What Constitutional Gun Control....

[Procrustes Stretched]

Still waiting...

If he had gone into the school and molested a child, would your question be,

what laws against child molesting could have prevented that crime?

Not my point at all.

My point is more gun control is not the answer.

The answer to keeping schools safe lies in other solution.

"safe versus safer"

simple and honestly spoken

 

[Missourian]

...initiative could have stopped the shooting at the school in Georgia?


The facts are:

The shooter was a convicted felon.

The shooter was mentally ill.

The crime scene was a gun free zone.

The firearm was stolen.

" What Constitutional Gun Control initiative could have stopped the shooting at the school in Georgia?" - Missourian

In responding to intellectually dishonest and vacuous statements like the one above, I usually just piss on a back while insinuating it is only raining, but...

If gun controls were meant to go back in time and stop crimes...

Dante, per usual, types a lot while saying nothing.

Try again.

What Constitutional gun control measures that have been advocated would have, had they been in place prior to this incident, had any bearing on the outcome of a crazed felon entering this school with a stolen firearm.

Feel free to be honest and say "None at all".

Or you can fall back on the typical obfuscation.

Either way, the facts are obvious...whether you choose to accept them or not is irrelevant.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As expected, no liberal can give a straight answer to an honest question. Wait, was I expecting something different?!

 

[daveman]

Still waiting...

If he had gone into the school and molested a child, would your question be,

what laws against child molesting could have prevented that crime?

What makes your analogy inapplicable is there is no Constitutional right to pedophilia.

Care to try again?

 

[daveman]

...initiative could have stopped the shooting at the school in Georgia?


The facts are:

The shooter was a convicted felon.

The shooter was mentally ill.

The crime scene was a gun free zone.

The firearm was stolen.

" What Constitutional Gun Control initiative could have stopped the shooting at the school in Georgia?" - Missourian

In responding to intellectually dishonest and vacuous statements like the one above, I usually just piss on a back while insinuating it is only raining, but...

If gun controls were meant to go back in time and stop crimes...

"...intellectually dishonest and vacuous..." apparently means "a question I have no idea how to answer; I just know I don't LIKE it."

You support gun control, correct?

What laws, had they already been in place, would have prevented this crime? An outright ban of firearms, of course, but that's not Constitutional and is therefore a non-starter.

 

[PaulS1950]

Let's see:
We have laws that forbid the mentally ill from owning, possessing and carrying guns.
We have laws that make it illegal to carry a gun into a school.
we have laws against murder.
we have laws against felons having guns.

We don't make laws to prevent crime, they are made to prosecute those who break the laws - criminals.
Why don't we make laws that prevent crime? Mostly because criminals don't obey laws anyway so we are left with prosecuting them after the fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From what I 've heard, there was no shooting. That an Office worker talked him out of it.

BTW, didn't he want the police there so that he could shoot them?

I see what you are saying.

I suppose for clarity, the shooter took the weapon into the school (a gun free zone) and fired that weapon in the school.

No one was injured.

-------------------------------


Still, no one can give a single gun control measure that would have stopped this shooting.

Apparently, he shot at the cops who converged on the school, but didn't hit any of them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

...initiative could have stopped the shooting at the school in Georgia?


The facts are:

The shooter was a convicted felon.

The shooter was mentally ill.

The crime scene was a gun free zone.

The firearm was stolen.

Lets' take them one at a time:

The shooter was a convicted felon. Laws which restrict felons from owning, possessing or having a firearm in their custody or control would not have prevented the crime in question, since the weapon was stolen. However, had the felon been stopped and the weapon had been found he would receive a mandatory commitment to the State Prison for possession of stolen property and that sentence would be enhanced by his possession of a firearm.

The shooter was mentally ill. Laws which restrict the mentally ill from owning, possessing, etc a firearm are ineffectual do to HIPAA privacy restrictions. If I had my way anyone detained as a danger to themselves or others in a locked psychiatric facility should be flagged in the criminal records of the state and reflect their lack of eligibility without reason to licensed gun purveyors.

I also support laws to deny the right to own, possess, etc. a firearm to anyone convicted of DUI, domestic violence, battery with GBI, sales or transportation of drugs.

Gun Free Zone Again, a Gun Free Zone won't prevent a crime, but anyone in possession, etc. of a firearm within such a zone gets sent to jail. No ifs, ands or buts, a jail sentence is mandatory.

Stolen Firearm When the legal owner of the gun was careless I support holding him/her civilly culpable if that stolen gun is used in a crime.

No laws will prevent wanton violence. The proliferation of guns allows felons, the mentally ill and persons with a violent history easy access.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...initiative could have stopped the shooting at the school in Georgia?


The facts are:

The shooter was a convicted felon.

The shooter was mentally ill.

The crime scene was a gun free zone.

The firearm was stolen.

" What Constitutional Gun Control initiative could have stopped the shooting at the school in Georgia?" - Missourian

In responding to intellectually dishonest and vacuous statements like the one above, I usually just piss on a back while insinuating it is only raining, but...

If gun controls were meant to go back in time and stop crimes...

"...intellectually dishonest and vacuous..." apparently means "a question I have no idea how to answer; I just know I don't LIKE it."

You support gun control, correct?

What laws, had they already been in place, would have prevented this crime? An outright ban of firearms, of course, but that's not Constitutional and is therefore a non-starter.

Most everyone including the NRA support gun controls. Does Dante support which specific gun controls? You'd be surprised as your world view, has you living in denial and ignorance even rigjt here at usmb.

psst, Dante publicly supported Fla stand your ground law, along with mamy liberals and blacks from Fla

If intellectual honesty and critical thinking skills were a benchmark for this debate, the premise that too many variables exist to give any credence to this red herring would hold true

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and welcome back Davey

 

[Meister]

Federal Firearm registry is the closest answer. The second amendment exists so that in case the government gets out of hand citizens can rise up. At that point whether or not you're in any "Federal Registry" won't matter. But until then... maybe it'll help prevent or solve some crimes?

I mean I'm necessarily for it, but also not against it.

Actually, wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the original intention of owning a firearm?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Federal Firearm registry is the closest answer. The second amendment exists so that in case the government gets out of hand citizens can rise up. At that point whether or not you're in any "Federal Registry" won't matter. But until then... maybe it'll help prevent or solve some crimes?

I mean I'm necessarily for it, but also not against it.

Actually, wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the original intention of owning a firearm?

Both people believe the 2nd is primarily about keeping our very own government in check? What a crazily, unfounded notion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=17949]Meister[/MENTION] is back? Well, blow me over.

Welcome back (zays Dante, while wearing a hazmat suit)

 

[Meister]

Federal Firearm registry is the closest answer. The second amendment exists so that in case the government gets out of hand citizens can rise up. At that point whether or not you're in any "Federal Registry" won't matter. But until then... maybe it'll help prevent or solve some crimes?

I mean I'm necessarily for it, but also not against it.

Actually, wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the original intention of owning a firearm?

Both people believe the 2nd is primarily about keeping our very own government in check? What a crazily, unfounded notion.

You must have glazed over the "original intention" part of my post

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the original intention of owning a firearm?

Both people believe the 2nd is primarily about keeping our very own government in check? What a crazily, unfounded notion.

You must have glazed over the "original intention" part of my post

Must have

 

[Wry Catcher]

I luv debates where everyone is a Constitutional authority, in his/her own mind.

 

[daveman]

" What Constitutional Gun Control initiative could have stopped the shooting at the school in Georgia?" - Missourian

In responding to intellectually dishonest and vacuous statements like the one above, I usually just piss on a back while insinuating it is only raining, but...

If gun controls were meant to go back in time and stop crimes...

"...intellectually dishonest and vacuous..." apparently means "a question I have no idea how to answer; I just know I don't LIKE it."

You support gun control, correct?

What laws, had they already been in place, would have prevented this crime? An outright ban of firearms, of course, but that's not Constitutional and is therefore a non-starter.

Most everyone including the NRA support gun controls. Does Dante support which specific gun controls? You'd be surprised as your world view, has you living in denial and ignorance even rigjt here at usmb.

psst, Dante publicly supported Fla stand your ground law, along with mamy liberals and blacks from Fla

If intellectual honesty and critical thinking skills were a benchmark for this debate, the premise that too many variables exist to give any credence to this red herring would hold true

As difficult as it may be for Dante to accept, Dave does not keep accurate records of everything Dante says.

So, in summary, you have no answer to the question presented in the OP.

 

[daveman]

I luv debates where everyone is a Constitutional authority, in his/her own mind.

The Second being an individual right is settled law, no matter what your personal Constitutional authority says.

 

[numan]

'
I favor the mandatory control of all AMMUNITION -- and its sparing release to gun owners for well documented purposes.

It would also be good if the ammunition allotted to a person were "marked" in some way, so that if a spent bullet at a crime scene were recovered, it could be traced back to the individual who owned that particular bullet.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually, wouldn't this defeat the purpose of the original intention of owning a firearm?

Both people believe the 2nd is primarily about keeping our very own government in check? What a crazily, unfounded notion.

You must have glazed over the "original intention" part of my post

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

"A government resting on the minority is an aristocracy, not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical and physical force against it, without a standing army, an enslaved press and a disarmed populace."
- James Madison

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

Yeah, the idea that the Founding Fathers thought an armed populace was important to defend itself against government tyranny is completely ridiculous and unfounded.