|
Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
12-18-2012, 11:05 AM | #1 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.
It takes only 5 people to end gun violence in America.
Banning gun sales to those with mental illness is not effective enough Background checks on criminals are not effective enough Banning the sale of assault guns is not effective enough Limiting the number of shells in gun magazines is not effective enough Fences and locked doors on every public facility are not effective enough Armed guards/teachers/doctors/salespersons/clergy in every public place is not effective enough We rationalize limits on the 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech in the greater good. - children's exposure to pornography - adults shouting "Fire" in a crowd We can rationalize limits on the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms. The US Supreme Court has made mistakes, and their decisions have been re-evaluated, and even reversed. Our Forefathers envisioned domination by a foreign government's military. Our Forefathers envisioned a "well regulated militia" for the common good. Our Forefathers envisioned guns as flintlocks and muskets, not our modern guns. Limiting gun possession to flintlocks and muskets is a "conservative" view. Limiting gun possession to the maintaining of a militia is a "conservative" view It only takes 5 Supreme Court Justices to end gun violence in America. |
12-18-2012, 11:12 AM | #2 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Y'know, I totally get that people wouldn't want a total ban on guns. Too many cultural associations, too much a part of growing up in some communities, and too necessary as a survival tool in some parts of the country.
But assault weapons? If you need a battlefield weapon that pumps out mega quantities of bullets to hunt a deer or a bear than ur doin it rong. If all that lad had been abe to acquire was a simple shotgun or hunting rifle the death toll would have been significantly lower.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
12-20-2012, 06:19 PM | #3 | ||||
changed his status to single
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin |
||||
12-20-2012, 09:04 PM | #4 | |
To shreds, you say?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet!
Posts: 18,449
|
I'll take a stab at answering some of these.
I think by "assault weapon", Dana means an A-10 Warthog. I confirmed this with the inch who said, "The A-10 can shoot, like 300 million 700 caliber rounds a second." He is only nine and prone to exaggeration but he does have "the Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft" Though we can't really be sure he is actually reading it and not just looking at the pictures. Merriam Webster defines Assault: 1 a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary) 2 a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact — compare battery 1b My suspicion is that non-assault weapons would be soft cushions, stern looks, and an angry letter to the New York Times. Re: reduced death toll, How so? Simple shotguns, (like the Benelli that Tom Knapp used to shoot) are only used for hunting geese and shooting clay pigeons, hunting rifles are used for small, medium, and large game and none of those things were present at the shooting therefore the shooter wouldn't have had occasion to use either type of firearm. Gun Shows with most deadly weapons and ammo. Again, a quick glance in Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft shows that once again, Lockheed Martin has pulled another winner out of the bag with its F-22 Raptor. As for the deadly ammo, I would discount the missiles as being "ammo" and would vote for 20mm DU rounds as being the deadliest ammo. I was not at a gunshow to see thse things, I lack any sort of security clearance. I have never been to a gun show. A semi-automatic firearm is a firearm that extracts the spent shell, chambers a new round and cocks the firing mechanism every time the trigger is pulled and a round is fired. A fully automatic firearm does this with a single trigger pull (or squeeze or press) until the magazine is emptied or the trigger is let off. Selective fire firearms can switch from fully auto to semi auto. My Marlin 60 is a semi auto .22 tube magazine. The government can have it when they pry it from my warm living fingers with a generous buy-back check that would cover the purchase of a sweet bolt action .22 like a volquartsen.That would apply sufficient leverage upon my fingers to release my grip on my semi-auto Marlin. Why 4 and not 6 or 10? I just pulled that number out of my ass since 4 is the max # of rounds you can have in your gun during hunting season here in NY. Actually, I think it's 5. One in the chamber in 4 in the mag. So yeah, 10 is too many as far as the DEC is concerned. Big fines, loss of hunting privileges, peepee smacking. So 4 is the number. Quote:
__________________
The internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously. - Her Fobs |
|
12-25-2012, 05:12 PM | #5 | |
in a mood, not cupcake
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,034
|
Quote:
You are awesome, foot3. |
|
12-26-2012, 10:57 AM | #6 | |
Lecturer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 796
|
What we need are more gun control laws in this country, because clearly, we know the criminals never get their hands on guns, once those laws are passed:
A perfect example from the killer/arsonist last week. Quote:
AND WOULD HAVE KILLED SEVERAL MORE, EXCEPT a policeman shielded the wounded firemen on the ground with his car, AND SHOT SPENGLER WITH A RIFLE. What have we learned today? * Criminals don't CARE about gun laws - they will get guns or other weapons they can use against YOU. * It behooves you to have a gun to shoot them when they try to kill you. Apologies for boring the liberals who seem completely unable to understand this basic premise. Here's a little lesson from nature: Without a firearm, we are the warthog - careful, but still vulnerable, and still a victim. (not for the squemish): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-UX0w2yA2A |
|
12-18-2012, 11:14 AM | #7 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
It is not, in my opinion, acceptable or desirable for people to be allowed to drive tanks down the public highway willynilly. They weren't made for use in that setting. Doesn't mean i want to ban all motor vehicles.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
12-18-2012, 11:17 AM | #8 |
Not Suspicious, Merely Canadian
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,774
|
I like your analogy, Dana, and I agree with your balanced view on the subject.
__________________
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. - Ghandi |
12-18-2012, 11:37 AM | #9 | |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
Quote:
|
|
12-19-2012, 08:55 AM | #10 | |||
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods
Posts: 6,402
|
Quote:
What was the wording of the original "2nd Amendment ratified by the States ? To wit: Quote:
the Constitution and Bill of Rights are worded differently. A great deal is made of the Federalist Papers regarding the intentions of our Forefathers. John Jay's writings there on the 2nd Amendment (before ratification) specifically discuss the need to give up some "rights" in order to gain other benefits gained from the new federal government. The "militia" of our Forefathers is not one of individuals with guns, but of independent (non-federal) communities formally calling up individuals, even to the point of a draft to meet quotas, to defend against foreign forces. --- Second, our Forefathers could not have envisioned the machine gun, or much of any gun we now call an "automatic firearm", which came 50 to 100 years after ratification... from Wikipedia: The History of the Firearm Quote:
|
|||
12-19-2012, 09:45 AM | #11 | |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
Yeah, that's all interesting, but the Supreme Court already removed the whole militia part of the 2nd amendment. So a new Supreme Court would have to change that ruling to bring militias back into it, and then go on to do what you suggest.
The Wikipedia summary of the Supreme Court's holding in D.C. v. Heller: Quote:
|
|
12-18-2012, 12:41 PM | #12 | |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Quote:
Is there actually any unbiased evidence that banning guns has an effect on lowering gun deaths? From the data I've seen, banning handguns in D.C, Chicago, etc. didn't really do anything when comparing against the national average. I could see it having an effect on suicides but that is preventable through other measures as well.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. Last edited by piercehawkeye45; 12-18-2012 at 12:49 PM. |
|
12-18-2012, 01:28 PM | #13 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
Think about that for a second. Were people free to leave DC and cross the bridge into Virginia where gun laws are lax? If there is a nation wide ban, would there be such an easy path around the law?
|
12-18-2012, 05:23 PM | #14 | |
Franklin Pierce
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,695
|
Quote:
We have over 300 million guns in this country and only a very very small proportion of those are used to kill people. I would imagine that a ban on guns would greatly reduce the number of guns that are being used responsibility but have little impact on the number of guns being used irresponsibly. Any gun regulation needs to address this IMO.
__________________
I like my perspectives like I like my baseball caps: one size fits all. |
|
12-18-2012, 05:32 PM | #15 | |
To shreds, you say?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: in the house and on the street-how many, many feet we meet!
Posts: 18,449
|
Quote:
It's not simple. http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
__________________
The internet is a hateful stew of vomit you can never take completely seriously. - Her Fobs |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|