DaVinci

"The only surprise is that it doesn't happen more often. " Yet it does not... So it should be seen as what it is... A Stupid accident, not a way to gain support for something that has been shown not to be a statistically significant problem. Fact is that you should not be surprised it does not happen more often.... Because historically it has *not* happened often.

Hollywood thinking, pure Hollywood thinking. No agency trains to 'shoot to wound'. It is next to impossible and stupid to boot. And if it was a rapist that raped and killed her.... Would you still claim there was enough time? This is a stupid accident.

Like 90% of Americans I think we should stay out. 1. People get up in arms when Chemical weapons are used... But those same people didn't seem to care when traditional weapons have been used for years by the same people and killing the same people. 2. We don't have solid proof who used them. It could have been an accident, or a set up. 3. When we invaded Iraq we took 18 months and formed a true coalition. We have no such support this time. I say make the UN do something for once.

Awesome.... I wish it were that easy, but it is not. Didn't work at VT Didn't work in Columbine Didn't work in Newtown Didn't work in Aurora Didn't work in AZ In all those cases it took an armed response. Typical police procedure: 1. Ask them to comply 2. Tell them to comply 3. Make them comply Works in all kinds of situations. If you get to stop at #1.. GREAT. But that is not always the case.

Reading is fundamental. He said blacks are not 'African' unless they are from Africa... That they are AMERICAN if they are from America. Mostly no... Some yes. But we do have people saying 'all those whites' a bunch. Seems no one cares about that....

Ah, keep moving the goal posts and maybe one day you will win. But your first point was that we will not let you have one.... Several of us do not care if you own one, and think you should be allowed - FAIL. That didn't work for you, so you claimed you could not own one. Well wrong again: http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/photosfeb04/dd1-48rpg.html FAIL We have already shown you can in fact own an F18 - FAIL Now, if you ask me.... I think they should be easier to own than a few handfuls But the fact is that you are once again wrong. Go fish.

Funny how you think the people applies to...well the people in that one.

And what do you suggest? Asked and answered previously, several times. Saying you answered it is not answering it. Maybe you could link to your wonderful ideas instead of hiding them?

So in that regard, it seems as if you're equal. And it seems you are afraid to answer simple questions.

That is only if you ignore that a free state must also have freedom for the citizens. ***That may be the interpretation/opinion of some judges, but it is NOT what the amendment actually says. And have you not said before that the rulings of the SC are the only thing that really matters? You are so anxious to prove me wrong that you are now contradicting your previous statements. Nonsense. You have the double standard here. You say the SC is all that matters, but when the SC rules in a way you don't like you claim they don't

Who said you could not own an F-18 or an RPG? In fact, we have proven you CAN own either. Go fish.

It has been clearly decided by the SC that it is the right for the PEOPLE to have access to weapons. For "lawful reasons" and self defense is a lawful reason. The SC has also ruled that the right is unconnected to service in a militia. It has also ruled that self defense is a legal reason. It has also ruled that 'weapons suitable for use in a militia' are protected. Never said it was not limited. I just have said that it is a right for the people, that the right includes self defense and it protects weapons suitable for use in a militia.... and the Supreme Court has agreed (more accurately, I have read the Courts rulings and the historical documents of the founding fathers). Still waiting on you to answer this BTW: As passed my Congress: 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. As ratified by the States: 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. The one thing that has NO commas is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Simply put your argument is the weakest possible. Anyone without an agenda and that can read English can tell you what that means. But for fun.... A well educated electorate, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. or A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Would you claim that it only allows people who vote to own and read books? Would you claim that only books would be allowed and nothing on a E-Reader? Would you claim that only small books would be allowed? YOU brought up the comma and tried to claim it meant something. I just proved to you that it does not... Further the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.... so your argument is moot.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA Look guys, another person who screams "racist" at the killer when it is a white who kills a black, but also screams "racist" when we point out that they have a double standard when a black kills a white.

***Bored teenagers do stupid stuff. Stupid => Deadly if they have guns. /quote] Nonsense. I once was a bored teenager and had firearms... No one died. ***Color of their skin is not relevant./quote] It is relevant when you express dislike for a certain color and then end up killing a person of that color. But according to you: Zimmerman who had quite the history of NOT being racist (Started a business with a black guy, grandfather was black, took a black girl to a school dance (Prom?), and mentored black children for free) shot a black in self defense and it was clearly racist. A black kid who tweets about knocking out white kids and says he hates them kills one "for fun" and it has nothing to do with race.... Sheesh.

Ah yes... You admit to bulling people AND you don't want people to be able to be armed. Sounds like you like the idea of being able to bully people and do not want them to be able to defend themselves.

You can keep making up stuff, but that will not make it true. The Jury has ruled that he didn't stalk him. People who had a JOB to do listened to testimony, saw evidence... He didn't chase him down.... You can continue to think otherwise, but now you are in the realm of fantasy land. Then you must think Zimmerman is an idiot... Because if I was going to kill in cold blood... The LAST thing I would d is call the police first. You also seem to keep forgetting that Zimmerman was told to stop following and he said "OK". You also seem to keep forgetting that Zimmerman's respiration DROPPED after the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow the person. You also seem to be ignoring that Zimmerman stated he had lost sight of the person. AFTER he was told he didn't need to follow him. You also seem to be ignoring that Zimmerman was talking to the dispatcher about meeting the police by his truck. You seem to have forgotten a bunch. Same here... Too bad you would also throw a guy in jail who was being beaten.

Same thing was said about Iraq... And it was not unilateral.

I have, I am asking Kallend what he thinks should be done. I have no issue with removing a proven insane persons right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968 made it illegal for an insane person to own a gun. With the exception of the 'sporting clause' it was a pretty reasonable law.

We are talking about the US, and the US has a Bill of Rights. In that Bill of Rights there is a Second Amendment. Still waiting on this to be answered BTW How is "Shall not be infringed" a difficult statement? And the words there are pretty clear. And while you TRY to say nothing else matters, the Supreme Court in rendering their decision LOOKED AT THE WRITINGS OF THE FOUNDERS and a whole slew of other information. So while you can try to say it does not matter, the SC looked at all of that so it must matter. Will you just admit that you CAN'T find a single quote from a founding father supporting your position? We all know you will be unable, you could at least be honest with yourself that your position is not supported by any writing or quote from a Founding Father. Still waiting on you to answer this: As passed my Congress: 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. As ratified by the States: 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. The one thing that has NO commas is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" Simply put your argument is the weakest possible. Anyone without an agenda and that can read English can tell you what that means. But for fun.... A well educated electorate, being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. or A well educated electorate being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Would you claim that it only allows people who vote to own and read books? Would you claim that only books would be allowed and nothing on a E-Reader? Would you claim that only small books would be allowed? YOU brought up the comma and tried to claim it meant something. I just proved to you that it does not... Further the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.... so your argument is moot. And neither is denying rights to people because you don't like them.... Does THAT sound like the basis of a fair democracy?

That is only if you ignore that a free state must also have freedom for the citizens. And have you not said before that the rulings of the SC are the only thing that really matters?

And what do you suggest?

***And to think he was allowed required to have a gun! /quote] 1. He was not violent 2. He was found guilty of a felony and is no longer allowed. You think cross dressers should have their rights denied?

Now that has to be a personal attack. You accused ME of something, not my post. Seems to be that you can't participate in a discussion without using insults.

Could be that most people just ignore posts from you since they all seem to blame Bush. Could be most people avoid dealing with you since you result to insulting them. As for the OP. Seems wrong to me. It is a shame you care so much about every right but the 2nd.

I have read the entire thread. you made a false claim, I called you on it. Further, you need to read the entire thread. Blackstone has been brought up at least once and the Founding Fathers talking about Blackstone has been brought up. Blackstone was very clear that self defense is a right. Further, in Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd covered self defense (In that case specifically with a handgun and on federal enclaves... But They did mention that banning an entire class of weapons was not kosher. And then McDonald removed the federal enclave part). So the SC has ruled, and his interpretation of the ruling is correct and yours is not. Reading is fundamental.