More guns keeping us safe.......

[westwall]

What is funny is that there are SO many ways to kill yourself but only one is demonized.

Only one is almost 100% successful every time and almost 100% irreversible and the easiest access. But if that were the only factor involved with guns it would be a non issue.

And that sort of stupidity is why I have you on ignore. If westwall had not replied to you, I wouldn't have known you tried to respond to me and I would have been much happier.

BTW, if you ever want to move beyond your troll status, you should check your statistics. 10% of people who attempt suicide with a firearm fail. I know it's a lot, but not 100%.

Enjoy howling in the ignoreland desert.

You should have left me on ignore before you posted this stupidity. That means 90% will be successful. That's not just a lot. That's the best method for suicide available. It beats the tall building and even the tall bridges by a wide margin. But, as I said, it that were the only factor for gun regulation, there wouldn't be any problems and the general public wouldn't be so up in arms. But as usual, you want to make us look at one thing so that we will not see the real problems. The art of "Hey, Look over there" routine.

No, it isn't. Jumping from tall buildings has a success rate of over 99%.

For those that actually do the jump. Most are talked out of it or drug back inside. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good rant. Even so, if suicide by gun were the only factor of wanting gun control it wouldn't be a big enough issue to draw a fly.

The fact remains that those who jump almost always die.

 

[westwall]

Another thread full of arguments for taking guns away.

Liberals just love getting fucked in the ass. Whether it's by men, by corporations, or by their government. That's right, keep bending over and letting other take you. I'm sure it'll work out well in the end for you.

Another thread illustrating just how dishonest, ignorant, and reprehensible most conservatives are, of the right's propensity for lying, and conservatives' contempt for Second Amendment case law.

The contempt for case law is from you mr. pseudo intellectual. Specifically US V. MILLER where the Supreme Court ruled that ONLY military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. How about you address that little fact.

Hmmmm...

It's been addressed over and over and you won't accept that either.

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Only one is almost 100% successful every time and almost 100% irreversible and the easiest access. But if that were the only factor involved with guns it would be a non issue.

And that sort of stupidity is why I have you on ignore. If westwall had not replied to you, I wouldn't have known you tried to respond to me and I would have been much happier.

BTW, if you ever want to move beyond your troll status, you should check your statistics. 10% of people who attempt suicide with a firearm fail. I know it's a lot, but not 100%.

Enjoy howling in the ignoreland desert.

You should have left me on ignore before you posted this stupidity. That means 90% will be successful. That's not just a lot. That's the best method for suicide available. It beats the tall building and even the tall bridges by a wide margin. But, as I said, it that were the only factor for gun regulation, there wouldn't be any problems and the general public wouldn't be so up in arms. But as usual, you want to make us look at one thing so that we will not see the real problems. The art of "Hey, Look over there" routine.

No, it isn't. Jumping from tall buildings has a success rate of over 99%.

For those that actually do the jump. Most are talked out of it or drug back inside. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good rant. Even so, if suicide by gun were the only factor of wanting gun control it wouldn't be a big enough issue to draw a fly.

The fact remains that those who jump almost always die.

But there are a lot of indicators that come before they jump. They can be stopped before they get to that point many times. And we are right back to the original idea. IF it were just gun suicide that was the problem we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are just doing a Red Herring.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Another thread full of arguments for taking guns away.

Liberals just love getting fucked in the ass. Whether it's by men, by corporations, or by their government. That's right, keep bending over and letting other take you. I'm sure it'll work out well in the end for you.

Another thread illustrating just how dishonest, ignorant, and reprehensible most conservatives are, of the right's propensity for lying, and conservatives' contempt for Second Amendment case law.

The contempt for case law is from you mr. pseudo intellectual. Specifically US V. MILLER where the Supreme Court ruled that ONLY military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. How about you address that little fact.

Hmmmm...

It's been addressed over and over and you won't accept that either.

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

 

[westwall]

And that sort of stupidity is why I have you on ignore. If westwall had not replied to you, I wouldn't have known you tried to respond to me and I would have been much happier.

BTW, if you ever want to move beyond your troll status, you should check your statistics. 10% of people who attempt suicide with a firearm fail. I know it's a lot, but not 100%.

Enjoy howling in the ignoreland desert.

You should have left me on ignore before you posted this stupidity. That means 90% will be successful. That's not just a lot. That's the best method for suicide available. It beats the tall building and even the tall bridges by a wide margin. But, as I said, it that were the only factor for gun regulation, there wouldn't be any problems and the general public wouldn't be so up in arms. But as usual, you want to make us look at one thing so that we will not see the real problems. The art of "Hey, Look over there" routine.

No, it isn't. Jumping from tall buildings has a success rate of over 99%.

For those that actually do the jump. Most are talked out of it or drug back inside. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good rant. Even so, if suicide by gun were the only factor of wanting gun control it wouldn't be a big enough issue to draw a fly.

The fact remains that those who jump almost always die.

But there are a lot of indicators that come before they jump. They can be stopped before they get to that point many times. And we are right back to the original idea. IF it were just gun suicide that was the problem we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are just doing a Red Herring.

And if they are intent on killing themselves they will eventually do so. The Golden Gate is very popular for that. They even made a documentary about it.

 

[westwall]

Another thread full of arguments for taking guns away.

Liberals just love getting fucked in the ass. Whether it's by men, by corporations, or by their government. That's right, keep bending over and letting other take you. I'm sure it'll work out well in the end for you.

Another thread illustrating just how dishonest, ignorant, and reprehensible most conservatives are, of the right's propensity for lying, and conservatives' contempt for Second Amendment case law.

The contempt for case law is from you mr. pseudo intellectual. Specifically US V. MILLER where the Supreme Court ruled that ONLY military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. How about you address that little fact.

Hmmmm...

It's been addressed over and over and you won't accept that either.

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You should have left me on ignore before you posted this stupidity. That means 90% will be successful. That's not just a lot. That's the best method for suicide available. It beats the tall building and even the tall bridges by a wide margin. But, as I said, it that were the only factor for gun regulation, there wouldn't be any problems and the general public wouldn't be so up in arms. But as usual, you want to make us look at one thing so that we will not see the real problems. The art of "Hey, Look over there" routine.

No, it isn't. Jumping from tall buildings has a success rate of over 99%.

For those that actually do the jump. Most are talked out of it or drug back inside. But don't let that fact get in the way of a good rant. Even so, if suicide by gun were the only factor of wanting gun control it wouldn't be a big enough issue to draw a fly.

The fact remains that those who jump almost always die.

But there are a lot of indicators that come before they jump. They can be stopped before they get to that point many times. And we are right back to the original idea. IF it were just gun suicide that was the problem we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are just doing a Red Herring.

And if they are intent on killing themselves they will eventually do so. The Golden Gate is very popular for that. They even made a documentary about it.

Fine and this has to do with Gun Regulation how? How many people have died jumping off off a handgun so far? Not many, I would guess.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Another thread illustrating just how dishonest, ignorant, and reprehensible most conservatives are, of the right's propensity for lying, and conservatives' contempt for Second Amendment case law.

The contempt for case law is from you mr. pseudo intellectual. Specifically US V. MILLER where the Supreme Court ruled that ONLY military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. How about you address that little fact.

Hmmmm...

It's been addressed over and over and you won't accept that either.

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

 

[Ernie S.]

Another thread full of arguments for taking guns away.

Liberals just love getting fucked in the ass. Whether it's by men, by corporations, or by their government. That's right, keep bending over and letting other take you. I'm sure it'll work out well in the end for you.

Another thread illustrating just how dishonest, ignorant, and reprehensible most conservatives are, of the right's propensity for lying, and conservatives' contempt for Second Amendment case law.

Another unsupported condemnation of Conservatives by Mr Jones. The facts are not on your side in this one Clayton, and calling us repugnant for refusing to be quiet after you call us names is not as likely to work on people who actually research their facts as on Liberals willing to be spoon fed their opinions.

Hmm, I had saussage and waffles this morning. No spoon since my coffee is served black. Nothing was served with a spoon. I read a real live newspaper (local), watched a local news program, tuned in to over the air The Drew Carey Show, went to VA Appointments. I guess I missed all that trash you keep telling me that I should be watching. Could it be that I have my own opinions that come from my own mind without the influence of those that you claim that are poisoning me? Meanwhile, what influence did you do today.

Was I talking to you? Didn't anyone ever teach you that children should not speak until spoken to? You are dismissed.

 

[westwall]

The contempt for case law is from you mr. pseudo intellectual. Specifically US V. MILLER where the Supreme Court ruled that ONLY military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. How about you address that little fact.

Hmmmm...

It's been addressed over and over and you won't accept that either.

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Another thread full of arguments for taking guns away.

Liberals just love getting fucked in the ass. Whether it's by men, by corporations, or by their government. That's right, keep bending over and letting other take you. I'm sure it'll work out well in the end for you.

Another thread illustrating just how dishonest, ignorant, and reprehensible most conservatives are, of the right's propensity for lying, and conservatives' contempt for Second Amendment case law.

Another unsupported condemnation of Conservatives by Mr Jones. The facts are not on your side in this one Clayton, and calling us repugnant for refusing to be quiet after you call us names is not as likely to work on people who actually research their facts as on Liberals willing to be spoon fed their opinions.

Hmm, I had saussage and waffles this morning. No spoon since my coffee is served black. Nothing was served with a spoon. I read a real live newspaper (local), watched a local news program, tuned in to over the air The Drew Carey Show, went to VA Appointments. I guess I missed all that trash you keep telling me that I should be watching. Could it be that I have my own opinions that come from my own mind without the influence of those that you claim that are poisoning me? Meanwhile, what influence did you do today.

Was I talking to you? Didn't anyone ever teach you that children should not speak until spoken to? You are dismissed.

Hate to break it to you, cupcake but this is a "Public" forum. You don't get to make the rules in here.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's been addressed over and over and you won't accept that either.

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's been addressed over and over and you won't accept that either.

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

And, knothead, US V. Miller was in 1938. If you are going to troll, get your dates correct.

 

[westwall]

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

And, knothead, US V. Miller was in 1938. If you are going to troll, get your dates correct.

The law the case is dealing with was passed in 1934.

 

[westwall]

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No, it hasn't. In fact your pseudo intellectual friend flees from that very important piece of case law every time i bring it up.

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

And, knothead, US V. Miller was in 1938. If you are going to troll, get your dates correct.

Incorrect, it was 1939 as shown HERE from Cornell Law

307 U.S. 174

United States v. Miller (No. 696)

Argued: March 30, 1939

Decided: May 15, 1939

26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

And, knothead, US V. Miller was in 1938. If you are going to troll, get your dates correct.

The law the case is dealing with was passed in 1934.

Brilliant.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

 

[Brain357]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

 

[Ernie S.]

Thank God for Second Amendment remedies

A woman was trying to shoot someone in a road rage incident, police say, but shot her husband instead - CNN

Nicholas Cole is in intensive care after being shot in the head during a road rage incident Saturday.

Unfortunately, police say it was his wife, Erica, who accidentally shot him.
According to the Cullman County Sheriff's Office, there was a road rage episode on Highway 69 in Dodge City, Alabama, about 6:45 p.m. Saturday. It carried over to a home on County Road 160 in Bremen.

During the incident, an altercation occurred in which, the offender, Erica Cole, attempted to shoot a second party but shot her husband, Nicholas Cole, striking him in the head," Cullman County Deputy Brad Williams said in a statement.

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives.....and as more Americans over the last 26 years have owned and carried guns...our accidental gun death rate has gone down, not up........lives saved, tragedies stopped........

600 million guns in private hands, likely more......320 million people ......

Accidental gun deaths? 486

Accidental car deaths? 38,659

Fatal Injury Data | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2017 accidental gun death.....486

Guns....486

Cars....38,659

You have some imagination.

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?