Harvard Study claims that more guns does not equal more murders and suicides.

[OGOC]

Is that what happened in Egypt when the spirit of liberty was flowing through them?

People like to sarcastically bring up places like Somalia as a place of freedom, but when they do, they ignore the authoritarian government which led to the current state of affairs.

By your logic if a citizen wants a nuclear missile and is capable of acquiring one he should be allowed to have it. Also, fundamental right that shall not be infringed that is based on membership in a militia according to how that amendment was written.

Let's forget the nuclear missile talk for now and start with something simple like assault rifles and machine guns. Or let's start even simpler and talk about absurd 7-round capacity limits and requiring over $400 in fees and multiple visits to government offices just to be able to own a handgun.

And, like schneiderguy, I'm in the militia too. You probably are too. I hope you practice a lot with your firearms so you can be well-regulated.

If your gun control is so "intelligent", then please explain what an "assault style weapon" is and how they're more dangerous than a regular weapon.

Also he can explain why it's such a big concern to ban AR-15s that are rarely used to kill anybody in comparison to banning handguns which even Obama says he doesn't want to do.

And then he can explain the constant inclusion and concern of suicide numbers in gun deaths even though Japan has a much higher rate of suicide with a much lower rate of guns.

And then he can explain the higher rate of violent crime in the UK after passing more and more gun restrictions, while the rate of murder with a gun has remained about the same.

 

[Craig234]

People like to sarcastically bring up places like Somalia as a place of freedom, but when they do, they ignore the authoritarian government which led to the current state of affairs.

It's not sarcastic, it's educating Libertarian nutty ideologues about what it looks like without government. It doesn't matter how it got that way.

Let's forget the nuclear missile talk for now and start with something simple like assault rifles and machine guns. Or let's start even simpler and talk about absurd 7-round capacity limits and requiring over $400 in fees and multiple visits to government offices just to be able to own a handgun.

And, like schneiderguy, I'm in the militia too. You probably are too. I hope you practice a lot with your firearms so you can be well-regulated.

No, let's not forget nuclear weapons when you make arguments with zero restrictions on anyone's freedom to have anything - but you conveniently cherry pick how to apply that.

If you want to make an argument some restriction is excessive, make it, but don't say there is no reason to deny anyone anything and complain when you're called on it.

As for the militia - the country used to have its national defense without a standing army based on the citizens forming militias against foreign invasions.

They were crap. Our White House was burned. That changed and now we have a rather large military for defense if you haven't noticed. So you are NOT part of a militia.

We don't use them anymore. That makes the second amendment largely anochronstic - but still in effect, but don't pretend the same militia need exists as did then.

Also he can explain why it's such a big concern to ban AR-15s that are rarely used to kill anybody in comparison to banning handguns which even Obama says he doesn't want to do.

And then he can explain the constant inclusion and concern of suicide numbers in gun deaths even though Japan has a much higher rate of suicide with a much lower rate of guns.

And then he can explain the higher rate of violent crime in the UK after passing more and more gun restrictions, while the rate of murder with a gun has remained about the same.

Why is it necessary to ban nuclear weapons when they're so rarely used to kill?

It looks like the US homicide rate is four times the UK's rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[schneiderguy]

It's not sarcastic, it's educating Libertarian nutty ideologues about what it looks like without government. It doesn't matter how it got that way.

Somalia was a shithole before the government collapsed. It has actually progressed quite a bit since the governmental collapse though, and they're better off today than they were before:

http://mises.org/daily/5418/

No, let's not forget nuclear weapons when you make arguments with zero restrictions on anyone's freedom to have anything - but you conveniently cherry pick how to apply that.

If you want to make an argument some restriction is excessive, make it, but don't say there is no reason to deny anyone anything and complain when you're called on it.

Banning nuclear weapons from private use is completely different than banning a certain type of small arm for private use. Don't be ridiculous.

But if we were to go down that road, the government has killed a hell of a lot more people with nuclear weapons than private citizens have, so maybe they're the ones that shouldn't be trusted with them (or weapons in general).

As for the militia - the country used to have its national defense without a standing army based on the citizens forming militias against foreign invasions.

They were crap. Our White House was burned. That changed and now we have a rather large military for defense if you haven't noticed.

A reasonable compromise would be to have a well trained reservist force that practices for a week out of the year, or something like that, and then have the rest of the population be the citizen militia. There is zero reason to have a massive standing army. The mainland United States hasn't been invaded in over 200 years.

So you are NOT part of a militia.

By law, I am.

We don't use them anymore. That makes the second amendment largely anochronstic - but still in effect, but don't pretend the same militia need exists as did then.

You don't think millions of people with rifles would be useful in repelling a foreign force, in the event that our military was being defeated?

Why is it necessary to ban nuclear weapons when they're so rarely used to kill?

Again, a nuclear weapon is not even remotely the same thing as a small arm.

It looks like the US homicide rate is four times the UK's rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Irrelevant without adjusting for socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural factors.

 

[dank69]

People like to sarcastically bring up places like Somalia as a place of freedom, but when they do, they ignore the authoritarian government which led to the current state of affairs.

...

I didn't bring up Somalia. I brought up Egypt to counter a specific point, but since you brought up Somalia, choose the situation you would rather live in out of the following pairs:

Authoritarian Somalia vs. Current Somalia
Authoritarian Somalia vs. Current America
Current America vs. Current Somalia

 

[OGOC]

It's not sarcastic, it's educating Libertarian nutty ideologues about what it looks like without government. It doesn't matter how it got that way.

Right. History doesn't matter; even to those doomed to repeat it.

No, let's not forget nuclear weapons when you make arguments with zero restrictions on anyone's freedom to have anything - but you conveniently cherry pick how to apply that.

You're a funny guy. I say I want a real assault rifle, like the police and DHS can have and who then call it "a personal defense weapon," someone then says, "Oh yeah? Should you be able to have a nuclear weapon too?" yet according to you I'm supposedly the one "conveniently cherry picking."

You won't let me have a Big Gulp soda, and you won't let me have a fully-automatic personal defense weapon, and apparently the reason is because then I would want a nuclear weapon.

So you are NOT part of a militia.

The Supreme Court as well as numerous state constitutions say I am right and you are wrong.

It looks like the US homicide rate is four times the UK's rate.

That's nice. I said violent crime rate.

I also said the UK homicide rate has always been low, even before their excessive gun restrictions. Looks like the only thing more gun restrictions brought the UK is a higher violent crime rate.

 

[OGOC]

but since you brought up Somalia, choose the situation you would rather live in out of the following pairs:

Authoritarian Somalia vs. Current Somalia
Authoritarian Somalia vs. Current America
Current America vs. Current Somalia

Which one doesn't have Craig234?

 

[Sulaco]

Which one doesn't have Craig234?

Priceless. :thumbsup:

 

[OGOC]

You don't think millions of people with rifles would be useful in repelling a foreign force, in the event that our military was being defeated?

Here's a history lesson for people who have never heard it. I know people such as Craig234 will ignore it since history doesn't matter and so we shouldn't learn from it, but I'll say it anyway.

During World War II, the British were fearful of a German invasion, but they didn't have enough guns. So they put advertisements in U.S. magazines asking U.S. citizens to ship their personal firearms over. U.S. citizens, being the kind and good-hearted people they are, did so. The British citizens then slept soundly in their beds at night knowing they had guns to protect themselves, their families, and their country.

Funny end to that... the British government later destroyed those guns. Since then, the British/UK has added more and more restrictive firearms laws, having learned nothing from history and awaiting to repeat it.

 

[dank69]

Right. History doesn't matter; even to those doomed to repeat it.

You're a funny guy. I say I want a real assault rifle, like the police and DHS can have and who then call it "a personal defense weapon," someone then says, "Oh yeah? Should you be able to have a nuclear weapon too?" yet according to you I'm supposedly the one "conveniently cherry picking."

You won't let me have a Big Gulp soda, and you won't let me have a fully-automatic personal defense weapon, and apparently the reason is because then I would want a nuclear weapon.

...

The point that you are missing is that if you think it is okay for the government to say you can't own a nuclear weapon then you admit that there are circumstances where you approve of the government limiting your freedom. Nobody is claiming that guns are the same thing as nukes. If you admit that the government should have the authority to limit your freedom when justified we can move on to the real debate: whether or not the government is justified in the case of guns.

Which one doesn't have Craig234?

Insults go in P&N. Maybe you could just answer the questions.

 

[dank69]

Somalia was a shithole before the government collapsed. It has actually progressed quite a bit since the governmental collapse though, and they're better off today than they were before:

http://mises.org/daily/5418/



...

Wow. Access to safe water is down but at least they can browse ATOT.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's not sarcastic, it's educating Libertarian nutty ideologues about what it looks like without government.

And for the Nth time, Craig demonstrates either ignorance or a deliberate effort at misdirection by conflating anarchism and libertarianism.

At best, very small fringe subsets of libertarians hold anarchistic views. Mainstream libertarianism does not advocate total elimination of government, period.

ETA: You are the last person who should be calling anyone an "ideologue".

 

[EagleKeeper]

NM

 

[davmat787]

I also don't see why a standard citizen needs an assault style weapon.

FYI: The above pictured AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon by definition as it does not have select fire.

 

[Lithium381]

And for the Nth time, Craig demonstrates either ignorance or a deliberate effort at misdirection by conflating anarchism and libertarianism.

At best, very small fringe subsets of libertarians hold anarchistic views. Mainstream libertarianism does not advocate total elimination of government, period.

ETA: You are the last person who should be calling anyone an "ideologue".

The more I learn about libertarianism, the more I'm convinced it's a better path for us to take. Personal freedoms and no State Leviathan!

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Also, fundamental right that shall not be infringed that is based on membership in a militia according to how that amendment was written.

Nope. You interpreted it wrong.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.3

However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.

In Heller, the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.

In McDonald v. Chicago,5 the Court struck down laws enacted by Chicago and the village of Oak Park effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense.

The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty.

 

[shortylickens]

Liberals only like college and science when it supports their views.
This will be ignored.