House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Logically, your argument applies to NEGLIGENCE not to murder with malice.




Let 's try your reasoning THIS way:
when u get older, someone who has borrowed money from u, invites u out to eat
and he gets u DRUNK. If he tries to kill u,
slice your neck, then u have no right to stop him
because u are too old or too drunk,
so u gotta LET him???
If u fight back, then HE shud object that:
"HAY, STOP THAT! U r too drunk and u r too old for self-defense! Don 't interfere! Don't resist."

The Republic was not founded on any such principle.







Dangerous people shoud be ISOLATED from the decent people;
preferably not on the North American Continent.







Next time I buy a car,
I 'll be sure to get one that won't start; yeah, that 's what I want.
I will trust the car to decide whether I 'm "impaired".
From now on, whenever any of my cars does not start,
I 'll call down blessings on the Farmer; yeah.







That 's different.
I 've never done that to my own car.


In YOUR mind, Y or HOW is that important??? I don't get it.

We need weapons that WORK RELIABLY.
Guns are emergency equipment, like defibrillators.
If thay do not work u can perish.

If a mugger bashes u in the head with a rock,
maybe u will object:
"Hay, that was not designed primarily as a weapon !"



Because u r a liberal, the deal whereby government was created
and the Instrument of its Creation mean nothing to u.



Y is that hard to UNDERSTAND????
Government in America was created
SUBJECT TO the condition that it NOT have jurisdiction
over certain designated things including gun possession.
U want me to FAKE IT, as a liberal,
by pretending that government does have that jd.

I REFUSE; now and forever.


Yeah; u hope THAT and someone else on this board hopes that rape will be legalized.
Anyone can hope anything.

Suppose I hope the Constitution be amended
such that liberals have no right of defensive gun bearing. How 's that ??




IF the victims had been defensive armed,
then thay coud have and woud have defeated Cho,
who was unopposed because of gun control rules of the school.
GUN CONTROL killed those students.
As soon as he began shooting,
thay 'd have drawn their own guns and shot back.
Imagine if Cho had done the same thing in a police station!
The officials of Va. Tech shoud have been prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide
for their anti-gun rules that resulted in unnecessary deaths.



Dangerous people shoud be ISOLATED from the decent people;
preferably not on the North American Continent.





David

nope, I don't see a problem there.



dave...?

(I know, if you had your way, there woulda been a giant shoot-out instead.)

If he WAS, does that impair MY rights ??

should he have been allowed to carry a gun?

AFTER he is thrown out of America, yes.

you're dodging.

please answer my query...

(can one spell query phonetically?)

AP Source: Gun in Tucson shooting legal

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press – Sat Jan 8, 8:55 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A law enforcement official tells The Associated Press that the handgun used in a shooting that killed a federal judge and wounded a U.S. congresswoman in Tucson, Ariz., was purchased legally. U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head Saturday morning during an event with voters outside a local grocery store. U.S. District Judge John Roll, and at least five others, were killed in the attack.

The official, who has been briefed on the investigation, spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss details of the case. Officials have identified the shooter as 22-year-old Jared Loughner of Tucson. He is in custody. The Washington Post reported late Saturday that Loughner purchased the gun Nov. 30 from the Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson.

Thay 'd have very, very quickly killed him; probably less than 5 seconds.

A good citizen is a well armed citizen.





David

soccer moms are the best shots...


PLEASE answer my question.

Y shoud a gun not be purchased LEGALLY ??
Citizens shoud have an abundance of weapons.





David

Which question?

so you are OK with selling guns to folks with a blatant problem, like this kid...?

so he can be safe...

do you need to go take your medication? all of a sudden you seem very dense.

Yes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_congresswoman_shot_gun

But can we please not turn this into a pro-gun vs anti-gun thread?

I'm not anti gun.

I don't think this kid should have been allowed to purchase a hand gun.

period.

and I think it's a valid part of this discussion...

Ms.Giffords is presently in an induced coma. The bullet shot was "through and through", meaning it entered and exited the brain on a single passage.

Questions:
1) There are 6 dead, why are the only ones mentioned the 9-year old girl and the judge?
2) How often are politicians and public office holders issued death threats? Both the congresswoman and the judge had been threatened, but is that unusual or par for the course?

This is why many of your arguments fall flat Dave, the premises and the "givens" are usually screwed up

However, when are they determined to be dangerous? Only after theyve done something like Laufer. Your argument falls flat again.

You are not thinking clearly this morning, wait until your fog clears before attempting to understand things.

Like Im going to take advice from a guy who doesnt even understand the US Constitution, RIIIIIIGHT