(February 19, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: "Unalienable" in the context of Missouri's right to bear arms means that it's not to be routinely fucked with.

= "shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity."

The problem with the concept of "unalienable" is it's unconstitutional. The fact that amendments can be made to the constitution is proof that none of these sections are actually unalienable. People can argue that the language of the section says this or that, but there's nothing stopping the government, with enough votes, from repealing that section or replacing the text.

(February 19, 2018 at 6:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Also worth pointing out that a federal ban on guns could not be countered by a state constitution guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms. Federal laws trump state laws.

State laws can usually be more restrictive that federal laws, but they can't be less restrictive.

As far as the "unalienable" comment goes that's why the New Hampshire State Constitution states that the people have the right and obligation to start a revolution when the government critters become assholes.  The personal right for white people to own slaves was the first Constitutional right revoked by the Federal government.  Now no one in America can own slaves.  

As for State Constitutions versus the Federal Constitution the State Constitutions can grant more rights tun the Federal Constitution or they can be more restrictive.  For instance, there's no official language clause in the Federal Constitution.  A person can speak hill-billy Martian if he wants to and the Federal government would have to accommodate him.  But a State can tell the guy to go screw himself  on Phobos and speak English.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov...48ec13f926

(February 19, 2018 at 7:45 pm)wallym Wrote: We're not really in danger.  That's the big lie.  Kids are not at constant risk.  The threat of a mass shooting at a school pales in comparison to the threat of being hit by a car walking/biking to school.  But there's no kids talking about how they are terrified to walk to school, because a car is going to hit them when they cross the street.
But because of the willingness of the media to let people draw the wrong conclusions, you'd never know that there is a super tiny amount of danger from gun violence at a school.

The whole thing is so phony.  A bunch of teens and 20 somethings acting like their end is imminent.  And then they pile into a civic, and do 95 down the free way while texting.  There is a disconnect between what is presented as the real threat to their lives, and what's actually a threat to their lives that the media and adults who know better are complicit in letting them believe.  

I think the whole gun control thing would be more compelling if so much of it wasn't disingenuous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...eople-die/

(February 19, 2018 at 7:51 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 7:45 pm)wallym Wrote: We're not really in danger.  That's the big lie.  Kids are not at constant risk.  The threat of a mass shooting at a school pales in comparison to the threat of being hit by a car walking/biking to school.  But there's no kids talking about how they are terrified to walk to school, because a car is going to hit them when they cross the street.
But because of the willingness of the media to let people draw the wrong conclusions, you'd never know that there is a super tiny amount of danger from gun violence at a school.

The whole thing is so phony.  A bunch of teens and 20 somethings acting like their end is imminent.  And then they pile into a civic, and do 95 down the free way while texting.  There is a disconnect between what is presented as the real threat to their lives, and what's actually a threat to their lives that the media and adults who know better are complicit in letting them believe.  

I think the whole gun control thing would be more compelling if so much of it wasn't disingenuous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...eople-die/

According to this site = 

FBI Crime Statistics: More People Killed by Hammers, Clubs Than Guns
POSTED BY: BENJAMIN KNIGHT JUNE 16, 2016
Regressive left calls for gun control but not hammer control.
https://wethevigilant.com/2016/06/16/fbi...than-guns/

(February 19, 2018 at 7:51 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 7:45 pm)wallym Wrote: We're not really in danger.  That's the big lie.  Kids are not at constant risk.  The threat of a mass shooting at a school pales in comparison to the threat of being hit by a car walking/biking to school.  But there's no kids talking about how they are terrified to walk to school, because a car is going to hit them when they cross the street.
But because of the willingness of the media to let people draw the wrong conclusions, you'd never know that there is a super tiny amount of danger from gun violence at a school.

The whole thing is so phony.  A bunch of teens and 20 somethings acting like their end is imminent.  And then they pile into a civic, and do 95 down the free way while texting.  There is a disconnect between what is presented as the real threat to their lives, and what's actually a threat to their lives that the media and adults who know better are complicit in letting them believe.  

I think the whole gun control thing would be more compelling if so much of it wasn't disingenuous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...eople-die/

Is your assertion people shouldn't want to own a gun for self-defense, because it's likely someone is going to murder them with a gun?

(February 19, 2018 at 7:58 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 7:51 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...eople-die/

According to this site = 

FBI Crime Statistics: More People Killed by Hammers, Clubs Than Guns
POSTED BY: BENJAMIN KNIGHT JUNE 16, 2016
Regressive left calls for gun control but not hammer control.
https://wethevigilant.com/2016/06/16/fbi...than-guns/

False equivalence yet again.

---

(February 19, 2018 at 8:25 pm)wallym Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 7:51 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...eople-die/

Is your assertion people shouldn't want to own a gun for self-defense, because it's likely someone is going to murder them with a gun?

No, the facts are that people are more likely to kill an innocent person than a criminal with their guns.

(February 19, 2018 at 8:42 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 8:25 pm)wallym Wrote: Is your assertion people shouldn't want to own a gun for self-defense, because it's likely someone is going to murder them with a gun?

No, the facts are that people are more likely to kill an innocent person than a criminal with their guns.

Well the people killing innocent people tend to be the criminals.  If killing people is the goal, you should definitely acquire a gun.  

Is it surprising to you that people who are looking to commit murder kill more innocent people than people not looking to commit murder?  That's the conclusion to be drawn from your statistics.

You see, Wally, the problem when you use fucking Breitbart or some other nazi shit site to support your arguments is that you run the risk of someone coming along and calling you a fucking liar.


As I am doing now.


https://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp

Quote:“Crime in the U.S.” section of the FBI’s web site includes
homicide data that breaks down killings by the types of weapons used. In 2011, the percentages for weapon types used in homicides throughout the U.S. were as follows:



Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

---

What is really amazing is that some of these kids who are writing back to the fucktard are so much more articulate than the amoeba-brained shitgibbon.

(February 19, 2018 at 7:45 pm)wallym Wrote: I think the whole gun control thing would be more compelling if so much of it wasn't disingenuous.

Well at least you're being genuine about lacking empathy for the victims of tragedy, I guess.  I'll give you that.  It makes you come across like an asshole.  But at least you're being genuine.

The likelihood of being killed in a mass shooting is irrelevant.  The fact is: This doesn't happen in other countries.  It doesn't happen in Australia.  It doesn't happen in Canada, or France.  It doesn't happen in Sweden, or Norway.  It doesn't happen in Germany.  Certainly not at the rate it does here.

Maybe you're okay with 20 some kids being murdered every now and again, as long as people keep the right to bear arms.  After all, as long as it's not your blood, what do you care?  You'll (disingenuously I might add) point to traffic accidents as if every country on earth dosen't have them at around the same rate we do.  You'll ignore the fact that people are trained in the operation of a vehicle, and must prove themselves to be able to drive them.

I'm not okay with it.  This doesn't happen in other countries.  Because they don't worship guns like this country does.  I know we'll never do anything because of people like you.  People who can look at victims as nothing but a numbers game.  "It was only TWENTY kids who died in Sandy Hook.  The chances of dying are small!"  You know what?  It's funny you mention that.  The chances of someone breaking into your home?  Yeah, that's unlikely too.  But your side will fight to the death over their right to own a killing machine so they can 'defend their home' from an intruder who's probably only interested in their television in the first place.  And of course these same people are SO worried about home safety, that they surely have the best security systems they can get, right?  Oh right, they don't.  So don't talk to me about disingenuous.  I wonder how you'd feel if your kid was one of the ones killed.  Would you then state "Oh it was only ONE Kid!"  Would you let your kid trade places with one of those, if it meant keeping the right to bear arms? 

And that's not to even mention all the irresponsible gun owners who let their children get their hands on guns, and end up killing people before they're 4 years old. 

I don't blame those kids for wanting to march against guns.  I'm sure you and the people like you hate it, because it draws attention against your cause.  You don't care that they've lost friends.  Why would you?  Your friends (namely the metallic ones) are what you care about.  Chances are you'll never have to use a gun to defend yourself.  Chances are your home will never be broken into.  But you don't care about those chances.  Just the ones that fit your narrative, and your agenda.

It remains a fact wally more innocent people are killed by guns . Then  are saved by them.

---

(February 19, 2018 at 10:22 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 7:45 pm)wallym Wrote: I think the whole gun control thing would be more compelling if so much of it wasn't disingenuous.

Well at least you're being genuine about lacking empathy for the victims of tragedy, I guess.  I'll give you that.  It makes you come across like an asshole.  But at least you're being genuine.

The likelihood of being killed in a mass shooting is irrelevant.  The fact is: This doesn't happen in other countries.  It doesn't happen in Australia.  It doesn't happen in Canada, or France.  It doesn't happen in Sweden, or Norway.  It doesn't happen in Germany.  Certainly not at the rate it does here.

Maybe you're okay with 20 some kids being murdered every now and again, as long as people keep the right to bear arms.  After all, as long as it's not your blood, what do you care?  You'll (disingenuously I might add) point to traffic accidents as if every country on earth dosen't have them at around the same rate we do.  You'll ignore the fact that people are trained in the operation of a vehicle, and must prove themselves to be able to drive them.

I'm not okay with it.  This doesn't happen in other countries.  Because they don't worship guns like this country does.  I know we'll never do anything because of people like you.  People who can look at victims as nothing but a numbers game.  "It was only TWENTY kids who died in Sandy Hook.  The chances of dying are small!"  You know what?  It's funny you mention that.  The chances of someone breaking into your home?  Yeah, that's unlikely too.  But your side will fight to the death over their right to own a killing machine so they can 'defend their home' from an intruder who's probably only interested in their television in the first place.  And of course these same people are SO worried about home safety, that they surely have the best security systems they can get, right?  Oh right, they don't.  So don't talk to me about disingenuous.  I wonder how you'd feel if your kid was one of the ones killed.  Would you then state "Oh it was only ONE Kid!"  Would you let your kid trade places with one of those, if it meant keeping the right to bear arms? 

And that's not to even mention all the irresponsible gun owners who let their children get their hands on guns, and end up killing people before they're 4 years old. 

I don't blame those kids for wanting to march against guns.  I'm sure you and the people like you hate it, because it draws attention against your cause.  You don't care that they've lost friends.  Why would you?  Your friends (namely the metallic ones) are what you care about.  Chances are you'll never have to use a gun to defend yourself.  Chances are your home will never be broken into.  But you don't care about those chances.  Just the ones that fit your narrative, and your agenda.

And yes that  sums it up well

(February 19, 2018 at 10:22 pm)Cecelia Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 7:45 pm)wallym Wrote: I think the whole gun control thing would be more compelling if so much of it wasn't disingenuous.

Well at least you're being genuine about lacking empathy for the victims of tragedy, I guess.  I'll give you that.  It makes you come across like an asshole.  But at least you're being genuine.

The likelihood of being killed in a mass shooting is irrelevant.  The fact is: This doesn't happen in other countries.  It doesn't happen in Australia.  It doesn't happen in Canada, or France.  It doesn't happen in Sweden, or Norway.  It doesn't happen in Germany.  Certainly not at the rate it does here.

Maybe you're okay with 20 some kids being murdered every now and again, as long as people keep the right to bear arms.  After all, as long as it's not your blood, what do you care?  You'll (disingenuously I might add) point to traffic accidents as if every country on earth dosen't have them at around the same rate we do.  You'll ignore the fact that people are trained in the operation of a vehicle, and must prove themselves to be able to drive them.

I'm not okay with it.  This doesn't happen in other countries.  Because they don't worship guns like this country does.  I know we'll never do anything because of people like you.  People who can look at victims as nothing but a numbers game.  "It was only TWENTY kids who died in Sandy Hook.  The chances of dying are small!"  You know what?  It's funny you mention that.  The chances of someone breaking into your home?  Yeah, that's unlikely too.  But your side will fight to the death over their right to own a killing machine so they can 'defend their home' from an intruder who's probably only interested in their television in the first place.  And of course these same people are SO worried about home safety, that they surely have the best security systems they can get, right?  Oh right, they don't.  So don't talk to me about disingenuous.  I wonder how you'd feel if your kid was one of the ones killed.  Would you then state "Oh it was only ONE Kid!"  Would you let your kid trade places with one of those, if it meant keeping the right to bear arms? 

And that's not to even mention all the irresponsible gun owners who let their children get their hands on guns, and end up killing people before they're 4 years old. 

I don't blame those kids for wanting to march against guns.  I'm sure you and the people like you hate it, because it draws attention against your cause.  You don't care that they've lost friends.  Why would you?  Your friends (namely the metallic ones) are what you care about.  Chances are you'll never have to use a gun to defend yourself.  Chances are your home will never be broken into.  But you don't care about those chances.  Just the ones that fit your narrative, and your agenda.

It definitely happens in other countries.  There was a crazy guy in Norway who killed 80 people in '11.  France just had the big mass shooting a couple years ago in Paris.  A gunman killed a bunch of people in a Mosque in Quebec, Canada in 2017.   Some kid killed a couple family members, and then shot up a school in Saskatchewan, Canada in 2016.  There was the Munich mass shooting in Germany in 2016.   Mass shooting in Sweden in Oct. 2017, although that was gang related.  I'm just googling the places you said don't have mass shootings.  I assume we're mostly talking about criminal on non-criminal mass shootings.  A lot of US shootings are gang related.  If you can find a way to take guns away from criminal organizations, I'd be for that.  But they have guns, so it'd probably be pretty dangerous.

But the bigger point is anywhere there's guns, someone's eventually going to go nuts and shoot at a bunch of random people.  

-----

You are right though.  I don't sweat people dying.  If you were sad every time someone died tragically, you'd be sad 100% of the time.  More than 14 kids died today in horrible unnecessary tragic ways.  But it wasn't at the same time in an exciting manner so the nation isn't mourning them.  It's arbitrary.  I have a hard time with feelings as it is, let alone arbitrary ones.  My opinion is life sucks sometimes, and you just cross your fingers it doesn't get you.  But I don't worry about my kid getting shot for the same reason I don't play the lottery.  And if it happens, it'll suck.  But you can't let your life be dictated by incredibly rare events.  

-----

Finally, you make the assumption I'm on the pro-gun side.  I'd prefer no guns.  But it's just not practical, and I don't get to dictate what everyone in the country has to do because of what I want.  I think alcohol should probably be illegal as well.  How many rapes/murders/assaults/etc... is alcohol responsible for.  But I'm not trying to ban that either.  People are very comfortable giving up other people's rights in America.  

Now if we came up with some practical solutions to reduce the impact that aren't shit, sign me up.  But most of the ideas are just political tricks and the hot takes of dumb people, in my opinion.

---

(February 19, 2018 at 10:53 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: It remains a fact wally more innocent people are killed by guns . Then  are saved by them.

Yes.  But what is your conclusion based on that fact.   
Because more people are killed by guns, than protected by guns....  What?  What comes next?