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

[hunarcy]

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 right because he lost a child to senseless gun violence

He has a dog in the fight and a right to demand something be done

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

 

[rightwinger]

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 right because he lost a child to senseless gun violence

He has a dog in the fight and a right to demand something be done

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

 

[Andylusion]

[

But that all misses the point.

Domestic violence isn't a "gun problem", we know this because for centuries men harmed women without guns. Even to this day, only 50% of all domestic murders are committed with guns.

That implies that it's quite easy to kill a women without a gun. There was even a story in Australia, where a man knocked out his wife, and threw her into a vat of Acid.

It's a lot easier to get a gun than a vat of acid. NO, the determined sociopath will find a a way, but the schlub who is upset you drank his last can of Milwaukee's Best is going to be deterred by the lack of a gun.

That's my point. The only real solution is to have an armed populace, that can defend themselves from the sociopath.

Instead how about you start enforcing the law, and putting murderers to death? Instead of giving them free room and board, put them to death for murder. I think that would be more effective than saying "ok you can't get a gun legally. Please don't kill your girl friend now."

Uh, no, the Death Penalty has no deterence value at all. Death Penalty States have higher murder rates than non-death penalty states. So Argument fail.

Last time I looked at the numbers, 100% of all death row inmates had been there for decades on decades, and were all second time convicts.

In other words, when you have people who committed murder, and were convicted, and then were able to murder a second time, and were convicted twice. Duh... yeah, that's not a deterrent. If these people had been hanged on a tree the first time, there would not have been a second murder.

Second, when you have people convicted of murder, and 30 to 40 years later, they are still alive.... duh yeah, that's not a deterrent. I want murderers, hanged in 5 years. You got five years to appeal, and make your case that you were not the guy, and if you can prove it by then, then you can make your case to your creator.

See you compare murder rates in one state over and other, when even states with capital punishment, never seem to use it, or wait decades on decades, before doing it. How about you look at Singapore? You are convicted, and you are put to death. What's the murder rate in Singapore compared to any major US city? What's the narcotic offense rate, compared to any major US city? It's not even close, and why? They enforce the law. Period.

And lastly, even if by chance it isn't a deterrent when people are put to death on the first murder, instead of the 4th and 5th, and when they only have 5 years to live once convicted, I would still push this. It's immoral that the victims who lost a loved one to a murderer, are paying for a murderer to have free food, shelter, health care, TV, weight training, in prison for life. They are effectively victimized twice.

Look at that chart of nations with the highest suicide rates. Who is at the top? Japan.

Japan also has a long history where Suicide is considered honorable. SO that's an argument fail.

Then what is your excuse for France? Germany?
No it's not a fail. In fact, that was my whole point. Culture matters. This idea that guns cause suicide, is boogus. Japan proves that. Culture matters. Mental state matters. Moral views matter.

I was just reading a book on Afghanistan, where the Pashtun people would never do anything to harm themselves. Whereas the Arabs that moved there would strap bombs to themselves, and if they were in danger of being captured by Pashtun's, would pull the pins on their bombs, and run at them.

Suicide was completely acceptable to one group, and completely abhorrent to the other.

Suicide has nothing to do with guns. Guns are tools. Just like some people in Briton would drive their cars into something really fast, to kill themselves. Should we ban cars to lower suicide rates? Of course not. Car is tool. That guy in California, ran over skate boarders and people on the side walk. Ban BMWs!

Ridiculous claim. Japan is just an example of the point. If you think eliminating guns is going to reduce suicide at all, you are wrong.

See, the whole point, from the very start is, you can't stop the black market. You can't regulate the black market. That's the whole reason they call it the black market, is because it doesn't follow the law. When you push gun control, you are ONLY going to disarm the lawful public, not the criminals.

I'm not worried about the "Criminals". I'm worried about the conceal carry nut who thinks he has a bigger penis because he has a gun.

You don't need a gun, and there's no compelling reason for the rest of us to let you have one.

I have grown up with guns my whole life. I have one now, and I have a Conceal and Carry permit. I know dozens of people who have theirs.

Let me list the number of people I have shot, or any of them.....

• 
  {null}

Done.

Luke Woodham, the school shooter at Pearl High School, was stopped by a guy with a conceal and carry permit.

To be clear... I think anyone that is more afraid of a law abiding citizens with a CCW, and a willingness to defend his fellow citizens, than a criminal.... is brainless idiot. Only a complete dumb ass, would say "man that law abiding citizen with a gun is scary. The back alleys of LA are safer!".

 

[EriktheRed]

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.

what?????

 

[Spoonman]

He has the right because he lost a child to senseless gun violence

He has a dog in the fight and a right to demand something be done

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

A little document called the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment

 

[The T]

He has the right because he lost a child to senseless gun violence

He has a dog in the fight and a right to demand something be done

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

Just step on the rights of others? Really? Constitutionality of that isn't in your favour dumbass.

 

[Foxfyre]

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

Just step on the rights of others? Really? Constitutionality of that isn't in your favour dumbass.

He has a right to demand it. He just doesn't have a right to get it just because he demands it. It's pretty much the same scenario that when we lose a loved one due to somebody else's negligence or willful misconduct or carelessness whether it be somebody killed by a drunk driver or a child that has a dangerous reaction due to a peanut allergy or somebody is morbidly obese or whatever, you invariably see demands to tighten restrictions on alcohol, peanuts, fats/sugar, etc. etc. etc.

It is the inevitable reaction to grief, anger, depression, etc. in the face of tragedy that lashes out without consideration that most people can use or handle such things safely, legally, responsibly, and with no adverse affects. As 'Joe' in the OP expressed very clearly I thought, we can have deep compassion for those who suffer adversity due to the bad acts of others and at the same time utilize common sense that making everybody suffer the consequences of those bad acts would be wrong, damaging, and unuseful.

 

[rightwinger]

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

A little document called the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment

Nothing in the second amendment prevents reasonable restrictions on guns, background checks or registration

Even the NRA knows that

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

A little document called the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment

Nothing in the second amendment prevents reasonable restrictions on guns, background checks or registration

Even the NRA knows that

So we have asked this before, what OTHER reasonable restrictions do you propose? California has mandatory State and federal background checks on ALL sales. They have a 10 day waiting period to pick up handguns. They have a max size of 10 rounds on magazines. They have a registry that the police have access to on all purchases. They have a law that allows the police to send you to 3 days of mental health check and hold your weapons while they do. What else do you want?

 

[rightwinger]

A little document called the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment

Nothing in the second amendment prevents reasonable restrictions on guns, background checks or registration

Even the NRA knows that

So we have asked this before, what OTHER reasonable restrictions do you propose? California has mandatory State and federal background checks on ALL sales. They have a 10 day waiting period to pick up handguns. They have a max size of 10 rounds on magazines. They have a registry that the police have access to on all purchases. They have a law that allows the police to send you to 3 days of mental health check and hold your weapons while they do. What else do you want?

I will save that for the dozens of threads on the subject

This thread is about your despicable attempt to deny a father who has lost a child to gun violence of the right to expect something be done about it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nothing in the second amendment prevents reasonable restrictions on guns, background checks or registration

Even the NRA knows that

So we have asked this before, what OTHER reasonable restrictions do you propose? California has mandatory State and federal background checks on ALL sales. They have a 10 day waiting period to pick up handguns. They have a max size of 10 rounds on magazines. They have a registry that the police have access to on all purchases. They have a law that allows the police to send you to 3 days of mental health check and hold your weapons while they do. What else do you want?

I will save that for the dozens of threads on the subject

This thread is about your despicable attempt to deny a father who has lost a child to gun violence of the right to expect something be done about it.

In other words you got nothing, thanks for admitting your little sound bit is bullshit.

 

[rightwinger]

So we have asked this before, what OTHER reasonable restrictions do you propose? California has mandatory State and federal background checks on ALL sales. They have a 10 day waiting period to pick up handguns. They have a max size of 10 rounds on magazines. They have a registry that the police have access to on all purchases. They have a law that allows the police to send you to 3 days of mental health check and hold your weapons while they do. What else do you want?

I will save that for the dozens of threads on the subject

This thread is about your despicable attempt to deny a father who has lost a child to gun violence of the right to expect something be done about it.

In other words you got nothing, thanks for admitting your little sound bit is bullshit.

Actually, you got nothing

You have no right to deny a grieving father the right to expect something be done about the death of his child

Are you really that much of a lowlife?

 

[JoeB131]

Last time I looked at the numbers, 100% of all death row inmates had been there for decades on decades, and were all second time convicts.

In other words, when you have people who committed murder, and were convicted, and then were able to murder a second time, and were convicted twice. Duh... yeah, that's not a deterrent. If these people had been hanged on a tree the first time, there would not have been a second murder.

Second, when you have people convicted of murder, and 30 to 40 years later, they are still alive.... duh yeah, that's not a deterrent. I want murderers, hanged in 5 years. You got five years to appeal, and make your case that you were not the guy, and if you can prove it by then, then you can make your case to your creator..

I'm not going to wade through your bloodthirsty horseshit. Every time I listen to you gun whack fantasize about killing people the more I think we need mass gun confiscation.

But to the point- NO, most murderers on Death Row are not second time offenders. And some people on Death Row didn't even do what they were convicted of doing to start with.

148 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated or it was proven someone else did it.

That's too high a failure rate.

 

[rightwinger]

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 right because he lost a child to senseless gun violence

He has a dog in the fight and a right to demand something be done

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

That would be for a court to decide wouldn't it?

 

[Spoonman]

He has lost a child. As a citizen, he has a right to demand something be done. What Right do you have to deny that?

A little document called the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment

Nothing in the second amendment prevents reasonable restrictions on guns, background checks or registration

Even the NRA knows that

Shall not be infringed. any restriction is an infringement.

on top of that nothing being proposed by anti gun nuts is even remotely close to being reasonable.

 

[Spoonman]

He has the right because he lost a child to senseless gun violence

He has a dog in the fight and a right to demand something be done

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

That would be for a court to decide wouldn't it?

no, it is already decided by the 2nd amendment.

 

[Andylusion]

Last time I looked at the numbers, 100% of all death row inmates had been there for decades on decades, and were all second time convicts.

In other words, when you have people who committed murder, and were convicted, and then were able to murder a second time, and were convicted twice. Duh... yeah, that's not a deterrent. If these people had been hanged on a tree the first time, there would not have been a second murder.

Second, when you have people convicted of murder, and 30 to 40 years later, they are still alive.... duh yeah, that's not a deterrent. I want murderers, hanged in 5 years. You got five years to appeal, and make your case that you were not the guy, and if you can prove it by then, then you can make your case to your creator..

I'm not going to wade through your bloodthirsty horseshit. Every time I listen to you gun whack fantasize about killing people the more I think we need mass gun confiscation.

But to the point- NO, most murderers on Death Row are not second time offenders. And some people on Death Row didn't even do what they were convicted of doing to start with.

148 people have been released from death row because they were exonerated or it was proven someone else did it.

That's too high a failure rate.

That's your opinion. The one before was mine.

Well we've done it your way, and look at the murder rate compared to the rest of the world.

The blood of all those people, as far as I'm concerned, is on your head. You, and those like you, killed all those people by not enforcing the law. You are as guilty as the murderers you all defend.

 

[rightwinger]

He has a right to demand something be done, but not to demand that anyone else's rights be infringed.

That would be for a court to decide wouldn't it?

no, it is already decided by the 2nd amendment.

What has been decided?

Well regulated militias?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That would be for a court to decide wouldn't it?

no, it is already decided by the 2nd amendment.

What has been decided?

Well regulated militias?

It has been decided that the 2nd is an individual right irregardless of membership or service in a militia.

 

[rightwinger]

A little document called the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment

Nothing in the second amendment prevents reasonable restrictions on guns, background checks or registration

Even the NRA knows that

Shall not be infringed. any restriction is an infringement.

on top of that nothing being proposed by anti gun nuts is even remotely close to being reasonable.

Even Heller acknowledged that the second amendment is not absolute

What is unreasonable about background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of crazies or restricting high capacity magazines?