OMGImInPattaya

2 hours ago, Golgota said:

You know taxes sometimes pay things you will never benefit? Road at the other side of the country, cultural events you will never go...

I think people's fertility decisions are a little different than roads, and are not appropriate use of taxpayer's money. Reasonable people can disagree on this, however.

2 hours ago, Becker said:

Preventing unwanted children to be born by mothers who are often incapable of raising them properly is in my opinion a public good. If you don't agree with that that's fair enough but there's no need to emulate your hero (the man-child) and drag the discussion into the gutter .

That's more like it...an actual argument. I still don't think it's a public good to subsidize other people's fertility but that can be settled in the political marketplace.

6 minutes ago, Becker said:

If that's what you took away from my post then you have some serious issues you should try to deal with.

I'm trying to understand your logic; I have no problem with anyone using birth control but why is it a public good that should be paid for by taxpayers?

1 hour ago, Becker said:

Yes, and why do I have to pay for other people's roads, schools, police and military??? Enough with the communism - let them defend themselves the lazy bastards!!

All the things you cited are "public goods" that we all use and therefore it's proper that all pay for them. Are you saying women's parts are public goods for all to use?

Major Democrat Party donor, self-described "feminist," Woman's March participant (did he wear a pink pussy hat?), Hillary supporter, Trump hater, ...oh the irony...LOL

I've never understood why Obama mandated I have to pay for others' birth control choices...at least he could have paid for my condoms too.

Maybe there is no motive other than he wanted to go out with a bang...he doesn't seem to have been very political, reports say he was a millionaire several times over, no serious health issues have come to light. Some things in life are simply inexplicable.

What do they do the rest of the day...sleep?

5 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

And the pro gun people like your self are zealots too. The difference is that the anti gun people want to stop the loss of innocent life whereas the pro gun zealots like yourself do not care one little bit how many people die as long as you can keep your guns.

 

The arguement from moral superiority...just hold up the shield of dead people and you're in the right. A pretty weak argument to me.

12 hours ago, bazza73 said:

You may be right. However, I doubt the families of the 58/59 dead at Las Vegas would agree with you. Neither would the 600 injured, some of whom face months or years of painful rehabilitation.

The majority of handgun deaths are suicide. I don't have a problem with that, provided the person is considerate enough to take no-one else with them.

Here's a radical thought - why not restrict both?  And a hint - firearm related suicides in Australia declined by over 60% after the gun buyback in 1996.

Yes, the pain and loss of the victims and their friends and famalies is inconceivable. However, I don't think it is a good idea to make laws or Constitutional doctrine based on the emotions of the moment.

12 hours ago, Grouse said:

You see, we have police for "the ordering of society. 

 

We don't need armed nutters or vigilantes.

 

Civilised society works, recommended.

 

bapbapbapbapbap you're dead! Great eh?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. America is a vast place and in many of thise places, the calvary is hours away.

In addition, the police are under no legal obligation to intervene in a situation to "save your life." That's up to you and your gun.

21 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Another deflection attempt. Point to something else.

Assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles are not a de minimis problem. They are the sine qua non weapon of any aspiring mass murderer.

So bump stocks have sold out in the gun stores after Las Vegas. The gun owners without one ( or two, or three ,or four ) fear they will be banned. As usual, gun sales have spiked after a massacre, and shares in armaments companies have gone up.

This mindset has all the logic of attempting to extinguish a fire with 95 octane gasoline. It would be laughable if it was not so tragic.

I would call less than 100 deaths per year, in a population of over 320M, an infinitesimally small problem. If one really wanted to reduce deaths from guns, the call would be for a handgun ban and not an assault weapons ban.

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

"The anti-gun crowd are zealots"

 

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds to grown ups?

 

Don't you think the NRA nutters are zealots?

 

What sane person would want know what a sear or a bump stop is? Just think about that.

 

You asked me what was an acceptable number of gun deaths per annum. I replied zero. You say that's unrealistic; so tell us how many you would like to see?

I think most people would like to see zero accidental or unnecessary people on people deaths of any kind. However, people being what they are, I think this is a distant dream. The acceptable number is whatever it is consistent with the law and regulations that are in place for the ordering of society. 

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yes, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that regulating guns is also constitutional, so the debate is about proper degree of regulation.  I believe regulation along the lines of those applied to drivers and automobiles can be applied that would be constitutional and reduce the number of gun fatalities.  You seem to think that no regulation, even a simple background check for criminal or psychiatric issues, is appropriate.

 

Telephones and the internet are regulated, and likely to become more so.  Provided the regulations are in line with the "guidance" of the constitution that is acceptable.  As noted, regulation of guns is also acceptable.

 

My posts are no more rants than yours, and my arguments for sensible gun regulation are not limited to this forum.  I also vote for sensible candidates that aren't afraid of confrontation with the NRA whenever I can.  Unfortunately a well funded organization representing millions of tiny-minded, single-issue voters can have a disproportionate impact on legislation.

 

You ignored part of my post.  Do you think the constitutional right to bear arms should include all arms, including chemical, nuclear and biological?  If not, where to you draw the line?

The right to drive is not in the Constitution, whereas bearing arms (aka guns) is; therefore any regulations on guns face much higher scrutiny in order to be legal than those for driving a car. My preference is for nation-wide constitutional open carry.

Good on you for supporting candidates who represent your views on guns...democracy is a wonderful thing. It's just too bad you have to engage in ad hominem attacks on your fellow citizens who support politicians and organizations with which you disagree. I take it you also disapprove of those who support Planned Parenthood, that well-funded organization representing millions of tiny-minded, single issues voters who support the right to kill babies.

I would draw the line at any gun (mechanical ((or in future electro-mechanical)) implement or device that can be carried and operated by a single person.

54 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

It was during Obama's time, but it was the ATF which made the decision.  Obama can't personally oversee every decision that's made in the hundreds of offices connected to the Federal gov't.  He personally is against a lot more than bump-stock.

 

Would you blame Ron Reagan (for not placing added concrete blockades) for the dozens of marines killed in Beirut truck bombing?

You can deflect all you want...the approval was made by the Obama Administration.

Never heard of him...but cool name.

It takes a Republican Congress and the Trump administration to roll back the Obama Administration's approval of "bump-stops."  Oh the irony LMAO

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Zero

Not very realistic.  As I have said, the anti-gun crowd are zealots and there can be no compromise with them.

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Much, much too high which ever way you look at it

That's your opinion. What would be an acceptable number?

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

"take a poll"?  In other words, you are aware of no such poll.  Neither am I.

 

The second amendment:

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

It is a very unclear amendment.  A reasonable interpretation is that the right to bear arms only exists for members of a well regulated militia.

 

It's worth remembering that at the time the amendment was written guns were single shot muzzle-loaders, were used to feed families (a significant amount of the meat on the table of Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries was wild game) and were the most expensive item in most households.  The authors of the constitution had no way of knowing that guns would become so cheap, lethal, and unnecessary.

 

It's also worth noting that the second amendment isn't limited to guns, it refers to arms.  At the time it was written the concept of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons didn't exist, but they do now.  Do you support the right of the weird neighbor down the street to  experiment with chemical weapons in his garage and to plant landmines in his front yard to keep the neighbors kids from trespassing?

 

Fortunately the framers of the constitution knew that they could not foresee all future needs of the country.  That's why they included a process for changing the Constitution.  An update to the outdated and poorly written second amendment is seriously past due.

 

Edit:  Since the second amendment does state "well regulated", I think background checks are clearly constitutional.  In fact, there's room for much more regulation.

You can keep howling at the moon but the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right is an individual, not collective, one. So your militia argument is moot.

The Founders didn't foresee telephones or the internet either but provided guidance on expression and communication in general in the First Amendment. It's the same  with "arms" in the Second.

You're certainly right about amending the Constitution. What are you doing to change it besides ranting  on a Thailand centric internet forum?

15 hours ago, Grouse said:

So what are the correct numbers? Zero?

It depends on the year and the exact definition used. However, the Dept. of Justice puts it at less than 100 per year on average. Liberals and gun confiscation advocates, who count every multiple gun killing that takes place in the 'hood, have much higher numbers.

17 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

And as I've already asked, why are you trying to limit the discussion to mass shootings?

We can narrow down even further, and say only two people per year are killed in mass shooting incidents while swimming between the hours of 2 and 6 pm. There, now guns seem positively innocent!

 

Because liberals and Democrat politicos are calling for things like "assault weapons" bans to solve a de minimis problem. If they really want to have some affect, why don't they call for a handgun ban?

18 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

What's strange to me, is that the same statistical approach applies to Muslim terrorist attacks, too. And yet, would you believe it, there are people who just propose all kinds of draconian measures to deal with that. Strange, no?

This thread is about Muslim terrorist attacks...oh silly me for my posts on gun deaths in America.

5 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

There were 372 mass shootings in 2015 killing 475 and wounding 1870.

Nope.

I think this is the right thing to do...both from a legal and political standpoint. The Second Amendment of the Constitution clearly allows for the personal right to gun ownership and the candidate that was for much stricter "gun control" laws lost the most recent presidential election and the candidate endorsed by the NRA won.

If anything, gun rights need to be more properly respected by many jurisdictions and the Justice Department needs to go after those that are infringing on gun owners' rights and there should be an expansion of rights...like national open-carry laws or, at a minimum, mandatory gun license reciprocity laws (like is the rule for driver licenses).