Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As usual, politicians don't know what they're doing when they consider gun control. They make people agree to a medical records check and deny a gun to anyone who was treated for a mental health problem. If they had looked up the data, they would have found that the mentally ill, even those with serious mental health problems, are LESS likely to be violent than the general population.
So you're saying that the general population is even more unstable than the mentally unstable.
Even though I disagree with your general stance on gun control, I kinda DO agree with you on the part of your post that I bolded. But, that was gonna be MY point, as an advocate for stricter gun control...that a lot of "law abiding citizens" in the general population aren't fit to own guns. At least, I have little confidence that a lot of people can handle a gun, or the responsibilities that go along with that gun ownership. Look at some of the sentiments being bandied about by the "law abiding citizens" in this thread. Everything from "screw the majority of voters" (in other words, screw democracy and order), to "a few dead kids every year is worth that cost".
I am worried less about some lady on Paxil trying to get through a temporary patch of post-partum depression, than I am about the would be legal scholars of the Constitution who don't know how to read anything in context or view things in historical perspective, neighborhood watch wannabe cops, people who have a chip on their shoulder/are begging for a chance to "stand their ground", the mild mannered "law abiding citizens" that snap one day out of the clear blue, and the Benny Hill-level knuckleheads that shouldn't be allowed to operate the paper cutter at the office, let alone carry a firearm.
First off, the second amendment was written, by context of the surrounding documents, quotes, and literature at that time as a means to protect the citizenry from their own government. When did this change? The history of the entirety of humanity in almost every nation in the world has shown time and time again why the effective use of a deterrent, such as a gun by society as a whole could prevent tragedies like what happened to the Cambodians, the Russians, the Jews, etc from being massacred by their own government. Any talk of gun control is immediately irrational and stupid. Guns are not the problem. Idiots with guns are. Sorry, but there is a price to pay for our freedoms and as awful and insensitive as this is gonna sound, a few dead kids every year is worth that cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrunner88
I'm just tired of seeing politicians and people use gun tragedies as some sick political scheme to enforce their backward views on the rest of us. If trying to capitalize on tragedy is your thing, go for it. But to me it is pretty disturbing seeing our own President capitalize on every liberals wet dream (dead kids) on national television.
These are two of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on City Data, and the gun advocates here are probably cringing that you are speaking for them. I hope nobody reports your first post about dead kids because I think it should be preserved here as a monument to why people should simultaneously not take gun nuts seriously, while at the same time remain fearful and concerned that they are out there with their delusions.
A few dead kids every year is worth your 2nd Amendment "rights"? A few dead kids isn't such a big deal? Tell that to Brandon Holt's family, or even to the family of the poor kid who accidentally shot him. The fact that you would utter such a disgusting sentiment as "a few dead kids every year is worth [it]" is appalling, especially in light of what has happened. Were you one of the gun advocate opportunists holding pro gun rallies in Woodbridge and other towns in NJ yesterday, the very day of Brandon Holt's funeral?
Talk about people who use gun tragedies as some "sick political scheme" to further their agenda.
As far as this goes:
"First off, the second amendment was written, by context of the surrounding documents, quotes, and literature AT THAT TIME as a means to protect the citizenry from their own government. When did this change?"
The key is the part that I underlined and put in all caps. Exactly. It was written in the context of what was going on AT THAT TIME. Can you tell me anything about the 2nd Amendment, beyond what you've been spoon fed by extremist right wing, anti-Obama, anti "liberal" blogs? Do you have beyond an 8th grade understanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the history and context of Revolutionary/Post Revolutionary America when those documents were written? Do you understand the concept of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights being living documents that can be amended as history progresses (e.g. Black suffrage and women's suffrage)? Do you understand that there are different scholarly interpretations of the Constitution? The 2nd Amendment wasn't written with the objective of protecting the "rights" of new millennium suburban commandos to have unlimited arsenals.
And if you think that "prepared citizens" with guns...even with overflowing arsenals...would be enough to stop the government from doing anything, you are delusional. It's delusional paranoia to begin with, to fear that the U.S. government will go Khmer Rouge or Third Reich in 2013, but if that is what your puppet masters of extreme ideology want you to believe, you still have to know, on an intellectual level, that Joe Schmoe on Mapleshade Drive in the good school district with a quaint, walkable downtown, wouldn't be able to do schidt to stop it with the guns in his McArsenal. The military has billion dollar technology that you can't even wrap your brain around. It has drones. So this ridiculous argument that we all have to have guns because we have to protect ourselves from the government, is, let's see...what were the words you used? "STUPID AND IRRATIONAL".
Self protection? Home invasion? OK. This is reasonable. I understand that. I don't particularly agree, but it is a reasonable stance.
Protection from a tyrannical government taking away your freedom? Take your antipsychotic and anti anxiety meds.
A few dead kids every year is worth your 2nd Amendment "rights"?
Those rights in the Bill of Rights were all secured by blood. A lot of blood.
If allowing prior restraint of the press -- all of it, from TV news down to newspaper articles to posts on city-data -- would save 10 kids a year, would you support it?
If allowing warrantless searches of homes at police discretion would save 10 kids a year, would you support it?
If allowing crackdowns on non-mainstream religions would save 10 kids a year, would you support it?
If eliminating the right to remain silent would save 10 kids a year, would you support it?
Waving the bloody shirt is easy. But it's not particularly valid as an argument.
Those rights in the Bill of Rights were all secured by blood. A lot of blood.
If allowing prior restraint of the press -- all of it, from TV news down to newspaper articles to posts on city-data -- would save 10 kids a year, would you support it?
If allowing warrantless searches of homes at police discretion would save 10 kids a year, would you support it?
If allowing crackdowns on non-mainstream religions would save 10 kids a year, would you support it?
If eliminating the right to remain silent would save 10 kids a year, would you support it?
Waving the bloody shirt is easy. But it's not particularly valid as an argument.
Don't try to reason with these people. While my words were harsh and insensitive, they are true. Yes, I am willing to accept that every year, many kids, and adults, and innocent people will die at the hands of the deranged, the drug dealers, the gang bangers, so that we may retain our freedoms. I don't condone it, or like it, but it happens, and there is a price we pay for our freedoms.
Don't try to reason with these people. While my words were harsh and insensitive, they are true. Yes, I am willing to accept that every year, many kids, and adults, and innocent people will die at the hands of the deranged, the drug dealers, the gang bangers, so that we may retain our freedoms. I don't condone it, or like it, but it happens, and there is a price we pay for our freedoms.
i'm almost positive that there many more accidents/suicides with LEGAL guns than there are criminals using illegal guns. Just far too many guns period.
i'm almost positive that there many more accidents/suicides with LEGAL guns than there are criminals using illegal guns. Just far too many guns period.
Your chances of getting hit by a drunk driver are far higher than getting shot with a gun. Get over it, guns are here to stay.
Your chances of getting hit by a drunk driver are far higher than getting shot with a gun. Get over it, guns are here to stay.
Your chances of being hit by a meteorite are higher than successfully defending yourself against some boogeyman intruder. You should therefore also walk around wearing a helmet if you're going to be consistent in your frightfulness.
Your chances of being hit by a meteorite are higher than successfully defending yourself against some boogeyman intruder. You should therefore also walk around wearing a helmet if you're going to be consistent in your frightfulness.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
Please provide some source for the assertion that roughly 1,000,000 meteorites struck people on earth in any year. If you can't, your statement should go back the the cesspool of false & useless crap said by people who don't care about facts.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
Please provide some source for the assertion that roughly 1,000,000 meteorites struck people on earth in any year. If you can't, your statement should go back the the cesspool of false & useless crap said by people who don't care about facts.
R.I.F. I said those people defending their "castles" is a relatively rare occurrence. Suicides and accidents like the Toms River one are waaay more likely to happen.
You cite a source but provide no link. well played!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
