These Students will change US gun landscape

[Curious George]

They have. Cars are many times less dangerous than they were in the 1960s (for example). Safety glass was added, laminated windshields, seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, center brake lights-- just a few of the safety measures forced into cars.

As a result, auto wreaks are thousands of times less deadly than they used to be-- thousands are alive today, because cars were forced to be safer.

Funny thing-- you have to own insurance--- liability insurance-- before driving one. What a silly idea *that* was, right?

Before driving one on private property? And is this true in all states?

 

[esmith]

The 2A wasn't in the original constitution

It's still the Constitution, or did they not teach that in your school.

 

[esmith]

Yes. But the current movement is about gun laws to prevent or reduce mass shootings. They are a form of domestic terrorism by deranged individuals and its shameful that they have been able to do this with legally procured guns.

So how do you plan to remove someone's Constitutional rights without due process of law. Or is that just something really don't care about.

 

[sayak83]

So how do you plan to remove someone's Constitutional rights without due process of law. Or is that just something really don't care about.

As I said in the OP, this movement will eventually lead to SC interpreting the 2nd amendment in a much more restrictive way.

Laws can always be changed.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You should be entitled to take reasonable measures to take care of your own personal security.

Indeed.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So how do you plan to remove someone's Constitutional rights without due process of law. Or is that just something really don't care about.

Ask the Cheeto in Chief.
Trump On Gun Confiscation From Dangerous People: "Guns First, Due Process Second"

 

[Shaul]

If your going to listen to the students from Parkland you should hear from all of them, shouldn’t you?

Parkland School Shooting Survivor: Don't Blame Guns, Blame the 'Cowards of Broward County' | Breitbart

 

[Audie]

What? Not a home-invasion?
Oh yes it was!!!!
You wrote that down........ didn't you!
.


I'm the kind of man that knows enough about security and loss-prevention to ask questions such as 'How did this happen?' 'How did your home fail to keep an intruder out?'
That's the kind of man that I am.

Why not get your boyfriend to tell you how he could gain access to your home, and then follow that up with how he suggest how he could be deterred or slowed or stopped whilst still outside?
Then spend on securing your home.

There are situations where good security fails, and I have met with most of them but if you happen to own a safe full of jewelry or happen to be a gold trader we can even respond to threats like those.

I see that you are the kind of "man" who among other things tries to play
gotcha with contradictions that you concoct.

Note how I put "man" in quotations marks? What do you suppose that means, why did I put it in quotation marks?

You put the word "invasion" in quotation marks. The way you did it clearly implied that it having been an invasion was open to such doubt that you do not believe it. The way I put it there was to say it was not something to put in quotation marks as per your questioning its reality. It was an invasion, not a phony or questionable event.

But then, I am quite sure you knew all of that, and are being disingenuous.
You are old enough to know what you were doing when you wrote it as
'invasion'. Anything for a cheap shot at a gotcha? It looks like a pattern Or
you just say things and have no idea why or what it might mean?

You are also the kind of man who finds it ok to suggest that what happened
was somehow my fault. I notice you avoided responding to that, and edited out most of what I said.

Here is it again.


It was not a " " invasion, nor was it my fault. What kind of man are you?

It is not too late to say what kind of man would make it out to be my fault, just for the sake of advancing your argument. Care to now?

I have had to retell each awful detail many times. I certainly am able to do so, unpleasant as it has heen
Your request for exact details seemed off some way, and my instinct not to supply you with any information was certainly correct. You so plainly reveal that your only interest was
to find a mean spirited way to exploit my misfortune for your own purposes.

You of course, said I would not or could not, and exploited that. And do
not acknowledge my response.

You've been pretty careful to only respond to what you can use
to advance your agenda and avoid what might not put you in a good light.

What you have done is this: you managed to find a way
to make what happened to me somehow my fault
and to callously exploit my misfortune as a way to
advance your opinions. And, as I said earlier, you are
the only "man" other than the one who assaulted
me who has exploited me in t his connection or made it my fault.

And, of course, you still show not a trace of conscience
about that.

What a person does defines the kind of person they are.

 

[Curious George]

Indeed.

I am glad we agree. So, now the question is whether gun ownership is reasonable; and, if we should regulate gun ownership, at what level ought gun ownership be regulated?

 

[Audie]

I am glad we agree. So, now the question is whether gun ownership is reasonable; and, if we should regulate gun ownership, at what level ought gun ownership be regulated?

Everyone from the NRA to the most adamant anti are in agreement that there
should be, and are, a lot of regulations.

Which ones are actually useful and effective, and what new ones may
be needed is the actual topic. Unfortunately, we see so many on either
side going off into extreme and unrealistic talk that it kind of obscured
that fact.

Even in Japan and China, which are not noted for their guns shows,
some people have permits to use guns.

I saw where these radioactive Fukushima hogs are rapidly increasing in
numbers, and the hunters are unable to control them. So I guess there
are some hunters.

I dont know what realistic or, "common sense" regs are needed in the USA,
that do not exist now Seems most everyone else is an expert.

I actually bought a gun as a sort of "close the barn door after the horse
is gone", reaction to a one-of circumstance when I surely would have
been better off being able to protect myself. I sold it since then, and
live in a no-guns city, where I dont think I need and dont want one anyway.

If heaven forbid, I ever were where I might see a need, I appreciate that
I could purchase something with which ti protect myself.

Which does not make me an expert on the kind of laws we need!

It did tho, give me a perspective I didnt have before.

 

[Twilight Hue]

They have. Cars are many times less dangerous than they were in the 1960s (for example). Safety glass was added, laminated windshields, seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, center brake lights-- just a few of the safety measures forced into cars.

As a result, auto wreaks are thousands of times less deadly than they used to be-- thousands are alive today, because cars were forced to be safer.

Funny thing-- you have to own insurance--- liability insurance-- before driving one. What a silly idea *that* was, right?

So much to say for safety. They still lead the pack in causing death.

Insurance is a good idea though.

 

[Audie]

So much to say for safety. They still lead the pack in causing death.

Insurance is a good idea though.

No phone and no booze is another.

Texting while driving has become a greater hazard than drinking and driving among teenagers who openly acknowledge sending and reading text messages while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle.

The number of teens who are dying or being injured as a result of texting while driving has skyrocketed as mobile device technology has advanced. Researchers at Cohen Children's Medical Center in New Hyde Park estimate more than 3,000 annual teen deaths nationwide from texting and 300,000 injuries.

The habit now surpasses the number of teens who drink and drive -- a hazard that has been on a dramatic decline in recent years, researchers s

 

[Twilight Hue]

No phone and no booze is another.

Texting while driving has become a greater hazard than drinking and driving among teenagers who openly acknowledge sending and reading text messages while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle.

The number of teens who are dying or being injured as a result of texting while driving has skyrocketed as mobile device technology has advanced. Researchers at Cohen Children's Medical Center in New Hyde Park estimate more than 3,000 annual teen deaths nationwide from texting and 300,000 injuries.

The habit now surpasses the number of teens who drink and drive -- a hazard that has been on a dramatic decline in recent years, researchers s

True. There are so many more dangerous concerns other than guns out there.

Schools should set up metal detecting equipment like they do at airports and federal and municipal buildings. That should suffice.

 

[Audie]

True. There are so many more dangerous concerns other than guns out there.

Schools should set up metal detecting equipment like they do at airports and federal and municipal buildings. That should suffice.

Americans seem fond of the wildly inappropriate overreactions!

18 guys fly four airplanes in terrorist attack?

That was bad and all, but, seriously, talk about over reaction!

 

[Curious George]

Everyone from the NRA to the most adamant anti are in agreement that there
should be, and are, a lot of regulations.

Which ones are actually useful and effective, and what new ones may
be needed is the actual topic. Unfortunately, we see so many on either
side going off into extreme and unrealistic talk that it kind of obscured
that fact.

Even in Japan and China, which are not noted for their guns shows,
some people have permits to use guns.

I saw where these radioactive Fukushima hogs are rapidly increasing in
numbers, and the hunters are unable to control them. So I guess there
are some hunters.

I dont know what realistic or, "common sense" regs are needed in the USA,
that do not exist now Seems most everyone else is an expert.

I actually bought a gun as a sort of "close the barn door after the horse
is gone", reaction to a one-of circumstance when I surely would have
been better off being able to protect myself. I sold it since then, and
live in a no-guns city, where I dont think I need and dont want one anyway.

If heaven forbid, I ever were where I might see a need, I appreciate that
I could purchase something with which ti protect myself.

Which does not make me an expert on the kind of laws we need!

It did tho, give me a perspective I didnt have before.

I do not think it takes an expert to discuss these issues. I think your question of how comes after the two questions I have mentioned. This is because the answer to the questions I mentioned greatly affects the how.

We recognize that guns are a useful tool in dangerous situations. Note we have police and military carry guns. We have anecdotal evidence of guns stopping violence and murder. Consequently, those wishing to suggest that guns are an unreasonable choice have an uphill climb.

I think the question regarding the level of government that can regulate guns is an important aspect of which many unfamiliar with the U.S. are unaware. The level of regulation is certainly relevant to decide before the how, imo.

 

[Audie]

I do not think it takes an expert to discuss these issues. I think your question of how comes after the two questions I have mentioned. This is because the answer to the questions I mentioned greatly affects the how.

We recognize that guns are a useful tool in dangerous situations. Note we have police and military carry guns. We have anecdotal evidence of guns stopping violence and murder. Consequently, those wishing to suggest that guns are an unreasonable choice have an uphill climb.

I think the question regarding the level of government that can regulate guns is an important aspect of which many unfamiliar with the U.S. are unaware. The level of regulation is certainly relevant to decide before the how, imo.

Makes sense. The "experts" I refer to are the ones
who say they know what to do. They dont.

Anyone can, of course, discuss or as it may be, rant
and state opinions as fact. You dont need to know a blessed thing, for that.

See "creationist" for examples.

 

[oldbadger]

I see that you are the kind of "man" who among other things tries to play
gotcha with contradictions that you concoct.

Note how I put "man" in quotations marks? What do you suppose that means, why did I put it in quotation marks?

You put the word "invasion" in quotation marks. The way you did it clearly implied that it having been an invasion was open to such doubt that you do not believe it. The way I put it there was to say it was not something to put in quotation marks as per your questioning its reality. It was an invasion, not a phony or questionable event.

But then, I am quite sure you knew all of that, and are being disingenuous.
You are old enough to know what you were doing when you wrote it as
'invasion'. Anything for a cheap shot at a gotcha? It looks like a pattern Or
you just say things and have no idea why or what it might mean?

You are also the kind of man who finds it ok to suggest that what happened
was somehow my fault. I notice you avoided responding to that, and edited out most of what I said.

Here is it again.


It was not a " " invasion, nor was it my fault. What kind of man are you?

It is not too late to say what kind of man would make it out to be my fault, just for the sake of advancing your argument. Care to now?

I have had to retell each awful detail many times. I certainly am able to do so, unpleasant as it has heen
Your request for exact details seemed off some way, and my instinct not to supply you with any information was certainly correct. You so plainly reveal that your only interest was
to find a mean spirited way to exploit my misfortune for your own purposes.

You of course, said I would not or could not, and exploited that. And do
not acknowledge my response.

You've been pretty careful to only respond to what you can use
to advance your agenda and avoid what might not put you in a good light.

What you have done is this: you managed to find a way
to make what happened to me somehow my fault
and to callously exploit my misfortune as a way to
advance your opinions. And, as I said earlier, you are
the only "man" other than the one who assaulted
me who has exploited me in t his connection or made it my fault.

And, of course, you still show not a trace of conscience
about that.

What a person does defines the kind of person they are.

All that rant....,.,.,..
To show me beyond any doubt in my mind that your home had little or no common sense security in place.

You didn't need a gun, imo. You just needed to have spent some money out on your home, rather than on your guns.

And that is why you couldn't, or wouldn't... simply explain how the intruders entered your home.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

As I said in the OP, this movement will eventually lead to SC interpreting the 2nd amendment in a much more restrictive way.

Laws can always be changed.

We need more liberal justices on the Court to be assured of that, but I believe the current dynamic could still produce a favorable result. The court dynamic as it currently is gave us marriage equality after all. Kennedy and Roberts are not immovable.

 

[Audie]

All that rant....,.,.,..
To show me beyond any doubt in my mind that your home had little or no common sense security in place.

You didn't need a gun, imo. You just needed to have spent some money out on your home, rather than on your guns.

And that is why you couldn't, or wouldn't... simply explain how the intruders entered your home.

Your opinion is worth zero, based on nothing but your attitude.. It was not my house It was a summer cabin on the lake, not fort knox on the lake. I had bad luck. And zero way of protecting myself. Someone gets in. Perfect time for me to start investing in someone else's building.

There was noting of cash value there. They broke in to get me.
A security system to bring cops from 35 miles away? Houses are very easy to break into.

Not that I have the least obligation to respond to your rude demands.

As for my observation about your profoundly ungentlemanly way of blaming me, exploiting my misfortune misrepresenting what I say, insinuating that it was not really a break in and dodging any responsibility for yourself by calling it a rant, well that is just doubling down to demonstrate what you'd already shown plainly enough.

 

[oldbadger]

Your opinion is worth zero, based on nothing but your attitude.. It was not my house It was a summer cabin on the lake, not fort knox on the lake. I had bad luck. And zero way of protecting myself. Someone gets in. Perfect time for me to start investing in someone else's building.[/QUOTE}
It might have been easier for you if my wife had answered your posts, and then you couldn't have used quite so much sexism in your rants?
So you went to a lonely, detached cabin on a lake, far from others, a cabin with zilch security, and a bunch of persons came in..... to get you? Yes?
You could have had a gun with you, but did you need an assault rifle?

There was noting of cash value there. They broke in to get me.
A security system to bring cops from 35 miles away? Houses are very easy to break into.

Houses are extremely difficult to break into if sensible security is provided. And we are nlot talking about houses now, but a remote cabin on a lake, 35 miles away from any assistance, where you went alone.......... My wife would not go there without a shotgun or revolver, because presumably there is some animal threat, but she would not need a fast-firing assault-type rifle, now would she!

Not that I have the least obligation to respond to your rude demands.

Well, you told me in the end. We got there after loads of shouting........

As for my observation about your profoundly ungentlemanly way of blaming me, exploiting my misfortune misrepresenting what I say, insinuating that it was not really a break in and dodging any responsibility for yourself by calling it a rant, well that is just doubling down to demonstrate what you'd already shown plainly enough.

Don't you dare call me a gentleman!
But I'm not a nasty either........ I've spoken with more traumatised folks after more crime incidents than you could imagine, and they all acted to prevent or reduce such risks afterwards. The trick is, to get people to act before such incidents.

If you go to some remote mountain with a tent (whatever) it would be a good idea to take a gun with you, but an assault rifle really won't be necessary, and I hio;pe that the children of the USA make a great big difference in that direction.