Campus gunshots kill student bystander in Atlanta.

Such A Tragedy. Now Carry On Dying, Americans.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/spelman-student-killed-on-130043.html

:sarcasm:

and yes I saw the sarcasm tag.

The 2nd amendment makes America an immoral mean nation that worships violence.

That is one of the funniest things I have read here in YEARS!

Thanks.. :7

Richmond has more murders per capita than DC and gunhating NYC isn't even in the top 100!. In gun nut world that shouldn't happen, but it does in the real world.

10,000 murders in Ricmond for every one in D.C.?

It wanted me to go on a killing spree. I should have known.

Here I thought it just didn't want me moving to .308.

Freeper huh?

You have to be because that is such a mind-bogglingly stupid post.

His name, combined with his number of posts.

:eyes:

So by grabber logic isn't this impossible?

If you ban guns people won't use them, that's a clear fact. Guns were banned here, but people used them. Hmm . . .

How can this be?

will make us so safe and warm and cozy. I'm talking about the 2nd amendment of course.

But they never refer to any of the others.

For instance, murderers often use our legal protections to get off, putting them back on the street where they can harm more people. But no one rails against those. Or the limitations on when a cop can forcibly search someone guarantee that some guilty people will slip through the cracks.

Allowing freedom of speech, freedom of association, and public gatherings ensures riots and organized violence from time to time.

If we were to limit peoples freedom to move around their immediate area and track them that would cut down on crime.

Why is only one right to be sacrificed on the altar of safety? Why not all of them, then we can be really safe.

It's that simple, but they can't just come out and say it. (Some aren't reflective or intelligent enough to even see it.)

The only so-called "right" which can deprive you of all your other rights. By killing that wooly hide of yours.

Life, liberty and the pursuit and happiness are difficult when sentenced to the death penalty.

I refuted that.

I've just been sheared...

* ba-aa-ah *

strip them of their rights.

That's what democracy is all about/.

Stop waving those silly absolutes around, it's embarrassing.

Vigilanteeism is. Extrajudicial killings are. The three do not overlap.

Self defense is a manner of responding to a prosecutorial allegation of intentional harm. It is not the basis for suffering the capricious mayhem of an armed society.

If not for the fact that one has a fundamental right to defend oneself against unlawful harm to life or limb? And taking it as read that one has that right, why would it not be a subversion, at least in part, of that right to require the victim to, in effect, fight back with one hand tied behind his or her back?

Of course, I have to admit that my argument for private firearms ownership isn't "because the Second Amendment says so." It's because various courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled on numerous occasions that government has no obligation to provide protection to any individual citizen. And if the government won't be held to account if it fails to protect me against violent crime, then it thereby abdicates the authority to deprive me of the means to protect myself.

That perspective actually makes it a lot easier to be consistent about restrictions on automatic weapons and "destructive devices." For self-defense, you can only justify use of a weapon that can be used in such a way as to inflict harm only on your assailant. Things like hand grenades and light machine guns are far too liable to cause collateral damage to be acceptable for civilian self-defensive use.

The American Revolutionists would disagree with you there.

"2A is both misinterpreted and obsolete."


Misinterpreted? No, unfortunately for you that just isn't so.



THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

billofrights.org


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (declaratory clause)

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (restrictive clause)

Now what are you going to say?

The people that wrote the bill of rights were scalia fans?


:rofl:


Obsolete? You made the claim...if you really believe it is so, offer up an argument, at least.

The repeated use of stock, supposedly insightful sound bites, the consistent failure to respond to any substantial refutation of said sound bites, the refusal to acknowledge certain realities inconvenient to your position (such as that guns are by no means the only, or even the foremost, means of preventable death in the U.S.)... I could go on.

I can't say I'm overly worried about dying as a result of my fellow Americans' right to keep and bear arms. I've come significantly closer to being shot in Europe than I ever have in the United States; once when the post office I went to was robbed by two guys with guns ten minutes before I arrived, and another time when two drug dealers tried to settle a business dispute shortly after the tram I was on passed by the corner where they conducted their altercation. The problem being, as has been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum, that people who are inclined to use firearms to commit crimes don't give a shit that possessing the firearm in the first place is also illegal; and where there is a criminal demand for firearms, a supply will rise to meet it. In spite of stringent legal restrictions on private firearms ownership in countries like the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, criminal use of firearms has increased dramatically over the past 15 years, and those firearms are smuggled in from abroad in response to criminal demand.

And when it comes to facilitating my premature demise at the hands of the criminal element, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments surely play their part. Something in the order of 90% of homicides in the U.S. are committed by people with prior criminal and/or arrest records, but our criminal justice system is (supposedly) based on the notion that "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent" (I acknowledge it doesn't manage that, but that's a principle decent people agree on, I believe). So we have some guilty men who go free, or manage to plead down to a lesser offense (and there's a lot of the latter) and then go on to commit more heinous crimes. And you know what? I'm okay with that, because I do believe that "it is better that ten guilty men go free etc." It would certainly cut down on recidivism if we executed everyone on their first felony conviction, or indeed their first felony arrest, but is a society that does that one you want to live in?

And like the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments exist to protect the innocent at the expense of also protecting the guilty, so the Second Amendment allows the innocent to protect themselves, at the expense of making it a little easier for the guilty to acquire weapons that they can use for nefarious purposes. And since stripping the innocent of the means to protect themselves will not prevent the guilty from arming themselves (as we've seen in the UK, the Netherlands and elsewhere), that's a price I'm willing to pay.

I would appreciate the honesty although I couldn't agree with them.

It begins with the premise I Love Guns, and proceeds to back into a deceitful and absurd claim concerning the bill of rights to the constitution.

But many people here don't, some even consider it the founding document of the US.

"So the only way to get around it is to pretend that it doesn't mean what it very obviously says."

With eradication as the longer-term goal.

And to get tired of hearing Such A Tragedy, Now Carry On Dying.

before you even discuss trying to pass a law as enforceable as banning oral sex (they tried that too).

when found. However it is still out there (sadly). It is still created and distributed, even with a BAN.

Just takes the will to do it, and the shunning and marginalizing of any remaining defenders.

and I can turn out guns and ammo in a shitty machine shop by the millions of dollars worth. So can many thousands of others.

You owe the swiss equation. How come the machine guns there are not creating a river of blood?

In USA society, we can't handle morphine OR guns.

the swiss have access to machine guns and canadians have similar laws as us. But no murder rates to match. Why?

That could be the answer right there. The USA is obsessed with it, and it has gotten the better of us. Our fixation is our own vulnerability.

and do not shoot each other with them. I think all the happy people, with good jobs, abundant blonde women with large breasts and pig tails who do not see sex as bad, and ready access to mental health care tend to make them happier. Those were great times when I worked there.

Now I am a happy guy. I make a decent living, enjoy my work, live in a safe place, and am generally balanced. I do NOT have access to large breasted swiss women who like to party, at least not outside of the internet, but still refrain from murdering my neighbors to take their shit or in a dispute over a 20 rock. Somehow the vast majority of us get by.

Subtle differences in the us system, you'd love it the most.

Talk about beating a dead horse into the ground.

.. and trying to pass it off as relevant, analogous, or logical.

I know a psychologist who practices in cook county, if you're interested in getting help.

The problem with child pornography is that you have to sexually abuse individuals deemed incapable of making the kind of decision involved for themselves to produce it; that is the evil part. Now, if we're talking about pornographic material that depicts characters who are minors without actually (ab)using minors in the production (e.g. through CGI, drawings, adult actors who look younger than 18), I don't see good cause to prohibit it.

It's not going to be my cup of tea, but there's quite a lot of niche porn that I find extremely off-putting. But just because I don't enjoy it doesn't mean I want it banned; liberty is all about letting people do stuff you can't see the appeal of, provided it doesn't hurt anyone.

Since when can a "campus" buy a firearm?

Since when can a "campus" buy a firearm?

You must have meant to post somewhere else on the internet.

In case you thought you were saying something meaningful, you might want to google up "noun adjunct".


Oh, here. Let me help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct

In grammar, a noun adjunct or attributive noun or noun premodifier is a noun that modifies another noun and is optional — meaning that it can be removed without changing the grammar of the sentence. For example, in the phrase "chicken soup" the noun adjunct "chicken" modifies the noun "soup". It is irrelevant whether the resulting compound noun is spelled in one or two parts. "Field" is a noun adjunct in both "field player" and "fieldhouse".

Science fiction.
Table tennis.
City dweller.
Gun militant.
Campus gunshot.

I hope I've helped.


html fixed

So evidently, this college is in a rather nasty part of town. Anybody want to hazard a guess what the chances were that this one guy with "a gun in his pants" involved in a fistfight at 0030, who draws his gun and starts shooting, was a "law-abiding citizen right up to the moment he pulled the trigger"? Anyone seriously think this guy was a legal gun owner? Because I sure as hell don't.

Well, guess what? People illegally possess firearms all over the world, especially for criminal purposes. They might be a bit more circumspect about it elsewhere, though even that's not a given. This incident is tragic, but it could have happened in any inadequately policed area.