"they are all incapable of having a rational conversation because they are dumb and use their guns to compensate for their all their lackings"
Didya all get that?
Anyone that disagrees with the frothy rantings of "few" is "dumb", and doing so out of a compensatory desire to overcome inherent short-comings based upon firearm ownership, which is the obviously the only way their ideologies can manifest themselves.
Miss "few"--I'll hereby pronounce it "F.U." as in, "Hey, F.U.!"--how do you attempt to overcome the multitudes of personal character flaws and intellectual liabilities you possess in such incredible abundance?
By posting unhinged rants devoid of fact/s or substance in public threads?
Wanna actually discuss studies done on gun violence--I've already provided a link to one, your turn, or is it easier to just implode, then explode--KABLOOIE!--for our general amusement?
Hyper-regressives. whack-jobs and moon-bats like "happyfew" are saddened because there are still some in the populace that don't need the gov't to think, act, do for them--a perpetual problem with personal accountability and individual responsibility is her's to overcome, not mine--and as far as political infleunce peddling; there's nothing like liberals who spend to get their way:
From the link: "One of the first things you may notice about the 2014 list is that of the top 20 organizations, only two favor Republicans. The rest, with the exception of one “on the fence” trade association, all strongly prefer liberal policies and Democratic candidates. ActBlue, long a major player in directing small contributions to Democrats, tops the list of organizations. In addition, 11 of the top 20 organizations are unions. This is a pronounced shift from 2012. In that election cycle, seven of the top 20 organizations favored conservatives."
"Few", I'm curious: How does it feel to be so wrong, so often, so publicly? Is this some form of masochism manifesting itself for our amusement, or are you an intentional plant by the Repubs to make liberals look foolish and ignorant?
gun nuts can only regurgitate nra BS. the nra has stopped all true gun statistics analysis because they know it will show guns kill a lot of people and should be heavily regulated. they are all incapable of having a rational conversation because they are dumb and use their guns to compensate for their all their lackings. so go off gun nuts... it is the only thing you know how to do.
Mickey, this matter has been discussed, debated, argued and screamed about for decades; centuries, actually.
In the end, the 2nd stands unaltered, and shall remain so, regardless of the short-sighted, knee-jerk reactionaries than feel compelled to take action/s against inanimate hunks of metal and steel instead of those that wield them.
Far easier to tackle a tool than a person, or a flawed, ephemeral concept instead of the fact that crime rates have been going down for decades:
(Except in hyper-liberal locales like Baltimore, Detroit, D.C., NOLA and everyone's favorite open-air range, Chi-Town, where the failed POTUS hails from):
Hundreds of millions of peaceable, law-abiding citizens own hundreds of millions of guns that will never be involved in any crimes--much less homicides--yet regressives insist on "helping" a fractional minority at the expense the vast, VAST majority in yet another example of pointless posturing and "Look, I care and am doing something!" self-aggrandizement and personal back-patting.
Lemme guess, Mickey; you support Obamacare as well, even though it's a legislative tire-fire, built on intential deception and falsehood, sold to the "stupid" (their words, not mine) and an expensive boon-dgoggle that has led to millions of policy cancellations and insurers that were to be a cornerstone of this leaving the marketplace.
Please Google the "Law of Unintended Consequences" when time allows...
"Lets have a dialog on this..."
Well, Mick, I've actually provided factual evidence that your lack of support for the 2nd Amendment and calls for its abolishment are not only misguided and counter-intuitive, they're abysmally myopic and self-serving.
Again, if you don't want to own a weapon, that is certainly your prergogative, but it truly stops there, as decisions you make for yourself have absolutely zero bearing on what mine were, are or may be.
Bottom line is, such extreme and intrusive proposals are doomed to failure, and even suggesting them exposes you to exactly the kind of ridicule and disparagement you've been receiving here.
You want respect? Fine, earn it, which won't happen by suggsting you're the arbiter of what is properly Constitutional or applicable to me and my household. An example?
"the reason the framers added this to the bill of rights at that high of a position is no longer valid or needed in this millennium"
Says who? Just because you feel it's outdated and inapplicable in contemporary society doesn't mean others do, so please, save us the platitudes and faux-superiority; you're on the losing side of this debate, and shall continue to remain so, my condolences for maintaining lock-jaw subservience to such an inherently flawed ideology, and since you find yourself in such a deep rhetrocial hole, my advice would be: quit digging!
"You folks seem to continue to push this false message that gun safety legislation is going to take your guns away," - Lil Mick
Not all of them all at once. But countless legislators and politicians have espoused doing basically that by adopting restrictions like those in the UK and Australia, where owning even a shotgun is very difficult and everything else much more so, and where massive "mandatory buy backs" and turn-ins were held -- AKA confiscations and bans. You can claim that no one wants to do this until you are blue in the face, but you are only fooling yourself.
"Background checks help to keep guns away from those that may want to harm others" - Lil Mick
Universal background checks do not. They were such a spectacular failure in California that they have continued to pile on more and more restrictions. In the first year in Colorado, there were fewer such checks done after the law made them mandatory than there were done voluntarily the year before. They are useless and unenforceable.
"and smaller magazines will give victims a chance to get away when the perpetrator has to reload."
Largely a myth. It takes only a second or two to reload. Most people can't even react fast enough to take a few steps in that amount of time and if a tactical reload is done (the Sandy Hook gunmen appears to have done 6 to 9 of these), then a person can still be shot during the reload. In most cases where people have been able to react, it was due to a malfunction (Tucson, AZ shooting) or a completely fumbled reload.
"To me that is common sense gun safety legislation." - Lil Mick
And to many others, it makes no sense at all. What you call common sense, others call common appeal. Just because many people believe it and support it does not mean it makes sense or will work.
Now, as to comparing cars and firearms. Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. We only license people to drive on publicly maintained roads. They can own vehicles and drive all they want on private property without a license. So compared to firearms, that would be the same as licensing for concealed or open carry in public places, but not to buy or to carry or shoot on private land. It is not the same as a background check.
As to the types of vehicles we can own and use, the restrictions are again only regarding use on public roads. You can own any vehicle you want and drive it on private property all you want. So applying your analogy, we could still own and shoot AR-15s, we would just not be able to carry them in public places.
"we need to discuss this issue, too many people in this country are dying from gun deaths, " - Lil Mick
The rate has been trending down even as the number of firearms in circulation has been dramatically trending up.
We need to quit focusing on the object used and start focusing on the behavior and the causes of the behavior. In simple terms, when it comes to gun violence, quit obsessing about the "gun" part and start addressing the "violence" part. With over 300 million firearms in private hands and over 10 million AR-15 type rifles in private hands, if the objects were truly the problem, we would be looking at a lot more deaths than we are seeing.
"Rules of Engagement for an Adult Dialog" - Lil Mick
That is cute, coming from you.
LibertyForAll and Odin
Rules of Engagement for an Adult Dialog
1. Respect Opinions
That's right, we all have them, we are all entitled to them, and we have the right to share
them. Most importantly, opinions are never wrong...respect them.
2. Facts are Debatable
This should be what the dialog centers on, are the facts one presents to back up the
opinion correct or not. Facts can be wrong.
3. No Name Calling or Labeling
Seriously, do I really need to add this...apparently thanks to Liberty and Odin, I do.
There ya go, lets have a good dialog, an example...
The only lasting solution to the gun issue is to repeal the 2nd amendment.
- Guns are the only privately manufactured and marketed good that we constitutionally protect the owner ship for.
- This constitutional protection has helped two private industries, the gun lobby and gun manufactures to reap in billions in profits.
- The actual reason the framers put it in the bill of rights right under number one, is because they wanted to protect their right to maintain a civilian army "militia's". They were a bit paranoid and I understand why. This reason no longer exists.
Because the reason the framers added this to the bill of rights at that high of a position is no longer valid or needed in this millennium. Since that was the only reason and now all it does is allow the private gun lobby and marketers to profit, then the amendment is no longer needed and should be repealed.
Lets have a dialog on this...
Once again, LibertyForAll, has to attack me, call me names and attach labels to me and my opinions.
It's as though they seem to operate like we don't have a right to our opinion when it differs from theirs.
LibertyForAll and Odin, are incapable of a friendly, respectful dialog. They have to attack the messenger.
When one of you folks can debate my thoughts and opinions, completely on the merits and not say one word about me, I will respectfully respond back.
It is in fact what I am trying to introduce here, friendly, respectful, mature dialog on our difference of opinions. :)
Just to inform the rest of you...The "always hyperbolic, fact-averse "Mick" is a he, not a she.
Although I am a long haired, pagan man.
You are all in my prayers as far as your wild fires this season. Hoping Manitou is doing well, I lived in the Springs when they were having those horrendous floods.
Peace and Love to You All. :)
Folks, here we have the always hyperbolic, fact-averse "Mick" trying vainly to drum up support for more over-reaching, excessively-regulated, "feel good, accomplish nothing" gun control.
While she's certainly free to provide her "VHO" in a public forum such as this, one must wonder what she hopes to accomplish, since shredding her viewpoint is easily achieved with even a minimal amount of logic and basic common-sense which I'll now provide:
"We don't let certain folks drive a car if they for instance have too many DUI's"
Although comparing a firearm to a Firenza is a total apples-to-oranges analogy--but don't stop Mick when she's rolling, LOL!--we actually don't allow criminals to maintain possession.
"Background checks help to keep guns away from those that may want to harm others, and smaller magazines will give victims a chance to get away when the perpetrator has to reload"
Background checks are already in effect, and reload times can be as little as three seconds, regardless of magazine size.
Your link is cute--if as partisan as it gets--and it's telling you don't mention that gun deaths are way, WAY down from their peak in '93 (but since that data doesn't fit your shrill, pre-packaged narrative, we hardly need to wonder why):
Miss Mick, hundreds of millions of citizens have exercised their legal, Constitutionally-protected right to own hundreds of millions of guns, and the ability shall remain, regardless of what your uneducated, ill-informed opinion may be. I know you'd like to dictate what is acceptable for others--thus saving us from ourselves *snort*--but if what me or mine do doesn't affect you and/or yours, please refrain from offering lifestyle choices.
"We have to start considering what is the better good of all and not just ourselves"
The collective, "royal", "We" already has, and the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment have won, while those on your side just keep rattling your cages, which is kinda funny, but mostly ridiculous.
"We have to start acting and thinking like intelligent adults"
You first, but color me skeptical whether you have the means and/or ability...
Gun Deaths Compared to Motor Vehicle Deaths
Motor vehicle deaths are on a steady decline nationwide, thanks to decades of applying proven public health-based injury prevention strategies to reduce death and injury. Meanwhile, gun deaths continue unabated. Guns remain the only consumer products not regulated for health and safety in the United States.
The VPC publishes an annual analysis of federal Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention data comparing gun deaths and motor vehicle deaths on a state-by-state basis. The most recent analysis shows that in 2014, gun deaths outpaced motor vehicle deaths in 21 states and the District of Columbia.
Nine out of 10 American households have access to a motor vehicle while a little less than a third of American households contain a gun. To reduce the unacceptable toll of death and injury, firearms must be regulated for health and safety just as we regulate motor vehicles and all other consumer products.
Larry, in my very humble opinion, I don't think your analogy works at all.
You folks seem to continue to push this false message that gun safety legislation is going to take your guns away, like your analogy on taking cars away. That's just false.
Universal background checks will not take your guns away.
Smaller magazines will not take your guns away.
Background checks help to keep guns away from those that may want to harm others, and smaller magazines will give victims a chance to get away when the perpetrator has to reload.
To me that is common sense gun safety legislation. As long as you are not a risk to others Larry, you may keep your guns, even with the above legislation.
We don't let certain folks drive a car if they for instance have too many DUI's, that can be analogous to someone failing a background check for good reason.
However, if someone wants to drive a car who is not licensed can still do so, just as a person denied a gun sale can still get a gun if they really want to. None of these laws are absolute, of course folks can get around it if they want.
That doesn't mean we just give up and let drunks drive, or mentally ill get guns.
Let's go a step further, let's say there was a ban on assault weapons, or semi-automatic long guns, however, you want to describe them. Well, there are also certain types of vehicles we do not allow on the roads.
Look folks, we need to discuss this issue, too many people in this country are dying from gun deaths, far more than any other country in the world ( excluding countries currently at war).
That's a problem and needs to be addressed, the status quo is not ok.
We have to stop the false messaging that your guns are going to be taken away.
We have to stop the shouting and start having a dialog.
We have to start acting and thinking like intelligent adults.
We have to start considering what is the better good of all and not just ourselves.
"None of his points had any factual content"
Please show me the "factual content" in your diatribe.
Hint: it doesn't exist; it's just opinion and conjecture, while I actually discussed the Constitution as a document that applies to us all and confers various rights upon the citizenry.
You lose, which I'm sure is a daily occurrence.
I know it stinks that you can't control others--as the gov't controls you and provides all your thoughts, words, deeds and fiances--but that's the way it is, and Harry Reid has a better chance of winning the gold in female gymnatics in Rio than your nonsensical proposal has of being enacted.
"Take your own advice before lecturing others.."
Odin nailed it, but your latent hypocrisy is gonna make it a difficult pill to swallow; my condolences regarding your immaturity and faux-indignation.
I apologize to all for a personal note to Lil Mick.
“LibertyforAll” at one time used a different name. Don’t know why he changed it, (have my suspicions) but he hasn’t changed his modus operandi, which is mostly to insult. It is a compulsion he seems incapable of setting aside, and beyond which he has little to offer in the way of civil discourse. Once I realized with whom I was arguing, I dropped it. He will deflect, change the subject, but mostly he’ll insult.
We’d all do well to ignore his postings.
As for your Second Amendment question, I have an opinion:
Our Founders, who wrote the definitive Document of the Enlightenment, had good reasons for writing the Second Amendment as they did. I’ve come around to believing that it would NEVER have entered their minds that citizens should NOT have the right to possess a firearm. I don’t believe that it was ever an issue in their thinking.
Rather, the Second Amendment was written to fill glaring needs of the fledgling nation…a need that well regulated (and armed) militias filled during the War of Independence, a need out on the frontier, a need to combat the threat of southern gangs of escaped slaves, a need for an organized response to possible invasions, a need to combat the threat of pirates that were invading coastal settlements, the need to establish an arms industry to meet the demands of an expanding nation. I am of the notion that it would have NEVER occurred to them that some sort of threat to personal possession of arms would ever be an issue even in light of the Red Coats’ isolated efforts to seize arms from local “radicals”. So the well regulated militias established armories, and trained their members.
I believe there is, then, an underlying “Spirit” of the Second Amendment which is unspoken and is, perhaps, the source of Second Amendment Absolutism. But it is that absolutism which will end up destroying that very “Spirit” of the Second Amendment with which we might ALL agree. There are MANY aspects of today’s “gun issues” that are not addressed or even considered in the Second Amendment, and what is NOT in the Second Amendment could reasonably be discussed if the absolutists would take a step back and recognize that fact, and work toward resolutions which would serve the common good, rather than the interests of the Corporate arms industry.
"STOP the shouting...STOP the name calling and labels...START communicating like adults.."
Take your own advice before lecturing others.
If gun safety legislation is introduced, the 2nd amendment is invoked.
When the 2nd amendment is invoked, it's all over but the shouting..
....and unfortunately the shouting is all that continues.
STOP the shouting...STOP the name calling and labels...START communicating like adults.
Just a point that you pro second amendment folks don't seem to understand(this is just one, there are many).
If the second amendment was repealed, nothing would change, the status quo would remain.
Repealing the second amendment does not outlaw guns...
What it does do is eliminate constitutionally protecting ownership of a privately manufactured, privately marketed good.
What it does do is open the door for common sense safety legislation.
Can a pro second amendment supporter respond to the point I am making and not insult me personally?
Can one of you other than LibertyForAll continue this dialog in a mature, intelligent manner?
I will not respond to "LIbertyForAll", all he did was call me names, what a despicable answer to a simple question.
None of his points had any factual content, it was just a Lil Mick bashing.
My point and question is still valid and still unanswered. Is there any of you pro second amendment folks who can answer these questions in an adult and intelligent manner?
Wow, Lil' Mick, if there was any question about your total ignorance of and absolute disregard for the Constitution, you've certainly made it obvious here.
I'll dismantle your goofiness by degrees:
"why do you support this amendment?"
Well, because the Founders placed immense importance upon it--look at its rank--and it's part of the Bill or Rights. Didya get that? "Rights", as in "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
You may not agree with it--which is fine, if idiotic--but such an opinion stops there, as what you believe has no bearing upon what I'm allowed to do.
Do you think the 1st Amendment should be abolished? The 4th? Any others, or does your selectivity only single-out one? And since when did you become the arbiter over which amendments we should support or negate?
"We do not constitutionally protect any other consumer good"
Again, this isn't about the manufacture of a "good", it's about a right inherent to us all. Don't like guns? Great, don't own one, but please cease in trying to prevent me from choosing the option to do so.
Here's a tangential question: Do you support the ACA/Obamacare? If so, then how can the Feds force the citizenry to purcahse a private commodity and/or service under penalty-of-law? Is this ability in the Constitution, or is there a double-standard regarding what things legislation applies to? (I'm gonna pop some corn while you attempt some dizzy regressive spin).
"This amendment simply needs to go, it is wrong in every way"
So says a hypocritical, hyperbolic, subservient, self-righteous, faux-indignant, neophyte who would pick and choose what suits them as opposed to simply allowing others to do so for themsleves.
Bottom line: you--and your ilk mindless enough to "Like" such sleepy ideological malaise here--are on the losing end of this debate, and it shall remain so into perpetuity, as such brash, infantile, utterly doomed proposals simply underscore how behind-the-times and legislatively ignorant many liberals choose to be, thus making logical, common-sensical positions that much easier to espose and support.
Thanks for posting such a primative, troglodytic view; it's like providing infinite ammunition (pun intended) to the opposing viewpoint, LOL!
I have a question for all of you who support the second amendment, actually, I have two questions.
My first question is why, why do you support this amendment?
My Second question is why should guns be the only privately manufactured, privately marketed consumer good which its ownership is a constitutionally protected right?
We do not constitutionally protect any other consumer good, to my knowledge, why this one?
Both the gun lobby and gun manufacturers have had windfall profits, become billionaires because they produce and sell a product we constitutionally protect the ownership of.
I think that is just wrong!
My thought, there is no reason for this amendment anymore. It was originally adopted to maintain a civilian army, militia's. We don't do that, or need that anymore.
There is no reason this privately manufactured and marketed consumer good should continue to be constitutionally protected.
This amendment simply needs to go, it is wrong in every way.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation