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.
That article didnt prove that guns cause violence to be higher, it sliced a correlation 3 different ways. Not that you would understand what that means. You clearly just pick the comments on here that you think you have the best shot at rebutting. You still never addressed my comment where the Declaration of Independence proved you wrong.... sorry I used assume instead of presume...
The Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land, regardless of your thinking that it is. The Declaration was a spelling out of the reasons Great Britain no longer deserved to govern the 13 colonies. How the Declaration relates to gun control in the 21st Century is a mystery which only you appear to have solved.
The law of the land is the US Constitution, please confine your arguments to that.
That is why I did not respond to what you ridiculously characterize as using the Declaration to "prove" me wrong. It was one more ludicrous, irrelevant assertion, as have been all of your assertions here.
I am done with you, you do not present sensible arguments, just assertions which support your emotional conclusions. You like guns, so the rest of us have to suffer the calamities which gun ownership produces. All arguments and facts to the contrary, you ignore or dismiss with falsehoods such as the first sentence quoted above.
I don't hate the 2nd Amendment. I just believe that the recent popular reinterpretation of it is ridiculous, and ignores half the text and the true function of the amendment, as well as nearly the entire history of jurisprudence bearing on it.
This reinterpretation was pretty much wholly invented by the NRA beginning in the 1970s, in contradiction to every federal court decision that had ever been made on the issue up to that time.
I don't hate the 2nd Amendment. I just believe that the recent popular reinterpretation of it is ridiculous, and ignores half the text and the true function of the amendment, as well as nearly the entire history of jurisprudence bearing on it.
This reinterpretation was pretty much wholly invented by the NRA beginning in the 1970s, in contradiction to every federal court decision that had ever been made on the issue up to that time.
Not sure what you mean by "recent popular reinterpretation". The last interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court was in "DC vs Heller". In that decision the Supreme Court made it very clear that the 2nd amendment was an individual right to possess firearms.
Not sure what you mean by "recent popular reinterpretation". The last interpretation of the 2nd amendment by the Supreme Court was in "DC vs Heller". In that decision the Supreme Court made it very clear that the 2nd amendment was an individual right to possess firearms.
And that was the very first time that the Supreme Court had ever declared that the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to possess firearms. Previously, federal courts had almost always held that governments had a clear right to regulate firearm ownership (at least short of outright banning).
This change was almost entirely predicated on the effort of the NRA, beginning around 1977, to redefine the traditional interpretation of the amendment (an interpretation which the NRA itself had largely previously held to as well) as one conferring a general right, but also a governmental right to regulate. Their interpretation moved to one permitting a near-absolute specific individual right to purchase, keep, and carry any kind of arm, and a near-absolute sanction against the right of any government body to meaningfully regulate arms production, arms capacity and functioning, arms distribution and sales, arms ownership, arms carrying, or arms use. Despite the fact that nothing in the history of the amendment (until the 2008 decision you cite) supported that interpretation.
However, through their massively-funded publicity and political campaigns they have been able to convince a very large percentage of the population that this is the only acceptable interpretation of the amendment. And that any attempts to regulate firearms is an affront to "traditional" historic American rights and the history of the amendment (which, in fact, it is not).
They had a parody ad on "Parks and Recreation" a few episodes back which was for an Indian operated casino. Their motto was "Getting Back From the Whites, One Quarter At A Time."
Really? What percentage of Americans live somewhere where armed defense against wild animals is necessary?
You have several million people that live in more rural areas. I don't live out in the middle of nowhere and I had a bear come into my yard before. It's still a legit concern for millions of Americans regardless if people in heavily urbanized areas think otherwise.
Quote:
And if this is the case, are we not capable of passing laws which grant arms ownership exceptions to those in such peril filled communities? Must we keep the entire nation in arms in order to keep the ones fighting the beasts armed?
My community is not peril filled with wildlife that was unusual. We also had a bear maul and kill two people running into there home which was in a small town chasing there dog when they opened the door up to see what there dog was barking at. That was the first bear attack in the county in about 50 years. I'm glad I personally had a gun at the time the bear came into my yard. I fired a few shots into the ground and the bear took off. The whole disarm the public because they don't need firearms ever argument is beyond weak. I'm not going to even bother bringing up hunting which is a huge in a lot of this country.
You have several million people that live in more rural areas. I don't live out in the middle of nowhere and I had a bear come into my yard before. It's still a legit concern for millions of Americans regardless if people in heavily urbanized areas think otherwise.
My community is not peril filled with wildlife that was unusual. We also had a bear maul and kill two people running into there home which was in a small town chasing there dog when they opened the door up to see what there dog was barking at. That was the first bear attack in the county in about 50 years. I'm glad I personally had a gun at the time the bear came into my yard. I fired a few shots into the ground and the bear took off. The whole disarm the public because they don't need firearms ever argument is beyond weak. I'm not going to even bother bringing up hunting which is a huge in a lot of this country.
Okay, so the law we pass allows people who live in bear country to have rifles. Does that mean that we can only do that so long as we also agree that everyone is entitled to firearms?
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.
