US teacher accidentally shoots self

[rijb]

US Teacher is very stupid. US gun laws are very stupid.

You're right. Those damn stupid people and stupid lawmakers should be shot.

[soalbundy]

I like gun fanatics,everyone should keep one in the back yard and take them out on a lead once a day

[Kooweerup]

Are you familiar with the Daily Show? It's satire. Americans are their own worst critics. They're not afraid to laugh at themselves.

It's good that you're proud of your country. But, why do you feel the need to compare your country to the U.S.? What's the point?

Many people in the U.S. like Australia. But, they don't try to compare Spiderman with Crocodile Dundee. It's stupid isn't it?

oh please do you really think theses guys where following a scrpt and acting

I didn't say that. Grow up!

yep the pro gun guy showed he was an idiot and he should grow up. The American politician also showed he was not in touch with his people. His remark being elected is more important than society shows he is a self centered moron. Think these Americans need to grow up and the Americans who brought this to light get a medal for showing thier country men and politicians in a true light.

Well done and huge respect to you Americans. I salute you.

[rijb]

I'd sure like to try whatever the hell you're smoking.

[rijb]

I like gun fanatics,everyone should keep one in the back yard and take them out on a lead once a day

Why do I suspect you couldn't lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

[soalbundy]

I like gun fanatics,everyone should keep one in the back yard and take them out on a lead once a day

Why do I suspect you couldn't lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.

another one who has seen to many Rambo films,you belong to the sheep charging forward shouting ''for king and country'' just before you get mown down while those who you are dying for are ordering another glass of wine in a noble restaurant.

[rijb]

Isn't Rambo just another old expat?

I don't want to get 'mown' down. I don't even have a lawn mower.

Where's the nearest 'noble' restaurant? The only king I know is Burger King.

[NeverSure]

The non-Americans will never understand Americans. We have a completely different world view, and a completely different constitutional form of government.

Citizens in the US don't get their rights from government. Everyone is born with "Certain inalienable rights." No government can take them away. These concepts are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and brought forward in an inviolate Constitution.

Non-Americans get all of their permissions at the whim of government. If the government wants to arrest them for speaking out against something, it does. If a government wants to outlaw guns, it does. These people have no rights at all. If lucky, they have some permissions. They are ruled by their governments.

In America, each law abiding citizen has more power than a policeman. That citizen can arrest a policeman and at gunpoint if necessary. The police can't enter my home or search me or my car or any possessions without first meeting certain legal standards and if they try I can use force to stop them.

I not only have freedom of speech, but I have freedom not to speak. If I'm walking down the street and a policeman tries to stop me I don't have to stop. I don't have to talk to him. I don't have to show ID. I'm free to go. The exception of course is if he has probable cause to believe I've committed a crime and he's arresting me. If he arrests me he'd better be right or he's going down for false arrest.

The final backstop over the next hundred or two hundred years or whatever the time might be for all of this is the armed citizenry. Because the right to bear arms doesn't come from the government but is rather a right that everyone is born with, the government can't take it away.

Our friends in other Western countries who don't have these birthrights are watching their governments enslave them, give up their national sovereignty, allow deadly people to enter their country bent on taking over their countries, violate an inherent right to free speech about it, and in not more than one generation will have to once again call for help. But this time even the citizens won't be armed and will be helpless.

On that day all I'll be able to do is tell you I told you so.

[soalbundy]

Isn't Rambo just another old expat?

I don't want to get 'mown' down. I don't even have a lawn mower.

Where's the nearest 'noble' restaurant? The only king I know is Burger King.

sounds just the way i thought it would

[iReason]

The non-Americans will never understand Americans. We have a completely different world view, and a completely different constitutional form of government.

Citizens in the US don't get their rights from government. Everyone is born with "Certain inalienable rights." No government can take them away. These concepts are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and brought forward in an inviolate Constitution.

Non-Americans get all of their permissions at the whim of government. If the government wants to arrest them for speaking out against something, it does. If a government wants to outlaw guns, it does. These people have no rights at all. If lucky, they have some permissions. They are ruled by their governments.

In America, each law abiding citizen has more power than a policeman. That citizen can arrest a policeman and at gunpoint if necessary. The police can't enter my home or search me or my car or any possessions without first meeting certain legal standards and if they try I can use force to stop them.

I not only have freedom of speech, but I have freedom not to speak. If I'm walking down the street and a policeman tries to stop me I don't have to stop. I don't have to talk to him. I don't have to show ID. I'm free to go. The exception of course is if he has probable cause to believe I've committed a crime and he's arresting me. If he arrests me he'd better be right or he's going down for false arrest.

The final backstop over the next hundred or two hundred years or whatever the time might be for all of this is the armed citizenry. Because the right to bear arms doesn't come from the government but is rather a right that everyone is born with, the government can't take it away.

Our friends in other Western countries who don't have these birthrights are watching their governments enslave them, give up their national sovereignty, allow deadly people to enter their country bent on taking over their countries, violate an inherent right to free speech about it, and in not more than one generation will have to once again call for help. But this time even the citizens won't be armed and will be helpless.

On that day all I'll be able to do is tell you I told you so.

“If I'm walking down the street and a policeman tries to stop me I don't have to stop.”

“I don't have to talk to him.”

“I don't have to show ID.”

“I’m free to go.”

Where do you live? Mayberry?

Absolute Dream Land, ridiculous BS.

“The exception of course is if he has probable cause to believe I've committed a crime and he's arresting me.”

"Probable cause"?

Then why is he trying to stop you?

Nonsense.

You defeated your own argument.

“The police can't enter my home or search me or my car or any possessions without first meeting certain legal standards and if they try I can use force to stop them.”

And "probable cause", routinely, is contingent on the color of one’s skin.

As you have illustrated with your bias, dare I say, bigotry?

(re: your earlier post about staying “out of the ghettos”)

Yeah.

I dare say it.

Go back to your Alex Jones channel...

[ableguy]

A teacher was legally carrying a gun in school!!! What the hell???!!!

The bizarre, archaic and utterly nonsensical gun laws in America absolutely beggar belief.

It's a different culture that you aren't expected to understand.

In my state I'm allowed to carry a gun into any school from preschool through uni, and I'm not a teacher or employee. The punk kids who've done school shootings don't qualify to carry guns. They are breaking the law just by possessing.

The countless teachers who carry guns do so to protect themselves and students from some nutter school shooter. To the best of my knowledge, no school shooting has been attempted in the presence of teachers who had guns.

If I was going to have a happy dream, it would be me standing on a street in London when some punk decides he's going to behead a soldier or an elderly woman, or to just happen to be in a school when some punk decides he's going to shoot the place up.

With freedom comes risk, but a different kind of risk than an unarmed population is taking.

Freedom isn't free, and some things are worth dying for, to paraphrase a couple of sayings.

But you wouldn't understand that.

The unarmed UK population seems to suffer alot less gun related deaths than the armed US citizens.

California. Is bigger than the UK,

USA is of bigger than Europe, get some perspective into your silly comments

[chuckd]

The following testimony before Congress explains the 2nd Amendment better than I can.

It isn't as humorous as Jon Stewart or whoever that clown was, but it is straight to the point, particularly her closing remark.

[NeverSure]

“If I'm walking down the street and a policeman tries to stop me I don't have to stop.”

“I don't have to talk to him.”

“I don't have to show ID.”

“I’m free to go.”

Where do you live? Mayberry?

Absolute Dream Land, ridiculous BS.

“The exception of course is if he has probable cause to believe I've committed a crime and he's arresting me.”

"Probable cause"?

Then why is he trying to stop you?

Nonsense.

You defeated your own argument.

“The police can't enter my home or search me or my car or any possessions without first meeting certain legal standards and if they try I can use force to stop them.”

And "probable cause", routinely, is contingent on the color of one’s skin.

As you have illustrated with your bias, dare I say, bigotry?

(re: your earlier post about staying “out of the ghettos”)

Yeah.

I dare say it.

Go back to your Alex Jones channel...

[iReason]

“If I'm walking down the street and a policeman tries to stop me I don't have to stop.”

“I don't have to talk to him.”

“I don't have to show ID.”

“I’m free to go.”

Where do you live? Mayberry?

Absolute Dream Land, ridiculous BS.

“The exception of course is if he has probable cause to believe I've committed a crime and he's arresting me.”

"Probable cause"?

Then why is he trying to stop you?

Nonsense.

You defeated your own argument.

“The police can't enter my home or search me or my car or any possessions without first meeting certain legal standards and if they try I can use force to stop them.”

And "probable cause", routinely, is contingent on the color of one’s skin.

As you have illustrated with your bias, dare I say, bigotry?

(re: your earlier post about staying “out of the ghettos”)

Yeah.

I dare say it.

Go back to your Alex Jones channel...

I could post videos all day long contrary to that.

And you know it.

Dream on.

You live in a Police State.

[iReason]

The following testimony before Congress explains the 2nd Amendment better than I can.

It isn't as humorous as Jon Stewart or whoever that clown was, but it is straight to the point, particularly her closing remark.

If this woman explains it better than you?

Well...

Some of her quotes:

“The guy was a lunatic…”

Clearly. And he would have achieved his means depending on weapons available to him.

“People, that is not the point, of the 2nd Amendment…”

Exactly.

Here is the point:

"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."

[sustento]

A teacher was legally carrying a gun in school!!! What the hell???!!!

The bizarre, archaic and utterly nonsensical gun laws in America absolutely beggar belief.

It's a different culture that you aren't expected to understand.

In my state I'm allowed to carry a gun into any school from preschool through uni, and I'm not a teacher or employee. The punk kids who've done school shootings don't qualify to carry guns. They are breaking the law just by possessing.

The countless teachers who carry guns do so to protect themselves and students from some nutter school shooter. To the best of my knowledge, no school shooting has been attempted in the presence of teachers who had guns.

If I was going to have a happy dream, it would be me standing on a street in London when some punk decides he's going to behead a soldier or an elderly woman, or to just happen to be in a school when some punk decides he's going to shoot the place up.

With freedom comes risk, but a different kind of risk than an unarmed population is taking.

Freedom isn't free, and some things are worth dying for, to paraphrase a couple of sayings.

But you wouldn't understand that.

The unarmed UK population seems to suffer alot less gun related deaths than the armed US citizens.

California. Is bigger than the UK,

USA is of bigger than Europe, get some perspective into your silly comments

Do you know what 'per capita' means?

Edited September 13, 2014 by sustento

[NeverSure]

“If I'm walking down the street and a policeman tries to stop me I don't have to stop.”

“I don't have to talk to him.”

“I don't have to show ID.”

“I’m free to go.”

Where do you live? Mayberry?

Absolute Dream Land, ridiculous BS.

“The exception of course is if he has probable cause to believe I've committed a crime and he's arresting me.”

"Probable cause"?

Then why is he trying to stop you?

Nonsense.

You defeated your own argument.

“The police can't enter my home or search me or my car or any possessions without first meeting certain legal standards and if they try I can use force to stop them.”

And "probable cause", routinely, is contingent on the color of one’s skin.

As you have illustrated with your bias, dare I say, bigotry?

(re: your earlier post about staying “out of the ghettos”)

Yeah.

I dare say it.

Go back to your Alex Jones channel...

I could post videos all day long contrary to that.

And you know it.

Dream on.

You live in a Police State.

No, what I'm saying, and what's happening in the videos is the law.

No we don't live in a police state. A police state is a totalitarian state.

police state

Syllabification: po·lice state

Pronunciation:

NOUN

A totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

- Oxford Dictionary

totalitarian

1to·tal·i·tar·i·an adjective \(ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ən\

: controlling the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed

[NeverSure]

"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."

Are you trying to make some point here - one that has been hashed out for more than 200 years?

Notice that your quote ends with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How much more clear can that be?

The US Courts have repeated ruled the original intent in the Constitution was that a "well regulated militia" was the people as opposed to the government military. This would be the same militia that took up arms against the King of England at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

So if the people ever need to form together in defense of themselves, they will be that militia.

But however anyone has ever spoken it, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[MJP]

Thinking about it, after Sandy Hook and Columbine I'm not surprised teachers are arming themselves . . . to protect the kids.

[Publicus]

US of America is a ridiculous part of the world , where you'll find more overweight people than anywhere in the world, you'l l see fat people carry guns and shooting other fat people. Freedom my ass. It's just like watching an episode of South Park .

The thread is like reading the script.

I could start linking usernames to characters in the show but I'll pass on that (tempting as it is). Instead I'll insert some additional dialogue, put in my two cents.

As to the 2nd Amendment, it hinges on one's definition of "militia." The word is rooted in Latin and has evolved in English and in American English.

In the U.S. there have been several 'Miilitia Acts' of Congress over time and the U.S. courts have ruled based on the confines of the language in each individual Act. Still, there is a body of law, statutory law and case (common) law that is predicated on the word "militia", its use, application, definition and so on.

Given this and more over time, "A well regulated militia" sounds to me like a government entity, and not an assortment of individual persons per se or as a subgroup of the society, or of individual citizens as an aggregate. That a militia can mean non paid "volunteers" sounds to me like vigilantes - the KKK comes to mind, for instance (although I'd be unaware of the KKK ever calling itself a militia).

One poster says "non-Americans" can't ever understand the gun culture of the United States (perhaps the USA itself). Well, yes and no. Yes because Europeans need to know and to consider that what became the USA was initial wilderness to settlers for 300 years and across 2560 km of an entire continent. Individuals, families, then individual citizens needed guns - I say needed them.

It wasn't until 1890 the Congress declared the end of "The Frontier." I think they meant land to settle but in their wisdom Congress could have meant people to shoot.

There's been no more land to settle but people - Americans - keep shooting and killing one another. So no, I can't find anywhere in the Second Amendment or in the Constitution as a whole that says the founders said that, meant to say that, or for that to be so.

[JoeLing]

It's a different culture that you aren't expected to understand.

In my state I'm allowed to carry a gun into any school from preschool through uni, and I'm not a teacher or employee. The punk kids who've done school shootings don't qualify to carry guns. They are breaking the law just by possessing.

The countless teachers who carry guns do so to protect themselves and students from some nutter school shooter. To the best of my knowledge, no school shooting has been attempted in the presence of teachers who had guns.

If I was going to have a happy dream, it would be me standing on a street in London when some punk decides he's going to behead a soldier or an elderly woman, or to just happen to be in a school when some punk decides he's going to shoot the place up.

With freedom comes risk, but a different kind of risk than an unarmed population is taking.

Freedom isn't free, and some things are worth dying for, to paraphrase a couple of sayings.

But you wouldn't understand that.

The "culture" is not different - it is based on the immigrants from UK and Europe who populated those lands and displaced the natives. UK and Europe have largely learned how to keep order through education and social standards -- it's not perfect, but it works and any guns n the streets are in the hands of military or police only - or they are illegal. This makes life a lot less stressful

The culture and the people are entirely different. You should be able to see that with no help from me.

Those who ventured across the ocean at a time when sailing wasn't safe to a new land that wasn't safe, and began to forge themselves new lives of freedom were nothing like those who stayed behind.

The King of England at the time was a tyrant. Those who came to America did so to escape him. But he followed and took power over the new colonies. When they'd had enough they rose up and kicked his ass all the way back to England. Those who stayed in England continued to take his abuse.

The colonists rose up with their own guns and fought off the Redcoats of England and WE haven't forgotten that someday we may again have to fight for our freedom.

America was born in blood, lived in blood, and it hasn't been all that long. Those still in Europe have had it too soft for too long and they don't even seem to see the danger as their traitorous government gives up their borders and even some PC laws to extremists. They don't see the danger that's increasingly surrounding them and will eat their children up because they don't have the guts to do anything about it.

Mark my words.

The King of England at the time was a tyrant. Those who came to America did so to escape him ...

And became tyrants themselves.

(Sounds justt like the US or Israel today )

... someday we may again have to fight for our freedom.

Someday? The USA has never stopped fighting for what ever

Those still in Europe have had it too soft for too long...

Well, at least they didn't kill of all the different natives diversities, cultures and languages in Europe .

They don't see the danger that's increasingly surrounding them and will eat their children up ...

On this one I fully agree with you, it's about time somebody would tell those backward Europeans how

they are slowly encircled by Mc Donalds, KFC CNN and NBC. How their identity, diversity, culture and

language are threatened. How they are increasingly surrounded by American imposed laws and treats

[either you're with us or you're against us]

Now, if all those settlers wanted, is freedom, why the heck don't they stay on that continent and enjoy

their freedom? Why do those highly educated Americans not realized, that if they would not interfere

in other nations sovereignty, there would be no need to worry? But then ......

..... there would be no need to carry a weapon either

Americans just like to carry weapons - like most bullies do - and so will find reasons to justify it.

Just hope this "freedom" and "security" never makes me so s**t scared that I have to carry a weapon

in my pants where ever i go. I would hate shooting myself in my banana

Edited September 13, 2014 by JoeLing

[Publicus]

"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."

Are you trying to make some point here - one that has been hashed out for more than 200 years?

Notice that your quote ends with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How much more clear can that be?

The US Courts have repeated ruled the original intent in the Constitution was that a "well regulated militia" was the people as opposed to the government military. This would be the same militia that took up arms against the King of England at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

So if the people ever need to form together in defense of themselves, they will be that militia.

But however anyone has ever spoken it, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If you are correct, then the question would arise as to who regulates the militia.

Self-regulation?

Government regulation?

I thought government was the enemy, King George III and all of that, RIP by the way.

If the people as individuals, as sub groupings of individuals such as the National Rifle Association, or in the aggregate, are not regulated - as in well regulated - then what of the militia that they are?

Is the militia of the United States under the existing definition of it, I.e., all the people with guns, regulated? Well regulated??

The people licensed to carry firearms get their license from - whom? Yes, government. I say again, I though government was the enemy.

And what to do about guns in the hands of those who are not licensed? The NRA are licensed gun owners, so do we send the NRA after those individuals who are unlicensed carriers, the threats to freedom and liberty that they are. Or do we continue to kill legislation that pursues improved public safety?

.

Under your definition, albeit shared by courts and others, the United States is a militia in a crying need of a vastly improved regulation of itself.

Proposals now being accepted.

[Somtamnication]

The non-Americans will never understand Americans. We have a completely different world view, and a completely different constitutional form of government.

Citizens in the US don't get their rights from government. Everyone is born with "Certain inalienable rights." No government can take them away. These concepts are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and brought forward in an inviolate Constitution.

Non-Americans get all of their permissions at the whim of government. If the government wants to arrest them for speaking out against something, it does. If a government wants to outlaw guns, it does. These people have no rights at all. If lucky, they have some permissions. They are ruled by their governments.

In America, each law abiding citizen has more power than a policeman. That citizen can arrest a policeman and at gunpoint if necessary. The police can't enter my home or search me or my car or any possessions without first meeting certain legal standards and if they try I can use force to stop them.

I not only have freedom of speech, but I have freedom not to speak. If I'm walking down the street and a policeman tries to stop me I don't have to stop. I don't have to talk to him. I don't have to show ID. I'm free to go. The exception of course is if he has probable cause to believe I've committed a crime and he's arresting me. If he arrests me he'd better be right or he's going down for false arrest.

The final backstop over the next hundred or two hundred years or whatever the time might be for all of this is the armed citizenry. Because the right to bear arms doesn't come from the government but is rather a right that everyone is born with, the government can't take it away.

Our friends in other Western countries who don't have these birthrights are watching their governments enslave them, give up their national sovereignty, allow deadly people to enter their country bent on taking over their countries, violate an inherent right to free speech about it, and in not more than one generation will have to once again call for help. But this time even the citizens won't be armed and will be helpless.

On that day all I'll be able to do is tell you I told you so.

Just, please, let's not change the conversation to Posse Comitatus . I was a cop there for 18 years. The militarization of the police is scary as heck. 35 years ago the CIA was exposed for spying on Americans. Now, it is ok for the NSA to do it. Glad I renounced my citizenship after Bush was elected. That place is one scary place to live for "freedom loving people".

They can keep shooting themselves in the classroom, for all I care!

[iReason]

“If I'm walking down the street and a policeman tries to stop me I don't have to stop.”

“I don't have to talk to him.”

“I don't have to show ID.”

“I’m free to go.”

Where do you live? Mayberry?

Absolute Dream Land, ridiculous BS.

“The exception of course is if he has probable cause to believe I've committed a crime and he's arresting me.”

"Probable cause"?

Then why is he trying to stop you?

Nonsense.

You defeated your own argument.

“The police can't enter my home or search me or my car or any possessions without first meeting certain legal standards and if they try I can use force to stop them.”

And "probable cause", routinely, is contingent on the color of one’s skin.

As you have illustrated with your bias, dare I say, bigotry?

(re: your earlier post about staying “out of the ghettos”)

Yeah.

I dare say it.

Go back to your Alex Jones channel...

I could post videos all day long contrary to that.

And you know it.

Dream on.

You live in a Police State.

No, what I'm saying, and what's happening in the videos is the law.

No we don't live in a police state. A police state is a totalitarian state.

police state

Syllabification: po·lice state

Pronunciation:

NOUN

A totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

- Oxford Dictionary

totalitarian

1to·tal·i·tar·i·an adjective \(ˌ)tō-ˌta-lə-ˈter-ē-ən\

: controlling the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed

“A totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.”

“Controlling the people of a country in a very strict way with complete power that cannot be opposed.”

Yup.

Now you’re getting it…

[NeverSure]

"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."

Are you trying to make some point here - one that has been hashed out for more than 200 years?

Notice that your quote ends with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." How much more clear can that be?

The US Courts have repeated ruled the original intent in the Constitution was that a "well regulated militia" was the people as opposed to the government military. This would be the same militia that took up arms against the King of England at the time of the Declaration of Independence.

So if the people ever need to form together in defense of themselves, they will be that militia.

But however anyone has ever spoken it, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

If you are correct, then the question would arise as to who regulates the militia.

Self-regulation?

Government regulation?

I thought government was the enemy, King George III and all of that, RIP by the way.

If the people as individuals, as sub groupings of individuals such as the National Rifle Association, or in the aggregate, are not regulated - as in well regulated - then what of the militia that they are?

Is the militia of the United States under the existing definition of it, I.e., all the people with guns, regulated? Well regulated??

The people licensed to carry firearms get their license from - whom? Yes, government. I say again, I though government was the enemy.

And what to do about guns in the hands of those who are not licensed? The NRA are licensed gun owners, so do we send the NRA after those individuals who are unlicensed carriers, the threats to freedom and liberty that they are. Or do we continue to kill legislation that pursues improved public safety?

.

Under your definition, albeit shared by courts and others, the United States is a militia in a crying need of a vastly improved regulation of itself.

Proposals now being accepted.

Do you really think we're going to debate what has been debated before the US Supreme Court at times for 200 years and every time someone held your opinion of what the founders meant, he lost?

The Supreme Honors precedent - what it has ruled before. That keeps it constant and keeps the Constitution consistent.

So your ramblings are foolishness when compared with settled law. (FYI The Constitution is law.)

[Publicus]

Who's denying the rulings of the Supreme Court? It is the final arbiter, period (if even it's by one vote of the nine members). The Second Amendment says what the SCOTUS says it says, end of.

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia - that's you and I and tens of millions of other Americans. The argument is over regulation and well regulated.

Ownership and use of firearms in the United States whether they are licensed or unlicensed are in a great need of more and improved, expanded. legislation, laws, rules, regulation.

Ownership and use of firearms in the U.S. are not well regulated and they are barely regulated at all. Not enough laws exist and the few laws that do exist either are woefully inadequate or have a Swiss cheese of loopholes.

Every time public safety issues involving guns are brought before the Congress and in state legislatures the 2nd Amendment absolutists rail loudly and incessantly against enactment of any and all new proposals to improve public safety and social security.

There is little regulation of firearms and virtually nothing about guns in the USA is well regulated. So it's long past time the absolutist gun advocates in the U.S. began to respect the constitution and to comply with it.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Publicus

[CMNightRider]

Who's denying the rulings of the Supreme Court? It is the final arbiter, period (if even it's by one vote of the nine members). The Second Amendment says what the SCOTUS says it says, end of.

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia - that's you and I and tens of millions of other Americans. The argument is over regulation and well regulated.

Ownership and use of firearms in the United States whether they are licensed or unlicensed are in a great need of more and improved, expanded. legislation, laws, rules, regulation.

Ownership and use of firearms in the U.S. are not well regulated and they are barely regulated at all. Not enough laws exist and the few laws that do exist either are woefully inadequate or have a Swiss cheese of loopholes.

Every time public safety issues involving guns are brought before the Congress and in state legislatures the 2nd Amendment absolutists rail loudly and incessantly against enactment of any and all new proposals to improve public safety and social security.

There is little regulation of firearms and virtually nothing about guns in the USA is well regulated. So it's long past time the absolutist gun advocates in the U.S. began to respect the constitution and to comply with it.

Guns in America, are already over regulated. Every time some criminal or as in this case, discharges a weapon by accident, the liberal gun nuts come out of the wood work like cockroaches, and demand guns be taken away from law biding citizens. When criminals are sent to prison for committing crimes with fire arms, the liberals cry about locking these people up, and demand they are released.

If you don't like guns, don't purchase one. Another thought, would be to support law enforcement in locking people up that commit gun related crimes, instead of making it harder for law enforcement to police our streets.

[Publicus]

Who's denying the rulings of the Supreme Court? It is the final arbiter, period (if even it's by one vote of the nine members). The Second Amendment says what the SCOTUS says it says, end of.

The Second Amendment says a well regulated militia - that's you and I and tens of millions of other Americans. The argument is over regulation and well regulated.

Ownership and use of firearms in the United States whether they are licensed or unlicensed are in a great need of more and improved, expanded. legislation, laws, rules, regulation.

Ownership and use of firearms in the U.S. are not well regulated and they are barely regulated at all. Not enough laws exist and the few laws that do exist either are woefully inadequate or have a Swiss cheese of loopholes.

Every time public safety issues involving guns are brought before the Congress and in state legislatures the 2nd Amendment absolutists rail loudly and incessantly against enactment of any and all new proposals to improve public safety and social security.

There is little regulation of firearms and virtually nothing about guns in the USA is well regulated. So it's long past time the absolutist gun advocates in the U.S. began to respect the constitution and to comply with it.

Guns in America, are already over regulated. Every time some criminal or as in this case, discharges a weapon by accident, the liberal gun nuts come out of the wood work like cockroaches, and demand guns be taken away from law biding citizens. When criminals are sent to prison for committing crimes with fire arms, the liberals cry about locking these people up, and demand they are released.

If you don't like guns, don't purchase one. Another thought, would be to support law enforcement in locking people up that commit gun related crimes, instead of making it harder for law enforcement to police our streets.

, the liberal gun nuts come out of the wood work like cockroaches

Every time public safety measures are presented in the Congress or in the state legislatures the absolutist gun nuts jump out like rats to devour it.

I own a handgun in the United States and it came very much in handy one time in particular.

I also know that too many people who oppose in the absolute any legislation to address the thousands and thousands of gun deaths in the United States make me think of vile reptiles.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Publicus

[CMNightRider]

The majority of gun deaths in America, can be attributed to street gangs or wantabe gang bangers. Unfortunately, many of these people are blacks or Mexican Americans. Maybe the liberal gun nuts should cry out to law enforcement to target these people. If you were really ever part of the law enforcement community you would already be aware of this problem. "Vile reptiles?"

[Publicus]

The majority of gun deaths in America, can be attributed to street gangs or wantabe gang bangers. Unfortunately, many of these people are blacks or Mexican Americans. Maybe the liberal gun nuts should cry out to law enforcement to target these people. If you were really ever part of the law enforcement community you would already be aware of this problem. "Vile reptiles?"

You're right, just the word 'reptiles' is sufficient.

I was never a cop if that's what you mean, never wanted to be a cop, never tried to be a cop. 'Cockroach' liberals are anyway over qualified for the job, or so it might seem to some around here.

I am anyway privileged to quote you.....

Guns in America, are already over regulated. The majority of gun deaths in America, can be attributed to street gangs or wantabe gang bangers.

Over regulated? The data says not so.

Street gangs and wannabe gang bangers?

It's patently clear then that you didn't........

Who Knew? The Leading Cause Of Gun Death Is Suicide

Number one in gun deaths is Wyoming, wide open territory for anyone who wants a gun. And the top 10 is filled out by Deep South states Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee, all with open gun laws.

Massachusetts, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country has by far the lowest gun death rate. And New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut — strict states all — are in the bottom five.

When so-called “self-inflicted” death by gunshot is taken into account, the liberal thesis is supported almost perfectly: more guns, more gun deaths; less guns, less gun deaths. It’s as simple as that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerkay/2013/01/22/who-knew-the-leading-cause-of-gun-death-is-suicide/