Idiots

[Tero]

Well, you rejected my amendment plan:
1 repeal the 2nd
2 newamendment: take feds out, leave gun laws to states...as long as you keep it IN your state

Liberal states could ban all guns. Kentucky would carry on

[Seth]

Well, you rejected my amendment plan:
1 repeal the 2nd
2 newamendment: take feds out, leave gun laws to states...as long as you keep it IN your state

Liberal states could ban all guns. Kentucky would carry on

You won't get past trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But it's your right to try. I'm not losing any sleep over the prospect though.

[Jason]

Well, you rejected my amendment plan:
1 repeal the 2nd
2 newamendment: take feds out, leave gun laws to states...as long as you keep it IN your state

Liberal states could ban all guns. Kentucky would carry on

You won't get past trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But it's your right to try. I'm not losing any sleep over the prospect though.

But he's attempting to interfere with your god given right to bear arms and you argued that makes him responsible for every crime that guns, unfettered and freely available to everyone in your society, could have prevented. Is it then his right to be a criminal?

[Seth]

Well, you rejected my amendment plan:
1 repeal the 2nd
2 newamendment: take feds out, leave gun laws to states...as long as you keep it IN your state

Liberal states could ban all guns. Kentucky would carry on

You won't get past trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But it's your right to try. I'm not losing any sleep over the prospect though.

But he's attempting to interfere with your god given right to bear arms and you argued that makes him responsible for every crime that guns, unfettered and freely available to everyone in your society, could have prevented. Is it then his right to be a criminal?

Nope. And, you lie because guns are not "unfettered and freely available to everyone."

[Jason]

Well, you rejected my amendment plan:
1 repeal the 2nd
2 newamendment: take feds out, leave gun laws to states...as long as you keep it IN your state

Liberal states could ban all guns. Kentucky would carry on

You won't get past trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But it's your right to try. I'm not losing any sleep over the prospect though.

But he's attempting to interfere with your god given right to bear arms and you argued that makes him responsible for every crime that guns, unfettered and freely available to everyone in your society, could have prevented. Is it then his right to be a criminal?

Nope. And, you lie because guns are not "unfettered and freely available to everyone."

So he's not responsible for the crimes that guns could have prevented by seeking to interfere with the right to bear arms in your society?

[Seth]

Well, you rejected my amendment plan:
1 repeal the 2nd
2 newamendment: take feds out, leave gun laws to states...as long as you keep it IN your state

Liberal states could ban all guns. Kentucky would carry on

You won't get past trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But it's your right to try. I'm not losing any sleep over the prospect though.

But he's attempting to interfere with your god given right to bear arms and you argued that makes him responsible for every crime that guns, unfettered and freely available to everyone in your society, could have prevented. Is it then his right to be a criminal?

Nope. And, you lie because guns are not "unfettered and freely available to everyone."

So he's not responsible for the crimes that guns could have prevented by seeking to interfere with the right to bear arms in your society?

Yes, he is responsible and no it is not his right to be a criminal. His lawful duty is to respect every other individual's right to keep and bear arms and keep his pie hole shut about interfering with that right. Then and only then will he not be responsible for injuries to others caused by his interference with their rights and will not be a criminal.

[Jason]

Well, you rejected my amendment plan:
1 repeal the 2nd
2 newamendment: take feds out, leave gun laws to states...as long as you keep it IN your state

Liberal states could ban all guns. Kentucky would carry on

You won't get past trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. But it's your right to try. I'm not losing any sleep over the prospect though.

But he's attempting to interfere with your god given right to bear arms and you argued that makes him responsible for every crime that guns, unfettered and freely available to everyone in your society, could have prevented. Is it then his right to be a criminal?

Nope. And, you lie because guns are not "unfettered and freely available to everyone."

So he's not responsible for the crimes that guns could have prevented by seeking to interfere with the right to bear arms in your society?

Yes, he is responsible and no it is not his right to be a criminal. His lawful duty is to respect every other individual's right to keep and bear arms and keep his pie hole shut about interfering with that right. Then and only then will he not be responsible for injuries to others caused by his interference with their rights and will not be a criminal.

But you just said he's free to exercise his right.. so it's his right to diregard his lawful duty to respect .. yada yada .. and not keep his pie hole shut? You're contradicting yourself or words mean something to you that's different from the common use of the English language I'm familiar with.

[Seth]

Yes, he is responsible and no it is not his right to be a criminal. His lawful duty is to respect every other individual's right to keep and bear arms and keep his pie hole shut about interfering with that right. Then and only then will he not be responsible for injuries to others caused by his interference with their rights and will not be a criminal.

But you just said he's free to exercise his right.. so it's his right to diregard his lawful duty to respect .. yada yada .. and not keep his pie hole shut? You're contradicting yourself or words mean something to you that's different from the common use of the English language I'm familiar with.

He doesn't have a right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms of anyone, ever. Infringing on that right is a criminal act.

[Tero]

458 guns removed from trickling down to idiots and criminals
http://www.tbo.com/pinellas-county/resi ... -20151212/

[Seth]

458 guns removed from trickling down to idiots and criminals
http://www.tbo.com/pinellas-county/resi ... -20151212/

And a complete waste of taxpayer money because the vast majority of guns in "buybacks" are useless and often inoperative pieces of crap that people turn in because they are worth nothing at all.

But hey, if that's what the taxpayers of Pinellas county want to waste their taxes on, that's fine by me. It's voluntary so I'm fine with it. But it won't do a damned bit of good in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals because those guns were unlikely to end up in the hands of criminals in the first place.

[Tero]

The fewer pieces to explode in the hands of idiots then. Better to have a new gun for a suicide.

[Seth]

The fewer pieces to explode in the hands of idiots then. Better to have a new gun for a suicide.

True. When one chooses to exercise one's fundamental human right of ending one's life with a gun, one wants it to work properly and get the job done.

[Hermit]

why should every idiot be allowed to own a gun?
http://home.chicagopolice.org/north-sid ... -year-old/

Guns are just another tool for population control, that's why. Get 'em early, well before they are old enough to procreate, I say.

127 of the children died from gunshots in their own homes, while dozens more died in the homes of friends, neighbors, and relatives.
72 of the young victims either pulled the trigger themselves or were shot dead by another kid.
In those 72 cases, only 4 adults have been held criminally liable.
At least 52 deaths involved a child handling a gun left unsecured.

Additional findings include:

60 children died at the hands of their own parents, 50 of them in homicides.
The average age of the victims was 6 years old.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... nniversary

[surreptitious57]

He does not have a right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms of anyone ever. Infringing on that right is a criminal act

But does not the First Amendment allow him to talk about it? If you say no then is that not a denial of his right? Not the right to bear arms
but the right to self expression? And talking about infringing a right and actually infringing it are two entirely different things and the first
does not automatically lead to the second. Given that the Second Amendment is never actually going to be over thrown then talking about
it is actually a waste of time. And so is not any danger to legitimate gun owners like yourself. The law is going to remain exactly the same
and nothing is going to change that as long as America exists. Then you have no reason to worry about what anyone says about gun control

You seem to be more worried about the fact that the First Amendment protects his right to talk about it so does that mean you would want
to see it repealed? Do you therefore think that it is expendable in a way that you do not think the Second Amendment is? For that is for you
the equivalent of one of the Ten Commandments? While in contrast the First Amendment should be scrapped as that gives rights to all sorts
of people you absolutely despise such as atheists and communists and feminists and liberals and anyone else who annoys the hell out of you
Or do you instead as an American citizen stand by the Constitution including those parts of it you disagree with as that is what the Founding
Fathers would have wanted Americans to do? Or do you think you have a legitimate right to criticise those parts of it you do not actually like

[Seth]

He does not have a right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms of anyone ever. Infringing on that right is a criminal act

But does not the First Amendment allow him to talk about it? If you say no then is that not a denial of his right? Not the right to bear arms
but the right to self expression?

Talking about it is not the problem. Putting that talk into action is. Conspiracy to deprive an individual of his RKBA is a crime, but it takes more than talk to violate that law. Talk, however, is a good indicator that we need to pay close attention to the individual to ensure that talk does not turn to action.