Sterotypinh in the gun control debate

*************

He did apologize.

********************

"No, if you in fact did serve, I offer my full apology and respect. By writing on a forum, you don't sound like a prior service member. Navy tends to be on the liberal side so it is different than my army.but if what you say is true, thanks for your service. If you are lying, you suck!
I am suspect because you claim 10 years when enlistment is in increments of 4 years. I'm not convinced yet."

********************

 

And then challenged me again without evidence

 

WOW the OP derailed his own thread....Reported

 

Have a wonderful day. Lol

 

Ultimately to provide an answer as to what is and is not considered a right, would ultimately be nothing more than my own interpretation of the matter. Certain aspects are regarded as being rights, while others are nothing more than selfish claims by selfish individuals who possess no understanding of what they are saying.

 

Fundamental Rights are core issues related to Humankinds survival, self preservation, personal defense, equality etc...., these fundamental Rights are Superior to written Law and supersede it in any Court of Law.

 

The right to be safe in your own community is the very point of all society and civilization

 

Which is the core reason for personal Defense and the Second Amendment.

Glad to see you have arrived.

 

I believe in the second amendment. I also believe in reasonable gun control. You do too....you just define it differently

 

I have been obeying those Rules for far too long, however, I do not promote those Rules as a Cure all or Panacea for all of Societies ills.

 

Reasonable gun control would be insuring that everyone who uses a gun, or any other weapon, for criminal intent---is punished if found guilty.

 

We have that. Its not enough

 

It is never "Enough" what is recognized and promulgated as "Reasonable Gun Control" is actually "unreasonable" so you get disarmed victims, as I have personally observed.

However, as I have also observed, an Armed victim is most often, the Surviving Victor.

Are there high numbers of victims of Crime ? Yes, and those numbers continue to decrease.

As the number if Firearms and Concealed Carry permit holders are increasing, Crime is decreasing proportional in most jurisdictions.

Crime is correctly understood by demographics, taking inappropriate Legislative action does not equal Crime prevention as some here suggest.

 

If everyone in NYC had a gun the place would be a war zone.....another place where everyone has a gun.

 

I'm sure you would be much better off in gun free zones.

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/mo...ty-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

 

Not true at all, not everyone in NYC has a Gun, many Criminals have and use Guns, many Violent Crimes are commited without Guns and many Victims are killed and crippled.

In New York City, is not enough to have a Gun, you also must have a Legal approval for Concealed Carry, either as LEO or other professional requirement etc..

Oddly enough, it is very Easy to identify unauthorized People in NYC, I know that from personal experience, also an unauthorized person would not be able to answer "The 7 Questions" Authorized People can answer.

 

MY sentence started with the word....IF

 

Would the super bowl be safer if it was not a gun free zone and everyone had a gun?

 

You stated it yourself, then you deny it.

Not everyone in NYC has Guns.

 

I'd go if I could afford it. Tell me about all of the gun show massacres. People are on their best behavior at gun shows and it's a very pleasant experience. I avoid gun free zones when possible and it serves me well.

 

LOL. A WAR ZONE is a place where everyone has a gun. LOL

 

So, a police station = a War Zone?

 

You sure are good at moving the Goal Posts of any topic !!!!

The Problem in a so called "War Zone" is all the unarmed innocents during a shootout between Criminals and Police, collateral damage is unacceptable.

 

So what you are saying is that you make a bold statement but then take no ownership of that statement. Now if I were to post that rights are constitutional, would you again jump in with a bold statement and no ownership?

But I have no inhibitions as the definition is very simplistic: Anything you want it to, right up to the point of violating another's equal rights. Any other turns a right into a privilege meaning a master/slave relationship. Now your list becomes extremely obvious to any capable of thought.

 

Wow. Just.....wow.