"Killed with cars" since Sandy Hook.
When are we finally going to ban cars and stop this madness!
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431307][b]1100+[/b]
Killed with guns since Sandy Hook.[/QUOTE]
Printable View
"Killed with cars" since Sandy Hook.
When are we finally going to ban cars and stop this madness!
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431307][b]1100+[/b]
Killed with guns since Sandy Hook.[/QUOTE]
WT69 just where did you get a stat like that? Even Chicago which has some of the strictist gun laws on the books added only 5 in one day,but still what credible source is keeping it by the day nation wide.The authorative source I know is the FBI national stats and they are usually a year behind.
Say,did Obama come from Chicago? How could they being having such a hard time?
I will have to find the article I saw, but here is one to January 15.
[url]http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/[/url]
Here is another, still not the one I saw.
[url]http://www.fastcompany.com/3004943/latest-deadliest-gun-and-weaponry-innovations-brought-you-newtown-ct-trade-group[/url]
P.S.Yes Jackson that many people have been killed with cars,but how many were Murdered with Cars?
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 431369]WT69 just where did you get a stat like that? Even Chicago which has some of the strictist gun laws on the books added only 5 in one day, but still what credible source is keeping it by the day nation wide. The authorative source I know is the FBI national stats and they are usually a year behind.
Say, did Obama come from Chicago? How could they being having such a hard time?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 431371]I will have to find the article I saw, but here is one to January 15.
[url]http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/15/graphic-31-days-later-u-s-gun-deaths-since-newtown/[/url]
P. S. Yes Jackson that many people have been killed with cars, but how many were Murdered with Cars?[/QUOTE]I love my guns,but it would be better off to invent guns that will only operate with a fingerprint signature.
No match,no shot!
TL.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 431369]WT69 just where did you get a stat like that? Even Chicago which has some of the strictist gun laws on the books added only 5 in one day, but still what credible source is keeping it by the day nation wide. The authorative source I know is the FBI national stats and they are usually a year behind.
Say, did Obama come from Chicago? How could they being having such a hard time?[/QUOTE]Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important.
[QUOTE=Jackson;431375]Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important.[/QUOTE] Absolutely ' just a pure play on emotion', no concern for freedom. There's no intelligent arguments about the Second Amendment, no genuine concern about addressing the problem, just an agenda that focuses on infringing on the rights of peaceable citizens, not violent criminals.
[QUOTE=Sidney; 431308]The following are 37 statistics which show how four years of Obama have wrecked the USA economy.
1. During Obama's first term, the number of Americans on food stamps increased by an average of about 11, 000 per day.
2. At the beginning of the Obama era. 32 million Americans were on food stamps. Today, more than 47 million Americans are on food stamps.
4. The number of Americans receiving money directly from the federal government each month has grown from 94 million in the year 2000 tomore than 128 million today.
9. During Obama's first term, the number of Americans collecting federal disability insurance rose by more than 18 percent.
29. It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.
30. The total amount of money that the federal government gives directly to the American people has grown by 32 percent since Barack Obama became president.[/QUOTE]You're not seeing this correctly.
To liberals, these are all "social justice" successes in that they represent methods by which Obama has wrestled money from the evil rich people and spread it out amongst the more deserving.
Thanks,
Jackson
You are talking about pennies.
Especially when they still have the Tax Loopholes.
How about France.
95% tax on the rich.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 431380]You're not seeing this correctly.
To liberals, these are all "social justice" successes in that they represent methods by which Obama has wrestled money from the evil rich people and spread it out amongst the more deserving.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
Yes France HAD and 95% tax on the rich, but their courts struck it down. I am sure they are busy little beavers re-writing the law to pass muster.
In the meantime those 'evil rich' people are fleeing the country to Belgium and even Mother Russia to avoid the new draconian tax laws, not to mention all the corporations also fleeing the country to protect their earnings. What a sterling success.
Why must liberals always repeat the same mistakes? As I recall either New Jersey or New York passed a similar steep increase on 'evil rich' people through some sort of 'surcharge' for millionaires, they touted how much money the new tax would bring in. End of the day the tax was a total failure, not only did it not bring in anywhere near the projected revenue it actually decreased revenues as those 'evil rich' people simply left the state, most going to Florida.
WT69, even in a progressive tax system, NO ONE IS ENTITLED TO 95% OF WHAT SOMEONE EARNS!
CNN reports, since Sandy Hook.
Check out "End Of Watch".
As I said before the State with the most Gun Deaths is California.
[url]http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/watch/End-of-Watch/6149958805326260112/movies?iq_id=52798118&mid=12967610[/url]#episode=Video-2296499880&filter=online.
Drug Gangs are taking over.
Bring Your Guns to California and Help your Brothers.
At 2:30 pm an 8 year old girl was shot standing with her friends and as a car came by and opened fired at her, they shot her in the leg, in Oakland.
The City says they need more cops, which they do. They have around 600 now. They cut a few hundred in the last few years.
Chicago has 1000.
What they really need is the National Guard.
In July, Whites in California will be the Minority.
Texas will follow.
I don't care about that, but it is the gangs that are taking over.
So, come on you Gun Loving Vigilantes, we need your Help.
[b][u]'Obama claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks get 2 Pinocchios from Washington Post'[/b][/u]
'Despite claims from President Obama and Vice President Biden that 40% of all gun sales aren't subject to a background check, a Washington Post analysis has found that to be incorrect and awarded the president's claim Two Pinocchios. '
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/update-obama-claim-on-background-checks-moved-from-verdict-pending-to-2-pinocchios/2013/01/25/59caeca6-672f-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_blog.html[/url]
That goes hand and hand with the 'gun-show loophole' lie, federal law for gun purchases at gun shows is the same as the law for gun sales at any other place.
[quote]In 2007, candidate Barack Obama said, "We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books." He also alluded to cracking down on straw man purchasers and "unscrupulous gun dealers." He continued to reiterate this view on the campaign trail in 2008, including calls for stronger background checks.”[/quote]Prosecute people who falsify background check information?
[quote]The Obama Administration Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.[/quote]What good is a new gun law if we can't or won't enforce current laws?
[url]http://www.policymic.com/articles/22802/gun-control-facts-existing-gun-laws-would-reduce-crime-but-these-are-not-enforced[/url]
Is there a link between Psychiatric medications and mass shootings? I think we need to take a look at everything involved before we destroy the Second Amendment, unless of course your goal is a political agenda.
[url]http://foodmatters.tv/articles-1/is-there-a-link-between-psychiatric-medication-and-mass-shootings[/url]
[QUOTE=Jackson;431375]Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter 127;431378]Absolutely ' just a pure play on emotion', no concern for freedom. There's no intelligent arguments about the Second Amendment, no genuine concern about addressing the problem, just an agenda that focuses on infringing on the rights of peaceable citizens, not violent criminals.[/QUOTE]Oh lookee... Punter flips my statement, off a quote from Jackson ("Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important") who flips another of my statements. Double Trouble ! I see references to the imaginary "evil rich" have also re-surfaced (BTW, it was a 75% tax in France, not 95%).
This is all rather amusing, but juvenile. It's no wonder the Republican party is now engaged in some introspection and soul-searching, assessing why they lost the election and what they can do better next time. They are where they are because they have a credibility problem.
The NRA email speaks for itself. False claims about Obama's fundraising, about Obama's friends hating guns and wanting to reduce your freedom to ashes. Lies aren't facts, folks. It's obvious the NRA email appeals to emotion, not reason. And why is that ? Because the people who run the NRA, like those who run the Republican party, are well-versed in the psychology of their supporters.
[QUOTE=Esten;431394]Oh lookee. Punter flips my statement, off a quote from Jackson ("Facts are not important to liberals, only emotions are important") who flips another of my statements. Double Trouble ![/QUOTE]ROFLMAO, That's a trick we picked up from you.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 431366]"4, 050+
Killed with cars" since Sandy Hook.
When are we finally going to ban cars and stop this madness![/QUOTE]We only need ask ourselves 2 questions:
[i]What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of cars? [/i]
[i]What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of guns? [/i]
We regulate a freedom according to the necessity, and the positive vs. negative impacts of each freedom. In the case of cars vs. guns, there is simply no comparison.
My half brother had a gun.
But, he is so dumb, that after I kicked him out of my house, bringing a drunk, a few of his friends let him stay at one of there rentals. But it was in a Black Neighborhood in Richmond.
He was afraid when two kids 14 years Old came to his door, that he had his pistol in hand and told them that if they came back he would blow them away. Of course he had been drinking.
The kids came back after he had left a few days laterand stole his gun.
He is so fucked up, that he did not report it. Two days later they came back for his TV, etc.
They caught the kids and when the police asked about the gun, they said What Gun.
So, lock your Guns up!
The Second Amendment talks about a well armed Militia, not individuals.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431398]The Second Amendment talks about a well armed Militia, not individuals.[snip][/QUOTE]Really?
[quote][b]The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an [u]individual right[/u] to possess and carry firearms.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller. 554 USA 570 (2008) , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment [u]protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[/u] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago. 561 USA 3025 (2010) , the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government. [/b]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url][/quote]Who to believe?
[QUOTE=Esten; 431397]We only need ask ourselves 2 questions:
[i]What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of cars? [/i]
[i]What would be the impact on society if we were to ban private ownership of guns? [/i]
[snip][/quote]IMHO both would be devastating. Remember driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right, apples and oranges.
[QUOTE=Esten; 431397]We regulate a freedom according to the necessity, and the positive vs. negative impacts of each freedom. In the case of cars vs. guns, there is simply no comparison.[snip][/QUOTE]When 'regulating' becomes 'banning' (you speak of both) we are no longer talking about freedom. BTW who is 'we', are you speaking of we the people or we the government?
The way I read the definition of freedom once you start regulating it it's no longer freedom. But perhaps you could tell us which of the following definition would apply to 'regulated freedom'?
Free·dom [free-duhm]
1. The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. Exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. The power to determine action without restraint.
4. Political or national independence.
5. Personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery.
[i]"The right to keep and bear arms simply implements the unalienable right to individual self-defense against aggression of any kind. The Second Amendment refers to “the right of the people” (not the state) as a pre-existing right that government must respect."[/i]
[url]http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 431402]Really?
Who to believe?[/QUOTE]
[quote][QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431398]The Second Amendment talks about a well armed Militia, not individuals.[snip][/QUOTE][QUOTE=WorldTravel69;431408][url]http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2/amendment.html[/url][/QUOTE][/quote]I don't have an ax to grind if you say the Second Amendment speaks of Militia, the rub comes when you say 'not individuals'. Read your own link, here are some snips from [u]your[/u] Link.
[quote]However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an[highlight] 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. [/highlight]Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.[snip][/quote]Seems clear to me.
[quote]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.[snip][/quote]Isn't this ruling going to make it hard to ban all guns or groups of guns 'chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense'?
[quote]"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' [highlight]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.[/highlight][snip][/quote]Should we have the same concerns today, should we trust the federal government? WT69 do you trust them, and did you trust them under Bush?
[quote]The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that[u]self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present[/u], and Heller held that [highlight]individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right.[/highlight] 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.[snip][/quote]Which do you prefer 'regulated freedom' dictated by some elitist hypocrites 'critical thinking' or 'ordered liberty'? I'm willing to fight for liberty, how about you?
The militia issue is silly. Historically, at the time the US Constitution was written, a militia was nothing more than a group from the community that came together in order to protect their families, their freedoms and their way of life. This concept started the National Guard, but was not replaced by the National Guard. Throughout history during times of war and unrest the US civilian population has formed small organized militias to aid the people of their community. In many areas, these groups were funded by the wealthy in the community, and they were often awarded titles, etc. The Civil Air Patrol, neighborhood watch groups, and historically even aspects of the Boy Scouts would meet the definition of a well-regulated militia. Our founding fathers would have supported the individual's right to own arms, because if it weren't for this very thing the US would not exist and all of the signatories of the Bill of Rights would have been executed.
BTW Sweden gives real assault rifles to all males of age and females who want them. Training is required. They even supply ammo. Their gun-related death rate is very low. The US death rate due to pseudo-assault rifles is extraordinarily low as well, but our criminal on criminal and criminal on citizen pistol killing absolute numbers top the numbers of soldiers killed in hostile lands every year. We need criminal and nut control not more gun control in the US, in my opinion. Furthermore, the argument that a pseudo-assault rifle allows the killing of more people than a pistol just shows that the people talking have no experience in close quarter combat. A large caliber hand gun at close range (45 or 40) is just as deadly as a 223 but more easily manageable. If this were really the issue, then we should outlaw shotguns which at close range are far more deadly than semi-automatic rifles. Put another way, if you walked in a room with a 223 to harm its inhabitants, a reasonably good shot with a concealed carry permit and a 45 could drop you before you even got the scope to your eye. These nut jobs aren't shooting people at 200 yds but rather at 1-2 yds. The arguments being made, at the expense of the poor victims of our societal meltdown and PC bullshit-fest, are just foolish. If more laws make us so safe, then why does Chicago have the highest per-capita death rate due to guns and more gun laws than just about any other municipality? I say put a retired special forces operator in every school with a few select weapons and you could stop a lot of drugs and nearly every nut job with a weapon from harming the lawful inhabitants, or you could stick with the current Plan A which is put up a sign saying no weapons allowed as an advertisement to the cowardly criminals who commit these crimes: Feel free to come in without risk.
Pete
Punter I thought you were in paradise, steeped in pussy?
[QUOTE=Punter 127;431396]ROFLMAO, That's a trick we picked up from you.[/QUOTE]Anyways, not that I remember every single thing I've posted, but I really don't recall ever doing that. Taking someone's statement or argument, and just switching a word or two to turn it around. I've paid enough attention to know Jackson is the resident master at this. But I can't imagine I did it myself, because it's just so completely devoid of critical thinking. It's what you do when you've run out of arguments. Like when you were a child, and you said "I know you are but what am I".
So why don't you go ahead and show everyone where I did this. Just one example. I'll give you one week.
[QUOTE]IMHO both would be devastating. Remember driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a right, apples and oranges.[/QUOTE]Devastating LOL! Only to those who equate freedom with gun ownership, perhaps. Most people wouldn't even notice if guns were banned, and some would likely see a positive impact over time. You needn't worry about an outright ban on all guns, however. Anyone following the debate knows this won't happen. But there is plenty of room for stricter regulation.
I have little interest in getting caught up in semantics, over the difference between privileges and rights, on the definition of freedom. This misses the point entirely. The issue at hand is the huge amount of violence and death that guns contribute to every day, every week and every year. Let's focus on what we can do about it.
Those who just continuously argue that their gun rights are protected come across as self-absorbed, just out for their own interests. Just like the second amendment activists shouting out at the father of a Sandy Hook victim yesterday, while he was testifying about his child's death. Just amazing! There is little to accomplish by attempting intelligent discussion with such people. They have dug in their heels, driven by ideology, just like those who refused to budge on taxes. Compromise and collaboration are not in their vocabulary. We must work to move our country forward, in spite of them.
Here is the point. It is my right to be able to protect my home, my family and my country. The word inalienable was used for a purpose as was the term self-evident in our founding father's writings. Not second amendment but even earlier. They wanted to get away from an imperial tyrant. How pleased they would be to know we just elected one to a second term.
In today's world this requires a firearm to level the playing field a bit. The vast majority of murders with guns in the US are by criminals, nearly always with a prior violent crimal record, and crazy people who 30 years ago would have been in state hospitals but who now for reasons of political correctness walk our streets and endanger others and themselves. Remember most of these people kill themselves as soon as there is the slightest confrontation with someone with a weapon. Note I am not talking about all mentally ill people, only those who are psychopaths. If you want to save lives stop drunk driving, stop smoking, decrease alcohol use, and put violent criminals (including child molesters and rapists) away for life without parole on the very first offense. This would cut the murder rate by 90+. A person is far more likely to be killed by a random car on the street, lightning, or even my car on the street than they are from my gun, unless they threaten my Family or country in which case the metric shifts. So we should spend time changing things that really matter instead of taking polls to see who we can disenfranchise this week to gain some political points with our base.
One other question to ponder. If they make guns illegal, do you think owners will just turn them in to be melted down? No, they will either sell them in which case they will likely eventually fall into criminal's hands or hide them. Reminds me a bit about history in the late 1930s.
Pete
[QUOTE=Peter Sideburn;431424]Here is the point. It is my right to be able to protect my home, my family and my country. The word inalienable was used for a purpose as was the term self-evident in our founding father's writings. Not second amendment but even earlier. They wanted to get away from an imperial tyrant. How pleased they would be to know we just elected one to a second term.[/QUOTE]You have the right to have a gun only because the gun movement got lucky in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision (with a very conservative-leaning court). The second amendment clearly makes reference to a militia. The right to bear arms was in the context of a regulated militia. If it had been intended as a broad right, independent of a militia, there would have been no reason to mention a militia. There was clear purpose here, which even the Supreme Court acknowledged. But the court ignored the purpose and only put weight on the part describing the right, which they called the [i]operative[/i] clause. You have to admit that's slick.
The founding fathers seem like they were smart guys. If they were here today, they would probably tell us the times have changed. They would ask us to think critically about whether the same need still exists for a regulated militia, especially since we haven't had them for a very long time. And they would encourage us to deal with our present issues, just like they did 200 years ago, rather than live in the past.
Just some of the stories today.
Phoenix, AZ. A 70 year-old man entered an office building and got into a dispute with someone, a conflict that escalated to the point where he drew a gun and shot three people. One dead, two wounded. The shooter got away. In addition to criminals and crazy people, maybe senility and loose tempers need to be looked at as well? That should be easy. Maybe if there was a guard at the local school, this could have been prevented.
Chicago, IL. Hadiya Pendleton, a student who performed with her school's marching band at the Obama inauguration, was shot dead in Chicago. Hadiya was hanging out with members of her volleyball team at Harsh Park on the south side of Chicago on Tuesday afternoon when a male jumped a fence in the park, ran towards them and started shooting, according to CBS News. Hadiya was shot in the back, dying in the hospital less than an hour later, and a boy was shot in the leg. The shooter jumped into a car and fled the scene. Maybe if there was a militia in that park at that time, right next to the volleyball team, this could have been prevented.
With due respect, your view does not fit with US history or specifically, the history of our founding father's life experience. The regulated militia in the sense that you believe existed was their intent was held by the British, not the common subjects living on the land. It was the very tyranny of these military and police forces under the name of the King, that led to the creation of bands of common people who wanted to be citizens instead of subjects. In fact, in this era, the term militia referred to a group of men who could be called into service if needed for the reasons I noted previously. They did not and typically were not in service at all times, even during the revolutionary war. They came and went with harvest, etc. In some cases. These were common folks such as myself who would respond if our country or community was threatened. After WWII there was just such an occurrence in TN, I believe, where WWII vets armed themselves with National Guard weapons and rooted out the mayor and police chief who were cooking the books and elections. They gathered and became well regulated under the highest ranking officer and then relinquished their "borrowed" and cleaned weapons to the armory as soon as the state police and State National Guard Troops arrived. They could not have done this without weapons.
Take a look at Article 1 Section 8 where it even defines when the Federal Govt. Can call forth the militia. Now with time our country realized it could not afford to keep a massive standing army but the educational needs of the troops in tactics, etc. Demanded some training. Hence the "Minute Men" or the current National Guard was created. It was not the model upon which the Second amendment was created. In fact, much the converse is true.
You also confuse the meaning of "Well Regulated" which actually meant trained and under guidance when called to duty and under the proper authority when acting on behalf of the government. In fact, private militias which would not come under the fold of a local, state, or federal government would have been viewed as subversive or pirate-like. This is still the case today. If you don't believe this, and you think the liberals understand the ideas of our forefathers better than the historical facts demonstrate then take the time to read in its entirety Pennsylvania's 1776 Declarations of Rights, from which the founding father's relied. Article thirteen, for example."That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state." You see, much like now people could not always rely upon the police or the military to come to their aid in time. When threatened or under attack, the individual has an inalienable right to the pursuit of life even if that means taking an agressor's life to protect their right. It is unfortunate that we don't spend our time putting criminals away forever instead of worrying about what kind of rifle Johnny Citizen wants to shoot varmints with. Would you agree that all convicted felons found with a gun should be put away for life? Currently, there are thousands of gun laws and a few things are clear. Violent criminals don't respect human life or the law. Violent criminals get three strikes but their victims only get one: why? Mental health is an oxymoron in the US and anyone who is a direct threat to others, in my opinion, should be removed from society until they are no longer a threat to society. Like the socialists of the 30s our current administration believes and has even bragged about the fact that if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it. Most of what is said on TV now about "Gun Control" is non-sense. We have laws against crack, yet people keep using it and killing for it and dying from it. Do we need more laws against crack or do we need to enforce the ones we have and stop the revolving door to our prisons? Far more people die due to crack than "assault rifles" yet where is the outcry? In fact, more people die from stabbings and beatings related to crack than from all rifle-related injuries combined.
It makes good press but is stupid from the standpoint of changing societal life expectancy.
Pete
Did you watch Mrs. Giffords Speach.
I hope you did, because this is how she talks now and before she was shot.
Today's Speach:
[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-senate-gun-control-hearing-report-article-1.1251013[/url]
Before she was shot.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFEtqV8WnXY[/url]
Maybe the NRA should be shot in the Head.
NRA (aka GUN MAKERS). Follow the Money!
[QUOTE=Peter Sideburn;431449]You also confuse the meaning of "Well Regulated" which actually meant trained and under guidance when called to duty and under the proper authority when acting on behalf of the government.[/QUOTE]I didn't confuse anything, because I simply stated these words were in the second amendment. Regardless, this clearly doesn't refer to broad gun ownership then, independent of such training, guidance and authority. You've just bolstered my argument.
[QUOTE]If you don't believe this, and you think the liberals understand the ideas of our forefathers better than the historical facts demonstrate then take the time to read in its entirety Pennsylvania's 1776 Declarations of Rights, from which the founding father's relied. Article thirteen, for example."That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state."[/QUOTE]Interesting. So [i][b]why[/b][/i] didn't the authors of the second amendment just use the same wording? Why did they feel the need to add the language about the regulated militia? It appears they applied some critical thinking, and deliberately specified the scope of the right. Once again, you've just bolstered my argument.
Esten,
I am sorry I can't cover all this from time perspective, but there are many reasons why they didn't copy verbatim. Back then the leaders of our country weren't trying to just get elected, they were trying to break free from tyranny and start a new land with freedom for its inhabitants, not more laws. The weren't flipping their views and moral positions every time the latest poll returned either. The Constitution is not a document of oppression for the populus but rather one specifically designed to limit federal government to a few tasks and areas of responsibility. It was written to prevent a monarchy and cast system. The fathers would not support what it has become or is becoming, might I add. Regarding the terms, it is important to understand the meaning of the words and not just the fact that letters were combined into words, most of which have a number of definitions. Please do a little research or at least take a look at some of the research that is easily available from groups that disagree with your point of view like the NRA and gunsite. Org which have their own bias but do a pretty reasonable job of showing that well regulated militia was not to inhibit private ownership but only to limit the manner with which groups could joing together as a unit in times of the government's needs to defend itself. The only thing worse than no military is one that has no command and control. They wanted to assure that people could own weapons and clearly would never have wanted to disarm the citizens or most would have died from starvation, but rather to assure that when called to arms for the purpose of defending the republic that they would be orderly and under the direction of those who knew the tactics and skills of leadership necessary to stand a chance against highly trained soldiers from other lands such as England at the time. Do you really believe they were trying to limit which citizen could own a rifle? Shotgun? Pistol? They would have been tarred and feathered for even suggesting such a stupid idea. With over 2 million defensive uses of weapons by the US citizenry estimated each year how can one seriously argue that the choice to have a weapon should not be available to those without a criminal record or mental health disorder? Do you think the number of home invasions would go down if only the criminals had weapons? Really? How do you think the non-gang communities of Somalia feel about the fact that they are controlled by bands of thugs with AK47s and a few 50 cal machine guns and they are defenseless unless they want to bring a knife to a gun fight? Why does an NRA sticker on your door lower the risk of your house being invaded? Do you think the criminals fear verbal confrontation on hand gun issues or being on the receiving end of a 44 mag with as much warning as they gave the homeowner that they were going to break in. If a woman you love is attacked would you want her to be at the typical disadvantage in physical strength etc. Or possibly be able equalize the playing field and drop the fool where he stands? If you don't want a weapon in your home then I support your decision. Unless you have some proof, which doesn't exist, that you are at more risk because I may own a weapon, then you should support my decision to own a lawful firearm. Why don't we address the real major causes of unnecessary loss of life in our World and country before we spend billions trying to take lawfullly purchased weapons from law abiding citizens?
Pete
[QUOTE=Peter Sideburn;431496]They wanted to assure that people could own weapons and clearly would never have wanted to disarm the citizens or most would have died from starvation,[/QUOTE]The authors of the second amendment did not specify any purpose for gun ownership other than to support a regulated militia. Any other purpose or intent they may have had is speculation, and irrelevant as it was not articulated in the Constitution.
[QUOTE]but rather to assure that when called to arms for the purpose of defending the republic that they would be orderly and under the direction of those who knew the tactics and skills of leadership necessary to stand a chance against highly trained soldiers from other lands such as England at the time.[/QUOTE]
Exactly! You keep supporting my argument. It was all in the context of a militia to defend the state. Since we no longer have militias, the Second Amendment is outdated.
There is no point in debating this Constitutional point further; it's obvious the language was scoped to the very different circumstances that existed 200 years ago. We can agree to disagree.
What may be a more persuasive and meaningful argument is whether the good outweighs the bad. I mentioned this earlier, and you also bring this up at least in noting the valid defensive purposes of guns. But that statistic of 2 million defensive uses of weapons really warrants closer scrutiny. On the surface, it sounds completely ridiculous. I am certain it is loaded with bad data and faulty assumptions, and a preliminary check on Google shows it to be hotly debated. If I could be convinced that the good truly outweighs the bad, I'd be more supportive of gun ownership (which BTW I'm not 100% entirely against). But I still think there needs to be stricter regulation.
[QUOTE=Sidney; 431500]Murders per 100, 000 citizens.
Honduras 91.6
El Salvador 69.2
Cote the'lvoire 56.9
Jamaica 52.2
Venezuela 45.1
Belize 41.4
.
.
.
The United States 4.2[/QUOTE]A list full of first and second world countries, very interesting. For completeness you should include a few developed countries with strict gun regulation:
Germany: 0.21
United Kingdom: 0.07
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28662[/ATTACH]
I wonder if they did a background check on this guy, or if he got that gun via straw purchase?
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 431529]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28662[/ATTACH]
I wonder if they did a background check on this guy, or if he got that gun via straw purchase?[/QUOTE]I think he's aiming at you! (smile)
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;431547]I think he's aiming at you! (smile)[/QUOTE]I know he has me and my kind in his sights. We will survive me thinks. LOL. Monger on BS. Toymann
Deleted post
I went skeet shooting last year. It was all right, though I sucked.
BTW, I told Obama about all you guys, so you better be careful.
[QUOTE=Esten; 431509]A list full of first and second world countries, very interesting. For completeness you should include a few developed countries with strict gun regulation:
Germany: 0. 21.
United Kingdom: 0. 07[/QUOTE]Esten, your numbers are low. In the case of the U. K. the homicide rate is about 20X higher.
I'm pretty much an agnostic on this issue. I used to lean a little towards your side, although what Jackson pointed out about Hitler and Stalin and their confiscation of guns was enough to sway me in the other direction.
What I know about Mexico causes me to question what would happen if serious gun control were instituted in the USA. You've got so many weapons out there now that the argument that the bad guys would end up with all the guns is compelling.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;431555]Esten, your numbers are low. In the case of the U. K. the homicide rate is about 20X higher.[/QUOTE]The numbers are for homicide by [b]firearms[/b], not total homicides (per 100, 000 population) :
England and Wales: 0.07 [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list[/url]
United Kingdom: 0.04 [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url]
[QUOTE]I'm pretty much an agnostic on this issue. I used to lean a little towards your side, although what Jackson pointed out about Hitler and Stalin and their confiscation of guns was enough to sway me in the other direction.[/QUOTE]Modern democracies in developed countries are far stronger than they used to be, making a repeat of such histories far more unlikely. Are Germany or the UK on the verge of becoming dictatorships today because of their strict gun laws?
[QUOTE]What I know about Mexico causes me to question what would happen if serious gun control were instituted in the USA. You've got so many weapons out there now that the argument that the bad guys would end up with all the guns is compelling.[/QUOTE]Valid point. That's why there is no single magic bullet (pardon the pun). Reducing gun violence must be a multi-pronged approach.
I don't get the opposition to an assault weapons ban. Sure, they are only involved in a small fraction of gun deaths, but if it's even a part of the equation why not address it? The only purpose I've seen articulated is to kill more people, faster. Some say if you let them ban these guns, they'll be banning all guns next. Apparently, enough people buy this untrue and fear-based "argument" to influence decisions in DC. Many polls show majorities support an assault-weapons ban. It may be a small number of states that are tilting the decision to oppose. That is unfortunate.