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.
I'd like to know why the gun nuts are drawing this line in the sand over assault weapons. There are already common sense restrictions on what guns can be sold in this country, what guns can be owned in this country, and what you can and cannot do with your guns in this country. So why are assault weapons the Rubicon?
I'd like to know why the gun nuts are drawing this line in the sand over assault weapons. There are already common sense restrictions on what guns can be sold in this country, what guns can be owned in this country, and what you can and cannot do with your guns in this country. So why are assault weapons the Rubicon?
Because there is money to be made on this type of weaponry, and they are falling victim to greedy rhetoric. They are just being manipulated (ironically the way I'm told I'm manipulated all the time) by media, by lobbying groups, by "celebrities" who wrap themselves up in flags and call upon the Constitution to protect something that it never intended to protect. We HAVE a well-regulated militia, we have since we used it to separate from Great Britain. What they are ACTUALLY clamoring for is an UNREGULATED militia. That's a whole different ball game right there.
Bernie Sanders - and everyone else - also favors the ban on pipe bombs, despite the fact that they don't (and really, couldn't, due to being a fairly inefficient weapon that is difficult to wield) kill anywhere close to the number of people that guns do. Or heroin, which kills fewer people than alcohol. Or countless other illegal things which no one favors legalizing that don't and wouldn't do as much harm as something else that is legal.
Thus is exposed the vacuousness - and, frankly, idiocy - of the "But! But! This thing kills even fewer people than that other thing that is legal, so therefore it should be legal too!" drivel masquerading as 'logic'. Par for the course from the sound-bite crowd that doesn't actually have a cogent argument to make.
Because there is money to be made on this type of weaponry, and they are falling victim to greedy rhetoric. They are just being manipulated (ironically the way I'm told I'm manipulated all the time) by media, by lobbying groups, by "celebrities" who wrap themselves up in flags and call upon the Constitution to protect something that it never intended to protect. We HAVE a well-regulated militia, we have since we used it to separate from Great Britain. What they are ACTUALLY clamoring for is an UNREGULATED militia. That's a whole different ball game right there.
You are ignorant of the term REGULATED, as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment.
You may or may not have other points that are valid, but if you insist on using the "REGULATED" portion of the 2nd amendment as some sort of call to "regulatory control" as we know it in today's vernacular, you are doing nothing to further the discussion, but rather taking a giant step backwards in terms of "reasoning" with anyone.
You are ignorant of the term REGULATED, as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment.
You may or may not have other points that are valid, but if you insist on using the "REGULATED" portion of the 2nd amendment as some sort of call to "regulatory control" as we know it in today's vernacular, you are doing nothing to further the discussion, but rather taking a giant step backwards in terms of "reasoning" with anyone.
I didn't say anything about "regulatory" or anything like it. It refers to a disciplined, trained group. It refers to our Union in its infancy, when King George wanted to ban guns from the hands of the rabble. It refers to our right, as a sovereign nation, to bear arms to defend our nation. I am not setting any discussion back. I am noting what these words mean.
It's relatively easy to hide a handgun under your jacket or in your bag. It's convenient, light, and easy to operate. The fact is, if Sanders is so concerned about shooting deaths, he should be talking about handguns.
But he can't talk about handguns, because he comes from a state with lots of gun owners. Although he's a far left socialist, he's also pro Second Amendment by necessity.
Hillary and Obama reflexively yack about gun control every time there's a mass shooting. But they're just demagogues, trying to capitalize on tragedy.
Most shootings fall into three categories:
1. black-on-black murders in the ghettos (about 50-60% of all gun homicides, statistics are not exact because some crimes are unsolved).
2. white suicides (the majority of white deaths from guns are self-inflicted)
3. mentally ill mass shootings, accidents
The big win would be #1, because the tragedy of black neighborhood shootings is destroying those communities. Also, it skews the statistics. Most people outside the poor black neighborhoods are at no more risk of being shot than in Canadian or western European cities.
Whatever we could do to reduce #2 obviously would be desirable but that's a mental health issue that won't be solved by bombastic politicians screaming for more gun control to "save our children". People can and will find other ways to commit suicide, and anyway you can't get rid of 114 million handguns.
We need much better scrutiny and care for the mentally ill. That's where almost all the mass shootings come from, and that's what we should be paying a lot of attention to despite the tiny numbers relative to #1 and #2.
I favor going back to residential institutions for the mentally ill; clearly, mainstreaming (also known as budget cutting and throwing them out on the streets) hasn't worked very well.
I don't think we should go back to the involuntary incarceration, electroshock therapy, and lobotomies of the 1950s and early 60s as depicted in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest". But we should definitely have better care for people with mental illness, starting in high school, more than just a once a month visit from a social worker.
We probably can't stop all mass shootings, but we can at least catch a few of them early on and give them the treatment they need.
Too bad that the Democratic candidates, and the current President, seem so reluctant to discuss these real-world issues and instead just play the populist card and rail about banning guns, even though such talk leads to nothing and a ban wouldn't help, anyway.
I didn't say anything about "regulatory" or anything like it. It refers to a disciplined, trained group. It refers to our Union in its infancy, when King George wanted to ban guns from the hands of the rabble. It refers to our right, as a sovereign nation, to bear arms to defend our nation. I am not setting any discussion back. I am noting what these words mean.
Originally Posted by from the above link The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Bernie Sanders - and everyone else - also favors the ban on pipe bombs, despite the fact that they don't (and really, couldn't, due to being a fairly inefficient weapon that is difficult to wield) kill anywhere close to the number of people that guns do. Or heroin, which kills fewer people than alcohol. Or countless other illegal things which no one favors legalizing that don't and wouldn't do as much harm as something else that is legal.
Thus is exposed the vacuousness - and, frankly, idiocy - of the "But! But! This thing kills even fewer people than that other thing that is legal, so therefore it should be legal too!" drivel masquerading as 'logic'. Par for the course from the sound-bite crowd that doesn't actually have a cogent argument to make.
I think you are reaching too much, extending an argument so far out that it stops making sense...heroin? Talk about cogent arguments...we are talking firearms. Heroin is illegal because it's a highly addictive and harmful drug without medical value. But, hey, I am sure there are people that want to legalize heroin. I cannot even start to correlate it with the issue of firearms.
Pipe bombs are at least closer to this issue at hand. It's regulated as a "destructive device" - per the National Firearms Act of 1934. They have no feasible sporting, self defense, or collecting applications.
Originally Posted by from the above link The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
You two are using the same definition. He just said it differently.
I didn't say anything about "regulatory" or anything like it. It refers to a disciplined, trained group. It refers to our Union in its infancy, when King George wanted to ban guns from the hands of the rabble. It refers to our right, as a sovereign nation, to bear arms to defend our nation. I am not setting any discussion back. I am noting what these words mean.
I can only refer you to Title 10, United States Code: Militia; organized and unorganized. read it.
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.
