In case there was any doubt as to Democrats real views on the 2nd amendment...

[VanPastorMan]

I remember a story where some guy with a gun killed defenseless little kids in an Amish grade school.

I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenseless students at a school in Florida.

I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenseless people from a hotel in Las Vegas.

I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenselesd people at a church in Texas.

I remember, I remember, I remember, I remember, I remember.

And all you give us is religious hypocrisy and the Second Amendment which is actually your paramount object of worship.

The Second Amendment is as archaic a Constitutional provision as the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Second Amendment today serves everything to give criminals and nuts access to guns and does nothing to arm militias and thwart invasion by King George III. Nothing in American society today justifies the Second Amendment's application as the gun nuts apply it.

So would you say Americans have a right to conceal and carry if they are law abiding? We are not talking about felons, but the law abiding. You could make the point that people kill far more people using a car while drinking alcohol. Should we do something....let's say take cars away from the populace? What kind of guns do you think should be allowed in society? I'd like to get your take on it.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I already explained it above. And no, it’s not dishonest hyperbole.

And if we’re living in different worlds, it’s because your party has run a bad faith propaganda machine to achieve it.

You didn’t explain it, you excused it and dismissed it because it was a response to other dishonest hyperbole.

 

[VanPastorMan]

I’m a Boilermaker.

Noodle, I did not know that. You PU people are good folk. My oldest boy went to Purdue for a year and I was impressed by the campus and the small town feel of there.

 

[Thyrsis]

You didn’t explain it, you excused it and dismissed it because it was a response to other dishonest hyperbole.

That’s false. I did explain it. Over two paragraphs and with contextual background. If you refuse to engage with that, it’s on you.

It’s notable that in response you’ve offered nothing but a conclusory assertion.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I don’t disagree with the part about him saying he’d like to work for solutions - no problem with that. I too think we should do that. However, that doesn’t make his comment about nuking Americans honest and not hyperbolic.

 

[Ladoga]

I remember a story where some guy with a gun killed defenseless little kids in an Amish grade school.

I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenseless students at a school in Florida.

I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenseless people from a hotel in Las Vegas.

I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenselesd people at a church in Texas.

I remember, I remember, I remember, I remember, I remember.

And all you give us is religious hypocrisy and the Second Amendment which is actually your paramount object of worship.

The Second Amendment is as archaic a Constitutional provision as the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Second Amendment today serves everything to give criminals and nuts access to guns and does nothing to arm militias and thwart invasion by King George III. Nothing in American society today justifies the Second Amendment's application as the gun nuts apply it.

So you think the 2nd Amendment should go the way of the 3/5ths compromise? That's a joke. Its dishonest hyperbole! Find a member of Congress to introduce an amendment to change it. Then get a hearing on it, avoid amendments to it and get 2/3 of each house to vote for it and 37 states to ratify it. Simple enough even for you. Get your idea moving. You know all about it, go do it.

 

[VanPastorMan]

You said (with no source), "You could make the point that people kill far more people using a car while drinking alcohol."

Stop being a Trump. You can't say that truthfully. You're a charlatan, not a minister.

According to the National Center For Health Statistics, in 2015, there were 36,161 motor vehicle traffic deaths (including non-alcohol-related accidents) and there were 36,252 firearm deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

There is no way "people kill far more people using a car while dtinking alcohol," as you falsely claimed.

Then, you asked a whole lot of irrelevant questions to deflect attention from your claimed memory of a "story" (with no source) of an old man who had a gun and lived to tell about it.

You base your gun nut rights on the Second Amendment, but offer nothing to explain how it remains relevant in today's world.

I did not have a source. But I was being truthful from memory. It was the city of Chicago and he got his gun confiscated. Not sure if he got fined or not for breaking the city ordinance. Put yourself in his position. Why can't he have a gun to protect himself? Why did the police have the right to take away his gun?

 

[VanPastorMan]

You said (with no source), "You could make the point that people kill far more people using a car while drinking alcohol."

Stop being a Trump. You can't say that truthfully. You're a charlatan, not a minister.

According to the National Center For Health Statistics, in 2015, there were 36,161 motor vehicle traffic deaths (including non-alcohol-related accidents) and there were 36,252 firearm deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

There is no way "people kill far more people using a car while dtinking alcohol," as you falsely claimed.

Then, you asked a whole lot of irrelevant questions to deflect attention from your claimed memory of a "story" (with no source) of an old man who had a gun and lived to tell about it.

You base your gun nut rights on the Second Amendment, but offer nothing to explain how it remains relevant in today's world.

How many of the firearm deaths were from suicide? I think that is an important question. Also you didn't answer my questions before. Do you think Americans have the right to conceal and carry if they are law abiding citizens?

 

[bawlmer]

Do you think Americans have the right to conceal and carry if they are law abiding citizens?

Of course not. That would be a privilege granted under their local authority. A far cry from a right.

 

[Ladoga]

Of course not. That would be a privilege granted under their local authority. A far cry from a right.

"Right" Where do your rights come from?

 

[Ladoga]

You said (with no source), "You could make the point that people kill far more people using a car while drinking alcohol."

Stop being a Trump. You can't say that truthfully. You're a charlatan, not a minister.

According to the National Center For Health Statistics, in 2015, there were 36,161 motor vehicle traffic deaths (including non-alcohol-related accidents) and there were 36,252 firearm deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

There is no way "people kill far more people using a car while dtinking alcohol," as you falsely claimed.

Then, you asked a whole lot of irrelevant questions to deflect attention from your claimed memory of a "story" (with no source) of an old man who had a gun and lived to tell about it.

You base your gun nut rights on the Second Amendment, but offer nothing to explain how it remains relevant in today's world.

Ah, but somehow you neglected - surely it was an honest mistake - to say that 22,000 of those firearms deaths were suicide. You just forgot, right? You'd never engage in dishonest hyperbole, would you?

 

[bawlmer]

"Right" Where do your rights come from?

You (arguably) have a right to own a gun. You may be allowed to conceal and carry that gun where you live.

 

[Stuffshot]

Ah, but somehow you neglected - surely it was an honest mistake - to say that 22,000 of those firearms deaths were suicide. You just forgot, right? You'd never engage in dishonest hyperbole, would you?

So, you're saying 22,000 of the 36,252 firearms deaths were suicide? That still leaves 14,000 + deaths from guns that were not suicide.

In comparison, the NHTSA says drunk driving kills about 10,000 people per year. Still nothing to support VPB's claim that "people kill far more people using a car while drinking alcohol."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So, you're saying 22,000 of the 36,252 firearms deaths were suicide? That still leaves 14,000 + deaths from guns that were not suicide.

In comparison, the NHTSA says drunk driving kills about 10,000 people per year. Still nothing to support VPB's claim that "people kill far more people using a car while drinking alcohol."

You are so obsessed with facts and truth. You should know by now that those things aren't important around here.

 

[Stuffshot]

You are so obsessed with facts and truth. You should know by now that those things aren't important around here.

True enough.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I don’t understand why people want to take suicides out if the gun statistics . That’s ridiculous. People make rash decisions with firearms. A suicidal person may find another way to do it, but a gun is the quickest and most certain way. Some people commit suicide because they did something stupid, not because of living with years of depression.

 

[Ladoga]

So, you're saying 22,000 of the 36,252 firearms deaths were suicide? That still leaves 14,000 + deaths from guns that were not suicide.

In comparison, the NHTSA says drunk driving kills about 10,000 people per year. Still nothing to support VPB's claim that "people kill far more people using a car while drinking alcohol."

So, you're saying 22,000 of the 36,252 firearms deaths were suicide? That still leaves 14,000 + deaths from guns that were not suicide.

In comparison, the NHTSA says drunk driving kills about 10,000 people per year. Still nothing to support VPB's claim that "people kill far more people using a car while drinking alcohol."

No, the study you cited is "saying" that. I just brought a bit of the data you perhaps had overlooked.

However, the 2nd Amendment is close to absolute, so save your data for the debate on amending the 2nd Amendment -- A debate that will never occur. Nukes or no nukes, liberals will never succeed in narrowing or repealing the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Ladoga]

I don’t understand why people want to take suicides out if the gun statistics . That’s ridiculous. People make rash decisions with firearms. A suicidal person may find another way to do it, but a gun is the quickest and most certain way. Some people commit suicide because they did something stupid, not because of living with years of depression.

That's ok. You don't have to understand it. Ask a friend.

 

[herrli]

Have you ever been to the Purdue general discussion board? It’s an absolute mess.
Actually, you might fit right in over there.
And for the record, I do not hate or even dislike IU. Just don’t love IU

So because you don't agree with the PU discussion board, you come on here so you can discuss with people that only think like you? That isn't really a discussion

 

[outside shooter]

I’m a Boilermaker.

Thoughts and prayers.

I hope that you recover from your affliction.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

So earlier you were just wrong but now you are lying. Glad to clear that up.

I have to like your post, because mine get erased.

 

[Noodle]

So because you don't agree with the PU discussion board, you come on here so you can discuss with people that only think like you? That isn't really a discussion

I agree with less than half the people on this board.

 

[Stuffshot]

I agree with less than half the people on this board.

I halfway understand what you're saying.

 

[cosmickid]

View embedded media

Give up your guns because we can always nuke you anyway.

Did you selectively edit a bit here? That's a rhetorical question,btw...

Swalwell proposed a BUY BACK on ASSAULT WEAPONS, and the moron responded with hyperbole and vitriol. A buyback on Assault Weapons in NO WAY corresponds to the moron's point,or your OP. Swallwell's comment on the "interchange"...

"America’s gun debate in one thread. 1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons 2) Gun owner says he’ll go to war with USA if that happens 3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century) 4) I’m called a tyrant 5) 0 progress"

 

[Stuffshot]

So you think the 2nd Amendment should go the way of the 3/5ths compromise? That's a joke. Its dishonest hyperbole! Find a member of Congress to introduce an amendment to change it. Then get a hearing on it, avoid amendments to it and get 2/3 of each house to vote for it and 37 states to ratify it. Simple enough even for you. Get your idea moving. You know all about it, go do it.

Yes, I'd love to see the Second Amendment deeply modified or even repealed outright. It was a politically necessary provision to accomplish the formation of the country through adoption of the Constitution 230+ years ago but it is no longer desirable and in fact masks the true problem.

People don't need guns these days either to prevent starvation by shooting game or to make sure their local militia or National Guard unit is well-armed (as referenced in the Second Amendment). I'd soften my opinion if all the gun nuts and gun lovers would agree to join the National Guard to satisfy the Second Amendment's reference to a militia to help their country, but that will never happen because most of them love their guns simply because they love their guns.

Until gunlovers themselves come up with a solution to mass shootings and other gun murders, their stubborn, absolute support of the Second Amendment will be seen by an ever-increasing number of the public as a selfish, irrational hobby that does nothing but ensure that criminals and mental defectives also have access to guns (with no corresponding benefit to their state militias).

I'm on the right side of history, so grouse about it all you want (unless you shoot the grouse first). My side will win soon, in fact, sooner than you think.

 

[hoot1]

Crime including violent crime is down in most communities, Consequently having a weapon as protection against crime including assault should be less of a concern.

Nevertheless the champions of gun ownership continue to beat the fear drum. The fear drum of liberals wanting to take your arms along with the fear of your family's security both at home and away.

Having said that, each community and neighborhood does or doesn't follow national trends. Consequently crime and violence is very much problems of communities and neigborhoods. In other words, guns and crime aren't matters which rise as being a big issue nationally in spite of what the fear drummers tell us.

 

[Ladoga]

Crime including violent crime is down in most communities, Consequently having a weapon as protection against crime including assault should be less of a concern.

Nevertheless the champions of gun ownership continue to beat the fear drum. The fear drum of liberals wanting to take your arms along with the fear of your family's security both at home and away.

Having said that, each community and neighborhood does or doesn't follow national trends. Consequently crime and violence is very much problems of communities and neigborhoods. In other words, guns and crime aren't matters which rise as being a big issue nationally in spite of what the fear drummers tell us.

You can't use crime averages as an excuse to slice up the bill of rights. When someone breaks into your house, your crime rate is 100%. When its someone else's house your rate is zero. Police will NEVER arrive in time to protect you. I've done that in busy inner city districts decades ago. Unless I saw the crime going down, entirely by chance, I wasn't going to get there in time to protect the citizen. I made 1700 felony arrests in 7 1/2 years and almost none of them were for crimes I actually witnessed at the point of occurance.

 

[hoot1]

Ladoga, don't disagree except to point out many of us need the support of neighbors to help protect us.

A simple gesture such as everyone having their porch light lit can send a message. Long before a break in, could be a neighbor reporting suspicious behavior with a call to
the neighbor or a 911 call.

All kinds of protections by neighbors working in concert can protect us from the ultimate confrontation whereby an untrained citizen with a gun finds himself facing an armed crackpot willing to kill rather than go back to prison.

I write this while living in a neighborhood which most police officers would choose not to live. I don't blame them as they want to escape the fact their lives are in danger every day.

Nevertheless I do not feel uncomfortable as an unarmed old geezer in a ;hood which a police officer would not choose to live in. After all the odds of my needing a gun are almost zero compared to a police officer who is sworn to protect me.

 

[Scott S]

Yes, I'd love to see the Second Amendment deeply modified or even repealed outright. It was a politically necessary provision to accomplish the formation of the country through adoption of the Constitution 230+ years ago but it is no longer desirable and in fact masks the true problem.

People don't need guns these days either to prevent starvation by shooting game or to make sure their local militia or National Guard unit is well-armed (as referenced in the Second Amendment). I'd soften my opinion if all the gun nuts and gun lovers would agree to join the National Guard to satisfy the Second Amendment's reference to a militia to help their country, but that will never happen because most of them love their guns simply because they love their guns.

Until gunlovers themselves come up with a solution to mass shootings and other gun murders, their stubborn, absolute support of the Second Amendment will be seen by an ever-increasing number of the public as a selfish, irrational hobby that does nothing but ensure that criminals and mental defectives also have access to guns (with no corresponding benefit to their state militias).

I'm on the right side of history, so grouse about it all you want (unless you shoot the grouse first). My side will win soon, in fact, sooner than you think.

No you will not and no you are not, you are simple terrified of an inanimate object that is ok many people share your affliction, do ideas and books that you find offensive garner the same response, bet they do as to sides what side is that? Human being? United States citizen? Or is this a reference to partisan idiocy Man I woke up in a MOOD!!

 

[Ladoga]

Yes, I'd love to see the Second Amendment deeply modified or even repealed outright. It was a politically necessary provision to accomplish the formation of the country through adoption of the Constitution 230+ years ago but it is no longer desirable and in fact masks the true problem.

People don't need guns these days either to prevent starvation by shooting game or to make sure their local militia or National Guard unit is well-armed (as referenced in the Second Amendment). I'd soften my opinion if all the gun nuts and gun lovers would agree to join the National Guard to satisfy the Second Amendment's reference to a militia to help their country, but that will never happen because most of them love their guns simply because they love their guns.

Until gunlovers themselves come up with a solution to mass shootings and other gun murders, their stubborn, absolute support of the Second Amendment will be seen by an ever-increasing number of the public as a selfish, irrational hobby that does nothing but ensure that criminals and mental defectives also have access to guns (with no corresponding benefit to their state militias).

I'm on the right side of history, so grouse about it all you want (unless you shoot the grouse first). My side will win soon, in fact, sooner than you think.

There is a possible solution. I've posted about it here before - more than once. The American public will go stark raving crazy at it, but it would help.

Simple - add to the background check data base everyone who has a prescription for medicine that treats any form of mental illness or disturbed mental condition and every diagnosis by any mental health professional of any mental illness and let some categories of such illnesses disqualify purchase of weapons. We already background check all retail purchases of firearms from that data base now. Its just an expansion of the current data base. The problem? It requires disclosure of individual private medical information and erodes the doctor/patient privilege which would send the public and the medical community into a frenzy.

There are people who acquire firearms legally today who commit attacks on individuals and groups with those firearms. At least some of them - if not all of them - are crazy as bed bugs but haven't yet done anything that gets them flagged in the data base. Others of them acquire weapons by stealing them from people who bought them lawfully - the Connecticut school massacre is one eggregous example. How do we fix that? Those who would modify the 2nd amendment - or repeal it - when they speak publicly on the subject nearly always 1. Do not offer an alternative and 2. appear to be woefully ignorant of the subject of firearms and their ownership/possession and, thus, are not taken seriously by the millions of people who lawfully own firearms.

I don't think the 2nd Amendment was politically motivated at its ratification. I think it was nearly universally understood that it was a given protecting every citizen. Today the elite - who have their own protection systems - don't care if you are protected at all. No one ever offers amendments to the Constitution to do, in any way, what you advocate. You'd think that, if there was any real appeal to enactment, that at least one member of Congress would introduce it. The only limitation enacted the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" expired by its own terms (was laughed out of town, so to speak) and there weren't close to enough votes to retain it and that legislation had zero effect on the operations of firearms, merely on the cosmetic appearance. It was effectively, and still would be, if enacted - utterly worthless.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

Today the elite - who have their own protection systems - don't care if you are protected at all. .

This really gets to the root of it. Liberals generally don't value gun ownership and as such are completely dismissive of the 2nd amendment.

I don't really value gun ownership either, but I don't presume to rescind part of the Bill of Rights just because it is a right I don't care to exercise.

To them, if they don't see any tangible benefit from the right, it shouldn't exist.

 

[Ladoga]

This really gets to the root of it. Liberals generally don't value gun ownership and as such are completely dismissive of the 2nd amendment.

I don't really value gun ownership either, but I don't presume to rescind part of the Bill of Rights just because it is a right I don't care to exercise.

To them, if they don't see any tangible benefit from the right, it shouldn't exist.

I have yet to see an answer posted to my earlier question.

It is Where do your rights come from? Seems libs are afraid to answer.

 

[Noodle]

I have yet to see an answer posted to my earlier question.

It is Where do your rights come from? Seems libs are afraid to answer.

Well I’ll give it a go. It depends on what rights you are talking about. Some, such as the right to life or the right to self defense, are fundamental and are inherent in every individual. These are sometimes called natural rights, moral rights, etc. Some will also consider these to be God given rights. Fine by me.

Other rights granted by law or social contract, etc. These are usually called legal rights (e.g., the right to vote, the right to a free education, etc.).

 

[Marvin the Martian]

These are sometimes called natural rights, moral rights, etc. Some will also consider these to be God given rights. Fine by me.

On these natural rights, I wonder what percentage of humans that have ever lived have lived under those rights? If not numbers of people, what percentage of governments in all of history have accepted these rights?

So I wonder why they are thought of as natural?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I have yet to see an answer posted to my earlier question.

It is Where do your rights come from? Seems libs are afraid to answer.

I seem to remember reading about a time when a certain portion of the population of this country didn't have any rights...inalienable or otherwise, regardless of who their Creator happened to be. Are these the rights you are alluding to, in your usual ham-handed way?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I seem to remember reading about a time when a certain portion of the population of this country didn't have any rights...inalienable or otherwise, regardless of who their Creator happened to be. Are these the rights you are alluding to, in your usual ham-handed way?

How old are you?

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

How old are you?

, he asked condescendingly.

 

[NPT]

Is Twitter a place for twits to tweet, or does Twitter cause people to tweet like twits? Either way, Twitter is full of tweeting twits. The dude tweeting about war is a twit and the Representative tweeted like a twit in response. Really, twit? War with the government over gun control? Really Representative twit? Nukes?

Social media has made many people into uncivil idiots, or it has exposed the uncivil idiots that were already among us. Look at this place - posters anonymously post insults to anonymous people like total assholes. Out here in the real world we traditionally don’t interact with people that way, but it is becoming more common - especially when it comes to politics. I think social media deserves a lot of blame for that. Of course you might think uncivil discourse and behavior is awesome and you might give credit to social media for that.

My opinion is that someone that posts like an asshole here most of the time is most likely a normal-seeming, non-confrontational person out here in the real world because t’s hard to function in society as an asshole all the time. If you wouldn’t behave like an asshole face to face when you routinely do it anonymously on social media, you are little more than a cowardly asshole.

Well said.... I think people show their true image on here.

 

[Stuffshot]

There is a possible solution. I've posted about it here before - more than once. The American public will go stark raving crazy at it, but it would help.

Simple - add to the background check data base everyone who has a prescription for medicine that treats any form of mental illness or disturbed mental condition and every diagnosis by any mental health professional of any mental illness and let some categories of such illnesses disqualify purchase of weapons. We already background check all retail purchases of firearms from that data base now. Its just an expansion of the current data base. The problem? It requires disclosure of individual private medical information and erodes the doctor/patient privilege which would send the public and the medical community into a frenzy.

There are people who acquire firearms legally today who commit attacks on individuals and groups with those firearms. At least some of them - if not all of them - are crazy as bed bugs but haven't yet done anything that gets them flagged in the data base. Others of them acquire weapons by stealing them from people who bought them lawfully - the Connecticut school massacre is one eggregous example. How do we fix that? Those who would modify the 2nd amendment - or repeal it - when they speak publicly on the subject nearly always 1. Do not offer an alternative and 2. appear to be woefully ignorant of the subject of firearms and their ownership/possession and, thus, are not taken seriously by the millions of people who lawfully own firearms.

I don't think the 2nd Amendment was politically motivated at its ratification. I think it was nearly universally understood that it was a given protecting every citizen. Today the elite - who have their own protection systems - don't care if you are protected at all. No one ever offers amendments to the Constitution to do, in any way, what you advocate. You'd think that, if there was any real appeal to enactment, that at least one member of Congress would introduce it. The only limitation enacted the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" expired by its own terms (was laughed out of town, so to speak) and there weren't close to enough votes to retain it and that legislation had zero effect on the operations of firearms, merely on the cosmetic appearance. It was effectively, and still would be, if enacted - utterly worthless.

I thought a long time before deciding to respond.

There is no question the Second Amendment was politically necessary to gain adoption of the Constitution (as amended by the Bill of Rights). Some of the late-adopting states needed some additional assurances before adopting. The Wikipedia article says: "Some states agreed to ratify the Constitution only if the amendments that were to become the Bill of Rights would be taken up immediately by the new government, and they were duly proposed in the first session of the First Congress." So, you're just plain wrong about that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Nonetheless, there is no more inherent reason today to worship the Second Amendment, as gunlovers do, than to worship the rest of the Bill of Rights such as the Third Amendment (regarding quartering of soldiers in private homes). More than 230 years after adoption of the Bill of Rights, the original political reasons for adopting the Bill of Rights should not control us forever.

Gunlovers claim they need guns for "protection" and just because gun use is their "right." But the number of gun deaths is about 33,000 per year (including suicides and accidents) and there is no way in hell that gunlovers can demonstrate that the present free access to guns in the US has saved lives by allowing modern day Wyatt Earps or Quick Draw McGraws to spontaneously pull out their .45 Peacemakers and shoot guns out of the hands of intruders and thus (hypothetically) saving more than the 33,000 lives that guns cost us each year.

We now have more guns than people in the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-child-and-then-some/?utm_term=.561ae7f98e3e

That terrible reality is the fault of the gunlovers, not the rest of us.

So, gunlovers, what is your solution to all these gun deaths? Your worship of guns is the roadblock to a solution that would be normal in the rest of the world.

 

[NPT]

So, gunlovers, what is your solution to all these gun deaths? Your worship of guns is the roadblock to a solution that would be normal in the rest of the world.

I don't know as there is any solution. There are things that could help however. What's the solution to all the alcohol deaths (where more people die than with guns).. They tried prohibition and that didn't work but it would probably help if alcohol was banned just like it would probably help the gun problem if guns were banned.