BREAKING: Active Shooter Thousand Oaks

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

No it don't.

Every time a drunk gets behind the wheel and kills someone Gunphobes don't call for tougher regulation on driving.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

No it don't.

Every time a drunk gets behind the wheel and kills someone Gunphobes don't call for tougher regulation on driving.

Oh, so since people still drink and drive, we should just go ahead and redact those laws eh?

How about medical research? People still get sick, so let's just say # all and cease the research altogether?

Again, there's no goddamned reason it should be harder to import a freaking car than it is to get a tool designed to kill.
Period.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Are you a lifelong resident of Texas or did you move in from Cali?

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Come up with a better argument than that snip.

Read the Gd bill of RIGHTS.

Pay close attention to the 2nd,5th, and 14th amendments.

Especially that last one after the last two weeks.

a reply to: neo96
Bill of rights can be changed with the correct majority in the house/senate. It is not set in stone.
Regarding gun laws though, restricting ownership would only affect law abiding citizens, and with so many firearms in circulation in the US that would seem a stupid idea to me.
Again, people who are crazy will always find ways to kill, look at London, record rates of murder by stabbing now.
Ban kitchen knives?

originally posted by: Bhadhidar

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: roadgravel

Perhaps, but if so then why make a point to include this bit:

The white male from California died of a gunshot wound at the scene. According to NBC News, the shooter drove his mother’s vehicle to the bar.

?

a reply to: odzeandennz

Indeed, he could have used any number of other items to cause physical injury and or death. Why does it matter what object was used? Would people have been any less dead had he used say a vehicle or a baseball bat?

Who cares? Who honestly cares if the shooter killed 12 people or 120 people or 1.2 million people. It doesn't matter. Owning guns is more important that any amount of lives. Even folks like you and me deserve to die so that US citizens can easily acquire guns.

Was a terrible car accident around where I live a month or so ago

You don’t care at all though about those deaths or the millions of vehicle deaths though do you?

You know boy care about your right to travel in automobiles

See how dumb that sounds?

This tragedy was not the result of an “accident”.

And, although the freedom to travel may be a right, no one has the “right” to, specifically, travel in an automobile: in fact, driving an automobile is a “privilege” which may be denied, suspended, or permanently revoked.

Hmmm.

So the right to “bear arms” may be ensconced in the Constitution (as may be the right to travel), but the Constitution does not, specifically, define the nature of those arms, nor does it specifically prohibit the exclusion of certain “arms”.

Interesting!

The point of the automobile argument is that it is absurd to say people definding their right to bear arms dont care about people dying, just like it would be to say car owners dont care about people that die in vehicle deaths.

And yes, people do die in vehicular homicides, not just accidents.

Driving is a privilege as opposed to a right outlined in the constitution, but that makes my argument even stronger.

So automobile defenders dont even have a constitutionally outlined right to use them, but still dont care about deaths as long as they have convenience.

So yes, this makes my point even stringer as to why that type of argument about 2nd amendment defenders is absurd.

As far as specific weopon tyes; so what now the 2nd doesnt protect handguns?

Do you think only muskets are acceptable under the 2nd?

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Are you a lifelong resident of Texas or did you move in from Cali?

Lived in cali for the 3 1/2 years I was stationed at pendleton. During that time I was gifted a colt 1911 from a close friend.

Moved to Texas some time ago and shortly after my wife bought me a Springfield M1 to celebrate landing a baller ass job.

I know certain can't help but to separate complex issues into either black or white, but the real world doesn't work that way.

I hope I answered your question.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Is he a Muslim terrorist?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Come up with a better argument than that snip.

Read the Gd bill of RIGHTS.

Pay close attention to the 2nd,5th, and 14th amendments.

Especially that last one after the last two weeks.

You need help moving those goalpost? I know a guy with a raptor.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Good luck with that.

Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

But who needs civil liberty anyway.

Collective guilt for snip people don't do is where it's at.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Guns are effective tools as well as weapons.

As are vehicles.

Yes, guns are designed to kill, but not specifically humans. Just like knifes are designed to cut, but not specifally humans.

Why does it matter what the intent of the item is, rather than the result?

If a childrens toy is designed for fun, but kids keep choking on it and dying, do we care what its was designed for?

But your argument is that although cars kill WAY more people, they should get a pass because of the intent of their design over guns.

The 2nd amendment is there for a reason.

We have a right to own guns, they are effective tools for protection and the hunting of game, and protect us from tyranny.

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: Wayfarer

I have a 95 beretta I'll sell you for 100 bucks. It runs and drives fine, and will kill as many people as you can hit with it. It's kind of a death trap to the people in it too, and no background check required what so ever

Why are all these folks shooting up these places then if cars are way easier and more effective means of killing?

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Goal post moving?

Proselytizing for institutionalized discrimination which GUN CONTROL is?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: Wayfarer

I have a 95 beretta I'll sell you for 100 bucks. It runs and drives fine, and will kill as many people as you can hit with it. It's kind of a death trap to the people in it too, and no background check required what so ever

Why are all these folks shooting up these places then if cars are way easier and more effective means of killing?

Because its easier to kill people with guns, particulaarly in a building.

I concede that.

So then you would just outlaw the tool that is easiest to kill people with.

So ok, lets say we get rid of guns.

Now 5 years from now we check again.

Now killers are using cars the most. So do we now ban cars?

Then five years later its knives.

The point is, once we start banning the tool most used, when do we stop?

I pripose we stop focuing on the tool, and focus more on the type of people that use the tool to kill, and how to help on that end.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: roadgravel

Perhaps, but if so then why make a point to include this bit:

The white male from California died of a gunshot wound at the scene. According to NBC News, the shooter drove his mother’s vehicle to the bar.

?

a reply to: odzeandennz

Indeed, he could have used any number of other items to cause physical injury and or death. Why does it matter what object was used? Would people have been any less dead had he used say a vehicle or a baseball bat?

Who cares? Who honestly cares if the shooter killed 12 people or 120 people or 1.2 million people. It doesn't matter. Owning guns is more important that any amount of lives. Even folks like you and me deserve to die so that US citizens can easily acquire guns.

Was a terrible car accident around where I live a month or so ago

You don’t care at all though about those deaths or the millions of vehicle deaths though do you?

You know boy care about your right to travel in automobiles

See how dumb that sounds?

Uh, I can go buy a gun at a gun show with no identification for 100$. Praytell where I can go buy a car to kill as many people with that kinda moolah.

I can rent a 12 ton truck for $20 for a day. So I could fill those up with what? and get 5 of them for your $100 gun!

Or I could steal one for free.

a reply to: neo96
The constitution can be changed with the correct majority percentage in the house/senate.
I'm not arguing that it should, I think banning guns would be a stupid idea as only law abiding folk would give them up.
I'm arguing and asserting that the constitution CAN be changed. You are wrong to assert otherwise, it is a legal document which government can change, stop deluding yourself that it is set in stone forever.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: Wayfarer

I have a 95 beretta I'll sell you for 100 bucks. It runs and drives fine, and will kill as many people as you can hit with it. It's kind of a death trap to the people in it too, and no background check required what so ever

Why are all these folks shooting up these places then if cars are way easier and more effective means of killing?

Because its easier to kill people with guns, particulaarly in a building.

I concede that.

So then you would just outlaw the tool that is easiest to kill people with.

So ok, lets say we get rid of guns.

Now 5 years from now we check again.

Now killers are using cars the most. So do we now ban cars?

Then five years later its knives.

The point is, once we start banning the tool most used, when do we stop?

I pripose we stop focuing on the tool, and focus more on the type of people that use the tool to kill, and how to help on that end.

I dunno man, sounds a bit like a defeatist attitude. It stops after we correct all the avenue's that make it easy for crazies to kill people. Barricades for cars, etc.

There is a solution to it all, just not the will. Surprisingly, on the whole most 2nd amendment supporters seem to change their tune when they or their own loved ones are the victims of gun violence.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Just another normal day in the good ol' civilized USA. So much so, that CNN's top news so far this morning is politics and Trump. Here in Canada, the mass shooting is getting more coverage...

My heart goes out to the victim's families.

It really boggles the mind so many people are willing to let the state disarm them.

That's worked out so well all over the globe.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: roadgravel

Perhaps, but if so then why make a point to include this bit:

The white male from California died of a gunshot wound at the scene. According to NBC News, the shooter drove his mother’s vehicle to the bar.

?

a reply to: odzeandennz

Indeed, he could have used any number of other items to cause physical injury and or death. Why does it matter what object was used? Would people have been any less dead had he used say a vehicle or a baseball bat?

Who cares? Who honestly cares if the shooter killed 12 people or 120 people or 1.2 million people. It doesn't matter. Owning guns is more important that any amount of lives. Even folks like you and me deserve to die so that US citizens can easily acquire guns.

Was a terrible car accident around where I live a month or so ago

You don’t care at all though about those deaths or the millions of vehicle deaths though do you?

You know boy care about your right to travel in automobiles

See how dumb that sounds?

Uh, I can go buy a gun at a gun show with no identification for 100$. Praytell where I can go buy a car to kill as many people with that kinda moolah.

I can rent a 12 ton truck for $20 for a day. So I could fill those up with what? and get 5 of them for your $100 gun!

Or I could steal one for free.

Sure, but again I'd ask, whats killed more people recently, crazies driving cars/trucks into crowds, or crazies shooting up people with guns?