Forums

[awirewhip]

Is the right to own an AR-15 granted by the Constitution? Is that next to the part where bazookas are a protected right?

Did the framers of the constitution envision internet, TV, or mass media? Should the first amendment not apply to those too? It's not like they knew what the first amendment could develop into.

And nobody said it is. Taking guns away is how we can help fix a gun violence issue.

Banning semi automatic rifles solves that problem how? Consider that 3.5% of crime is committed with rifles. 4% of crime is committed with legally bought weapons. Hammers and bats kill more pople every year in murder that rifles. Oh wait, I meant to say people kill people with hammers and bats more than rifles. In 1994 there was an estimated 1.5 million "assault rifles" owned. Do you know how many millions more have been legally bought? So you want to limit literally millions of people because of a few hundred isolated incidents. Should we ban drugs because people are overdosing too?

You're free to believe that.

Numbers don't lie. You keep dissecting what I'm telling you as opinion to make yourself feel better about the fact that you are wrong. There is nothing more to this conversation because you refuse to change your position after I've proven to you with evidence that your completely wrong.

Oh and banning guns is going to fix the problem what, 100 years down the line? Just like how banning drugs fixed that issue, and prostitution, and alcohol. Oh wait, something different happened with alcohol.

I'll leave you a couple links you can kindly shut about.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... ore-185565

Oh and I should reiterate the point that violent crime and murder has dropped nearly every year for decades and the amount of guns legally bought goes up by MILLIONS every year. So if you don't want to accept that more guns means less violence that's fine, but you are completely wrong to think that more guns is more crime. So you want to create a bunch of restrictive laws because you bought into a bunch of political scare tactics, and you won't even admit your wrong after it's been proven. Pathetic.

I'm sorry, you're going to have to ask Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy, it was from his speech: “Weak guns laws is what separates Chicago from other large, urban cities. In 2012 we took nine guns off the street for every one gun in New York. In total, the Chicago police confiscated 7,400 guns in 2012 including 300 assault weapons."
Read more: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130103 ... z2HGjRiVpa

Right.. because that worked out so well for Chicago last time.. derp.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/2 ... 27773.html

[cartesiand]

Are we? How are we being led astray? Is gun violence really in the thousands like here? I didn't see that said in any of your links, could you tell me which one said Japan is more dangerous because it has less guns? That Is what you want us to believe despite facts, right?

for a country with so few guns in the hands of citizens they clearly have a serious issue with guns, they have just as many gun related killings as england who has more guns in private hands but then you want to say "gun violence" as opposed to looking at the real picture which is what happens after the guns are taken from civilians and that is that violence rises, do you honestly believe that japan has six times the number of suicides as the UK each year?

No, nor do you need a gun here. But with knives you have a lot more people surviving, being just injured. Imagine how many more would be dead if a gun was used. More than half survived in those three, and none died in the last.

clearly there is a need for guns here since we can see that an increase in
gun ownership drives down the rates of both violent crimes and gun crimes
which is certainly shown via the statistics produced not just by the US
crime figures but also nations such as england, south africa and australia
and of course as the number of guns is reduced the number of fatalities from
stabbings has increased

[cartesiand]

Is the right to own an AR-15 granted by the Constitution? Is that next to the part where bazookas are a protected right?

why yes, yes they are protected, I can walk into any dealer's shop that has a
bazooka for sale and buy it if I have the purchase price and pay the $200
transfer tax... just like an m-203 grenade launcher or a 37mm grenade launcher
that I dont need to have a transfer stamp for


http://www.youtube.com/v/pb5i29oH_NE&fs=1&autoplay=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/w5OMpi6-5p0&fs=1&autoplay=1

lol

[-Alex]

Did the framers of the constitution envision internet, TV, or mass media?

So you're saying we DO have a right to a bazooka, since we have a right to freedom of speech and expression? I think it's pretty absurd to say that since the government can't arrest us for speaking out in papers, TV, or internet, that we have a right to all forms of weaponry.

Banning semi automatic rifles solves that problem how?

It doesn't solve it, on it's own - it's part of a comprehensive solution. We need a comprehensive solution. Semi automatic weapons, which are best for mass damage, not for hunting or self defense, are one aspect. Non-automatic handguns are commonly used in crime, but they are good for self defense and I don't feel a need to take those away. We also need to make sure gun owners are responsible, and lower gun thefts so those illegally stolen weapons can't be used against others.
I want to do everything we can to save lives.

Should we ban drugs because people are overdosing too?

We DO ban most drugs that have no purpose, but drugs don't kill OTHER people, only the user.

Numbers don't lie.

No, they don't. And I wish we had more numbers, and that the gun lobby wouldn't shut up research and releasing of facts.

You keep dissecting what I'm telling you as opinion to make yourself feel better about the fact that you are wrong.

You're free to believe that, but again, just saying "NO, YOU'RE WRONG" without saying what about is pretty pathetic.

There is nothing more to this conversation because you refuse to change your position after I've proven to you with evidence that your completely wrong.

Show me where this has been done, where I made a statement and you proved me wrong with evidence.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/cbs-news-more-guns-in-california-fewer-bodies/#more-185565

And since you're proving causation not correlation, where are your sources on the other states and their relative increases/ decreases in guns and decreases/ increases in deaths? You aren't pretending that one state makes your argument, are you?

Oh and I should reiterate the point that violent crime and murder has dropped nearly every year for decades and the amount of guns legally bought goes up by MILLIONS every year.

Right - violent crime and murder have dropped. Across the board. Are you going to prove causation, or just note correlation?

So if you don't want to accept that more guns means less violence that's fine, but you are completely wrong to think that more guns is more crime.

Who said that more guns is causation of more crime?

So you want to create a bunch of restrictive laws because you bought into a bunch of political scare tactics, and you won't even admit your wrong after it's been proven. Pathetic.

What? What political scare tactics? Where did you prove me wrong? Be specific.

[-Alex]

for a country with so few guns in the hands of citizens they clearly have a serious issue with guns, they have just as many gun related killings as england who has more guns in private hands

According to what I read, England and wales has 0.07 homicide by firearm rate, whereas Japan only has 0.01.
And guns in private hands? Japan has 0.6 per 100 people, England has about 6 per 100 people. And we have 90 per 100. With Homicide by firearm rate of 2.97. Compared to England and Japan's 0.07 and 0.01.

but then you want to say "gun violence" as opposed to looking at the real picture which is what happens after the guns are taken from civilians and that is that violence rises,

Um, how is that the real picture? I think the real picture we all are talking about is crime and deaths, and how can the US address it's problem.

do you honestly believe that japan has six times the number of suicides as the UK each year?

I don't know who said this or who you are talking to here.

clearly there is a need for guns here

No, that's not clear at all. You just said it out of nowhere, when I mentioned how people SURVIVED whereas other people in other countries have not.

since we can see that an increase in gun ownership drives down the rates of both violent crimes and gun crimes which is certainly shown via the statistics

Clearly show them: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... world-list

Also, if you could, how many more firearms will Japan need to reduce their gun crime to 0.005? And how many more guns do we need, now at 90 per 100 people, to reduce ours?

And cartesiand, I didn't know rocket propelled anti-tank weapons are considered the same as grenade launchers, and that we have a constitutionally protected right for both.

[beenthereanddonethat]

The Constitution is simple:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Second_Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of a collection of the first ten amendments also known as "The Bill of Rights". It states: "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".

Variously, this has been interpreted as a statement recognizing the right of state governments to maintain their own militias, a sop to the states for the authority they lost in the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Since the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states (something which was not the case before the Civil War), the Second Amendment has been increasingly interpreted as recognizing an individual right to firearm ownership. An even more radical proposition believed by some people is that residents of the United States have an unconditional right to own guns. This right was recognized by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court in the 2010 case McDonald v. Chicago, clearing up any uncertainty left by the Court's earlier decision in D.C. v. Heller.

The United States is the only country with such a constitutional amendment, though a few keep similar policies. Every other democracy that maintains stricter gun controls continue to scratch their heads on why this is such a big deal.

If you want pure Constitution: Guns are for a well regulated Militia PERIOD Now hang in here for a moment..... the important word here is REGULATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[beenthereanddonethat]

AND I AM STILL SAD AND ENRANGED! Damn it all! There is an answer that should not cause the NRA and other idiots to forget the babies that were murdered that awful day! Damn it! Get real here people! Cobra go to God Damned Hell! This forum is not yours to exploit you dang eggnog arse!
Reasonable regulation that does not cause the mercenary fact to go ape crappola here!

[-Alex]

beenthereanddonethat, pull yourself together. And I'm pretty sure you shouldn't quote rationalwiki if you want to be taken seriously.

[Cobra478]

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting - Newtown Police / Fire and CT State Police R

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... krxfYoQtc#!

dmtn801 1 week ago

I mean let's be real here, who the hell even talks like that? "End the life of Adam"? Really? Wouldn't a kill order be more along the lines of neutralizing the enemy, shoot to kill, kill on sight, or just flat out shoot him or kill him? "End the life of Adam" doesn't even follow standard English grammatical structure. Who seriously even talks like that?
Reply · 10

"End the life of Adam"

around 22:55.

[Cobra478]

**COPY THESE 12 VIDEOS (WHILE STILL THERE) OF WHAT THE MSM IS NOT SHOWING ON THE TV REGARDING THE SANDY HOOK SHOOTINGS**

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... ead=263192