Gun goes off and kills frat brother sleeping.

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Atheus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Amused
Learn the difference between semi-automatic and automatic and get back to us.</end quote></div>

I am aware of the difference. Are you saying fully automatic is not legal in partf the US? I had heard it was...

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>In fact, learn SOMETHING about firearms and get back to us.</end quote></div>

I've actually fired quite a few guns.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The vast majority of gun crimes involve illegal guns. Making guns harder to buy for the law abiding will do NOTHING to stop crime. Just as outright banning drugs did nothing to stop, or even slow drug abuse.</end quote></div>

But how do you know who is law abiding, or for that matter who is comptetent, if you don't do any checks? any tests?

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>As for the Virginia Tech shooting, he passed a thorough background check because he had no record of criminality or mental illness.</end quote></div>

So the background checks are crap -the school was aware he had problems, like stalking, obsession, violent writings, etc...

Again, learn the difference. It's obvious from your posts that you do not.

NO WHERE in the US can you buy a gun without a background check, filling out a federal form and multiple forms of ID.

The school never turned in his mental status to the state, or feds. He passed a background check because he had no criminal record and his mental problems were never recorded.

As for tests, the right to keep and bear arms is just that, a constitutional right. You can no more test for that than you can test for freedom of speech or the right to vote.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: Amused

Wait, you use two twisted stats from outspoken anti-gun orgs, vainly try to defend them, then try to claim my stats are inaccurate because ethey come from pro-gun orgs?

BTW, gunsite is a VERY careful and factual website. The most honest pro-second amendment website out there.

if you are going to try to debate with me, PLEASE read what i write in completion.

first you claim that the articles i posted are only about lethal gun acts, completely ignoring the second article which clearly discusses non-lethal gun use.

then you put links to a guy who's stats are questionable, at best, something also covered in the article i linked.

then you say this is all "irrelevant" and my stats should be ignored. when i ask why, you give no response.

now you claim i use "twisted" stats, but what evidence do you have that these stats - which come from several sources, including the NCVS - are any less reliable than those of dr. klack, which, again, are controversial at best.

and i never said your stats were inaccurate because they came from pro-gun orgs! if you read my goddamn post, they were inaccurate because they were omitting crucial data!

if you aren't going to read and try to comprehend what i write, there's no point of debating. please go back and read through what i wrote again and we can continue discussing this.

also, don't make the mistake of assuming i'm anti-gun or pro-gun. my purpose here is to discuss, research and learn.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Amused
As for tests, the right to keep and bear arms is just that, a constitutional right. You can no more test for that than you can test for freedom of speech or the right to vote.

I disagree with this concept. Lots of people use cars as an analogly because they're pretty dangerous - would you advocate the right to drive as a fundamental one, available to all regardless of backgound or competency? I wouldn't.

This I expect, leaves us at an impass, as I think you're expemely unlikely to disagree with your own constitution.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Atheus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Amused
As for tests, the right to keep and bear arms is just that, a constitutional right. You can no more test for that than you can test for freedom of speech or the right to vote.</end quote></div>

I disagree with this concept. Lots of people use cars as an analogly because they're pretty dangerous - would you advocate the right to drive as a fundamental one, available to all regardless of backgound or competency? I wouldn't.

This I expect, leaves us at an impass, as I think you're expemely unlikely to disagree with your own constitution.

Driving cars on public roads is not a constitutional right. The right to be armed is.

Our founding fathers had valid historical reasons behind their belief that a government that cannot trust it's citizens to be armed is a government that cannot be trusted.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Amused

I disagree with this concept. Lots of people use cars as an analogly because they're pretty dangerous - would you advocate the right to drive as a fundamental one, available to all regardless of backgound or competency? I wouldn't.

This I expect, leaves us at an impass, as I think you're expemely unlikely to disagree with your own constitution.

Driving cars on public roads is not a constitutional right. The right to be armed is.

Our founding fathers had valid historical reasons behind their belief that a government that cannot trust it's citizens to be armed is a government that cannot be trusted.

Exactly. Atheus, you have no clue about Constitutional rights or firerms.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Atheus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Amused
As for tests, the right to keep and bear arms is just that, a constitutional right. You can no more test for that than you can test for freedom of speech or the right to vote.</end quote></div>

I disagree with this concept. Lots of people use cars as an analogly because they're pretty dangerous - would you advocate the right to drive as a fundamental one, available to all regardless of backgound or competency? I wouldn't.

This I expect, leaves us at an impass, as I think you're expemely unlikely to disagree with your own constitution.

i can find where we have a right to have guns. can you show me where (anywhere) the goverment says we have a right to drive?

 

[brikis98]

some more interesting articles from both sides of the issue:

* article 1: an interesting response from Dr. Kleck to criticism of his study by a Dr. Vernick.
* article 2: a different criticism of Dr. Kleck's study.
* article 3: there are statistics that claim that england's gun restrictions increased gun related crimes, but this article claims that the increase was exaggerated

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: TallBill
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Amused
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>I disagree with this concept. Lots of people use cars as an analogly because they're pretty dangerous - would you advocate the right to drive as a fundamental one, available to all regardless of backgound or competency? I wouldn't.

This I expect, leaves us at an impass, as I think you're expemely unlikely to disagree with your own constitution.
</end quote></div>

Driving cars on public roads is not a constitutional right. The right to be armed is.

Our founding fathers had valid historical reasons behind their belief that a government that cannot trust it's citizens to be armed is a government that cannot be trusted.</end quote></div>

Exactly. Atheus, you have no clue about Constitutional rights or firerms.

Errr, what? My point was exactly that there *is no* right to drive, where did I say there was, can you read? It was an analogy.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: waggy
i can find where we have a right to have guns. can you show me where (anywhere) the goverment says we have a right to drive?

Didn't say there was. I honsetly don't see how you guys read it that way...

My point was that giving people a universal right to drive would be stupid. What if they're incapable of passing a test, or they have a serious mental illness, or they're a serial drink driver - they are denied it. They might hurt someone or themselves. Should be the same for guns.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Atheus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: waggy
i can find where we have a right to have guns. can you show me where (anywhere) the goverment says we have a right to drive?
</end quote></div>

Didn't say there was. I honsetly don't see how you guys read it that way...

My point was that giving people a universal right to drive would be stupid. What if they're incapable of passing a test, or they have a serious mental illness, or they're a serial drink driver - they are denied it. They might hurt someone or themselves. Should be the same for guns.

So you are saying that something that is gauranteed by the bill of rights should be removed because it has the potential to be dangerous? What kind of precedent does that set for the other items in the bill of rights? What about if the government decided that free speach is dangerous? Or criticizing the government is dangerous? Freedom of religion is dangerous? Common sense was the problem here. Remember, all you hear in the news is about the people who miss used their firearms, never do they report that tens of millions of people did not shoot or kill someone on a given day.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
So you are saying that something that is gauranteed by the bill of rights should be removed because it has the potential to be dangerous?

Yea pretty much - I think it's an antiquated concept. You should have to prove you're competent and responsible before you can earn certain rights.

 

[TallBill]

would you advocate the right to drive as a fundamental one, available to all regardless of backgound or competency? I wouldn't.

We read it "that way" because you posted it that way.

 

[DaShen]

Admit it, it was a form of hazing.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: TallBill
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>would you advocate the right to drive as a fundamental one, available to all regardless of backgound or competency? I wouldn't. </end quote></div>

We read it "that way" because you posted it that way.

It was a question - would you advocate X?

That does not imply X.

The post even included the word 'analogly'.

 

[Amused]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Atheus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
So you are saying that something that is gauranteed by the bill of rights should be removed because it has the potential to be dangerous?</end quote></div>

Yea pretty much - I think it's an antiquated concept. You should have to prove you're competent and responsible before you can earn certain rights.</end quote></div>

Please explain how people have evolved in 200 years so that tyrants are no longer a threat or citizens are no longer competent to own firearms.

The right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as speech and voting for a reason. That concept will NEVER become antiquated any more than the right to free speech, religion, voting or a fair trial will be.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Amused
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Atheus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
So you are saying that something that is gauranteed by the bill of rights should be removed because it has the potential to be dangerous?</end quote></div>

Yea pretty much - I think it's an antiquated concept. You should have to prove you're competent and responsible before you can earn certain rights.</end quote></div>

Please xplai how people have changed in 200 years so that tyrants are no longer a threat or citizens are no longer competent to own firearms.

No most of them are just as competent, and some of them are just as incompetent, but now we place a greater value on human life than we did 200 years ago in the days of empire and slavery. At least I hope we do.

The right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as speech and voting for a reason. That concept will NEVER become antiquated any more than the right to free speech, religion, voting or a fair trial will be.

Much of the world would disagree with you. Very few countries consider this a fundamental right.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Atheus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Amused
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Atheus
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: SlowSpyder
So you are saying that something that is gauranteed by the bill of rights should be removed because it has the potential to be dangerous?</end quote></div>

Yea pretty much - I think it's an antiquated concept. You should have to prove you're competent and responsible before you can earn certain rights.</end quote></div>

Please xplai how people have changed in 200 years so that tyrants are no longer a threat or citizens are no longer competent to own firearms.</end quote></div>

No most of them are just as competent, and some of them are just as incompetent, but now we place a greater value on human life than we did 200 years ago in the days of empire and slavery. At least I hope we do.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>The right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as speech and voting for a reason. That concept will NEVER become antiquated any more than the right to free speech, religion, voting or a fair trial will be.</end quote></div>

Much of the world would disagree with you. Very few countries consider this a fundamental right.

The value of human life is all the more reason why the common man should be armed. Genocide and murderous tyrannical governments do not occur in countries where citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.

So we are wrong by consensus? You do no that's a fallacious, and therefore moot argument, right?