WebFire;1343436 wrote:Reread my post and turn on your sarcasm detector.

uhhh I understood your sarcasm bu chose to take a literal usage of your post to further the point I have been trying to outline on here.

Con_Alma;1343433 wrote:A lot is two words.

Of course more kindergartners may be home tonight if guns were illegal...and yet that's not the type of society we have chosen to seek and live in . We have chosen one whereby we are willing to have such a risk exists that's inclusive of someone willing to commit an awful acct for the sake of maintain the ability to own guns.

It's not more complex than that.

acct only has one c.
It is simple. A powerful gun lobby has subverted the safety of our children in order to carry out their selfish agenda. Children die because of it.

WebFire;1343437 wrote:A lot more people would be alive if we still drove horse and buggies, and kept prohibition around.

If we trained people to be better drivers, the auto death problem would be alleviated. If we trained gun owners to be better shooters the problem of gun deaths would be worse.

BoatShoes;1343371 wrote:1st you try to pass a police power amendment to the Constitution. Our national government functionally already has a police power and for many things conservatives think the federal government should do but it would go a long way to build up national support for gun control and appeasing the genuine concerns of conservatives..

At least you admit here the federal government already functionally operates outside the Constitution. So you want the federal government to swoop in and protect our children by passing a host of new restrictions and burdensome laws on its citizens. Managed and enforced by our federal government. And you will sleep well knowing all is well.

Let me ask this question. Who has killed more children in the last ten years. The federal government or random nutbag citizens.

isadore;1343439 wrote:acct only has one c.
It is simple. A powerful gun lobby has subverted the safety of our children in order to carry out their selfish agenda. Children die because of it.

I don't disagree with that at all.

We get what we choose. We have chosen the society we have. The "powerful gun lobby" is part of "we".

The gun lobby, however, was not part of our right being defined as being inclusive of not being infringed upon. They may fight to keep it that way resulting in it taking much more people wanting it changed than a 1/2 the nation.

isadore;1343442 wrote:If we trained people to be better drivers, the auto death problem would be alleviated. If we trained gun owners to be better shooters the problem of gun deaths would be worse.

It's not for us to train them at all.

Con_Alma;1343438 wrote:uhhh I understood your sarcasm bu chose to take a literal usage of your post to further the point I have been trying to outline on here.

I suggest you reread it yet again. Focus on the word "illegal", which you'll note is not the word "legal".

Oh hell, you done went and ruined it now.

isadore;1343442 wrote:If we trained people to be better drivers, the auto death problem would be alleviated. If we trained gun owners to be better shooters the problem of gun deaths would be worse.

Both are very doubtful.

isadore;1343439 wrote:acct only has one c.
...

The word was intended to be account as opposed to act.

Account has two "c"s.

Con_Alma;1343448 wrote:It's not for us to train them at all.

of course it is, students are trained in drivers training in schools all the time. insurance companies want them to be. we just need to upgrade the teaching. and avoid teaching civilians to be better shooters.

isadore;1343454 wrote:of course it is, students are trained in drivers training in schools all the time. insurance companies want them to be. we just need to upgrade the teaching. and avoid teaching civilians to be better shooters.

Because we choose to train people in other others like driving doesn't mean we are obligated to train all people who own guns...unless we all agree to have that done.

Con_Alma;1343452 wrote:The word was intended to be account as opposed to act.

Account has two "c"s.

tsk, tsk, tsk, you are being duplicitous:

Con_Alma wrote:a risk exists that's inclusive of someone willing to commit an awful acct for the sake of maintain the ability to own guns.

Con_Alma;1343456 wrote:Because we choose to train people in other others like driving doesn't mean we are obligated to train all people who own guns...unless we all agree to have that done.

exactly right we should discourage them from practicing or owning them.

isadore;1343460 wrote:tsk, tsk, tsk, you are being duplicitous:

You're are corrcet. That was supposed to be act.

isadore;1343461 wrote:exactly right we should discourage them from practicing or owning them.

Enough of us don't agree in discouraging them to make it a required act in our society.

Con_Alma;1343462 wrote:You're are corrcet. That was supposed to be act.

thank you I strive for corrcetness.

Con_Alma;1343465 wrote:Enough of us don't agree in discouraging them to make it a required act in our society.

events like today's will hopefully lead us to it. break the death grip of the gun lobby.

isadore;1343466 wrote:thank you I strive for corrcetness.

I think the "t" in "thank" should be capitalized.

I also believe you should have a period after the word "you".

Con_Alma;1343445 wrote:I don't disagree with that at all.

We get what we choose. We have chosen the society we have. The "powerful gun lobby" is part of "we".

The gun lobby, however, was not part of our right being defined as being inclusive of not being infringed upon. They may fight to keep it that way resulting in it taking much more people wanting it changed than a 1/2 the nation.

reading through these threads on the subject show the fanaticism of the gun lobby minority that will excuse any gun atrocity.

isadore;1343467 wrote:events like today's will hopefully lead us to it. break the death grip of the gun lobby.

We have had 15 mass death shootings this year according to the news this evening. You are living in a fantasy world if you believe the actions of those killers will weaken the gun lobby.

majorspark;1343443 wrote:At least you admit here the federal government already functionally operates outside the Constitution. So you want the federal government to swoop in and protect our children by passing a host of new restrictions and burdensome laws on its citizens. Managed and enforced by our federal government. And you will sleep well knowing all is well.

Let me ask this question. Who has killed more children in the last ten years. The federal government or random nutbag citizens.

I don't necessarily agree with the vast majority of conservatives' view on the Constitution but I believe reasonable people can disagree and their view deserves respect. A police power amendment ends those disagreements. By and large the United States federal government does a very good job of protecting U.S. citizens from foreigners who would do us harm as random U.S. citizens have killed more U.S. citizen children than agents of the federal government. The only reason they're going about killing foreign children is because a lot of conservatives would have us believe that it keeps United States children safer.

The reason we have government is because the people are not angels. Gun violence is a prime example of where we need to apply this maxim.

isadore;1343470 wrote:reading through these threads on the subject show the fanaticism of the gun lobby minority that will excuse any gun atrocity.

...and that's a testament that the "gun lobby" will not be weakened by events like today.

Con_Alma;1343468 wrote:I think the "t" in "thank" should be capitalized.

I also believe you should have a period after the word "you".

Thank you. I live to learn.

BoatShoes;1343472 wrote:... A police power amendment ends those disagreements. By and large the United States federal government does a very good job of protecting U.S. citizens from foreigners who would do us harm as random U.S. citizens have killed more U.S. citizen children than agents of the federal government. ....

A police power amendment is not desired by nearly enough people to make it a reality for it would infringe upon gun ownership.

I mean consider this. The kid who murdered was on anti-depressants living in a home with a bunch of legally owned guns. Is it really that outrageous for instance to try to restrict guns from being in a home with people living there on anti-depressants? We regularly pass laws restricting the right to abortion which the Courts have also determined is a guaranteed right. These types of steps are reasonable things that could be done that the People have a compelling interest in doing.