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.
The Constitution was written by the "radical progressives" of the day. The people you would have sided with at the time (the small/weak-government anti-Federalists) were fortunately marginalized and voted down on issue after issue, though concessions (such s the 2nd Amendment) had to be offered to them in order to secure ratification.
Yup, pesky concessions like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by jury, etc.
You know, the ones that protect our individual rights.
The writers of the constitution very specifically wanted to protect its people from the ill effects of a totalitarian government. We can pretend that they were "radical progressives" if you want but they still wanted the polar opposite of todays progressives.
I cant say what I wrote in a previous post enough times....
Its the person that needs reform not the weapon. Take away guns and they will use the next weapon easiest to obtain to do the same damage.
Trying to help you here mustangman: Let's see if you, and I, can make it clear
No gun will discharge until the trigger is pulled back, after the safety is released.
The same is true with a baseball bat. It wont kill someone unless someone else swings it like a weapon.
Oh, those nasty knives, they wont gut someone unless someone else shoves it into their belly or slashes their throat.
You know what else mustang man? Those pesky cars wont kill anyone without a driver
Need I continue?
Moderator cut: Attack the position, not the people
I see no reason why people I know should have multiple guns as a HOBBY.
I live in Canada and own several firearms for hunting purposes. I have a 12 gauge shotgun for duck, goose, grouse and turkey, a .22-250 rifle for varmints, a .30-06 rifle for bear, deer and moose, a .22 LR for small game and a .50 muzzleloader for black powder deer season.
If you honestly don't understand why a .30-06 is unsuitable for rabbits, why a .22 LR completely ineffective on large game or why it is extremely unethical to use a .22-250 on a deer, you really shouldn't be participating in this discussion in the first place.
If you truly want to make an impact on violent crimes, stop banning firearms and start incarcerating violent criminals for extended mandatory minimum sentences in maximum security facilities. This approach has proved to be extremely effective in Florida.
Its the person that needs reform not the weapon. Take away guns and they will use the next weapon easiest to obtain to do the same damage.
There are no other readily available weapons that reliably inflict as much damage as quickly and irreparably as guns do. Forcing resort to alternative weapons would result in automatic harm reduction.
Yup, pesky concessions like freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by jury, etc. You know, the ones that protect our individual rights.
No, I was talking about concessions made by the people whose names we actually remember to anti-Federalists and slaveholders -- i.e., the now mostly forgotten right-wing of the day. Students of the period know their names, but don't so often view them in a positive light. It can be hard to get past the slave thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
The writers of the constitution very specifically wanted to protect its people from the ill effects of a totalitarian government. We can pretend that they were "radical progressives" if you want but they still wanted the polar opposite of todays progressives.
The writers of the Constitution were on an emergency mission to create a strong central government, one vested with powers sufficient to carry out an effective governance of thirteen quarrelsome and often irrationally self-serving states. Under the weak system established by the Articles of Confederation, the young nation was coming apart at the seams barely ten years after its creation. The founders in 1787 were in fact moving in exactly the opposite direction from the one you suggest.
This approach has proved to be extremely effective in Florida.
Along with everywhere else, Florida's crime rates had been declining before the law went into effect (1999), and they continued to do so in the years after the law was passed. The law itself had little actual effect.
There are no other readily available weapons that reliably inflict as much damage as quickly and irreparably as guns do. Forcing resort to alternative weapons would result in automatic harm reduction.
Of course gun are more efficient than rocks and other primitive weapons.
The deaths resulting from the downstream violence of gangs and drug sales is not from the rate of fire of a weapon. Theoretically, rate of fire can be a issue but only in very rare circumstances that would not move the needle of concern barring the predominance of gang/drug violence.
A gallon of gasoline, a bag of nails, media broadcasting instructions and a match or battery can do more damage. More easily concealed than most firearms.
In fact in the middle east, terrorists put down their automatic weapons and pick up home made bombs which are more indiscriminate than bullets.
Problem is the evil in the hearts of man reamins long after the theoretical elimination of firearms. Evil can find many ways far more efficient than firearms to continue the violence.
Grape Kool Aid didn't kill people, it was the cynanide mixed in by the hand of Jim Jones.
There are no other readily available weapons that reliably inflict as much damage as quickly and irreparably as guns do. Forcing resort to alternative weapons would result in automatic harm reduction.
An alternative will always be found if need be, period. But as previously stated a true criminal will get a gun regardless if they are legal or not while a law abiding citizen will not. The same outcome will occur whether or not guns are legal. If someone was going to rob you at gun point don't you think they would think twice if you also had a gun on you and knew how to use it?
If you hate guns that much , put a sign on your door "This is a gun free zone"
If you don't do it your a hypocrite .
Of course it creates an open invitation to a would be thug to take advantage of you .
Making laws to take away ones right to bear arms is exactly that.
The government is making a greater effort against rifles, which are not responsible for most crimes because that is what they fear, and planning for the future martial law. removal of the constitution . Sandy hook was manufactured by the government, as well as many other event.
Just for your information
Diane Feinstein carries a gun. She doesn't care about your safety, only her safety. Most government are this way.
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.
