GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Blindgreed1]

but in all truth how many do you think will actually start shooting Americans on their own soil?

What do you have to worry about then?

Legislation taking my rights as an American citizen away. Fuck that. I don't even own a gun, but I reserve my right to if I choose. The issue that needs to be addressed is the mentally ill. Not my fucking rights.

[HairOfTheDog]

My question was are you OK with certain types of firearms being taken away, Your answer is yes, as stated above.
I am not Ok with that. If it ever is attempted they will get none of mine.

As I've posted many times, I'd rather try better regulation of the process, screening and enforcement, as opposed to restrictions and bans.

But, the NRA, its owned politicians, and gun enthusiast extremists, like you, aren't rational or strategic. Rather than consider even such administrative regulations to increase public safety, you instead resist any change whatsoever in order to maximize profits (NRA) and maintain your personal gratification/convenience - using ignorant fear-based arguments and false rhetoric.

So, while it's not my preference, it won't bother me if the feared "slippery slope!!!" is avoided and the law jumps straight to restricting and banning some types of firearms. That too would be wholly in line with a well-regulated right to bear arms, per the Second Amendment. At this point, I'd be okay with that too.

[Blindgreed1]

And uhhh... Regarding those other civilized societies: Look at the most recent data. Violent crimes and suicide rates are up.

First, I don't much care about suicide rates and I'm not sure how that pertains to guns (unless people are killing themselves because their guns were taken away).

With regards to violent crimes, are the rates "up" in those countries as compared to prior years or "up" as in higher than the United States? I doubt it's the latter and certainly not where guns are concerned.





I don't expect or necessarily want to get rid of all guns. I want nationwide regulations and certain guns to be banned (the semi-automatics and any other high capacity, rapid fire type guns). I'm gun illiterate (and too lazy to look it up) so that's my lame description regarding weapons. I just don't see the need for the average citizen to have those any more than I think they should be able to own grenade launchers.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myt...countries/

I can get charts and graphs too. Who has the better data? That's what matters.

[sally]

Well here is something I hope we can all agree on. Chicks with guns are HOT.

When she finds out that breast implants are a deal breaker for you she'll be heart broken.

[F.U.]

My question was are you OK with certain types of firearms being taken away, Your answer is yes, as stated above.
I am not Ok with that. If it ever is attempted they will get none of mine.

As I've posted many times, I'd rather try better regulation of the process, screening and enforcement, as opposed to restrictions and bans.

But, the NRA, its owned politicians, and gun enthusiast extremists, like you, aren't rational or strategic. Rather than consider even such administrative regulations to increase public safety, you instead resist any change whatsoever in order to maximize profits (NRA) and maintain your personal gratification/convenience - using ignorant fear-based arguments and false rhetoric.

So, while it's not my preference, it won't bother me if the feared "slippery slope!!!" is avoided and the law jumps straight to restricting and banning some types of firearms. That too would be wholly in line with a well-regulated right to bear arms, per the Second Amendment. At this point, I'd be okay with that too.

Well regulated was not referring to the type of firearm. It was in reference to the person/militia.


15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.



While it doesn't exactly pertain to our discussion right now I also found # 14 interesting.


(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.


http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

[F.U.]

Well here is something I hope we can all agree on. Chicks with guns are HOT.

When she finds out that breast implants are a deal breaker for you she'll be heart broken.

I know, but at least she is wearing knee pads so her wittle knees wont get sore when she is sucking dick.

[HairOfTheDog]

I believe everyone can say what they feel in here. And I also believe that they should be prepared if somebody does not agree with their position. I also believe that people have a right to defend who they want. To be faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Flame up up and away Trudy.

We are on the same page, my friend.

You are certainly free to keep insisting that anyone who sees things and people differently than you is wearing blinders.

Just as you are free to keep wishing more people were like the ones you feel compelled to defend when they dish it out and get honest unfiltered responses.

I don't understand why you insist on positioning F.U. as an exemplary and rational gun enthusiast, attesting to his sexual virility, and all that jazz.

But that's between the two of you likable characters and it keeps things funny and interesting. So, polish your protector's shield and forward ho, Captain America.

[Jimbone]

Your whole 'right to bear arms' argument is a prehistoric hangover piece of legislation that is useless anyway.

Well, seeing as how the laws of the US are based on the US Constitution I'd argue that it's not really a prehistoric hangover piece of legislation or useless.

And when opinion sways and the support is there, the 2^nd amendment can be repealed at any time. Until then it's the law of the land, for better or worse.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well regulated was not referring to the type of firearm. It was in reference to the person/militia.


15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

Well, that's one interpretation.

And still, it in no way prohibits the government from determining what types of additional 'arms of their own' would be legally available to the "militia" (which, in the interpretation you posted, equates to everyone in the country).

[F.U.]

Well regulated was not referring to the type of firearm. It was in reference to the person/militia.


15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

Well, that's one interpretation.

And still, it in no way prohibits the government from determining what types of additional 'arms of their own' would be legally available to the "militia" (which, in the interpretation you posted, equates to everyone in the country).

#4 from that link kinda agrees that there is a large grey area when it comes to they type of firearm. However it is understood that the citizens are allowed to own arms equal to those used by the military. Reason being, just incase we need to resist government tyranny.



(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

[F.U.]

OK, TOTALLY off topic, but, with now 2110 posts and almost 64,000 views, Is this the longest running thread we have? Just wondering.

[Duchess]

Is this the longest running thread we have? Just wondering.

No. There is a thread in the crime forum that has two & a half million views, over 24,000 replies and is 17290 pages long. LC and I used to call it the thread that ate Mock...

...and I'd just like to add, it's the largest thread by far with this particular software used anywhere.

[F.U.]

I don't usually hit the crime forum so that is why I missed that. Thanks Duch

[HairOfTheDog]

OK, TOTALLY off topic, but, with now 2110 posts and almost 64,000 views, Is this the longest running thread we have? Just wondering.

If you hit "Forum Statistics" at the bottom right of the home page, you can see a list of the threads with the most responses and the threads with the most views.

This thread is currently number 10 in terms of most replies.

[F.U.]

Thanks for the tip HotD.

[Blindgreed1]

BTW User, 60% of gun deaths are suicides, so if they don't count your data is skewed.

[HairOfTheDog]

BTW User, 60% of gun deaths are suicides, so if they don't count your data is skewed.

She posted stats on "homicides", Gunnar.

Suicides have already been excluded from the data.

[Blindgreed1]

The solution is simple. First and foremost address the metal health issue. 2^nd, make guns safer. 32,719 Americans died in automobile accidents in 2013. Actually, cars exemplify the public health approach we need to apply to guns. Do we ban cars? No. Do we ban fast cars? No but we do require driver’s licenses, seatbelts, airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and collapsible steering columns.

[HairOfTheDog]

The solution is simple. First and foremost address the metal health issue. 2^nd, make guns safer. 32,719 Americans died in automobile accidents in 2013. Actually, cars exemplify the public health approach we need to apply to guns. Do we ban cars? No. Do we ban fast cars? No but we do require driver’s licenses, seatbelts, airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and collapsible steering columns.

What?

The solution is not simple - it has multiple components, in my opinion.

Making guns safer does nothing to address the problem of gun violence homicides. At best, it might reduce the small fraction of gun deaths attributed to "unintentional" or "accidental" firing.

[Blindgreed1]

BTW User, 60% of gun deaths are suicides, so if they don't count your data is skewed.

She posted stats on "homicides", Gunnar.

Suicides have already been excluded from the data.

There's something odd going on with my server. Some pages I can see, some I can't. It doesn't like something posted in the thread that has her nifty leftist graphic. The point is, this is such a hot topic that you are going to find graphs and charts that show opposites all over the internet. One set produced by the left and by contrast one by the right. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.