Happiness is a warm gun

[trish]

A ten year-old boy insists he would give his life to shield his classmates from harm. This story broke my heart.

https://storycorps.org/listen/tanai-...-floyd-180323/

Desmond needs to be told his ten year-old body is not a shield. It cannot possibly be a shield. It stands no chance of stopping a bullet from an AR-15 which would pass right through him, eviscerate him In the process and still kill the student he would protect. In the Parkland shooting students who hid behind walls still died.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...201949054.html

[Stavros]

I don't know who Ted Nugent is other than that he is some loud-mouth in the NRA who has attacked the students from Parkland in Florida who are campaigning for radical gun control legislation. His latest attack does reveal his own ignorance even if it underlines the pseudo-religious claims people like him claim as their American heritage, thus, arguing that their level of ignorance goes beyond stupidity, he continues

Again, the National Rifle Association are a bunch of American families who have a voice to stand up for our God-given constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms,”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8283031.html

But while there is a God in the Declaration of Independence, there is no God in the Constitution, as explained here-

Whereas the Declaration explained and justified a rebellion to secure God-given rights, the Constitution is a blueprint for stable and effective republican government in a free country. The Preamble to the Constitution declares that its purposes are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” These are wholly secular objects; religious references are extraneous in a document drafted to further them.
https://allthingsliberty.com/2016/02...-constitution/

On the matter of ignorance, and prejudice replacing the truth, Mr Nugent leads us all.

[Stavros]

What is interesting abut this decision is that it is based in part on Scalia's now famous judgement District of Columbia -v- Heller.

A federal judge has ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect a citizen’s right to own an AR-15 rifle and other, similar semi-automatic “military style” rifles and high capacity magazines.

“AR-15s and [large capacity magazines] are most useful in military service, they are beyond the scope of the Second Amendment ... and may be banned,” Massachusetts District Court Judge William Young wrote in his ruling.

The year-old case was first brought to court in January 2017 by a group of gun owners, the nonprofit Gun Owner’s Action League, and gun stores in the state.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8294186.html

[trish]

Good guy with a gun leaves it in a public restroom to be found by an intoxicated homeless man. Good guy, bad guy, intoxicated guy. More guns are not the solution.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...oom/514855002/

[sukumvit boy]

Too many guns in circulation is the problem.

[MrFanti]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bani-du...s-teens-crash/

Luckily, no gun was involved...
(Chalk up 3 more dead due to alcohol which has been shown to kill more per year than guns...)

[broncofan]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bani-du...s-teens-crash/

Luckily, no gun was involved...
(Chalk up 3 more dead due to alcohol which has been shown to kill more per year than guns...)

You seem to have forgotten what happened the last time you took this approach. A few people pointed out that your argument was not logical, since both guns and alcohol can be regulated differently than they are and the regulation of guns does not depend on the regulation of alcohol. A few people pointed out that your argument depends on the false premise that one cannot regulate dangerous things and must only ban them. You made no attempt to address the arguments and instead just repeated yourself. Then you disappeared for a while only to return with the same useless bag of tricks. Do you enjoy making bad arguments?

I'm just going to copy and paste this for the next time you do this. I recommend we can each have our own signature response to Mr Fanti instead of responding anew. Automation deserves automation.

[MrFanti]

You seem to have forgotten what happened the last time you took this approach. A few people pointed out that your argument was not logical, since both guns and alcohol can be regulated differently than they are and the regulation of guns does not depend on the regulation of alcohol. A few people pointed out that your argument depends on the false premise that one cannot regulate dangerous things and must only ban them. You made no attempt to address the arguments and instead just repeated yourself. Then you disappeared for a while only to return with the same useless bag of tricks. Do you enjoy making bad arguments?

I'm just going to copy and paste this for the next time you do this. I recommend we can each have our own signature response to Mr Fanti instead of responding anew. Automation deserves automation.

No...
Your argument about alcohol being okay and guns not being okay is totally not logical...and denying all the evidence that I've posted makes your counter argument even more ridiculous...

Have a good weekend!

"LAPD officer faces 3 counts of murder for alleged drunken driving crash on 605 Freeway that killed Riverside family"
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/2...017-dui-crash/

[trish]

I'll just quote Broncofan, "You seem to have forgotten what happened the last time you took this approach. A few people pointed out that your argument was not logical, since both guns and alcohol can be regulated differently than they are and the regulation of guns does not depend on the regulation of alcohol. A few people pointed out that your argument depends on the false premise that one cannot regulate dangerous things and must only ban them. You made no attempt to address the arguments and instead just repeated yourself. Then you disappeared for a while only to return with the same useless bag of tricks. Do you enjoy making bad arguments?" You should read it carefully.

[filghy2]

No...
Your argument about alcohol being okay and guns not being okay is totally not logical...and denying all the evidence that I've posted makes your counter argument even more ridiculous...

Let's accept for the sake of argument your premise that action on guns should be linked to action on alcohol. Drunk-driving is illegal already and you've admitted previously that you do not favour banning alcohol. But as you care so much about alcohol-related deaths then you must have some ideas. How about you tell us what measures you propose to reduce alcohol-related deaths and what restrictions on guns you would be prepared to accept in return?