Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

In America kids dont feel safe to play outside comparing them to those kids in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

You need to first show us the numbers of places or cities where kids are being threaten!

If you look at the places that have the no gun zones then I would agree, but you would do well to not give us half truths.

Gun free zones are much more dangerous then area of the country that have passed "Shall Issue" law.

Be honest!

originally posted by: Chiftel
a reply to: roadgravel

The 2nd amendment clearly means the National Guard, if anything.

Not common citizenry.

You have shown us you ass once again with your blithering ignorance...Good job!

a reply to: HauntWok

go get familiar with the preamble to the bill of rights.

and the reason the bill of rights was penned.

you might be sick of the deaths due to guns, but
the history of what happens when guns are taken
away from citizens is the very reason that the bill of rights was penned.

denying ignorance in yourself is the hardest thing to do.

originally posted by: Chiftel
a reply to: roadgravel

What good is that if you don't stop and search each and every single vehicle attempting to enter the state?

I mean, pass it through a x-ray scanner like they do trucks and containers at the border or luggage at the airport.

See how money shooting still occur in those states afterwards.

However, gun ownership would need to be completely outlawed and guns confiscated, like in Australia after the Port Arthur shooting.

Half-measures don't work.

You either go all the way or might as well not even bother.

Either a full, federal gun ban + confiscation or nothing.

What rock have you been living under to have missed the latest supreme court decision?

They have clearly stated that the BILL OF RIGHTS along with the article two were all deemed to be individual rights!

Where in hell do you come up with this crap?

a reply to: HauntWok


the inalienable right to life presupposes the right to self defense.

a reply to: spirited75

Of course it does, but it doesn't "presuppose" the method of defending ones self, or the tools by which to apply that defense.

It only means that if capable you have the right to defend yourself.

a reply to: waltwillis

walt she lives in the country Hungary.

you know the country that surrendered all their privately owned
firearms to the communists in 1939, which resulted in 2.5
million Hungarians murdered by their communist government,
and whom the gun toting Americans freed from Communist
dictatorship in 1992 and just now 22 years later the Hungarians
are writing a constitution to become a democracy.

she is advising us on the logic of our firearms laws.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: spirited75

Yeah i am proposing another one.

Why? Because we have a serious problem in this country and is the mass shooting.

We can't ignore it any longer. Too many children are dying at the hands of people who purchased firearms legally and then went on rampages.

We can fix this, we can keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Crazy people...Take another look into the mirror.

It all come down to freedom of choice, you wish to control the lives of others because you know better than the founding fathers, or you could have your meds increased and move to a country that has you mindset.

Bizarre behavior is rooted is abnormal thinking...

I know that it is not nice to call a crazy person crazy, but if the foo sh*ts then wear it!

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Chicago has lots of gun restrictions, but their death rate is up. In towns where the gun laws are not so restrictive and more folks have guns; there's not
as much crime.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Of course it does, but it doesn't "presuppose" the method of defending ones self, or the tools by which to apply that defense.

But the Founders were intelligent enough to indicate the best method. Arms.

a reply to: HauntWok

of course in three hundred years it will mean a laser rifle and phaser guns.

if it had been written in 100 b.c. it would have meant
bows arrows and spears and swords.

arms is arms.

people cannot defend their life with words.

originally posted by: spirited75
of course in three hundred years it will mean a laser rifle and phaser guns.

I already pre-ordered my phased plasma rifle in the 40 Watt range.

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: spirited75

Of course it does, but it doesn't "presuppose" the method of defending ones self, or the tools by which to apply that defense.

It only means that if capable you have the right to defend yourself.

physical strength is offset when a woman pulls a gun on a rapist.

she is defending her life.

she is using arms.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: waltwillis

walt she lives in the country Hungary.

you know the country that surrendered all their privately owned
firearms to the communists in 1939, which resulted in 2.5
million Hungarians murdered by their communist government,
and whom the gun toting Americans freed from Communist
dictatorship in 1992 and just now 22 years later the Hungarians
are writing a constitution to become a democracy.

she is advising us on the logic of our firearms laws.

Thanks! That explains it perfectly...

This clown has absolutely no sense of logic what so ever.

It is no wonder that country has big problems.

I have never in my long life heard such garbage from anyone.

The number one weapon use to murder in this country has been a blunt instrument and not a gun.

Fools never let facts get in the way...

I got a little secret to share with you high tech guys...

We have had so called ray guns a s far back as the 1970's.

I know how to build one.

The problem is that they leave no ballistic evidence.

The teacher should be dead by now so I may share that information some day if our government won't.

I'm already on their short list as trouble...but I've got friends in some VERY HIGH places.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: Chiftel

you come from a country that just created a brand
new constitution changing your country from a
communist totalitarian to democracy just two years
ago and you think you understand the constitution
better than me and i have lived here under the
constitution for sixty years?

What are you on about, elderly man? I already told you you're confused about countries.

And the soviet union and eastern block dismantled 25 years ago.

Of course I can understand better. And it clearly took me less than 60 years to do it.

Better, newer product.

Or is this how I will be in my old age too?

I hope not.

originally posted by: waltwillis
Where in hell do you come up with this crap?

The SCOTUS are clearly off their rocker then.

Perhaps it's because all the judges there are a bit long in the tooth as well?

As in senile and decrepit.

Anachronistic.

Fossilized remnants of an era gone by.

a reply to: Chiftel

she is from romania
with an emphasis on mania.

Romania

Gun ownership in Romania is regulated by Law 39/2004. Romania has one of the toughest gun ownership laws in the world.[37] In order for citizens to obtain a non-lethal weapon, they must obtain a permit from the police, and must register their weapon once they purchased it. Civilians cannot purchase a lethal firearm. The only categories of people who are legally entitled to carry a weapon are magistrates, MPs military forces and certain categories of diplomats. A psychological evaluation is required beforehand in all cases. Furthermore, knives with a blade longer than 15 cm are considered weapons and have a similar regime to those of firearms.[38]

In order for a hunter to obtain a hunting/gun ownership license, he must spend a certain "practice time" with a professional hunter.

Minors (15 and older) may also use a weapon, provided that they are under the supervision of someone who has a gun license. However, they cannot own or carry one until the age of 18.[39]

The use of guns for self-defense is only allowed if the gun is a last resort option.

romania has as piss poor history of guns as hungary

a reply to: spirited75

Now, look up the gun related homicides for Hungary. Compare that with the same population in the US.

How many mass shootings has Hungary had in the last say 10 years?

Indeed. And only gunshot murders we've had are police or military personnel (invariably male) killing their spouses and girlfriends (I think there have been 3 or 4 such shootings in the last 25 years). But even these are rarer than hen's teeth.

Cause gun control actually works.

If it's not done half-arsedly, as if to purposely fail.

Oh, wait. I actually lied. There was this one guy that used his hunting shotgun to murder his wife's (a former model) lover but got away scot-free cause it was ruled self defence.

So yeah. Less guns = less shootings and less shooting deaths.

Practically no guns = practically no shootings and no shooting deaths.

More guns = more usage of guns. Not just against game.

originally posted by: HauntWok

I disagree, this is well within congresses purview to discipline the militia as outlined on article I section 8 of the united states constitution.

This only applies when the State releases control to the Federal Govt. I have shown this to you several times. Your willful ignorance to continue to tout this around like it gives automatic and full control to the Fed Govt.

originally posted by: HauntWok
I don't think this is prohibitive, and if it is, perhaps the gun owner has more important things to think about than his arsenal of guns.

So, infringement via taxation.
And I bet you are one that screams loudest about certain things being priced out of the grasp of people. Yet, it is okay for firearms, which is a protected right, has this applied to it.
I do love the self imposed authority you exert with this statement. You will go full elitist as to what people should spend their money on, in relation to firearms, but you will cry the loudest about people being made to pay their own way for food or healthcare.

originally posted by: HauntWok
The costs of these mass shootings are enormous, and a majority of these are by leople that have purchased firearms legally.

So, cost is the major factor then.
Please, show the cost of when crimes are stopped by private ownership of firearms.

originally posted by: HauntWok
And is not a tax as the money is specifically used for gun crime prevention, victim compensation, awareness and education.

So, you are now going to argue what is and what is not a tax, while stating that people should incur a tax, because it is not a tax due to it going to "help" someone.
That is the moronic statement of the day.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Why not this instead of a gun ban, which as the war on drugs has taught is does not work. It keeps all firearms legal and readily available, and helps make law abiding gun owners (the militia) accountable for members of their ranks.

A ban, restrictions, extra steps or taxes are all infringement of a Right.

When you will agree to any of these "common sense" BS pitches for any of the other rights, maybe you might have a leg to stand on.