Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[Bern80]

If you want the right to bare arms, wear a vest.

And if someone breaks into your house and kills your entire family, you die. Just like the 8 year old who picks up the loaded legal gun and plays with it.

By the way, is a nuke an arm? Do we all get one of those as well?

K...so guns don't kill people, people do. Then I guess you wouldn't mind taking away all of the guns that the US troops in Iraq have? After all, they aren't killing people so they are probably just weighing them down.

Have to agree. That is your dumbest argument to date. yes I will tell you why.

Your witty joke not withstanding, if we are allowed to bare arms and protect ourselves then at least have the chance of protecting my family. Why exactley are you oppossed to that?

You're rebuttal to guns don't kill people though really takes the cake. I guess it needs to be spelled out for you. Since guns don't kill people, people kill people, what we should be doing is regulating and punishing PEOPLE. Get it yet? That's why you're take guns away from the troops argument is so stupid.

Hope that cleared things up.

 

[Psychoblues]

Cleared it up for me!!!!!! Bern, you're a nut.

 

[Bern80]

Cleared it up for me!!!!!! Bern, you're a nut.

Yes, that really hurts comeing from a Psycho.

(sorry, you kinda walked into that one)

 

[Diuretic]

I don't mind if my neighbour has a shotgun, a rifle or a handgun (and you can put them in the plural if you wish). I'm pretty sure my neighbour wouldn't mind if I had the same in my house.

But I have to admit I would feel a bit more concerned if my neighbour had a fully automatic weapon.

I would feel even more concerned if my neighbour had a rocket launcher.

If my neighhour had a nuke I'd find another state to live in, preferably at the other end of the continent.

In other words, some firearms can be perfectly justified in the hands of civilians but some firearms can't justifiably be placed in civilian hands.

 

[Larkinn]

Other than the myriand of cleaning solvents in your home, mommies pills, alcohol. Gonna have to try again on that one.

And those kill how many kids a year exactly? Less than guns. By the way, each of those (except alcohol, but that really doesn't kill very many 9 year olds), has a helpful purpose to our society.

Since you imply that there are more, what would those be?

The 8 year old who doesn't die because there is a legal gun in the house. Are you really so naive as to think that banning guns won't have any benefits? That is an asinine and completely one-sided belief.

I believe crack is illegal too and there's none of that around.

Well then why don't we legalize it? Oh wait, you would never advocate that because then it would become more common.

If you didn't disarm law abiding citizens, what exactley did you do?

Kindly learn to read please. Any idea what the word only means?

What part of guns don't kill, don't you get? That argument requires that if I legally by a car and kill someone with it we should ban cars.

So we can take all of the guns away from Iraq and the soldiers can kill insurgents by urinating on them or something?

People are stupid. People are rash. People are violent. People are criminal. Not allowing people to have an incredibly easy way of killing someone = probably a good idea.

Oh, that wonderful car argument again. I rebutted that already. Care to check that out before you make the same asinine arguments someone else already has?

As much you anti-gun folk don't like that inconvenient comparison it is none the less valid. Both are inanimate objects, neither can kill anybody w/o a person acting on them. When someone runs someone over with a car, where is the ire against the car? Where is the outrage at all these fast moving vehicles all over the place? Where is the fundamental disconnect where guns are somehow different from any other type of instrument that could be used to kill someone?

Because lives in our society have a cost and we don't save lives if they are over a certain cost. Cars are wayyyy over that cost. And as I said before I've already responded to this idiotic argument.

Without cars there are no ambulances, and nobody can go to a doctor/emergency room/medical treatment/etc unless they live within walking distance or subway/rail distance (which isn't very common in the US). So to save 50,000 people you are destroying our economy and killing untolds more. Fabulous plan.

 

[Larkinn]

Have to agree. That is your dumbest argument to date. yes I will tell you why.

Your witty joke not withstanding, if we are allowed to bare arms and protect ourselves then at least have the chance of protecting my family. Why exactley are you oppossed to that?

Because legally bought guns are just as easy to kill someone with as illegally bought guns. You don't seem to realize that guns aren't only used in self defense . This really isn't a hard argument to grasp.

You're rebuttal to guns don't kill people though really takes the cake. I guess it needs to be spelled out for you. Since guns don't kill people, people kill people, what we should be doing is regulating and punishing PEOPLE. Get it yet? That's why you're take guns away from the troops argument is so stupid.

K...I'm sure the family members of the VT massacre are really reassured that the guy who shot them up will be punished

 

[Psychoblues]

Look, doc, this is an American conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't mind if my neighbour has a shotgun, a rifle or a handgun (and you can put them in the plural if you wish). I'm pretty sure my neighbour wouldn't mind if I had the same in my house.

But I have to admit I would feel a bit more concerned if my neighbour had a fully automatic weapon.

I would feel even more concerned if my neighbour had a rocket launcher.

If my neighhour had a nuke I'd find another state to live in, preferably at the other end of the continent.

In other words, some firearms can be perfectly justified in the hands of civilians but some firearms can't justifiably be placed in civilian hands.

JK, doc, you are correct. Some firearms should be unavailable for civilian ownership and some civilians should be unable to acquire firearms by any definition. Don't ya' know?

 

[Larkinn]

then i guess for the sake of this argument you will have to lump me in as one of those nuts.

What is your specific argument as to why some types of guns need to be regulated more than others?

It doesn't say guns, it says arms. Such as nukes. Shall we allow nukes to be legally sold in markets in this country?

Sounds like a really fabulous idea.

 

[Psychoblues]

Walked into what? That you are a nut?

Yes, that really hurts comeing from a Psycho.

(sorry, you kinda walked into that one)

I am certainly not alone in that observation, cowgirl.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It is tragic. And while the parent was the enabler, there simply aren't very many things in this world that children can so easily kill themselves with.

Actually I would list household cleaners, medicines and a host of other unregulated things kids kill themselves with much easier then find and using a gun.

Right...thats the only tradeoff there is.




Which they will now have to smuggle in, and will be much harder to acquire once they are illegal.

Ya that worked out so well for England didn't it? And of course since we can not even secure our borders that will work so well in the future. Ohh and exactly how and why are the guns already IN criminals hands going to suddenly disappear because you make them illegal? They are already using them, possessing then ILLEGALLY.


Not quite, no.



Sure. If that gun happens to have been legally bought, as the large majority are, you willing to support banning guns?

The only thing banning guns do is preventing law abiding citizens from having them, promoting break ins to business and homes while people are present, car jackings and a host of other crimes the criminal knows he is safe from the public from.

 

[Diuretic]

Look, doc, this is an American conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!




JK, doc, you are correct. Some firearms should be unavailable for civilian ownership and some civilians should be unable to acquire firearms by any definition. Don't ya' know?

No worries PB, I'm trying to be careful not to be a ferriner poking my nose in where not welcome, but trying to keep my observations on the nature of gun control in general and not related to the 2nd Amendment and domestic US law. I might be a bigmouth with a lightnin' fast keyboard but I retain a residual level of politeness (so far anyway )

 

[Larkinn]

Actually I would list household cleaners, medicines and a host of other unregulated things kids kill themselves with much easier then find and using a gun.

.

Cause kids all have a desire to pour household cleaners down their throats

Ya that worked out so well for England didn't it?

Cause England has so many more gun crimes than us, right? Oh, no, wait they really don't.

And of course since we can not even secure our borders that will work so well in the future. Ohh and exactly how and why are the guns already IN criminals hands going to suddenly disappear because you make them illegal? They are already using them, possessing then ILLEGALLY.

They aren't going to suddenly disappear. That was never the claim.

The only thing banning guns do is preventing law abiding citizens from having them, promoting break ins to business and homes while people are present, car jackings and a host of other crimes the criminal knows he is safe from the public from.

Just hit them with your car. After all, its not the gun that kills people its the person that does. So you should be able to defend yourself just as easily without a gun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

then i guess for the sake of this argument you will have to lump me in as one of those nuts.

What is your specific argument as to why some types of guns need to be regulated more than others?

The intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide arms to individuals for the purpose of individual use. Machine guns are not normally individual weapons, rather crew served. Rocket Launchers are NOT guns. And they serve no purpose except in a war, you can not use them to protect your neighbor from a robbery nor the guy getting car jacked next to you in the parking lot.

Some "arms" rightfully belong to a State Militia or a city or County Militia.

No one needs those weapons. However, in 37 States it is perfectly legal to own an automatic weapon. You just have to have a federal license and follow certain laws on storage and movement. You can in certain circumstances get a permit to own a fully functional Tank and I suspect even a rocket Launcher as well, in most States.

I draw the line at handguns, rifles and shotguns, to include semi automatic weapons and licensed automatic weapons. The rest should be kept by a competent militia. Which we should be raising and maintaining.

 

[Bern80]

I don't mind if my neighbour has a shotgun, a rifle or a handgun (and you can put them in the plural if you wish). I'm pretty sure my neighbour wouldn't mind if I had the same in my house.

But I have to admit I would feel a bit more concerned if my neighbour had a fully automatic weapon.

I would feel even more concerned if my neighbour had a rocket launcher.

If my neighhour had a nuke I'd find another state to live in, preferably at the other end of the continent.

In other words, some firearms can be perfectly justified in the hands of civilians but some firearms can't justifiably be placed in civilian hands.

Why? Think about Diruetic. What is it your really worried about? Your neighbor or the automatic weapon?

 

[Psychoblues]

And I respect you for that, doc!!!!!!!!!!!

No worries PB, I'm trying to be careful not to be a ferriner poking my nose in where not welcome, but trying to keep my observations on the nature of gun control in general and not related to the 2nd Amendment and domestic US law. I might be a bigmouth with a lightnin' fast keyboard but I retain a residual level of politeness (so far anyway )

Me? Well, I ain't that polite. It's an American thing, don't 'cha know?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because legally bought guns are just as easy to kill someone with as illegally bought guns. You don't seem to realize that guns aren't only used in self defense . This really isn't a hard argument to grasp.



K...I'm sure the family members of the VT massacre are really reassured that the guy who shot them up will be punished

Ok bright boy provide us with the statistics of LEGALLY purchased guns used by their owners to commit crimes.

As for the VT and any other massacre if concealed carry were allowed then he would have been dead or running as soon as he got near a crowd to start shooting. I am sure those families are comforted by the knowledge the police could not save their loved ones. That they were butchered like sheep because the school outlawed guns and didnt have one cop per student to follow everyone around day and night.

 

[Psychoblues]

All of the guns used in Colombine, Jonesboro and Virginia Tech massacres were bought legally, dipshit. And millions of other murders as well, double dipshit.

Ok bright boy provide us with the statistics of LEGALLY purchased guns used by their owners to commit crimes.

As for the VT and any other massacre if concealed carry were allowed then he would have been dead or running as soon as he got near a crowd to start shooting. I am sure those families are comforted by the knowledge the police could not save their loved ones. That they were butchered like sheep because the school outlawed guns and didnt have one cop per student to follow everyone around day and night.

Are you happy with that?

 

[Larkinn]

Ok bright boy provide us with the statistics of LEGALLY purchased guns used by their owners to commit crimes.

Can't find anything terribly recent, but this should do.

In 1994, more than a quarter-million households experienced the theft of one or more firearms; nearly 600,000 guns were stolen during these burglaries.8

600,000 LEGAL guns stolen.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html#note8

As for the VT and any other massacre if concealed carry were allowed then he would have been dead or running as soon as he got near a crowd to start shooting. I am sure those families are comforted by the knowledge the police could not save their loved ones. That they were butchered like sheep because the school outlawed guns and didnt have one cop per student to follow everyone around day and night.

LMAO...so now we should allow guns everywhere? Thats the stupidest idea ever. I heard recently some law school students want to allow guns on campus...anyone who has ever been to law school knows what a shitstorm that would be.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Can't find anything terribly recent, but this should do.



600,000 LEGAL guns stolen.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html#note8



LMAO...so now we should allow guns everywhere? Thats the stupidest idea ever. I heard recently some law school students want to allow guns on campus...anyone who has ever been to law school knows what a shitstorm that would be.

I see you can not comprehend the written word. I want statistics on legal owners using their legal weapons to commit crimes.

Using your logic we should disarm the National Guard, Police and Military since weapons are stolen from them yearly as well. We should shut down all weapons manufacturing plants since they too can be robbed as well as storage facilities for weapons not yet shipped to stores, military or police.

There is ONLY one way banning weapons works.... when you can magically remove from this planet the means and ability and knowledge how to make firearms, then banning them will work. Other wise the weapons will flow from somewhere else to here. Across the Mexican border, through our porous ports and aboard aircraft entering this country.

I suggest you read up on the English ban, Since handguns and most weapons were banned gun violence has soared. I wonder where those blokes are getting those guns from , I mean none of them are legal.

 

[Psychoblues]

600,000 legal guns stolen? Did the criminals that stole them intend to use them in other crimes? Can you prove it?

Just kidding you, larkin, you and I know that criminals always intend to use what they steal for any use their bounty offers. Did you read about the murders in Colombine, Jonesboro, Virginia Tech and many, many more where all of the weaponry was purchased legally and used for the purposes intended?