See, I could respond with something childish as well, but I'd like to ..... you know..... stay on topic? :roll:
Gunman opens fire at U.S. church, kills two
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
See, I could respond with something childish as well, but I'd like to ..... you know..... stay on topic? :roll:
Yes, Pax ... I know you could respond with something childish.... And frankly I don't expect anything better of you. Stay on topic? You mean agree with you? The world doesn't work that way ... not even in here on your PC. Switch channels if you feel the urge to control.
Um ... who was it who used "jerk extraordinaire" as a descriptor?
Last edited:
This is another great example. There are a lot of rights that many think are outdated. There are also rights that have been interpeted by the judicial system. The rights of minority view must be protected as Zzarch points out. Individual rights must be protected.
For example...burning the American flag makes me angry. But it is protected by the Freedom of Speech. Do I want to make a Constitutional Ammendment banning flag burning? Of course not...some do...but I think it goes to far.
Lots of folks say that the rights of American citizens are being taken away. I disagree. A lot of folks that are saying that are taking the side of the opposition here saying that the right to bear arms NEEDS to be taking away from US Citizens.
What makes them any better than the ones they accuse of trampling on our Constitution?
Well that is why the Constitution was called the great experiment when it was first derived. The Constitution was written not only for the masses but also to protect the rights of individuals. That is why a single person can go to a town meeting and say...
"Every year the town sets up a manger on town property. I feel offended and I do not want that set up this year."
Town after town has been taking to court over the years and have been forced by a judge to take down these displays much to the anger of the majority because of the Constitution protection of individuls.
Does he? So a knife doesn't slash internal organs. It is all about the level of injury that guns should be banned?
Go ahead. Post all you want. What good will it do? Will it make you feel happy? Post all day.
Once again it was a criminal act. There are many people who own guns who do not commit crimes.
The same with any crime. We have plenty of laws that are on the books that say this or that is illegal.
In my state we have to jump through hoops to get a gun license. Massachusetts also has a law that gives the Chief of Police the right to deny ANY handgun license. Our town Chief denies every one and to get one you basically have to take him in front of a judge and then if you take him that far he will allow it after you explain the reasons why. But he STILL makes you do that before he grants permission. I have a Civil War era musket and to purchase that I had to get finger printed, photo taken, get a back ground check and then I was able to buy a license. Now what else would you like me to do?
Agreed that is why some criminals and all convicted felons are denied the right to bear arms.
I had to take a gun safety course as well.
Laws are in place to do that. Some states have different laws but that is where states rights comes into play. Their are federal gun laws that all states have to adhere to.
I'm inclined to believe it's the deranged control freak on the trigger (or the steering wheel) who kills. The gun, the car, the knife, the bludgeon, the big mouth.... They're just tools
I have two old flintlock pistols and an ancient .22 that look really cool on my wall.....:lol:
Ever had a rapid animal living under your deck? Going under there with a knife isn't really that good of an idea.
You can't create a thread about a tragedy, then derail it to talk about how Gun Ownership may be linked to the tragedy (it isn't), and then throw a fit when someone points out how gun ownership is a strawman arguement and points out examples of why.
Topic drift, the topic was on the tragedy, you made a logical and straight forward connection to gun ownership, and from that shifted the thread to debating gun ownership. Now people are bringing up the ownership of other dangerous items.
The ownership of cars is related to the topic of if guns would stop these kinds of tragedies. Thus the important point is if you banned guns would this guy have rammed a car through the front of the church?
Would banning guns do anything useful?
Ever hear of animal control, or don't they exist in your neck of the woods.
And I didn't know fast animals were a problem... :smile:
yes, fast and ornery.And calling Animal control is great if you wanna wait an hour or two, or more, assuming they come today at all.
Then they can charge you money for them taking the animal and shooting it. Which is great, cause now they can shoot your dog too that it was bit while you were waiting all day.
Im not sure about anymore, but I know they used to send you a bill for the visit anyway.
The solution to gun ownership is simple:
If you don't think you can be trusted with a gun, don't buy one.
Better solution: don't sell guns....
And calling Animal control is great if you wanna wait an hour or two, or more, assuming they come today at all.
Then they can charge you money for them taking the animal and shooting it. Which is great, cause now they can shoot your dog too that it was bit while you were waiting all day.
Im not sure about anymore, but I know they used to send you a bill for the visit anyway.
The solution to gun ownership is simple:
If you don't think you can be trusted with a gun, don't buy one.
A pair of duelling pistols and the rifle I had to shoot my dog with? What type of gun are we talking?
Note: I shot.... The gun needed a driver.
To be fair Zz, if you look at the opening post, he quoted the article, and then struck up discussion on how frequent these sorts of shootings are in the US. The topic was about shootings in general. Gun control is an inseparable debate from that issue.
I assumed you were talking about antiques, non workable, if you have them on display.... Sounds like you are breaking the law if they can shoot and are not locked up...
You assumed correctly. They have to be armed to fire. As they are, they're perfectly safe.
Oh goodie, there you go with your wonderful moments where you try and shove more words into people's mouths. If you can't read and properly understand what is being said, then I don't what can be done for you.
I never said people have to agree with me... I mentioned that I wasn't going to start delving into what I or anybody else did in another forum, because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.... even more so then cars.
Deal with it.