So you think your rights to carry guns are more important than the victims at the church right of life? What an asset to society you are...
Quote:So you think your rights to carry guns are more important than the victims at the church right of life? What an asset to society you are...
My right to own a firearm didn't cause their deaths and ultimately protecting the rights of anyone is more important than any individual life.
If a mass shooter killed 1000 people the right to bear arms is still more important.
Quote:Yikes
The truth has a wow factor when told without hesitation. Your rights are also more important then any individual life.
If that's not the case and rights should be revoked based on threats of violence what's the point?
Is the right to free speech more important then someone who dies? Yes.
Words also can't directly kill people.
Quote:Words also can't directly kill people.
Weak but I wouldn't expect you to understand the importance of natural rights
Sorry I'm obviously not as enlightened as you. Must watch Fox news some more...
Not sure what is natural about carrying a gun, were you born with it?
Quote:So you think your rights to carry guns are more important than the victims at the church right of life? What an asset to society you are...
My right to defend my life and the lives of my people is more important to me than someone else's right to life. That's basic self interest and NO ONE feels any differently about that.
Quote:My right to defend my life and the lives of my people is more important to me than someone else's right to life. That's basic self interest and NO ONE feels any differently about that.
Fortunately, we live in a country founded by laws. Your right to defend yourself ends at another person's right to be free to live.
Nobody is trying to take away your guns. But rights also come with responsibilities. I think most reasonable gun owners can see the need for that.
I just don't understand how adding extra rules as to the ownership of guns would infringe on the right to bear arms.
Aren't felons not allowed to own or carry guns? So has not the precident to regulate gun ownership already been set?
Quote:Fortunately, we live in a country founded by laws. Your right to defend yourself ends at another person's right to be free to live.
Nobody is trying to take away your guns. But rights also come with responsibilities. I think most reasonable gun owners can see the need for that.
I just don't understand how adding extra rules as to the ownership of guns would infringe on the right to bear arms.
Aren't felons not allowed to own or carry guns? So has not the precident to regulate gun ownership already been set?
You might want to bone up on self defense laws.
You keep telling yourself that. The truth is a far different thing from what you're trying to convince yourself of here, but more power to you. They are absolutely trying to eradicate guns from this society, and as Malabar Jag pointed out above, they're using the Australia model as their example.
What "extra rules" would have prevented the shooting in Charleston, or almost any of the mass casualty shootings in the recent past? If you look at where gun violence is particularly out of control, the gun laws on the books are the most restrictive. Look at Chicago. Look at Baltimore. Those are examples of strict gun laws and what you wind up getting. There are more than enough laws on the books already. The problem is enforcement and proper tracking capabilities. The shooter in Charleston shouldn't have been able to walk into a shop and buy that Glock, yet he passed a state AND federal background check despite the fact that it's illegal for anyone even CHARGED with a felony (which he was) from being able to purchase a firearm. Furthermore, SC state law prohibits ANYONE from carrying a gun into any place of worship. So, there were laws there, and in both instances, he broke them. How are new laws going to fix that?
Anyone who attempts to purchase a firearm in any state from a dealer, which this shooter did, is put through a state and federal background check, and if they don't pass that, they cannot purchase a firearm. Furthermore, if you apply to have a carry permit, at least here in FL, you have to go through mandatory training, and you must go through yet another background check at the local and federal level. Any flags and no permit is issued. Yes, there's a precedent. That doesn't mean some new law would have prevented this shooting.
Quote:You told him to get out more and if he's been anywhere else. He responded yes. Probably on his own dime. So he may have went on his own accord and not because he was sent there. So I'd guess an unbiased point of view. Just an assumption on my part. Bet he was unarmed as well.
Just because he has been to a couple of countries doesn't mean that he has experienced a variety of cultures. I have. How I got to travel to so many places is irrelevant.
Quote:Just responding to your comment. Did you feel the need for a gun in Europe?
At times and in some places, yes, and that doesn't go for just Europe, the same could be said about Africa, The Middle East, South America and some parts of The Caribbean.
Quote:You might want to bone up on self defense laws.
You keep telling yourself that. The truth is a far different thing from what you're trying to convince yourself of here, but more power to you. They are absolutely trying to eradicate guns from this society, and as Malabar Jag pointed out above, they're using the Australia model as their example.
What "extra rules" would have prevented the shooting in Charleston, or almost any of the mass casualty shootings in the recent past? If you look at where gun violence is particularly out of control, the gun laws on the books are the most restrictive. Look at Chicago. Look at Baltimore. Those are examples of strict gun laws and what you wind up getting. There are more than enough laws on the books already. The problem is enforcement and proper tracking capabilities. The shooter in Charleston shouldn't have been able to walk into a shop and buy that Glock, yet he passed a state AND federal background check despite the fact that it's illegal for anyone even CHARGED with a felony (which he was) from being able to purchase a firearm. Furthermore, SC state law prohibits ANYONE from carrying a gun into any place of worship. So, there were laws there, and in both instances, he broke them. How are new laws going to fix that?
Anyone who attempts to purchase a firearm in any state from a dealer, which this shooter did, is put through a state and federal background check, and if they don't pass that, they cannot purchase a firearm. Furthermore, if you apply to have a carry permit, at least here in FL, you have to go through mandatory training, and you must go through yet another background check at the local and federal level. Any flags and no permit is issued. Yes, there's a precedent. That doesn't mean some new law would have prevented this shooting.
I hate to correct you, and I might be wrong on this, but I believe that the perp in this incident was given the gun as a gift from his father (at least that is what I read in initial reports). I don't believe that he actually purchased the weapon himself.
It doesn't change my opinion at all regarding your point, that being that we don't need more laws and those on the far left would like to eventually take guns away from everyone. The evidence is clear on those points.
Quote:Just because he has been to a couple of countries doesn't mean that he has experienced a variety of cultures. I have. How I got to travel to so many places is irrelevant.
At times and in some places, yes, and that doesn't go for just Europe, the same could be said about Africa, The Middle East, South America and some parts of The Caribbean.
I hate to correct you, and I might be wrong on this, but I believe that the perp in this incident was given the gun as a gift from his father (at least that is what I read in initial reports). I don't believe that he actually purchased the weapon himself.
It doesn't change my opinion at all regarding your point, that being that we don't need more laws and those on the far left would like to eventually take guns away from everyone. The evidence is clear on those points.
And the far right wants everyone's hands surgically replaced with 57 magnum revolvers, what's your point?
You asked about what laws needs to be enacted. Answers have been provided. What say you?
"You told him to get out more and if he's been anywhere else. He responded yes. Probably on his own dime. So he may have went on his own accord and not because he was sent there. So I'd guess an unbiased point of view. Just an assumption on my part. Bet he was unarmed as well."
"Just because he has been to a couple of countries doesn't mean that he has experienced a variety of cultures. I have. How I got to travel to so many places is irrelevant."
>> It doesn't mean he hasn't. As far as being irrelevant on how one gets to see these places, it may be relevant when you're told to go, have the population not care for you, etc. versus on your own free will and blend in and make a unbiased opinion.
Many countries don't care for US military presence. Their treatment of you is different than from a typical tourist. It will form an opinion.
This I know as well. But maybe I'm just an anomaly .
Quote:And the far right wants everyone's hands surgically replaced with 57 magnum revolvers, what's your point?
You asked about what laws needs to be enacted. Answers have been provided. What say you?
The far right doesn't want everyone to own a gun. They simply want to uphold the right. That's my point, though it's a bit difficult for your fragile brain to realize.
What say me is that there has not been a common sense solution presented.
Quote:The far right doesn't want everyone to own a gun. They simply want to uphold the right. That's my point, though it's a bit difficult for your fragile brain to realize.
What say me is that there has not been a common sense solution presented.
The far right wants everyone to be a gun and fart bullets.
What I see is your inability to accept that regulation is the answer to the problem. Rules can be established that would have prevented the shooting deaths of those people in that church.
Quote:What rule would have prevented those deaths?
The father not being able to purchase a weapon?