What right does he have to demand I lose my rights?

[Plasmaball]

He has the liberty to speak, cannot deny YOU any liberty. I thought of this as grieving father lashing out, gave his comments little attention. No easy answer to this tragedy.

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

The Second Amendment remains; firearm ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT. And this killer stabbed, and tried to kill with his VEHICLE. No easy answer for his hate & killing spree.

but joe did touch on something that could be slightly fixed. When did he buy the guns.

 

[JoeB131]

Why not treat owning a car like a privilege? After all, he used his car as a weapon too.

yOu really want to treat gun ownership like car ownership?

I'm down with that.

Licensing, registration, mandetory insurance.

No, wait, i'm hearing a whine.


"Seecccccond Amendment! Founding Fathers! Freeeeeeeedom!"

 

[JoeB131]

He has the liberty to speak, cannot deny YOU any liberty. I thought of this as grieving father lashing out, gave his comments little attention. No easy answer to this tragedy.

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

The Second Amendment remains; firearm ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT. And this killer stabbed, and tried to kill with his VEHICLE. No easy answer for his hate & killing spree.

Second Amendment is about Militias. It isn't a right.

Done.

I'm glad the founding slave rapists didn't put something in there that could be mistaken for an endorsement of cannibalism, otherwise we'd all be victimized by Jeff Dahmner.

 

[kaz]

Hey, guy, I'm just happy you have Faux News to tell you what to be upset about.

It's unlikely you'd make the effort on your own.

Yes, Fox is very confusing to liberals. Hearing multiple side of the story, letting the other side speak for themselves. If only we were back to the old days when the liberal media told us one side, the side you agree with, all we need to know, and didn't cause all that confusion by allowing us to think and make up our own minds. LOL, some people like freedom, Joe. Sometimes in freedom, you have to hear things you disagree with. Some of us like that. Does that blow your mind or what?

I used to be Republican and watched Faux New all the time.

And I'm Doris Day. You were born a lily white New England Elitist liberal and you'll die one. What is the fixation with making this shallow lie with you people?

What Fox (and MSNBC) are is packaging the news to a selected audience that wants to hear a narrative.

Not being the brightest bulb in the tree, you missed the point. I said nothing about Fox's views, I said they have liberals on all the time to speak for yourself. That is the difference. Try to keep up, Pokey.

They tell you stupid inbreds that the mean old Liberals want to take your CHristmas tree or some such shit, and you totally buy into that.

Yes, conservative Fox is training me to be a libertarian. Those sneaky bastards. I'm typing this slowly so you can try to keep up. You're not very bright. Wow.

 

[kaz]

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

The Second Amendment remains; firearm ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT. And this killer stabbed, and tried to kill with his VEHICLE. No easy answer for his hate & killing spree.

Second Amendment is about Militias. It isn't a right.

Done.

I'm glad the founding slave rapists didn't put something in there that could be mistaken for an endorsement of cannibalism, otherwise we'd all be victimized by Jeff Dahmner.

Yes, of course. In the Bill of Rights, which limits Federal power, the founders decided to ensure that ... government ... could have guns. They were so afraid government would take their own guns away they wanted to ensure that would never happen.

What a moron.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

He has the liberty to speak, cannot deny YOU any liberty. I thought of this as grieving father lashing out, gave his comments little attention. No easy answer to this tragedy.

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

the only problem with your idea is... Owning a gun isn't a "Privilege". It's a Right.

 

[Nosmo King]

He has the liberty to speak, cannot deny YOU any liberty. I thought of this as grieving father lashing out, gave his comments little attention. No easy answer to this tragedy.

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

the only problem with your idea is... Owning a gun isn't a "Privilege". It's a Right.

Has the 2nd amendment become a suicide pact? To protect the rights of those who feel guns are absolutely necessary are we to make sure that everyone who wants a gun, no matter their background, gets a gun? Would we handle the hazards posed by any other deadly weapon so cavalierly?

Are there any other implements designed exclusively to kill that go unregulated? Certainly hazardous chemicals are such items. But aside from chemicals and guns, there are no other implements designed exclusively to kill, are there?

What common sense regulations should be applied to guns? Is there an absolute need for a gun that can fire more than ten rounds in a few seconds? Are they used for hunting game? If so, why do they call hunting a 'sport'? The truth is, such weapons were designed for warfare, not sport. Should weapons designed for warfare be on our streets? If so, why? Why should the public health and safety take a back seat to those who see the 2nd amendment as the only amendment that should not contain some restrictions?

 

[hunarcy]

It is clear that when the insane get guns, there is rarely a pleasant outcome. The tool of the trade, the assault weapon, is what makes the insane "mass murderers". Further, that same tool is involved in gang shootings. Given the common link and the design features of the assault weapon, could we consider controls on how these deadly weapons are acquired?

I like how shootings with no one shooting back proves to you that we need gun laws. More shootings with no one shooting back proves we need more gun laws. When bombs blow up at the Boston Marathon that proves we need more gun laws. A guy who stabbed three people also proves we need more gun laws.

So riddle me this batman. Which is easier?

A) Keep the millions of guns in the US, the millions of guns outside the US, people from manufacturing their own guns, knives, explosives and other weapons away from nut jobs.

B) Let people arm themselves and have a chance.

Obviously A is easier, right Nosmo? LOL. You people are the nut jobs....

The Left will do whatever it can, preform amazing feats of mental gymnastics, to avoid dealing with the real issue. They'll say "it should be easier to disarm the mentally ill" instead of realizing we should take the mentally ill and isolate them from society so they can get the treatment and help they need. Why do they want those poor people out shouting at street signs and attacking innocent people rather than in a hospital?

You negged me and said "isolation smacks of Nazi thinking. Typical.", but the point is to get them the treatment they need. The fact that you ignore that shows that you are trying to preform amazing feats of mental gymnastics, to avoid dealing with the real issue, as I said. I don't like calling you a moron, but you prove it with each of your posts.

 

[hunarcy]

He has the liberty to speak, cannot deny YOU any liberty. I thought of this as grieving father lashing out, gave his comments little attention. No easy answer to this tragedy.

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

Why not treat owning a car like a privilege? After all, he used his car as a weapon too.

Owning and driving car is a privilege. Owning a firearm is a right. There is no comparison between the two and falling into that trap merely enables the gun fearing crowd.

 

[KGB]

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

The Second Amendment remains; firearm ownership is NOT a privilege, it is a RIGHT. And this killer stabbed, and tried to kill with his VEHICLE. No easy answer for his hate & killing spree.

Second Amendment is about Militias. It isn't a right.

Done.

I'm glad the founding slave rapists didn't put something in there that could be mistaken for an endorsement of cannibalism, otherwise we'd all be victimized by Jeff Dahmner.

wrong. Spoken directly from the Supreme Court who is the final judge on Constitutional questions. The Second Amendment is an individual right unconnected with service in a militia.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such
as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

DC vs Heller.

 

[Nosmo King]

I like how shootings with no one shooting back proves to you that we need gun laws. More shootings with no one shooting back proves we need more gun laws. When bombs blow up at the Boston Marathon that proves we need more gun laws. A guy who stabbed three people also proves we need more gun laws.

So riddle me this batman. Which is easier?

A) Keep the millions of guns in the US, the millions of guns outside the US, people from manufacturing their own guns, knives, explosives and other weapons away from nut jobs.

B) Let people arm themselves and have a chance.

Obviously A is easier, right Nosmo? LOL. You people are the nut jobs....

The Left will do whatever it can, preform amazing feats of mental gymnastics, to avoid dealing with the real issue. They'll say "it should be easier to disarm the mentally ill" instead of realizing we should take the mentally ill and isolate them from society so they can get the treatment and help they need. Why do they want those poor people out shouting at street signs and attacking innocent people rather than in a hospital?

You negged me and said "isolation smacks of Nazi thinking. Typical.", but the point is to get them the treatment they need. The fact that you ignore that shows that you are trying to preform amazing feats of mental gymnastics, to avoid dealing with the real issue, as I said. I don't like calling you a moron, but you prove it with each of your posts.

Should the mentally ill be armed? Why?

Is the second amendment a suicide pact? If keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill isn't an act of public health and safety, if it does nothing to promote the general welfare, if it fails to ensure domestic tranquility, why aren't we doing a better job at it?

Left up to gun nuts, every gun is in the hands of a law abiding citizen, right up to the point those citizens use those guns as intended: to kill a human being. Then, and only then, do gun nuts turn their myopic gaze to mental health rather than the tool that changes a shooting into a mass shooting.

 

[martybegan]

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

the only problem with your idea is... Owning a gun isn't a "Privilege". It's a Right.

Has the 2nd amendment become a suicide pact? To protect the rights of those who feel guns are absolutely necessary are we to make sure that everyone who wants a gun, no matter their background, gets a gun? Would we handle the hazards posed by any other deadly weapon so cavalierly?

Are there any other implements designed exclusively to kill that go unregulated? Certainly hazardous chemicals are such items. But aside from chemicals and guns, there are no other implements designed exclusively to kill, are there?

What common sense regulations should be applied to guns? Is there an absolute need for a gun that can fire more than ten rounds in a few seconds? Are they used for hunting game? If so, why do they call hunting a 'sport'? The truth is, such weapons were designed for warfare, not sport. Should weapons designed for warfare be on our streets? If so, why? Why should the public health and safety take a back seat to those who see the 2nd amendment as the only amendment that should not contain some restrictions?

The 2nd amendment already has plenty of "restrictions," some of which RKBA supporters have no issue with. What you are seeking is infringement.

 

[hunarcy]

The Left will do whatever it can, preform amazing feats of mental gymnastics, to avoid dealing with the real issue. They'll say "it should be easier to disarm the mentally ill" instead of realizing we should take the mentally ill and isolate them from society so they can get the treatment and help they need. Why do they want those poor people out shouting at street signs and attacking innocent people rather than in a hospital?

You negged me and said "isolation smacks of Nazi thinking. Typical.", but the point is to get them the treatment they need. The fact that you ignore that shows that you are trying to preform amazing feats of mental gymnastics, to avoid dealing with the real issue, as I said. I don't like calling you a moron, but you prove it with each of your posts.

Should the mentally ill be armed? Why?

Is the second amendment a suicide pact? If keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill isn't an act of public health and safety, if it does nothing to promote the general welfare, if it fails to ensure domestic tranquility, why aren't we doing a better job at it?

Left up to gun nuts, every gun is in the hands of a law abiding citizen, right up to the point those citizens use those guns as intended: to kill a human being. Then, and only then, do gun nuts turn their myopic gaze to mental health rather than the tool that changes a shooting into a mass shooting.

Nothing is a suicide pact and we're not doing a better job dealing with the mentally ill because people like YOU seem to want them to live on the street and not receive treatment. You can use pejoratives like "gun nut" and "myopic gaze" but the truth is that only YOU sees this as an either/or situation. Either everyone has a firearm or no one does. The fact is that EVERYONE wants the mentally ill disarmed. You would achieve this by disarming everyone and ignoring the suffering of the mentally ill while I would allow people to continue to exercise their rights while getting the mentally ill the treatment they need while disarming them.

As I said, I don't like calling you a moron, but you prove it with each of your posts.

 

[hunarcy]

Can you believe how heartless so many right wingers are? Such selfishness. Growing up in this country and feeling like that. I don't get it. Was it something that happened when they were growing up? Some traumatic experience that left them unable to feel human emotions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MryAHAFa7LU

We met you.

It didn't change anything. Republicans are still heartless and cruel. What kind of people come up with "Let him die"?

Democrats

 

[rdean]

We met you.

It didn't change anything. Republicans are still heartless and cruel. What kind of people come up with "Let him die"?

People who would let Pastor Saeed Abedini or Sudanese bride Mariam Yahya Ibrahim die for their belief. Those who would let 4 men die in a consulate with literally no backup. Those who would call death down upon a murderer, but pity him in the same breath. People like you.

You mean like cutting security budgets and then quietly raising it by 2 billion after saying it wasn't needed? That would be Republicans. Oops.

This I didn't get: Those who would call death down upon a murderer, but pity him in the same breath.

What's wrong with pity for a murderer, as long as he is punished? Pity his life was ruined and he killed people. Republicans did that by tricking us into Iraq. And blocking health care for 10 years for first responders. I pity Republicans for being so awful. I wish they could be punished for all the damage they did. Pity.

 

[MikeK]

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

Any suggestions on how to implement such research without imposing outrageous impositions on privacy?

There are millions of very ordinary Americans who for one reason or other have need for psychiatric or other Behavioral treatment. Do you think it's reasonable to add all their names to something comparable to an offender database?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

Yes, ban guns, ban knives, and ban anything that could possibly be used as a weapon.

And before you conservatards flip out and post some stupid comment like, "durrr how culd we inforce dat ur dum lol", Australia already has exactly this policy in place. Hammers are considered tightly-regulated weapons of mass destruction there because they, too, can be used as weapons.

It's time for America to step into the 21st Century and outlaw all weapons, as well as anything else that kills people.

You're joking, aren't you?

 

[OriginalShroom]

No, there's an INCREDIBLY easy answer.

The easy answer is, you treat gun ownership like a privilege.

Which means before you get a gun, we make sure you aren't under the care of three psychiatrists and have made a bunch of insane ranting threats on YouTube, which the MSM was able to find out about this guy before the police even released his name.

Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about doing that research BEFORE you give someone a gun?

the only problem with your idea is... Owning a gun isn't a "Privilege". It's a Right.

Has the 2nd amendment become a suicide pact? To protect the rights of those who feel guns are absolutely necessary are we to make sure that everyone who wants a gun, no matter their background, gets a gun? Would we handle the hazards posed by any other deadly weapon so cavalierly?

Are there any other implements designed exclusively to kill that go unregulated? Certainly hazardous chemicals are such items. But aside from chemicals and guns, there are no other implements designed exclusively to kill, are there?

What common sense regulations should be applied to guns? Is there an absolute need for a gun that can fire more than ten rounds in a few seconds? Are they used for hunting game? If so, why do they call hunting a 'sport'? The truth is, such weapons were designed for warfare, not sport. Should weapons designed for warfare be on our streets? If so, why? Why should the public health and safety take a back seat to those who see the 2nd amendment as the only amendment that should not contain some restrictions?

Again, California has some of the most restrictive laws on the books when it come to firearms.. One handgun per month purchasing, no private sales, doesn't accept out of State Conceal Permits, 10 round limits on Magazines... What more "reasonable" or "Common Sense" restrictions do you want?

What do you tell the woman who is confronted with a rapist that she only has Five or Six rounds to protect herself with?

What do you tell the parent who is confronted with a home invasion by a group that they only have five or six rounds to protect their family with?

Remember the woman who shot a home invader six times and he walked out of the house? Suppose there had been a second home invader?

How many rounds do you want to limit yourself to when it comes to defending your life or your family's lives?

How many rounds to you want to limit the women in your life to when it comes to protecting themselves or their children to?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

He has the liberty to speak, cannot deny YOU any liberty. I thought of this as grieving father lashing out, gave his comments little attention. No easy answer to this tragedy.

You may have gave his comment "little attention" but the media and the Gun Grabbers have latched on to them and are using them to push their agenda.

 

[martybegan]

the only problem with your idea is... Owning a gun isn't a "Privilege". It's a Right.

Has the 2nd amendment become a suicide pact? To protect the rights of those who feel guns are absolutely necessary are we to make sure that everyone who wants a gun, no matter their background, gets a gun? Would we handle the hazards posed by any other deadly weapon so cavalierly?

Are there any other implements designed exclusively to kill that go unregulated? Certainly hazardous chemicals are such items. But aside from chemicals and guns, there are no other implements designed exclusively to kill, are there?

What common sense regulations should be applied to guns? Is there an absolute need for a gun that can fire more than ten rounds in a few seconds? Are they used for hunting game? If so, why do they call hunting a 'sport'? The truth is, such weapons were designed for warfare, not sport. Should weapons designed for warfare be on our streets? If so, why? Why should the public health and safety take a back seat to those who see the 2nd amendment as the only amendment that should not contain some restrictions?

Again, California has some of the most restrictive laws on the books when it come to firearms.. One handgun per month purchasing, no private sales, doesn't accept out of State Conceal Permits, 10 round limits on Magazines... What more "reasonable" or "Common Sense" restrictions do you want?

What do you tell the woman who is confronted with a rapist that she only has Five or Six rounds to protect herself with?

What do you tell the parent who is confronted with a home invasion by a group that they only have five or six rounds to protect their family with?

Remember the woman who shot a home invader six times and he walked out of the house? Suppose there had been a second home invader?

How many rounds do you want to limit yourself to when it comes to defending your life or your family's lives?

How many rounds to you want to limit the women in your life to when it comes to protecting themselves or their children to?

And I have to assume the police restrict themselves to the same limits on firearms, right?