* BREAKING: Reporter and camera man murdered on live TV ! (video)

The human body doesn't die "instantly" unless you hit either:

A. The brain
B. Certain spots of the Spinal Column
C. The heart

Other places will lead to catastrophic damage, but they will not kill you instantly.

 

It's still scary.

 

You essentially took a long route to repeat the oft silly comparison of a car with a gun that is used by all gunners when I make the proposal. I swear, the absurd lengths that people will go to just to avoid registration and oversight of weapons in this country. What you avoid is the simple fact that cars are better registered and tracked by state and local gov't than guns. So something designed to kill you is not so much to worry as a machine designed for transportation. Odd that.

 

Last I checked there were about as many guns in the U.S. as there are people. That's an impractical solution. There's also the issue of the Fourth Amendment.

 

Cell phones can be tracked....how many of them are there?

The 4th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause....how does that relate?

We got smart phones...why not smart guns? I would also add another feature....every time it is discharged a signal would automatically be sent to identify the location, time etc.

 

The Supreme Court ruled tracking devices are the same as audio and video recording, and law enforcement needs a warrant to use trackers.

 

No, but those who think there is nothing worse than death should work in an ICU for a while

 

Which is why simple confiscation will never work and will never be tried - however there are ways to make people take responsibility for this 'right'

 

It think an even simpler solution is to make people responsible

One of the aspects of our laws is that once you own that gun and it is registered to you - you are responsible for what happens with it

 

ICU's are nothing, ER's are the worst. You literally see everything.

I also worked the infirmary at SOCF, that place was hell. The people there should just be executed.

 

I did no such thing. You expressed a desire to have firearms "treated...with the same bureaucratic registration and tracking that we do automobiles," so I took the exact same "bureaucratic registration and tracking" that would pertain to a Buick and applied it to a revolver. The guy in your scenario still had no problem getting his revolver or committing his crime. Indeed, if all of the current legal impediments to obtaining a firearm were replaced with legal restrictions similar to those pertaining to automobiles, then it would in fact be easier to obtain a firearm than it is now.

What? I don't have to go to any absurd lengths to avoid registration of weapons. I simply don't register them since no registry exists.

Yet more people die in incidents involving the machine designed for transportation...yet I don't see you railing about street posts being too close to the roads or how insane it is that people pass within feet of each other on 2-lane roads going 60mph in opposite directions every day.

Most people know why that disparity in activism exists...it's because human lives aren't what is considered important by your type, political positioning is all that matters. And that's why you anti-gun activists have been getting your collective asses handed to you for decades now. It is because you fellows are the lowest form of ambulance chasers and the general public knows it, for the most part.

 

Apparently you've never heard of "burners". I won't even get into the regulatory agencies required to run such nonsense, nor the fact that anyone would buy one rapidly putting the company out of business, or the people who would rapidly figure out how to disable the entire system.

They aren't held responsible for using it for illegal purposes now, why would that change? People aren't even held responsible for breeding why would they be held responsible for a gun?

Yeah if people really cared the national speed limit would be dropped to 5 mph.

I mean it might inconvenience the law-abiding but we have to do something about all the deaths don't we?

Unfortunately the "car culture" vigorously defends the ability to go 70 mph.

 

Putting the word in quotation marks leaves the impression you may believe this right is somehow subjective. The "right" to abortion is subjective. A woman's right to privacy is not. Gay "rights" are subjective, until sexual orientation becomes a protected class.

 

All rights are subjective - and locality dependent

There are no absolutes

 

Subjective or restricted? The right to own a gun is not subjective, as in it may or may not actually be a right. It's a right whether people like it or not.

 

I beg to differ.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/d...upreme-court-or-congress/#sO9mrRdDD6GSMOFX.99

 

I think you should have to own property or have served in the military to vote.

 

Yeah ?

 

Indeed there are - we call these rights The Bill of Rights and that is an absolute...

 

skin in the game makes it a responsible choice.

 

I think it allows those in the game to continually control it with out letting fresh new faces. Not a big fan of that idea.

 

This last paragraph of yours is so childish and absurd that I would expect to find of version of it from a Beck or Limbaugh or Levin or Maulkin or Hannity (to name a few) transcript. Come back when you've got something of more rational, logical substance.

 

The truth (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hurt, didn't it? You claim to be so worried about saving human lives but then make lame excuses for why tens of thousands of your countrymen die every year engaging in a behavior that you, yourself, say is basically forced upon them by society. How does being a "necessity," as you put it, make it better? Are those people somehow less dead? Shouldn't the fact that the behavior that is killing these people is a "necessity" compel you even more to advocate for changes that would reduce those unnecessary deaths? Also, why do you think that those deaths being the results of accidents supports the point you are flailing about in all-caps to try to prove? Are accidental deaths not as bad as other types of deaths? Your decision to choose the least likely route to saving lives over a very real and easily attainable goal that would definitely save lives reveals that you are just as much of a partisan hack as Beck and those other people you mentioned. Congratulations.

 

I say we should have a national speed limit of 5 mph. It may inconvenience some, but we have to do something about all these car deaths. You don't NEED to go 70mph.

Of course the "car culture" will come back with all kind of distracting arguments, but we have to do something about all this car related death.

 

Bwahahahaha! Touche, my friend, touche.