Big win for the second amendment

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    "Who said we should outlaw guns for citizens, ya' goddamned idiot?"

    Ah, maturity

     

    It does take a degree of maturity to call a spade a spade, correct.



    I understand wdywn is challenged. He is perhaps educated but, lacks intelligence and real knowlege!

    I forgive him and hope he gets better some day

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

     But to simply say you're less likely to be a homicide victim without a gun is just absurd. 




    I didn't make it up.  Its a fact.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    But to simply say you're less likely to be a homicide victim without a gun is just absurd. 



    More correctly, the chances of being injured or killed by gunshot increases dramatically when one carries.

    Same thing goes for homes where there are guns.  Chances of injury increase by up to 40%.

    Note that insurers will bump premiums on liability coverage, not decrease them on theft.  In other words, injury is more likely than a foiled robbery.  Failure to disclose gun ownership  to insurers will likely disqualify payouts in an accident.

     

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    Allowing concealed carry is not to "keep guns out of criminal hands" it's to allow law abiding citizens their constitutional right to bear arms for their protection.

    It's also not about expanding guns anywhere! It's about freedom! Honest law abiding citizens have the right in our country to own and if, they choose and can show they are not convicted criminals or agressors guns!!

     

    No, it's not about freedom.  It's about a privilege vs. a right and about america's fascination with weapons and violence of all kinds.

    Guns require permits for a reason...because it's premission granted by law, not permission assumed by "freedom".

    Lots of people have no business owning, much less carrying guns.  If people had to undergo psychological testing before ownership, then half would probably fail.

    Again, note that I am a gun owner, but I am not licensed to carry....a fair enough compromise that has no bearing upon my "freedom", perceived or otherwise.

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    No, it's not about freedom.  It's about a privilege vs. a right and about america's fascination with weapons and violence of all kinds.

    Guns require permits for a reason...because it's premission granted by law, not permission assumed by "freedom".

    Lots of people have no business owning, much less carrying guns.  If people had to undergo psychological testing before ownership, then half would probably fail.

    Again, note that I am a gun owner, but I am not licensed to carry....a fair enough compromise that has no bearing upon my "freedom", perceived or otherwise.



    You speak for America? Only in your own mind. A healthy facination with guns is what America has!

    Permits are only required for concealed carry. It is a constitutional right for law abidimg citizen to own guns! It's the placement of the comma remember??

    In your opinion (that no one cares about) "lots of people have no business owning much less carrying guns"! What is that opinion based on? Half would fail testing? Any evidence or just more extremist rhetoric?

    Another opinion stated as fact.....yawn

     

     

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    No, it's not about freedom.  It's about a privilege vs. a right and about america's fascination with weapons and violence of all kinds.

    Guns require permits for a reason...because it's premission granted by law, not permission assumed by "freedom".

    Lots of people have no business owning, much less carrying guns.  If people had to undergo psychological testing before ownership, then half would probably fail.

    Again, note that I am a gun owner, but I am not licensed to carry....a fair enough compromise that has no bearing upon my "freedom", perceived or otherwise.



    You speak for America? Only in your own mind. A healthy facination with guns is what America has!

    Permits are only required for concealed carry. It is a constitutional right for law abidimg citizen to own guns! It's the placement of the comma remember??

    In your opinion (that no one cares about) "lots of people have no business owning much less carrying guns"! What is that opinion based on? Half would fail testing? Any evidence or just more extremist rhetoric?

    Another opinion stated as fact.....yawn


    I'm speaking about America, not for it.  And as mentioned here, the millions of victims and families of gun violence might have something to say about how "healthy" our national gun obsession is.

    Your obvious fallacy maintains that a freedom to own guns not exercised is a freedom lost, and I'm saying that's just not true.

    The facts support my argument: that gun violence is far more likely to occur in presence of guns.  That's not too hard to figure out, even for you.

    And again, you're interpreting a privilege as a right by couching it in "law-abiding" terms.  That's a fairly broad, vague brush you be painting with.  Should a tax cheat be able to own a gun?  How about an embezzler?

    And again, I AM a gun owner, so I may have an informed perspective that you don't.

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:


    I'm speaking about America, not for it.  And as mentioned here, the millions of victims and families of gun violence might have something to say about how "healthy" our national gun obsession is.

    Your obvious fallacy maintains that a freedom to own guns not exercised is a freedom lost, and I'm saying that's just not true.

    The facts support my argument: that gun violence is far more likely to occur in presence of guns.  That's not too hard to figure out, even for you.

    And again, you're interpreting a privilege as a right by couching it in "law-abiding" terms.  That's a fairly broad, vague brush you be painting with.  Should a tax cheat be able to own a gun?  How about an embezzler?

    And again, I AM a gun owner, so I may have an informed perspective that you don't.

     

    Millions of victims of gun violence? Going back to when; the civil war? lol

    The freedom is in being free of govt intrusion or restrictions toward gun ownership for law abiding citizens! No one should be forced to buy a gun either. geez

    If, there is no gun, it hard to have gun violence ok, I'll concede that in as much as without knives there will be no chance of a stabbing or no automobile no auto accidents etc etc. again geez

    The supreme court ruled on the 2nd amendment already so the constitution provides the protections!

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.

    (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.

    (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171

    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

    Now think about this:
    Guns

    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80
    million)

    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188

    Statistics courtesy of the FBI

    So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
    gun owners.

    Remember, Guns don't kill people, doctors do !

    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
    This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor
    than as by a gun owner !

    Now if you have more than one doctor, You're just out of luck !

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
    We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand !

    Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on
    Lawyers For fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical
    attention!

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hingmarsh. Show Hingmarsh's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:




    1. I'd like to know who is screaming that tvoter is reacting to.

    And I'd like to know where tvoter said he thinks Obama is trying to ban all guns?

     

    As for my own view on gun control, I would absolutely support restrictions on assault-type weapons, on high capacity weaponry, and on military-grade protective gear.

     

    I have no issue with this. Avg citizen has no business having a military-grade weapon. Fully auto can't be used for hunting and there is no bloody reason to use one for target shooting. How bad does one need to kill a paper target for christ sake.

     

    I also want to see requirements that would-be owners demonstrate a sufficient degree of skill in a course designed to test both accuracy and ability to distinguish between good and bad targets. You can't fix stupid, but you can at least detect it sometimes.

    You mean for all those hostage situations ordinary citizens are happening upon???

    Automatic rifles are already outlawed and you need a special federal license to have one.  That's a machine gun.  No one needs those but very few people have them.

    Other rifles fell under the 'Assault Weapon" label that are no more dangerous than any hunting rifle.  AR15's are one.  They are Semi-Automatic.  Yeah, they look military but shoot one bullet for one pull of the trigger.  The round itself is slightly bigger than a .22.  It's longer and higher powered but still comes out once for every trigger pull.  The reason AR's are so popular is the simple design and reliability.  They are used for hunting by a lot of hunters. 

    I have several guns and a License to Carry,  which I never do for practical reasons.  I know plenty of people who do carry every day with no issues.  Most people who carry are praying they never have to take it out of the holster.  Once you do, whether or not you fired it, your life has changed forever.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    tvoter thinks Obama wants to take his guns. ROFL.

     

     Do you even own a gun, tvoter?



    My gun ownership is my business but, Lets just say; I dont call 9-11 if, you come after me.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    Millions of victims of gun violence? Going back to when; the civil war? lol


    Yes, the millions of victims (and families of victims).

    More guns means more victims of gun violence, e.g. homicides, but also injuries, robberies and other gun-related crimes.  

    Petty crimes can turn serious very quickly when guns are involved, and more people packing means more possibility of escalation.

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    tvoter thinks Obama wants to take his guns. ROFL.

     

     Do you even own a gun, tvoter?



    My gun ownership is my business but, Lets just say; I dont call 9-11 if, you come after me.



    So, that's a no, then...?

    Don't be coy.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Big win for the second amendment

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:


    I've fired AR-15s too. I've also worked on murder cases where an AR-15 was used. These are serious weapons.

     I tend to take the position that the ability to own firearms should adhere to the scope of the right as it was discussed by the Supreme Court. An individual right, yes, but a right whose core purpose (their words) is self-defense.

    An AR-15 is some serious overkill on the self-defense front. There are plenty of other rifles that can be used for hunting.



    Why is an AR-15 overkill for self defense? The weapon should be directly proportional to who and what you are defending yourself against!

    I think an AA-12 is a nice choice for defense!

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share