Premila Lal, 18, shot dead after jumping out of closet to surprise friend

[PredFan]

That guy had to have been a VERY quick draw. Unless he was carrying his gun already. Why would she choose to jump out at a guy who is holding a gun? this doesn't make sense.

 

[JoeB131]

[

So says the apologist for the authoritarian state. Look, Joe, you want to live in a gilded cage, fine; the world is full of places where you can do that; hell, there's one to the immediate north, called "Canada". You're free to go there, anytime. Meanwhile, some of the rest of us would rather not live in your proposed nanny state and workers paradise. We like our freedom, as guaranteed by the Constitution...and we intend to defend it against ALL enemies (which apparently, includes YOU).

Once again proving, the BEST Argument for gun control is letting the gun nuts spout off.

Becuase every last one of them has a murder hard on.

Sorry, you guys can't control your guns, you don't get guns.

Easy-peasy.

 

[JoeB131]

That guy had to have been a VERY quick draw. Unless he was carrying his gun already. Why would she choose to jump out at a guy who is holding a gun? this doesn't make sense.

Maybe because she comes from a country where they don't let any yahoo own a gun, and she didn't think her friend would shoot her.

 

[PredFan]

The lefties have been getting bitch-slapped by the NRA so much lately that they are losing it. It's fun to watch.

 

[peach174]

They pull food dyes out of circulation for causing cancer in RATS.

I think 32,000 gun deaths with no corresponding benefit is more than a good enough reason to pull them.

Then change the Constitution. That is your only recourse.

No, the constitution is pretty clear.

Well Regulated Militia.

You ain't in the militia, you don't need a gun.

Simple, no.

You are not including the second part of the sentence.

A well regulated Militia for the security of a free State (Security), the right of the people (all citizens of the U.S.A.) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed(to violate or break).
We have the right to defend ourselves and prohibiting the sale of certain guns, infringes that right.

If it was meant only for the Militias it would say;
A well regulated Militia for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Instead it says PEOPLE not MILITIAS

 

[JoeB131]

The lefties have been getting bitch-slapped by the NRA so much lately that they are losing it. It's fun to watch.

Sorry, winning two backwater elections isn't a 'bitch-slapping'.

That's going to be when the NEXT asshole guns down a bunch of children and we find out he was able to get a gun without a background check.

You guys are going to totally own that one.

 

[JoeB131]

[
You are not including the second part of the sentence.

A well regulated Militia for the security of a free State (Security), the right of the people (all citizens of the U.S.A.) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed(to violate or break).
We have the right to defend ourselves and prohibiting the sale of certain guns, infringes that right.

If it was meant only for the Militias it would say;
A well regulated Militia for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Instead it says PEOPLE not MILITIAS

It probably didn't think they needed to make a distinction.

Keep in mind, when the Founding Slave Rapists said "the People", they didn't mean Slaves, Women, Indians, or folks without property. They thought that all "Rights" would only be excercised by the privilaged few.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then change the Constitution. That is your only recourse.

No, the constitution is pretty clear.

Well Regulated Militia.

You ain't in the militia, you don't need a gun.

Simple, no.

You are not including the second part of the sentence.

A well regulated Militia for the security of a free State (Security), the right of the people (all citizens of the U.S.A.) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed(to violate or break).
We have the right to defend ourselves and prohibiting the sale of certain guns, infringes that right.

If it was meant only for the Militias it would say;
A well regulated Militia for the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Instead it says PEOPLE not MILITIAS

Anyone that has English as their native tongue and was not raised in the current liberal school system knows the sentence means the right to keep and bear arms ca not be violated and that one reason for that is a need for a militia. The sentence does not tie firearms to the militia nor does it tie owning one to belonging to a militia. That is simple English. I mean I can understand why a reject like Joe doesn't get it he probably got his education in the current Liberal lala land that is our public schools, they probably just passed him along to get him out of the system.

 

[Missourian]

Yes, the old tired, "Well, they are counting differently" excuse that the right uses when the US shows up really badly in a comparison.

Yeah, that'll work.

We had 11,101 gun murders, the UK had 48.

The UK only had 48 gun murders BEFORE they outlawed handguns.

So banning handguns changed nothing.

Oops.

Why do gun banners arguments keep blowing up in their faces?

 

[Montrovant]

It's a lot easier to kill someone with a gun than without one.

Which is why 68% of murders in this country happen- with guns.

And countries without guns only have a fraction of our murder rate.


11,101 gun murders in the US.
11 gun murders in Japan

Hmmmmm... Makes you wonder what the Japanese are doing right.

Australia same thing.

How do those countries report murders?

Is it like the US where every death not of natural causes or suicide is reported as a murder?

Or is it like the UK where murders are only reported after there is a conviction?

Get an apples to apples comparison then we'll compare.

You've said this a number of times, but I think you are forgetting accidents as a cause. I certainly hope the US does not count accidents as murders for statistics!

 

[Montrovant]

the only way you get the US in the "Middle" of a pack if the Pack includes third world countries or countries that are very poor and have high crime rates.

Compared to other, industrialized Democracies, we are in terrible shape.

I just looked up murder rates by country. I didn't specify.

I don't doubt that the prevalence of guns in the US is a factor in our murder rates. I question if the supposed 'gun culture' of this country is causal, however.

Read this before you put too much faith in those reported murder rates.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/311735-comparing-murder-rates.html#post7796786

I accept that different ways to compile these statistics can have a great affect on the comparison. On the other hand, I can easily imagine the US having a higher murder rate than the countries Joe likes to use to compare.

 

[Montrovant]

They pull food dyes out of circulation for causing cancer in RATS.

I think 32,000 gun deaths with no corresponding benefit is more than a good enough reason to pull them.

Then change the Constitution. That is your only recourse.

No, the constitution is pretty clear.

Well Regulated Militia.

You ain't in the militia, you don't need a gun.

Simple, no.

And when either the SCOTUS decides to go against precedent and make that ruling, or when you are appointed to the SCOUTS, you can make such an argument. At this point, your opinion on the subject is pretty unimportant legally speaking.

We have the right, as individuals, to bear arms per the SCOTUS's interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And when either the SCOTUS decides to go against precedent and make that ruling, or when you are appointed to the SCOUTS, you can make such an argument. At this point, your opinion on the subject is pretty unimportant legally speaking.

We have the right, as individuals, to bear arms per the SCOTUS's interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Well, not exactly true. Scalia had to do all sorts of handstands to explain why the right to bear arms doesn't include Howitzers, Machine Guns, Tanks, Anthrax or Sarin Gas.

The fact that Heller was a 5-4 position gives it the moral authority of "Good for this week only."

 

[Montrovant]

[

And when either the SCOTUS decides to go against precedent and make that ruling, or when you are appointed to the SCOUTS, you can make such an argument. At this point, your opinion on the subject is pretty unimportant legally speaking.

We have the right, as individuals, to bear arms per the SCOTUS's interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Well, not exactly true. Scalia had to do all sorts of handstands to explain why the right to bear arms doesn't include Howitzers, Machine Guns, Tanks, Anthrax or Sarin Gas.

The fact that Heller was a 5-4 position gives it the moral authority of "Good for this week only."

But it does have all the legal authority. That's the important consideration in this context.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And when either the SCOTUS decides to go against precedent and make that ruling, or when you are appointed to the SCOUTS, you can make such an argument. At this point, your opinion on the subject is pretty unimportant legally speaking.

We have the right, as individuals, to bear arms per the SCOTUS's interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Well, not exactly true. Scalia had to do all sorts of handstands to explain why the right to bear arms doesn't include Howitzers, Machine Guns, Tanks, Anthrax or Sarin Gas.

The fact that Heller was a 5-4 position gives it the moral authority of "Good for this week only."

But it does have all the legal authority. That's the important consideration in this context.

Again, not really. All it does is strike down SOME laws. Then you pass new laws. And you keep making Scalia tell the parents of slaughtered children that Joker Holmes and Crazy Lanza REALLY, REALLY need those guns.

Because eventually, even he'll realize he looks stupid saying it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, not exactly true. Scalia had to do all sorts of handstands to explain why the right to bear arms doesn't include Howitzers, Machine Guns, Tanks, Anthrax or Sarin Gas.

The fact that Heller was a 5-4 position gives it the moral authority of "Good for this week only."

But it does have all the legal authority. That's the important consideration in this context.

Again, not really. All it does is strike down SOME laws. Then you pass new laws. And you keep making Scalia tell the parents of slaughtered children that Joker Holmes and Crazy Lanza REALLY, REALLY need those guns.

Because eventually, even he'll realize he looks stupid saying it.

Under current law they should not have had weapons. But no one in authority chose to use that authority to follow the law. So you would punish 300 million people because a couple people slip through the cracks. How enlightened of you.

As for your whine on rates of murder. 4 in 100,000 is a miniscule number, yet you would take away the right to self defense of 100's of millions cause you are a whiny little shit. Let me guess? In your utopia YOU would be allowed to be armed right?

The law stands and your little rant does not change it. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irregardless of status in a militia. Go cry somewhere else I am tired of explaining simple facts to a deranged paranoid fool. Seek help there are medications for your condition.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So to Recap. Accidental shootings, about 800 a year. Tragic for the families involved but hardly earth shattering in number.

Law of the land. It is an individual right to own possess and bear firearms and can not be infringed by Government. And no requirement to belong to a Militia.

Crazy people are barred from owning firearms. This requires a Judges ruling and requires local authorities to do their jobs.

Felons are barred from owning firearms.

Background checks are required on all transactions with a licensed dealer no matter if at a gun show or where.

 

[Vikrant]

^ I think we need to add some form of aptitude testing which will consist of a set of tests designed to test intellect, common sense, gun laws, firearms training and psychological well being of the potential gun owner.

In addition, background checks should be done to ensure that the person is not a racially motivated violent person.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Under current law they should not have had weapons. But no one in authority chose to use that authority to follow the law. So you would punish 300 million people because a couple people slip through the cracks. How enlightened of you..

Under current law, there are so many loopholes that are intentionally designed to allow people like that to have guns, and when someone tries to close them, the NRA comes down on them like a ton of bricks. You see, it's part of the marketting ploy.

The crazy gun whacks themselves don't make up a large enough market to really make a profit, but you let enough criminals and crazy people "slip through the cracks",and pretty soon, Nancy the Housewife suddenly thinks she needs 12 guns to protect herself. Until her crazy kid goes on a shooting spree.

[
As for your whine on rates of murder. 4 in 100,000 is a miniscule number, yet you would take away the right to self defense of 100's of millions cause you are a whiny little shit. Let me guess? In your utopia YOU would be allowed to be armed right?.

Naw, I wouldn't trust me with a gun. Soldiers and police would be armed. No one else really needs a gun.

I would take away the PRIVILAGE of owning a gun because most of you aren't responsible enough to handle it, and because self-defense is so rare that it hardly justified the carnage that results.

[
The law stands and your little rant does not change it. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irregardless of status in a militia. Go cry somewhere else I am tired of explaining simple facts to a deranged paranoid fool. Seek help there are medications for your condition.

The law is only going to be around as long as the rest of us put up with it, and that won't be for much longer. History is against you, and every other industrialized country has already figured this out.

 

[JoeB131]

So to Recap. Accidental shootings, about 800 a year. Tragic for the families involved but hardly earth shattering in number.

Law of the land. It is an individual right to own possess and bear firearms and can not be infringed by Government. And no requirement to belong to a Militia.

Crazy people are barred from owning firearms. This requires a Judges ruling and requires local authorities to do their jobs.

Felons are barred from owning firearms.

Background checks are required on all transactions with a licensed dealer no matter if at a gun show or where.

Gun deaths are still happening, the laws you cite are inadeqate, we need tougher laws.

To recap.