So let me get this straight....

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ban or limit assault weapons and loons will just use a different weapon, but use them they will. It's a band-aid, it doesn't fix the problem.

Criminals will get their hands on whatever they want. That's a fact, Jack.

No shit.. that's the absurdity of their claims. Do you really think that someone willing to commit murder wil lbe detered by gun laws?

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

Ban or limit assault weapons and loons will just use a different weapon, but use them they will. It's a band-aid, it doesn't fix the problem.

Criminals will get their hands on whatever they want. That's a fact, Jack.

No shit.. that's the absurdity of their claims. Do you really think that someone willing to commit murder wil lbe detered by gun laws?

yet they will have a more difficult time obtaining the instruments to perform those crimes.

 

[GoneBezerk]

1) A "Machine gun" itself isn't going to kill you, one needs a bad person shooting that gun at you to be illegal.

2) Second hand smoke is dangerous, so there should be blocked off areas for smokers away from non-smokers. Also, the air should be vented so that the smoke doesn't get into the non-smoker zone.

I smoke cigars so I am not against smokers....I just understand smoke is bad to non-smokers.

FYI....Obamination and other Democraps raised taxes on tobacco to pay for their handouts.....but of course you support that eh?

Our government can ban me from smoking in a bar because of the "dangers" of second hand smoke, but they can't ban people from owning as many machine guns as they want? Does that make sense to anyone?

 

[DiamondDave]

Ban or limit assault weapons and loons will just use a different weapon, but use them they will. It's a band-aid, it doesn't fix the problem.

Criminals will get their hands on whatever they want. That's a fact, Jack.

No shit.. that's the absurdity of their claims. Do you really think that someone willing to commit murder wil lbe detered by gun laws?

yet they will have a more difficult time obtaining the instruments to perform those crimes.

It is harder for me to get a weapon thru legal channels than it is thru illegal channels

 

[Avorysuds]

How stupid can the OP be? You’re not even comparing the same concepts. While a smoking ban is retarded there is a huge lapse in logic to equate a ban on smoking in a restaurant to that of banning firearms all together or how many firearms one is allowed to own.

Let me break it down in baby talk for you as to why your ”argument” is in the realm of mentally handicapped:

A: Banning someone’s ability to smoke in a public place is not the same as banning a person’s ability to smoke at all.
B: Second hand smoke can at least harm someone else’s health while owning a firearm in fact hurts no ones health.
C: Killing someone like in the school shooting is in fact banned by definition of it being illegal and a crime.

What the OP in his ignorant arguments fails to link is that it is already illegal to kill someone with a firearm unless it’s self defense. Just as it’s illegal to purposely run someone over with a car, or poison someone, or beat them to death with a baseball bat, or stab them to death…

You would think this would be a concept understood from an early age, but instead this grown ass adult must post on the internet feeling they are righteous, maybe even witty in their “argument” despite making a complete fool of themselves.

I don’t own a fire arm and I don’t care too. Guns are coolish but I don’t feel I need one or to even be around them. But to advocate dismantling our already eroded and near meaningless constitution (thanks insanely board and abused “general welfare clause” that doesn’t exist) with such out of touch arguments just goes to show why our country is now looking to compete with countries that build walls to cover their poor from sight.

 

[Avorysuds]

Also, because this must be added. Has banning smoking in public areas ended second hand smoke? No, in fact I myself am on the receiving end of second hand smoke almost every day that I am around a group of people… So if Government fails on such an epic level to actually end or pretend it can end second hand smoke, how would banning firearm or how many firearms someone could have end people illegally obtaining and using firearms to illegally kill people? T

 

[Rinata]

Smoking is not mentioned in the second amendment; not even smoking barrels.

The 2nd amendment is outdated and irrelevant today. I'm sure the founding fathers did not consider mowing down citizens as a right. Or that people had a right to own assault rifles in order to accomplish it. Wake up!!!

the second amendment is fine.

its the gun nutters interpitation that is out of line with reality

Well, I think it is really out of touch with the times. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

However, you are also right that it is being incorrectly interpreted by some. The word, "militia", should be a red flag. But some people have complexes about themselves and owning fire arms makes them feel important. I don't believe it has anything to do with protecting their families. When was the last time someone protected their family with an assault rifle?? The argument is just bull.

 

[Rinata]

By the way, the largest shooting incident in U.S. history - the North Hollywood shootout - where nearly 2,000 rounds of ammunition were fired, ended with 2 people dead, and 2 people dead only - the idiot criminals.

That's right ignorant liberals, not one citizen was killed. Not one police officer was killed. Not one child was killed. Just the two asshole criminals, who were heavily armed with some of the most deadly military weapons in the world:

On the morning of February 28, 1997, after months of preparation, including extensive reconnoitering of their intended target—the Bank of America branch located at 6600 Laurel Canyon Boulevard—Phillips and Mătăsăreanu loaded five rifles, one handgun, and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazines into the trunk of their vehicle: two modified Norinco Type 56 S rifles, a modified Norinco Type 56 S-1, a semi automatic HK91 and a modified Bushmaster Dissipator. Phillips also carried a 9mm Beretta Model 92FS INOX, holstered underneath his jacket.[15] Phillips wore a bulletproof vest and several pieces of home made body armor, covering his groin, shins, thighs, and forearms. To store box magazines for the rifles, in particular the HK91, he also wore a load bearing vest over the bulletproof one.[16] Mătăsăreanu wore only a bulletproof vest, but included a metal trauma plate to protect vital organs. Additionally, both robbers had sewn watch faces onto the back of their gloves.[17] Before entering, they took the muscle relaxer phenobarbital to calm their nerves.[18]

North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I live near that bank and I was afraid my Mom and her friend were there the day it happened. It was really scary. Do you actually think that it was okay because nobody was killed?? It doesn't matter that people were hurt and scared to death?? What in God's name is wrong with you?? Liberals are ignorant?? I feel sorry for you because you haven't got a clue. You are the ignorant one and just proved it by bringing up this incident and bragging that nobody was killed. You also sound so excited and impressed by all that shooting!!! Like you wish you'd have been there. You are a psycho.

SHOOTOUT: The victims

Hospitals called in extra personnel and tightened security as victims flooded in for treatment. In all, 10 officers were hurt, seven of them with gunshot wounds, two with knee injuries and one in a traffic accident. At least five civilians also were hurt, some with multiple gunshot wounds. Two suspects died in the street after gun battles with police.


Here is a breakdown of the injured.

LOS ANGELES POLICE

Sgt. Larry D. Haynes, 41, of the North Hollywood Division; 16 years on the job. He was treated at Northridge Hospital Medical Center for gunshot wounds to the shoulder and legs. Released.

Officer Martin Whitfield, 29, of the Van Nuys Division; six years on the job. He remains at Northridge Hospital Medical Center with a broken right femur, injuries from shrapnel on his left side, chest and arm. Also had glass in his chest. Underwent surgery.

Officer James Zboravan, 26, of the North Hollywood Division; eight months on the job. Treated for a gunshot wound in the buttocks at Northridge Hospital Medical Center and released.

Officer David Grimes, 29, of the North Hollywood Division was treated at North Hollywood Medical Center for traffic accident injuries and released. He has two years with the department.

Officer Manuel Valladares, 51, of the North Hollywood Division, received a superficial wound to the head and was treated and released from North Hollywood Medical Center. A 26-year Los Angeles Police Department veteran.

Officer William Lantz, 28, of the Foothill Division was treated at North Hollywood Medical Center for abrasions and contusions, and released. He is in his sixth month on the job.

Detective William Krulac, 49, of the North Hollywood Division suffered a gunshot wound to the right ankle. He was treated at Valley Presbyterian Hospital. Like Valladares, he is a 26-year police veteran.

Detective Tracy Angeles, 29, of the North Hollywood Division's juvenile division, suffered a graze wound to the stomach and buttocks. Angeles was treated at Encino-Tarzana Medical Center and released. Six years on the job.

Officer Stuart Guy, 31, of the North Hollywood Division, was treated at Holy Cross Medical Center for a gunshot wound to the right leg and arm. Seven years on the job.

Officer John Goodman, 28, of the Van Nuys Division was treated at Kaiser-Permanente in Woodland Hills for abrasions and released. Six years on the job.

THE CIVILIANS

Tracy Fisher, 28, of Studio City was grazed by a bullet while on her way to the Bank of America ATM. She received eight stitches at North Hollywood Medical Center and was released.

An unidentified man with Fisher underwent surgery at North Hollywood Medical Center for gunshot wounds in the torso.

Four other civilians also were hurt, although no further information is available. One is believed to have been critically wounded in the traffic accident with Officer Grimes.

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_16164852

 

[Politico]

Your right VA. Banning smoking was pretty fucked up. Although you might want to look at what level of government did it.

 

[P@triot]

murder is punishable by up to death, or did you forget that. yet we have many laws in place to help prevent murder

And did that stop Adam Lanza? Did "punishable by death" stop ANY of the shooting rampages in U.S. history, stupid?

This is how dumb you are. You think you can regulate/ban/control people, and you can't, stupid. That's what we're all trying to explain to you, but you're just too stupid and too ideological to comprehend.

If making murder "punishable" by death is not deterring these people, you can't really be so ****'n stupid to think that banning guns will... (actually, you're so ****'n stupid, you probably do believe that )

 

[P@triot]

The 2nd amendment is outdated and irrelevant today. I'm sure the founding fathers did not consider mowing down citizens as a right. Or that people had a right to own assault rifles in order to accomplish it. Wake up!!!

the second amendment is fine.

its the gun nutters interpitation that is out of line with reality

Well, I think it is really out of touch with the times. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

However, you are also right that it is being incorrectly interpreted by some. The word, "militia", should be a red flag. But some people have complexes about themselves and owning fire arms makes them feel important. I don't believe it has anything to do with protecting their families. When was the last time someone protected their family with an assault rifle?? The argument is just bull.

Leave it to the ultra ignorant liberal wing-nuts to mention, once again, that the U.S. Constitution is "out of touch with the times".

Since the idiot liberal dumbocrat believes this so much, I think we should take them up on their offer and remove their freedom of speech so we don't have to listen to their senseless drivel on USMB. After all, our freedoms are "just soooo out of touch with the times, like, ya know? Totally!" (these immature idiots sound like ****'n valley girls when they talk)

 

[P@triot]

i didnt realize child molestation was defined by the constitution.

There is simply nothing funnier in the universe than watching the dumbocrat defeat their own arguments. These people are so stupid, they basically argue with themselves from one post to the next...

On one hand, idiot LCV here says guns should be "banned". On the other, LCV here makes the argument that you cannot use child molestation being banned as evidence of how banning things doesn't help because child molestation is (and I quote), "not defined by the constitution".

So LCV recognizes that guns are protected by the constitution in one post, while screaming to ban them in the next...

 

[Darkwind]

There are laws againts "too much" alcohol. Perhaps the same thinking should be applied to guns?

There ARE?!?!? What the **** world do you live in?!?! I've seen people passed out from consuming too much alcohol. In fact, I had a friend who went into a coma for TWO WEEKS in high school from consuming too much alcohol.

yes bars can be held liable for serving a drunk patron too much alcohol, or allowing a drunk individual to get in a car and drive away.

are gun store owners held liable if the guns they sell are used in a crime?

Outside of the obvious logical fallacy, you are making a claim counter to your position.

The deterrent in your argument is that the bar tender will be held liable for endangering the life of an intoxicated patron.

The gun wielder will be held liable for the willful death of his or her victim. The gun store cannot visibly determine the use of the weapon being sold at the time of sale, so has no legal requirement to refuse the sale and cannot be subjected to the actions of another citizen.

So, the deterrent is enough and no more action is required on the part of the government or society.

One last thing. Why do you feel the need to infringe upon others rights, yet ignore people who deliberately kill people with their cars, when driving is NOT a right?

It is NOT an apples to oranges argument. If you drive to a bar with the intent to consume alcohol, and then get behind the wheel of a vehicle, you are deliberately endangering lives, no different than loading a gun and walking down the street with the intent of shooting it.

I get tired of the superfluous arguments brought to bear on the rights outlined by the Second Amendment.

Add up all the people killed by guns in 2012 and divide that by the number of guns in this country and tell Me what percentage of deaths occur per gun in this country.

Then try with a straight face to tell Me that we have a crisis that needs to be solved.

 

[Avatar4321]

1) You don't have a Constitutional Amendment to smoke.
2) You shouldn't have been stupid enough to elect people into office that would pass the laws if you don't like them.
3) Smoking isn't going to protect your families life. A gun, in your properly trained hands can.
4) Politicians are trying to make money off smoking. If they weren't, the ban would be outright. They cant make money off the guns. In fact, guns in honorable citizens is very bad for politicians who want to control people.
5) Stop acting like you don't know these facts.

 

[VaYank5150]

i didnt realize child molestation was defined by the constitution.

There is simply nothing funnier in the universe than watching the dumbocrat defeat their own arguments. These people are so stupid, they basically argue with themselves from one post to the next...

On one hand, idiot LCV here says guns should be "banned". On the other, LCV here makes the argument that you cannot use child molestation being banned as evidence of how banning things doesn't help because child molestation is (and I quote), "not defined by the constitution".

So LCV recognizes that guns are protected by the constitution in one post, while screaming to ban them in the next...

Your opinions and positions are staunchly stated and recognized. However, THIS type of conversation is exactly why I started this thread. I openly admit that I do not know what the answer is to this problem. I see and respect opinions from both sides of the gun control fight. However, reading your posts in particular, the casual observer would estimate that you are more concerned about your guns and the right to own them rather than the massacre of 20 chidlren. Are we OK with this as a nation?

 

[JWBooth]

Our government can ban me from smoking in a bar because of the "dangers" of second hand smoke, but they can't ban people from owning as many machine guns as they want? Does that make sense to anyone?

Absolutely not. Government should never have been allowed the power to ban smoking in bars.

 

[Rinata]

the second amendment is fine.

its the gun nutters interpitation that is out of line with reality

Well, I think it is really out of touch with the times. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

However, you are also right that it is being incorrectly interpreted by some. The word, "militia", should be a red flag. But some people have complexes about themselves and owning fire arms makes them feel important. I don't believe it has anything to do with protecting their families. When was the last time someone protected their family with an assault rifle?? The argument is just bull.

Leave it to the ultra ignorant liberal wing-nuts to mention, once again, that the U.S. Constitution is "out of touch with the times".

Since the idiot liberal dumbocrat believes this so much, I think we should take them up on their offer and remove their freedom of speech so we don't have to listen to their senseless drivel on USMB. After all, our freedoms are "just soooo out of touch with the times, like, ya know? Totally!" (these immature idiots sound like ****'n valley girls when they talk)

Go back to watching reruns of The Dukes Of Hazzard. You have absolutely nothing of any intelligence to contribute here.

 

[Rinata]

i didnt realize child molestation was defined by the constitution.

There is simply nothing funnier in the universe than watching the dumbocrat defeat their own arguments. These people are so stupid, they basically argue with themselves from one post to the next...

On one hand, idiot LCV here says guns should be "banned". On the other, LCV here makes the argument that you cannot use child molestation being banned as evidence of how banning things doesn't help because child molestation is (and I quote), "not defined by the constitution".

So LCV recognizes that guns are protected by the constitution in one post, while screaming to ban them in the next...

Your opinions and positions are staunchly stated and recognized. However, THIS type of conversation is exactly why I started this thread. I openly admit that I do not know what the answer is to this problem. I see and respect opinions from both sides of the gun control fight. However, reading your posts in particular, the casual observer would estimate that you are more concerned about your guns and the right to own them rather than the massacre of 20 chidlren. Are we OK with this as a nation?

Exactly.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

i didnt realize child molestation was defined by the constitution.

There is simply nothing funnier in the universe than watching the dumbocrat defeat their own arguments. These people are so stupid, they basically argue with themselves from one post to the next...

On one hand, idiot LCV here says guns should be "banned". On the other, LCV here makes the argument that you cannot use child molestation being banned as evidence of how banning things doesn't help because child molestation is (and I quote), "not defined by the constitution".

So LCV recognizes that guns are protected by the constitution in one post, while screaming to ban them in the next...

youre an idiot. not where in any of my posts do advocate a complete gun ban. you morons on the right simply interpret gun control measures to mean gun bans. then you run and hide behind the argument of the 2nd amendment.

it has already been established that rights are not absolute. yet idiots like yourself on the right use the 2nd amendment argument to establish it is an absolute right. if rights were absolute then i would be able to yell fire in a crowded room and claim free speech. freedom of religion does not protect you right to marry multiple wives or take an underage bride.

but then again this argument is way over you head so no one expects you to be able to understand it.

 

[WillowTree]

The 2nd amendment is outdated and irrelevant today. I'm sure the founding fathers did not consider mowing down citizens as a right. Or that people had a right to own assault rifles in order to accomplish it. Wake up!!!

the second amendment is fine.

its the gun nutters interpitation that is out of line with reality

Well, I think it is really out of touch with the times. It says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

However, you are also right that it is being incorrectly interpreted by some. The word, "militia", should be a red flag. But some people have complexes about themselves and owning fire arms makes them feel important. I don't believe it has anything to do with protecting their families. When was the last time someone protected their family with an assault rifle?? The argument is just bull.

ahhh but the second sentence in no way limits it to a "well regulated militia" asswarp!