guards stationed there, everyone in that building was unarmed as were all the soldiers passing by.
So in short, he figured out the most oppurtune time and place to carry out his attack, and was able to kill 13 people on a heavily armed military base.
Puts the lie to, "If only everyone was packing" argument.
[
Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
We aren't doing it right.
[
Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
We aren't doing it right.
Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
[
Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
We aren't doing it right.
Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
[
Austerity is a concept. Gun control is a doomed reality.
What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
We aren't doing it right.
Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
The same with cars I suppose....right? Someone is trying to equate the two and I'm asking why one has to be insured and the other doesn't. Simple question.
Well for starters, as was pointed out, there is no amendment to the constitution that reads 'the right to drive automobiles shall not be infringed'. Secondly, you already actually can insure firearms (it's a perk of being an NRA member) against loss or damage. Realistically though I don't think you'd ever get an insurance company to cover firearm liability insurance. There isn't a law now against selling firearm liability insurance. So why isn't anyone selling it? I could also just as easily argue their shouldn't vehicle liability insurance either. If your so concerned about someone being injured by a firearm why exactly does not occur to you that if they can't pay anything from legal judgment there somehow going to be able to exhorbitant insurance premiums you're suggesting? Granted, that's admittedly your goal, but it's wrong, hence why they shouldn't be insured. It shouldn't cost someone some exhorbitant dollar figure to exercise their right to defend themselves.
The reason you want firearm owners to have to buy liability insurance is just as important a distinction as well. You want them treated the same, but for different reasons. You want firearm insurance to serve as an impediment to ownership again figuring the more difficult you make it the fewer gun owners there will be. That isn't the same reason you're advocating for having vehicular liability insurance.
Oh okay; "it's wrong".
Society spends millions upon millions in police response, emergency rooms, etc... cleaning up the messes left by guns. Society has a right to protect itself which is why we have the legal system in the first place. If you want to call it punative fine. Sounds justified to me.
Within society, of course, are citizens who are protected by that legal system but protection doesn't translate seamlessly into justice for pain, suffering, medical bills, time lost from work or vocation, life conditions, emotional stress of having your 4 year old daughter killed etc... Sure we put bad guys in jail but there is no financial remedy built into the system.
Hence the need for liability insurance to be carried per weapon. The kid who pulled off Sandy Hook used the weapons his mom had, correct? His victims could be paid by the insurance policy that would have to be carried on those weapons.
Of course you're correct...my premise is to make guns prohibitively expensive and therefore dry up the demand and eventually dry up the supply.
As shitty an idea as it sounds; it's the only idea I've read here that would actually work (that and the taxes on the weapons and mandatory lengthy federal prison sentences for anyone using a gun in a crime). The other remedies I have read--I haven't poured over every post here admittedly--involve turning psychologists and psychiatrists into vigilant stewards and hoping that the guy first seeks help then steps on the trip wire to allow Dr. Jones to notify the police. At best it's a shaky proposition; at worst you are marring the profession (What's next, forcing Dr's to report extra-marital affairs?).
I admit it's a terrible idea but we have terrible atrocities occuring. The famous "reasonable response to an unreasonable situation" may apply here. Dunno.
Thanks for the thoughful and civil response. I just think there needs to be something built into our system that addresses the realities of gun crimes and that is the financial injury inflicted by them and, via which, it will actually retard the purchases of weapons.
Again, thanks for the debate.
What is it with you Wingnuts that you all like to pretend the rest of the industrialized world doesn't exist?
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy limits gun ownership.
EVERY other advanced industrial democracy has murder rates that are a tiny fraction of ours.
EVERY other industrial democracy only locks up a tiny fraction of the number of people we lock up.
We aren't doing it right.
Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
Facts have a way of making some on this message board very angry.
Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
Only gun-control advocates should be angry. The dismal failure of the automatic weapons ban was a huge victory, and certain liberals are doing back-flips trying to figure out how in the world they can do it again.
After the Lanza shooting and during the debate that followed, they had their best opportunity to impose a few more ticky-tacky rules on gun owners, but the effort fizzled quickly.
A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit. You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board. Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me. Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others. Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
A very insightful response to your character, not to the debate at hand.
I suspect most gun-control advocates were saddened by the lack of political will in the face of the horrific slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School. That you celebrate the failure of some controls to limit gun carnage is disturbing.
I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit. You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board. Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me. Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others. Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.
Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control a gun of said person.
2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.
3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control a gun revoked for life.
4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.
So, where in the above is it suggested all guns be confiscated by the government?
I frustrated the shit out of you, didn't I.
The thought that criminals always will have guns and always will kill children is too much for you to bare.
No, you didn't frustrate me one little bit. You are not the only callous asshole who posts on this message board. Rather, you and others who have so little regard for others, and such a level of paranoia, concern me. Fortunately most of your kind have bravado only when seated behind a keyboard.
You see, I spent 32 years as a law enforcement professional and witnessed first hand the victims of gun violence and the aberrant and sociopathic individuals who inflicted injury on others. Sadly for all rational and mentally stable citizens, some of your kind run/drive around with a loaded gun looking for trouble.
And that's where your "guns for me and not for thee" mentaility comes it. Tell me, if we banned private gun ownership, would you be willing to leave your sidearm at the precinct, and be disarmed like the rest of us when you are off-duty?
As I noted before, the Second Amendment as interpreted by the USSC has become obsolete. Sadly and to our nations shame it will take more than the murder of twenty 6 and 7 year old children to restore some semblance of sanity and civility in our country.
