Four kids, two adults shot dead near Houston

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.

Do you really think people like Spirited give a rat's ass about those kids or anyone else killed, maimed or injured using legally owned firearms?

Of course he doesn't. And he represents the majority opinion on the matter. Nothing will change, just accept this fact.

Unless something like 20 Port Arthurs at once happens, nothing will change.

All you can do is just point out and remind people of the actual cause.

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.

Since when does 'discipline' equal 'purchase of a product from a third party'?

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.

Setting aside your silly rhetoric what if it is a first time gun owner who does not come from the means to afford insurance? What then? Do you disenfranchise them?

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

And? The cost of all crime is enormous, do we force insurance to be purchased for all other activity with the notion that someone may commit an illegal activity? The thought is absurd.

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

It is the equivalent to a poll tax as no other enumerated right has a required fiscal burden before one can exercise that right.

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.

As I stated repeatedly, if even one person cannot afford your proposed insurance then they are disenfranchised from their Constitutional right, and that is wholly unacceptable.

I live in a rural area of Texas. You know, the place everyone hates and says the people are wild west gun happy killers.

People on ranches and the cities (2000, 3000 population) all have firearms. 99%+ of the deaths are old age and traffic accidents. A shooting is rare in my county. 2 incidents in the last 12 years. One of those was two kids drifting through.

Telling all people they cannot possess firearms because they are not responsible is stupid and illogical. Carry on with the paranoia but don't expect people out here to comply with the 'give'm up' wishes.

a reply to: HauntWok
there are already laws on the books about this.
the current laws just need to be enforced.

here is a law that has been on the books since 1992.

"It is a felony crime punishable by five years in prison for a convicted felon to attempt to purchase a firearm."

Every year about 80,000 to 100,000 attempts to purchase firearms are denied due to the person attempting has a felony on their record.

Do you know how many of these were referred for prosecution in 2010?

27 of them, and then only 5 were actually pursued by the US DOJ (Eric Holder).

Enforce the laws on the books say law abiding firearms owners.

also the guy who shot these six people had some domestic violence charges on his record?
Why were these convictions ignored?

enforce the existing laws

You are perfectly correct, Spirited.

What is needed is not another law. It's a simple, sweeping ban + confiscation of all firearms.

And a simple change in the penal code such that if you are in possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony or you're an accomplice or accessory to someone who is, you get the chair, squad, noose or injection, whatever the actual felony.

originally posted by: Chiftel
What is needed is not another law. It's a simple, sweeping ban + confiscation of all firearms.

And happily, neither one will take place.

Unfortunately, yes.

Shouldn't the government have known that a person who has a traffic accident was not qualified to drive and therefore should not have been issued a license and allow to purchase or use a car?

What about a man who gets drunk and beats his wife or another person. Why was he allowed to drink? Guess we need to ban alcohol again.

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?

a reply to: Chiftel
that law is already on the books.

fix hungary then come here and fix us.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Firearms are not an inalienable right. You have a right to own a firearm, but if you can't afford one it doesn't mean you are disenfranchised.

Double post, don't shoot me!

originally posted by: HauntWok
Firearms are not an inalienable right. You have a right to own a firearm, but if you can't afford one it doesn't mean you are disenfranchised.

Now you are being disingenuous. I said afford to buy your proposed insurance.

If a person can afford the firearm but not your insurance then they are disenfranchised.

a reply to: Chiftel

sooner or later, again, armed Americans will have to
cross the ocean and bail out the unarmed
Europeans who surrendered their firearms in the
name of saving and protecting the children.


it is as impossible for a european to understand freedom and liberty
as it is for a man to understand pregnancy.

a reply to: HauntWok

the right to self defense is an inalienable right.
the current and common tools for that are arms.

the right to self defense is not to be alienated from the
being who possesses that right nor can the tools and
means for self defense be prohibited.

originally posted by: HauntWok
Double post, don't shoot me!

you shoot off at the mouth via a double
post and implore us to not shoot you.
why dont you stop shooting first.?

a reply to: Chiftel

LETS SEE GUNS WERE OUTLAWED IN HUNGARY IN 1935 AND THE RESULT WAS 2.5 MILLION CIVILIAN DEATHS BY THE GOVERNMENT.

AND YOU ARE PROPOSING FROM HUNGARY THAT THE SAME THING HAPPENS HERE?

a reply to: spirited75

You have an inalienable right to life. That being said a gun is a tool, and people have successfully defended their lives without guns for thousands of years before the invention of the firearm.

The right to keep and bear arms is an amendment to the constitution, if the pro gun crowd is obstinate for too long, they may find themselves facing the repeal of that amendment when the majority of the population gets sick of all the violence by people who up to the point of the act were law abiding gun owners.

The theory that we can't stop or curb these kinds of violent acts is a copout, we can, and we can do it without taking guns away from responsible gun owners.

The oak is mighty, but instead of bending will break, the willow bends, and remains upright.

originally posted by: Chiftel
Mister spirited75 can't handle the hoplophobe point of view so tried to make this about me not being a US citizen. I should not have responded to the prodding.

So if you are not an American citizen you have no skin in this fight?

Why don't you screw up your own country?

Or did you?