Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

so you want people to confiscate guns but if they get killed doing that , it's their fault. Hmmm

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...shooting-self-handgun-officials-say-rcna71049
Yeah, the gun didn't cause his death, probably shame for sneaking dad's gun out. Probably had to turn off the safety and stole the trigger lock from his dads pants. The world is better off without such a bad child.

 

Nope, the people being confiscated.

 

Well this violates rule one of storing a gun you store it unloaded there is your training it's over free of charge.

If he had started without a rounding the chamber kid wouldn't have shot himself not a gun problem that's a person problem. Try again.

 

That is a correct statement. Don't misunderstand me, we do not want bad guys to get them, and we support doing things like prosecuting people who lie on 4473 (you do know what that even is, right?), which is a slam-dunk felony (as soon as they signed the form, it's over, unless a mistake was made, their guilt is not in question) that would get them off the street, probably keep one gun out of the hands of criminals, and show people that law enforcement is serious, but they don't.

Why not? Do you like bad guys killing and torturing infants or something??

 

Ohhhh, I totally get it now. You want to create a pre-crime department, and arrest and convict people based on what they might do in the future. That's a wonderful idea, how are you gonna pull that off without putting a good guy in prison?

 

So, you want to violate the rights of hundreds of millions of people because of a single incident where, in all probability, the parents are at fault?

 

These are not single incidents.

 

I don't want to violate their rights, I want them to get training to prevent such preventable things from happening. Also, sadly, this is by no means isolated but simply the most recent.

 

And I want would-be voters to pass a literacy test before they vote. Now what?

 

You do know that that would remove more white republican voters than black democrats right? You don't think republicans are going to have enough issues in the years to come from their declining base? I myself prefer a good debate and hope we can get back to that nationally.

 

Many gun banners see gun owners as criminals due to our political beliefs and our dislike of an authoritarian states. that is why the anti gun movement is all about making more and more laws that only apply to currently law abiding gun owners. Example

Criminals cannot own any guns-bans on semi autos, "pistols with braces", normal capacity magazines and bump stocks only criminalize things the law abiding currently can own

Laws that prohibit more than one firearm purchase per month, registration, licenses etc only apply to people who can currently own firearms

laws that mandate safe storage laws are the same. Watch when a kid gets hold of a gun-the anti gun left comes out in force demanding the parents go to prison. When a guy with several violent felonies shoots up a rival drug dealers' family-not so much.

Laws that slam repeat offenders or those who lie on 4473s or use straw purchasers are laws that the gun banning left rarely call for enhanced enforcements of.

It is clear that what the anti gun left sees as the real crime is owning guns and supporting gun ownership

 

everyone of us who is a hard core gun rights advocate also advocate training. Its one of my main post federal prosecutor retirement activities-and I was teaching the Ohio CCW class since it started. But that is different than mandating training. We would stop a lot more crime mandating parenting classes before people get pregnant than demanding gun classes given the vast majority of gunshot injuries are intentional-rather than due to negligence

 

The poor gun gets a bad rap because it was not handled appropriately by the owner. There should be criminal liability for gun owners who do not keep their weapons secure. Trigger locks should be mandatory as should insurance policies to cover costs to society should the gun be stolen and used in the commission of a crime. Note to gun nuts; notice I did not say all guns should be confiscated.

 

See Heller v DC? See how trigger locks aren't a thing you do with a self defense weapon? Sure you do.

 

See Heller v DC: Absolutely not on the trigger locks or insurance.

 

You are so incapable of seeing something outside of your partisan blinders that you didn't even get the point.

I doesn't matter how many of what party a literacy test might eliminate, the point is that such a thing is Unconstitutional. As is the idea of required training. In Florida, we have a semi-required training to get a carry permit. I say semi-required because if you are a vet, as I am, you are exempted, but I decided to take it anyway, because I didn't want to get myself in trouble because of something I might have missed in the actual class.

It consisted of some guy literally reading the appropriate Florida statutes to me, him handing me a preloaded .22 semiautomatic that I fired into a tank of water, and that was it. Total waste of my time and money, which is not at all atypical for government related stuff.

I think training is a great idea, and it's something that I recommend in the strongest possible terms to anyone who asks my opinion. However, in consideration of the fact that owning and carrying firearms are both fundamental Constitutional rights (keyword), placing any such restriction on them would be a violation. As is requiring a literacy test for voters.

If I were in charge, I would require much more than a literacy test before allowing someone to vote, because so many people make their choices for stupid reasons. The most obvious are the ones that choose nothing but the letter at the end of the candidate's name, and then you have some who pick based on which one is more attractive, or older, or younger, or whatever. I don't think anyone who makes a selection on these criteria has given enough thought into such a grave matter (a stupid voter is much more dangerous than a stupid gun owner, because they can, if joined by enough other stupid voters, harm the entire country), and therefore shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Except, for the US House and Senate at least, you have a Constitutional right to vote unless, just like gun rights, you have done something like being convicted of a felony that causes you to lose those rights. For just cause.

It may actually surprise you to learn that you have no right to vote for President, as how each State's Electors are chosen is 100% at the discretion of their State Legialature. Every State has chosen to use a popular statewide vote with a winner-takes-all format (except a few small states who have proportional representation), but they are not obligated to. They could decide that themselves, the Legislature, will vote for the electors, or they could even do silly stuff like using a coin toss.

It would obviously be wildly unpopular and probably cost a good many Legislators their jobs, but they can do it, and it would be legal and Constitutional. We the People did not vote for Senators until the 18th Amendment changed that, which I believe was a mistake. The House is intended to represent us, the people, which is why it's called 'The People's House', and the Senate was designed to represent the States as a whole, not just be a smaller House, but that's what we have now.

As usual.

I have not studied the laws in all 50 States, but of all the ones that I know about, there is such liability. So, wish granted.

No, and no. Both of those ideas, especially the former, are Unconstitutional, and a gun doesn't do you much good when the thing that went bump in the night is a bad guy with bad intentions if it has a trigger lock on it! As for the latter, I expect it would be covered by a homeowners policy, though having one is not mandatory if you don't have a mortgage. Many of us do have carry insurance, when I got hurt I let mine lapse because I figure if I ever do need to shoot someone, unless it's obviously done with criminal intent, I'll likely catch a break. But, once we move, I may readdress that, we'll see. It should not, however, be mandatory, as that's just one more way to make owning a firearm more expensive, which will make less people have one.

No, you didn't. Yet, anyway. We would be able to see what you might want to do next if all of the above was legal, but it's not, so we won't. On the other hand, as hardcore leftys go, you're not so bad, so perhaps you'd be happy with just that. But it's been my miserable experience that lawmakers are never 'done', and they are constantly finding ways to extract more of our money, create more free $hit programs, and so forth. Just once I'd like to see a Legislative Session not even happen because they decide they don't need to change any laws.

 

Perhaps not yet but your posts ooze hostility towards legal gun owners-calling such people gun nuts proves to me that if you had your way you would try to imprison anyone who owns a gun. If someone breaks into your home and steals your guns, charging the gun owner is as moronic as charging someone who steals your car and runs someone over.

 

Gun banners generally claim that the SC is not right and nothing should stand in the way of their jihad against gun ownership

 

Hey how about we do BOTH?

 

how about we actually start enforcing the laws on the books and hammering criminals first, rather than add a bunch of laws that don't affect criminals and are most likely unconstitutional

 

I've thought about this and I thought about this statement, "more guns make us safer." Well no they don't for the same reason that doesn't make us less safe. Guns don't have that capacity so I agree more guns doesn't equal safer. It's just more opportunity for defense

 

I think their point was that many people who commit violent gun crimes don't have a sufficient record that would prohibit them from owning a gun. It's a counter to the argument that laws regulating guns only keep guns away from good citizens. I would guess there's data out there to see how compelling that argument is or isn't, but just wanted to chime in because you seem to have misunderstood what they were suggesting.

 

I understood it perfectly. But they are pining for a crystal ball, as if we are supposed to somehow be able to determine ahead of time who is going to snap one day and start killing random strangers, and deny them a gun based on that precognitive information. But that can't be done.

In any event, they're just piddling around the edges trying to sound like they're being reasonable, when their desired outcome is the total prohibition of civilian ownership of firearms. It's easy to see by just reading in between the lines.

 

Or suicide, or accidents, or homicide. I mean sure, it's just a tool, but it makes violence easier and more effective.

The better argument for more guns making us safer would be that a criminal would be quickly taken down because with more guns chances are one of the innocent people are armed.

It's all moot though. We have guns because people want them. Just like drugs. Outlawing or overregulating them might not matter. Something is sick in our culture.