Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Because a rule of law, and the FIRST amendment says I have freedom of speech...Why would you use your freedom to say I act like a criminal when I possess no guns? If the first does not outweigh the second? Why do you use your freedom to defend the second, but blast the chief in command who is the leader of the nation that grants the first and second?

Quote:

But the very reason there are guns is the reason the criminal has one, and the reason a law abiding American would have to carry one....and may have to kill someone, though not a criminal...

You have it backwards.
The law abiding American has the right to bear arms, the criminal does not.
Why penalize the law abiding American and ignore the criminal?

Also, our 1st amendment rights are pretty much useless without our 2nd amendment rights.

Stick to the Constitution and the bill of rights and both you and I will be OK.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

But the very reason there are guns is the reason the criminal has one, and the reason a law abiding American would have to carry one....and may have to kill someone, though not a criminal...

Almost all women can not fight a man on any reasonable terms. See the history of mass killers of women who did not need firearms to prey on women.

So you are for allowing women to be the victims of any men who would care to attack them I assume.

It for woman own goods to be defenseless victims of men whims.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

The law abiding American has the right to bear arms, the criminal does not.
Why penalize the law abiding American and ignore the criminal?

You are correct, my point is what would be a way to determine who a criminal is? How could you stop them? Arm everyone? Do you think there is a more practical way?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Of course I am not for allowing defenseless women to be attacked...And it is bullshit to portray that straw man like you did...

I think there must be another way for a women to defend herself without having to kill someone because a looney wanted to attack her, or possibly shoot her...And live with a murder on her conscience just because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time...If she is carrying a gun to protect herself, and has to live with the thought of killing an attacker because she feels she has to carry a gun, then clearly we are not doing the best we can, or what we should be doing to stop these malicious actions....

Do you honestly think a women should have to make a choice between being attacked, or killing someone in order to feel like she has power in a situation where she is vulnerable both ways? Because even if she lives to tell about it, she may need help for the rest of her life because she killed someone in self defense as she is not a criminal, but the man who is now dead was...

2 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Quote:
The law abiding American has the right to bear arms, the criminal does not.
Why penalize the law abiding American and ignore the criminal?

You are correct, my point is what would be a way to determine who a criminal is?
How could you stop them? Arm everyone? Do you think there is a more practical way?

1. I would not disarm law abiding citizens, I would encourage them to arm themselves.
2. I would have the police team up with legal gun owners to fight criminals.
3. In high crime areas, Police should be able to profile, stop, frisk and disarm individuals on the street that are carrying guns illegally.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I would rather live with the fact that I killed a worthless criminal in self defense than live with the fact that
I was brutalized by a worthless criminal just because some politician deprived me of my 2nd amendment rights.

Criminal activity tends to drop off in a big way when it's common knowledge that their potential victims are armed.

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less criminal activity.
Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = increased criminal activity.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less criminal activity.
Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = increased criminal activity.

OK...Now does more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = more potential criminals?

And does less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less potential criminals?

Why do you think that many criminals become criminals and go undetected with guns? Do you think they all fail, and get them illegally? Why wouldn't the police just be watching who failed to get their guns legally, and snag them? If that is what happens as you claim?

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Why would a woman have a problem moral or otherwise with killing someone to protected herself or her children or other love ones from being harm, raped or killed?

I can not see my wife losing any sleep over needing to killed such a person as a Ted Bunny for example that if allowed to would likely keep going on on to harms others until stop.

For anyone man or woman who however would prefer to be a victim to needing to a killer is free not to be armed.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Quote:
More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less criminal activity.
Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = increased criminal activity.

OK...Now does more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = more potential criminals?

And does less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens = less potential criminals?

Why do you think that many criminals become criminals and go undetected with guns? Do you think they all fail, and get them illegally? Why wouldn't the police just be watching who failed to get their guns legally, and snag them? If that is what happens as you claim?

Failing a background check for criminal activity does or should require police notification.

Do you think it's possible that a certain % of people are natural born criminals?
Do you think these criminals are being enabled by the anti 2nd amendment crowd?

Criminals acquire guns via criminal acts, that's why they are called criminals.

0 Replies

I can't take this thread and have to go...I can only stay for bits...

If nothing is ever done to make gun laws more strict or terminate them all...

Then it will always go round and round in circles...because even law abiding citizens are killed by criminals, and then a legit gun is in the hands of a criminal....

The government, at some point, would have to start banning guns, and make strict laws if even caught with one...And develop a very powerful stun gun or something where it would immobilize you for hours, So it is easy for them to catch criminals in acts, and throw people in jail....And then the guns in criminals would dwindle off over time, especially if you make the penalty strict for being caught...And over time, most criminals would only have the ability to gain access to these stun guns, and would never be able to physically kill anyone...And no innocent person would ever have to kill another in self defense...Just because murder in self defense is a better option then criminals doing horrid acts...

Crime will only go down if we start to reverse the power of weapon capacity...

If it gets stronger and stronger, Humans will not be around much longer, Because the first nut job who gets to WMD's?...That is it...

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5251170)

Have you never had a firearm background check? People with
psychological issues are screened for possible gun ownership.
The mental retard that shot the kids in Newtown failed his
background check when he attempted to buy a gun.

Very interesting. But it didn't answer the question...did it?

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

Crime will only go down if we start to reverse the power of weapon capacity...

How do you reverse the power of a hammer or the capacity of a bat?

You and others are stuck on weapons used by evil criminals
when you should be focused on the evil human criminals.

I own relatively high powered, high capacity rifles, but they have never
been involved in a crime because they are not in the hands of a criminal.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

You just don't get it mate...someone else is going to possess your firearms when you are gone...

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

You just don't get it mate...someone else is going to possess your firearms when you are gone...

Yes I do get it and that's why I have them tied up in a trust.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Spendi, I agree that Obamanomics & ObamaCare are very harmful to this country, but none of those huge issues will matter if Obama's attempts to remove the 2nd amendment from our constitution are successful.

It's perfectly clear from that evasion that you want to keep your guns at any cost to the nation.

The 2nd could be removed from the Constitution if circumstances caused enough people to demand it. Were it to be removed would you still defend the Constitution?

I wouldn't worry about Mr Obarmy managing to do it. He has no chance even if he tried. Which he isn't doing. You're offering a Bogeyman argument.

I never said, nor implied, that "Obamanomics & ObamaCare" are harmful to the US.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

The 2nd could be removed from the Constitution if circumstances caused enough people to demand it.

There is no chance in hell this will happen... it's anti-American to even propose such a thing.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

There is no chance in hell this will happen... it's anti-American to even propose such a thing.

I agree with you completely on this, H2O. The question that arises is: Why are people like you continuing the hysterics when you know there is nothing to be hysterical about?

You hold every card...no chance of meaningful legislation passed; no chance of any legislation that accidentally gets passed will pass muster with the Supreme Court; and anything that accidentally gets by both those bodies WILL NEVER BE ENFORCED without a full scale civil war.

So why all the nonsense?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Meaningful legislation already exists in the bill of rights and the constitution... don't **** with it.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5251716)

Meaningful legislation already exists in the bill of rights and the constitution.

Read my remarks again...this time without the shades!

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Would you agree that Doner is a criminal, parasite?

Is he? Or is he just protecting himself? How do you define one vs the other? Was he a criminal when he bought his guns? What plan do you have to prevent future criminals from buying guns? Dorner clearly wasn't a criminal when he acquired his weapons.

Quote:

Do you agree that criminals should be disarmed?

How about we disarm them before they use the guns? Of course that would require we disarm people not yet criminals.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know