Father of Oregon killer blames GUNS, not son, for massacre?

[Rustic]

And what kind of precedence does this set? Do you EVER think about the consequences beyond your own fearfulness of guns?

sure I have. If we banned private gun ownership or regulated it sensibly, we'd be Canada or Germany, where people are RARELY murdered with guns. I kind of like those consequences.

Like you have been told, your chances of being killed by an automobile in some way far outweigh your risks of EVER being shot.

And if we regulated guns the way we regulate automobiles, I wouldn't have a problem with them.

So let's look what is being done to "Well-regulate' my car.

1) I have to get licensed to drive it every four years.
2) I have to get a registration annually.
3) I have to get checked for emmissions every two years.
4) I have to carry at a minimum liability and property damage insurance, and carry proof of insurance at all times.
5) There are shitload of laws saying what I can and cannot do when operating it, including seatbelt laws, DUI Laws, traffic laws, parking laws.

Also, while the gun industry is marketing to the "retards', as you say, the auto industry is all about safety. Every year, they add new features to make cars safer- Auto-lock brakes, airbags, crumple zones.

The gun industry is about putting deadlier products out there, and making it easier for guys like James Holmes to get them.

Now why is this? Well, look at all the lawsuits against Auto-makers. And look at the fact the gun inudstry has been largely immunized from lawsuits.

Just because some retards shoot people (and a lot of them obtained their guns illegally) does not mean that the law abiding person should lose any rights at all. Your whole premise is just ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.

I don't accept gun ownership is a "right". The second Amendment is about militias, not the right to gun ownership, and the courts have held it to be so from 1787 up until 2008.

Well regulated means exactly that. Well regulated. Even the court didn't go so far as to say you can have any weapon you want, which is why your "right to bear arms' doesn't let you have your own anthrax or howitzer or predator drone.

It is privilege to own and drive a car, a right to own and use a firearm.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed, that's all you need to know Joey.

 

[Rustic]

Driving a car is not a right. The 2nd amendment is a right. The second amendment is about the people of the United States. Read the federalist papers and educate yourself please.

Once again, there are no "Rights" Rights are a figment of your imagination. Any shithead who thinks he has rights needs to look up "Japanese Americans, 1942".

What you have is what the rest of society agrees you should have. "Yeah, that sounds reasonable".

Sorry, that's the unpleasent reality. When society finally gets sick and tired of watching small children being wheeled out of schools and theaters in body bags, they aren't going to give two shits about what "rights" you think some Slave Raping Asshole who Shit in a Chamber Pot gave you.

Does your pussy hurt??

 

[Rustic]

You can get around the 2nd Amendment by outlawing bullets. No mention of bullets in the Constitution.

Actually, there are a whole lot of ways to get around the second amendment.

1) Stack the Supreme Court with people who can read. "Oh, yeah, WELL REGULATED MILITIA!"

2) Allow victims of gun violence to sue gun sellers and gun makers. That will get them to change their behavior, pretty quick.

3) Inform gun makers that ones who are reckless in their marketing and pander to the crazy will not be eligible for government contracts. Since Government Agencies STILL purchase 40% of the firearms manufactured in this country, no manufacturer can really afford to just sell to the crazies.

4) Require gun owners to have liability insurance that can cover multi-million dollar judgements.

And what kind of precedence does this set? Do you EVER think about the consequences beyond your own fearfulness of guns? Like you have been told, your chances of being killed by an automobile in some way far outweigh your risks of EVER being shot. Just because some retards shoot people (and a lot of them obtained their guns illegally) does not mean that the law abiding person should lose any rights at all. Your whole premise is just ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.

Not to mention, this bullshit has been tried with the infamous "war on drugs." Worked out well, eh?

Joe has no common sense and thinks he is some type of authority. His bleeding heart fails to realize the second admendment is a right, no two ways about it.
His little list of "fixes" is nothing more than ignorant gibberish.

http://classroom.synonym.com/methods-proposing-ratifying-constitutional-amendments-22879.html

A well-regulated militia to me is the National Guard, if not the US army, which are made up of ordinary Americans who are there to protect the citizens from tyranny....

Take it in context of the time it was written, they saw as a protection from an overbearing fu#%ed up government that thinks it's god over its citizens.
The individuals right to own and bear arms, shall not be infringed. You have over two hundred years against you, good luck on a proposal and ratification of the constitution to get rid of the second admendment. If any dumba$$ POS president would even try, there would most definitely be a Civil War, millions would die in the process.
So take your bleeding heart to Europe where it belongs...

 

[Mudda]

You can get around the 2nd Amendment by outlawing bullets. No mention of bullets in the Constitution.

Actually, there are a whole lot of ways to get around the second amendment.

1) Stack the Supreme Court with people who can read. "Oh, yeah, WELL REGULATED MILITIA!"

2) Allow victims of gun violence to sue gun sellers and gun makers. That will get them to change their behavior, pretty quick.

3) Inform gun makers that ones who are reckless in their marketing and pander to the crazy will not be eligible for government contracts. Since Government Agencies STILL purchase 40% of the firearms manufactured in this country, no manufacturer can really afford to just sell to the crazies.

4) Require gun owners to have liability insurance that can cover multi-million dollar judgements.

And what kind of precedence does this set? Do you EVER think about the consequences beyond your own fearfulness of guns? Like you have been told, your chances of being killed by an automobile in some way far outweigh your risks of EVER being shot. Just because some retards shoot people (and a lot of them obtained their guns illegally) does not mean that the law abiding person should lose any rights at all. Your whole premise is just ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.

Not to mention, this bullshit has been tried with the infamous "war on drugs." Worked out well, eh?

Joe has no common sense and thinks he is some type of authority. His bleeding heart fails to realize the second admendment is a right, no two ways about it.
His little list of "fixes" is nothing more than ignorant gibberish.

http://classroom.synonym.com/methods-proposing-ratifying-constitutional-amendments-22879.html

A well-regulated militia to me is the National Guard, if not the US army, which are made up of ordinary Americans who are there to protect the citizens from tyranny....

Take it in context of the time it was written, they saw as a protection from an overbearing fu#%ed up government that thinks it's god over its citizens.
The individuals right to own and bear arms, shall not be infringed. You have over two hundred years against you, good luck on a proposal and ratification of the constitution to get rid of the second admendment. If any dumba$$ POS president would even try, there would most definitely be a Civil War, millions would die in the process.
So take your bleeding heart to Europe where it belongs...

I have no problem with people owning guns, that ship sailed a long, long time ago. But you're already restricted in what kind of arms you can purchase, like, you can't buy ground to air missiles, tanks, mortars, mines... So why not restrict it down to handguns and hunting rifles. The restriction precedent has already been set and accepted by everyone, including the NRA.

 

[Rustic]

Actually, there are a whole lot of ways to get around the second amendment.

1) Stack the Supreme Court with people who can read. "Oh, yeah, WELL REGULATED MILITIA!"

2) Allow victims of gun violence to sue gun sellers and gun makers. That will get them to change their behavior, pretty quick.

3) Inform gun makers that ones who are reckless in their marketing and pander to the crazy will not be eligible for government contracts. Since Government Agencies STILL purchase 40% of the firearms manufactured in this country, no manufacturer can really afford to just sell to the crazies.

4) Require gun owners to have liability insurance that can cover multi-million dollar judgements.

And what kind of precedence does this set? Do you EVER think about the consequences beyond your own fearfulness of guns? Like you have been told, your chances of being killed by an automobile in some way far outweigh your risks of EVER being shot. Just because some retards shoot people (and a lot of them obtained their guns illegally) does not mean that the law abiding person should lose any rights at all. Your whole premise is just ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous.

Not to mention, this bullshit has been tried with the infamous "war on drugs." Worked out well, eh?

Joe has no common sense and thinks he is some type of authority. His bleeding heart fails to realize the second admendment is a right, no two ways about it.
His little list of "fixes" is nothing more than ignorant gibberish.

http://classroom.synonym.com/methods-proposing-ratifying-constitutional-amendments-22879.html

A well-regulated militia to me is the National Guard, if not the US army, which are made up of ordinary Americans who are there to protect the citizens from tyranny....

Take it in context of the time it was written, they saw as a protection from an overbearing fu#%ed up government that thinks it's god over its citizens.
The individuals right to own and bear arms, shall not be infringed. You have over two hundred years against you, good luck on a proposal and ratification of the constitution to get rid of the second admendment. If any dumba$$ POS president would even try, there would most definitely be a Civil War, millions would die in the process.
So take your bleeding heart to Europe where it belongs...

I have no problem with people owning guns, that ship sailed a long, long time ago. But you're already restricted in what kind of arms you can purchase, like, you can't buy ground to air missiles, tanks, mortars, mines... So why not restrict it down to handguns and hunting rifles. The restriction precedent has already been set and accepted by everyone, including the NRA.

Ok, what guns would you ban?? Of those guns why would you ban them??