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.
It all boils down to two facts that gun control proponents
have not been able to address:
(1) There is a direct relationship between restrictive gun control laws and increased crime. Almost all gun control laws have been statistically proven to be linked to increases in crime.
(2) Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Using a firearm to harm another is already illegal.
Proponents might want to spend more time thinking about the facts, and less time writing about feelings that won't fix the problem.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
Yes, those are both logically sound reasons that gun control is nonsense. Gun Control is supported by two types of people: those who are unable to process information logically and are driven 100% by emotion, and those who know very well the logical flaws in the gun control arguments and simply wish to disarm innocent people, leaving them helpless and defenseless. The first group is simply stupid; the second group is evil.
A third argument that I would add to the two you present: (3) There is no logical reason to punish innocent people for the crimes of the guilty. Why not punish the criminals, rather than the victims?
I'm sure the Founding Fathers had a long discussion about future technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spankys bbq
They did. The Puckle Gun wasn't put into service due to cost. That would seem to indicate that they did discuss advancements but opted out because they were a bit more fiscally responsible than our current government.
They most certainly did discuss it. They were fighting a war. Any economically feasible advantage would have been discussed.
You may keep (own) a gun
You may carry it around with you (bear)
But it has to be unloaded. Is that infringement?
It has to be registered. Is that infringement?
It has to be visible, not concealed. Is that infringement?
But you can't sell it. Is that infringement?
I'm not taking a particular stance here, just pointing out that there are laws that could be passed to regulate arms that would not violate the terms of the 2A
All, already decided in the courts.
We are not guaranteed to keep and bear, because of a deer uprising, when they got mad at us.
Until they end up in front of SCOTUS they do. That is the progs end game. Eat around the edges just trying to avoid the big confrontation passing these laws hoping they are ignored by the courts.
You may keep (own) a gun
You may carry it around with you (bear)
But it has to be unloaded. Is that infringement?
It has to be registered. Is that infringement?
It has to be visible, not concealed. Is that infringement?
But you can't sell it. Is that infringement?
I'm not taking a particular stance here, just pointing out that there are laws that could be passed to regulate arms that would not violate the terms of the 2A
A firearm is not a firearm when it is "unloaded." It is a piece of scrap metal. How about if we allow you to own and drive a car, as long as it doesn't have a motor? Or how about we allow you to own a home as long as the exterior walls remain unsheathed?
They did. The Puckle Gun wasn't put into service due to cost. That would seem to indicate that they did discuss advancements but opted out because they were a bit more fiscally responsible than our current government.
Just to clarify a bit...you can buy a .50. You cant just walk into a regular sporting goods store and buy one. Most local gun shops dont even carry them. Otherwise, correct.
Most of my local stores carry the Bushmaster .50. Or I can order an .50 online and have it shipped to an FFL that lives 3 miles from me.
I find this troubling when the argument is against a God-given, Constituionally-protected right.
LOL, you need to leave God out of this. The Constitution doesn't start nor end at the Second Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
How about if we allow you to own and drive a car, as long as it doesn't have a motor? Or how about we allow you to own a home as long as the exterior walls remain unsheathed?
My house can hurt someone only if they trespass and trip over a hand tool I've been looking for since 2007. A gun on the other hand ...
What makes you think that? Science wasn't developed enough at the time to fathom nuclear powered anythings. The concept of an "aircraft" had been discussed prior (see the work of Da Vinci), but a practical source of power that was light enough was many years away and "flying machines" were probably not discussed as a military possibility.
However, there were many innovations at the time that would have been discussed. There are books concerning such topics relevant to that time period. If you are interested in exactly where military technology stood at the time and what was going on with innovation and invention, I suggest you seek these books out. That would prevent you from presenting such nonsense as nuclear powered submarines, guided missiles, and aircraft carriers. Those were all technologically years and years away. The first somewhat modern weapons were developed around the time of the US Civil War and the years directly following. Even at that time nuclear powered submarines, guided missiles, and aircraft carriers weren't on the drawing board. The first true aircraft carrier was built by Japan in the early 1920s. And nuclear power was still many years away (see Trinity, Manhattan Project, Hiroshima).
You were literally allowed to own another human being when the constitution was written. It is an outdated document that becomes more and more obsolete as our technology advances.
I do support the right for every law abiding citizen to own as many firearms as they please (including class C), but I could care less what the constitution says.
The constitution isn’t about technology, it’s about human rights. It doesn’t matter if your speech is by pen, word of mouth, email or tweet, it is the core freedom that is protected. This is evident throughout the constitution.
People who do not care what the constitution says then do not care about human rights.
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.
