Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

Nov 17, 2013 Full story: BizPacReview.com 12,176

A professor at the Texas A&M University School of Law claims that the Second Amendment should be shelved and replaced with something else.

Full Story

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6872 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And how are you going to stop the 60+% of that number who kill THEMSELVES with a firearm every year, Dannyboy???
Restrict access to firearms for the mentally ill. Even you support that.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6873 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the CDC, there are over 1 MILLION suicide attempts PER YEAR in this country. Since only about 19,500 use a firearm, I would be willing to bet that the majority of those people really wanted to off themselves because a gun is efficient for such a task. So how are you going to take the firearms out of their hands, Dannyboy??? Remember......You said you were AGAINST gun control. Let's say you are successful in keeping guns out of their hands (yeah right), how are you going to limit their access to ropes, tall buildings and bridges, poison, prescription medications, etc etc etc ???
We've been through this. The majority of suicide is an impulsive act. Suicide with a gun is over 95% successful - meaning people don't ATTEMPT suicide by gun, the successfully commit suicide by gun. Without an easily available gun, there would be fewer successful suicides.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6874 Mar 14, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Really?
Show me one.
I have never advocated for anything that would prevent legal gun owners from owning firearms. Never.
But that's not the same as saying you don't support gun control, is it Dan? No.....it's the additional infringements that you champion.

How about this one: http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TT2PK56QHFSQ7...
where you support magazine capacity limits (which do NOTHING when a mag can be changed in less than one second).

How about this one: http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TT2PK56QHFSQ7...
where you are arguing that everyone's guns should be securely locked away instead of being carried for their own defense.

There was an earlier post than these two FROM YOU you speaking out against silencers. Do silencers make a firearm anymore deadly? Would they not cut down on noise that a lot of people who live around gun ranges complain about?? Would they not help prevent hearing damage to shooters???

And these are just what I found in about ten minutes.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6875 Mar 14, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been through this. The majority of suicide is an impulsive act. Suicide with a gun is over 95% successful - meaning people don't ATTEMPT suicide by gun, the successfully commit suicide by gun. Without an easily available gun, there would be fewer successful suicides.
BULLSHIT! Because you can't keep a gun out of the hands of someone who truly wants to get one.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6876 Mar 14, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Restrict access to firearms for the mentally ill. Even you support that.
If you want to restrict access to firearms to the dangerous mentall ill.......put their ass in a padded cell where they belong. Because that is the ONLY way you can truly prevent their access to them.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6877 Mar 14, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been through this. The majority of suicide is an impulsive act. Suicide with a gun is over 95% successful - meaning people don't ATTEMPT suicide by gun, the successfully commit suicide by gun. Without an easily available gun, there would be fewer successful suicides.
Do you honestly believe that the people who commit suicide with a gun don't know exactly how lethal it can be????
FormerParatroope r

Tyler, TX

#6878 Mar 14, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetie: I only have to prove what on isn't.
Of course, you can tell everyone they are wrong and produce nothing to prove it. Guess we are to take your word for it?
FormerParatroope r

Tyler, TX

#6879 Mar 14, 2014
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
33,000 gun owners did.
Actually less than that. Considering many victims were killed by one individual.

How many of those responsible for these deaths were repeat offenders still allowed to roam society?

How many were victims of gang violence?

How many were victims while committing a crime when they were shot?

Once you look into the data and see the relationships of the incidents you can better understand where problems are. You then concentrate on each problem, as each is different. Blanket assumptions and actions are not an answer.

You deal with each individuals actions individually.

Those of us who are not the contributing factors of the issues should not be punished for those who are.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6880 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's not the same as saying you don't support gun control, is it Dan? No.....it's the additional infringements that you champion.
How about this one: http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TT2PK56QHFSQ7...
where you support magazine capacity limits (which do NOTHING when a mag can be changed in less than one second).
How about this one: http://www.topix.com/forum/guns/TT2PK56QHFSQ7...
where you are arguing that everyone's guns should be securely locked away instead of being carried for their own defense.
There was an earlier post than these two FROM YOU you speaking out against silencers. Do silencers make a firearm anymore deadly? Would they not cut down on noise that a lot of people who live around gun ranges complain about?? Would they not help prevent hearing damage to shooters???
And these are just what I found in about ten minutes.
I have never advocated for anything that would prevent you from owning guns.

Reduced capacity magazines do not infringe on your ability to defend yourself at all. That is a reasonable regulation that would reduce fatalities at mass shootings.

In that post, I did not argue in favor of keeping guns securely locked away. I merely pointed out the inconsistency of having trained professionals with their weapons locked up while any half-wit gun nutter can keep his weapons anywhere he wants.

Why didn't you link to the post where you claim I spoke out against silencers? I don't remember doing that - show me where I did.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6881 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
BULLSHIT! Because you can't keep a gun out of the hands of someone who truly wants to get one.
I'll say it again - most suicide is impulsive. Without easy access to a means that's over 95% effective, fewer people would commit suicide.

"Some" = less than all. So yes, someone who is truly intent on killing himself will still do it. But as I have said countless times - nobody ever said the goal was compete elimination of suicide. REDUCTION is the goal.

When you argue against the possibility of complete elimination of suicide or homicide by gun, you are creating a strawman argument to argue against in order to avoid facing the FACT that regulations reduce gun violence.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6882 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to restrict access to firearms to the dangerous mentall ill.......put their ass in a padded cell where they belong. Because that is the ONLY way you can truly prevent their access to them.
For someone who claims to be passionately in favor of individual rights, you sure are quick to take rights away from your favorite scapegoat.

Rights for me, none for thee, huh AV? Hypocrite.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6883 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you honestly believe that the people who commit suicide with a gun don't know exactly how lethal it can be????
It's a little more complicated than that. I'd explain it to you, but you've already proven you don't have the mental capacity for complex concepts.

LOL!
1 post removed

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6885 Mar 14, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never advocated for anything that would prevent you from owning guns.
Reduced capacity magazines do not infringe on your ability to defend yourself at all. That is a reasonable regulation that would reduce fatalities at mass shootings.
In that post, I did not argue in favor of keeping guns securely locked away. I merely pointed out the inconsistency of having trained professionals with their weapons locked up while any half-wit gun nutter can keep his weapons anywhere he wants.
Why didn't you link to the post where you claim I spoke out against silencers? I don't remember doing that - show me where I did.
You may bnot advocate an outright ban, dannyboy, but that does NOT mean you don't advocate gun control which I have proved using YOUR OWN WORDS.

Choke on them.

And your silencer post was back around sheet 25-30. Look it up yourself.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6886 Mar 14, 2014
Sorry....PAGES 25-30.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6887 Mar 14, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll say it again - most suicide is impulsive. Without easy access to a means that's over 95% effective, fewer people would commit suicide.
"Some" = less than all. So yes, someone who is truly intent on killing himself will still do it. But as I have said countless times - nobody ever said the goal was compete elimination of suicide. REDUCTION is the goal.
When you argue against the possibility of complete elimination of suicide or homicide by gun, you are creating a strawman argument to argue against in order to avoid facing the FACT that regulations reduce gun violence.
And I have repeatedly said that the ONLY way to keep them away from firearms is to physically LOCK THEM UP.

NOTHING you have suggested can keep them away from obtaining ANY firearm they wish.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6888 Mar 14, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
For someone who claims to be passionately in favor of individual rights, you sure are quick to take rights away from your favorite scapegoat.
Rights for me, none for thee, huh AV? Hypocrite.
So now you are in favor of mental defects having access to firearms???

Make up your f**king mind.

And what "scapegoat" are you referring to???

I am talking about locking up people who have been deemed to be a danger to themselves or others by qualified medical people. Who are you referring to???

The only hypocrit here is YOU, Dannyboy.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#6889 Mar 14, 2014
hypocrite

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6890 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You may bnot advocate an outright ban, dannyboy, but that does NOT mean you don't advocate gun control which I have proved using YOUR OWN WORDS.
Choke on them.
And your silencer post was back around sheet 25-30. Look it up yourself.
You defined gun control as "the infringement of the inherent right of the WE THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms through government regulation."

Nothing I have said and nothing you have linked to from me infringes on your ability to keep and bear arms.

Nothing.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6891 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
Sorry....PAGES 25-30.
In what thread?

If it exists, show me. I'm not doing your work for you.

Until then I'm going to assume you're making things up.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#6892 Mar 14, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And I have repeatedly said that the ONLY way to keep them away from firearms is to physically LOCK THEM UP.
NOTHING you have suggested can keep them away from obtaining ANY firearm they wish.
And you are wrong every time you say that. You do not have a shred of evidence to support that claim.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 min American Lady 172,462
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 1 min The Friendly Poster 313,507
Giuliani explains why Obama doesn't love America 3 min goonsquad 666
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min paul porter 149,926
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,193,018
Boehner, Back in DC, Denies Mocking GOP Colleag... (Apr '14) 8 min swedenforever 19
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 10 min Fortunate Son 1968 1,950
Obama: 'Now is the moment' for police to make c... 3 hr Le Jimbo 80
More from around the web