If we're to believe guns should be banned

[Darkwind]

Statistics. have a go at it sometime.

Here's some stats:

After their massacre in the 90's, Australia banned semi-automatic weapons. Since then, they've had zero fatalities from semi-automatic weapons.

So there's a big, fat statistic for you: ZERO.

Apples and oranges.

So, what was it I claimed? That innocent lives would not be saved. Have you looked at the number of defensive gun uses in the US as compared to the miniscule number of deaths caused by semi-automatic? More people will be injured or killed if semi-automatic weapons are banned.

Now, your deflection and poor attempt to find some sort of equivalence.

Here is a chart is taken from the link below the chart. Homicides have remained basically the same rate prior to the ban as after the ban. The current dip is well within the margin of error.

Australian Institute of Criminology - Homicide statistics

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations

The Facts That Neither Side Wants To Admit About Gun Control


You failed yet again. Have fun.

 

[hazlnut]

We're talking about limiting access to guns for certain people.

Who the fuck are you or anybody else to arbitrarily limit any Individual's clear-cut constitutional right?

On top of that, how would you enforce your will on an Individual if he or she does not consent? Hm? Tell me. How? How would you enforce it?

Please look up the word "arbitrarily" in a dictionary then get back to us…

How about you look up the First amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment and get back to us before your open you pie holes about arbitrarily 'limiting' the rights of any Individual.

Gosh darned amateurs. Jiminy crickets. You'd be violating every one of those. Plus others.

Numbnuts, there is nothing "arbitrary" about…

Libel
Slander
Kiddie Porn
Perjury
Fighting Words
Incitement to violence
***Limits to Free Speech (First Amendment)



There are way too many exceptions and rules to the 5th Amendment….
for example, a person can be forced to turn over incriminating tax documents…be prosecuted in two states for the same crime…
...members of a state militia can be compelled to testify in a grand jury
Also, Public employees have their own thing - Garrity Rule


4th Amendment Exceptions… (a few)

Plain view
Emergencies/hot pursuit
consent
Automobiles w/probable cause
Impounded vehicles
Incident to lawful arrest


10th Amendment - again very completed case law with Commerce Clause / Federal Funding / -- the 10th is mostly used by the states in cases of federal overreach. So anything not yet decided could be called an "exception".

 

[hazlnut]

You're one of those people who don't understand that no written version of the any law can cover every case/instance/situation in perpetuity and thus the supreme court over two + centuries has interpreted the constitution and defined what the Federal Government can and can not do.

Actually I am the exact opposite of that type person ... I am a conservative with constructionist leanings.

The difference is that to me the law means what it says ... Not what you (or anyone for that matter) would like it to mean.
If you want the law to mean something ... Then write it so it does.
Don't make assumptions about what isn't written to support an authority or power that isn't specifically granted.

If the two of us need to interpret something ... I'll stick to what it means in the language used ... You can pretend it means something else ...

.

Then why are kiddie porn, libel, slander, defamation illegal? (First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…")

Why can a cop search a home without a warrant when he hears screaming inside? Or search a purse found on the street?

Why can a person be tried for the same crime in different states?

My point -- in order to answer those questions you need to acknowledge the Supreme Court Decisions as the law of the land and thus valid interpretations/ exceptions/ limits to the Bill of Rights.


"If you want the law to mean something ... Then write it so it does."

Answer this question---> Do you understand that it is impossible to write a law that covers every single instance/case/situation from now until the end of time?

That's why we have state courts and federal courts….

Scalia in one decision pointed a variety of exceptions/limits to the 2nd Amendment…


1) limits the type of weapon;

2) concealed weapons prohibitions;

3) prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill;

4) forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings;

5) laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms;

 

[Natural Citizen]

Where do you see backgound checks in order to exercise your Second Amendment in there? Numbnuts. lol.

We're talking about limiting access to guns for certain people.

Who the fuck are you or anybody else to arbitrarily limit any Individual's clear-cut constitutional right?

On top of that, how would you enforce your will on an Individual if he or she does not consent? Hm? Tell me. How? How would you enforce it?

Please look up the word "arbitrarily" in a dictionary then get back to us…

How about you look up the First amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment and get back to us before your open you pie holes about arbitrarily 'limiting' the rights of any Individual.

Gosh darned amateurs. Jiminy crickets. You'd be violating every one of those. Plus others.

Numbnuts, there is nothing "arbitrary" about…

Libel
Slander
Kiddie Porn
Perjury
Fighting Words
Incitement to violence
***Limits to Free Speech (First Amendment)



There are way too many exceptions and rules to the 5th Amendment….
for example, a person can be forced to turn over incriminating tax documents…be prosecuted in two states for the same crime…
...members of a state militia can be compelled to testify in a grand jury
Also, Public employees have their own thing - Garrity Rule


4th Amendment Exceptions… (a few)

Plain view
Emergencies/hot pursuit
consent
Automobiles w/probable cause
Impounded vehicles
Incident to lawful arrest


10th Amendment - again very completed case law with Commerce Clause / Federal Funding / -- the 10th is mostly used by the states in cases of federal overreach. So anything not yet decided could be called an "exception".

 

[BlackSand]

Then why are kiddie porn, libel, slander, defamation illegal? (First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law…")

Why can a cop search a home without a warrant when he hears screaming inside? Or search a purse found on the street?

Why can a person be tried for the same crime in different states?

My point -- in order to answer those questions you need to acknowledge the Supreme Court Decisions as the law of the land and thus valid interpretations/ exceptions/ limits to the Bill of Rights.


"If you want the law to mean something ... Then write it so it does."

Answer this question---> Do you understand that it is impossible to write a law that covers every single instance/case/situation from now until the end of time?

That's why we have state courts and federal courts….

Scalia in one decision pointed a variety of exceptions/limits to the 2nd Amendment…


1) limits the type of weapon;

2) concealed weapons prohibitions;

3) prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill;

4) forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings;

5) laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms;

My point is not that the laws haven't been written in violation of the Constitution as a matter of negligent interpretations.
It is simply that we cannot actually interpret what isn't actually written.

If you want the Constitution to say something that isn't written ... You can change it.
If you want to pretend it means something other than what it says ... Well, that's your mistake.

.

 

[Natural Citizen]

My point -- in order to answer those questions you need to acknowledge the Supreme Court Decisions as the law of the land and thus valid interpretations/ exceptions/ limits to the Bill of Rights.

.

They can't win because the documents patently contradict their intentions. All they do is muddy the waters and try to change the terms of controversy. It's laughable.

The Second Amendment stands. We win. Freedom wins.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Actually, I'll take a little bit of that back. OldLady was at least speaking from the heart and because of that, I could relate to her tenor with regard to the topic. She was at least straight forward in her rejection and didn't try to rewrite the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Those other weasels who were popping off so obtusely and in such an intellectually dishonest fashion, clearly do not accept (and likely don't even understand) the relevance of several parts of the Bill of Rights, which were precisely designed to bind them down from their tyranny in the first place. Gives me the heebie jeebies.

 

[BlackSand]

Actually, I'll take a little bit of that back. OldLady was at least speaking from the heart and because of that, I could relate to her tenor with regard to the topic. She was at least straight forward in her rejection and didn't try to rewrite the Bill of Rights andthe Constitution.

Those other weasels who were popping off so obtusely and in such an intellectually dishonest fashion, clearly do not accept (and likely don't even understand) the relevance of several parts of the Bill of Rights which was precisely designed to bind them down from their tyranny in the first place. Gives me the heebie jeebies.

Yeah Old lady is 'good people' ... She just doesn't understand where to draw the line between what she would like to see and a respect for the freedoms some of us enjoy.

I have a friend that is even worse than Old Lady ... A really good Libertarian, until she disagrees with what you should have the liberty to do ...
I have never been able to explain to her that is not how liberty works.

.

 

[leftwinger]

The GOVT fails almost everything. After reading this thread......we need more Guns in public to take down loose Criminals that GOVT fails to "put on the list". He once Escaped a mental institution and a year in Jail. Do you feel $6T worth of results?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

These incident are very unfortunate. But if anyone thinks for one second that any Individual should relinquish his or her own Individual rights in order to appease someone elses feelings, you're mistaken. And dilusional. Respectfully.

It isn't about "feelings." It is about common sense. I also have a right not to be mowed down in church, at Walmart, at school. That is not "feels."

Do the people of New York have the right to NOT be mowed down by a Muslim yelling Allah ooh Akbar while driving over them with a rental truck? Just asking?

 

[BlackSand]

These incident are very unfortunate. But if anyone thinks for one second that any Individual should relinquish his or her own Individual rights in order to appease someone elses feelings, you're mistaken. And dilusional. Respectfully.

It isn't about "feelings." It is about common sense. I also have a right not to be mowed down in church, at Walmart, at school. That is not "feels."

Thanks to the Constitution ... You have a protected right to help defend yourself from being mowed down.
If fear keeps you from exercising that right ... It has everything to do with "feels".

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Which won't happen in the foreseeable future, doesn't it make sense to ban gun violence from entertainment, from games to music to TV and some media?

To me its a logical flow. Take the latest Church slaughter, wholly shit BTW, what a freak. Our govt. let us down on this one. Anyway, worse things than rifles can be used, and they'd be as or more effective, agree? It's just that guns are most convenient, and to a freak, they're probably the most "fun" too. After all, they've seen it on TV, read about the affects 24/7, and games are probably worse.

On a side, imagine if guns were banned. The culprit could obtain one illegally, and cool cat NRA instructor wouldn't have been able to fire a cap in his ass.

What if only the semiautomatic rifles got banned that spray dozens of bullets per minute, like the AR 556 Kelley used?
You're right--a lot of the violence in entertainment is way over the top and it should be censored. Kids' cartoons have gotten so sacharine sweet I can't bear to watch them for five minutes yet Grand Theft Auto was one of the most popular video games out there for awhile. I don't even go to the movies anymore, but guns and violence are dripping from everything--including prime time tv. So yeah. It doesn't have to be too sweet to swallow, but a little taste and a lot less mass media mayhem wouldn't hurt anything.

Then when a person uses a handgun instead you will want to ban those. Then when a person uses a shotgun you will want to ban those.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Which won't happen in the foreseeable future, doesn't it make sense to ban gun violence from entertainment, from games to music to TV and some media?

To me its a logical flow. Take the latest Church slaughter, wholly shit BTW, what a freak. Our govt. let us down on this one. Anyway, worse things than rifles can be used, and they'd be as or more effective, agree? It's just that guns are most convenient, and to a freak, they're probably the most "fun" too. After all, they've seen it on TV, read about the affects 24/7, and games are probably worse.

On a side, imagine if guns were banned. The culprit could obtain one illegally, and cool cat NRA instructor wouldn't have been able to fire a cap in his ass.

What if only the semiautomatic rifles got banned that spray dozens of bullets per minute, like the AR 556 Kelley used?
You're right--a lot of the violence in entertainment is way over the top and it should be censored. Kids' cartoons have gotten so sacharine sweet I can't bear to watch them for five minutes yet Grand Theft Auto was one of the most popular video games out there for awhile. I don't even go to the movies anymore, but guns and violence are dripping from everything--including prime time tv. So yeah. It doesn't have to be too sweet to swallow, but a little taste and a lot less mass media mayhem wouldn't hurt anything.

I've noticed the left is touting banning "just semi automatics"...no thanks, once you achieve that you'll move on to another style of gun in route to your dream of an outright gun ban

Come get it, boys! I dares ya!

What about some guns that do wicked damage in the wrong hands?

It's not the gun it's the hands.

But you don't get that do you?

 

[iceberg]

i suppose what i never understand is that keep keep treating the constitution like it's a base human right.

it's not. freedom isn't a "right" it's a condition. a state of being. it only exists, as do *all of our rights* because we say so and we protect that ability to the core. both sides need to stop and remember this little fact that we're fighting against each other over the very document that makes said fighting possible.

we've succeeded so well we've become our own rome and the only thing that will seem to make us happy now is to tear it all down. minus the orgies unfortunately.

we don't have any of these freedoms we argue about daily because we're alive. we have them because of each others desire to protect what we all agree should be a baseline for our way of life. something we need to remember as we beat the shit out of each other daily.

 

[OldLady]

It has been really hard for people to hear me on this thread. I am not proposing to take away everyone's gun. I have asked why, specifically, AR type semis MUST be part of the arsenal. What is wrong with a regular deer rifle, shotgun, handgun? Are they not guns? How is it ditching the 2nd to restrict use to a weapon originally designed for warfare?

I am not alone.
Trump Pentagon pick says its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons
Trump Pentagon pick says its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It has been really hard for people to hear me on this thread. I am not proposing to take away everyone's gun. I have asked why, specifically, AR type semis MUST be part of the arsenal. What is wrong with a regular deer rifle, shotgun, handgun? Are they not guns? How is it ditching the 2nd to restrict use to a weapon originally designed for warfare?

I am not alone.
Trump Pentagon pick says its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons
Trump Pentagon pick says its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons

You keep missing the intent of the 2nd, it's not about hunting...

 

[DarkFury]

It has been really hard for people to hear me on this thread. I am not proposing to take away everyone's gun. I have asked why, specifically, AR type semis MUST be part of the arsenal. What is wrong with a regular deer rifle, shotgun, handgun? Are they not guns? How is it ditching the 2nd to restrict use to a weapon originally designed for warfare?

I am not alone.
Trump Pentagon pick says its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons
Trump Pentagon pick says its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons

The AR was never used for warfare! And as far as his pick? I say no!

 

[The Derp]

It doesn't ... Dude in Texas passed two background checks.
Now you could blame the military ... But that isn't everything.
Having actually filled out the paperwork for a background check ... There is no way the guy could have honestly answered 85% of the questions and been approved.
That means that at best ... Nobody is really checking anything on the paperwork..

I think they're going to now, given what happened with the Air Force not putting in his conviction. Not that it would have mattered anyway; domestic abusers can get guns in Texas.

 

[The Derp]

It's not the gun it's the hands.
But you don't get that do you?

Who cares if Kim Jong-Un gets a nuke? Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.

 

[OldLady]

It has been really hard for people to hear me on this thread. I am not proposing to take away everyone's gun. I have asked why, specifically, AR type semis MUST be part of the arsenal. What is wrong with a regular deer rifle, shotgun, handgun? Are they not guns? How is it ditching the 2nd to restrict use to a weapon originally designed for warfare?

I am not alone.
Trump Pentagon pick says its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons
Trump Pentagon pick says its 'insane' for civilians to own semi-automatic weapons

The AR was never used for warfare! And as far as his pick? I say no!

No, it was copied from a war weapon. Wiki:
Colt AR-15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Colt AR-15

The Colt AR-15
Type Semi-automatic rifle
Place of origin United States
Service history
In service 1964–present
Production history
Designer Eugene Stoner, Jim Sullivan, Bob Fremont
Manufacturer Colt
Variants see List of Colt AR-15 variants

The Colt AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56×45mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated semi-automatic rifle. It was designed to be manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. Colt's Manufacturing Company currently uses the AR-15 trademark for its line of semi-automatic AR-15 rifles that are marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers.