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 have a question for you. Why is it you can't read the second amendment and let it go at that? Why must you try and cause an argument among us, when it comes to firearms? I don't want what happened in Germany in the 1940's to happen here, it could happen here if everyone was dumb enough to trust the government. Citizens having firearms helps keep the government from intruding into our lives even more than they do now. Firearm crime is small compared to the number of people who own guns.
Objection! Debate leads to deeper understanding. I have enjoyed this one and learned quite a lot.
'Completely agree about 1940. That was merely 1 lifetime a go (not a long time) and was made possible in part because of a turbulent economy (in Germany). Its not that much of a stretch to think that it might not have been the last time.
I have a question for you. Why is it you can't read the second amendment and let it go at that? Why must you try and cause an argument among us,
The topic would have been much better suited fior the P&OC forum if it was truly meant for meaningful discussion and debate, NOT a gun enthusiats forum. That said, I agree with the poster below. I'm glad the thread was started and have actually learned much through the process of reading and responding to it. It's caused me to look at things at angles I may not have considered it if weren't for this threads creation.
Quote:
. Firearm crime is small compared to the number of people who own guns.
Anyone got any actual statistics on this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo6
Objection! Debate leads to deeper understanding. I have enjoyed this one and learned quite a lot.
.
Do you know what I'd like to see in the wake of one of these shooting tragedies? I would like to see news reports of all the people who've bought guns, who have not used them for nafarious prurposes. People buy guns everyday in this country, who use them safe and responsibly, but you never hear about them now do you? No. Instead, we hear of only a few wack jobs, who politicians use to base entire agendas off of, and achieving them by employing scare tactics and raw emotion of the public.
Why is it 40,000+ Americans are killed by cars every year, yet nobody wants to prevent me from owning a car?
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,768,892 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal
The article is fodder best suited for the compost pile. Nothing more.
There is nothing weak about the 2nd Amendment and the authors did say what they meant and meant what they said. The only thing that is weak is the grey matter between the ears of the author.
Given the OP's anti-gun rants in the Politics forum he is clearly here to throw a turd in a punchbowl. However, as it does over in the politics forum it sticks to his fingers everytime and misses its mark.
Perhaps the OP would do better to state why he is personally against the right of others to keep and bear arms. Maybe he should explain why he blames the tool rather than the individual behind it.
The author speaks extremely authoritatively and draws a very strong conclusion from an amalgam of very weak assumptions and very ambiguous and subjective evidence. This is choir preaching at best and serves no purpose other than polarization.
The author's endgame is also inherently weak. Methamphetamine, heroine and cocaine are also not legal to possess, yet the people who intend to possess and enjoy them have no problem acquiring said banned substances and, further, an unregulated market is created by the mere illegality of these substances. That model would be absolutely identical in the event of a national disarmament.
Murder is also illegal, yet people have an uncanny way of continuing to murder. Legislation or other action that would curtail the lawful trade and ownership of firearms in the name of reducing or eliminating atrocious violence involving firearms would prove to be a miserable failure.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,768,892 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy
Legislation or other action that would curtail the lawful trade and ownership of firearms in the name of reducing or eliminating atrocious violence involving firearms would prove to be a miserable failure.
As an afterthought, it is absolutely fascinating to me that there are otherwise intelligent and contemplative people who fail to recognize the inherent futility and inherent weakness in the strategy of disarming the populace to effect the end of domestic firearms violence...
Back then, a gun was a single fire musket, that often missed the target. Maybe the forefathers could not predict semi automatic machine guns.
Single shot, but not with just one projectile most often. Most often 2 large projectiles, and so many as 9 smaller all at once. The load is called Buck n' Ball.
But this is about the rule of law..... We have the rule of law from a higher power than any Govt, and for all i care the Govt can change the rule of law any day it wants, but it will have 0 effect on me.
As an afterthought, it is absolutely fascinating to me that there are otherwise intelligent and contemplative people who fail to recognize the inherent futility and inherent weakness in the strategy of disarming the populace to effect the end of domestic firearms violence...
People who do not experience history are doomed to repeat it. In the past 3 decades most written history has all changed. The Japanese won the war, Hilter was a nice guy, and it is the USA who is bad...
Fort Ticondeoga was always nothing more than a sunny picnic ground too....
"Traffic fatalities in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes decreased by 7.4 percent from 11,711 in 2008 to 10,839 in 2009." Out of 33,808 total car related fatalities in the same year.
In the United States, annual unintentional shooting deaths total
2005: 78917
2001: 80214
Obviously that number is not correct, you cut and pasted the footnote reference, s/b:
In the United States, annual unintentional shooting deaths total
2005: 789
2001: 802
Accidental deaths by choking (on bubblegum or whatever) are about 5 times this number by the 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.
