CDZ Gun laws

[Donald H]

If there are no witnesses, you can claim that the other person started it and was about to attack you when you shot them. I know someone that got away with doing just that. Dead men tell no tales.

It may not be happening everyday. That was conjecture on my part.

If you want to hear a Canadian's interpretation of 'Stand Your Ground' laws, I would suggest it's just another term for 'legalized murder' of your fellow Americans.

 

[Briss]

You don't understand the analogy I'm making between guns and alcohol?

You could say that I don't understand the distinction that you think I should understand. I'll be the one who chooses my distinctions.

Attitudes on gun rights are likely the biggest factor that has created the gun violence problem. But the first step is having some people agree that there IS a problem.

Some who are taking part on this thread are loudly advertising their attitude problems.

Let's have a good clean discussion on the gun problem in America. There must be 'some' issue that can be discussed in the CDZ that doesn't become poison?

I asked you a legitimate question. Short of disarming the whole country, what do propose?

 

[progressive hunter]

You don't understand the analogy I'm making between guns and alcohol?

You could say that I don't understand the distinction that you think I should understand. I'll be the one who chooses my distinctions.

Attitudes on gun rights are likely the biggest factor that has created the gun violence problem. But the first step is having some people agree that there IS a problem.

Some who are taking part on this thread are loudly advertising their attitude problems.

Let's have a good clean discussion on the gun problem in America. There must be 'some' issue that can be discussed in the CDZ that doesn't become poison?

how can you have a clean discussion on guns in america when youre canadian not american??

 

[progressive hunter]

If there are no witnesses, you can claim that the other person started it and was about to attack you when you shot them. I know someone that got away with doing just that. Dead men tell no tales.

It may not be happening everyday. That was conjecture on my part.

If you want to hear a Canadian's interpretation of 'Stand Your Ground' laws, I would suggest it's just another term for 'legalized murder' of your fellow Americans.

that took a lot of stupid to say,,

stand your ground just means you dont have to run and hide while someone rapes your wife and steals your stuff,,

 

[Donald H]

I asked you a legitimate question. Short of disarming the whole country, what do propose?

Disarming the entire country is obviously impossible and so I took it as a silly question that didn't deserve an answer.

My proposal is: Changing attitudes in America so that extremists wouldn't be so preoccupied with using their guns for killing people. And that's not a simple task.
But accepting that something needs to be done is perhaps the first step!

Even something as simple as ranges supplying their own targets that don't include human silouette targets would be a very big step forward on changing attitudes. (maybe charging 10 cents each)

Can you think of any other small first steps?

What is the pleasure of owning and using an AR type assault weapon if your local range doesn't allow human silouette targets?

 

[Blues Man]

most are actually repeat offenders and their first crime wasn't with a gun

The distinction is: They were law abiding gun owners before they became criminals with guns.

they became criminals without guns before they became criminals with guns

 

[Blues Man]

most are actually repeat offenders and their first crime wasn't with a gun

The distinction is: They were law abiding gun owners before they became criminals with guns.

And there were also people who were law-abiding social drinkers before they became criminals with cars.

I wonder how many violent crimes committed with firearms are the result of alcohol abuse.

It's ridiculous

The idiot might as well be saying if there were no guns there would be no criminals

 

[Donald H]

Allowing certain individuals to become noticed, usually leads to spamming of the thread that results in the need for moderator actions to keep this section of the forum clean.
I won't be a part of it.
The OP bears some responsibility for his/her thread and should be actively cooperting with the moderators so that the thread stays on topic.
the spammer (s) are already destroying the content of this one!

 

[progressive hunter]

Allowing certain individuals to become noticed, usually leads to spamming of the thread that results in the need for moderator actions to keep this section of the forum clean.
I won't be a part of it.
The OP bears some responsibility for his/her thread and should be actively cooperting with the moderators so that the thread stays on topic.
the spammer (s) are already destroying the content of this one!

you mean spammers like people that dont live in this country telling us how we should do things???

 

[miketx]

Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".

If you don't like national ccw, then don't carry, commie.

 

[miketx]

Allowing certain individuals to become noticed, usually leads to spamming of the thread that results in the need for moderator actions to keep this section of the forum clean.
I won't be a part of it.
The OP bears some responsibility for his/her thread and should be actively cooperting with the moderators so that the thread stays on topic.
the spammer (s) are already destroying the content of this one!

He has no control over vermin such as you derailing a thread.

 

[Donald H]

It's ridiculous

The idiot might as well be saying if there were no guns there would be no criminals

The 'idiot' could be saying that if there were less assault weapons and less attitude problems then there would be less criminal activity with guns. Or something along those lines.

 

[Blues Man]

I asked you a legitimate question. Short of disarming the whole country, what do propose?

Disarming the entire country is obviously impossible and so I took it as a silly question that didn't deserve an answer.

My proposal is: Changing attitudes in America so that extremists wouldn't be so preoccupied with using their guns for killing people. And that's not a simple task.
But accepting that something needs to be done is perhaps the first step!

Even something as simple as ranges supplying their own targets that don't include human silouette targets would be a very big step forward on changing attitudes. (maybe charging 10 cents each)

Can you think of any other small first steps?

What is the pleasure of owning and using an AR type assault weapon if your local range doesn't allow human silouette targets?

you do realize that most people who own AR type rifles will never shoot a person don't you?

And I don't own an AR 15 but i don't care who does because unlike you I know that less than 2% of murders are committed with rifles of any kind.

 

[Blues Man]

It's ridiculous

The idiot might as well be saying if there were no guns there would be no criminals

The 'idiot' could be saying that if there were less assault weapons and less attitude problems then there would be less criminal activity with guns. Or something along those lines.

you don't seem to understand that a minuscule percentage of crimes and / or murders are committed with rifles of any kind.

You morons fixate on a rifle instead of on the actual causes of crime.

 

[Donald H]

He has no control over vermin such as you derailing a thread.

It's a sensitive discussion but you have no reason to fear it being discussed. I'm not suggesting anybody lose their right to carry guns or to have any particular weapons.

I'm suggesting that an attitude change is a huge part of the eventual solution that must come. Do you think my idea of not allowing human silouette targets has merit.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".

Actually as a member of the Republic each state agrees to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and laws and all judges should know what our rights as citizens are.

"There is also evidence closer in time to the drafting of the Constitution which indicates that behavior supporting articles of impeachment—i.e., “high crimes and misdemeanors”—need not be crimes. You have no idea just how close we just came to that becoming a reality. In regards to the States, they have their own Constitutions and Laws that not only the People have to follow but the Judges have to follow. And that is separate from the laws that the Federal Government must follow. Again, the original intent was to limit the powers of the Federal Government in the case of a KING taking control over it. If you want the 2nd amendment to be interpreted the way you want you are going to have to rewrite it to that affect. Or we can leave it alone (at least the last 1/3 of it)

Let's get something straight. The 2nd amendment is very specific where it prevents the Federals from passing such laws. The Rtwinggunnutters go off so much that that's over looked. It's the States responsibility. As District Court Judge Young said, "If you don't like the way your state's laws are, move".

The Bill of Rights details Rights of the People; not government, to prevent government (Federal, State, or local) from disregarding those Rights. And it must be remembered that the judicial branch which includes the courts are a part of government. The Constitution is the law of the land and neither the States nor the courts are given the authority to overrule it.

 

[Blues Man]

He has no control over vermin such as you derailing a thread.

It's a sensitive discussion but you have no reason to fear it being discussed. I'm not suggesting anybody lose their right to carry guns or to have any particular weapons.

I'm suggesting that an attitude change is a huge part of the eventual solution that must come. Do you think my idea of not allowing human silouette targets has merit.

our attitudes are just fine so why don't you mind your own business?

 

[progressive hunter]

He has no control over vermin such as you derailing a thread.

It's a sensitive discussion but you have no reason to fear it being discussed. I'm not suggesting anybody lose their right to carry guns or to have any particular weapons.

I'm suggesting that an attitude change is a huge part of the eventual solution that must come. Do you think my idea of not allowing human silouette targets has merit.

so you want to control or dictate what other people think,,,

thats almost more evil than taking away their guns,,

 

[Donald H]

you do realize that most people who own AR type rifles will never shoot a person don't you?

And I don't own an AR 15 but i don't care who does because unlike you I know that less than 2% of murders are committed with rifles of any kind.

Good point! Yes, I do realize that most won't shoot a person, regardless of what weapons they own. But some will and the 'SOME' have become too many.

Safety is one of the paramters considered that made America 15th. on quality of life.
Politicians are needing to hide behind bullet proof glass!

 

[Donald H]

our attitudes are just fine so why don't you mind your own business?

NO! You're displaying the attitude that I've referred to as troublesome.