To the gun lovers, **I** have the right to stay alive and happy while . . . . .

[Stinky The Clown]

. . . . minding my own business.

By people having guns, that right is threatened, and with the increase in random mass shooting, it is threatened even more.

Your right to own a gun should not trump my right to life.

So fuck guns, gun humpers, and gun industry bagmen who now own most of our shitty fucking GOP congress.

[Phoenix61]

1. Well said nt

[msongs]

2. sorry but in reality gun owners 2A rights trump anybody's right to a safe life nt

[Atman]

49. What about the right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness?"

Does 2A supercede that? Unless you interpret 'pursuit of happiness' means your love of guns.

[Hangingon]

59. Life, liberty And the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence.

What happened to junior high civics?

[Atman]

68. Gosh, really Wally?

Thanks for the lesson. But both key founding documents inform our belief systems in America. Just sayin'...what if owning a shitload of guns is a central part of your pursuit of happiness?

[Hangingon]

69. Well, civics would have taught that the Constitution is the law of the land.

Them Declaration of Independence, while a founding document and informs out national character, is not law. Pretty easy.

[TheCowsCameHome]

51. Gun humpers love their weapons more than life itself.

[HopeAgain]

81. That's pretty stupid way for things to be, don't you think?

Shouldn't the Second Amendment be repealed if we put guns before public health and safety? Just asking if it should, not if it is likely.

[niyad]

3. k and r

[Adrahil]

4. And my right to stay alive and happy....

is threatened by drinkers, who might drive drunk and kill me.

Your right to drink should not trump my right to life.

That argument can be applied randomly to any behavior associated with risk to life. I don;t necessarily disagree, but it's a hard argument to make stick. People want to do what they want to do.

[gratuitous]

6. And in the last 40 years, we've done a lot about drunk driving

Penalties have been increased, civil liability law has been extended to dram shops to put them on the hook for visibly drunk patrons who leave their establishment, there are multiple programs to help problem drinkers, and a public information campaign consistently getting the message "don't drink and drive" out to the general population.

Have we eliminated all drunk driving? No. Have we cut down the number of drunk drivers and the accidents and fatalities? Yes. Yes we have.

You see anything in our society right now that holds gun owners accountable for careless or negligent handling or storage of their firearms? Check out the weekly statistics on firearms confiscated at airports. There are dozens every week! Are the owners fined or imprisoned for "forgetting" that their favorite shootin' arn was in their carry-on luggage? No.

Are gun shops held liable for selling guns to anyone? If they jump through a couple of hoops, which appear to be of dubious effectiveness, they're in the clear and they know it.

Do we have an effective, or even an ineffective, public program designed to help the mentally ill or people with anger management problems? Or does our society encourage violent solutions to problems through the military, popular entertainments, and deride those who seek non-violent conflict resolution? Is a "real man" encouraged to sit down with a mental health professional and work through his issues, or is he encouraged to pick up a weapon and settle his differences with others through violence? What is the consistent message to people our society churns out every day about the best way to solve problems? Does the president himself advocate for peaceful resolution, or is he more likely to tell his supporters to knock the crap out of anyone who disagrees with them, or to say that the best way for the United States to interact with other countries is to bomb the shit out of them?

Facile dismissals that don't stand up to a scintilla of scrutiny have helped maintain this bloody, violent culture.

[Adrahil]

16. Way to miss the point!

the point is that facile "my right to life trumps your right to "x" is about as simplistic as they come. Make specific arguments, with explicit remedies.

This is one issue where we lose our collective mind and start arguing emotionally, instead of rationally. You make excellent points above. Those things should be what we are talking about, not the ridiculous OP.

[smirkymonkey]

29. This! +1000!

Plus, there is no good, valid reason to own an assault weapon or to be allowed to walk around in public with a gun. I'm sorry but the excuse that "It's my 2nd A right" and "Because I want to" aren't good enough. It's bullshit. Unless you are dependent upon meat from hunting for food, you don't need a gun and even then, you only need a shotgun.

[louis-t]

58. All very good points.

I see our local gun humpers are about to respond.

[Pacifist Patriot]

7. Drunk driving is illegal. Owning a gun is not.

We also do not have a constitutionally protected right to drink, or even to drive. We definitely do not have any legal protection to drink and then subsequently drive. We do, however, have a right to own a gun.

[sarisataka]

23. False equivalence

Owning a gun is not the parallel to DUI; owning a gun is akin to having a drink. Both are legal

Driving drunk is like randomly shooting at people. Both are illegal.

[King_Klonopin]

45. Maybe you've missed a point?

When we, the people and the public, put our minds to it and demand that our politicians
address an issue -- whether deaths as a result of gun shots or deaths as a result of drunk
drivers -- we can affect changes for the better. Back in the 1960's and 70's, before the
advent of Meghan's Law type legislation, drunk driving was tolerated and enabled. Now, it
is addressed as a crime and public safety issue. Perhaps, someday, WE can make similar
changes happen with gun laws. The resistance to gun regulation is admittedly formidable,
but we can't give up.

The bromide I prefer is: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

[SwissTony]

9. Drunk drivers are a grave danger on the road.

As are poor drivers, for whatever reason.

But drivers don't generally target people. We had one case a few weeks ago where some idiot drove (intentionally!!!) into some protestors in Charlottesville.

But apart from such arseholes, drivers don't intend to kill or injure others.

The same can't be said for guns. Yes, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. They have firearms for protection or hunting or sport or whatever.

But you have 26 people dead in Texas. 58 dead in Vegas. And the list goes on and on. Someone on DU gave us a list of about 7 or 8 mass shootings in November alone. Sorry, I don't have a link. But 7 or 8 shootings in November. The month hasn't really started.

The two just don't compare. People will be stupid. People will cause accidents. When was the last time a drunk driver caused the death of more than 10 people? And how often has that happened?

But guns???????

Give me a break.

Please, there's no comparison.

[Adrahil]

17. I don't think the intent really matters.

Drunk drivers do not intend to kill people, but they do. And further, they KNOW that drunk drivers kill people when they get drunk and intend to drive. That's why we charge drunk drivers with vehicular homocide.

My point is make specific arguments about how and why we need to restrict guns, not base emotional appeals.

[SwissTony]

26. Excuse me. You NEED an argument for why you should restrict guns?????

Em...Texas...Vegas...etc...etc.

Holy fuck.

And emotional appeals are "base"?

[Adrahil]

35. Okay... good luck!

Have fun accomplishing nothing!

[SwissTony]

36. Thanks for contributing to inncocent men, women and children being slaughtered. n/t

[Adrahil]

37. I'd love to do something about it.

But that requires reasoned argument and well constructed laws.

Too many here seem to want to rant and make broad, unrealistic declarations.

My contributions are wanted. I get flat out insulted for making them.

Fine. Do it your way. But don't you DARE blame that shit on me.

[SwissTony]

40. I DON'T blame you specifically.

But you contribute to the culture where basically anyone van have access to guns.

Answer this question: which other other country has gun massacres on the scale and frequency of the US?

Answer: none!!

Question: why?

[Adrahil]

46. And you still miss the point....

It's not about what I would do if I could wave a magic wand. It's about how to accomplish something meaningful in this political climate.

Righteous indignation is simply not enough.

[SwissTony]

48. How about banning/restricting guns? It worked in OZ. n/t

[world wide wally]

66. It worked in Dodge City too.

[Yavin4]

11. A bartender can be held criminally and civilly liable for serving alcohol to a drunk patron

Can a gun seller be held criminally and civilly for selling guns to an unstable patron? No.

[Hangingon]

62. This has been asked and answered in most shooting threads.

If the dealer follows the law and gets a clean response, he can sell without liability. If he does not follow the law, he can and should be held accountable. Individual sellers do not have enough access to NICS. I don’t think they should have it. Still if they sell without due diligence and the buyer misuses the gun, I think they should’ve held accountable. Currently they are not.

My son sold a shot gun to a person about 30 miles away -within the state. He suggested they meet at the local police station. Why not get the states to enact laws requiring this and have the police do a back ground check for free?

[treestar]

42. Drunk Driving is illegal

Owning a gun is not.

[GoneOffShore]

61. False equivalence.

[aikoaiko]

5. Yes, you have a right to stay alive and happy. No, others owning guns doesn't threaten that right

You're welcome.

[SwissTony]

10. Tell that to the people in Vegas and Texas and... and....

You're right. Owning guns doesn't hurt anyone. Not owning them.

Unfortunately, people do things with guns that do threaten that right.

[Alea]

15. So you would limit or take away the rights of a whole group of people

based on criminal actions of a small portion of that group?

Are you on Trumps side with the muslim ban?

[SwissTony]

19. You're worried about the rights of people who want guns.

I'm worried about the rights of people who've been shot and, in many cases, killed.

What about their rights?

And that's just the cases in the past. What about tomorrow? The next day? The next year? Please tell me about rights!!!

Where does it stop?

[Alea]

25. Everything you just said minus the reply title

sounds word for word like trumps muslim ban.

[SwissTony]

28. Complete and utter bullshit.

I'm talking about guns. Not people.

[Alea]

30. Complete and utter bullshit

Your talking about restricting or taking away rights from an entire group of people because of the actions of a small portion of that group.

[SwissTony]

33. May I ask you two questions?

>Do you have a gun?

>Why?

I'll answer the same questions from my point of view.

>No

>I live (and have lived) in countries where having a gun is regarded as being completely unnecessary.


Edited: because 'of' has an 'o' but 'if' has an 'i'.

[Alea]

44. Yes you may ask

1) Yes I am a gun owner

2) Because rape whistles and the piss your pants method of self defense don't work.

Unfortunately we live in a country with to many violent criminals and the lack of will to lock them up and keep them locked up, or execute as necessary.

[SwissTony]

47. Thank you for your forthright reply.

I'm male and rape isn't really a threat to me.

I live in The Netherlands and have three daughters (and a wife). None, to the best of my knowledge, have ever experienced such threats although all have complained about guys on the street calling out things like "Hey, sexy" and that sort of thing. In The Netherlands, we don't feel the need for guns.

Obviously, I don't know your individual situation...so I can't comment.

But the US has the highest incaration rate in the world.

I don't know how guns help.

[world wide wally]

65. Exactly how many people have you shot in self defense?

[Fred Sanders]

76. You would argue with a post to defend the precious gun.

[smirkymonkey]

56. I'm so sick of gun humpers basing their arguments on "rights".

The 2nd Amendment is an anachronism. Nobody NEEDS a gun to survive like they need access to food, shelter, healthcare, etc. I'm sorry, but I don't really give a shit about the rights of gun-owners. They have no other purpose than to kill, particularly when it comes to semi-automatic and automatic weapons. There is no need for a civilian to have one.

[Alea]

57. Tuff shitski - It's called the Bill of Rights not the Bill of Needs

Thanks for playing

[MarvinGardens]

64. "Rights."

I bet Trump and his deplorables are sick of the media exploiting their "rights" to report negative stories about his administration. Pull their licenses!


They are also sick of Fifth Amendment "rights" for accused terrorists and Trump's political enemies. The criminal justice system is a joke!

[n2doc]

71. Funny how the 2nd is the ONLY one they care about

Violating the rights to speedy trial (6th), Unreasonable search and seizure (4th), due process (5th), cruel and unusual punishment (8th), freedom of press, speech and not establishing a preferred religion (1st), as well as the constant violation of the Emoluments clause. These are all things that the Right Wing ignores or actively promotes. But interpreting the 2nd to allow unfettered access to weapons of mass destruction is just fine with them. And obviously also by some who consider themselves 'liberals' as well.

[jmg257]

72. Problems w/ Due process? Like re: the terrorist watch list so many want to add to the NIC system?

It is funny how things are "pick and chose" - depending on what they may accomplish.

[n2doc]

73. Funny how I don't support that

No Democrat should if they have principles. Pick and choose indeed.

[jmg257]

74. Cool - cheers!

[aikoaiko]

83. Virtually no one argues for unfettered access. And most gun owners support the constitution,....

...in my experience. You conflate gun owners with right wingers in your post.

[n2doc]

86. No one? The NRA and virtually all GOP'ers do exactly that.

They do not support ANY gun restrictions. Open carry everywhere. Bump Stocks. No checks anywhere.

And I see a smattering of DU'ers who always say "second amendment rights" whenever ANY gun control measures are proposed.It isn't solely a RW issue.

[aikoaiko]

87. The NRA doesn't oppose background checks when buying new guns

I haven't heard them saying anything about changing gun control with machine guns

[aikoaiko]

80. And that's why you're failing.

[smirkymonkey]

82. I'm failing? Me personally? Actually I'm not, but thanks

for checking in.

[aikoaiko]

84. oh. well, then do tell how you've "fuck[ed] guns, gun humpers, and gun industry bagmen"?

Really, do tell of your victories.

Maybe you are referring to your heroic OP.

[smirkymonkey]

88. You are confusing me with the OP. I did not write that and I don't know what you are talking

about.

[aikoaiko]

89. Oh you're right. I am confusing you with the OP.

Sorry.

[lagomorph777]

13. Sure, and people should have every right to own dozens of machine guns.

Because that's perfectly normal and reasonable.

Do you see any limit at all?
Cannons?
Hand grenades?
Nuclear missiles?

At some point, wanting to own a WMD is evidence of insanity and there should be no right to own any arbitrarily destructive weapon.

[Alea]

20. Go try and buy any of those things mentioned and get back with us with your results n/t

[lagomorph777]

21. I was asking about your opinion, not the fact that we have somewhat limited private militaries.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. I think where this thread fork is getting problematic is, all the items you listed are massively

restricted.

Semi-automatic rifles fall outside the scope of it. Machine Guns, explosives of all sorts, things like that are classified and restricted as 'Destructive Devices'. Not firearms.


I guess what would be a more constructive path, would be settling whether there's enough difference between a semi-auto and a full-auto firearm to justify them being treated VASTLY differently in the eyes of the law, and whether they should enjoy different or same 2nd Amendment protections.

My 'right' to own a machine gun is not recognized by the courts, by way of Heller vs. DC, or MacDonald vs. Chicago, or Miller vs. US or any other decision. In fact, I cannot own one at all within my state (Washington) without being Law Enforcement or active duty Military. The Supreme Court won't change that.

So if I may humbly suggest, this might prove a more fruitful comparison.

[Alea]

41. Yes, limits are ok with me. I'm not a 2A absolutist.

No gun owner I know wants a nuke or even a grenade and there are already laws preventing people from owning them. You can get a registered machine gun if you jump through the ATF hoops and have $30K or more bucks to buy one. To date, no registered machine gun owner has ever used one to commit a crime. You can get a cannon the same way but I believe you can't use exploding shells, and one has never been used by a legal owner to commit a crime.

Also, minus the nuke, the others on your list you imply are WMD... If they are WMDs then you are basically saying Bush was right to say there were WMDs in Iraq because there were plenty of machine guns, grenades, and cannons in Iraq. I saw many of them with my own eyes.

WMDs are WMDs, you can't change the goal post to fit a narrative.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Actually, a possible solution is treating semi-automatic firearms like fully-automatic firearms.

NFA weapons (select fire/full auto) are heavily restricted. Less than ten lawfully owned fully automatic weapons have been used in crimes since they were restricted in 1934.

NFA registration requires a FULL background check with fingerprints (no NICS)
It's a Registry. If it's used in a crime it can be traced, nullifying straw purchasers. If you break a law that makes you ineligible to own a gun, the BATFE or Local Law Enforcement know you have it and can come get it.
Requires a $200 tax stamp per gun.

That alone made for NFA firearms to be rare in the commission of a crime.
No reason we can't apply that to semi-auto as well.

[lagomorph777]

32. I would agree to that.

[Alea]

8. I have the same right to life as you

Sometimes that right to life requires the right to defend life.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. I agree with you, but sadly, society doesn't.

Not even allegedly progressive society, as a look at this thread and others will demonstrate.

[Aristus]

14. One of the reasons other countries have been so effective at passing gun-control legislation is

the perception of rights.

In the US, rights are seen as individual, rather than collective. So a person (many persons, actually) can pollute the airwaves with their bilious spewing about their "right to own guns with no restrictions or conditions whatsoever.'.

In Europe and other regions of the world, like Japan, rights are considered collective. The people have a right as a whole not to be intimidated, harrassed, threatened, or killed by a yahoo with a gun.

[IronLionZion]

18. Is that in the Constitution somewhere? Where?

There's something about life in the Declaration of Independence.

Because some asshole's pursuit of happiness might involve shooting your life. Did you ever think of some asshole's liberty and pursuit of happiness? No, you only think of yourself.

What makes you think you have a right to live? Conservatives even have right to life marches since apparently it's not a right.

[Cryptoad]

22. 9th amend insures that no single amend is absolute!

[IronLionZion]

38. The 2nd amendment has been used to deny and disparage other rights

retained by the people. Because you don't get to have rights once you're dead, do you?

[Cryptoad]

43. Yes it does but only because the NRA- GOP SCOTUS allow it rather ,,,,

than applying the 9th amend....

[Straw Man]

75. Sorry, but ...

The 2nd amendment has been used to deny and disparage other rights

retained by the people. Because you don't get to have rights once you're dead, do you?

... the Second Amendment doesn't include a right to commit murder.

[IronLionZion]

78. Dead people can't report this violation of the law

and people have used "self defense" as an excuse to murder someone in a way that leaves no witnesses and they get away with murder. Like stand your ground type nonsense or castle doctrine.

[Straw Man]

79. So is your contention ...

... that murder is unsolvable because the victims can't testify?

[IronLionZion]

85. When you're dead, it's a little too late

[Straw Man]

90. Just for clarification ...

... are you actually claiming that it isn't possible to solve the crime of murder because the victim can't testify? But that it's somehow possible to prevent murder by eliminating access to weapons?

[IronLionZion]

91. I'm saying you chose the correct handle

[Straw Man]

92. Non-answer. No points.

[IronLionZion]

93. Bummer

You win. Enjoy your points

[50 Shades Of Blue]

27. K & R!

[NCTraveler]

39. K&R Big time.

And these merchants of death don't just want to hump their guns. As they do so, they support one of the strongest conservative supporters out there. The NRA. It can no longer be thought in simple terms of guns. They support conservatives.

[Baconator]

50. You don't have the right to legislate others behavior...

... because of your fear short of crossing a very specific legal line where it crosses into a legitimate threat.

[doc03]

52. These murders work in the NRAs favor. The people that oppose

assault weapons and want universal background checks are going to have to arm ourselves for our own
protection. If our government refuses to pass any laws to protect our freedoms what choice do we have
other than protecting ourselves.

[Le Gaucher]

53. Unfortunately the SCOTUS does not see it that way - and these are supposed to be our

best legal mind.

Go figure !!

[Lars39]

55. I guess the government doesnt have a compelling interest in keeping us alive.

[Hoyt]

77. I do not believe the SCOTUS ruled against the previous Assault Weapons Ban. It was lifted because

the NRA and white wing racist gun owners whined about the government denying them weapons useful in massacres and intimidating people.



?resize=1200%2C1495

[Stinky The Clown]

95. IQs lower than the caliber of their penis . . . er . . . guns

[kentuck]

54. Your freedom to swing your fists stops at the end of my nose.

There is a certain point where your freedom ends and the other persons freedom begins. It seems we have reached that point with automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

[MyNameGoesHere]

60. You're about to get the wrath

Of the educators, enablers and deniers all over you. Please don't call em out from their cave.

[liquid diamond]

63. Right to bear arms.

Those nuts who go on shooting sprees are just a small percentage of gun owners. Face it. You will never EVER get guns banned in this country.

[world wide wally]

67. Why do we never hear the words "well regulated" anymore?

It is in the Constitution.

[Crunchy Frog]

70. Apparently it just means that your gun is in good working order.

I think that's what I've seen from the on site "educators".

[hunter]

94. Don't mind me. I'm just here to mock gun love.

Jesus Christ, you'g think the second amendment was written by God and handed down on a tablet to Moses. Break that sacred law, roast in hell forever...



Piss on guns.

Better yet, if it's within your power to do so, kill any guns you come across. There are too many guns in the U.S.A., and too many fools have them. The odds that any gun nut you know is a fool are high.

A Harbor Freight angle grinder works plenty well. Less than thirty bucks for the grinder and appropriate cutting disks. Throw in a cheap arc welder and welding mask, and you can make dead gun art. I love dead gun art.

If you are in a hurry, and don't want to make any noise, those self-mixing epoxy syringes are a temporary fix. No, no not down the barrel, that would be dangerous. You want to gum up the firing mechanisms.

If my post makes you fear for you favorite guns, those you love to fondle, if you can feel your balls retracting a little picturing your loved ones (or a crazy berserker guy on the internet) killing your precious guns, then maybe you have a problem...

Let's talk about it.