Today's gun crime thread

[BSAM]

Quote from Lucrum:

Out of curiosity why do you repeat this stupid drivel in every gun control argument? No one I know of is advocating anything of the sort. Constitutional or not.

Stupid drivel, brother Lukie??
Constitutional or not??
Hmmm...You sound a little confused there, Lukie.
Are you saying the Constitution is merely stupid drivel?
Well, we disagree on that.

But, back to your original question: Because it's Constitutional.
Now, if you don't believe in the Constitution, that's your choice.
But, I do.

But, thank you for admitting that even you believe in arms control.

Now, we're getting somewhere.
You see, Lukie, it's just a difference of opinion on how much control should exist.

I respect your right to your opinion, too bad you are unable to express the same kind of respect without name calling and such.

I just believe there is a "happy medium" here somewhere.

And before you get off into more confusion, let me explain it for you:
The Constitution doesn't say anything about guns; the Constitution uses the term "arms".

P.S.---You need to check on your intake of caffeine.

 

[Arnie]

Quote from futurecurrents:

I think the following should be banned, ie. made illegal to purchase:

Handguns.

Assault weapons.

Large magazines, internal or external.

Body armor.



You can have all the rifles and shotguns that you want.

Define: "assault weapons"

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from BSAM:

Are you saying the Constitution is merely stupid drivel?

NO I did not say anything of the sort. I said your shoulder fired missile "argument" is stupid drivel

But, back to your original question:
Now, if you don't believe in the Constitution, that's your choice.
But, I do.

But, thank you for admitting that even you believe in arms control.

You might want to read the 2nd Amendment again then. It specifically says "without infringement". You may want to look that word up in the dictionary if you're not familiar with it.

Now, we're getting somewhere.

No we're not.

 

[BSAM]

Quote from Lucrum:

NO I did not say anything of the sort. I said your shoulder fired missile "argument" is stupid drivel

You might want to read the 2nd Amendment again then. It specifically says "without infringement". You may want to look that word up in the dictionary if you're not familiar with it.

No we're not.

"Without infringement".
Right.
I think you're the one who needs to take a look at the Constitution.
Again, I stand with the Constitution.

Weak, Lukie.
Very weak.
You are capable of much better than this.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from BSAM:

"Without infringement".
Right.
I think you're the one who needs to take a look at the Constitution.
Again, I stand with the Constitution.

Weak, Lukie.
Very weak.
You are capable of much better than this.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

 

[BSAM]

And, you would agree that a shoulder fired missile launcher is an "arm", right?

A. Yes.

B. No.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from BSAM:

And, you would agree that a shoulder fired missile launcher is an "arm", right?

A. Yes.

B. No.

Yes, of course. But NO ONE I know is advocating private citizens owning such weapons. It's utterly irrelevant to the discussion you mentioned it in. Even if technically it is a guaranteed right in the Constitution.
Hence my derogatory comment about you perpetually trying to use it as some sort of pseudo "argument".

We ALREADY have gun control in this country to the tune of 22,000 local state and federal firearms regulations. Most of which are unconstitutional.
Adding more arbitrary written laws, that the criminals ignore anyway, will not solve our gun violence problem.
Eliminating the violent criminals misusing the firearms will.

 

[Eight]

Psychopaths do 50% of all serious crimes, you know, the things that seriously screw up people's lives... if we could get the will to diagnose them early in life, to track them, to put their faces up on the web after their first arrest of any kind, to deny them the right to own a gun or drive, we might be a lot better off...

I have a half dozen psychopaths that I can interact with on a day to day basis. Their behavior does not shock me anymore. I do believe that they are the staunchest of Democrats for the most part too, it appeals to them to use the government to tax and victimize the "weak people"...

 

[stoic]

Much of the debate is based on the question of limits on Constitutional Rights. The answer is Yes, there must be limits.

The 1st amendment on Freedom of Religion. This doesn't guarantee the freedom to practice a religion the believes in Human Sacrifice. Nor does it grant one freedom of prosecution if your religion tells you to crash a passenger jet into tall buildings. Shall we ban all religions because they might become radical or violent?

The freedom of the Press and freedom of Speech. This does not grant you the right to slander. It does not suggest you have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, or spray your views as graffiti on any wall. Shall we require all members of the press to undergo background checks, employ special government workers to review and where needed censor the press and media because they might slander. Shall we require ALL patrons of theaters and public venues to where a special tamper proof speech inhibiting masks (a cork in your mouth) since maybe someone might yell fire. Ban the manufacture and sale of spray paint (except to specially licensed individuals) because someone might use it unlawfully.

It can become VERY dangerous to personal freedoms when one advocates laws based on what somebody might do. Something the anti-gun crowd should consider.

The argument that States, Counties, Cities and municipalities should have the right to impose their own laws or restrictions on the right to bear arms. In New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Warren Riley used gun registration to unconstitutional confiscate lawfully owned firearms, declaring that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply (Yes it has happened in the U.S. of A) Shall we allow local governments to pick a choose the parts of the Constitution they wish to comply with. A clear violation of the 14th Amendment. Shall we grant the right to any local government in Mississippi to ignore the 13th Amendment.

Yes there must be limits. Yes there must be limits to the limits.

I am a NRA member.

I would like to pose the question.

Why do you think the Founding Fathers felt it essential to have the 2nd Amendment?

 

[BSAM]

Quote from Lucrum:

Yes, of course. But NO ONE I know is advocating private citizens owning such weapons....

Great!
So, you see, you do believe in arms control.
So, do I.

Most thinking people do.

But, you see, Lukie, you are expressing your opinion in all these threads just like I am expressing my opinion.

We just have a difference of opinion as to where the limits should be drawn in the area of arms control.
(No, I'm not saying a person should possess a shoulder fired missile launcher. I know you already know this. I'm saying it for the benefit of others who may be new here.)

You believe a person should own as many weapons as he desires.
There was a time when I felt the same way.
However, now, I and millions of other Americans do not see it this way.

You forced me to get down to the "nitty gritty" with you today, but you already knew that I won't tolerate bullying and name calling here on one of my favorite websites.
It's the mark of a lapse in good character, in my view.

I'm glad that we indeed came to some conclusions on the arms control issue.

Now, if I can just get you to consider my plan for one person/one handgun/one rifle....