Skip to main content

View Diary: Neal Boortz, his death is on your head (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Stupid? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    YucatanMan, JayBat, mudfud27

    I hope you can step back and appreciate the irony in your own comment. You accuse other people of painting with too broad a brush…by painting those who disagree with you with too broad a brush. Likewise, calling people stupid has no place here.

    To the topic at hand: I won’t go so far as to say there are no Responsible Gun Owners™ it’s just that there appear to be many, many people who get included in that category who have no business being there. With the case in question: In retrospect, it’s quite apparent that Philip Sailors lacks the good judgment that should be a prerequisite for owning a gun.

    Yet as the law stands today, he’s not a felon or adjudicated mentally ill so he can have any gun that’s legally available. I would like to see a system where people who want guns have to do something to affirmatively demonstrate they are competent to own and use one.

    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

    by Joe Bob on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 10:11:16 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Right. All four of them might be dead if he had (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PsychoSavannah, mudfud27

      a semi-automatic weapon.  He fired in the air, then again at the car as they backed up. With a revolver, which generally takes a heavier trigger pull or has a double-action (don't know exactly what he had).

      Just think if that gun was going off click-click-click-click...

      He also may have killed neighbors or people on the street if his shots went astray.  As it is, he's lucky the bullet in the air didn't hit anyone coming down.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 11:53:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The rights of citizens (0+ / 0-)

      ...cannot be infringed without due process of law. That's the Constitution. In other words no, you don't get to do anything to someone until they do something to deserve it.

      Sailors HAD the right to own a gun and be left alone about it. He ABUSED his right by committing a crime with that gun. Now he is charged with murder and must face the legal consequences of his actions. If convicted, he will never have the right to own a weapon again even if he lives long enough to finish his sentence which at his age isn't likely.

      That's how it works. Innocent until proven guilty. You have rights until you do something that results in them being taken away. That's how a free society works.

      You don't get to take preemptive action against those you think "might" become a threat. That way lies chaos.

      "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

      by DarthMeow504 on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 08:49:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ridicuous (0+ / 0-)

        You are so far away from what anyone is claiming. No one is asking to have put Sailors in jail before he shot someone. We are saying guns (or-- take your pick-- prescription drugs, atomic bombs, etc) are just not something the average person can be responsible with (obviously) so the "right" to have them is being taken away.

        •  There are MILLIONS of gun owners (0+ / 0-)

          ...and only thousands of murders. That's a factor of 1 in 1000 or less. Thus, YES the "average" person CAN be trusted with guns. Those who cannot be are a rare outlier.

          So you want to take the rights of 99.9% because of 0.1%. Yeah, that sounds fair and reasonable!

          "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

          by DarthMeow504 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 12:32:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

            There are millions of gun owners and hundreds of thousands of people shot EVERY YEAR, and tens of thousands of deaths by gun EVERY YEAR.

            Sorry, your numbers are absurd and don't remotely add up.  

            Given that a single one of these events is entirely unnecessary for any productive reason (save the bloodlust of the gun nuts), it is obvious that the "average person" cannot be trusted with a gun.

            Yes, I would absolutely like to take away the "rights" of the 99% to fill people with hot lead. Yes that is both fair and reasonable.

            •  Nobody has the right to fill anybody with anything (0+ / 0-)

              ...and you know it. Shooting people is illegal. Murder is illegal. These are actions that harm people. Merely owning an object harms no one. Deliberately misusing said object is already against the law.

              What part of "the rights of citizens shall not be abridged without due process of law" do you not understand? You can't punish people unless they do something. You can't take away their rights until they do something to warrant a court action, aka due process of law.

              Your use of the term "bloodlust" is insulting and misdirected. Murderers possess and demonstrate bloodlust. The tens of millions of people who own guns all their lives without ever shooting anyone do not qualify for that term.

              "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

              by DarthMeow504 on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 04:15:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then why own the gun (0+ / 0-)

                If not to fill people with bullets? it is the purpose of the gun after all.

                It is utterly obtuse and incorrect to argue that "merely owning" a gun hurts no one. It is well proven that the presence of a gun in a home vastly increases the likelihood of a person in that household being shot.

                What part of "well regulated militia" do you not understand? Besides, since when did you have the right to own anything you please? The due process you ask for does not apply here.

                The term "bloodlust" seems to fit perfectly well for the people who shoot others as well as those, like you, who enable them to do so by supplying them with guns and the "rights" to have them. I do apologize if you're insulted but perhaps you might want to reconsider your behavior if you don't want people to think of you that way. You don't have to personally pull the trigger to have a hand in killing someone.

                •  What I do with my property (0+ / 0-)

                  ...is none of your damned business so long as I harm no one. I never have, and I don't plan to. Understand?

                  I supply no one with anything, and if you think you can reduce demand via prohibition you're willfully ignorant of the history of prohibition in this country. Yes you can increase the price by making an item contraband, but that does nothing to stop demand and it empowers a black market that enriches criminal traffickers, criminalizes normal citizens, and wastes vast resources playing whack-a-mole with the black marketeers. You cannot win a prohibition war any more than you can a counterinsurgency. It doesn't work. It has never worked. And you've provided no evidence to suggest that it will work if/when you try it again.

                  My law-abiding activities have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with someone else's crime. Never did, never will. You can pretend otherwise all you like, it won't make it true.

                  "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

                  by DarthMeow504 on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 01:58:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

                    Except that owning that property hurts and threatens all of society. You are basically handing out weapons to people who kill.

                    The rest of your post is self-contradictory. Do you actually not understand how increasing the price of things reduces demand? It may not decrease desire, but it will certainly decrease demand. It has worked in many other countries, contrary to your claim.

                    "Normal citizens" who want human killing devices ought to be criminalized; they are not "normal".

                    Your "law abiding activities" are what make other peoples' crimes possible. You just can't seem to take responsibility for your choices and actions. So typical.

                    •  Wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                      No matter how many times you repeat the delusion, it won't make it true. Tens of millions of people manage to own guns while never harming anyone at all. You're trying to kill cockroaches with a flamethrower and the fire you would start would burn us all.

                      You're a fanatic. Your positions are ideologically driven, irrational, and unrelated to logic or fact. You are uniquely ill-equipped to solve problems because you are unable to assess a situation clearly due to your extremist ideological lens.

                      So much for the reality-based community, huh?

                      "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

                      by DarthMeow504 on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 03:28:13 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  How do you know (0+ / 0-)

      Who the chosen few are who have the combination of good judgement, impenetrable home/car/personal security (to prevent the guns from being stolen), rock-solid psychological constitution, utter immunity from mind altering substances and diseases, and so on we would need to responsibly own guns?

      Exactly.

      There are no "responsible gun owners". Just lucky ones.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site