Two Proud Gun Nuts Second-Amendment Each Other To Death In Road Rage Incident

[Brain357]

And what is a hammer for?
Now, what is a gun for?

Gun is for shooting bullets.

Hammer is for hammering nails.

Either can be used for other purposes.

Point?

Hammers are for pounding things. Guns are for killing things. Either could be used to defend yourself but neither is designed for it.

A gun is specifically designed to save the life of the user...

No, it's specifically designed to kill something, which is why we give them to soldiers. Body armor is for protection, the gun is for killing the enemy. That's why a couple of gun stores don't want to sell to Muslims, who they say are the enemy. If a gun was for protection both side would have them, and no one would get hurt...

the gun is designed to save the life of the user...this can be accomplished by firing bullets....which can drive off an enemy, injure or kill them......3 options right there...

And the most common type of use...never requires any gullet to be fired...all while protecting the life of the user...
.... the mere presence of a gun deters violence more than it is used to cause violence......the majority of police officers never fire their guns and at the same time the mere presence of the gun keeps them safe from attack....ditto guns in the hands of soldiers, again, most soldiers will never fire their guns....but the mere presence of guns is usually more than enough to prevent open combat between nations...

so you are wrong....

The owner is killed by his own gun far more than they kill anyone else.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Be polite, 2d Amendment nuts, or you will get the logic of your position.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All rights have limitations.

Do tell.
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question What qualifies as an infringement of the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[mudwhistle]

In this thread a couple people fail to realize that not all gun owners are responsible, but that that in and of itself shouldn't mean that everyone should lose their right to own a gun. For every stupid or criminal person involved with a legally-owned gun, what's the number of responsible citizens? This kind of crap being peddled is stupid, because it's like saying cars should be banned because we have some 32,000 motor vehicle fatalities as of 2013. Not everyone in a group is the same, you know. And if you don't know, now's a good time to start knowing it.

My guess is more people are killed by texting while driving.

 

[Dot Com]

[
the gun is designed to save the life of the user..

We have the right to arms as a means to affect our right to self defense, exercised individually or collectively; firearms are specifically protected by the constitution because they are likely the most effective means to this end.
EoS.

All rights have limitations.

yep.

even the arch conservative justice on the Supreme Court said that but I don't expect 'tard boi to know or even acknowledge it

Why Liberals Should Thank Justice Scalia for Gun Control - NationalJournal.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
the gun is designed to save the life of the user..

We have the right to arms as a means to affect our right to self defense, exercised individually or collectively; firearms are specifically protected by the constitution because they are likely the most effective means to this end.
EoS.

All rights have limitations.

yep.
even the arch conservative justice on the Supreme Court said that but I don't expect 'tard boi to know or even acknowledge it
Why Liberals Should Thank Justice Scalia for Gun Control - NationalJournal.com

Anti-gun loons hate Heller, hate McDonald and - especially - hate Scalia, as, in those decisions, he did more to end their ability to further restrict the rights of the law abiding than anyone else in the known universe.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All rights have limitations.

Do tell.
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question What qualifies as an infringement of the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Seems as though you have your answer...

 

[August West]

You live in a black and white world where your ok and good and special and a saint and everyone else is evil. Not reality, but go with what makes you feel good.

Says he who believes gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of the law abiding must be further restricted, but not so bad that law-abiding have legitimate justification in carrying a gun for self-defense.

Gun rights of the law abiding are restricted? When did that start?

 

[M14 Shooter]

All rights have limitations.

Do tell.
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question What qualifies as an infringement of the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Seems as though you have your answer...

As do you, rendering your statement effectively meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You live in a black and white world where your ok and good and special and a saint and everyone else is evil. Not reality, but go with what makes you feel good.

Says he who believes gun-related crime is so bad that the rights of the law abiding must be further restricted, but not so bad that law-abiding have legitimate justification in carrying a gun for self-defense.

Gun rights of the law abiding are restricted? When did that start?

^^
An unserious question.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All rights have limitations.

Do tell.
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question What qualifies as an infringement of the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Seems as though you have your answer...

As do you, rendering your statement effectively meaningless.

Nope - Gun laws in the US state by state interactive US news theguardian.com

 

[M14 Shooter]

All rights have limitations.

Do tell.
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question What qualifies as an infringement of the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Seems as though you have your answer...

As do you, rendering your statement effectively meaningless.

Nope - Gun laws in the US state by state interactive US news theguardian.com

I thank you for your ineffective response.
Unless you describe how the limitations that all rights have are directly involved with my statement, you've only managed meaninglessly stated the obvious.
I'm sure this will only continue.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All rights have limitations.

Do tell.
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question What qualifies as an infringement of the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Seems as though you have your answer...

As do you, rendering your statement effectively meaningless.

Nope - Gun laws in the US state by state interactive US news theguardian.com

I thank you for your ineffective response.
Unless you describe how the limitations that all rights have are directly involved with my statement, you've only managed meaninglessly stated the obvious.
I'm sure this will only continue.

Works like this:

Right to a gun, but
Right to free speech, but
Right to privacy, but
Right to vote, but
Right to travel, but
Right to run for elected office, but

And so on. All rights have limitations, like those placed on guns and gun owners.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do tell.
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Like most rights the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question What qualifies as an infringement of the right to arms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Seems as though you have your answer...

As do you, rendering your statement effectively meaningless.

Nope - Gun laws in the US state by state interactive US news theguardian.com

I thank you for your ineffective response.
Unless you describe how the limitations that all rights have are directly involved with my statement, you've only managed meaninglessly stated the obvious.
I'm sure this will only continue.

Works like this:
Right to a gun, but
Right to free speech, but
Right to privacy, but
Right to vote, but
Right to travel, but
Right to run for elected office, but
And so on. All rights have limitations, like those placed on guns and gun owners.

Unless you describe how the limitations that all rights have are directly involved with my statement, you've again only managed to meaninglessly state the obvious.
I'm sure this will only continue.

 

[2aguy]

Gun is for shooting bullets.

Hammer is for hammering nails.

Either can be used for other purposes.

Point?

Hammers are for pounding things. Guns are for killing things. Either could be used to defend yourself but neither is designed for it.

A gun is specifically designed to save the life of the user...

No, it's specifically designed to kill something, which is why we give them to soldiers. Body armor is for protection, the gun is for killing the enemy. That's why a couple of gun stores don't want to sell to Muslims, who they say are the enemy. If a gun was for protection both side would have them, and no one would get hurt...

the gun is designed to save the life of the user...this can be accomplished by firing bullets....which can drive off an enemy, injure or kill them......3 options right there...

And the most common type of use...never requires any gullet to be fired...all while protecting the life of the user...
.... the mere presence of a gun deters violence more than it is used to cause violence......the majority of police officers never fire their guns and at the same time the mere presence of the gun keeps them safe from attack....ditto guns in the hands of soldiers, again, most soldiers will never fire their guns....but the mere presence of guns is usually more than enough to prevent open combat between nations...

so you are wrong....

The owner is killed by his own gun far more than they kill anyone else.

Link please.

And were these owners alcoholics, drug users, violent criminals....since that determines dying by your own gun more than the gun does.......

 

[2aguy]

[
the gun is designed to save the life of the user..

We have the right to arms as a means to affect our right to self defense, exercised individually or collectively; firearms are specifically protected by the constitution because they are likely the most effective means to this end.
EoS.

All rights have limitations.

Said all the fascists in history.........

 

[Brain357]

Hammers are for pounding things. Guns are for killing things. Either could be used to defend yourself but neither is designed for it.

A gun is specifically designed to save the life of the user...

No, it's specifically designed to kill something, which is why we give them to soldiers. Body armor is for protection, the gun is for killing the enemy. That's why a couple of gun stores don't want to sell to Muslims, who they say are the enemy. If a gun was for protection both side would have them, and no one would get hurt...

the gun is designed to save the life of the user...this can be accomplished by firing bullets....which can drive off an enemy, injure or kill them......3 options right there...

And the most common type of use...never requires any gullet to be fired...all while protecting the life of the user...
.... the mere presence of a gun deters violence more than it is used to cause violence......the majority of police officers never fire their guns and at the same time the mere presence of the gun keeps them safe from attack....ditto guns in the hands of soldiers, again, most soldiers will never fire their guns....but the mere presence of guns is usually more than enough to prevent open combat between nations...

so you are wrong....

The owner is killed by his own gun far more than they kill anyone else.

Link please.

And were these owners alcoholics, drug users, violent criminals....since that determines dying by your own gun more than the gun does.......

You know the owner is killed far more than anyone else.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

 

[2aguy]

A gun is specifically designed to save the life of the user...

No, it's specifically designed to kill something, which is why we give them to soldiers. Body armor is for protection, the gun is for killing the enemy. That's why a couple of gun stores don't want to sell to Muslims, who they say are the enemy. If a gun was for protection both side would have them, and no one would get hurt...

the gun is designed to save the life of the user...this can be accomplished by firing bullets....which can drive off an enemy, injure or kill them......3 options right there...

And the most common type of use...never requires any gullet to be fired...all while protecting the life of the user...
.... the mere presence of a gun deters violence more than it is used to cause violence......the majority of police officers never fire their guns and at the same time the mere presence of the gun keeps them safe from attack....ditto guns in the hands of soldiers, again, most soldiers will never fire their guns....but the mere presence of guns is usually more than enough to prevent open combat between nations...

so you are wrong....

The owner is killed by his own gun far more than they kill anyone else.

Link please.

And were these owners alcoholics, drug users, violent criminals....since that determines dying by your own gun more than the gun does.......

You know the owner is killed far more than anyone else.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

Actually, you are lying again...that is only part of the equation...since owners stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives about 2 million times a year......

Gun accidental death in 2013.....505..

and of course your link...an anti gun extremist group......let's see...they will probably quote the hack hemenway...and lie about their stats......

They are using suicide. Doesn't count brain....Japan has almost 0 private gun ownership and 2 times our sucided rate, dittos south korea and China.......

 

[Brain357]

No, it's specifically designed to kill something, which is why we give them to soldiers. Body armor is for protection, the gun is for killing the enemy. That's why a couple of gun stores don't want to sell to Muslims, who they say are the enemy. If a gun was for protection both side would have them, and no one would get hurt...

the gun is designed to save the life of the user...this can be accomplished by firing bullets....which can drive off an enemy, injure or kill them......3 options right there...

And the most common type of use...never requires any gullet to be fired...all while protecting the life of the user...
.... the mere presence of a gun deters violence more than it is used to cause violence......the majority of police officers never fire their guns and at the same time the mere presence of the gun keeps them safe from attack....ditto guns in the hands of soldiers, again, most soldiers will never fire their guns....but the mere presence of guns is usually more than enough to prevent open combat between nations...

so you are wrong....

The owner is killed by his own gun far more than they kill anyone else.

Link please.

And were these owners alcoholics, drug users, violent criminals....since that determines dying by your own gun more than the gun does.......

You know the owner is killed far more than anyone else.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

Actually, you are lying again...that is only part of the equation...since owners stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives about 2 million times a year......

Gun accidental death in 2013.....505..

and of course your link...an anti gun extremist group......let's see...they will probably quote the hack hemenway...and lie about their stats......

Now you jump back into fantasy land. Your 2 million is made up.

Who is killed by guns each year:
20k suicides, owner
8500 homicides, innocent victim
500 accidents, usually owner
230 criminals in defense

By far guns kill the owner. It is more a suicide machine than anything else.

 

[2aguy]

A gun is specifically designed to save the life of the user...

No, it's specifically designed to kill something, which is why we give them to soldiers. Body armor is for protection, the gun is for killing the enemy. That's why a couple of gun stores don't want to sell to Muslims, who they say are the enemy. If a gun was for protection both side would have them, and no one would get hurt...

the gun is designed to save the life of the user...this can be accomplished by firing bullets....which can drive off an enemy, injure or kill them......3 options right there...

And the most common type of use...never requires any gullet to be fired...all while protecting the life of the user...
.... the mere presence of a gun deters violence more than it is used to cause violence......the majority of police officers never fire their guns and at the same time the mere presence of the gun keeps them safe from attack....ditto guns in the hands of soldiers, again, most soldiers will never fire their guns....but the mere presence of guns is usually more than enough to prevent open combat between nations...

so you are wrong....

The owner is killed by his own gun far more than they kill anyone else.

Link please.

And were these owners alcoholics, drug users, violent criminals....since that determines dying by your own gun more than the gun does.......

You know the owner is killed far more than anyone else.

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

And do they explain that as more Americans have bought guns and own and carry them...12.8 million today in 2015 carry guns for self defense, that the gun murder rate, and the accidental gun death rate are going down, not up...

Of course they don't, because they don't care about the truth......


Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20

And of the 1,300 victims...do they mention how many under 25 are actually gang members? Or how many under 15 years of age there were....let me....