• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bonney Lake woman hit in head by stray bullet identified, dies of wound

Top Cat said:
Amend it.
Click to expand...

Won't happen, and not only that but in WA state we have our own right to bear arms in the state constitution that our own supreme court has ruled provides greater protection then the federal constitution.
 
Top Cat said:
I'd settle for new. It is progress.
Click to expand...

It is a step (among many, e.g CHL) to convert a constitutional right into a mere state issued privilege much like driving.
 
Top Cat said:
Amend it.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen. but at least you are honest. that is how one should proceed before passing unconstitutional gun laws

we'd save lots more lives making people pass tests before spawning or voting than stupid gun ownership tests

You do know that training has absolutely no use on those who intentionally use guns improperly. and accidental deaths with firearms have been DECLINING despite the number of guns owned by citizens has been going up and up and up. If hillary manages to win tuesday, I expect that will sell at least several million guns in the next three weeks
 
Top Cat said:
I think we can all agree that the system is flawed.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why taking more rights from the people and giving more power to the system is a bad idea.
 
Top Cat said:
It's been amended for a whole lot less.
Click to expand...

tell us what good will come from what you want? I doubt you really understand this issue. the main purpose of "safety training" is to allow a shooter to use a firearm without harming him or herself. it has no value whatsoever in deterring criminal misuse of a firearm, even one legally owned at the time. It has zero value in stopping illegal possession or "heat of the moment" misuse.


I suspect I have taught more people how to shoot in the last week then you have in your entire life. and I follow this issue extremely closely.
 
TurtleDude said:
tell us what good will come from what you want? I doubt you really understand this issue. the main purpose of "safety training" is to allow a shooter to use a firearm without harming him or herself. it has no value whatsoever in deterring criminal misuse of a firearm, even one legally owned at the time. It has zero value in stopping illegal possession or "heat of the moment" misuse.


I suspect I have taught more people how to shoot in the last week then you have in your entire life. and I follow this issue extremely closely.
Click to expand...

Well there you have it then.

So teaching someone how to properly store a weapon for example does not protect others?
 
Top Cat said:
Well there you have it then.

So teaching someone how to properly store a weapon for example does not protect others?
Click to expand...

what protects others them properly storing their weapon. Failing to do so generally is not the result of a failure of education. most of the 'quick fixes" anti gun advocates come up with are not realistic when applied to the real world.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Indeed, yet who could have imagined that the 16A would later yield PPACA? ;)
Click to expand...

amending the constitution to give the government more power has never been a good thing. The 16th is one example, banning alcohol was another. the 17th amendment can be seen either way but it was a disaster too. but worst of all were government power grabs that were done by dishonest judges and politicians-such as pretending that the commerce clause was intended to allow all sorts of governmental controls over private citizens
 
TurtleDude said:
amending the constitution to give the government more power has never been a good thing. The 16th is one example, banning alcohol was another. the 17th amendment can be seen either way but it was a disaster too. but worst of all were government power grabs that were done by dishonest judges and politicians-such as pretending that the commerce clause was intended to allow all sorts of governmental controls over private citizens
Click to expand...


So counselor, how would you solve this problem?
 
TurtleDude said:
amending the constitution to give the government more power has never been a good thing. The 16th is one example, banning alcohol was another. the 17th amendment can be seen either way but it was a disaster too. but worst of all were government power grabs that were done by dishonest judges and politicians-such as pretending that the commerce clause was intended to allow all sorts of governmental controls over private citizens
Click to expand...

One of the worst, IMHO, is that education became a new federal power with its own cabinet level department and an annual budget of of over $70 billion with no constitutional amendment at all - it just morphed into existence as so many federal powers are allowed to do.
 
Top Cat said:
So counselor, how would you solve this problem?
Click to expand...

easy, the guy who shot the innocent woman is going to face charges of reckless endangerment or negligent homicide and most likely will lose a civil suit. I am not a big believer in prior restraint-ie punishing imposing requirements on millions because a few people do something stupid. Rather punish those who do something wrong.
 
Top Cat said:
So counselor, how would you solve this problem?
Click to expand...

The same way it would be "solved" if he threw a rock, spear or baseball and struck her by mistake or ran her down while pursuing the thief in another car. Many negligent actions, not just those involving guns, can and do claim innocent victims. That is why we have criminal and civil law.
 
TurtleDude said:
you seem to forget that we have constitutional rights even if you Canadians don't. and since there are so many politicians and others who want to restrict our rights, we are dubious about agreeing to any sort of requirement that can be used to ban or prevent people from owning guns. Sort of like literacy tests to vote--southern white racists flunked black Harvard Graduates but billy bob gator skinner passed despite having a second grad education.
Click to expand...

No I haven't forgotten but you seem to have forgotten that those rights are fragile. As much and as loud as you all declare the sanctity of the 2nd, it's only as sacred as it's allowed to be and if Billy Bob Gator-skinner and his clan continue to shoot up neighbourhoods and kill innocent people, your idea of sanctity will stop holding water. You can hope that you can keep raising your voice loud enough to drown out your opposition (and I bet at least two opposition have sprung up in Bonney Lake) or you can be proactive and try to educate Billy Bob Gatorskinner and earn your right to keep your right. Hell, it was Saint Ronald who said there was no reason for citizens of the US to be carrying weapons.
 
Grand Mal said:
No I haven't forgotten but you seem to have forgotten that those rights are fragile. As much and as loud as you all declare the sanctity of the 2nd, it's only as sacred as it's allowed to be and if Billy Bob Gator-skinner and his clan continue to shoot up neighbourhoods and kill innocent people, your idea of sanctity will stop holding water. You can hope that you can keep raising your voice loud enough to drown out your opposition (and I bet at least two opposition have sprung up in Bonney Lake) or you can be proactive and try to educate Billy Bob Gatorskinner and earn your right to keep your right. Hell, it was Saint Ronald who said there was no reason for citizens of the US to be carrying weapons.
Click to expand...

Its amazing watching liberals quote the senile stage of Reagan's existence.
 
Grand Mal said:
Yeah, but there has to come a point where you and every other responsible gun owner has to ask, "How can we stop these idiots from screwing it up for the rest of us?" Because that idiot standing on his front porch having a tantrum with his gun and killing an innocent woman, that idiot is a bigger threat to your 2nd ammendment rights than all the New York and California liberals your subconscious can toss into your nightmares.
I say, pass a test to get a license. Grandfather everyone in who has a gun now but everyone new has to pass a test. The test is only written (verbal if you can't read and write) about safe handling and storage and what the laws are. If you fail the test, you have to take a course.
Won't cure the problem (you can't cure stupid) but it might help.
Click to expand...
Lol, that's classic lib philosophy. It's the thought that counts, never mind results.
 
TurtleDude said:
easy, the guy who shot the innocent woman is going to face charges of reckless endangerment or negligent homicide and most likely will lose a civil suit. I am not a big believer in prior restraint-ie punishing imposing requirements on millions because a few people do something stupid. Rather punish those who do something wrong.
Click to expand...

So you are fine with the death of innocenrs. GOT it.
 
Top Cat said:
So you are fine with the death of innocenrs. GOT it.
Click to expand...

that's incredibly dishonest. and its typical of the anti gun posters. to pretend that UNLESS we support restrictions on HONEST gun owners, we must be in favor of innocent people dying. That's really a moronic comment from you and says far more about you and your crocodile tears than anything I have said

I guess if I am in favor of the fourth amendment, you will claim that I am ok with child pornographers raping children? because its exactly the same stupid dishonest argument
 
countryboy said:
Lol, that's classic lib philosophy. It's the thought that counts, never mind results.
Click to expand...

many of the leftist politicians pander to the "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING (even stuff that not only doesn't work but which harasses honest people) hand wringing ninny crowd.
 
Top Cat,
I am heading off to bed, but need to apologize to you for my behavior earlier. That was boorish and uncalled for.

I guess because several have been doing it to me lately that I let some of it rub off.

I am sorry, and that is not how I normally have a disagreement with others.

Good night, and I hope you have a pleasant tomorrow.

RNS
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
Top Cat,
I am heading off to bed, but need to apologize to you for my behavior earlier. That was boorish and uncalled for.

I guess because several have been doing it to me lately that I let some of it rub off.

I am sorry, and that is not how I normally have a disagreement with others.

Good night, and I hope you have a pleasant tomorrow.

RNS
Click to expand...

good show but I wonder if Top Cat will apologize to me for this crap (in response to my statement that people who engage in stupid or criminal behavior should be punished but not all gun owners)

Top Cat said:
So you are fine with the death of innocenrs. GOT it.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom