Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

You just like saying outrageous things Dave.
But it needs a constantly changing audience to have its best effect.

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

unfortunately, the neighbor is MUCH MORE LIKELY to shoot someone in his family...than any intruder.

Not sure why you doubt it...but...

I dont see a problem
with running safety in firearms handling courses in the public schools,
from the very earliest years.

David

I understand you don't have a problem with it, David.

But the facts speak for themselves...and the facts indicate that a gun owner is MUCH more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder…so the fact that you don’t see a problem really doesn’t come into play.

Its only a question of knowing what your target is
and knowing what is behind your target.
That can be and shud be tawt in Kindergarten.
Its not hard to understand. Maybe run practice drills.





David

So just get rid of the guns? Is that your answer?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

unfortunately, the neighbor is MUCH MORE LIKELY to shoot someone in his family...than any intruder.

Not sure why you doubt it...but...

I dont see a problem
with running safety in firearms handling courses in the public schools,
from the very earliest years.

David

I understand you don't have a problem with it, David.

But the facts speak for themselves...and the facts indicate that a gun owner is MUCH more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder…so the fact that you don’t see a problem really doesn’t come into play.

Its only a question of knowing what your target is
and knowing what is behind your target.
That can be and shud be tawt in Kindergarten.
Its not hard to understand. Maybe run practice drills.





David

Yes, David. But that is not the way it works.

Your suggestions on this are like advising someone to buy stocks when they are low and selling them when they are high. Great advice...but of no value.

People can own guns (be gun owners) and shoot more "intruders" than family members if blah, blah, blah.

But that is not what is happening...NOT BY A LONG SHOT (pun intended)!

Because of the implications of what IS HAPPENING NOW:

The neighbor in the post that started this tangent IS MUCH MORE
LIKELY TO SHOOT SOMEONE IN HIS OWN FAMILY...than any intruder.

So are you.

Baldimo wrote:

So just get rid of the guns? Is that your answer?

Nope...and never has been.

I am reconciled to the almost certainty that Americans will NEVER give up their guns in any substantive way…and that we actually have to treat all the mass shooting the same way we treat hurricanes and earthquakes. They are disasters we are not going to avoid…even if we are able to do so.

Fact is, by now most people should realize that moves to ban guns are counterproductive. Reasonable people are voted out of office because of one issue voters seeing that they are voted out.

The effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to own guns has to be subtle as vanilla pudding. We may make a bit of progress that way...a tiny bit.

So…does than answer your question, Baldimo?

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

unfortunately, the neighbor is MUCH MORE LIKELY to shoot someone in his family...than any intruder.

Not sure why you doubt it...but...

I dont see a problem
with running safety in firearms handling courses in the public schools,
from the very earliest years.

David

I understand you don't have a problem with it, David.

But the facts speak for themselves...and the facts indicate that a gun owner is MUCH more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder…so the fact that you don’t see a problem really doesn’t come into play.

Its only a question of knowing what your target is
and knowing what is behind your target.
That can be and shud be tawt in Kindergarten.
Its not hard to understand. Maybe run practice drills.





David

Yes, David. But that is not the way it works.

Your suggestions on this are like advising someone to buy stocks when they are low and selling them when they are high. Great advice...but of no value.

People can own guns (be gun owners) and shoot more "intruders" than family members if blah, blah, blah.

But that is not what is happening...NOT BY A LONG SHOT (pun intended)!

Because of the implications of what IS HAPPENING NOW:

The neighbor in the post that started this tangent IS MUCH MORE
LIKELY TO SHOOT SOMEONE IN HIS OWN FAMILY...than any intruder.

That 's what early in-school training is FOR;
the same as when I was in school, I was told that I 'd not graduate
until I cud swim the width of the pool.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So are you.

I don t believe u, Frank.
I will not discharge my weapon without knowing
what is on the other end of the muzzle and what is behind that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

So just get rid of the guns? Is that your answer?

Nope...and never has been.

I am reconciled to the almost certainty that Americans will NEVER give up their guns in any substantive way…and that we actually have to treat all the mass shooting the same way we treat hurricanes and earthquakes. They are disasters we are not going to avoid…even if we are able to do so.

Fact is, by now most people should realize that moves to ban guns are counterproductive. Reasonable people are voted out of office because of one issue voters seeing that they are voted out.

The effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to own guns has to be subtle as vanilla pudding. We may make a bit of progress that way...a tiny bit.

So…does than answer your question, Baldimo?

FOR THE RECORD:
I have advocated that people who have proven themselves
to constitute intolerable threats of violence to the decent people
shud be removed from the North American Continent, after conviction,
with the truthful admonition that sneaking back in will be treated as a CAPITAL CRIME.

Having said that, I will point out that the USSC has ruled
that "equal protection of the laws" does not even allow
government to discriminate qua a few minutes of time
in relatively poor seating on a public bus.
A fortiori, the right to defend yourself, defend your LIFE,
from the predatory violence (i.e., to have the means to DO so)
of animals or of criminals, cannot be the subject of government discrimination.
Everyone has an equal right to defend his life.

Accordingly, background checks serve no useful nor Constitutional purpose.





David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

So just get rid of the guns? Is that your answer?

Nope...and never has been.

I am reconciled to the almost certainty that Americans will NEVER give up their guns in any substantive way…and that we actually have to treat all the mass shooting the same way we treat hurricanes and earthquakes. They are disasters we are not going to avoid…even if we are able to do so.

Fact is, by now most people should realize that moves to ban guns are counterproductive. Reasonable people are voted out of office because of one issue voters seeing that they are voted out.

The effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to own guns has to be subtle as vanilla pudding. We may make a bit of progress that way...a tiny bit.

So…does than answer your question, Baldimo?

FOR THE RECORD:
I have advocated that people who have proven themselves
to constitute intolerable threats of violence to the decent people
shud be removed from the North American Continent, after conviction,
with the truthful admonition that sneaking back in will be treated as a CAPITAL CRIME.

Having said that, I will point out that the USSC has ruled
that "equal protection of the laws" does not even allow
government to discriminate qua a few minutes of time
in relatively poor seating on a public bus.
A fortiori, the right to defend yourself, defend your LIFE,
from the predatory violence (i.e., to have the means to DO so)
of animals or of criminals, cannot be the subject of government discrimination.
Everyone has an equal right to defend his life.

Accordingly, background checks serve no useful nor Constitutional purpose.





David

Thank you for sharing that.

In any case, I do not think any meaningful gun legislation will pass.

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

So just get rid of the guns? Is that your answer?

Nope...and never has been.

I am reconciled to the almost certainty that Americans will NEVER give up their guns in any substantive way…and that we actually have to treat all the mass shooting the same way we treat hurricanes and earthquakes. They are disasters we are not going to avoid…even if we are able to do so.

Fact is, by now most people should realize that moves to ban guns are counterproductive. Reasonable people are voted out of office because of one issue voters seeing that they are voted out.

The effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to own guns has to be subtle as vanilla pudding. We may make a bit of progress that way...a tiny bit.

So…does than answer your question, Baldimo?

FOR THE RECORD:
I have advocated that people who have proven themselves
to constitute intolerable threats of violence to the decent people
shud be removed from the North American Continent, after conviction,
with the truthful admonition that sneaking back in will be treated as a CAPITAL CRIME.

Having said that, I will point out that the USSC has ruled
that "equal protection of the laws" does not even allow
government to discriminate qua a few minutes of time
in relatively poor seating on a public bus.
A fortiori, the right to defend yourself, defend your LIFE,
from the predatory violence (i.e., to have the means to DO so)
of animals or of criminals, cannot be the subject of government discrimination.
Everyone has an equal right to defend his life.

Accordingly, background checks serve no useful nor Constitutional purpose.





David

Thank you for sharing that.

In any case, I do not think any meaningful gun legislation will pass.

Thank u, Frank.
With all respect, what COUNTS
is which statutes that interfere with the right of self defense
will be nullified n voided, by application of the 2nd Amendment.
(It shud be ALL of them, with the same resulting freedom
to carry guns as to carry Bibles or to carry the Wall Street Journal.)





David

It certainly would not surprise me if some of the laws passed to bring our country closer to sanity...were repealed.
The people in your camp hold most of the high cards right now.

Frank Apisa wrote:

It certainly would not surprise me if some of the laws passed to bring our country closer to sanity...were repealed.
The people in your camp hold most of the high cards right now.

Those "sanity" laws spit on the Bill of Rights
and upon American Constitutional Freedom.

Thay were conspicuously un-Constitutional.
Innocent Americans died because of those laws.





David

FOR THE RECORD:
I have advocated that people who have proven themselves
to constitute intolerable threats of violence to the decent people
shud be removed from the North American Continent, after conviction,
with the truthful admonition that sneaking back in will be treated as a CAPITAL CRIME.

Having said that, I will point out that the USSC has ruled
that "equal protection of the laws" does not even allow
government to discriminate qua a few minutes of time
in relatively poor seating on a public bus.
A fortiori, the right to defend yourself, defend your LIFE,
from the predatory violence (i.e., to have the means to DO so)
of animals or of criminals, cannot be the subject of government discrimination.
Everyone has an equal right to defend his life.

Accordingly, background checks serve no useful nor Constitutional purpose.





David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

FOR THE RECORD:
I have advocated that people who have proven themselves
to constitute intolerable threats of violence to the decent people
shud be removed from the North American Continent, after conviction,
with the truthful admonition that sneaking back in will be treated as a CAPITAL CRIME.

Having said that, I will point out that the USSC has ruled
that "equal protection of the laws" does not even allow
government to discriminate qua a few minutes of time
in relatively poor seating on a public bus.
A fortiori, the right to defend yourself, defend your LIFE,
from the predatory violence (i.e., to have the means to DO so)
of animals or of criminals, cannot be the subject of government discrimination.
Everyone has an equal right to defend his life.

Accordingly, background checks serve no useful nor Constitutional purpose.





David

And David shows once again, he doesn't give a damn about the Constitution.
He only wants to use it selfishly when it comes to what he wants to do.