Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[Defiant1]

not one person has ever died as a result of my gun ownership

This mass shooter would have said the same thing a few days ago.

And your plan that would have stopped him?

Not letting him legally buy a rifle for mass killing would be a good start.

So rifles are for mass killing?

Semi autos with high capacity magazines. See the Vegas and Orlando mass shootings.

Both were very poor kill ratios given the crowd size. Add the time allowed in the Orlando shooting and it's a piss poor ratio.
In fact in I would say it was a poor choice of weapons in both shootings.
In Orlando a shotgun and handguns would have resulted in a higher ratio.
In Vegas the bump stocks made most of his bullets miss, then destroyed the barrels of the weapons.
There are more accurate weapons available. He should have crashed his airplane into the crowd.
That's even better than a rental truck.

 

[Dick Foster]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

 

[emilynghiem]

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

Great Slade3200 as long as you treat both sides the same
and stick to where the two agree, then we can still establish common truth.

 

[NotYourBody]

So lets arm crazy people & allow them to roan the streets.

No, we identify the crazy people, give them their due process, then place them where they can't hurt people.

It seems like in this country we only identify the crazy people after they've already shot up a bunch of people. Does that seem effective?

------------------------------------- think it unAmerican and unethical for 'head doktors' to go around labeling people as being Crazy isn't it 'NYBod .

We should at least try to identify the crazy people trying to buy a gun.

You don't think that is being done now?
Have you ever seen the NICS form?
What would you do different?

I would ban all guns and enact stiff felony prison sentences for offenders.

Barring that, I would look for something that has not already failed. Because the crazies are still buying legal guns.

In reality, gun nutters are too afraid to ever get their white knuckles loose from their guns willingly.

I expect the next Democrat president to take executive action. The Supremes see to be okay with that notion.

 

[emilynghiem]

I know what he meant. Wrong time and place to defend monument people and attack ANTIFA. It was a water down comment

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

and this is my point not to just slade, but both sides who do this all the time.

they say it's ignorant to call Obama/Trump names like hitler, nazi, racist and other extreme names and defend their chosen side it would seem to the "death". but then they turn around and do the very same thing they called stupid but only now it's ok cause they're doing it to someone they hate.

if someone else doing an action makes them stupid, then i would fall under that same "stupid" connotation if i do the same thing.

Yes iceberg it's equally stupid and detracting when either sides
engages in this.

it looks like Slade3200 acknowledges as much of the hype/hyperbole on the left
is equally dismissable. So that means we can cut all that crap out,
and just stick to the real issues, shall we?

 

[iceberg]

You missed my original question that he was responding to. I was talking to two others yesterday (patriot and bigrebnc) and asked if they supported any citizens ability to walk into a store and buy a machine gun as easy as buying a slurpy and then take it to a high school football game and hold it as they watched. Both posters I was talking to said yes they supported it. Schools and states don’t have the right to infringe on the second amendment. Blues man called it a stupid question and we went from there.

you mean where he said "who would bring a machine gun to a football game?" and followed up with no one, it's a stupid question?

Breaking News - Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

i went back 250 posts and never saw him say it's fine to bring a machine gun to a school. please give me your direct reference.

I had two posters literally say bring guns into schools. And then blues guy calls it a stupid question and when pressed responds with this...
“I don't care if people own machine guns

I have no problem with the owners of any property setting the rules on what is permissible on their property.

That said there is no reason to stop anyone who can legally carry a concealed weapon from doing so anywhere”

You are right he never said the words “bring guns into school”... he played around giving a direct answer so I shot back... I’ll take back my comment and ask him to further clarify if he believes the second amendment can and should be restricted by federal, state and or local laws or should it not. If not then legally anybody would be able to buy and bring a gun into a school. If so then he believes we can regulate it

so like i said - you took pieces of a conversation and put them together on your own - each step requiring an assumption on your part to link the two.

i've pointed this out to you a lot, DamnDude has also and others i'm sure.

before i say someone is ok with bringing a machine gun to school i'm going to ask the direction question. not ask things like "so you think people should own machine guns" and get a yes and then extrapolate to our own ends and in effect, create a strawman along the way. and it looks like he answered your questions, you just didn't like them or they were not what you wanted him to say, so you went this route.

from my vantage point anyway.

I apologized to him and ask him to clarify his position. Thanks for keeping me in check

What odds to you give him to actually answer the question and clarifying the position? ;-)

from reading his replies, he has clarified it. but no, not to the manner you wish.

my take on bluesman:
if you're licensed you should be able to own a gun even up to a machine gun. logic being that to get licensed you've gone through every gambit and check that can be thrown at you and came up clean. while i may not agree with private people owning machine guns, it doesn't matter as he gave a trail from idea to reasoning behind it.

if you're licensed you should be able to carry concealed weapons where you wish. he never said a thing about machine guns in schools and even said no one would or should take them to a football game. i assume he means a school game but in any event, he clarified his point.

as for what other people do - don't care really. i care about what i do cause i'm the only one i can control. sometimes.

 

[NotYourBody]

Yes you do. You make it easy for them to arm up. Because lives are more important than a bunch of tools needing gun courage.

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

If everyone could carry a bomb, think how safe we would be.

 

[iceberg]

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

and this is my point not to just slade, but both sides who do this all the time.

they say it's ignorant to call Obama/Trump names like hitler, nazi, racist and other extreme names and defend their chosen side it would seem to the "death". but then they turn around and do the very same thing they called stupid but only now it's ok cause they're doing it to someone they hate.

if someone else doing an action makes them stupid, then i would fall under that same "stupid" connotation if i do the same thing.

Yes iceberg it's equally stupid and detracting when either sides
engages in this.

it looks like Slade3200 acknowledges as much of the hype/hyperbole on the left
is equally dismissable. So that means we can cut all that crap out,
and just stick to the real issues, shall we?

i wish. but he can be hard headed (as we all can) in seeing this at times. when you REALLY HATE SOMEONE objectivity is so very hard to come by. me and hillary for example. there's a lot of things i think about her and none on the good side. but this doesn't mean she deserves or should have less rights than the rest of us. while i think she's "gotten away" with things, it happens in life. there will simply never be a final reckoning here on earth that will satisfy us when looking at those we emotionally cannot stand.

we've let ourselves be driven by 90% emotions and that is a hallmark of the left. being emotional in your arguments. i'm more a math person and does it add up? i try not to take emotional shortcuts but i'm human, it can happen. but i still try to avoid it. i seldom if ever call obama, hillary and others jr high DEMOCRAP / RETHUGLICAN type names cause that's elementary playground bullshit and nothing adults in my mind should be doing.

when people just dive into the name calling i've found it's usually because they have nothing else to offer. Slade3200 does this but hes not completely driven by it. in this thread he even saw it and backed up a bit. more than most do so credit where credit is due. someone like edward37 will just rant and rave in hate and never bother to put it down. terminally a child in my mind but hey - his life.

anyway - time to go do something hopefully a bit more productive today and make some mind maps for projects i've got going on at work.

 

[NotYourBody]

Actually, it does happen in other countries all the time. America is in the middle of the pack as far as murder rates. The homicide rates in places like Congo, Mexico, El Salvador is far higher than in America.

I bet if we keep going, we can catch up.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, we identify the crazy people, give them their due process, then place them where they can't hurt people.

It seems like in this country we only identify the crazy people after they've already shot up a bunch of people. Does that seem effective?

------------------------------------- think it unAmerican and unethical for 'head doktors' to go around labeling people as being Crazy isn't it 'NYBod .

We should at least try to identify the crazy people trying to buy a gun.

You don't think that is being done now?
Have you ever seen the NICS form?
What would you do different?

I would ban all guns and enact stiff felony prison sentences for offenders.

Barring that, I would look for something that has not already failed.

In reality, gun nutters are too afraid to ever get their white knuckles loose from their guns willingly.

I expect the next Democrat president to take executive action. The Supremes see to be okay with that notion.

Dear NotYourBody
You are welcome to enact whatever bans you want in YOUR district
that is democratically decided under the terms your local residents agree
to be governed under.

Similar to prolife who want to ban abortions and don't want to fund any of that either.
You are free to set up such policies within your own districts and fund whatever
you want to follow by democratic process you all agree to.

However, this does not give you authority to impose your beliefs
on other people in other districts and states. Alaskan laws
apply to citizens within that state. Same with Texas laws that Texans decide democratically.

If we can agree to respect the same democratic process for all people,
maybe we can stop this posturing and MISREPRESENTATION that electing
people by party gives anyone the right or authority to impose their parties BELIEFS
on the rest of the nation by abusing govt to establish such beliefs at the expense of other CREEDS.

That's against Civil Rights and Equal Protection of people from "discrimination by CREED"
to establish your beliefs and deprive others of their rights and liberties without DUE PROCESS.

That's fine if you establish your own beliefs and policies locally by democratic process
within Constitutional protections and limits on govt.

But quit this abusive fraud of promoting the false notion that anyone
can impose and enforce federal legislation that deprives other citizens
of the same rights to due process and democratic representation.

You are doing a huge disservice by undermining Constitutional laws
principles and process by falsely teaching it is lawful to take your
local policy and mandate it for the entire nation through Congress.

That's unconstitutional, and we all share responsibility to start teaching this correctly!
www.ethics-commission.net

 

[Slade3200]

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

for someone who doesn't support the hyperbole, you sure to engage in it a lot.

trump is full of shit a lot. yes. but that's not nazi, communist, racist or the like. somewhere along the way we've lost sense of meaning in words and can only use the most extreme to describe people, devaluing the meaning of extreme words in the end.

I’ve never called trump Nazi commie or racist. He is an opportunist and while trying to appear tough and gain political points he has made racist remarks, emboldened bigots, and stirred hate and division... many left wingnuts have done the same. But yes I focus more on Trump, he is the POTUS after all

 

[Olde Europe]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

Ludicrous. What you know about gun regulations in Switzerland can be written on a needle. A very, very tiny needle. Because, quite obviously, your gun propaganda handlers didn't feed you the goods on that.

 

[Polishprince]

Actually, it does happen in other countries all the time. America is in the middle of the pack as far as murder rates. The homicide rates in places like Congo, Mexico, El Salvador is far higher than in America.

I bet if we keep going, we can catch up.

Only if America adopts the same kind of Gun Control they have in Mexico and other countries. The reputation of American citizens of being armed is a real discouragement to MS13 gangsters and Islamic State terrorists and they limit their activities here.

 

[NotYourBody]

Bet they didn’t get the gun in a gun free zone did they? The problem is easy access to weapons for mass killing.

What is your criteria for defining a "problem?"

People dying regularly, something that doesn’t happen in other countries.

Actually, it does happen in other countries all the time. America is in the middle of the pack as far as murder rates. The homicide rates in places like Congo, Mexico, El Salvador is far higher than in America.

Yes unstable countries. How about Germany, UK, Japan, France?

The people seeking to come into America as Illegals nowadays aren't coming from Germany, or Japan, or France or the UK.

They ARE, however, coming in from Mexico, other Latin American and African countries.

That makes the murder rates there a lot more relevant.

They are not coming here to kill Meemaw. They are coming here for work.

Try not to be so afraid all the time.

 

[iceberg]

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

for someone who doesn't support the hyperbole, you sure to engage in it a lot.

trump is full of shit a lot. yes. but that's not nazi, communist, racist or the like. somewhere along the way we've lost sense of meaning in words and can only use the most extreme to describe people, devaluing the meaning of extreme words in the end.

I’ve never called trump Nazi commie or racist. He is an opportunist and while trying to appear tough and gain political points he has made racist remarks, emboldened bigots, and stirred hate and division... many left wingnuts have done the same. But yes I focus more on Trump, he is the POTUS after all

last time we got into it was because you were saying trump was making racist statements about GO BACK HOME comments. any attempt to tone that down didn't fare well with you and it just got ugly.

now we find the very people he was talking to/about said the same thing 4+ years ago yet for them it's not racist.

that word changes meaning as people need it to and that's a huge part of our problem.

 

[Slade3200]

so - you intentionally misrepresented it? NOT an attack but if you knew what he meant and characterized it as "racist" anyway - don't you see this is why people get tired of the RACIST comments flung at trump? people know better but do it anyway.

Before Donald J Trump disembarked from the escalator in June 2015, no one thought he was a "racist".

A lot of people thought he was a blowhard, and a shameless self promoter who thought too highly of himself. Others disliked him for other reasons, since his divorces were covered by the media. But NO ONE opined that the man was "racist".

The only reason Trump is called a "racist" is that the D's always call Republicans "racist".

Both McCain and Romney were considered by libs to be literally Hitler, Trump had to expect the same treatment.

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

I live by the golden rule. I have my opinions and political leanings but do my best to give all sides a fair shot. Not sure what your gripe with me is. I don’t support the lefts hyperbole about Trump. But I also call out a lot of his bullshit

Great Slade3200 as long as you treat both sides the same
and stick to where the two agree, then we can still establish common truth.

I’m always going to be swayed by my personal preference and focus. That doesn’t mean I’m deaf to good counter arguments, but we are emotional beings and it would be ignorant for me to think that my arguments aren’t shaped by my opinions

 

[pismoe]

Actually, it does happen in other countries all the time. America is in the middle of the pack as far as murder rates. The homicide rates in places like Congo, Mexico, El Salvador is far higher than in America.

I bet if we keep going, we can catch up.

---------------------------------------------- if the USA keeps importing the mentioned third worlders the USA will probably Catch UP 'NYBod.

 

[emilynghiem]

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

If everyone could carry a bomb, think how safe we would be.

Dear NotYourBody
carrying bombs and other hazardous explosives
violates the right of people to security, by causing
a breach or disruption of the peace and threats to public safety.
(see Amendments One, Four, and Fourteen among others
such threats would violate: www.ethics-commission.net)

Again if we taught Constitutional laws consistently,
maybe we'd enforce better RESPECT for the equal rights and
protections of others instead of treating freedom to mean lawlessness.

Having Constitutional rights and freedoms does NOT MEAN
abusing these to the point of BREACHING other Constitutional laws
such as liberty, due process, SECURITY and equal protections.

By teaching these in full context, none of the rights can be
taken OUT OF CONTEXT to violate other laws or rights.

Wouldn't that be the most effective way to enforce laws?
By teaching that they CHECK THEMSELVES when taught
in context with the rest of the Bill of Rights and Constitution?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Assuming that that was the reason. I would place the blame on the shooter..where it belongs. The first to act in a violent situation always has the advantage. Even if every person is armed...the shooter will still kill several..this guy..was shot in minutes..still he hit 11.

Blaming the left is absurd...I live in a Constitutional carry state....we can carry concealed without a permit. Does everyone carry/ No.Do the majority carry..no. Most of us have a gun around...in the car...in the house....maybe in the backpack. But in a mass shooting scenario....I doubt that the outcome would be anything but tragic.
At best, an armed citizenry would limit the damage..and lead to a quick resolution. But the danger of friendly fire..is there. My point? The political polemic has little to do with the real-life horror of a mass shooting..and that armed or no--people are going to die.

All deaths are tragic..to someone.

Perhaps if the Democrat party would stop demonizing guns (inanimate objects) more people would be comfortable owning, learning to shoot and would carry. We constantly hear how we should wait for law enforcement but, even where cops can get to the perp right away (as with the Garlic Festival) still people had to die and be injured. My contention is that if guns were acceptable for people to open-carry, this little punk would have been put down quickly and efficiently.

You are looking at this all wrong. As I read it, and many others do as well, the Second Amendment is for keeping the citizenry ready to call up in case of attack. They did not have a standing army and the Founding Fathers did not want one. Even before the Revolutionary War, the local militias were called up to train on a regular basis. All adult males except the very oldest were required to participate and they needed to bring their own weapon.

We now have the largest standing army in the world. The Second Amendment no longer applies. Since it keeps standing in the way of getting rid of the majority of guns in this country, I say ditch it.

The US military is barred from acting on US soil.

And the second was not conceived for the possibility of an attack by a foreign power. It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.

So what other rights are you willing to give up to stop criminals from committing crimes>\?

How about your 4th or 5t amendment rights? I mean if you're innocent you shouldn't care if the police search your home whenever they want or if they arrest and innterrogste you for hours on end right?

It was conceived so the citizenry could not be subjugated by a corrupt , tyrannical government.
Maybe they had both reasons on their minds. Considering what they had just been through with the King of England, can you blame them? That is no longer a valid argument either, though, since we would have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting the US military with our personal collections of AR's, AK's and SKS's should a despotic government try to overthrow our democracy.

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

 

[Blues Man]

No I don't.

I don't sell guns to anyone.

We already have gun laws on the books to deal with illegal possession of firearms and when those laws are enforced they work

Yes you do, you make really dangerous weapons legal. Because of you the weapon used was legally purchased.

FYI an AR 15 is not "really" dangerous
In fact there are a hell of lot more things that are more dangerous than guns out there in the world.

What you people can't seem to understand is that I am not responsible for the bad acts of another person.

Maybe we should all have our drivers licenses suspended because some people drive drunk huh?

And yet they have been used to kill over 50 people really quickly by one shooter . Seems dangerous to me.

So?

Anyone could do the same thing with a really big truck and a snow plow

And it's not the gun that is dangerous it's the person shooting it that is the danger

If everyone could carry a bomb, think how safe we would be.

Once again we have a reduction to the ridiculous.

All that signifies is that you have no real argument.