After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Do you know the difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy?

I prefer a constitutional democracy over an absolute democracy.

It doesn't matter. Free people don't have to have a reason for exercising their rights.

No pretending and no lying. There isn't any reason to ban assault weapons.

Not if the guns in question are not the cause of these killings and do nothing to make the killings any worse.

No it isn't. The Constitution protects our right to have guns that are suitable for self defense.

So what? I'm also more likely to be in a car accident if I ride in a car.

Not if that other something is inadequate for self-defense.

I don't think anyone here objects to laws against murder.

 

No, I don't wantonly want to go around killing people. I just don't feel like doing that.

What would you recommend I defend myself with against a home invader?

 

That's pocket change compared to the total amount of money donated to the GOP campaign by anyone period. Not to mention planned parethood donated more to the democratic party as well as Bloomberg in the same year. Are the democratic party only motivated by money by your logic then?

 

Really? CCW holders (arguably the most gun nuttiest since they carry on their way to walmart by the left's reasoning) are more law abiding than law enforcement.

 

^I don't know what you are talking about, nor do I really care.
I have no time for people who have the nerve to think they have the right to kill anyone or any live being, unless soley for the purpose of self defense, and do not surround myself with people like that, so there is nothing to discuss......
So stop trying to arm wrestle me into accepting your way of being, which is obviously in your genetics., anyway....or your reality......I create my own world with respect for all living things......and nothing will ever change the way I feel about it.

 

The ladder and automobile arguments are getting so old here....yawn....Anything new in your arsenal?

Autombiles and ladders are not made to kill or hurt anything .

There is nothing good about anyone just wishing to be feared, as themnax, has always said, too.

Kerri, females that love guns must have penis envy...lol They need to shoot at something, I guess.

 

Why does that matter? People who are killed in car accidents are still just as dead as people who are murdered.

 

and so are a lot of other things....swimming pools....and on and on......

 

Exactly. And the people killed by these other things are just as dead as people who are murdered with guns.

 

People die from all kinds of things.....yeah...and your point?...., It is very selfish not to want to have gun control and more background checks in my opinion.......Very selfish. No one is coming for your guns.

 

My point is that deaths from guns are no different from deaths from other items.

Whether gun control is opposed or not will depend on the details of the gun control.

The Obama Administration tried to abuse the background check system to violate the rights of people who were no danger to anyone. We'll need strong protections against similar abuses before we expand background checks further.

Unfortunately there are people who do want to violate the Second Amendment. It is necessary to oppose these people.

 

I could never trust anyone that could heartlessly take the life of another living thing......be it a person or animal.....It takes a type of person who could do that that could very well do it to me, .....because they snapped or whatever or felt like it for no reason.

It is that mind set that I could never never trust.

 

TA

LOL hollow sophistry – how is it rational or reasonable to be unable to answers criticism of a stance while still holding on to it? It might seem ‘rational’ to the scoundrel to misdirect to try and cover up their lying but it still remains lying and would not be recognised in any way as a real rational or reasonable argument.

This reminds me of that Saddam spokesman ‘Comical Ali’ who claimed Baghdad was impregnable and “continued to insist from the roof of the Palestine Hotel in Iraq's capital that coalition forces were facing annihilation as live TV pictures showed U.S. tanks rolling around Baghdad.”

 

It’s not pocket change. They’re one of the biggest contributors. And yes of course Democrats are bought by lobbyists too and of course that doesn’t invalidate anything I’ve said

 

Yes I’m one of those. I’d like 2A repealed

 

And still not a single thought on this. I feel silly that it didn't occur to me sooner that the reason for that is curbing gun violence isn't the real goal. It's all about gun control and restrictions that only affect the law abiding citizens. A law like this would only put more people who are not responsible for their actions because of some social problem, in prison, and cut down on gun violence, but not forward a gun control agenda.

 

Already covered what seems like a million times, I actually just posted this in another thread about half an hour ago -

As to ever harsher and more brutal punishments that is not tackling the problem just the symptom of the problem

The US has already tried that (in the disastrous ‘war on drugs’) and only ended up with the largest prison population in the world and some of the most brutal prisons and still having the largest homicide rate of comparable countries while having comparable general crime rates as countries with much lower prison populations and penal systems based on rehabilitation.

Basically this is a right wing con game based in flawed Social Darwinist thinking it’s about redirecting blame to the individual away from the problem within the society, because they are things many of them do not want to pay for through taxation to alleviate.

 

Liberal dribble. Making people responsible for their actions instead of coddling them, especially regarding gun violence, is a real good start.

 

mcme

Already covered many many times - here is something I wrote several years ago

The ‘personal responsibility con trick is just the old right wing argument of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’.

This catch22 sleight of hand said that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any and the undeserving are those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain – the argument went – that there was little or no need for the advantaged to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

This con has been dressed up anew the modern right wing argument been that if people are responsible and make the right choices they wouldn’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make bad choices they’re obviously lazy and feckless and don’t deserve assistance.

So they argue with Social Darwinist zeal that social and welfare programmes rather than helping the disadvantaged it only allows the irresponsible to wallow in their laziness and should be cut and the money saved be given to the advantaged because they don’t need help and therefore must not be lazy and so deserve the money more.

But the amount of money someone has does not dictate a person’s character but it can have a great impact on opportunities and the amount of choices open to someone. It can also dictate how hard someone is affected by bad circumstances.

*

It works in the same way for criminality – if someone commits a crime then that was always what they were going to do and nothing could have been done to bring about alternative outcomes.

But is a baby born to be a criminal? Are people predestined to commit a murder?

 

Hardly anyone who carries want to kill period, much less for any reason.

That's fine. You can live in your own opinion, but not your own facts.