The ideological battle... guns

NoDrama said:

So you're standing in line at the grocery store behind a woman and her 2 daughters, one is around 5 years old and the other is 6 months. Mom is fumbling through her purse when all of a sudden a man with a high power hunting rifle appears, yells something about Ted Cruz and starts taking slow methodical shots at people. Every shot kills one person, after he has run out of bullets he drops the rifle and pulls a pistol from his waistband and walks up to your aisle and shoots the mother in the head, then the 6 month old falls to the floor and he shoots her, and then shoots the 5 year old girl, then he aims it at you and lights out.

Why would you let so many people die when you could have prevented all the killings just by carrying a normal 9mm pistol and using it?

People like you that would let people just get killed like that make me sick.

Click to expand...

When two killers ambushed a pair of Las Vegas police officers Sunday and vowed to gun down others, an unassuming man jumped into the line of fire to try to stop the violence — an act of bravery that cost him his life.

Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, was at Walmart with a friend returning a modem when a gun-toting couple who had just murdered two police officers at a pizza shop came into the store. Instead of running away, Wilcox, told his friend he was going to confront the one gunman he could see.


Sign up for breaking news alerts from NBC News

Wilcox pulled out the handgun for which he had a concealed weapons permit but that his family says he rarely carried. He approached Jerad Miller, a 31-year-old ex-convict who investigators say walked into Walmart, fired off one round, and told shoppers, "This is a revolution." His wife, Amanda Miller, 22, was trailing behind, authorities said.

"[Wilcox] immediately and heroically moved towards the position of Jerad Miller," Las Vegas Assistant Sheriff Kevin McMahill said at a briefing Monday. "As soon as he began to confront Jerad Miller with his firearm, Amanda Miller removed her firearm and shot him one time in the ribs area, where he immediately collapsed."

The final bloodshed of the day came after police officers arrived and exchanged gunfire with the suspects, who McMahill said had taken guns and ammunition from the belts of the officers they shot dead at the nearby CiCi's Pizza before they charged into Walmart. Both suspects were injured during the gunfight before Amanda Miller fired several rounds at Jerad, then ending her own life with a single gunshot.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/vegas-cop-killers/cost-bravery-vegas-bystander-died-trying-stop-rampage-n127361

schuylaar said:

When two killers ambushed a pair of Las Vegas police officers Sunday and vowed to gun down others, an unassuming man jumped into the line of fire to try to stop the violence — an act of bravery that cost him his life.

Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, was at Walmart with a friend returning a modem when a gun-toting couple who had just murdered two police officers at a pizza shop came into the store. Instead of running away, Wilcox, told his friend he was going to confront the one gunman he could see.


Sign up for breaking news alerts from NBC News

Wilcox pulled out the handgun for which he had a concealed weapons permit but that his family says he rarely carried. He approached Jerad Miller, a 31-year-old ex-convict who investigators say walked into Walmart, fired off one round, and told shoppers, "This is a revolution." His wife, Amanda Miller, 22, was trailing behind, authorities said.

"[Wilcox] immediately and heroically moved towards the position of Jerad Miller," Las Vegas Assistant Sheriff Kevin McMahill said at a briefing Monday. "As soon as he began to confront Jerad Miller with his firearm, Amanda Miller removed her firearm and shot him one time in the ribs area, where he immediately collapsed."

The final bloodshed of the day came after police officers arrived and exchanged gunfire with the suspects, who McMahill said had taken guns and ammunition from the belts of the officers they shot dead at the nearby CiCi's Pizza before they charged into Walmart. Both suspects were injured during the gunfight before Amanda Miller fired several rounds at Jerad, then ending her own life with a single gunshot.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/vegas-cop-killers/cost-bravery-vegas-bystander-died-trying-stop-rampage-n127361

Click to expand...

Cool Story sistah!

What does it have to do with the safetygun?

You do realize that after Mr Wilcox intervened, the killing of innocent people also stopped?

ginwilly said:

The handgun problem in this country is a real thing but it's more complicated then making it harder for law abiding citizens. The law abiders were never the problem. Now if you can get the people who are killing other people to follow gun laws, you'll probably get them to follow other laws like "don't kill people".

It's not an easy solution, but approaching it from adding to the other 600 some odd laws concerning guns is the wrong angle for sure. That should be obvious. If the laws were working, we could have stopped over 500 ago.

The odd thing is, long guns are not the problem, but those are what consistently get attacked. We base our laws on emotion "if you can save just one child" instead of logic. "How many did guns save? it's unquantifiable, but you can bet your ass it was more than one".

Don't know the answer, handguns ARE a problem, but a problem with criminals. Making new laws will make new criminals, I'm not sure that's a solution.

Click to expand...

Lets get a list of the top 10 things that kill people. I am sure guns are not on it. Heart disease and Automobile accidents are likely there though.

UncleBuck said:

and if red1966 bought a smoke alarm, he would not have benghazi'd his entire family.

if my little puppy had balls, she wouldn't be such a bitch.

if you didn't live in apache junction...who am i kidding? you and AJ are a match made in heaven.

Click to expand...

I once said I lived near AJ and repeatedly have said I live in Gold Canyon. That doesnt stop you from being retarded, ignoring the facts and making up whatever fits your belief system. At least you are a consistent liberal.

NLXSK1 said:

Lets get a list of the top 10 things that kill people. I am sure guns are not on it. Heart disease and Automobile accidents are likely there though.

Click to expand...

Oh you can bet the number 1 killer involves the FDA and their insanity in some form.

I'm only making the argument that none of the laws we've tried have worked, attacking long guns is counter productive because 99% of deaths are handgun related, so what to do?

I'm also one of those people that think the 2nd amendment gives me the right to own a nuclear weapon and they need to fix that. 200 years from now, hand held vaporizers will most likely be possible, I don't want those on the general market either.

These rights shall not be infringed means what it says in my book. Unfortunately, I also don't trust our government to take our guns. I like the idea of everyone packing myself.

Rob Roy said:

Where does anybody get the right to take away, amend, abridge, fuck with etc. another persons guns by using or threatening to use guns to enforce it?

Click to expand...

constitution.

ginwilly said:

Oh you can bet the number 1 killer involves the FDA and their insanity in some form.

I'm only making the argument that none of the laws we've tried have worked, attacking long guns is counter productive because 99% of deaths are handgun related, so what to do?

I'm also one of those people that think the 2nd amendment gives me the right to own a nuclear weapon and they need to fix that. 200 years from now, hand held vaporizers will most likely be possible, I don't want those on the general market either.

These rights shall not be infringed means what it says in my book. Unfortunately, I also don't trust our government to take our guns. I like the idea of everyone packing myself.

Click to expand...

We accept that life is not safe and giving up 100% of our freedoms and rights would still not make it 100% safe.

Someone clubbed a girl and lit her on fire the other day. No gun was used yet she died a horrible death. There is no way to be completely safe.

ginwilly said:

I'm also one of those people that think the 2nd amendment gives me the right to own a nuclear weapon

Click to expand...

yeah, we know you're retarded.

ginwilly said:

These rights shall not be infringed means what it says in my book.

Click to expand...

unfortunately, non-retarded people like those on the supreme court disagree.

NLXSK1 said:

We accept that life is not safe and giving up 100% of our freedoms and rights would still not make it 100% safe.

Someone clubbed a girl and lit her on fire the other day. No gun was used yet she died a horrible death. There is no way to be completely safe.

Click to expand...

Children will stop dying if you would only wear a wristwatch.

You know what Buck?

The mods dont have to ban you for me to not have to put up with you here...

NLXSK1 said:

We accept that life is not safe and giving up 100% of our freedoms and rights would still not make it 100% safe.

Someone clubbed a girl and lit her on fire the other day. No gun was used yet she died a horrible death. There is no way to be completely safe.

Click to expand...

Understood, but here's my dilemma. The way the 2nd is written, there is no limit to what I can own. In the future there will be weapons that eliminate any evidence, I don't trust the general pop enough to own something like that. I also don't trust the politicians to rewrite the 2nd... So there I am. Knowing that I should be legally allowed to own nukes if my government is legally allowed to own nukes, yet not wanting my neighbor to own them.

I went ahead and put the snitchbitch houseboy on ignore for the night because he was unusually hateful really early, I can't imagine what the night is going to be like. I can go ahead and say he will quote the Heller verdict like it means something it doesn't.

So, in before Buck is wrong again.

NLXSK1 said:

You know what Buck?

The mods dont have to ban you for me to not have to put up with you here...

Click to expand...

why are you crying?

ginwilly said:

The way the 2nd is written, there is no limit to what I can own.

Click to expand...

yes there is read, read the heller decision you retarded imbecile.

ginwilly said:

Understood, but here's my dilemma. The way the 2nd is written, there is no limit to what I can own. In the future there will be weapons that eliminate any evidence, I don't trust the general pop enough to own something like that. I also don't trust the politicians to rewrite the 2nd... So there I am. Knowing that I should be legally allowed to own nukes if my government is legally allowed to own nukes, yet not wanting my neighbor to own them.

Click to expand...

We can solve that problem simply. What you are not addressing is that the left wants to limit guns and doesnt care how.

The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear and keep arms. We just limit it to personal attack and defense weapons and say that private citizens cannot own area of attack weapons.

This would include grenades, RPG's, Artillery, Tanks, Nukes, Etc... There is a dotted line about the place where semi-automatic meets automatic weapons but I really dont care what side of the line it is drawn because all I need is a good rifle and/or pistol.

Basically it is the way it is now in most places where the government hasnt fucked it up like DC.

NLXSK1 said:

We can solve that problem simply. What you are not addressing is that the left wants to limit guns and doesnt care how.

The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear and keep arms. We just limit it to personal attack and defense weapons and say that private citizens cannot own area of attack weapons.

This would include grenades, RPG's, Artillery, Tanks, Nukes, Etc... There is a dotted line about the place where semi-automatic meets automatic weapons but I really dont care what side of the line it is drawn because all I need is a good rifle and/or pistol.

Basically it is the way it is now in most places where the government hasnt fucked it up like DC.

Click to expand...

That solves it for today's technology, but what about tomorrow's?

Just revisit it then? I guess that works.

Also, you are going to have one hell of a fight on your hands with those that argue the 2nd is for protection from a tyrannical government. I don't think it's a fight you can win either, no political will.

As soon as the government tries gun control it makes me nervous and I'm not a gun type. I don't trust them enough to allow them to touch the 2nd right now.

That's my quandary. I don't trust idiots with weapons, I don't trust idiots who don't understand those weapons making laws on them.

Edit: ftr, I realize I'm just bitching and not really offering anything. I don't know what to do honestly.

ginwilly said:

That solves it for today's technology, but what about tomorrow's?

Just revisit it then? I guess that works.

Also, you are going to have one hell of a fight on your hands with those that argue the 2nd is for protection from a tyrannical government. I don't think it's a fight you can win either, no political will.

As soon as the government tries gun control it makes me nervous and I'm not a gun type. I don't trust them enough to allow them to touch the 2nd right now.

That's my quandary.

Click to expand...

I think CSI is moving faster than the technology to kill someone without a trace. Add camera's to that and it is getting damn hard not to be spotted in almost any public place one way or another.

Wondering if they are going to find that 19 year olds killer. They say she told them who did it but I find that kinda hard to believe if her throat was medium rare....

schuylaar said:

shut up.

Click to expand...

Leave it to you and buck to revert to shut up and name calling.
I'm calling it like it is.

You lefties are opposed to the death penalty.
The prison system is over run. So all these felons that have committed violent crimes get out early and do it again.
It is a well known fact that 85% of felons return to prison.

All I meant was solve that problem first and maybe I will consider it.

If the system was affordable and proven reliable then I might consider buying one for carry purposes.

Why is that you guys ask a question then get mad when people state something other than your opinion?
What was the point of asking the question in the first place?

And don't think for a minute that if any of us gun owners really thought it would save a kids life we wouldn't buy it.
Your logic behind it is wrong.

I can't stand people that buy a 100 dollar cheap safe to store thousands of dollars of guns.
You need a decent fire proof safe that the average person can not break into.

If I had said safe and no kids have access to my guns, how can they be a problem?

Not sure how many of you guys have kids but my 2 yr old will do anythins she is taught or see done ... she has no problem powering on the plastation and inserting disk she chooses or turning jer tr ablet on then going to gallery then choosing her movie she wants...

Meaning, she sees you with a watch and a firearm then she may not know why but she will know she needs them both... a watch will not do anything to save a child , they are not dumb and are more tech suave then most older generations before they can talk. To think a connection between a watch and gun wont be made is crazy. Do people thin the watch will be harder for the child to find or get at? If thats some idiots theory then why shouldn't it be noted to just safely store the gun and call it a day. Just seems like more work.

Also for the few who will debate the option of a child that young even havng a chance to see the firearm and the watch together to connect the dots, you tell me the difference as to how they had a chance just to see the firearm in the first place if the watch didnt exist...

Hate to say it but accidents happen and they make gun safes that can be opened in a mere second that is child proof. Spend all this money to educate people on gun safety and to arrest the real criminals. Not too long ago a couple politicians were under investigation for being involved in bring high power weapons into country.

Its not the local gun owner that are the issue, its the criminal gun smugglers that work for the goverment which saleriera we pay, that distribute and cause mass deaths. Now knowing there is facts showing that why is it people bicker back and forth against each other when the enemy is in front of them laughing at them. Maybe cause thats how they want things to be...

Wish people could stop being such sheeps, this entire news, media, politic drama which has our country in shambles is such a made up manipulated joke. Why is it majority of people think you need to choose a side? Black,white,democrat,republican
republican,conservative ect... why cant people just have opinions and vote for the people who they think can make the city,state,country better? People seem to just need some sort of system in place to pass the blame on rather thN to blame a specific person.

Final note on the watxhes for the guns, albiet there is tech on the watch that allows another user aka goverment or police to disactivate the watch at any time. So there is liability for hackers to interfere.also seems so god then why are police not mandated to wear these watches so even if a criminal gta ahold of his gun then he could not fire it. How many police or gov official guns are stolen which could be pointless if these watches werre so great? Which btw are loaded with special bullets that are illegal to even buy in some states... possibly could have changed the furgeson shooting cause cop would not be so scared to allow a criminal to get firearm and could have physically detained rather thanjust shoot. Could enact a law to charge an officer for shooting before physically trying to detain someone to rule out them just being let go on a murder charge. There is a saying used a work alot, "lead by example" gov wants to use these then they should be puting them n every cops.

If its not good enough for there lifes then why is it for us.

UncleBuck said:

constitution.

Click to expand...

Wrong again bozo the clown.

A piece of paper can't give a right to take away another persons right, it can however make a record of an agreement between CONSENTING parties.

Not that it would matter, but can you even show me where in the constitution it says some people can take away another persons right to bear arms?

Can you show me who signed the original documents from hundreds of years ago and explain how a document formed hundreds of years ago and signed by nobody alive today can bind anybody alive today? Which other "contracts" that long ago dead people signed are binding on people today who never agreed to any of it?

Lysander Spooner called and said he wrote an agreement that binds people in the future, the document reads that the person who has the most posts on Rollitup (I have no idea how he knew it would be you) will have to clean the bathrooms at Wendys for evermore.

Why haven't you cleaned the bathrooms yet? There's a document written on parchment, which you never agreed to, that says you have to. Is that a binding contract genius?

NLXSK1 said:

We can solve that problem simply. What you are not addressing is that the left wants to limit guns and doesnt care how.

The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear and keep arms. We just limit it to personal attack and defense weapons and say that private citizens cannot own area of attack weapons.

This would include grenades, RPG's, Artillery, Tanks, Nukes, Etc... There is a dotted line about the place where semi-automatic meets automatic weapons but I really dont care what side of the line it is drawn because all I need is a good rifle and/or pistol.

Basically it is the way it is now in most places where the government hasnt fucked it up like DC.

Click to expand...

Not trying to be critical, but the second amendment does not "give" any rights. The intent was to enumerate a natural right that already exists.

While I think the constitution is flawed, as it presupposes consent when there is none, the bill of rights does have many concepts that make sense. The right to bear arms in self defense is one of them.

Of course if rights were "given" to people by government, they would no longer be rights, they would become privileges capable of being revoked by "leaders".

Privileges and rights are very different....Government granted privileges are a slippery slope and sort of like comfortable handcuffs...Just like what is going to happen when weed is "legalized", it will be on a master / slave permission basis. Which does nothing to advance real freedom. Peace.