There is no catastrophe so ghastly that we will reform our gun laws

[rightwinger]

Suicide is not illegal nor should it be.

Therefore no one's rights should be curbed because of suicide.

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

You do not have a right to drive a car.

You don't have unrestricted gun rights either

 

[P@triot]

Kidney-bean sized fetuses aren't "babies", dude.

Because you don't want to see them as babies. You can't feel comfortable killing them if they are babies. We all understand that the only way to justify abortion is to demonize the thing that had the audacity to grow inside the woman. It's just like a cancer really, right?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

It doesn't matter what I see them as.

It matters what the woman it is inside sees them as.

If she sees it as "that problem I need to take care of", that kind of settles it.

It's not a matter of justifying it, it's a matter of recognizing reality.

When the religious whacks support welfare without shame, universal health care and paid family leave, then and only then will I take your whinging about "babies" seriously.

That's literally as stupid as saying "it doesn't matter that we saw the victims in Santa Barbara as people, it only matters that Eliot Rodgers saw them as demons" or "it doesn't matter that we saw Ted Bundy's victims as women, it only matters that he saw them as objects".

With each post, you literally get more desperate and absurd. You now want to make the case that the only thing that matters is how the murderer saw the victim?!? By that "logic", nobody will ever go to prison.

Dumb ass...

 

[P@triot]

[

Yeah, because without the gun, the kid could NEVER have figured out how to commit suicide and he would have just given up. He wouldn't have slit his wrists. Or hung himself. Or taken too many pills. Or jumped off of a building. Or dropped a toaster in his bathtub. Or driven his vehicle into on coming traffic. Of sat in his garage with an engine running. You know, none of the stuff that millions of people have done through out history. Nope. If it wasn't for that damn gun the kid would be alive today.

Dumb ass...

Poodle, he'd have had a much better chance of surviving most of those.

And he didn't try any of those. He took mom's gun and killed himself.

Dumb ass continues to make up his own stats and facts because he's getting his ass handed to him by facts.

Nobody survived their fall from the twin towers. Nobody. But people have survived suicide attempts from self-inflicted gun shots.

Dumb ass...

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

You do not have a right to drive a car.

You don't have unrestricted gun rights either

But should my rights be further restricted because someone commits suicide ?

Or if someone else commits a crime?

 

[kaz]

Its possible they would consider another way

So the gun is using some sort of mind control on them? They may not be suicidal, but that damned gun, it's controlling me!

BTW, there are two types of suicides. Those who want to be saved, or at least want there to be a chance, and those who don't. Your view that guns turn the latter into the former is preposterous. If they don't want to be saved, they will use an appropriate measure that ensures they won't. If they do, they probably wouldn't have used a gun anyway. When I explain obvious things to liberals, I always feel like I'm talking to a six year old. Except the six year old is more likely to grasp it.

Not sure either what conclusion you draw from this. How would the chance of a suicide succeeding effect gun laws exactly?

 

[kaz]

You do not have a right to drive a car.

You don't have unrestricted gun rights either

But should my rights be further restricted because someone commits suicide ?

Or if someone else commits a crime?

Exactly. If someone else commits suicide or a crime, they want to be sure you're not armed. Don't you see how that would make things better?

 

[P@triot]

So by your "logic" - why is the Secret Service heavily armed? So that they can shoot the president?

The purpose of a gun is not to "shoot people". The purpose of a gun is to neutralize a threat. Sadly, most often that threat comes in the form of a person - hence the reason to practice on targets shaped like a person. However, it can also come in the form of a bear, a wolf, or other dangerous animal. They are, of course, also used for hunting.

Just think, if you Dumbocrats weren't so soft on crime and working 24x7 to keep criminals on the streets, we wouldn't need so many guns. But lets not talk about that liberal failure...

Poodle, don't be dense. The Secret Service has guns to shoot people who want to shoot the President.

But....but....but....I thought guns weren't used for defense? I thought they were just used to slaughter people? That's what you just said. Now you're changing your story already.

I love how guns are sooooo bad in the mind of libtards, yet they never ask their leaders to disarm. Barack Obama? Surrounded by guns 24x7. Bill & Hillary Clinton? Surrounded by guns 24x7. Michael Bloomberg? Surrounded by guns 24x7. It's so bizarre that these people have an armory 24x7 and yet your dumb ass is worried about disarming me...

Because genius, this nation has 30 million criminals (and growing thanks to Obama funneling in MS-13 gang members from Honduras and drug cartel members from Mexico in hopes of legalizing them to expand his voter base beyond real U.S. citizens). A bit math challenged, are we? Here, let me help you chief - 30 million criminals minus 2 million in prison, equals 28 million still on the street.

If guns and prisons were the answer to crime, we'd have the lowest crime rate in the industrialized world,not the highest.

Guns are the answer to crime. Unfortunately, you libtards are too stupid to carry a gun and you keep fighting to create more victim zones in the U.S. Every single victim in the recent California shooting was unarmed. Every single one of them. That's why we are referring to them as "victims" today and in the past tense. This is so simple and obvious, even a 6-year old can figure it out. So why are you struggling?

And, as I already stated, you libtards won't put people in prison. So that's why that great solution isn't working. In fact, you fight to keep them out. Like when all you sick liberal fuck's were raping women at Occupy Wall Street and then demanding that the poor victims not report it to the police...

Of course, Germany, Japan, the UK, France. They don't have lots of guns or lots of prisons. What they do have is an economic system where everyone is promised a job, and those who can't work get good benefits and everyone gets free medical care. Fucking commie socialist bastards making us look bad.

Which begs the question - why won't you get up off of your lazy ass and provide everyone a job? I've asked you this a thousand times and you've refused to answer. The one time you did respond you gave the most absurd response and completely humiliated yourself when you said "I don't want to become a rich douche". Even though it's painfully obvious that all you care about is money - you spend every single second crying about the wealthy because of your insane envy of them. Plus that pitiful response ignores your civic duty of providing jobs (according to your "logic"). So I'll ask yet again Joseph - why won't you get up off of your lazy ass and provide everyone with a job?

Still waiting on an answer Joe...

 

[rightwinger]

Suicide is not illegal nor should it be.

Therefore no one's rights should be curbed because of suicide.

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

The restrictions are on HOW you use your car, not on how you GET you car. Plus you have to use your car wrong to be "punished." Its not based on the off chance you MAY use your car wrong, as is the basis of most gun control concepts.

Nice try.

Drunk driving laws and speeding are examples of how you may use your car wrong. You have not actually gotten into an accident, but are more likely to do so

There are many laws affecting how you GET your car. Restrictions on licensing, car safety standards

 

[kaz]

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

You do not have a right to drive a car.

You don't have unrestricted gun rights either

We don't have unrestricted gun rights, which is in the Constitution. But we do have unrestricted rights to an abortion, which isn't in the Constitution. Gotcha.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Bam! That is the simple distiction the simpleton liberals don't grasp. Sure, the secret service, cops (like JoeB sees on TV), self defense classes use human targets. That is a point that wasn't in contention. The point made was exactly this. Self defense is a legitimate use of guns. And as you grasp because you are not a liberal moron, that does not mean you are doing it to shoot people. You are doing it to protect yourself. And not having a gun does not remove the gun of the criminal who attacks you.

Kaz, "self-defense' would be legitimate if it were a common occurance.

But the FBI says only about 200 people a year kill in self-defense iwth a gun, compared to the 19,500 suicides, 11,000 murders and 800 accidents that occur with guns.

It's really a case of the "solution" being worse than the "problem".

If Guns and Prisons made us safer, we'd be the safest country in the Industrialized World, not the most dangerous.

INstead, we have the Japanese Government publishing phamplets on how not to get shot in America after a Japanese teen was shot by a gun owner because he was going to a party and got the address wrong.

 

[P@triot]

Suicides do count to the persons family. And a gun is the number one form of suicide

Most cars never get in accidents but we have rules that apply to everyone

And if they didn't have a gun they would have just been happy as a lark and never considered using any other form of self murder.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Its possible they would consider another way

But just as likely that the gun was there, it was loaded and they made an instantaneous decision to pull the trigger. Once that decision is made...there is no turning back

Other methods like pills, poison, carbon monoxide and slitting your wrists give you time to decide you want to live
Methods like jumping off a bridge or in front of a moving train terrorize people and are less likely to be a method of choice

Wait....I thought gun's "terrorized" people (at least according to you libtards)?!? And jumping off of a building or stepping in front of a train give you ZERO time to decide as well.

Finally, since when do you guys care about human life? You celebrate over one million babies murdered per year. Plus you greedy liberals LOVE when people pay into the system and then die early. It leaves more money for you greedy people.

 

[rightwinger]

You do not have a right to drive a car.

You don't have unrestricted gun rights either

But should my rights be further restricted because someone commits suicide ?

Or if someone else commits a crime?

Depends

People who are in treatment and are deemed unstable should not have access to guns. Those on certain medications should not have access. Those suffering from depression or PTSD should not have access

If that applies to you ....then yes, your rights should be further restricted

 

[JoeB131]

[

Still waiting on an answer Joe...

Guy, I don't read all the spew you put on. I'll go back and see if I can find this one and maybe answer it.

 

[kaz]

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

The restrictions are on HOW you use your car, not on how you GET you car. Plus you have to use your car wrong to be "punished." Its not based on the off chance you MAY use your car wrong, as is the basis of most gun control concepts.

Nice try.

Drunk driving laws and speeding are examples of how you may use your car wrong. You have not actually gotten into an accident, but are more likely to do so

There are many laws affecting how you GET your car. Restrictions on licensing, car safety standards

- The Constitution cedes the power to create roads from the people to the Federal government. With creating roads comes regulating their use.

- The Constitution specifically withholds the power to "infringe" on the right to gun ownership from the Federal government.

Those are fundamentally different. Driving is a privilege, it's not a right.

 

[rightwinger]

You do not have a right to drive a car.

You don't have unrestricted gun rights either

We don't have unrestricted gun rights, which is in the Constitution. But we do have unrestricted rights to an abortion, which isn't in the Constitution. Gotcha.

Abortion is legal
You do not have unrestricted rights to own guns. It has been held up as Constitutional by the courts

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm sorry...but that is one of the dumbest responses I've seen in weeks

Having a car accident is not illegal yet we have hundreds of laws restricting your rights to drive a car

The restrictions are on HOW you use your car, not on how you GET you car. Plus you have to use your car wrong to be "punished." Its not based on the off chance you MAY use your car wrong, as is the basis of most gun control concepts.

Nice try.

Drunk driving laws and speeding are examples of how you may use your car wrong. You have not actually gotten into an accident, but are more likely to do so

There are many laws affecting how you GET your car. Restrictions on licensing, car safety standards

If someone else drives drunk should your license be suspended?

What if you've been in an alcohol treatment program? You are obviously more likely to drive drunk than a Mormon so maybe we should take your license away

 

[Skull Pilot]

You don't have unrestricted gun rights either

But should my rights be further restricted because someone commits suicide ?

Or if someone else commits a crime?

Depends

People who are in treatment and are deemed unstable should not have access to guns. Those on certain medications should not have access. Those suffering from depression or PTSD should not have access

If that applies to you ....then yes, your rights should be further restricted

Nice equivocation.

BTW none of those things apply to me and I would venture they don't apply to most people.

 

[JoeB131]

Guns are the answer to crime. Unfortunately, you libtards are too stupid to carry a gun and you keep fighting to create more victim zones in the U.S. Every single victim in the recent California shooting was unarmed. Every single one of them. That's why we are referring to them as "victims" today and in the past tense. This is so simple and obvious, even a 6-year old can figure it out. So why are you struggling?

And, as I already stated, you libtards won't put people in prison. So that's why that great solution isn't working. In fact, you fight to keep them out. Like when all you sick liberal fuck's were raping women at Occupy Wall Street and then demanding that the poor victims not report it to the police...

three of the victims were killed in their sleep. I'm not sure a gun would have done much good.

However, if you want to go there, in Tuscon, they have a "concealed carry" law, and not one person pulled out a gun to stop Loughner's rampage. One guy almost DID shoot one of the guys who wrestled Loughner to the ground, though.

Which begs the question - why won't you get up off of your lazy ass and provide everyone a job? I've asked you this a thousand times and you've refused to answer. The one time you did respond you gave the most absurd response and completely humiliated yourself when you said "I don't want to become a rich douche". Even though it's painfully obvious that all you care about is money - you spend every single second crying about the wealthy because of your insane envy of them. Plus that pitiful response ignores your civic duty of providing jobs (according to your "logic"). So I'll ask yet again Joseph - why won't you get up off of your lazy ass and provide everyone with a job?

Um, Poodle, I usually ignore this because it's retarded.

Okay, here's the thing. Which works better- Keynesian economics where everyone gets a job, or Supply Side where you only get as many jobs as the rich need to make more obscene amounts of money.

It's a pretty simple question.

 

[Mephisto]

[
The restrictions are on HOW you use your car, not on how you GET you car. Plus you have to use your car wrong to be "punished." Its not based on the off chance you MAY use your car wrong, as is the basis of most gun control concepts.

Nice try.

Wrong, there are two restrictions getting a car.

Without a drivers license you can not purchase an auto...that is a restriction.

In order for you to buy a car you have to show proof of insurance and a valid drivers license, again more restrictions on how you get a car. In fact you can not drive the car off the deals lot without insurance.

 

[rightwinger]

The restrictions are on HOW you use your car, not on how you GET you car. Plus you have to use your car wrong to be "punished." Its not based on the off chance you MAY use your car wrong, as is the basis of most gun control concepts.

Nice try.

Drunk driving laws and speeding are examples of how you may use your car wrong. You have not actually gotten into an accident, but are more likely to do so

There are many laws affecting how you GET your car. Restrictions on licensing, car safety standards

- The Constitution cedes the power to create roads from the people to the Federal government. With creating roads comes regulating their use.

- The Constitution specifically withholds the power to "infringe" on the right to gun ownership from the Federal government.

Those are fundamentally different. Driving is a privilege, it's not a right.

The provision that the right to bear arms is not absolute has been upheld by the courts for centuries. Just as the link between bearing arms and a well regulated militia has been broken by the courts