DescentBB

no data for NS regarding religious upbringing, nor ideological leanings.

And 600 deaths so far in Chicago. This with Chicago being Dem. controlled and a gun ban. So by you waving your magic twanger Froggy, gun deaths will stop. Get real. And thaks for reminding us which candidate is going to use executive power to ban guns.

Something else as well. Shame on Chris Wallace. He let the original question slide as to whether Trump would send U.S. troops into Syria to wipe out Assad and ISIS if he were elected president, and Wallace never pressed Clinton for an answer to those pay-for-play accusations she had with the Clinton Foundation donors. He just let her run on about the supposed good things the foundation was doing, which was not the question at all.

callmeslick wrote:no data for NS regarding religious upbringing, nor ideological leanings.

Yet more bleating for banning guns I see.

Slick, there is something called "personal responsibility" that leftists like you don't think anyone should have. It goes this way:

With personal freedom also comes personal responsibility.

It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the parents or guardians of these children to keep all dangerous implements out of reach. It doesn't only include firearms...there are plenty of other VERY dangerous items in the home (matches, power tools, appliances...etc) that could also be injurious or fatal to the child and/or other occupants of the home if they are left out for curious kids to handle.

that, NS, has been my contention all along. Since we clearly have a very low sense, collectively, of personal responsibility around guns, given the accidents, thefts, black market deals etc, all I have ever really urged is that there be laws with REAL teeth around that.

Oh, and Grendel, I don't see where Clinton fundamentally got much wrong on the core point. Disagreement with the details of the ruling doesn't mean one is opposed to gun ownership, just a difference on where one draws the lines.

I have a strong impression that the purpose of talking just to talk, the husks of sunflower seeds)
I do not see even an imaginary goal sought by the West to modernize itself.

callmeslick wrote:Oh, and Grendel, I don't see where Clinton fundamentally got much wrong on the core point. Disagreement with the details of the ruling doesn't mean one is opposed to gun ownership, just a difference on where one draws the lines.

She didn't on the surface: " But there’s no doubt I respect the Second Amendment, that I believe there’s an individual right to bear arms." That statement clashes w/ "I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment" when the core of that application in DC vs Heller is "that individuals have a right to own guns, at least in their homes and for self-defense."

Grendel wrote:

callmeslick wrote:Oh, and Grendel, I don't see where Clinton fundamentally got much wrong on the core point. Disagreement with the details of the ruling doesn't mean one is opposed to gun ownership, just a difference on where one draws the lines.

She didn't on the surface: " But there’s no doubt I respect the Second Amendment, that I believe there’s an individual right to bear arms." That statement clashes w/ "I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment" when the core of that application in DC vs Heller is "that individuals have a right to own guns, at least in their homes and for self-defense."

she disagreed that the core of the application, as you put it, was used as a defense for the details of the ruling in question. Once again, nit picking perhaps, but there is ZERO evidence that the candidate opposes the principle of the right to bear arms.

callmeslick wrote:she disagreed that the core of the application, as you put it, was used as a defense for the details of the ruling in question.

Ok, I'm lost on that one. "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes[..]" is used to defend details like "Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional." ? Kind of makes sense to me to have a core ruling and reason how it affects these details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... r#Decision

Edit: Ah, deflection. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary- ... d=42965863

callmeslick wrote:that, NS, has been my contention all along. Since we clearly have a very low sense, collectively, of personal responsibility around guns, given the accidents, thefts, black market deals etc, all I have ever really urged is that there be laws with REAL teeth around that.

More children die from ingesting parents meds or poisons but I see no call to put locks on cabinets where they are stored or the castigation of the parents to the degree gun owning parents are.

sort of funny watching folks miss the ACTUAL intent of the post, seen in the title. It was my wry commentary on the fact that FAR more Americans have been shot by toddlers this year than Muslim immigrants, yet we have to vet children from war zones because of their religion?

callmeslick wrote:sort of funny watching folks miss the ACTUAL intent of the post, seen in the title. It was my wry commentary on the fact that FAR more Americans have been shot by toddlers this year than Muslim immigrants, yet we have to vet children from war zones because of their religion?

Children are not driven by intent to mass murder those that don't believe in a "religion."

woodchip wrote: More children die from ingesting parents meds or poisons but I see no call to put locks on cabinets where they are stored or the castigation of the parents to the degree gun owning parents are.

Does a parent die from their kids feeding them meds?

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:sort of funny watching folks miss the ACTUAL intent of the post, seen in the title. It was my wry commentary on the fact that FAR more Americans have been shot by toddlers this year than Muslim immigrants, yet we have to vet children from war zones because of their religion?

Children are not driven by intent to mass murder those that don't believe in a "religion."

and, your average 8 year old Syrian kid is? For that matter, your average family fleeing imminent destruction is?

By TB's logic, we should have had a mass murder up here in Canada with all the Syrian refugees we've accepted.

But... we haven't.