Is Joe the Plumber correct??

[JEDIYoda]

Touchy subject......where do we start?
I do feel sorry for all the gun related deaths!

But at the same time we cannot allow those who want to do away with guns totally to use these tragic deaths for their own aim - which is to do away with guns totally!


Joe The Plumber: 'Your Dead Kids Don't Trump My Constitutional Rights' To Have Guns

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, insisted the deaths of innocent people "don't trump" his constitutional rights in an open letter to the families of victims in Friday's shooting rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Wurzelbacher's letter was published on Barbwire Monday, days after one shooting victim's father blamed "craven, irresponsible politicians" and the National Rifle Association for his son's death.

Wurzelbacher said the words of Richard Martinez, whose son Christopher Martinez was a victim in Friday's incident, "will be exploited by gun-grab extremists as are all tragedies involving gun violence and the mentally ill by the anti-Second Amendment Left." The former Congressional candidate told Martinez to "back off."

Wurzelbacher said his letter is directed "only to the families of the gunshot victims in Santa Barbara" and not to the families of three who were stabbed ahead of the shooting spree.

"I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through now. But: As harsh as this sounds -- your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights," Wurzelbacher wrote.
Wurzelbacher acknowledged his comments are "harsh" but claimed pro-gun control activists "don't care about your family or your dead children at all."

There is more.......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/joe-the-plumber-guns_n_5397981.html

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I think the issue isn't is he correct, but is he a retarded moron tossing out a strawman because he's callous piece of shit.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I think the issue is less is he right, but is he a callous piece of shit tossing out a strawman because he's a retarded moron.

In what way is he stating a strawman argument?

 

[JEDIYoda]

I think the issue isn't is he correct, but is he a retarded moron tossing out a strawman because he's callous piece of shit.

Please enlighten us....
I for one would like to know....

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

In what way is he stating a strawman argument?

Because with even minor tweaks to existing gun regulations practically impossible to pass as well as a very 2A friendly court system not to mention the seer mass of them out there totally doing away with guns isn't even within the realm of possibility but continually gets trotted out to feed the paranoia of all the morons like Mr. Plumber here.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Because with even minor tweaks to existing gun regulations practically impossible to pass as well as a very 2A friendly court system not to mention the seer mass of them out there totally doing away with guns isn't even within the realm of possibility but continually gets trotted out to feed the paranoia of all the morons like Mr. Plumber here.

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. What "minor tweaks" would of prevented what occurred in Santa Barbra? At what point is the state just creating more laws to just create to make people like you feel safe but not necessarily any safe then in the past?

Additionally lets parallel this discussion to something like 9/11 (You know that incident where 3,000 people were murdered in one event) and the Department of Homeland Security and all other measures designed to curb terrorism with our "War on Terror".

Just how secure are we really as society by "tweaking" Constitutional laws that so that it puts more power and control in the hands of our government to combat "The War on Terror"??? At what point do we start realizing that "Tweaking" is not doing anything of note but just laying the ground work for the future erosion of our Constitutional rights by those looking to control....I mean lead and protect us?

 

[Jhhnn]

Because with even minor tweaks to existing gun regulations practically impossible to pass as well as a very 2A friendly court system not to mention the seer mass of them out there totally doing away with guns isn't even within the realm of possibility but continually gets trotted out to feed the paranoia of all the morons like Mr. Plumber here.

Winnar!

 

[TreVader]

California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US. What "minor tweaks" would of prevented what occurred in Santa Barbra? At what point is the state just creating more laws to just create to make people like you feel safe but not necessarily any safe then in the past?

Additionally lets parallel this discussion to something like 9/11 (You know that incident where 3,000 people were murdered in one event) and the Department of Homeland Security and all other measures designed to curb terrorism with our "War on Terror".

Just how secure are we really as society by "tweaking" Constitutional laws that so that it puts more power and control in the hands of our government to combat "The War on Terror"??? At what point do we start realizing that "Tweaking" is not doing anything of note but just laying the ground work for the future erosion of our Constitutional rights by those looking to control....I mean lead and protect us?

The issue has nothing to do with what happened in SB. There are tons of cases where mentally ill people buy guns and murder dozens. Holmes and Lanza come to mind, and that's just in the last few years.


One thing I can guarantee you: If Elliot Roger had shot plumbers kids he would change his mind.


Also California's Gun control laws are anything but restrictive. So you can't buy full auto weapons and you have to make a request 7 days in advance? OMG so hard, who the hell plans a $500+ purchase 7 days in advance?


WHY CAN'T I BUY GUNS AT TOYS R US MUH RIGHTS!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Correct or incorrect its a comment that adds nothing to the discussion that is designed to cause controversy

 

[UaVaj]

A letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant by Donald K. Martin on March 19th.

"Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.

After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. It had not even loaded itself.

Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing guns or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

So now I’m off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat."

 

[TreVader]

Correct or incorrect its a comment that adds nothing to the discussion that is designed to cause controversy

Yeah and yours does?

You shitpost in a shithread about shit? Smart.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yeah and yours does?

You shitpost in a shithread about shit? Smart.

Mine has not been printed in national news. That's the difference

 

[fskimospy]

A letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant by Donald K. Martin on March 19th.

"Yesterday I placed my shotgun on the front porch, gave it six shells, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.

After 10 hours, I checked on the shotgun. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented. It had not even loaded itself.

Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing guns or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world.

So now I’m off to check on my spoons, because I hear they make people fat."

I will never understand why anyone thinks that this is a convincing argument.

 

[TreVader]

Mine has not been printed in national news. That's the difference

last time I checked the N in P&N stood for News.



If you don't like the news that people are buying guns legally and using them to mass murder people maybe you should consider your position on guns.

 

[UaVaj]

"I will never understand why anyone thinks that this is a convincing argument. "


not convincing argument. just reality check.

when was the last time a gun (all by itself and not with a human behind it) killed something? do tell. all ears.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

"I will never understand why anyone thinks that this is a convincing argument. "


not convincing argument. just reality check.

when was the last time a gun (all by itself and not with a human behind it) killed something? do tell. all ears.

What point are you even trying to make? Of course guns are dangerous, it's why they're worth owning.

 

[UaVaj]

question dangerous??
so are cars. so are boats. so are knifes. so are spoons.


IMHO. the only gun law worth pursuing is. held the gun owner responsible. with great powers comes great responsibilities. one must secure one's gun. otherwise be held accountable as accessories.

 

[cyclohexane]

There ain't no constitutional rights folks.

Ask the guys in Gitmo about their rights.
Ask released prisoners about their rights.
Ask interned Japanese Americans.

If "rights" can be taken away, they aren't rights, just privileges.

 

[fskimospy]

question dangerous??
so are cars. so are boats. so are knifes. so are spoons.


IMHO. the only gun law worth pursuing is. held the gun owner responsible. with great powers comes great responsibilities. one must secure one's gun. otherwise be held accountable as accessories.

And we regulate how people use cars and boats, precisely because they are dangerous.

 

[Thebobo]

Why would anyone care what "Joe" says on the issue.

 

[MongGrel]

Thought he would have died by now, guess not.

Kinda tells you what I think of his opinions in general.

The Clash - Know Your Rights



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lfInFVPkQs

 

[UaVaj]

And we regulate how people use cars and boats, precisely because they are dangerous.

if you gonna reply.

please do not exclude knives and spoons

to make this discussion more lively. lets add cigarette and alcohol into the mix too.

 

[ivwshane]

if you gonna reply.

please do not exclude knives and spoons

to make this discussion more lively. lets add cigarette and alcohol into the mix too.

Yep, because none of those are regulated in the slightest.

If you are going to go retard, go full retard

 

[UaVaj]

facts: guns, cars, boats, knives, spoons, cigarettes, and alcohols do not kill by them self.

it is the "retard" behind the guns, the cars, the boats, the knives, the spoons, the cigarettes and the alcohols that kills.



so why not just fix the retard ??

 

[cubby1223]

One thing I can guarantee you: If Elliot Roger had shot plumbers kids he would change his mind.

How positive are you positive of that?

I know one of the victim's fathers of one of the major shootings in recent years, and it hasn't changed his stance on gun ownership one bit.


Personally, the one thing I hate in these discussions is those who believe they are the greatest and most important victims on the planet, that nothing worse apparently has ever happened to anyone else, they deserve the spotlight and they treat this as their "trump card" on sympathy.