Another person dies, deer hunting.

[Wonky3]

No word from Larry so far. Of  course.
BTW, I believe he's getting off completely.

I'll take that bet. I will bet you the guy is going to face consequences from the law and I have no doubt he will sued in civil court.

Won't bring back the dead. 

About the 2nd amendment: I'm no scholar. Neither are you. There HAS been lots of debate about it. 

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies. A milestone in its development came when Orrin Hatch, serving on Strom Thurmond’s Senate Judiciary Committee, became chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hatch commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, resulting in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which concluded, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk...-amendment

[Hugo]

No word from Larry so far. Of  course.
BTW, I believe he's getting off completely.

I hope not. He has been "one of us" for a very long time.

Fuck you bbq.

Shooter here is a fucking moron and should at the very least have hunting violations charged.  There was no reason for me to comment, as this had already been said by others.

How about you just forget about me and quit thinking every fucking thing here has to do with me?

[tvguy]

No word from Larry so far. Of  course.
BTW, I believe he's getting off completely.

I'll take that bet. I will bet you the guy is going to face consequences from the law and I have no doubt he will sued in civil court.

Won't bring back the dead. 

About the 2nd amendment: I'm no scholar. Neither are you. There HAS been lots of debate about it. 

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies. A milestone in its development came when Orrin Hatch, serving on Strom Thurmond’s Senate Judiciary Committee, became chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hatch commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, resulting in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which concluded, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk...-amendment

It's sad that you actually think I needed to and have never heard of this IGNORANT debate.

IMO NO ONE needs to be a scholar to have common sense. And common sense tells me that when the second amendment says....

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


It means EXACTLY THAT!!

[Wonky3]

No word from Larry so far. Of  course.
BTW, I believe he's getting off completely.

I'll take that bet. I will bet you the guy is going to face consequences from the law and I have no doubt he will sued in civil court.

Won't bring back the dead. 

About the 2nd amendment: I'm no scholar. Neither are you. There HAS been lots of debate about it. 

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies. A milestone in its development came when Orrin Hatch, serving on Strom Thurmond’s Senate Judiciary Committee, became chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hatch commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, resulting in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which concluded, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk...-amendment

It's sad that you actually think I needed to and have never heard of this IGNORANT debate.

IMO NO ONE needs to be a scholar to have common sense. And common sense tells me that when the second amendment says....

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


It means EXACTLY THAT!!

Yep. That's what the supreme court decided. 
And some of have the right to be concerned that there are nut jobs out there who kill innocent people when they mistake them for a damn deer. 
Maybe it should read, "The right of SOME of the people...

[Hugo]

No word from Larry so far. Of  course.
BTW, I believe he's getting off completely.

I'll take that bet. I will bet you the guy is going to face consequences from the law and I have no doubt he will sued in civil court.

Won't bring back the dead. 

About the 2nd amendment: I'm no scholar. Neither are you. There HAS been lots of debate about it. 

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies. A milestone in its development came when Orrin Hatch, serving on Strom Thurmond’s Senate Judiciary Committee, became chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hatch commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, resulting in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which concluded, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk...-amendment

It's sad that you actually think I needed to and have never heard of this IGNORANT debate.

IMO NO ONE needs to be a scholar to have common sense. And common sense tells me that when the second amendment says....

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


It means EXACTLY THAT!!

Yep. That's what the supreme court decided. 
And some of have the right to be concerned that there are nut jobs out there who kill innocent people when they mistake them for a damn deer. 
Maybe it should read, "The right of SOME of the people...

Animal Farm. Some are more equal than others.

And you wonder why I think you are a socialist?

[Wonky3]

I'll take that bet. I will bet you the guy is going to face consequences from the law and I have no doubt he will sued in civil court.

Won't bring back the dead. 

About the 2nd amendment: I'm no scholar. Neither are you. There HAS been lots of debate about it. 

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies. A milestone in its development came when Orrin Hatch, serving on Strom Thurmond’s Senate Judiciary Committee, became chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hatch commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, resulting in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which concluded, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk...-amendment

It's sad that you actually think I needed to and have never heard of this IGNORANT debate.

IMO NO ONE needs to be a scholar to have common sense. And common sense tells me that when the second amendment says....

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


It means EXACTLY THAT!!

Yep. That's what the supreme court decided. 
And some of have the right to be concerned that there are nut jobs out there who kill innocent people when they mistake them for a damn deer. 
Maybe it should read, "The right of SOME of the people...

Animal Farm. Some are more equal than others.

And you wonder why I think you are a socialist?

 I think you and I disagree about "Socialism". (see below) 
My comment about SOME people was only that I see a need for balance between freedom and responsibility. 
For instance: You have a freedom to drink beer. You are required to be responsible and not drive when you have been drinking enough beer to impair your ability to drive. So first the STATE requires you to be tested to drive and if you violate safe practices the STATE takes away your FREEDOM to drive. 
So, nowhere above did I even come close to "the means of production" 

But, if history is any guide you will not respond to this. Your practice in the past has been to only skim the high points of debate and when it gets down to the specifics you go dark. 

Socialism: 
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[Hugo]

Won't bring back the dead. 

About the 2nd amendment: I'm no scholar. Neither are you. There HAS been lots of debate about it. 

The debate over the Second Amendment has been fierce and terrible, with bad arguments on both sides, and bad will all around. It began in the nineteen-sixties, when there was a great deal of violence and much concern about it. It took another turn on Friday, when, at the N.R.A.’s annual meeting, in St. Louis, Newt Gingrich said, “The Second Amendment is an amendment for all mankind.”

As I wrote in this week’s New Yorker, no amendment received less attention in the courts in the two centuries following the adoption of the Bill of Rights than the Second, except the Third (which dealt with billeting soldiers in private homes). It used to be known as the “lost amendment,” because hardly anyone ever wrote about it. The assertion that the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to own and carry a gun for self-defense, rather than the people’s right to form militias for the common defense, first became a feature of American political and legal discourse in the wake of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and only gained prominence in the nineteen-seventies. A milestone in its development came when Orrin Hatch, serving on Strom Thurmond’s Senate Judiciary Committee, became chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution. Hatch commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, resulting in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” which concluded, “What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear—and long lost—proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk...-amendment

It's sad that you actually think I needed to and have never heard of this IGNORANT debate.

IMO NO ONE needs to be a scholar to have common sense. And common sense tells me that when the second amendment says....

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


It means EXACTLY THAT!!

Yep. That's what the supreme court decided. 
And some of have the right to be concerned that there are nut jobs out there who kill innocent people when they mistake them for a damn deer. 
Maybe it should read, "The right of SOME of the people...

Animal Farm. Some are more equal than others.

And you wonder why I think you are a socialist?

 I think you and I disagree about "Socialism". (see below) 
My comment about SOME people was only that I see a need for balance between freedom and responsibility. 
For instance: You have a freedom to drink beer. You are required to be responsible and not drive when you have been drinking enough beer to impair your ability to drive. So first the STATE requires you to be tested to drive and if you violate safe practices the STATE takes away your FREEDOM to drive. 
So, nowhere above did I even come close to "the means of production" 

But, if history is any guide you will not respond to this. Your practice in the past has been to only skim the high points of debate and when it gets down to the specifics you go dark. 

Socialism: 
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Show me where drinking beer is named in the Constitution as a SPECIFIC right? That is where your argument holds no water.

[Wonky3]

It's sad that you actually think I needed to and have never heard of this IGNORANT debate.

IMO NO ONE needs to be a scholar to have common sense. And common sense tells me that when the second amendment says....

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


It means EXACTLY THAT!!

Yep. That's what the supreme court decided. 
And some of have the right to be concerned that there are nut jobs out there who kill innocent people when they mistake them for a damn deer. 
Maybe it should read, "The right of SOME of the people...

Animal Farm. Some are more equal than others.

And you wonder why I think you are a socialist?

 I think you and I disagree about "Socialism". (see below) 
My comment about SOME people was only that I see a need for balance between freedom and responsibility. 
For instance: You have a freedom to drink beer. You are required to be responsible and not drive when you have been drinking enough beer to impair your ability to drive. So first the STATE requires you to be tested to drive and if you violate safe practices the STATE takes away your FREEDOM to drive. 
So, nowhere above did I even come close to "the means of production" 

But, if history is any guide you will not respond to this. Your practice in the past has been to only skim the high points of debate and when it gets down to the specifics you go dark. 

Socialism: 
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Show me where drinking beer is named in the Constitution as a SPECIFIC right? That is where your argument holds no water.

Larry, I can't. 
Allegory: It's a kind of round about way of expressing things and maybe I was wrong to attempt it here. I simply didn't know how to get to the point of this without using it so I used beer as and example. 
You consistently think of me as a "socialist", and I wonder if you maybe think that word is so broad as to define anyone who admires and hopes for social justice. 
So, I guess you feel my "socialist views" make me anti-gun. I said before, and I repeat, I'm not. That said, I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written. Still, it doesn't really matter because our supreme court has ruled about what they see as a "literal" meaning. I accept the Court's ruling without exception. 
Violence is rampant in our society and all too often guns are involved. While I respect the right to own guns, I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns. 
To achieve that, the State would most likely need to be involved. I don't know what vehicle would be appropriate to ensure responsibility of gun ownership, but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible. 
I'm not a Socialist. Matter of fact, I'm a Capitalist, but one who does not believe in "unbridled" freedom of the market. There is no conflict of social justice and Capitalist values, and so I feel the need for The State to somehow make sure gun ownership is the privilege and right of responsible people. (We can't do anything about criminals who get guns off the grid)
Like so many other problems of society, this is not a simple problem and won't be solved by a simple solution. 
But this I'm sure of: It's something that needs to be discussed and repeating simple slogans and cliches will never make a difference. 
I don't own a gun today. If I want one tomorrow I'll buy one. If I do own one, I'll be responsible in how I use it. And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner. My fellow citizens near me deserve as much.

[tvguy]

Yep. That's what the supreme court decided. 
And some of have the right to be concerned that there are nut jobs out there who kill innocent people when they mistake them for a damn deer. 
Maybe it should read, "The right of SOME of the people...

Animal Farm. Some are more equal than others.

And you wonder why I think you are a socialist?

 I think you and I disagree about "Socialism". (see below) 
My comment about SOME people was only that I see a need for balance between freedom and responsibility. 
For instance: You have a freedom to drink beer. You are required to be responsible and not drive when you have been drinking enough beer to impair your ability to drive. So first the STATE requires you to be tested to drive and if you violate safe practices the STATE takes away your FREEDOM to drive. 
So, nowhere above did I even come close to "the means of production" 

But, if history is any guide you will not respond to this. Your practice in the past has been to only skim the high points of debate and when it gets down to the specifics you go dark. 

Socialism: 
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Show me where drinking beer is named in the Constitution as a SPECIFIC right? That is where your argument holds no water.

Larry, I can't. 
Allegory: It's a kind of round about way of expressing things and maybe I was wrong to attempt it here. I simply didn't know how to get to the point of this without using it so I used beer as and example. 
You consistently think of me as a "socialist", and I wonder if you maybe think that word is so broad as to define anyone who admires and hopes for social justice. 
So, I guess you feel my "socialist views" make me anti-gun. I said before, and I repeat, I'm not. That said, I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written. Still, it doesn't really matter because our supreme court has ruled about what they see as a "literal" meaning. I accept the Court's ruling without exception. 
Violence is rampant in our society and all too often guns are involved. While I respect the right to own guns, I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns. 
To achieve that, the State would most likely need to be involved. I don't know what vehicle would be appropriate to ensure responsibility of gun ownership, but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible. 
I'm not a Socialist. Matter of fact, I'm a Capitalist, but one who does not believe in "unbridled" freedom of the market. There is no conflict of social justice and Capitalist values, and so I feel the need for The State to somehow make sure gun ownership is the privilege and right of responsible people. (We can't do anything about criminals who get guns off the grid)
Like so many other problems of society, this is not a simple problem and won't be solved by a simple solution. 
But this I'm sure of: It's something that needs to be discussed and repeating simple slogans and cliches will never make a difference. 
I don't own a gun today. If I want one tomorrow I'll buy one. If I do own one, I'll be responsible in how I use it. And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner. My fellow citizens near me deserve as much.

I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns.

Somehow ? I hear that a lot. As a matter of fact I remember you often you say saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect. saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect.
You say....And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner

OK I'm not sure I have a problem with that but if we did that how much would that change things? How many mass shooters do you think would have not slaughtered people if the gov forced them to be trained and tested?
I'm not sure that would have stopped ANY of them.
And the same with suicides. And the same with criminals.And the same with gangs. What you advocate could only help prevent SOME accidents.
  
 
but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible.

I would hope that also and so far we don't know that he will not lose his right to own a firearm.





I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written.

OK then Wonky explain to me what you think they were actually trying to say? Because I think you are out of your gourd if you think at that point in history there was any other meaning than Americans have The right to keep and bear Arms

How can you are anyone think otherwise because of a comma or anything else??
Especially THEN when having guns often meant you didn't starve to death

[Wonky3]

Animal Farm. Some are more equal than others.

And you wonder why I think you are a socialist?

 I think you and I disagree about "Socialism". (see below) 
My comment about SOME people was only that I see a need for balance between freedom and responsibility. 
For instance: You have a freedom to drink beer. You are required to be responsible and not drive when you have been drinking enough beer to impair your ability to drive. So first the STATE requires you to be tested to drive and if you violate safe practices the STATE takes away your FREEDOM to drive. 
So, nowhere above did I even come close to "the means of production" 

But, if history is any guide you will not respond to this. Your practice in the past has been to only skim the high points of debate and when it gets down to the specifics you go dark. 

Socialism: 
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Show me where drinking beer is named in the Constitution as a SPECIFIC right? That is where your argument holds no water.

Larry, I can't. 
Allegory: It's a kind of round about way of expressing things and maybe I was wrong to attempt it here. I simply didn't know how to get to the point of this without using it so I used beer as and example. 
You consistently think of me as a "socialist", and I wonder if you maybe think that word is so broad as to define anyone who admires and hopes for social justice. 
So, I guess you feel my "socialist views" make me anti-gun. I said before, and I repeat, I'm not. That said, I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written. Still, it doesn't really matter because our supreme court has ruled about what they see as a "literal" meaning. I accept the Court's ruling without exception. 
Violence is rampant in our society and all too often guns are involved. While I respect the right to own guns, I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns. 
To achieve that, the State would most likely need to be involved. I don't know what vehicle would be appropriate to ensure responsibility of gun ownership, but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible. 
I'm not a Socialist. Matter of fact, I'm a Capitalist, but one who does not believe in "unbridled" freedom of the market. There is no conflict of social justice and Capitalist values, and so I feel the need for The State to somehow make sure gun ownership is the privilege and right of responsible people. (We can't do anything about criminals who get guns off the grid)
Like so many other problems of society, this is not a simple problem and won't be solved by a simple solution. 
But this I'm sure of: It's something that needs to be discussed and repeating simple slogans and cliches will never make a difference. 
I don't own a gun today. If I want one tomorrow I'll buy one. If I do own one, I'll be responsible in how I use it. And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner. My fellow citizens near me deserve as much.

I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns.

Somehow ? I hear that a lot. As a matter of fact I remember you often you say saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect. saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect.
You say....And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner

OK I'm not sure I have a problem with that but if we did that how much would that change things? How many mass shooters do you think would have not slaughtered people if the gov forced them to be trained and tested?
I'm not sure that would have stopped ANY of them.
And the same with suicides. And the same with criminals.And the same with gangs. What you advocate could only help prevent SOME accidents.
  
 
but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible.

I would hope that also and so far we don't know that he will not lose his right to own a firearm.





I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written.

OK then Wonky explain to me what you think they were actually trying to say? Because I think you are out of your gourd if you think at that point in history there was any other meaning than Americans have The right to keep and bear Arms

How can you are anyone think otherwise because of a comma or anything else??
Especially THEN when having guns often meant you didn't starve to death

I think maybe you want to argue.   I don't. But this thing has been discussed by folks brighter than you and me, and I think it still warrants discussion. 
Please remember that I was clear (I hope) in saying I understand SCOTUS has ruled! They ruled exactly what you say above. And, your argument that new laws, rules, training, or whatever might not make any difference anyway may be true. But we may not know until we try SOMETHING, because it's pretty well agreed across the land we have a "gun problem". You and I both know that what we really have is a PEOPLE problem. But, something needs to change. What? I dunno...that's why we need to continue to consider options. Too many people are getting shot and now more than ever in groups.
By the way, for what it's worth you seldom post that part of the amendment that reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ...proving the Founders might have taken a little more time with wording the thing. And too, language changes over time (hey, that's cool, for instance) and to "bear arms" may have had a different connotation. One definition is: 
"take responsibility for: no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions | the expert's fee shall be borne by the tenant."  ..So, can we be REALLY sure of the meaning when written? Probably, but can we be certain? 
Whatever. We have the right to own and use guns and the Supreme Court of the U.S. makes it clear. 
Now that we agree about that, can we agree there is a problem with deaths by guns in our country? This thread started by the news of a tragic death by gun because some nut-job was not a responsible gun owner. 
So, shall we just leave it at that? 

[tvguy]

 I think you and I disagree about "Socialism". (see below) 
My comment about SOME people was only that I see a need for balance between freedom and responsibility. 
For instance: You have a freedom to drink beer. You are required to be responsible and not drive when you have been drinking enough beer to impair your ability to drive. So first the STATE requires you to be tested to drive and if you violate safe practices the STATE takes away your FREEDOM to drive. 
So, nowhere above did I even come close to "the means of production" 

But, if history is any guide you will not respond to this. Your practice in the past has been to only skim the high points of debate and when it gets down to the specifics you go dark. 

Socialism: 
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Show me where drinking beer is named in the Constitution as a SPECIFIC right? That is where your argument holds no water.

Larry, I can't. 
Allegory: It's a kind of round about way of expressing things and maybe I was wrong to attempt it here. I simply didn't know how to get to the point of this without using it so I used beer as and example. 
You consistently think of me as a "socialist", and I wonder if you maybe think that word is so broad as to define anyone who admires and hopes for social justice. 
So, I guess you feel my "socialist views" make me anti-gun. I said before, and I repeat, I'm not. That said, I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written. Still, it doesn't really matter because our supreme court has ruled about what they see as a "literal" meaning. I accept the Court's ruling without exception. 
Violence is rampant in our society and all too often guns are involved. While I respect the right to own guns, I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns. 
To achieve that, the State would most likely need to be involved. I don't know what vehicle would be appropriate to ensure responsibility of gun ownership, but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible. 
I'm not a Socialist. Matter of fact, I'm a Capitalist, but one who does not believe in "unbridled" freedom of the market. There is no conflict of social justice and Capitalist values, and so I feel the need for The State to somehow make sure gun ownership is the privilege and right of responsible people. (We can't do anything about criminals who get guns off the grid)
Like so many other problems of society, this is not a simple problem and won't be solved by a simple solution. 
But this I'm sure of: It's something that needs to be discussed and repeating simple slogans and cliches will never make a difference. 
I don't own a gun today. If I want one tomorrow I'll buy one. If I do own one, I'll be responsible in how I use it. And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner. My fellow citizens near me deserve as much.

I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns.

Somehow ? I hear that a lot. As a matter of fact I remember you often you say saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect. saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect.
You say....And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner

OK I'm not sure I have a problem with that but if we did that how much would that change things? How many mass shooters do you think would have not slaughtered people if the gov forced them to be trained and tested?
I'm not sure that would have stopped ANY of them.
And the same with suicides. And the same with criminals.And the same with gangs. What you advocate could only help prevent SOME accidents.
  
 
but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible.

I would hope that also and so far we don't know that he will not lose his right to own a firearm.





I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written.

OK then Wonky explain to me what you think they were actually trying to say? Because I think you are out of your gourd if you think at that point in history there was any other meaning than Americans have The right to keep and bear Arms

How can you are anyone think otherwise because of a comma or anything else??
Especially THEN when having guns often meant you didn't starve to death

I think maybe you want to argue.   I don't. But this thing has been discussed by folks brighter than you and me, and I think it still warrants discussion. 
Please remember that I was clear (I hope) in saying I understand SCOTUS has ruled! They ruled exactly what you say above. And, your argument that new laws, rules, training, or whatever might not make any difference anyway may be true. But we may not know until we try SOMETHING, because it's pretty well agreed across the land we have a "gun problem". You and I both know that what we really have is a PEOPLE problem. But, something needs to change. What? I dunno...that's why we need to continue to consider options. Too many people are getting shot and now more than ever in groups.
By the way, for what it's worth you seldom post that part of the amendment that reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ...proving the Founders might have taken a little more time with wording the thing. And too, language changes over time (hey, that's cool, for instance) and to "bear arms" may have had a different connotation. One definition is: 
"take responsibility for: no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions | the expert's fee shall be borne by the tenant."  ..So, can we be REALLY sure of the meaning when written? Probably, but can we be certain? 
Whatever. We have the right to own and use guns and the Supreme Court of the U.S. makes it clear. 
Now that we agree about that, can we agree there is a problem with deaths by guns in our country? This thread started by the news of a tragic death by gun because some nut-job was not a responsible gun owner. 
So, shall we just leave it at that? 

"I think maybe you want to argue."

That's as far as I read. I gave MY honest opinion and you start off a reply with that??

And then you know what?.... Fuck you, don't respond to me if that's what you think

[Cuzz]

Show me where drinking beer is named in the Constitution as a SPECIFIC right? That is where your argument holds no water.

Whoa, wait. I don't have a right to drink a beer?? That's just wrong!

[Hugo]

 I think you and I disagree about "Socialism". (see below) 
My comment about SOME people was only that I see a need for balance between freedom and responsibility. 
For instance: You have a freedom to drink beer. You are required to be responsible and not drive when you have been drinking enough beer to impair your ability to drive. So first the STATE requires you to be tested to drive and if you violate safe practices the STATE takes away your FREEDOM to drive. 
So, nowhere above did I even come close to "the means of production" 

But, if history is any guide you will not respond to this. Your practice in the past has been to only skim the high points of debate and when it gets down to the specifics you go dark. 

Socialism: 
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Show me where drinking beer is named in the Constitution as a SPECIFIC right? That is where your argument holds no water.

Larry, I can't. 
Allegory: It's a kind of round about way of expressing things and maybe I was wrong to attempt it here. I simply didn't know how to get to the point of this without using it so I used beer as and example. 
You consistently think of me as a "socialist", and I wonder if you maybe think that word is so broad as to define anyone who admires and hopes for social justice. 
So, I guess you feel my "socialist views" make me anti-gun. I said before, and I repeat, I'm not. That said, I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written. Still, it doesn't really matter because our supreme court has ruled about what they see as a "literal" meaning. I accept the Court's ruling without exception. 
Violence is rampant in our society and all too often guns are involved. While I respect the right to own guns, I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns. 
To achieve that, the State would most likely need to be involved. I don't know what vehicle would be appropriate to ensure responsibility of gun ownership, but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible. 
I'm not a Socialist. Matter of fact, I'm a Capitalist, but one who does not believe in "unbridled" freedom of the market. There is no conflict of social justice and Capitalist values, and so I feel the need for The State to somehow make sure gun ownership is the privilege and right of responsible people. (We can't do anything about criminals who get guns off the grid)
Like so many other problems of society, this is not a simple problem and won't be solved by a simple solution. 
But this I'm sure of: It's something that needs to be discussed and repeating simple slogans and cliches will never make a difference. 
I don't own a gun today. If I want one tomorrow I'll buy one. If I do own one, I'll be responsible in how I use it. And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner. My fellow citizens near me deserve as much.

I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns.

Somehow ? I hear that a lot. As a matter of fact I remember you often you say saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect. saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect.
You say....And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner

OK I'm not sure I have a problem with that but if we did that how much would that change things? How many mass shooters do you think would have not slaughtered people if the gov forced them to be trained and tested?
I'm not sure that would have stopped ANY of them.
And the same with suicides. And the same with criminals.And the same with gangs. What you advocate could only help prevent SOME accidents.
  
 
but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible.

I would hope that also and so far we don't know that he will not lose his right to own a firearm.





I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written.

OK then Wonky explain to me what you think they were actually trying to say? Because I think you are out of your gourd if you think at that point in history there was any other meaning than Americans have The right to keep and bear Arms

How can you are anyone think otherwise because of a comma or anything else??
Especially THEN when having guns often meant you didn't starve to death

I think maybe you want to argue.   I don't. But this thing has been discussed by folks brighter than you and me, and I think it still warrants discussion. 
Please remember that I was clear (I hope) in saying I understand SCOTUS has ruled! They ruled exactly what you say above. And, your argument that new laws, rules, training, or whatever might not make any difference anyway may be true. But we may not know until we try SOMETHING, because it's pretty well agreed across the land we have a "gun problem". You and I both know that what we really have is a PEOPLE problem. But, something needs to change. What? I dunno...that's why we need to continue to consider options. Too many people are getting shot and now more than ever in groups.
By the way, for what it's worth you seldom post that part of the amendment that reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ...proving the Founders might have taken a little more time with wording the thing. And too, language changes over time (hey, that's cool, for instance) and to "bear arms" may have had a different connotation. One definition is: 
"take responsibility for: no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions | the expert's fee shall be borne by the tenant."  ..So, can we be REALLY sure of the meaning when written? Probably, but can we be certain? 
Whatever. We have the right to own and use guns and the Supreme Court of the U.S. makes it clear. 
Now that we agree about that, can we agree there is a problem with deaths by guns in our country? This thread started by the news of a tragic death by gun because some nut-job was not a responsible gun owner. 
So, shall we just leave it at that? 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

[tvguy]

Show me where drinking beer is named in the Constitution as a SPECIFIC right? That is where your argument holds no water.

Larry, I can't. 
Allegory: It's a kind of round about way of expressing things and maybe I was wrong to attempt it here. I simply didn't know how to get to the point of this without using it so I used beer as and example. 
You consistently think of me as a "socialist", and I wonder if you maybe think that word is so broad as to define anyone who admires and hopes for social justice. 
So, I guess you feel my "socialist views" make me anti-gun. I said before, and I repeat, I'm not. That said, I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written. Still, it doesn't really matter because our supreme court has ruled about what they see as a "literal" meaning. I accept the Court's ruling without exception. 
Violence is rampant in our society and all too often guns are involved. While I respect the right to own guns, I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns. 
To achieve that, the State would most likely need to be involved. I don't know what vehicle would be appropriate to ensure responsibility of gun ownership, but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible. 
I'm not a Socialist. Matter of fact, I'm a Capitalist, but one who does not believe in "unbridled" freedom of the market. There is no conflict of social justice and Capitalist values, and so I feel the need for The State to somehow make sure gun ownership is the privilege and right of responsible people. (We can't do anything about criminals who get guns off the grid)
Like so many other problems of society, this is not a simple problem and won't be solved by a simple solution. 
But this I'm sure of: It's something that needs to be discussed and repeating simple slogans and cliches will never make a difference. 
I don't own a gun today. If I want one tomorrow I'll buy one. If I do own one, I'll be responsible in how I use it. And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner. My fellow citizens near me deserve as much.

I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns.

Somehow ? I hear that a lot. As a matter of fact I remember you often you say saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect. saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect.
You say....And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner

OK I'm not sure I have a problem with that but if we did that how much would that change things? How many mass shooters do you think would have not slaughtered people if the gov forced them to be trained and tested?
I'm not sure that would have stopped ANY of them.
And the same with suicides. And the same with criminals.And the same with gangs. What you advocate could only help prevent SOME accidents.
  
 
but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible.

I would hope that also and so far we don't know that he will not lose his right to own a firearm.





I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written.

OK then Wonky explain to me what you think they were actually trying to say? Because I think you are out of your gourd if you think at that point in history there was any other meaning than Americans have The right to keep and bear Arms

How can you are anyone think otherwise because of a comma or anything else??
Especially THEN when having guns often meant you didn't starve to death

I think maybe you want to argue.   I don't. But this thing has been discussed by folks brighter than you and me, and I think it still warrants discussion. 
Please remember that I was clear (I hope) in saying I understand SCOTUS has ruled! They ruled exactly what you say above. And, your argument that new laws, rules, training, or whatever might not make any difference anyway may be true. But we may not know until we try SOMETHING, because it's pretty well agreed across the land we have a "gun problem". You and I both know that what we really have is a PEOPLE problem. But, something needs to change. What? I dunno...that's why we need to continue to consider options. Too many people are getting shot and now more than ever in groups.
By the way, for what it's worth you seldom post that part of the amendment that reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ...proving the Founders might have taken a little more time with wording the thing. And too, language changes over time (hey, that's cool, for instance) and to "bear arms" may have had a different connotation. One definition is: 
"take responsibility for: no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions | the expert's fee shall be borne by the tenant."  ..So, can we be REALLY sure of the meaning when written? Probably, but can we be certain? 
Whatever. We have the right to own and use guns and the Supreme Court of the U.S. makes it clear. 
Now that we agree about that, can we agree there is a problem with deaths by guns in our country? This thread started by the news of a tragic death by gun because some nut-job was not a responsible gun owner. 
So, shall we just leave it at that? 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I don't think it's not true that a lot of people die in this country because we have the right to bear arms.
And you are correct about other deaths not always being looked at like so many anti gun people look at gun deaths.

I think the same anti gun people are the ONLY ones who think the second amendment means ANYTHING other than we have a right to bear arms.

What king of fucking logic is there that explains why the founding fathers meant Anything other than what it says?
A person can say it was poorly worded or grammatically incorrect.
I don't care about that.
But to assume it did not mean we have a RIGHT to bear arms one has to leave all logic and common sense behind.


As far as you comment Hugo. the reply will undoubtedly be that you HAVE to go to a doctor but you don't have to own a gun.

[Hugo]

Larry, I can't. 
Allegory: It's a kind of round about way of expressing things and maybe I was wrong to attempt it here. I simply didn't know how to get to the point of this without using it so I used beer as and example. 
You consistently think of me as a "socialist", and I wonder if you maybe think that word is so broad as to define anyone who admires and hopes for social justice. 
So, I guess you feel my "socialist views" make me anti-gun. I said before, and I repeat, I'm not. That said, I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written. Still, it doesn't really matter because our supreme court has ruled about what they see as a "literal" meaning. I accept the Court's ruling without exception. 
Violence is rampant in our society and all too often guns are involved. While I respect the right to own guns, I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns. 
To achieve that, the State would most likely need to be involved. I don't know what vehicle would be appropriate to ensure responsibility of gun ownership, but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible. 
I'm not a Socialist. Matter of fact, I'm a Capitalist, but one who does not believe in "unbridled" freedom of the market. There is no conflict of social justice and Capitalist values, and so I feel the need for The State to somehow make sure gun ownership is the privilege and right of responsible people. (We can't do anything about criminals who get guns off the grid)
Like so many other problems of society, this is not a simple problem and won't be solved by a simple solution. 
But this I'm sure of: It's something that needs to be discussed and repeating simple slogans and cliches will never make a difference. 
I don't own a gun today. If I want one tomorrow I'll buy one. If I do own one, I'll be responsible in how I use it. And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner. My fellow citizens near me deserve as much.

I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns.

Somehow ? I hear that a lot. As a matter of fact I remember you often you say saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect. saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect.
You say....And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner

OK I'm not sure I have a problem with that but if we did that how much would that change things? How many mass shooters do you think would have not slaughtered people if the gov forced them to be trained and tested?
I'm not sure that would have stopped ANY of them.
And the same with suicides. And the same with criminals.And the same with gangs. What you advocate could only help prevent SOME accidents.
  
 
but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible.

I would hope that also and so far we don't know that he will not lose his right to own a firearm.





I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written.

OK then Wonky explain to me what you think they were actually trying to say? Because I think you are out of your gourd if you think at that point in history there was any other meaning than Americans have The right to keep and bear Arms

How can you are anyone think otherwise because of a comma or anything else??
Especially THEN when having guns often meant you didn't starve to death

I think maybe you want to argue.   I don't. But this thing has been discussed by folks brighter than you and me, and I think it still warrants discussion. 
Please remember that I was clear (I hope) in saying I understand SCOTUS has ruled! They ruled exactly what you say above. And, your argument that new laws, rules, training, or whatever might not make any difference anyway may be true. But we may not know until we try SOMETHING, because it's pretty well agreed across the land we have a "gun problem". You and I both know that what we really have is a PEOPLE problem. But, something needs to change. What? I dunno...that's why we need to continue to consider options. Too many people are getting shot and now more than ever in groups.
By the way, for what it's worth you seldom post that part of the amendment that reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ...proving the Founders might have taken a little more time with wording the thing. And too, language changes over time (hey, that's cool, for instance) and to "bear arms" may have had a different connotation. One definition is: 
"take responsibility for: no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions | the expert's fee shall be borne by the tenant."  ..So, can we be REALLY sure of the meaning when written? Probably, but can we be certain? 
Whatever. We have the right to own and use guns and the Supreme Court of the U.S. makes it clear. 
Now that we agree about that, can we agree there is a problem with deaths by guns in our country? This thread started by the news of a tragic death by gun because some nut-job was not a responsible gun owner. 
So, shall we just leave it at that? 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I don't think it's not true that a lot of people die in this country because we have the right to bear arms.
And you are correct about other deaths not always being looked at like so many anti gun people look at gun deaths.

I think the same anti gun people are the ONLY ones who think the second amendment means ANYTHING other than we have a right to bear arms.

What king of fucking logic is there that explains why the founding fathers meant Anything other than what it says?
A person can say it was poorly worded or grammatically incorrect.
I don't care about that.
But to assume it did not mean we have a RIGHT to bear arms one has to leave all logic and common sense behind.


As far as you comment Hugo. the reply will undoubtedly be that you HAVE to go to a doctor but you don't have to own a gun.

A lot of religious freaks will disagree with your first part.... But the second part is problematic.  If you mean "you" as in the masses, then you are correct.  "They" don't 'have' to own a gun. I sure do though.  At least the ones I have.  I own a shotgun because I bird hunt, and it's good for home protection.  I own a variety of calibers of rifles because I hunt for various size critters, AND I enjoy target practice.  And they are good for home protection.  I own a semi auto handgun because I hunt and feel the need for extra firepower, now that we have so many Cougars and Wolves crowding out the deer and elk.  I also carry one for personal protection, at times, when I feel it's necessary.  This is not a complete list, by far, for the reasons or firearms that some find they "want" or "need", but I appreciate your clarity on this one issue.

[tvguy]

I will always feel that in a more perfect world the right and privilege of owning a gun would somehow be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns.

Somehow ? I hear that a lot. As a matter of fact I remember you often you say saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect. saying it's time to have a national conversation, or something to that affect.
You say....And I'd be willing to be trained, tested, and meet State qualifications to make sure I'm a responsible owner

OK I'm not sure I have a problem with that but if we did that how much would that change things? How many mass shooters do you think would have not slaughtered people if the gov forced them to be trained and tested?
I'm not sure that would have stopped ANY of them.
And the same with suicides. And the same with criminals.And the same with gangs. What you advocate could only help prevent SOME accidents.
  
 
but I'd hope that the man who killed another human thinking he heard a deer would be denied the right of the 2nd amendment. His actions were not responsible.

I would hope that also and so far we don't know that he will not lose his right to own a firearm.





I will continue to believe, as many do, that the 2nd amendment was poorly and hastily written.

OK then Wonky explain to me what you think they were actually trying to say? Because I think you are out of your gourd if you think at that point in history there was any other meaning than Americans have The right to keep and bear Arms

How can you are anyone think otherwise because of a comma or anything else??
Especially THEN when having guns often meant you didn't starve to death

I think maybe you want to argue.   I don't. But this thing has been discussed by folks brighter than you and me, and I think it still warrants discussion. 
Please remember that I was clear (I hope) in saying I understand SCOTUS has ruled! They ruled exactly what you say above. And, your argument that new laws, rules, training, or whatever might not make any difference anyway may be true. But we may not know until we try SOMETHING, because it's pretty well agreed across the land we have a "gun problem". You and I both know that what we really have is a PEOPLE problem. But, something needs to change. What? I dunno...that's why we need to continue to consider options. Too many people are getting shot and now more than ever in groups.
By the way, for what it's worth you seldom post that part of the amendment that reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ...proving the Founders might have taken a little more time with wording the thing. And too, language changes over time (hey, that's cool, for instance) and to "bear arms" may have had a different connotation. One definition is: 
"take responsibility for: no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions | the expert's fee shall be borne by the tenant."  ..So, can we be REALLY sure of the meaning when written? Probably, but can we be certain? 
Whatever. We have the right to own and use guns and the Supreme Court of the U.S. makes it clear. 
Now that we agree about that, can we agree there is a problem with deaths by guns in our country? This thread started by the news of a tragic death by gun because some nut-job was not a responsible gun owner. 
So, shall we just leave it at that? 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I don't think it's not true that a lot of people die in this country because we have the right to bear arms.
And you are correct about other deaths not always being looked at like so many anti gun people look at gun deaths.

I think the same anti gun people are the ONLY ones who think the second amendment means ANYTHING other than we have a right to bear arms.

What king of fucking logic is there that explains why the founding fathers meant Anything other than what it says?
A person can say it was poorly worded or grammatically incorrect.
I don't care about that.
But to assume it did not mean we have a RIGHT to bear arms one has to leave all logic and common sense behind.


As far as you comment Hugo. the reply will undoubtedly be that you HAVE to go to a doctor but you don't have to own a gun.

A lot of religious freaks will disagree with your first part.... But the second part is problematic.  If you mean "you" as in the masses, then you are correct.  "They" don't 'have' to own a gun. I sure do though.  At least the ones I have.  I own a shotgun because I bird hunt, and it's good for home protection.  I own a variety of calibers of rifles because I hunt for various size critters, AND I enjoy target practice.  And they are good for home protection.  I own a semi auto handgun because I hunt and feel the need for extra firepower, now that we have so many Cougars and Wolves crowding out the deer and elk.  I also carry one for personal protection, at times, when I feel it's necessary.  This is not a complete list, by far, for the reasons or firearms that some find they "want" or "need", but I appreciate your clarity on this one issue.

They will say all of those reasons you need a gun are not worth all the gun deaths in our country.

Then they will post the numbers killed with guns and include suicides, criminals and gangs to explain why law abiding citizens shouldn't have a gun.
And they will point to other countries that DON'T have gangs and as many criminals or drugs and pretend the problem is not them...... it's really the gun.
And all the while they will ignore all of the cases where a gun was used to stop crimes or killings.
Oh yeah, and on top of that they will say the second amendment means something other than exactly what it fucking says.

[Wonky3]

I think maybe you want to argue.   I don't. But this thing has been discussed by folks brighter than you and me, and I think it still warrants discussion. 
Please remember that I was clear (I hope) in saying I understand SCOTUS has ruled! They ruled exactly what you say above. And, your argument that new laws, rules, training, or whatever might not make any difference anyway may be true. But we may not know until we try SOMETHING, because it's pretty well agreed across the land we have a "gun problem". You and I both know that what we really have is a PEOPLE problem. But, something needs to change. What? I dunno...that's why we need to continue to consider options. Too many people are getting shot and now more than ever in groups.
By the way, for what it's worth you seldom post that part of the amendment that reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, ...proving the Founders might have taken a little more time with wording the thing. And too, language changes over time (hey, that's cool, for instance) and to "bear arms" may have had a different connotation. One definition is: 
"take responsibility for: no one likes to bear the responsibility for such decisions | the expert's fee shall be borne by the tenant."  ..So, can we be REALLY sure of the meaning when written? Probably, but can we be certain? 
Whatever. We have the right to own and use guns and the Supreme Court of the U.S. makes it clear. 
Now that we agree about that, can we agree there is a problem with deaths by guns in our country? This thread started by the news of a tragic death by gun because some nut-job was not a responsible gun owner. 
So, shall we just leave it at that? 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I don't think it's not true that a lot of people die in this country because we have the right to bear arms.
And you are correct about other deaths not always being looked at like so many anti gun people look at gun deaths.

I think the same anti gun people are the ONLY ones who think the second amendment means ANYTHING other than we have a right to bear arms.

What king of fucking logic is there that explains why the founding fathers meant Anything other than what it says?
A person can say it was poorly worded or grammatically incorrect.
I don't care about that.
But to assume it did not mean we have a RIGHT to bear arms one has to leave all logic and common sense behind.


As far as you comment Hugo. the reply will undoubtedly be that you HAVE to go to a doctor but you don't have to own a gun.

A lot of religious freaks will disagree with your first part.... But the second part is problematic.  If you mean "you" as in the masses, then you are correct.  "They" don't 'have' to own a gun. I sure do though.  At least the ones I have.  I own a shotgun because I bird hunt, and it's good for home protection.  I own a variety of calibers of rifles because I hunt for various size critters, AND I enjoy target practice.  And they are good for home protection.  I own a semi auto handgun because I hunt and feel the need for extra firepower, now that we have so many Cougars and Wolves crowding out the deer and elk.  I also carry one for personal protection, at times, when I feel it's necessary.  This is not a complete list, by far, for the reasons or firearms that some find they "want" or "need", but I appreciate your clarity on this one issue.

They will say all of those reasons you need a gun are not worth all the gun deaths in our country.

Then they will post the numbers killed with guns and include suicides, criminals and gangs to explain why law abiding citizens shouldn't have a gun.
And they will point to other countries that DON'T have gangs and as many criminals or drugs and pretend the problem is not them...... it's really the gun.
And all the while they will ignore all of the cases where a gun was used to stop crimes or killings.
Oh yeah, and on top of that they will say the second amendment means something other than exactly what it fucking says.

I was hoping for a conversation. I should have known better. 
Yes, people die from medical malpractice, and a thousand other things. 
That doesn't change the fact that too many people in our country die from gun shots. Maybe there is nothing we can do to change that. But to simply accept it without looking for a solution is madness. 
But to argue this is simply nonproductive. Only a rational discussion will ever provide even a hint at a solution.
I'll try to stay away from this from now on. It just does not lead anywhere productive.
And TVguy, hold back on the FUCK YOU's, okay. Now 80 years of age there is not much I can do about it, but it's insulting and unnecessary. Try to find your better self.

[tvguy]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I don't think it's not true that a lot of people die in this country because we have the right to bear arms.
And you are correct about other deaths not always being looked at like so many anti gun people look at gun deaths.

I think the same anti gun people are the ONLY ones who think the second amendment means ANYTHING other than we have a right to bear arms.

What king of fucking logic is there that explains why the founding fathers meant Anything other than what it says?
A person can say it was poorly worded or grammatically incorrect.
I don't care about that.
But to assume it did not mean we have a RIGHT to bear arms one has to leave all logic and common sense behind.


As far as you comment Hugo. the reply will undoubtedly be that you HAVE to go to a doctor but you don't have to own a gun.

A lot of religious freaks will disagree with your first part.... But the second part is problematic.  If you mean "you" as in the masses, then you are correct.  "They" don't 'have' to own a gun. I sure do though.  At least the ones I have.  I own a shotgun because I bird hunt, and it's good for home protection.  I own a variety of calibers of rifles because I hunt for various size critters, AND I enjoy target practice.  And they are good for home protection.  I own a semi auto handgun because I hunt and feel the need for extra firepower, now that we have so many Cougars and Wolves crowding out the deer and elk.  I also carry one for personal protection, at times, when I feel it's necessary.  This is not a complete list, by far, for the reasons or firearms that some find they "want" or "need", but I appreciate your clarity on this one issue.

They will say all of those reasons you need a gun are not worth all the gun deaths in our country.

Then they will post the numbers killed with guns and include suicides, criminals and gangs to explain why law abiding citizens shouldn't have a gun.
And they will point to other countries that DON'T have gangs and as many criminals or drugs and pretend the problem is not them...... it's really the gun.
And all the while they will ignore all of the cases where a gun was used to stop crimes or killings.
Oh yeah, and on top of that they will say the second amendment means something other than exactly what it fucking says.

I was hoping for a conversation. I should have known better. 
Yes, people die from medical malpractice, and a thousand other things. 
That doesn't change the fact that too many people in our country die from gun shots. Maybe there is nothing we can do to change that. But to simply accept it without looking for a solution is madness. 
But to argue this is simply nonproductive. Only a rational discussion will ever provide even a hint at a solution.
I'll try to stay away from this from now on. It just does not lead anywhere productive.
And TVguy, hold back on the FUCK YOU's, okay. Now 80 years of age there is not much I can do about it, but it's insulting and unnecessary. Try to find your better self.

 
  You NEVER could have done anything about. We have this thing called free speech in the constitution. Or do you think it's poorly worded and means something else? "Fuck you" are words on a page, draw a diagram and show me where it hurts.

I don't appreciate it when I spend time explaining my views and if you looked you would see I even mostly agreed with you.
And your first thought is that I want to argue??? That was "insulting and unnecessary" every bit as much as a fuck you.

But to argue this is simply nonproductive. Only a rational discussion will ever provide even a hint at a solution.


What the fuck was NOT rational before YOU claimed all I wanted to do was argue? Don't bother answering just take your marbles and go home like always.

[Cuzz]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I only looked at the politifact link but it doesn't support your statement "More people die from medical malpractice than guns."


You would need to modify it to "More people die from medical accidents than firearm accidents" then you'd be right using their numbers.

[tvguy]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread914624/pg1
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest...ed-by-guns
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statem...dventures/
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/0...-firearms/

More people die from medical malpractice than guns.  Now that we agree about that, what do you propose to do about it? Ban Doctors?

*Note.  Don't bother posting the Snopes bullshit on this one.  The evidence is overwhelming that there are MULTIPLE leading causes of death before firearms, and MEDICAL MALPRACTICE is one of them.

I only looked at the politifact link but it doesn't support your statement "More people die from medical malpractice than guns."


You would need to modify it to "More people die from medical accidents than firearm accidents" then you'd be right using their numbers.

I see Hugo is one of those people who apparently doesn't trust Snopes. And probably like all the others can't tell you why or point to any Snopes posts being wrong.

Anyway this snopes has a lot of information. The same stuff you would find if you did the research instead of them.


https://www.snopes.com/doctors-kill-more...than-guns/