It's the Guns, Stupid

It's the Guns, Stupid

There are 103311 comments on the Truthdig story from Apr 20, 2007, titled It's the Guns, Stupid. In it, Truthdig reports that:

“And that's the end of the issue”

Why do we have the same futile argument every time there is a mass killing? Advocates of gun control try to open a discussion about whether more reasonable weapons statutes might reduce the number of violent ... via Truthdig

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#76141 Sep 7, 2012
Kat wrote:
Clearly you were if you don't comprehend sarcasm.
The argument guns is just the tool of a killer is laughable. Guns make it very easy to kill. Too easy. By your flawed logic, why can't everyone have a bomb? Only for protection, of course.
Jane you ignorant slut,

If guns make it so easy to kill,

then explain how adding 60 million guns to US public ownership in the past ten years has only seen a drop in the number of gun deaths.

You thundering moron.

Just one little explanation to justify your ignorance pretending to be an opinion.

How about why does the internet allows so many dumbshits to pollute the WWW with their ignorance..

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#76142 Sep 7, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, if you are sighing because the thugs are getting killed, then screw you.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, all those "thugs" watching Batman with their kids?

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#76143 Sep 7, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot.
I guess that's better than the "Jane" crap you plagiarized:)
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one regulation that actually keeps guns out of the hands of criminals?
The Brady Law:)
We have already went over, and posted the numbers that the Feds deny millions of criminals guns, with a less than .1% error rate!

Will that stop ALL criminals...NO!
Will that stop SOME criminals...yes!

How is that a bad thing?
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain why you feel the mere exercise of a right should be regulated?
The same reason the cops felt the guy in front of the Empire State building was not exercising his right when he pulled the gun...and they killed him.
No right is absolute, and almost everything is regulated.
You see, when TWO rights conflict (example: the right to free speech conflicts with my right to not be libeled, or defamed, or slandered...that's why there are laws against those things and are not protected under free speech) there has to be a common ground, and that is REGULATION:)
I personally feel it should be regulated, because I have a right to not be SHOT by a convicted felon with a legally purchased gun!
Get it yet?
Why should your right to a gun override my right to not be shot?

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#76144 Sep 7, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
Explaine the difference between exercising a right and misbehaving?
Exercising your right would be hunting, using it for REAL self defense, or target shooting properly.

"Misbehaving" would be firing it in PUBLIC to celebrate (like people do on New Years eve and 4th of July).
Misbehaving would be keeping it loaded and where a CHILD could easily have an accident.

...is that enough, or do you need more examples?
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
You have learned to use google, try to educate yourself with it.
Can you be specific?

How does one simply "educate" themselves with google?

Google is merely a SEARCH ENGINE!
...how can I educate myself with it, if you give me NOTHING to be educated on?

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#76145 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, all those "thugs" watching Batman with their kids?
As usual, you confuse bad guys with good guys.

Your kids must be so confused.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#76146 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Exercising your right would be hunting, using it for REAL self defense, or target shooting properly.
"Misbehaving" would be firing it in PUBLIC to celebrate (like people do on New Years eve and 4th of July).
Misbehaving would be keeping it loaded and where a CHILD could easily have an accident.
...is that enough, or do you need more examples?
<quoted text>
Can you be specific?
How does one simply "educate" themselves with google?
Google is merely a SEARCH ENGINE!
...how can I educate myself with it, if you give me NOTHING to be educated on?
Thank you for replying.

Hunting is a lawful "use" of a device you have legal right to posses, however, if you shoot someone by accident, you are still punished.

The mere possesion is the right.

If you use that gun, that is behavior.
Some behavior is legal (hunting, target shooting, self defense, etc,)some is illegal, like shooting the gun in public with a good reason.

When we say we don't need that law, you confuse our statement and say we are advocating abolishing laws that address behavior.
We don't.

We say laws that affect the mere exercise of a right to be unconstitutional.

Possesing and wearing a gun is our right. Any regulation of that is unconstitutional. Except where it conflicts with private property.

Now, I would love to see you pull a rabbit out of your ass and show where any of us have advocated abolishing a law that addresses shooting the gun in public,

we also have lovely laws that punish people that do not store their guns AND some child is hurt with one.

We have also never advocated that that particular law be abolished. Just the law that allows someone to be punished for "improper storage", and gets arrested even if no one has been harmed.

You do seem to understand some difference, so once again.

Why do you advocate regulating the mere exercise of a right?
If you can answer that, please give one other example of a right so horribly abused.

Let us assume that you are not "misbehaving" while exercising that right.

Just merely wearing your gun somewhere you have legal recourse to be.

Why should that right be regulated at all?

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#76147 Sep 7, 2012
oops, shooting the gun in public with NO good reason.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#76148 Sep 7, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you confuse bad guys with good guys.
Your kids must be so confused.
Quit playing semantics again.
It has nothing to do with confusing good guys and bad guys. It is about you deflecting from the point...again.
SO, now you admit "good guys" and innocent people get shot too?

Not just "thugs"...right?

Right?

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#76149 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>I guess that's better than the "Jane" crap you plagiarized:)
<quoted text>
The Brady Law:)
We have already went over, and posted the numbers that the Feds deny millions of criminals guns, with a less than .1% error rate!
Will that stop ALL criminals...NO!
Will that stop SOME criminals...yes!
How is that a bad thing?
<quoted text>The same reason the cops felt the guy in front of the Empire State building was not exercising his right when he pulled the gun...and they killed him.
No right is absolute, and almost everything is regulated.
You see, when TWO rights conflict (example: the right to free speech conflicts with my right to not be libeled, or defamed, or slandered...that's why there are laws against those things and are not protected under free speech) there has to be a common ground, and that is REGULATION:)
I personally feel it should be regulated, because I have a right to not be SHOT by a convicted felon with a legally purchased gun!
Get it yet?
Why should your right to a gun override my right to not be shot?
You misunderstand stop with slow down.

The brady law never prevented anyone from getting a gun.

If that had been a republican law, it would have stopped the bad guys from gettign a gun by putting them in jail for breaking the law.

The Brady law works like pedophile control.

If a No pedophile in Parks sign stops a pedophile from abducting a child in that park, folks like you feel their children are safe.

IN the meantime, the pedophile just abducts a kid from somewhere other than the park.

But you still feel good the pedophile did not get his child at the park.

If he did get a child from the park, someone would have noticed (probably) and called the cops.

The brady law never prosecuted any felon that tried to get a gun legally.

That is like posting a speed limit and never giving a ticket for speeding. Some law abiding citizens might obey that law, but none of the speeders will.

Your notion that it stops some criminals is fatally flawed.

Glad you broguth up free speech.

Libel and slander is illegal, and is a MISBEHAVIOR, unless you can prove the slander is accurate.

Merely speaking is not regulated.

The example with the guy in the empire building is ludicrous at best.

If a uniformed cop approaches you , no one has the right to pull a gun on them.

Once again, you mistake misbehavior with a right.

You have the right to say anything you want, until it harms another. And even then it may be justifed.

You have a right to keep and bear arms, until it harms another. And even then, you may be justified.

Yet I can be arrested for merely wearing a gun where I can legally be.

Name one public place you can be arrested at for merely speaking?

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#76150 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Quit playing semantics again.
It has nothing to do with confusing good guys and bad guys. It is about you deflecting from the point...again.
SO, now you admit "good guys" and innocent people get shot too?
Not just "thugs"...right?
Right?
No.

I merely say that bad guys will always use something to hurt peopel , and that guns are the best way for the most helpless among us to stop the bad guys.

You focus on a bad guy who harmed, and confuse his use of a gun with and old grandpa using his gun to stop 2 predators.


That is how I see gun use. And your regulation only affects people like him.
It does not even remotely stop thugs like the theater guy. And since he bought all his stuff legally, it was easy to track. If he had bough this stuff illegally, the cops would have a much harder time proving he owned them.
I focus on the good guys who were made helplpes by idiots that mean well.
Dr Freud

Switzerland

#76151 Sep 7, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane you ignorant slut,
If guns make it so easy to kill,
then explain how adding 60 million guns to US public ownership in the past ten years has only seen a drop in the number of gun deaths.
You thundering moron.
Just one little explanation to justify your ignorance pretending to be an opinion.
How about why does the internet allows so many dumbshits to pollute the WWW with their ignorance..
"How about why does the internet allows so many dumbshits to pollute the WWW with their ignorance.."

That's a pretty humorous remark!
The Internet is the modern equivalent of the bullhorn, and in the very same way that those expressing largely ignorant remarks with a bullhorn, bring attention to themselves, so too do they invite others to bullhorn them in return.
Sooner than later, it all becomes one giant bullhorn contest with either the truth-tellers drowning out the ignorant and/or deceitful, or the deceitful enjoying all the attention, and remaining obstinately loud to the point of being shrill.
The difference between a live bullhorn contest, and the Internet, is that the live contestants are seen, known, and exposed, whereas the Internet affords almost total anonymity, which invites the invidious to become totally obnoxious.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#76152 Sep 7, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for replying.
WOW....you're welcome?
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
Hunting is a lawful "use" of a device you have legal right to posses, however, if you shoot someone by accident, you are still punished.
There are HUNTING RIGHTS specifically!
Shouldn't you know this?
The EPA are always attacking hunting rights.
...and if it's an "accident" how are you punished?
Remember Dick Cheney?
He accidentally shot his friend while hunting, it was an accident...no punishment.
So what "punishment" are you referring to for accidents?
My best friends uncle shot his wife Pam in the face accidentally while cleaning his gun (we talked about this before)...he was NEVER charged, but left to raise 3 kids on his own :(
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
The mere possesion is the right.
...and "hunting" is a right as well!
Are you not aware of hunting rights?
heck, by law the kids in MY town don't even have to go to school during deer season!
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
If you use that gun, that is behavior.
It's an ACTION, and without the GUN, that action would not be possible...eh?
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
When we say we don't need that law, you confuse our statement and say we are advocating abolishing laws that address behavior.
We say laws that affect the mere exercise of a right to be unconstitutional.
...but just because you "feel" and "say" something, doesn't make it so:)
What about abolishing laws that prohibit exercising the right to free speech?
Then people can Libel, slander, and defame people all they want!
Yet, what about the OTHER person's right to NOT be defamed?
...and what about MY right to NOT be shot?

When RIGHTS conflict...who wins?
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Possesing and wearing a gun is our right. Any regulation of that is unconstitutional. Except where it conflicts with private property.
RIGHT THERE!
You can't say "except" without some form of REGULATION!
Either it's absolute or it's not?
You have just proven it is NOT!
...and mostly, it's not "unconstitutional" to want guns regulated, when the second amendment itself says WELL REGULATED:)
*(do not reply with WHY you think "well regulated" does not refer to you as a citizen, because you have failed at convincing me in the past, and you will NEVER convince me otherwise, so don't waste your time)
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
show where any of us have advocated abolishing a law that addresses shooting the gun in public,
???
What does that have to do with guns in general, and guns in the hands of violent criminals, and the criminally insane, and how we distinguish who is the bad guys/good guys when purchasing?
Mostly, if you carry your gun in PUBLIC, do you not plan on SHOOTING it in public if need be?
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
.. Just the law that allows someone to be punished for "improper storage", and gets arrested even if no one has been harmed.
What good would the LAW be, if you remove the punishment?
You're speaking outta both sides of your mouth:)
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you advocate regulating the mere exercise of a right?
If you can answer that, please give one other example of a right so horribly abused.
because that's the way it was intended from the very beginning!
WELL REGULATED:)
What do you mean "example of a right so horribly abused"?
Do you mean regulated as well?
Like freedom of speech?
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Just merely wearing your gun somewhere you have legal recourse to be.
Why should that right be regulated at all?
It should be regulated to keep the BAD GUYS from legally getting guns, and legally owning guns, and to protect my right to NOT be shot.
It's really not that hard to understand.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#76153 Sep 7, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand stop with slow down.
The brady law never prevented anyone from getting a gun.
If that had been a republican law, it would have stopped the bad guys from gettign a gun by putting them in jail for breaking the law.
The Brady law works like pedophile control.
If a No pedophile in Parks sign stops a pedophile from abducting a child in that park, folks like you feel their children are safe.
IN the meantime, the pedophile just abducts a kid from somewhere other than the park.
But you still feel good the pedophile did not get his child at the park.
If he did get a child from the park, someone would have noticed (probably) and called the cops.
The brady law never prosecuted any felon that tried to get a gun legally.
That is like posting a speed limit and never giving a ticket for speeding. Some law abiding citizens might obey that law, but none of the speeders will.
Your notion that it stops some criminals is fatally flawed.
Glad you broguth up free speech.
Libel and slander is illegal, and is a MISBEHAVIOR, unless you can prove the slander is accurate.
Merely speaking is not regulated.
The example with the guy in the empire building is ludicrous at best.
If a uniformed cop approaches you , no one has the right to pull a gun on them.
Once again, you mistake misbehavior with a right.
You have the right to say anything you want, until it harms another. And even then it may be justifed.
You have a right to keep and bear arms, until it harms another. And even then, you may be justified.
Yet I can be arrested for merely wearing a gun where I can legally be.
Name one public place you can be arrested at for merely speaking?
1. They Brady law has prevented MILLIONS of criminals from getting guns!
It is documented, and not up for debate:)
Will that stop ALL bad guys, NO! Will that stop some bad guys, YES!
Quit being intellectually dishonest.

2. Explain what a "republican law" is, and HOW is would stop criminals without infringing on their civil rights...and WHAT republicans have posed this law? Name them?

3. Will the criminals find ways to get guns illegally...yes!
Mostly stolen from LEGAL gun owners ignorance.
Will every single criminal denied a gun get one illegally ...NO!
So if it even stops ONE criminal, and saved ONE life...it's good enough for me:)

4. The Brady Bill isn't about PROSECUTING people for trying to get a gun, it is for PREVENTING those criminals from getting guns.
Also, trying to legally buy a gun and being denied is NOT illegal!
A lot of people aren't even aware they are not allowed to have a gun.
Why would they prosecute them?
Owning the gun is illegal, being denied is not.

5. Are you trying to say that fear of getting a speeding ticket hasn't stopped ANYONE from speeding ever???
WOW!
Now you are either acting unaware, or you are really that unaware!
I'm not sure which is worse:(

6. Are you saying the SLANDER/LIBEL laws do NOT hinder a person from saying ANYTHING they want? Are you saying NOT being able to say whatever you want is NOT infringing free speech?
You make no sense on this one:)

7. FYI...freedom of speech is NOT absolute.(no one said "speech" itself is regulated)...but what/whom you speak >about< IS REGULATED!
You could go to jail, and pay enormous fines if you do so:)

8. http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/ar...

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#76154 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>Remember Dick Cheney?
He accidentally shot his friend while hunting, it was an accident...no punishment.
So what "punishment" are you referring to for accidents?
My best friends uncle shot his wife Pam in the face accidentally while cleaning his gun (we talked about this before)...he was NEVER charged, but left to raise 3 kids on his own :(
<quoted text>...and "hunting" is a right as well!
Are you not aware of hunting rights?
heck, by law the kids in MY town don't even have to go to school during deer season!
<quoted text>What about abolishing laws that prohibit exercising the right to free speech?
Then people can Libel, slander, and defame people all they want!
Yet, what about the OTHER person's right to NOT be defamed?
...and what about MY right to NOT be shot?
When RIGHTS conflict...who wins?
<quoted text>RIGHT THERE!
You can't say "except" without some form of REGULATION!
Either it's absolute or it's not?
You have just proven it is NOT!
...and mostly, it's not "unconstitutional" to want guns regulated, when the second amendment itself says WELL REGULATED:)
*(do not reply with WHY you think "well regulated" does not refer to you as a citizen, because you have failed at convincing me in the past, and you will NEVER convince me otherwise, so don't waste your time)
<quoted text>???
What does that have to do with guns in general, and guns in the hands of violent criminals, and the criminally insane, and how we distinguish who is the bad guys/good guys when purchasing?
Mostly, if you carry your gun in PUBLIC, do you not plan on SHOOTING it in public if need be?
<quoted text>What good would the LAW be, if you remove the punishment?
You're speaking outta both sides of your mouth:)
<quoted text>
because that's the way it was intended from the very beginning!
WELL REGULATED:)
What do you mean "example of a right so horribly abused"?
Do you mean regulated as well?
Like freedom of speech?
<quoted text>It should be regulated to keep the BAD GUYS from legally getting guns, and legally owning guns, and to protect my right to NOT be shot.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Hmm, you are once again confusing laws with compassion or not following the laws.
Pams husband should have been prosecuted, he hurt someone while using a gun.
Dick Cheney should have been prosecuted.
Don't blame gun owners and try to regulate them if the law is not followed.
Once again, you confuse a militia with a gun. Militias need to be well regulated, and I agree with that. the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
You have a right not to be shot (unless you are trying to harm another). What does that have to do with the mere bearing of arms?
You have a right to hunt. On private property, that right is not infringed, unless you hunt a particular critter. I do not believe ayone has the right to hunt anythign they want any time they want to. And yet, a person can be arrested for merely wearing a gun while out hunting critters (with a camera).
You have a right to not be defamed, yet you once again confuse free speech with misbehavior. Someone can speak to you all day without misbehaving. Yet you advocate regulating the mere exercise of a right.
And it is already against the law to shoot in public, unless you have a good reason.
Are you aware it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, unless it is on fire.
Yet you would have a law that makes it illegal to merely speak in a crowded theater.
The same as a law that makes it illegal for me to have a gun in a crowded theater, even if I do not shoot it.
So once again, why do you keep confusing the mere exercise of a right with misbehavior?
What is the difference between exercising a right, and misbehaving?
Name any other right so infringed as the right to bear arms?
Which is as important as free speech. Which the mere exercise of is NOT infringed.

“Now thats a tin hat!”

Since: Oct 07

Blue Ridge Mountains

#76155 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>
1. They Brady law has prevented MILLIONS of criminals from getting guns!
It is documented, and not up for debate:)
Will that stop ALL bad guys, NO! Will that stop some bad guys, YES!
Quit being intellectually dishonest.
2. Explain what a "republican law" is, and HOW is would stop criminals without infringing on their civil rights...and WHAT republicans have posed this law? Name them?
3. Will the criminals find ways to get guns illegally...yes!
Mostly stolen from LEGAL gun owners ignorance.
Will every single criminal denied a gun get one illegally ...NO!
So if it even stops ONE criminal, and saved ONE life...it's good enough for me:)
4. The Brady Bill isn't about PROSECUTING people for trying to get a gun, it is for PREVENTING those criminals from getting guns.
Also, trying to legally buy a gun and being denied is NOT illegal!
A lot of people aren't even aware they are not allowed to have a gun.
Why would they prosecute them?
Owning the gun is illegal, being denied is not.
5. Are you trying to say that fear of getting a speeding ticket hasn't stopped ANYONE from speeding ever???
WOW!
Now you are either acting unaware, or you are really that unaware!
I'm not sure which is worse:(
6. Are you saying the SLANDER/LIBEL laws do NOT hinder a person from saying ANYTHING they want? Are you saying NOT being able to say whatever you want is NOT infringing free speech?
You make no sense on this one:)
7. FYI...freedom of speech is NOT absolute.(no one said "speech" itself is regulated)...but what/whom you speak >about< IS REGULATED!
You could go to jail, and pay enormous fines if you do so:)
8. http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/ar...
Of course it is up for debate. The brady law stopped no one from getting a gun.

Now, if you say it stopped them from getting a gun legally, then you are correct.

How is that relevant to preventing felons from harming people with guns?

That is like saying the sign at the Park denying pedophiles entry stopped the pedophiles from molesting children.

Like the brady law, it did not.

It merely made them do somepleace else to get a gun or a kid to molest.

How has that stopped anyone from being haremd????

Why do you believe the Brady law stoped anyone from getting a gun, when they obviously get them somehow?

WHy do you think that when a felon is prosectued for attempting to get a gun (a ten year federal crime) that is somehow infringing his civil rights??

Why do you think the Brady law prosectued any felon for breaking the law.

it did not.

They just went elsewhere to get their guns.

How does that help?

Freedom of speech is absolute.

Name one mere exercise of freedom of speech that can be prosecuted.

And I said if you know that you will never be given a ticket for speeding, why would you obey the limit???

Because you are a good person?????

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#76157 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>..
Why should your right to a gun override my right to not be shot?
Simple.
Because only one of those two things are a right.
There is no such thing as a "right to not get shot" ... <that dear ... is on you, if you do not wish to be shot.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#76158 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>WOW....you're welcome?
<quoted text>There are HUNTING RIGHTS specifically!
Shouldn't you know this?
...
"Legal" and "regulated" hunting is NOT a right. It is a priveledge.

The ONLY time that "legal" hunting could be considered a right, is when one finds themselves in a "state of natural law". In <that situation, even endangered species can be on the menu, and there is no license needed to hunt, kill, and eat.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#76159 Sep 7, 2012
Snow Bunny_ wrote:
<quoted text>... It's an ACTION, and without the GUN, that action would not be possible...eh?
...
Incorrect.
Hunting is possible with all sorts of weapons from rocks and spears to firearms, bows, and crossbows.

You are correct in as much as the act of "hunting" most certainly is an action. It is an action in every sense that assault is also an action and not a tool ... ie. "assault" rifle.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#76160 Sep 7, 2012
ZigmunnDroid wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmm, you are once again confusing laws with compassion or not following the laws.
Pams husband should have been prosecuted, he hurt someone while using a gun.
Dick Cheney should have been prosecuted.
Don't blame gun owners and try to regulate them if the law is not followed.
Once again, you confuse a militia with a gun. Militias need to be well regulated, and I agree with that. the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
You have a right not to be shot (unless you are trying to harm another). What does that have to do with the mere bearing of arms?
You have a right to hunt. On private property, that right is not infringed, unless you hunt a particular critter. I do not believe ayone has the right to hunt anythign they want any time they want to. And yet, a person can be arrested for merely wearing a gun while out hunting critters (with a camera).
You have a right to not be defamed, yet you once again confuse free speech with misbehavior. Someone can speak to you all day without misbehaving. Yet you advocate regulating the mere exercise of a right.
And it is already against the law to shoot in public, unless you have a good reason.
Are you aware it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, unless it is on fire.
Yet you would have a law that makes it illegal to merely speak in a crowded theater.
The same as a law that makes it illegal for me to have a gun in a crowded theater, even if I do not shoot it.
So once again, why do you keep confusing the mere exercise of a right with misbehavior?
What is the difference between exercising a right, and misbehaving?
Name any other right so infringed as the right to bear arms?
Which is as important as free speech. Which the mere exercise of is NOT infringed.
There is no such thing as a "right to not be shot".
It is a reasonable expectation, but it certainly does not fall under the heading of "right".
Dr Freud

Switzerland

#76161 Sep 7, 2012
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple.
Because only one of those two things are a right.
There is no such thing as a "right to not get shot" ... <that dear ... is on you, if you do not wish to be shot.
Exactly right! In the same way that nobody has the right to not be insulted or to be 'talked down to,' neither do they have the right to override anybody else's right to self-defence.
I note too that she has not put forth the identical argument regarding knives, automobiles, and the whole inventory of other articles which might be availed to in causing bodily harm.
I note how the other poster couches her argument in the thought that anyone with a gun may likely shoot her. Well, if she's as arrogant, mouthy, condescending, and invidious in real life as she is posting here, it's no wonder that she fears the possible ire of others being taken to the limit!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 2 hr Harry Paratestes 1,471
News Clinton blames Republican leaders for a 'paraly... 3 hr Chilli J 974
News Letter: Second Amendment should be abolished 4 hr Prep-for-Dep 6
News AG Healey's assault weapons order is an overdue... 16 hr Get Out 3
News Shoot Down the Stupid Second Amendment (Dec '14) Jul 16 Prep-for-Dep 60
News Q&A: What are the firearms rules for the GOP co... Jul 13 Banned 2016 1
News What Paul Ryan wants in Donald Trumpa s vice-pr... Jul 13 spud 3
More from around the web