CDZ My child's right to a safe school versus your right to guns

[hadit]

I know that I'm trying to get these idiots to admit that the real goal is a ban on all semiauto firearms

Why does anyone need a semi-automatic weapon? Are you that bad of a shot?

They simply want a gun that goes bang when they pull the trigger. Working the mechanism is one less thing to think about when they're facing a life and death situation.

If working a hammer on a gun is too much to think about, then operating a gun is something that is outside your skill set.

You had no problems operating your single shot bolt action .22 the last time your home was invaded?

It's easy to postulate what a person should be able to easily do when you're bravely sitting behind a keyboard, not so much when facing a live shooter who's trying to kill children under your protection.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Criminal negligence is against the law but that judgement is made in a court of law and not by members of society at large.

Problem is when it comes to gun owners, none of them are held criminally negligible for when their guns go missing, get stolen, and/or are used in crimes.

Members of society at large are well advised to mind their own business rather than speculate about people they do not know.

So I guess that applies to abortion too, then?

"Problem is when it comes to gun owners, none of them are held criminally negligible for when their guns go missing, get stolen, and/or are used in crimes."

So? The same is true of cars and most any other item. Are you in favor of punishing victims instead of criminals?

"So I guess that applies to abortion too, then?"

Sure. None of my business

 

[The Derp]

Criminal negligence is against the law but that judgement is made in a court of law and not by members of society at large.

Problem is when it comes to gun owners, none of them are held criminally negligible for when their guns go missing, get stolen, and/or are used in crimes.

Members of society at large are well advised to mind their own business rather than speculate about people they do not know.

So I guess that applies to abortion too, then?

Is the owner of a car held criminally liable if his car is stolen and used in a crime?

No, but cars are insured and if your car is stolen, your premiums go up. So there's accountability and responsibility there. No such accountability or responsibility exists for guns.

 

[The Derp]

Except that gun collectors, hunters and target shooters are not killing other people with their guns. Find a different reason.

YET. They aren't doing that yet.

 

[The Derp]

You had no problems operating your single shot bolt action .22 the last time your home was invaded?

1. I don't own a gun.
2. I've never been broken into
3. Most break-ins occur when the person isn't home, so it doesn't matter anyway
4. Thieves look for three things; guns, cash/valuables, drugs; so having a gun in the home just gives thieves another thing to steal.

It's easy to postulate what a person should be able to easily do when you're bravely sitting behind a keyboard, not so much when facing a live shooter who's trying to kill children under your protection.

Exactly. You don't know how you would respond in that kind of situation with heightened circumstances. BTW - NYPD officers had a "hit" rate of 13% when they shot at suspects. You think you'd be more accurate than them? I doubt it. Like the gun-toting folks in Vegas and the security officer in Parkland, you'd just hide behind cover.

 

[The Derp]

So? The same is true of cars and most any other item. Are you in favor of punishing victims instead of criminals?

Cars are insured, and if your car is stolen your premiums go up.

Also, nearly 100% of car thefts are reported to the police. Gun thefts? Just 86%. So y'all can't even get an "A" when it comes to reporting gun thefts. So why the fuck do you think you're responsible people?

"So I guess that applies to abortion too, then?"

Sure. None of my business

Great. Glad we're in agreement that if a woman wants to get an abortion it's her right to do so.

 

[hadit]

Except that gun collectors, hunters and target shooters are not killing other people with their guns. Find a different reason.

YET. They aren't doing that yet.

And haven't for generations. How long you gonna wait?

And you think gun owners are paranoid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Admiral DumbAss, the NRA is fighting the expansion of background checks, yes.

9thIDdoc and GW, we are not living in 1789. SCOTUS and most of America accepts the Constitution as a living document. Your arguments thus are useless if they feel good.

Bullspit. The Constitution remains the highest law in the land and it is unchanging except for the the amendment process. The concept of it being "a living document" is treasonous. End of story.

Well, bless you. Write SCOTUS and the rest of the federal judiciary they have it wrong.

They don't; you do. The express purpose of SCOTUS is to interpret (not change) the Constitution.It is not empowered to change one word, comma, or period and they are in fact sworn to protect and defend the Constitution (as written). As a part of government the possibility of SCOTUS becoming corrupt is a type of tyranny the 2nd Amendment was intended to counter.

You clearly don't understand that the Constitution is interpreted in case law and by SCOTUS, not by you or me or anyone else.

And it is precious that you believe the armed citizenry today could take on the LEO and military. Silly.

 

[hadit]

You had no problems operating your single shot bolt action .22 the last time your home was invaded?

1. I don't own a gun.
2. I've never been broken into
3. Most break-ins occur when the person isn't home, so it doesn't matter anyway
4. Thieves look for three things; guns, cash/valuables, drugs; so having a gun in the home just gives thieves another thing to steal.

It's easy to postulate what a person should be able to easily do when you're bravely sitting behind a keyboard, not so much when facing a live shooter who's trying to kill children under your protection.

Exactly. You don't know how you would respond in that kind of situation with heightened circumstances. BTW - NYPD officers had a "hit" rate of 13% when they shot at suspects. You think you'd be more accurate than them? I doubt it. Like the gun-toting folks in Vegas and the security officer in Parkland, you'd just hide behind cover.

Better make sure armed teachers have plenty of ammo and large clips.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, mandatory insurance for gun ownership is a constitutional as well as reasonable idea.

 

[2aguy]

Criminal negligence is against the law but that judgement is made in a court of law and not by members of society at large.

Problem is when it comes to gun owners, none of them are held criminally negligible for when their guns go missing, get stolen, and/or are used in crimes.

Members of society at large are well advised to mind their own business rather than speculate about people they do not know.

So I guess that applies to abortion too, then?

Is the owner of a car held criminally liable if his car is stolen and used in a crime?

No, but cars are insured and if your car is stolen, your premiums go up. So there's accountability and responsibility there. No such accountability or responsibility exists for guns.

Yes...there is, misuse a gun and you go to jail, and get sued.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, mandatory insurance for gun ownership is a constitutional as well as reasonable idea.

No...it isn't....it would be a fee for the exercise of a Right and that is not Constitutional....

You democrats have tried this tactic before, when you didn't want to let blacks vote, you created Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep them from voting......that was deemed unConstitutional.....so is forcing insurance costs on this Right........otherwise you could force journalists to pay for Libel and Slander insurance before they could write one word....


Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)



4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113.

5. The flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the Constitutional liberties of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. P. 319 U. S. 114.

6. That the ordinance is "nondiscriminatory," in that it applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise, is immaterial. The liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment are in a preferred position. P. 319 U. S. 115.

7. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution, and exists independently of state authority, the inquiry as to whether the State has given something for which it can ask a return is irrelevant. P. 319 U. S. 115.

8. A community may not suppress, or the State tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying, or distasteful. P. 319 U. S. 116.

------

Page 319 U. S. 108



The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ."

It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.

 

[hadit]

Yes, mandatory insurance for gun ownership is a constitutional as well as reasonable idea.

The reality, however, is that would never satisfy. They would just move on to something else. In an ideal world, objections to gun ownership would dry up. This is not an ideal world.

 

[The Derp]

And haven't for generations. How long you gonna wait?

You sure about that? Because the guy who shot up Vegas was a gun collector and target shooter who frequented shooting ranges, gun shows, and the like.

And you think gun owners are paranoid.

They are paranoid.

 

[The Derp]

Better make sure armed teachers have plenty of ammo and large clips.

What if they shoot a student by mistake?

What if the police arrive and shoot them?

How are police to know who is the bad guy with a gun and who isn't?

 

[The Derp]

Yes, mandatory insurance for gun ownership is a constitutional as well as reasonable idea.

I agree. It forces gun owners to be responsible and accountable for these tools of death that they're obsessed with.

 

[The Derp]

Yes...there is, misuse a gun and you go to jail, and get sued.

Not actually the case.

 

[GHook93]

My child has a constitutional right to go to school safely. I believe that outweighs a nut case's right to own and bear guns.

We need to find a way to break that access link between a nut and a gun.

We need to identify the first problem, which is

My children’s right to a safe school vs your leftist ideology of making them helpless


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[hadit]

Better make sure armed teachers have plenty of ammo and large clips.

What if they shoot a student by mistake?

What if the police arrive and shoot them?

How are police to know who is the bad guy with a gun and who isn't?

Because the teacher is the one in the classroom guarding the door. The bottom line is that no solution is perfect, and doing nothing while insisting on perfection is fruitless.

 

[The Derp]

Because the teacher is the one in the classroom guarding the door.

Is that how it plays out in your mind? What makes you think that's how it plays out? What about the teachers evacuating the students?

The bottom line is that no solution is perfect, and doing nothing while insisting on perfection is fruitless.

Doing this is more damaging than doing nothing at all.