Gun Control

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: Boobs McGee

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

That are quite a few things that weren't even imagined when our country was young and taking shape. There are reasons the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did. It was prevent government from taking away individual rights.

Like the right to own slaves? The constitution was meant to be a living document, hence our ability to change it.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Boobs McGee

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

That are quite a few things that weren't even imagined when our country was young and taking shape. There are reasons the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did. It was prevent government from taking away individual rights.

Like the right to own slaves? The constitution was meant to be a living document, hence our ability to change it.

can you point out what article in the constitution gives people the right to own slaves?

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
So we shouldn't legislate speed limits on public roads because people are going to speed anyways? We should legislate guns like anything else that is a threat to public safety.

Hmm, one post down we find one...

Murder/bodily harm is already illegal, right? What point does adding another law do?

We already restrict military grade weapons, so the precedent has been set for what is permissible for ownership by the general public. I think the 2nd amendment should be revised to allow local governments to make laws that reflect what the people want regarding gun control. How is allowing democracy to govern the use and possession of firearms a bad thing?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Guns are evil

No, no, no, people are evil.

Guns are merely innocently helpful tools for defending yourself against the satanic tyranny of squirrels, providing the conclusively winning argument in random traffic disputes, and combating the ever increasing Liberal/Negro/Latte slurping menace that is threatening to destroy our vibrantly loud and intolerant yahoo culture and to forcibly impregnate your sister, my friends, no matter how much her mustache and tiny, too close eyes highlight her jiggly morbid obesity.

Those Negroes don't care.

Buy more guns.

Alternately:

Firearms are merely innocent and helpful tools for preventing violence against minorities. They are highly effective in defending oneself against the inbred hillbilly menace that is bent on destroying minority cultures, denying loving homosexual partners the right to an unmolested and happy life, and reversing the progress that has been made by the civil rights movement.

Those crackers just don't care.

ZV

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Boobs McGee

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

That are quite a few things that weren't even imagined when our country was young and taking shape. There are reasons the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did. It was prevent government from taking away individual rights.

Like the right to own slaves? The constitution was meant to be a living document, hence our ability to change it.

can you point out what article in the constitution gives people the right to own slaves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ed_States_Constitution

Before that amendment an individual could claim the life of another person to be their personal property. I'm just using this as an example of how the constitution can change to better reflect current attitudes and social norms.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: irishScott
And banning automatic weapons isn't a "feel good measure". Sure if someone really wants to get it they'll get it, but restricting it will make is less available to the average gang-bangers and such who would love to get their hands on something that powerful.

Actually, banning fully-automatic weapons is a feel-good measure.

In the entire history of the US, there have been exactly 2 people murdered by fully-automatic weapons of legal origin (i.e. fully-automatic firearms that were registered legally either at the time of the murder or at any time prior). Two people in only two incidents. No injuries. And one of those incidents was a case where a police officer murdered an informant. The officer used his police-issued and department-owned MAC-10.

Every single other case of death or injury from a fully-automatic firearm is the result of the firearm having been illegally smuggled into the country, or of an automatic firearm having been illegally constructed; both of which are already against current laws.

Statistically there is nothing to suggest that those who legally possess fully-automatic firearms are a danger.

ZV

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Boobs McGee

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

That are quite a few things that weren't even imagined when our country was young and taking shape. There are reasons the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did. It was prevent government from taking away individual rights.

Like the right to own slaves? The constitution was meant to be a living document, hence our ability to change it.

can you point out what article in the constitution gives people the right to own slaves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ed_States_Constitution

Before that amendment an individual could claim the life of another person to be their personal property. I'm just using this as an example of how the constitution can change to better reflect current attitudes and social norms.

back to my original question. please point out the article in the constitution that mentions the right to slavery.

you can't. because it's not in there. the constitution was written to form and limit the power of the federal government and to guarantee certain rights to the people (bill of rights). it's not a set of laws and was never intended as such. the constitution doesn't say i can't kill people. does that mean i have the right to?

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Boobs McGee

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

That are quite a few things that weren't even imagined when our country was young and taking shape. There are reasons the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did. It was prevent government from taking away individual rights.

Like the right to own slaves? The constitution was meant to be a living document, hence our ability to change it.

can you point out what article in the constitution gives people the right to own slaves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ed_States_Constitution

Before that amendment an individual could claim the life of another person to be their personal property. I'm just using this as an example of how the constitution can change to better reflect current attitudes and social norms.

back to my original question. please point out the article in the constitution that mentions the right to slavery.

you can't. because it's not in there. the constitution was written to form and limit the power of the federal government and to guarantee certain rights to the people (bill of rights). it's not a set of laws and was never intended as such. the constitution doesn't say i can't kill people. does that mean i have the right to?

Ok I understand how what I originally wrote is not accurate.

 

[Boobs McGee]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Boobs McGee

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
There nothing philosophical about gun control it's all about the 2nd amendment, which was written before anything like today's modern firearms could even be imagined.

That are quite a few things that weren't even imagined when our country was young and taking shape. There are reasons the founding fathers wrote the constitution the way they did. It was prevent government from taking away individual rights.

Like the right to own slaves? The constitution was meant to be a living document, hence our ability to change it.

I am not trying to flame here, but that comment does not make you sound very bright. Owning slaves was never a right. Obviously we understand the constitution can be changed. We are discussing the second "amendment". The government realized that the right to bear arms was important enough to go and amend the constitution to make sure that right was guaranteed.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: jjsole
There's nothing philosophical about the easy of gunrunning within and outside of the US. There's virtually no accountability on behalf of the buyers and sellers that make the 2nd amendment the least of our country's issues with guns.

I can't tell which side your post is for but it makes a point that gun running happens. Laws do not stop people. They only allow for punishment if they are caught.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: irishScott
And banning automatic weapons isn't a "feel good measure". Sure if someone really wants to get it they'll get it, but restricting it will make is less available to the average gang-bangers and such who would love to get their hands on something that powerful.

Actually, banning fully-automatic weapons is a feel-good measure.

In the entire history of the US, there have been exactly 2 people murdered by fully-automatic weapons of legal origin (i.e. fully-automatic firearms that were registered legally either at the time of the murder or at any time prior). Two people in only two incidents. No injuries. And one of those incidents was a case where a police officer murdered an informant. The officer used his police-issued and department-owned MAC-10.

Every single other case of death or injury from a fully-automatic firearm is the result of the firearm having been illegally smuggled into the country, or of an automatic firearm having been illegally constructed; both of which are already against current laws.

Statistically there is nothing to suggest that those who legally possess fully-automatic firearms are a danger.

ZV

Maybe that's because there are so few people who legally possess fully automatic firearms?

Statistics don't prove much in this case.

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: irishScott
And banning automatic weapons isn't a "feel good measure". Sure if someone really wants to get it they'll get it, but restricting it will make is less available to the average gang-bangers and such who would love to get their hands on something that powerful.

Actually, banning fully-automatic weapons is a feel-good measure.

In the entire history of the US, there have been exactly 2 people murdered by fully-automatic weapons of legal origin (i.e. fully-automatic firearms that were registered legally either at the time of the murder or at any time prior). Two people in only two incidents. No injuries. And one of those incidents was a case where a police officer murdered an informant. The officer used his police-issued and department-owned MAC-10.

Every single other case of death or injury from a fully-automatic firearm is the result of the firearm having been illegally smuggled into the country, or of an automatic firearm having been illegally constructed; both of which are already against current laws.

Statistically there is nothing to suggest that those who legally possess fully-automatic firearms are a danger.

ZV

Maybe that's because there are so few people who legally possess fully automatic firearms?

Statistics don't prove much in this case.

i'd bet there are more people than you think that have full auto permits. if i could afford all of the ammo, i'd go get one.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: JDub02
can you point out what article in the constitution gives people the right to own slaves?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ed_States_Constitution

Before that amendment an individual could claim the life of another person to be their personal property. I'm just using this as an example of how the constitution can change to better reflect current attitudes and social norms.

Prior to the XIIIth Amendment, the Constitution of the United States did not grant the right to own slaves. Stipulated that the Constitution of the United States was indeed mute on the issue prior to the XIIIth Amendment, but that is not the same as granting a right. There were numerous states which forbade the ownership of slaves prior to the ratification (or, indeed, even the conception) of the XIIIth Amendment and the laws in those states that forbade slavery were absolutely Constitutional.

The XIIIth Amendment does not repeal a prior right, but rather grants an additional power to the Federal Government that restricts the discretionary power of individual state legislatures to allow a specific practice. A "right" to slavery was in no way enshrined in the Constitution at any time prior to the XIIIth Amendment.

The fact that such a "right" was, in fact, in no way protected by the Constitution of the United States is demonstrated by the 1861 attempt by Representative Thomas Corwin to pass an Amendment that would prohibit any future Amendment that would, "authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." The last phrase is especially telling. Its inclusion clearly illustrates that slave holding was in no way protected by the Constitution of the United States at that time.

ZV

 

[Titan]

But but but...

If we got rid of all the guns no one would ever be killed again! We would all live to 100 and pass away with all our family members at our side in a nice, wide open meadow.

Guns cause every problem. They cause cancer, AIDS, debt, and people named George Bush.

Before guns were around there were never any wars! Guns are the product of the devil come to bring the zombie apocalypse to earth. Before guns everyone lived in peace, harmony and a virtual utopia. Disputes over who wanted more space to dance and frolic were resolved with an honorable game of checkers.

Guns kill people!









/sarcasm

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: irishScott
And banning automatic weapons isn't a "feel good measure". Sure if someone really wants to get it they'll get it, but restricting it will make is less available to the average gang-bangers and such who would love to get their hands on something that powerful.

Actually, banning fully-automatic weapons is a feel-good measure.

In the entire history of the US, there have been exactly 2 people murdered by fully-automatic weapons of legal origin (i.e. fully-automatic firearms that were registered legally either at the time of the murder or at any time prior). Two people in only two incidents. No injuries. And one of those incidents was a case where a police officer murdered an informant. The officer used his police-issued and department-owned MAC-10.

Every single other case of death or injury from a fully-automatic firearm is the result of the firearm having been illegally smuggled into the country, or of an automatic firearm having been illegally constructed; both of which are already against current laws.

Statistically there is nothing to suggest that those who legally possess fully-automatic firearms are a danger.

ZV

Maybe that's because there are so few people who legally possess fully automatic firearms?

Statistics don't prove much in this case.

There are approximately 175,000 legally licensed, privately-owned, fully-automatic firearms in the US.

If the legally-owned fully-automatic firearms were truly a threat, there would be more than the solitary incident in which a privately-owned, legally-licensed fully-automatic firearm was used for murder.

So, in the entire history of the United States, only 0.000571% (1 out of 175,000) of legally-licensed, privately-owned fully-automatic firearms have ever been used in a crime. And exactly 0.0% (none) have ever been used in a multiple murder.

Statistics in this case absolutely do prove that there is no empirical basis for banning private ownership of fully-automatic firearms assuming that the current licensing and tax stamp system remains in place.

ZV

 

[olds]

Support your right to arm bears!

 

[Regs]

I think it's about the population growth and life spans are expanding while resources are shrinking.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
The best argument I have heard is this.

Why is the people who want to try to ban guns because they can't control them are the same people who want to legalize drugs because they can't control them?

Wow... that's the best argument you've heard? It's pretty sad, and easy to answer. Drugs primarily effect the one taking them, guns primarily effect whoever they're pointed at. I'm not arguing in favor of gun control, just pointing out how lame that particular argument is. It's one of those maxims that makes people that agree with it feel good, but doesn't hold up to critical thought.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: oldsmoboat
Support your right to arm bears!

^^

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
So we shouldn't legislate speed limits on public roads because people are going to speed anyways? We should legislate guns like anything else that is a threat to public safety.

Hmm, one post down we find one...

Murder/bodily harm is already illegal, right? What point does adding another law do?

We already restrict military grade weapons, so the precedent has been set for what is permissible for ownership by the general public. I think the 2nd amendment should be revised to allow local governments to make laws that reflect what the people want regarding gun control. How is allowing democracy to govern the use and possession of firearms a bad thing?

I read this 3 times but I don't see an answer to my question.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk
So we shouldn't legislate speed limits on public roads because people are going to speed anyways? We should legislate guns like anything else that is a threat to public safety.

Hmm, one post down we find one...

Murder/bodily harm is already illegal, right? What point does adding another law do?

We already restrict military grade weapons, so the precedent has been set for what is permissible for ownership by the general public. I think the 2nd amendment should be revised to allow local governments to make laws that reflect what the people want regarding gun control. How is allowing democracy to govern the use and possession of firearms a bad thing?

I read this 3 times but I don't see an answer to my question.

it does absolutely nothing