Right Wing: Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights

A US conservative activist has written an open letter to the families of mass killer Elliot Rodger’s victims, arguing the deaths of innocent people “don’t trump” his constitutional rights.

Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known by the nickname “Joe the Plumber”, said his letter is directed “only to the families of the gunshot victims in Santa Barbara” and not the families of three others who were stabbed before the shooting spree.

Rodger, 22, killed seven people, including himself, and wounded 13 others when he went on a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, on Friday.

But the bloodbath wasn’t enough to convince conservatives like Wurzelbacher that America has a problematic gun culture, where the issue of the right to bear arms is hotly contested.

“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.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:



Oh dear i ask for evidence and the old I cannot understand bull comes out


Game over I guess

Its  a conversation not a game didge

And conversation relies on communication, if your communication is poor then the conversations stalls

I do notice that you generally only become incoherent when you get defensive, I think you do this on purpose to derail the conversation

I you want it to be "game over" then that is your call

Summers wrote:Hey I don't suppose anyone would be interesting in hearing about Switzerland would they?
One of the countries with the lowest gun-related crimes and murders in the world.
With most of the fucking country owning them.

Didge wrote:

Summers wrote:Hey I don't suppose anyone would be interesting in hearing about Switzerland would they?
One of the countries with the lowest gun-related crimes and murders in the world.
With most of the fucking country owning them.

So you hinge your argument on one country, how about all the other countries in the world?
So is your argument people are less inclined to murder there?

The argument is about access to guns and criminality and where having measures to stop access to guns does reduce the ability of such weapons being available to be used to kill people.

So how does your point on Switzerland mean anything to the problem in another country, where the problem is many gun deaths?

Summers wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you hinge your argument on one country, how about all the other countries in the world?
So is your argument people are less inclined to murder there?

The argument is about access to guns and criminality and where having measures to stop access to guns does reduce the ability of such weapons being available to be used to kill people.

So how does your point on Switzerland mean anything to the problem in another country, where the problem is many gun deaths?

My point is that guns themselves clearly are not the problem.
Switzerland is 4th place in the world for gun ownership.
US is obviously 1st.
However the difference in gun-related crime between the two obviously indicates that guns themselves are not the problem.

How about Finland then?
Fourth place behind Switzerland in terms of ownership.
Also has a low rate of gun-related crime.

Tommy Monk wrote:We have strict laws here on gun ownership and that has only stopped law abiding people having them.


The criminals still get them and use them for criminal purposes.



If they can't get them then they will make them or just use another weapon.

Summers wrote:Well obviously guns in countries with high rates of homicide would have a negative affect but what you were on about banning guns world-wide earlier.
Which is what I think is bullshit.

You can't force shit on other countries just because yours has problems.

Tommy Monk wrote:Ban worldwide?

Don't be ridiculous dodge.


Police and military would still have them, some would still get into wrong hands. Or people would just make their own.

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


Its  a conversation not a game didge

And conversation relies on communication, if your communication is poor then the conversations stalls

I do notice that you generally only become incoherent when you get defensive, I think you do this on purpose to derail the conversation

I you want it to be "game over" then that is your call

Oh it is a game with you because i love winding you up, you are not intelligent enough to debate with and never have been. I reserve intelligent debate with many other posters, who have more interesting arguments, sadly yours lacks any wisdom or knowledge, just poor hate

Never mind, sorry if you do not like the fact I like to play with you

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Ban worldwide?

Don't be ridiculous dodge.


Police and military would still have them, some would still get into wrong hands. Or people would just make their own.

Logically it would be the way forward and as seen it is far fetched but this is a debate, not what you think is impossible, as it is not beyond the realms of impossible, only time will tell.
Never said anything about the military or others having guns, just the public not having access, so please read through the debate.

Anyway have to go, the point still stands in regards to America, where they do have many gun deaths, where controls would help not only reduce the capability of such deaths, due to as stated again on premeditated, spur of the moment and mistakes using guns..


Bye, bye

Didge wrote:

Summers wrote:Well obviously guns in countries with high rates of homicide would have a negative affect but what you were on about banning guns world-wide earlier.
Which is what I think is bullshit.

You can't force shit on other countries just because yours has problems.

But banning them world wide difficult as it may seem would reduce the problem globally further, you again are only looking locally, when gun deaths with high murder rates are world over.
Thus showing the view of low country murder rates and having guns is irrelevant to where gun and crime rates are high.

Anyway my point stands on high crime rates with gun deaths, which is the point here with America, the bigger picture of globally is very unlikely and far fetched but the ultimate way forward logically

Tommy Monk wrote:America has much the same gun laws as Canada but a fraction of the gun crime rate per capita.
The point still stands, the criminals will still get guns or just use another weapon instead.

Summers wrote:

Didge wrote:



But banning them world wide difficult as it may seem would reduce the problem globally further, you again are only looking locally, when gun deaths with high murder rates are world over.
Thus showing the view of low country murder rates and having guns is irrelevant to where gun and crime rates are high.

Anyway my point stands on high crime rates with gun deaths, which is the point here with America, the bigger picture of globally is very unlikely and far fetched but the ultimate way forward logically

Just like if we want to reduce the cost of everything then the way forward logically is abolish labour laws abolish health and safety laws, bring back slave labour, etc etc etc.

Seriously though the world is never going to give up their guns.

smelly_bandit wrote:What's the first step didge?

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:What's the first step didge?

Countries uniting behind a common cause