Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[pismoe]

amazing to me and I mighta already said it before but the USA , best country in the world and these do gooder restrictionist , regulators , banners want to mess everything up .

 

[squeeze berry]

I have never bought a gun when I was not required to pass a background check

WTF are these libs yammering about?

 

[squeeze berry]

I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!

Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Still waiting...

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

But it's OK...Until it happens in THEIR little, tiny, myopic world where they play Keyboard Kowboys every day.

who commits most of the gun crimes in the USA?

those countries do not have the demographics we do

invalid comparison

 

[Missourian]

I'll challenge you. Show me a reasonable proposed gun law that would have averted Newtown that is not an outright ban.

There SHOULD be an outright ban on assault weapons. There is NO NEED for a private citizen to have an assault weapon for personal protection...NONE!

Again...how exactly would that have averted Newtown?

Still waiting...

Wait all you want...Newtown is not the only reason for passing sensible and reasonable gun laws. America leads the world in gun violence.

There is no way to completely prevent a tragedy like Newtown. But it could have been 'less' tragic if Lanza didn't have an assault rifle with a rate of fire of 50 rounds per minute and ten 30 round magazines.

Sorry, but that is not true. Cho killed more, they were adults AND he didn't use a rifle at all. Lanza had two pistols just like Cho AND many of Lanza's magazines were discarded after only using 15 rounds,

P.S. - the modern sporting rifle that you mis-attributed as an assault rifle has the same "rate of fire" as every other semi-automatic...one round per trigger pull.






I wish you guys/gals would do you homework, gain an understanding of firearms, instead of this knee-jerk reactionary stuff.

And I'm not saying that to be mean. Take a day at the range and shoot an AR-15, and a Glock, and a .38 special. Find out what it is you are talking about.

Hell, I'll take you if you live near me.

 

[squeeze berry]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

my problem with your theory is that you can not legislate common sense

ETA:

if I had a toddler/ young child I would have a shelf up high where they can not reach. A semi-pistol with the mag laying beside and on safe. It would only take a few seconds more to insert the mag and rack the slide.

Common sense, right?

 

[Missourian]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

That is what you say...so your gun on your hip is now an illegal gun if you are in the same room as your child.....nice try...we know how you think and how your unintended consequences are not unintended at all....

How do you enforce that......searching a home....right? And it is already negligent homicide....just like when a parent leaves a cleaning product in reach of a child, or medicine, or matches, or a full bathtub.............all of those should be illegal as well right? With the same consequences...right?

...and this, gentlepersons, is how we separate the NUTS from the responsible gun owners!

And add to that the same poster's complaint that background checks take away the rights of responsible gun owners, and we have a 2 scoop sunday with nuts!

I'm not opposed, as long as we start by criminalizing all the things are more dangerous to toddlers than guns.

 

[MaryL]

Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.

 

[pismoe]

so , whats the solution MaryL. ??

 

[MaryL]

so , whats the solution MaryL. ??

Sanity?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

my problem with your theory is that you can not legislate common sense

ETA:

if I had a toddler/ young child I would have a shelf up high where they can not reach. A semi-pistol with the mag laying beside and on safe. It would only take a few seconds more to insert the mag and rack the slide.

Common sense, right?

Sure, I can't argue your safety precautions at all. But there are laws for those that don't do as you do, including the head of the fire department in the next community from mine had 12 guns in his house, including one in a holster on his bedpost, where his kid got hold of it, and shot himself by accident...so the father got three years in the slammer, which is common sense, too. Of course the kid lived, or it would have been manslaughter instead of child endangerment.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

That is what you say...so your gun on your hip is now an illegal gun if you are in the same room as your child.....nice try...we know how you think and how your unintended consequences are not unintended at all....

How do you enforce that......searching a home....right? And it is already negligent homicide....just like when a parent leaves a cleaning product in reach of a child, or medicine, or matches, or a full bathtub.............all of those should be illegal as well right? With the same consequences...right?

...and this, gentlepersons, is how we separate the NUTS from the responsible gun owners!

And add to that the same poster's complaint that background checks take away the rights of responsible gun owners, and we have a 2 scoop sunday with nuts!

I'm not opposed, as long as we start by criminalizing all the things are more dangerous to toddlers than guns.

Yep! As I said, it really isn't difficult to separate the gun nuts from responsible gun owners!

Andf BTW, if you do not have a closed fence around your pool, or if you allow your toddler to wander around inside such fence unsupervised, you can be arrested for child endangerment, abuse, or neglect.

 

[Missourian]

Ever had someone threaten you with a gun? Even if you are pro gun, no matter how well armed you think you are, with a fire arm , it won't help you in most situations. Poping a few rounds off at range and hiding a .38 in your bedside won't help much when you are roused out of your that haze of sleep.

If I can't get to my gun, then SURELY I can't get to the phone and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait for the police to show up. Given the alternative, I'll take my chances with the gun...in fact, only a fool wouldn't not have a gun, given your scenario.

 

[Missourian]

Yep! As I said, it really isn't difficult to separate the gun nuts from responsible gun owners!

What it really isn't difficult to do is separate those who can't make a rational argument. They instead post an attack with zero substance. Example above.

This is where you put up or shut up. Why wouldn't criminalizing behaviors that are far MORE dangerous to the children make perfect sense to you.

Leave the pool safety gate open...you go to the penitentiary.

Plastic grocery bag on the floor...10 years to life.

Penny within reach...life in prison.

It's for the children.

Rebuttal?

 

[Bfgrn]

I think that the Supremes have ruled in some cases and then overturned those very same rulings at a later date 'BFGRM' . That's what many libs , dems , progressive and their ilk hope happens with HELLER . New court when justices die or retire , different arguments and poof , Heller is gone or reinterpreted . By the way , self defense in the home is a good thing but self defense , hunting , target shooting , gun collecting are not what the 2nd Amendment is primarily about !!

More slippery slope mindset. You fear filled folks just can't help yourself. The majority of liberals support the right to bear arms, many are gun owners themselves...

There will NEVER be a ban on all guns in America...EVER.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment was as common sense as it gets, yet that was defeated by the powerful NRA, gun manufacturer lobby and hatred for our President by Republicans. These legislators put their hatred of Obama ahead of their concern for the safety of our citizens.

Pat Toomey: Background Checks Died Because GOP Didn't Want To Help Obama

 

[Missourian]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

That is what you say...so your gun on your hip is now an illegal gun if you are in the same room as your child.....nice try...we know how you think and how your unintended consequences are not unintended at all....

How do you enforce that......searching a home....right? And it is already negligent homicide....just like when a parent leaves a cleaning product in reach of a child, or medicine, or matches, or a full bathtub.............all of those should be illegal as well right? With the same consequences...right?

...and this, gentlepersons, is how we separate the NUTS from the responsible gun owners!

And add to that the same poster's complaint that background checks take away the rights of responsible gun owners, and we have a 2 scoop sunday with nuts!

I'm not opposed, as long as we start by criminalizing all the things are more dangerous to toddlers than guns.

Yep! As I said, it really isn't difficult to separate the gun nuts from responsible gun owners!

Andf BTW, if you do not have a closed fence around your pool, or if you allow your toddler to wander around inside such fence unsupervised, you can be arrested for child endangerment, abuse, or neglect.

I see you edited your answer.

If you leave a loaded gun laying around where a child can get to it, you can get the same thing...that's the point. The same law that covers that covers this. Bingo bango, we agree.

 

[MaryL]

Guns give the illusion of power. Like a drug, fire off a firearm like a Desert eagle or a fully automatic AR 15 and that testosterone kicks in BOOM BOOM BOOM. it means nothing. I am sure those ISIS twits get all their power from their AK 47's and whatever. Really.

 

[squeeze berry]

"Common sense gun laws", include making it illegal for you to leave a loaded gun within reach of your toddler. I am assuming that everyone on this thread agrees that laws to that effect are, indeed, common sense. However, just to make sure that we all know the real nuts from the responsible adults, I would like to see a show of hands from those that disagree with that common sense law.

my problem with your theory is that you can not legislate common sense

ETA:

if I had a toddler/ young child I would have a shelf up high where they can not reach. A semi-pistol with the mag laying beside and on safe. It would only take a few seconds more to insert the mag and rack the slide.

Common sense, right?

Sure, I can't argue your safety precautions at all. But there are laws for those that don't do as you do, including the head of the fire department in the next community from mine had 12 guns in his house, including one in a holster on his bedpost, where his kid got hold of it, and shot himself by accident...so the father got three years in the slammer, which is common sense, too. Of course the kid lived, or it would have been manslaughter instead of child endangerment.

you want laws to legislate against stupidity?

the jails will be bursting, and you would be an inmate

 

[Missourian]

Guns give the illusion of power. Like a drug, fire off a firearm like a Desert eagle or a fully automatic AR 15 and that testosterone kicks in BOOM BOOM BOOM. it means nothing. I am sure those ISIS twits get all their power from their AK 47's and whatever. Really.

In other words, you have no rebuttal.

Got it...thanks for playing, we have some wonderful parting gifts for you...

...Johnny Olson, tell her what she's won!!!

 

[squeeze berry]

Guns give the illusion of power. Like a drug, fire off a firearm like a Desert eagle or a fully automatic AR 15 and that testosterone kicks in BOOM BOOM BOOM. it means nothing. I am sure those ISIS twits get all their power from their AK 47's and whatever. Really.

they shoot them at the range for kicks

big deal

 

[Bfgrn]

Reagan forgot to mention the real intent of the second amendment 'Bfgrn' and Scalia has an opinion while I have mine !!

The real intent of the second amendment was to provide protection FOR our nation and government in times of peace, as opposed to a standing army.

Wrong, dipshit. The founders wrote about tyranny and the necessity for firearms. You just proved that you are clueless about the subject!

False...

“The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.”

It’s an argument that’s often echoed by gun nuts – as though their fully-loaded AR-15 with 100-bullet drum will keep them safe from Predator drones and cruise missiles. If indeed this is the true intent of the 2nd Amendment, protection from the government, then here’s the newsflash: you guys are woefully outgunned. And the 2nd Amendment would have allowed you to own a cannon and a warship, so America today would look more like Somalia today with well-armed warlords running their own little fiefdoms in defiance of the federal government.

But luckily, this was never the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Ultimately, as we know the agreed upon 2nd Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That reads like a conditional statement. If we as a fledgling new nation are committed to our own security, then it’s best we have a regulated militia. And to maintain this defensive militia, we must allow Americans to keep and bear arms.

The other defensive option would have been a standing army.

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.