Woman fires at 7 people, including children, for turning around in driveway

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Wow. Haven't seen that picture used since Bad_Daddy's days.

[Karee 4,190]

Wow. Haven't seen that picture used since Bad_Daddy's days.

That's exactly who I was thinking of when I posted it.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

He used to use that in response to me alllll the time.

[RGinWA 816]

How many of those have to do with the 2nd amendment and firearms? Zero. I'd like you to supply something that is relevant to the conversation. It's obvious you are incapable of discussing the subject.

I supplied the information that the supreme court is not always correct when deciding their own cases.

Since the 2nd amendment hasn't been overturned "yet" then how would there be a case to cite?

Once again, I supplied far more than you've brought to the table on this subject. But you did post that big picture didn't you? How clever.

Then again you'd never quite get the big picture do you?

[Karee 4,190]

I supplied the information that the supreme court is not always correct when deciding their own cases.

Since the 2nd amendment hasn't been overturned "yet" then how would there be a case to cite?

Once again, I supplied far more than you've brought to the table on this subject. But you did post that big picture didn't you? How clever.

Then again you'd never quite get the big picture do you?

Steerike 2.

[RGinWA 816]

Steerike 2.

Dementia's first signs are blurting out random sentences like "strike 2" and considering that part of the debate. Sure sweetie, you've made so many gosh darn good points...

Since you can't actually own a firearm in the US, maybe you should recuse yourself from this debate? lol

It's not like your invaluable contribution so far will be missed.

I'll do it for you..."strike 3"...see, it's not very creative.

[Karee 4,190]

Dementia's first signs are blurting out random sentences like "strike 2" and considering that part of the debate. Sure sweetie, you've made so many gosh darn good points...

Since you can't actually own a firearm in the US, maybe you should recuse yourself from this debate? lol

It's not like your invaluable contribution so far will be missed.

I'll do it for you..."strike 3"...see, it's not very creative.

Nice. Out with the obligatory personal attack when you can't form an argument. Reminds me of the baby that throws his strained peas across the room when he wants to eat his peaches first.

Maybe you should recuse yourself from posting until you get a working knowledge of the English language.

[RGinWA 816]

Nice. Out with the obligatory personal attack when you can't form an argument. Reminds me of the baby that throws his strained peas across the room when he wants to eat his peaches first.

Maybe you should recuse yourself from posting until you get a working knowledge of the English language.

None of what you respond with is a personal attack?

Wow pot...meet kettle.

I formed my argument and you came back with nothing...as usual.

[GandD 5,966]

Universal back ground checks?

Where do you think most criminals get their guns? And if background checks were required in those transactions, do you think the person (who is already breaking the law, by the way) would do one? I assume since they're already breaking the current laws they'd just go ahead and break those new laws as well. Is making something more illegal a good way to stop it?

No loopholes?

Which loopholes are you referring to? Your loopholes question, I'm assuming, is in relation to universal background checks that aren't currently required. See above.

Criminal offense to not report lost/stolen guns? Current law requires all licensed dealers to do so. Private citizens aren't required but I'd bet the vast majority of them get reported because they're expensive. If you lost something worth several hundred (or thousand) dollars, you'd likely report it, wouldn't you? Same if it was stolen?

Once again, the only way to end all gun crime is to magically get rid of guns. That this is not going to happen; I know this, you know this. In fact, most gun advocates are betting on this. You're pointing out ways people can circumvent a law as a way to dismiss of the very idea of the law. If everyone followed laws, you wouldn't need law enforcement. What you are suggesting (as I read it and past discussions) is that there's no way to get rid of guns in bad guys hands so we need more guns. The real direction in my opinion is to slow the spreading of guns to people who cannot pass background checks. Start with universal back ground checks, make any personal sales illegal unless using a licensed third party re-seller (think of it as an arbitrator) and enforce real laws on people not reporting lost or stolen guns even on a non commercial owner. This will start to decrease the amount of people with unlicensed guns in their hand. Will it eliminate them? No. But we are smart people you and I. And we know that legislation to deal with a problem like this takes time to show any improvement. And any improvement is better than none.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Who is getting shot and killed?

How many vehicular homicides are there? (Remember to include manslaughter.)

Let's crunch the numbers!

This is a old subject. We have proven many times to the impaired left that point.. Yawn

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

If we really want to compare guns and cars, though.. let's do it. Since some people apparently believe they are both equally dangerous, maybe we should treat guns the way we treat cars?

You should have to pass a proficiency test in order to get a license to carry a gun. And that license must be renewed on a regular basis.

Purchase gun insurance.

An annual registration fee per gun.

Restrictions to the kinds of guns you can own and operate, as well as restrictions on WHERE you can operate certain kinds of guns.

Can't operate a gun if intoxicated or impaired.

Abide by various safety regulations.

Pay a tax when transferring a gun to a third party.

Create a federal agency tasked with improving gun safety.

Sounds good to me!

I have a feeling the gun nuts would not approve, though. That would cramp their style somewhat.

Cars are not enumerated as a right in the constitution .

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Cars are not enumerated as a right in the constitution .

Listen, I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution was written a long time ago. A very long time ago. Let's stop acting like what was written then can exactly apply to today's world, shall we?

You have the right to keep and bear arms and that's fabulous for you. Nobody's trying to take that away, regardless of what the paranoid few will tell you.

But there are more guns than ever and any attempt to control or understand the situation gets the response of "BUT OUR RIGHTS! DON'T INFRINGE ON THEM!"

It's nonsense. Guns shouldn't get a free pass just because it's a right in the Constitution. They should be treated like everything else you want to own and operate.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Listen, I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution was written a long time ago. A very long time ago. Let's stop acting like what was written then can exactly apply to today's world, shall we?

You have the right to keep and bear arms and that's fabulous for you. Nobody's trying to take that away, regardless of what the paranoid few will tell you.

But there are more guns than ever and any attempt to control or understand the situation gets the response of "BUT OUR RIGHTS! DON'T INFRINGE ON THEM!"

It's nonsense. Guns shouldn't get a free pass just because it's a right in the Constitution. They should be treated like everything else you want to own and operate.

were one to really believe what was written "a long time ago" then they'd never exercise their 1st amendment on the phone, the internet, tv, and so on.

and yes, it is a right. obviously not one you agree with, but your dislike of the right should not infringe on others.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Listen, I hate to break it to you, but the Constitution was written a long time ago. A very long time ago. Let's stop acting like what was written then can exactly apply to today's world, shall we?

You have the right to keep and bear arms and that's fabulous for you. Nobody's trying to take that away, regardless of what the paranoid few will tell you.

But there are more guns than ever and any attempt to control or understand the situation gets the response of "BUT OUR RIGHTS! DON'T INFRINGE ON THEM!"

It's nonsense. Guns shouldn't get a free pass just because it's a right in the Constitution. They should be treated like everything else you want to own and operate.

and that ladies and Gentleman should tell you everything you need to know about modern liberals and scare the hell out of you at the same time.

[RGinWA 816]

and that ladies and Gentleman should tell you everything you need to know about modern liberals and scare the hell out of you at the same time.

The well regulated militia should have the right to keep and bear arms...I totally agree.