Banning guns is not now, nor is it ever going to be a step in the right direction.

And that's bullshit.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

In one year automobiles cause more homicides than three years of gun violence.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

That's a joke right?

I mean you can't really be comparing accidents and passing them off as homicides?

Firearms account for 70% of homicides. Knives an additional 12%. What percentage do you think is vehicles? It ain't shit.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Sadly, I have to agree with sonic on this one. Not as eloquently as he put it though.

In the future I imagine a society without firearms at all, starting with the governments of the world disarming. The people will then follow slowly but surely. I'm talking a hundred or more years into the future however, after we've all been conquered by a race of giant amazons who want the most virile males for snoo snoo.

Accidents are also homicides. A homicide is simply the killing of one human by another, doesn't matter if it's an accident or not. When it's intentional and premeditated, it's called murder. Still, car accidents claim something to the tune of 40,000 American lives every year, but I don't see you boo hooing over the dead motorists, which sorta makes you a hypocrite if your sole concern with firearms is as a matter of public safety. Truth is, I think guns frighten you, along with that dork 12evanf.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

First of all, let's have some perspective here. When discussing these types of things, I consider ever as in the course of the lifetime of anyone currently living. Anything beyond that is really open to just about anything as far as possibilities go, so when reading my posts on this subject, the context I'm speaking of is within reasonable time parameters of our lifetime.

You don't think that deaths caused by Driving Under the Influence count? They certainly do in a court of law, and that number is about the same, if not a little higher than gun homicides

As for the 2nd Amendment, the whole thing became moot in 1945 with the advent of the nuclear bomb. Citizens with guns can't violently overthrow a government with 5,000 nuclear warheads. Now the US has an army of drones as well. Your private arms collection is like threatening an army of hardened soldiers with a plastic spork. The US government has power and technology to kill everyone and we are not permitted the same power. Considering a nuclear holocaust hasn't occured yet, it seems the current strategy is working for the better.

The 9th Amendment of the Constution reads


The purpose of this Amendment is to show that just because certain rights aren't listed in the Bill of Rights does not mean that the people don't have further rights. We have many rights that are too hard to nail down and list in any Bill, and the Constitution should not be used to disparage these other rights.

Rights that should be included: Life, Health, Privacy. Right that should be considered: Employment.

When one right is stepping on the toes of other rights, it is not a just right. The 2nd Amendment is no longer useful in its current verbiage as the government has already sidestepped the usefulness private arms have to the people. They've done this by creating new, super firepower. Thus the right to own firearms has taken on a new meaning, everyone now has a right to carry a firearm for self-defense against their fellow man. That's not what the 2nd Amendment says. Now people are using firearms to kill themselves and murder each other and sometimes accidentally kill one another. Infringing other inalienable rights clearly mentioned in the 9th Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment does not need to be fully repealed, but it needs to be re-written.

I didn't get these statistics from my ass. If 82% of homicides are knives and firearms, how many do you think are vehicles?

70% of drunk driving deaths are the vehicle drivers. How many of these crashes are pre-meditated? Cars are used to the tune of 2.5T miles a year in the United States. Only maybe a hundred times is it used for pre-meditated murder.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

The 9th Amendment does not make mention of any rights in particular, so how they could be "clearly" mentioned is beyond my ability to comprehend. The practical purpose of the 9th Amendment is to allow the judicial branch a back door to enumeration of rights not otherwise guaranteed in the Constitution in cases such as Lawrence vs. Texas.

I can understand how someone who doesn't believe in fighting for something they believe could come to the conclusion that a rebellion vs. our own government would inevitably fail, but similar things were said of the Afghani people who, despite starvation, inferior armament, and inferior numbers, managed to fend off one of the world's foremost superpowers in the USSR. Weapons are just one variable in the equation. The single most important motivator, of course, being the willingness to fight. All it would take is for a group of insurgents to capture a stash of better weapons and all of a sudden the playing field begins to level. Add in the fact that many of our soldiers could question the ethics of fighting their own people and as a result they decide to defect.

You are ignoring many potential variables here. In the case of pretty much every single rebellion in history, the rebels have had the short end of the stick with regard to weapons and training, so why do you continue to disregard this fact?

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

Quick Google search, and every other source will say the same.



SOURCE

The question is, when a born right is no longer effectual and has negative effects on other born rights (I think we all agree that the right to Life is a cornerstone right), should it be amended?

Not to round this back to the OP but....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/09/us-usa-drones-idUSBRE91800B20130209

Where do we draw the line?,,Bazookas?, Rocket launchers?, Morters?, Hand Grenades? nukes?
The second was intended AT THAT TIME, to have American citizens to have self protection (Arms) to fight off oppression of forign forces, domestic intruders, and danger from forign forces, not to settle your differences of opinion, creed, philosophies, or ire against fellow Americans on American soil.
Should the son-of-a-bitch that is killing cops have to taken alive, to stand a FAIR trial, so he can claim insanity?
Should we have to wait until someone takes action and kill several people before we decide that using a drone is neccessary?
I have a Browning 12 gauge that will discourage wanna be boogerulers from breaking into my home and endangering me OR my wife (my right to keep and bear arms on criminals)
For hunting other game, I have a 7mm w/scope. for those long shots.
Assault rifles (I rated Expert Marxman in the Service, ribbons and all), does NOT belong in the hands of just any Rambo wannabe that wants one.
They were designed SPECIFICALLY to KILL PEOPLE.

Not true SH, More DEATHS by accident, yes, but not Homicides.
Guns are #1 killer in the U.S.A.,,,moreso HERE in America than anywhere else in the world, and why?, because we have more guns than anywhere else on the planet,,,People aren't going to give up their toys here in America, Even if they have to kill innocents to keep them.

One more question, would ANYONE here in America have given their blessings IF the CIA had information that those dildos that took down the towers , and were to have been "DRONED" ahead of time?

Let me give an extreme example to show you what is actually being proposed.

A: Johny stole a pack of bubblegum so he got life in prison. B: After protests, the government reduced the punishment to 25 years in prison.

A is wrong, and B is still wrong, even though it seems more reasonable after looking at A.

"Suspected militants" still include US citizens, and a "secret court or tribunal" doesn't make me feel any more comfortable in denying an American citizen's right to Habeas Corpus.

Frankly, we aren't supposed to draw a line because the 2nd amendment doesn't. Private citizens according to the 2nd amendment should be able to own rocket launchers, mortars, hand grenades, or even nukes. Further legislation however, has limited the public's ability to procure those weapons. Those aren't what is up for debate.

The son-of-a-bitch you mention SHOULD be captured alive if possible, but if he fires on police then of course he can be fired back upon in order to save lives. Insanity claims are only used in about 1% of cases because it almost never works, so you shouldn't even worry about that. Yes he should stand a fair trial in my opinion, because he is an american citizen and that is his right. Also... he was a frickin police officer. Do you think he would have a problem getting weapons even if an assault weapon ban was in affect?

Should we have to wait until someone has committed a crime before we punish them? Where the hell do you live? Minority Report? INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. During war, and against enemy combatants in a warzone you don't have to worry about that, but against US citizens? For real?

Yes I agree that assault rifles shouldn't belong in just any rambo's hands... that's why we already have laws against people procuring them illegally, but those laws aren't well enough enforced. Also, the majority of gun deaths are from hand guns, not assault rifles. Assault rifles are used by mass murderers, but do you know what else mass murderers use? Psychiatric drugs. Almost all of them. (I only say almost because all of the ones I know of were taking some kind of drug, but I'm sure there are others)

Maybe we should be doing an investigation into the mental health situation in america instead of spending money on the tools mass-murderers use, but no of course not, LEGAL drugs are good, guns are bad.




(Sorry for hijacking my own thread lol, scutter if you'd like to respond to the gun talk can you please respond in one of the gun threads? I check those as well and I will respond there)