Post a New Topic
Original post made
by Curt Wagner, Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on May 25, 2014
Someone should tell the father that guns don't kill people, people do.
3 of the 6 victims were stabbed to death. 3 were shot. Many of the injured were stuck by the assailants car.
Excellent point, OK. In a day or two after the father gets a grip on reality, he'll realize that it was something of a honor for his son to have lived and died in this great country where people are free.
May they Rest In Peace.
Yes, a tragic situation and I feel terrible for the victims.
It is also tragic that they weren't allowed to carry a gun to protect themselves. Police are great, but cannot protect everyone 24/7.
Agree with condolences.
If someone with a LTC was in the area, he/she might have saved lives.
Ultimately though, I think the PD + relatives+society, did not do enough to prevent this.
1. When relatives asked for a check on the shooter, they should have provided PD with enough evidence to authorize a search of the premises.
2. PD did have it's hands tied due to insufficient evidence or cause to search, but they should have followed up.
3. Society failed by not providing mental health services for those in need.
Innocents are no longer alive and sooner (rather than later) this will be forgotten, until the next rampage.
Yes, the suggestion that everyone carry a gun is well taken. Then we can rest content being more approximate to Iraq and Afghanistan, for just about everyone over there carries firearms as well.
Never quite able to grasp why calls for better gun regulation is met by cries that the government is out to take people's guns. Or is it that the NRA crowd who makes this cry are afraid they couldn't pass a rigorous gun ownership test?
Thanks to condolences, William Tell, and OK. You guys show real class.
Dear Mr. Wagner,
You are breathtakingly ignorant of crime stats. Areas where there are the most restrictive gun control regs have the highest crime. (BTW: I know first hand as I worked in the highest gang-infested crime area of Chicago.) And the opposite is true as well.
As a start, inform yourself...
I have a gun and a rifle. I would not hesitate to shoot somebody whose is determined to harm me.
The father whose son was murdered is in deep pain. He and his family are mourning.
It takes what it takes to mourn the unexpected death of a child. Lots of young people in the USA flip out.
Condolences -- actually Fake Condolences -- can't argue how Iraq or Afghanistan is safer than the US, instead reaches for a Koch-financed piece of garbage, written by a hack propagandist.
For starters, let's simply put to rest Fake Condolence's spurious claim that there is indeed a causal relationship between high-crime areas and stiff gun regulations. For without the stiff gun regulations crime obviously would be even higher in those high-crime areas than it is. Only is la-la land would one think otherwise.
Inasmuch as Fake Condolences reads and believes the Koch-financed piece of garbage, we can only deduced that he is too stupid or psychologically imbalanced to pass a genuinely rigorous gun ownership test.
Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)
Your comment is neither funny nor relevant. Only childish. As is your choice of John Lott as your celebrity expert which indicates a good deal about your "intelligence," Fake Condolences. Lott is a proven fraud. He has written books based on (his own) phony data sources which then, when he is challenged, disappear. He can't locate the sources, nor can he even produce a single name of any of the dozen or so researchers he claims helped him gather the data.
He hasn't been able to stick with any credible academic institution for any length of time, this because charges of lying, deception and fraud hang over his head wherever he goes. He lies about his data. He lies about his sources. He writes under pseudonyms in order to favorably provide reviews of his own "books," and he sues anyone who has taken his "work" seriously enough to challenge it. He's got a lot of right-wing money behind him. He's a darling of the NRA-KKK machine, and it says a lot about this group of racists that this fraudulent "scholar" is the best they can dredge up.
Inasmuch as Lott's fraudulence is widely known, that the NRA-KKK continues to cite and support him tells us much about this group: it cares not a whit about truth or truthfulness; its only concern is churning out its lying propaganda. Fake Condolences and those like him should consider rejoining the human race.
Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)
Here is a video of a similar situation to the tragic shooting near UCSD. Both assailants had severe psychological issues.
Note the testimony of Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp who was in the restaurant.
Also note her reaction against the gun control proponents.
I will quit railing at those opposed to the second amendment because I was also against it several years ago. Not until recently did I change my mind and it wasn't from anyone shouting at me debating their case. I had to learn on my own.
'Nuff said. No reason to continue our debate because our heels are dug on either side of this issue.
Very sorry for the man, but the rant against guns and the NRA is a shallow liberal view as usual. Gee, if only there were no guns. The true definition of a liberal is one who has "a willful denial of the facts". John Lott wrote a book several years ago: More Guns, Less Crime. And it is absolutely true, he uses statistics not the views of limp wrested gun haters. In EVERY State where concealed carry laws have been adopted and citizens can readily get a permit after background checks, almost all categories of violent crime and robberies have declined. This is an easily obtained fact but PC police and the left wing media will not tell the truth as usual. Could go on for a long time on this but you owe it to yourself to look for the truth and the real causes, which are apparent.
Put the sign on your lawn, Curtie. I want to see how a looney liberal defends himself with words versus a few well placed bullets. Your next of kin can post the results here. I look forward to not seeing more of your incoherent rants.
Ah, there he is. Same small intellect, only using a different name. Yes, I suppose since you've got no words to defend your indefensible position, no argument, just a blind allegiance to frauds and liars, you must resort to bullets. Do you actually think you've impressed anyone with your churlish, child-like reference?
Whatever you believe, it is a FACT that gun control laws are looser now than before Sandy Hook. A tragedy.
So, disease, your solution to an individual expressing an opinion with which you do not agree is to kill him or her?
What are you so afraid of that your fallback position is not a coherent response, but a call for "a few well placed bullets" to silence the opposition?
Disease, instead of hiding behind an anonymous post, perhaps you'd like to proudly share your name and address with Curt and the Pleasanton police so they'd know to whom they should attribute your gleeful incitement to violence.
On this, Memorial Day, my thoughts and sympathy especially go out to all those who have lost loved ones through war or senseless violence.
At least disease isn't quoting Sarah Palin or Donald Trump. I'll give him credit for that.
Perhaps, John, you'd like to elaborate. What kind of "credit" are you referring to? Do you think a reference to Sarah Palin or Donald Trump would make "liberalism is a disease's" poor choice of words any poorer than what he's babbled here? Are you giving "liberalism is a disease" credit for referencing bullets rather than an argument? You don't seem to be making very much sense at all, John. You do realize that the kind of veiled threat offered by "liberalism is a disease" is precisely the kind of tactic the KKK has frequently used in its efforts to intimidate people it is afraid of? So, tell us again, John, to what type of "credit" are you referring?
Thanks, Billie, for your well-placed remark. I fear Town Forum readers have heard these kinds of incitements to violence so many times from "liberalism is a disease" and his many other monikers that they have become bored by his provocative gibberish and simply ignore him. Thank you for reminding us that words have meanings, even those from "liberalism is a disease," and that his intellectual deficit is no excuse.
"You don't seem to be making very much sense at all, John. "
I'll take that as a complement; I wasn't trying to make sense.
Leave it to you boobs to twist logic and fail at reading between the lines.
Curt, in your war of words with an armed gunman ready to rob you, destroy your property and assault your family, do you or any of your minions here (billie, johnnie, etc.) think your naive attempts at conversation with a criminal will result in anything other than you on the losing end? If you are for a fully disarmed society (a la Jewish sectors of Nazi-controlled Germany) my contention is you should be proud of your stance, take the lead and publicly identify your trailer as being a gun free zone. Nothing bad can happen because you have the respect of your fellow pacifist liberals. Criminals (i.e.-those that do not follow laws, like 'gun control') bent on taking advantage of the weak (that'd be you and billie) would surely bypass your house as a target since you think you hold the moral high ground. Good luck with that.......
@liberalism wrote: "If you are for a fully disarmed society (a la Jewish sectors of Nazi-controlled Germany) my contention is you should be proud of your stance, take the lead and publicly identify your trailer as being a gun free zone."
Let's turn that around. If you are so proud of being a gun owner, why not advertise that fact with a big sign on your own lawn or trailer? Seems that there was a case somewhere on the East coast where concealed weapon permit owners were fighting some effort to have their names put out as a matter of public record. Why? I suspect that they and other gun owners do not want to want their names publicized because they are afraid of being targeted for robbery and theft by criminals interested in getting their guns.
liberalism is a disease,
I have not advocated for a fully disarmed society; and only a seriously troubled or slow intellect would attempt to construe anything I've written here as so doing. I have only advocated for tougher gun regulations so that guns are kept out of the hands of intellectual deficits like yourself.
Wow, lots of name calling going on. California already has some of the strictest gun laws. Perhaps they could be tougher. Certainly the enforcement should be tougher when guns are used illegally such as the shootings in Oakland and Richmond every weekend. Another problem is the mental health issue. This person was known to have problems but what could be done legally. He was not registered with any mental health issues. In addition he killed 3 people by stabbing and injured a number of people with his car. In addition he shot 3. No simple answer to the issue of people hating and possible wanting to injure other people. Just read the posts.
Yes, Sad, you've already stated each of these points under the auspices of other monikers you've posted under above. They have all been refuted. Or have you already forgotten? You seem to be incapable of being convinced by rational argument; you seem unable to learn from your mistakes. Each day you repeat the same indefensible claims. Each day these claims are (easily) refuted by others and myself. You proceed as if you are deaf to the world around you. That is why I hope sincerely you are prevented from owning a gun.
I'll give you an example. Now, immediately above, having shed your liberalism-is-a-disease skin, you state that California has "some of the strictest gun laws." Only someone who lacks a minimum of intelligence could make such a claim. The claim is either a product of your distorted fantasy world, or you've gleaned it from a right-wing demagogue who caters to the feebleminded. The California test for gun ownership is a bad joke. Even you could pass it. One can miss a question such as: "You may sell your firearm to a minor as long as he has a note from his parent saying it's okay," and a half-dozen others like it AND STILL PASS THE TEST. Any rational person would not want someone who misses this question, or is so dumb as to state that California has among the strictest gun laws, to be able to purchase a firearm.
Sad : "Wow, lots of name calling going on. California already has some of the strictest gun laws. Perhaps they could be tougher."
California already has some of the strictest gun laws compared to what? Most modern industrialized nations? Or did you mean other US states? That's setting a rather low bar, don't you think?
This young shooter and killer was apparently able to legally obtain guns despite the fact that he obviously had mental issues and was in long-term therapy. Same thing with the Newtown shooter on the East coast. There's something wrong with a system in which people like that have no problems with legally obtaining devices which are designed to kill.
People mourn differently. Much of what I'm reading is about the grief of the specific poster. There's more than one way to grieve.
The posters that come across as always enraged or harmful to others are quite often depressed and it seems to me that their depression is untreated.
Wow. There is no discussion with you guys. You are certainly the intellectual superiors to us mere mortals. Curt, are you refuting that 3 people were fatally stabbed in this tragedy. I bid a good day to the condescending superior beings.
Yeah, Sad, no discussion. I've provided a link to another recent interview of one of the parents of one of the young shooting victims.
Now, imagine Sad raising his hand and whining to the parent: "The NRA wants me to ask you about how three of the victims died of knife wounds. Now, what do ya have to say about that?" My hunch? (Posting edited by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff to remove inappropriate comments.)
Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)
Yes, so step right up to the table ladies and gents, mentally impaired, psychologically disturbed, those with violent tendencies. Because ol' Plato here -- who has offered no Platonic points but only an anti-intellectual's envy -- thinks everyone should have the right to purchase guns, bazookas, atomic bombs, whatever, and that to be against handing weapons designed for killing to mentally overtaxed dimwits like Plato is simply to be an anti 2nd Amendment paranoiac. Call the parents of Sandy Hook victims paranoiacs, Plato; call the parents of this recent senseless and preventable violence paranoiacs, Plato. Your hysterical stringing of words together aren't enough to convince anyone save the feebleminded likes of William Tell, lib is a disease, Sad, and the other monikers he goes by. You need arguments Plato. In the meantime, why don't you re-watch and listen again to the young victim's father. Paranoiac, eh?
Curt, we are all for making sure those of your ilk are never allowed to purchase weapons of any kind. You, sir, need serious counseling and should not leave home unescorted.
Damon: "There's something wrong with a system in which people like that have no problems with legally obtaining devices which are designed to kill." Agreed. He should not have had a drivers license or access to a knife.
liberalism is a disease.... I always thought that cars and driver's licenses were designed to transport people around quickly and efficiently. I also thought that knives were designed for cooking, carving wood, etc... I guess I must be wrong and these things are actually made for the purpose killing people. Is there any other purpose of an AK-47 or other assault style weapons...I mean, besides the obvious, "design", which is of course, to kill other people. I can't think of any.
Erin, We all know that there is no other design of assault weapons other than to kill people. They are not even used for the purpose of hunting. They are designed purely to kill large amounts of people, quickly and efficiently. This is why they should be banned, they serve no purpose. I believe that the guns that were available when the 2nd amendment was written should be allowed today. They were muskets and guns that were single shot and were loaded through the muzzle. Our forefathers had no way of knowing about assault weapons and how the 2nd amendment would be used as a silly excuse for the absurd.
@ Patrick "I believe that the guns that were available when the 2nd amendment was written should be allowed today. They were muskets and guns that were single shot and were loaded through the muzzle. Our forefathers had no way of knowing about assault weapons and how the 2nd amendment would be used as a silly excuse for the absurd."
I agree with you. The people who wrote the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment would be shocked by the firepower provided by the guns of today. They had know way of knowing that their single-shot, muzzle-loaded guns would evolve into the heavy-hitting, automatic and semi-automatic weapons of today. If anti-control proponents want a strict adherence to the 2nd Amendment then fine: They can have own all of the single-shot, muzzle-loaded muskets they want.
So, liberalism, you want to deprive me of my gun-owning rights? How come? Oh, you say it's because I need counseling? How is that? I thought you wanted everyone in America to purchase a gun and carry it into classrooms, churches, fast-food restaurants, and that intelligence or emotional stability should have no bearing. Now you want to deprive me of my rights? At least try to keep your story consistent. Oh, sorry, I forgot who I am dealing with. So, liberalism-is-scrambled-eggs, have you listened to the young shooting victim's father yet? What do you think? Do you want to deprive him and "those of his ilk" from gun ownership too?
"The people who wrote the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment would be shocked by the firepower provided by the guns of today."
And you know this how, exactly?
The 2nd amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
"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."
Nothing about muskets and muzzle-loading weapons in that statement, dude.
SHALL NOT is pretty definitive. The reason is simple and if you've ever lived in a country ruled by a tyrant you'd understand why it was so important to the founding fathers.
Be thankful you live in the USA:
Formerly Dan from BC wrote: "Nothing about muskets and muzzle-loading weapons in that statement, dude."
Yeah, nothing about assault rifles equipped with grenade launchers, either, but I don't think that even the NRA is arguing that rifle-mounted grenade launchers should be allowed for ownership by the civilian population. So you're in a league by yourself (dude).
The 2nd Amendment also doesn't mention light mortars, anti-personnel mines, heavy machine guns, Stinger anti-air missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades. According to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, all these weapons should be legal to own by any citizen.
Great points Dan. Its ridiculous to think that our Founding Fathers didn't see a society like ours with the technological advances we have. Once you've got muskets then its no great leap to uzi machine guns and nucular submarines.
Additionally, there were ample cases of "mass shootings of innocent children" back when the Founding Fathers were writing. So they had plenty to draw on when thinking about the 21st century like they did.
And who among us doesn't belong to a militia? All the liberal geniuses out there don't seem to get that every person has the God-given right to claim themselves to be their own personal militia if they want to.
@ Formerly Dan from BC: "SHALL NOT is pretty definitive. The reason is simple and if you've ever lived in a country ruled by a tyrant you'd understand why it was so important to the founding fathers."
You mean "tyrannical" countries like France, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Belgium which all have stricter controls on guns and all have much, much lower death rates from guns than the US? Yeah, it must be horrible to live under one of those tyrannical governments. I'll bet all the citizens of those countries look at the gun violence and death rate of our country in envy.
Since most of these killings whether by gun, knife, bombs, or cars are committed by the mentally ill I think information from mental health providers, insurance companies, and drug companies, et al about patients should be made available to cities, police, employers and schools this should be a data base available for background checks.
I lived in Canada and this info was in Health Canada's database.
Good start, Different Approach. But you do realize that the problem with gun violence and deaths in the US is not limited to crazies with easy access to guns. Don't you?
Further along the lines you mention, I think an IQ test might also be mandatory. Because so many gun deaths -- especially where children are involved -- result from dumb people who don't know how to keep guns out of children's hands.
Yet another reasonable restriction would be a seriously rigorous purchaser/owner test that requires a perfect score.
And of course yet another, and most important, would be restrictions placed upon manufacture and sale of all guns that are not obviously designed for hunting nonhuman prey.
Now some are going to chafe about these multiply aligned restrictions cutting into the gun-owning population. But of course that is what precisely they would be intended to do. The psychologically fragile and intellectually feeble would likely not even attempt a purchase.
Gun ownership is declining. But not fast enough. These and other restrictions might speed things up, and save a lot of innocent lives by so doing.
I agree with Curt's IQ requirement as long as that is also applied to voting rights.
Curt, you need to stop talking now...you're starting to sound even more irrational than the mental case who ran over and knifed those students in IV.
We get that you're afraid of guns. Maybe it was from an incident of cowboys and Indians when you were a wee pacifist, but you can still get help from a professional psychotherapist. Tell them first, that you get some relief from your headaches by trolling local websites and maybe they can help you. Not that I care, but you're really starting to concern those of us that are law abiding gun owners.
Sorry that I must have touched a nerve with eye-que and disease.
Eye-que: Last time I looked, we as a nation weren't having difficulty with children, mentally enfeebled, and psychologically troubled using the ballot box to kill one another. You do see the weakness of your analogy, don't you?
Disease: As indicated by your childish name, your only apparent "use" is that of calling others names. Several people have offered some interesting claims, yet this is the best you can do? (No need to answer that.)
"The 2nd Amendment also doesn't mention light mortars, anti-personnel mines, heavy machine guns, Stinger anti-air missiles, and rocket-propelled grenades. According to your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, all these weapons should be legal to own by any citizen. "
This is demonstrably the dumbest response to a 2nd amendment discussion I have ever read.
My "interpretation" is based on the Supreme court striking down case-after-case of various gun-grabbing schemes that cities/counties/states have tried to implement over the last 50 years, and the literal language that you have so conviently not addressed.
Since you seem to be serious I'll respond thusly: Every weapon you note in your response is illegal for anyone to possess and use except the military. Therefor you're engaging in a straw man which deservedly need no response other than derision.
"You mean "tyrannical" countries like France, the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Belgium..."
Pssst! Do us all a favor and look up which countries on the list have strict gun laws and get back to us and we can discuss, okay?
"Disease" got his name from a radio show host who wrote a book with that title. The guy was banned from visiting the UK.
I think that Damon was saying that by your interpretation of the second amendment, those laws banning personal ownership of military style weapons should be considered unconstitutional.
As I said to Damon, his examples were dumb. Mines?! Really?! Nice straw man.
I stand by that opinion.
And I wasn't "interpreting" anything.
Formerly Dan from BC, wrote: "Since you seem to be serious I'll respond thusly: Every weapon you note in your response is illegal for anyone to possess and use except the military. Therefor you're engaging in a straw man which deservedly need no response other than derision."
Not at all. In actuality you entirely missed the point. WHY are the weapons I listed all "illegal"? Why isn't legal possession of each and every one of them not covered by the 2nd Amendment? You need to get your own argument straight in your head. You said that there was no mention about "muskets and muzzle-loading weapons" in the 2nd Amendment, thus implying that the "bear arms" phrase of the 2nd Amendment also covers modern guns. OK, then what about grenade launchers and rocket-propelled grenades? Are they not "arms" as well? Would you say that a person carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher was not "armed"? Don't take your frustrations out on me because you can't get your own argument straight.
Formerly Dan from BC: "Cherry-pick much? Pssst! Do us all a favor and look up which countries on the list have strict gun laws and get back to us and we can discuss, okay?"
I believe that all of the countries on the list I mentioned have stricter gun control laws than the US. So I'll place the burden of proof on you to explain how my list is "cherry picking".
john: "I think that Damon was saying that by your interpretation of the second amendment, those laws banning personal ownership of military style weapons should be considered unconstitutional."
Thank you for succinctly summarizing my point. Unfortunately, "Dan" was unable to come up with a reasonable response to explain why - in view of his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - possession of one set of modern weapons should be protected under the 2nd Amendment while the other set that I mentioned should not protected under the 2nd Amendment.
(Post deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff
"...thus implying that the "bear arms" phrase of the 2nd Amendment also covers modern guns."
Kinda like your implying that they meant muskets, right? See what I just did there?
And of course our founding fathers were SOOO stupid that they couldn't fathom progress in industry, right?
"Are they not "arms" as well?"..."Would you say that a person carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher was not "armed"?"
Do look up the definition of "arms" and "armed", and get back to me.
Again, straw man arguments don't interest me in the slightest, and this debate is getting circular.
I might mention, Constitution!!! -- say, didn't you go by Plato earlier, and do you not know switching names mid-game is grounds for expulsion? -- that I found your censored prattle quite amusing, albeit devoid of any real argument. Reminded me of a blogger who goes on and on without being able to say anything pithy. At all. No one responds to the blog -- one would have to read an entire entry to the end, which I tried ...zzz... thunk!
At any rate, I wouldn't dream of calling for your censorship. That would be the coward's way out. Aforesaid blogger knows all about that.
As to your attempt to draw an analogy between guns and pens/pencils/screwdrivers, I must say you have me wondering: Just how long it would have taken the killer at Sandy Hook to kill all the young innocents he did with a fountain pen? Or, again: How many accidental deaths do we have in this country on account of children finding their parents' carelessly concealed pencils? Surely you realize that your analogy is silly. You're simply craving attention here that you're not getting elsewhere, and acting like a ninny in order to get a response that might confirm your existence.
That's right, you heard it here... guns don't kill people, Americans kill people. The statistics dont lie- we're #1 and proud of it, cant you tell?
"I believe that all of the countries on the list I mentioned have stricter gun control laws than the US. So I'll place the burden of proof on you to explain how my list is "cherry picking"."
Take a look at the link I provided and note the countries with the worse homicide rates and tell me if they have gun rights similar to the USA.
I've done my homework, now you do yours cherry picker.
First, my REAL name is Dan, not "Dan" and my REAL neighborhood is Bridelcreek. Unlike you, I'm registered and PW has my real contact info. Maybe you should put on your big boy britches and do the same instead of implying I'm not who I am?
"possession of one set of modern weapons should be protected under the 2nd Amendment while the other set that I mentioned should not protected under the 2nd Amendment."
Re/"Military-style" guns that John brought up.
Say I have a rifle that shoots a standard caliber round and looks like an AK47. Is that a "military-style" gun or a "military" gun?
Hint: there is a distinction so be careful how you answer.
Sorry, I have to comment only because I'm here. Can anyone tell me what Dan's argument is? I get the tantrums, and I understand he's proud to be signed up with PW which, as far as I can tell, don't add up to anything inasmuch as PW tells its 'members' that it'll not reveal their identities.
Is it that he wants to interpret the Constitution literally? Thinks he knows better than the hermeneuts who spend a lifetime researching the Fathers' actual intent? So, as his soul mate William Tell alluded to, is membership in a militia -- state, civil, or self-contrived -- all that is required for gun ownership?
I'll get out of the way now, in anticipation of yet another displayal of bluster.
Formerly Dan from BC wrote: "Kinda like your implying that they meant muskets, right? See what I just did there?"
Dan, what's amusing about you is you think that you're smart but you consistently prove that you're not capable of grasping the point. My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (whether you agree with it or not) is logically consistent. You, on the other hand, are unable to come up with a logically consistent argument as to why one set of modern weapons should be legal under the 2nd Amendment while the other should not.
You see what I just did there? Judging from your past responses, probably not. (for the 3rd time).
Formerly Dan from BC wrote: "Take a look at the link I provided and note the countries with the worse homicide rates and tell me if they have gun rights similar to the USA."
Interesting that you try to compare homicide rates in the US with those in a multitude of 3rd world countries to try to make some point about gun control. I think that your logic is lost and stumbling around punch-drunk in the wilderness.
Formerly Dan from BC wrote: "First, my REAL name is Dan, not "Dan" and my REAL neighborhood is Bridelcreek. Unlike you, I'm registered and PW has my real contact info. Maybe you should put on your big boy britches and do the same instead of implying I'm not who I am?"
I think that you're getting a bit sensitive. BTW, FYI I believe that there was some news awhile back that the Pleasanton Weekly had a data breach in which information of registered members was compromised. That's why I have not registered myself on the PW.
Formerly Dan from BC wrote: "Say I have a rifle that shoots a standard caliber round and looks like an AK47. Is that a "military-style" gun or a "military" gun?"
I don't see the relevance of your question. I'll say this, though: Personally, I don't think it matters what the weapon looks like, only its functionality.
"My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (whether you agree with it or not) is logically consistent."
Yes, in your mind. But your interpretation isn't LEGALLY consistent. Get it? Finally?
And you keep insisting that I'm not answering you but if I have to explain to you the difference between a AR-15 and a land mine, then there's not much of a "logical" debate to make is there?
"Interesting that you try to compare homicide rates in the US with those in a multitude of 3rd world countries to try to make some point about gun control. I think that your logic is lost and stumbling around punch-drunk in the wilderness."
Interesting you keep bringing up logic, yet fail to see your hypocrisy regarding gun control. Are you implying that somehow 3rd-world countries don't count when it comes to seeing the effects of gun control? Again, cherry pick all you want but facts are facts.
"I don't see the relevance of your question. I'll say this, though: Personally, I don't think it matters what the weapon looks like, only its functionality."
Bingo! Every gun that is LEGALLY for sale in the United States fires a single bullet with each trigger pull. Kinda like muskets, right?
Now do you see the flaw in your logic?
"Can anyone tell me what Dan's argument is?"
Yes, that the 2nd amendment prevents gun-grabbing no matter how illogical your definition of "arms".
"Thinks he knows better than the hermeneuts who spend a lifetime researching the Fathers' actual intent?"
"SHALL NOT" has a legal definition. Look it up, there's no INTENT there. And you bring up militia's, but that argument has been legally settled. Read the amendment, critically, again.
"I'll get out of the way now..."
Yes, please get out of the way. <---sarcasm :)
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Who Won the Debate?
By Roz Rogoff | 20 comments | 488 views
Debate: What do you think?
By pleasantonweekly.com | 4 comments | 226 views
Home & Real Estate
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
© 2016 Pleasanton Weekly
All rights reserved.