Two days in a row: 2 women killed by stray gunfire in KC

[proud2BlibKansan]

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1333071.html

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1332373.html

WTF. Now tell me again why we need more guns in our society.

[DrDan]

1. and less regulation?????

insane

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. The regulation we have is patchwork and ill enforced

Streamlining to a national standard, eliminating the racist and classcist restrictions, and decent enforcement would be a better way to go.

[ensho]

2. kicking for the dead women and their families

no to guns except for cops

[madeline_con]

5. Let me know when you've disarmed all criminals, made all legal

weapons burgle-proof, and stopped all avenues of criminals getting new weapons, and I'll consider your guns for cops only proposal without the derisive snort.

[atreides1]

7. Sure why not?

Of course that would mean that cops can be trusted, like the one who beat up the bartender in Chicago and then got a slap on the wrist from the judge.

Or the SWAT teams that seem to enjoy the thought of shooting pets.

As long as the civilian population is armed LEGALLY, the cops can be trusted. When all police officers can be trusted to PROTECT AND SERVE the people then no guns except for cops!!!!!

[jgraz]

9. No, seriously. You think that private gun ownership keeps the cops in check AT ALL?

Sure, maybe it keeps them from laying siege to a city (like that would ever happen) but if they want to go after you as an individual, no personal peashooter is going to stop them.

Oh, and all your law-abiding, gun-totin' neighbors? They'll be home watching you on the live local news feed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. You are correct, in a single person standoff, the state will win eventually

whether or not the original bust was lawful or correct. There have been a few rare exceptions. One in FL comes to mind.

[proteus_lives]

36. Stupid statement.

Any other Amendments or rights you wish to burn?

[Warpy]

3. We could certainly do with a lot fewer macho idiots who own them

I've always said the purchase of ammo should be licensed, licenses extended on the completion of a basic safety and proficiency course and renewed every couple of years cheaply, with a quick background check.

The guns are out there and there is no way to control them. Controlling what goes into them is our only hope to slow the idiots down.

[atreides1]

4. Tell me why we don't need any guns?

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. Cause both of these women could have lived if they had been armed!

:sarcasm:

[floridablue]

6. I was hoping

The Wakado Gun Nuts would all accidently shoot each other. Or one nut would accidently discharge his gun in a mall, and another would think he was being shot at and begin shooting, setting off a chain reaction until they were all in a pile.

[jgraz]

8. Of course we need more guns in society

How else will the brave freepers stand up against the tyranny of our illegitimate Kenyan president's healthcare policy?




(Do I really need :sarcasm:? Probably)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. What we need is more training, and I am doing what I can in that area

Recently held a beginners course for the Pink Pistols at a local range. Occasionally have people over to my home for long range practice. Do some youth work as well.

[jgraz]

15. If only there would some sort of ... militia ... people were required to join

Perhaps we could then regulate it somehow...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. We are the militia...Moreover, we are a free people with rights, though the anti gun bigots

are working hard to destroy them on a daily basis. Imagine if the restrictions on personal ownership of firearms were placed on voting.

[Paladin]

18. Next Time Somebody Uses A Ballot Box......

...to turn a school, a church or a shopping mall into an abattoir, get back to us, OK?

[jgraz]

19. Apparently, we also have a right to keep and bear Really Bad Analogies™.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. LOL

:rofl:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Imagine is the same kind of restrictions were placed on voting right that are on gun rights

Firearm restrictions have racist and classist roots that continue today, be it NYC or California

[jgraz]

21. Are you now? What were your last orders from your state commander?

Or are you on some top-secret mission for the People's Republic of California?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Per the 1903 Militia Act all the US male citizens 17 and above are part of the unorganized militia

unless they are in some other military unit. Surely everyone here is aware of that and their responsibilities to it.

[jgraz]

29. Above 17 and under 45. But surely you knew that.

And surely everyone here is aware that any law passed by Congress cannot amend an inherent right granted under the Constitution (unless you're willing to concede that Congress could repeal the Dick Act tomorrow and you would no longer have a right to own firearms)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. I'm well aware of the limits of the Militia Act,

It was just too easy to poke back at you for your prior post.

[jgraz]

33. Yep, it's easy to poke back if you don't consider the facts.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. Then you should start considering them...that gun rights are a progessive stance

and that anti-gun bigotry is is racist and classist

[jgraz]

45. Wrong, wrong and wrong

Gun rights may be technically a "liberal" stance, in the pro-liberty sense of that word (e.g. "Ronald Reagan was a classic liberal"). But it is by no means "progressive" -- quite the opposite, in fact.

The idea that we should keep things just as they are and make no effort to reduce the use of firearms against our fellow citizens is *by definition* a regressive (i.e. looking backwards) position.

Also, please stop with the weak-sauce crap about racism. It's especially hard to swallow with your pro-gun brethren driving around with confederate flags on their pickups.

[pipoman]

39. Making up your own facts isn't quite the same as considering the actual facts..

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. What did I say in my post was unfactual?

Gun control in the US came from racist and classist roots. It has the same impacts today.

Supporting the rights and liberties of people is about as progressive as it gets.

[pipoman]

43. I wasn't responding to your post....eom

[pipoman]

38. Wrong

(unless you're willing to concede that Congress could repeal the Dick Act tomorrow and you would no longer have a right to own firearms)

DC vs Heller makes this statement void of fact. Every SCOTUS Justice agreed that RKBA is an individual right not dependent on militia membership...nice try.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. The correct statement is every male US citizen will be part of the miltia during his lifetime

presuming he lives beyond 17. Its in the Militia Act. Yes that could be changed by Congress, and probably should be to include women.

[pipoman]

44. I don't disagree

The poster I was responding to made the statement that RKBA hinges on the Dick Act, Heller clearly (and unanimously) makes that statement false. Not that I believe that the Dick Act will be repealed any time soon.

[jgraz]

46. You keep believing that... it really works for me

The reason that gun-control advocates will eventually win is that the gun lovers are so intellectually lazy. You hear "individual right" and you start whooping and hollering and shooting into the air.

Not one of you thinks to ask, "individual right to do what?

Great. When the next Supreme Court nominee professes a belief in an individual RKBA, don't come crying to me when she votes to overturn Heller.

[pipoman]

47. Not in our lifetime

yet we will both live to see SCOTUS rule that the 2nd is , in fact, incorporated under the 14th. Further we will soon see the Cook County/Chicago bans ruled unconstitutional too...keep clicking your heels...

[slackmaster]

13. There is a large disconnect between lawful ownership and criminal misuse of firearms

K&U

:kick:

[-..__...]

14. I must have missed the memo...

where it was stated that "we need more guns in our society".

First off... having to show or demonstrate "need" is not a prerequisite or a requirement in order to exercise a Constitutional right.

Second... If one does have a "need", there are plenty of legitimate reasons for owning a firearm. Whether you or anyone else recognizes
a particular "need" as being legitimate or acceptable or not, is not for you to decide.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

16. What's with "stray"?

Random, inadvertent, how do they know this exactly? 2 Days in a row?

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Stray as in randomly fired and hit innocent people and killed them

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. More like "the police do not know where the bullets came from and they do not think the victims were

the targets"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. Thoughts and prayers to the families of the victims.

[defendandprotect]

28. That's our "Wild West America" . . .

Don't have time to reread . . . is this attributed to anything . . .

drug war? or just general gang activity? Anything?

And looks like you lost a public school advocate --

We need to defeat the GOP's/NRA fearmongering which creates this insanity --

[spin]

30. Could it be possible that we need to crack down on criminal gangs?

Perhaps we could treat them like terrorists (which they are).

[defendandprotect]

32. We should end the drug war ....

And we should halt the corporate cancer growing on government . . .

[spin]

35. Those are two things we can agree on...

very difficult to accomplish when those we elect represent the big corporations.

[proteus_lives]

37. Ban guns! Ban everything! The 2nd Amendment is sooooo 1700s.

Collective punishment is great! People get drunk and kill people with their cars. Ban booze and automobiles! Sometimes people stab each other, ban knives! Baby-proof the world, safety is more important then freedom!-Which party does that sound like?

Fuck choice! Fuck the Constitution!

Blame the guns but don't you dare blame the people who pulled the trigger. They are victims of guns and society. Without guns violence will stop. Wait, what? There was violence before guns? The hell you say! Naturally the criminals will be without firearms and it will be great that the police only have firearms. They are always so well-behaved.

Why do we need the 2nd Amendment anyway? We don't hunt, we don't form militias. We have iPods, cell-phones and blogs. We don't need it anymore. It's not like it has a deeper meaning or some such nonsense. It's not like Democrats should fight for it. I mean we fight for freedom of speech, a woman's right to choose, marriage for all and other personal rights. Isn't that enough???

It's not like 99.9% of gun-owners never use their firearms in a irresponsible fashion. It's not like safety-training is something we learn at an early age. It's not like we believe in something enough to fight for it. It's not like we realize that the world isn't fair and sometimes we can only depend on ourselves.

Here's the rub, antis won't listen. They will call us names and blame us for the crimes of others. We'll post self-defense stories to prove that that blood doesn't run in the street. They will post the stories of the tragedies that come from criminal behavior, a lack of training and unavoidable human error-(which is less scary in most other areas for some strange reason)-:shrugs: They will ignore the fact that when it bleeds it leads. They will ignore the media errors and scare tactics. (But they won't ignore them when it comes to republicans!)

We will be arguing for years to come. Maybe it should that way. Constant debate is one of the ways we keep our freedoms. I will never surrender my rights to fear. It's the reason I'm not a repuke. Gun-rights are a liberal and Democratic ideal.

You don't guns in your home? Fine, no one is forcing you to arm yourself. I have no interest in forcing my viewpoint or beliefs on you. I'm only interested in protecting my rights and the rights of everyone to choose.

Don't take our rights (the rights of you and me) just because you're scared.

:rant: over.

[eqfan592]

40. Big +1 man.

Not if only the true fear-mongers would get that point throw their shockingly thick skulls, we could get down to the business of policies that will have a REAL impact on crime, like education and poverty. These regressive progressives have distracted from these issue for FAR too long.

[iverglas]

50. "Blame the guns but don't you dare blame the people who pulled the trigger."

You people do just love blaming, don't you?

To the point of making yourselves look like

(a) deceitful/dim demagogues, alleging that others blame objects for something

(b) nasty/nitwitted natterers, focusing on punishment rather than prevention


Who cares about how much harm occurs, as long as somebody gets righteously blamed for it, eh?

Not you.

[Glory89fan]

48. We don't

Try convincing an anti-gunner that, though.

[iverglas]

49. Well I swan

That has to be the quickest conversion in gungeon history!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=241368&mesg_id=241556

Glory89fan (23 posts)
Sat Jul-25-09 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
23. Good to see the 2nd amendment is working so well

But hey, a few thousand murders per year isn't much, right? (Sarcasm)

Although I do have to admit I'm confused at this point.

OP: Now tell me again why we need more guns in our society.
Glory89fan: We don't / Try convincing an anti-gunner that, though


Some sort of slip of the tongue, there??



PS - you related to eqfan592, Glory89fan??