KNIFE CRIME up in the U.K.

[Vincent Vega]

Oh my, every day I feel so terribly unfree because my government doesn't allow me to run around with a semi-automatic AK47 or a SKS Simunov.
Not even a 9mm or somethig along those lines. Damn oppressive regime.

 

[Bluer White]

lots of things are banned. i agree that many shouldn't. but i think you can make a very clear case that guns represent a threat to public health. so what do we do about it?

How about amend the Constitution again?

 

[Hobo13]

How about amend the Constitution again?

Like what they tried to do to alcohol?

 

[bigjohn2441]

Like what they tried to do to alcohol?

another great example of how awesome banning things works out

 

[Bluer White]

Like what they tried to do to alcohol?

Exactly.

Unconstitutional and irrational.

 

[BVS]

Exactly.

Unconstitutional and irrational.

I agree it was completely irrational, but what made it unconstitutional?

The constitution is a living evolving document, what makes one ammendment constitutional and another unconstitutional?

 

[Hobo13]

I agree it was completely irrational, but what made it unconstitutional?

The constitution is a living evolving document, what makes one ammendment constitutional and another unconstitutional?

The constitutional ones are still part of the Constitution.

 

[BVS]

I was looking for something more than a platitude.

 

[bigjohn2441]

the 10th amendment

all powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government shall be given to the states.

i dont think there was anything in the constitution about the fed being able to ban booze.

 

[Irvine511]

Exactly.

Unconstitutional and irrational.

note that i haven't advocated banning guns outright.

i just want gun owners to man up and admit that their rights get kids killed, and they don't care because shooting guns is fun.

 

[Irvine511]

the 10th amendment

all powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government shall be given to the states.

awesome. now let's let Connecticut and New York ban guns and Texans can keep shooting each other like it's 1876.

and while we're at it, let's repeal DOMA and extend federal benefits to all couples in states where same-sex marriage is legal.

 

[bigjohn2441]

note that i haven't advocated banning guns outright.

i just want gun owners to man up and admit that their rights get kids killed, and they don't care because shooting guns is fun.

you act like im the one doing the shooting MY right, and the vast MAJORITY of gun owners rights have never gotten anyone killed.

and a lot of our other "rights" get a lot more people killed. driving a vechicle, medicare (malpractice), eating shitty food that gives heart attacks, drinking and smoking, etc etc.

even though these arent specific rights defined in the bill of rights, (although i think they could fall under the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happines), these everyday things cause a LOT more death than guns, yet i dont see people crying to ban fast food or booze and cigs. where is the outrage over the approx 200,000 deaths per year (vs around 30,000 gun deaths/year) in the US from malpractice? no, we just attack guns cause it's so much easier cause "they are only built to kill people"

 

[Irvine511]

you act like im the one doing the shooting MY right, and the vast MAJORITY of gun owners rights have never gotten anyone killed.

and a lot of our other "rights" get a lot more people killed. driving a vechicle, medicare (malpractice), eating shitty food that gives heart attacks, drinking and smoking, etc etc.

even though these arent specific rights defined in the bill of rights, (although i think they could fall under the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happines), these everyday things cause a LOT more death than guns, yet i dont see people crying to ban fast food or booze and cigs. where is the outrage over the approx 200,000 deaths per year (vs around 30,000 gun deaths/year) in the US from malpractice? no, we just attack guns cause it's so much easier cause "they are only built to kill people"

and also because the correlation between handgun ownership and a high murder rate -- especially in comparison to other countries that are as violent, yet don't have the gun culture we do -- is so clear and obvious, that it's kind of hard not to point out the glaring fact that your right gets people killed, often instantaneously.

there's a very clear way to deal with this public health emergency.

 

[HyperU2]

Public health emergency? I guess no one realizes how very, very slim your chance of being killed with a firearm is. When you look at the number of guns we have versus your own personal odds of being shot it's astronomically small.

 

[Irvine511]

Public health emergency? I guess no one realizes how very, very slim your chance of being killed with a firearm is. When you look at the number of guns we have versus your own personal odds of being shot it's astronomically small.

what's your likelihood of getting shot if you are a black male between the ages of 18-29 who lives in Baltimore?

 

[bigjohn2441]

what's your likelihood of getting shot if you are a black male between the ages of 18-29 who lives in Baltimore?

surely there are no other factors there, just GUNS

 

[HyperU2]

what's your likelihood of getting shot if you are a black male between the ages of 18-29 who lives in Baltimore?

I guess it depends on whether you're a criminal or not.

 

[bigjohn2441]

I guess it depends on whether you're a criminal or not.

no way THAT should be an issue. only the GUNS kill people.

 

[BVS]

Yes because criminals only kill other criminals... You guys aren't that naive.

 

[bigjohn2441]

Yes because criminals only kill other criminals... You guys aren't that naive.

when did i say that?

dont blame the criminals blame the guns.

 

[BVS]

Well you posted Hyper's post as if you were agreeing with it

 

[popshopper]

Can someone explain to me how the 2nd Amendment is limited to just guns?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Surely if you take the view that "bear Arms" is a military phrasing which is supported by the use of the term 'militia' then why is there a limit to just guns? Surely it would apply to all the equipment a militia would need such as artillery and ordinance? Both of which are forbidden in the States.

 

[BVS]

don't make them think...

 

[HyperU2]

Can someone explain to me how the 2nd Amendment is limited to just guns?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Surely if you take the view that "bear Arms" is a military phrasing which is supported by the use of the term 'militia' then why is there a limit to just guns? Surely it would apply to all the equipment a militia would need such as artillery and ordinance? Both of which are forbidden in the States.

You're allowed to own both if you're so inclined. Research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

Yes because criminals only kill other criminals... You guys aren't that naive.

Naivety is the belief that the majority of those killed in Baltimore in the demographic mentioned are innocent victims.

 

[bigjohn2441]

don't make them think...

right, cause i'm too simple-minded to "think"

 

[popshopper]

You're allowed to own both if you're so inclined. Research.

Destructive device - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Naivety is the belief that the majority of those killed in Baltimore in the demographic mentioned are innocent victims.

Ah so you don't believe that the 2nd amendment is a barrier for strict gun control then? Good to know

 

[BVS]

Naivety is the belief that the majority of those killed in Baltimore in the demographic mentioned are innocent victims.

Wow...

 

[BVS]

right, cause i'm too simple-minded to "think"

Well how come the question never gets answered?

 

[bigjohn2441]

Well how come the question never gets answered?

what question?

if you want grenades, rocket launchers, and machineguns, you technically COULD get them legally, depending on the state. so yes, under the 2nd amendment, our right to have a "milita" complete with military weapons COULD be possible.

or simply we didnt have anything but muskets when they made the 2nd amendment.

 

[BVS]

What about tanks and F-16s? I mean why stop with rocket launchers? I'm sure you think this is a good idea.