OT: Safety is an Illusion

[zk]

[quote=SK in CV]
You’ll have to ask him. “Arms” are weapons. The courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and not dismissed bans on some semi-automatic weapons. I’m pretty sure no one has ever successfully argued that the arms referred to in the 2nd amendment covers nuclear weapons.[/quote]

I’m honestly not sure of the relevance of this part of the discussion (exactly which weapons are or aren’t covered). I was responding to Lucky and, like I said, I’m not sure what his point was.

But, while we’re here, let me ask you this:

The entire text of the second amendment is’

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.

I understand that Supreme Court rulings have an effect on its meaning as it is currently applied.

If its meaning is that the citizenry shall be allowed to fight against government tyranny, then why wouldn’t nuclear weapons be covered? If we’re going to be fighting the U.S. government, then just guns isn’t going to cut it. We’d be up against F-18s, B1s, nuclear weapons, missiles, drones, the CIA, etcetera.

My point, if it isn’t obvious, is that, in the 21st century, the second amendment doesn’t really work as intended.

It’s being used by people who want to use their guns for other purposes. The NRA and other gun advocates try to sell the “Democide” idea, but it’s a ludicrous smoke screen of their real agenda, easily sold to paranoid and angry people.

[no_such_reality]

Shooting rampage kills 9

Oh wait, that’s the Philippines with only 1/20th our gun ownership rate, stricter gun laws and an even higher rate of gun violence.

[zk]

[quote=no_such_reality]Shooting rampage kills 9

Oh wait, that’s the Philippines with only 1/20th our gun ownership rate, stricter gun laws and an even higher rate of gun violence.[/quote]

Gun advocates always want to take their statistics in a vacuum if it helps their side.

The Phillipines culture is vastly different from ours. Enough so that a comparison is useless.

[desmond]

What happened? Really now. You will never be able to scream and demand gun control (a la POS Morgan). All the belittling, emails, stats, celebrities, etc, are just a waste of time. And I think they just are feel good measures not to accomplish anything but look at me actions.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=desmond]What happened? Really now. You will never be able to scream and demand gun control (a la POS Morgan). All the belittling, emails, stats, celebrities, etc, are just a waste of time. And I think they just are feel good measures not to accomplish anything but look at me actions.[/quote]

If you are gloating because you want to celebrate the defeat of a sensible measure to prevent a tragedy, then I don’t need to call you any name _ You yourself are showing your character to others.

[desmond]

Now go after me Enron. I believe in sensible gun control, always have. You just proved my point, you do not need to put me down like you did, you do not know me. Work together, don’t criticize and be smart and I will stand behind anyone that wants to make America safer, most gun owners will.

[KIBU]

The pro-guns in San Diego did mobilize their efforts.

I know there were at least 2 meetings among the tea party members organized to discuss how to protect the second amendment. They were on meetup san diego (Ramona). They were serious.

There was no meet-up gathering for gun control that I know of.

That tells you how unorganized the majority of the people who want some gun safety laws are. Until they fall the victim of guns, which is not that difficult when you think about it, they probably be way less fanatic and organized than the NRA and tea party crowd.

[CA renter]

There is a much greater likelihood that they will be victims of criminals than victims of guns. That is the point. Smart people get this, and that is why they are so organized.

[zk]

[quote=CA renter]There is a much greater likelihood that they will be victims of criminals than victims of guns. That is the point. Smart people get this, and that is why they are so organized.[/quote]

Smart people? You’re kidding, right?

I’m pretty sure you mean, “people who agree with me.” Or maybe, “people who I think are smart because they agree with me.”

[zk]

.

[desmond]

[quote=zk][quote=CA renter]There is a much greater likelihood that they will be victims of criminals than victims of guns. That is the point. Smart people get this, and that is why they are so organized.[/quote]

Smart people? You’re kidding, right?

I’m pretty sure you mean, “people who agree with me.” Or maybe, “people who I think are smart because they agree with me.”[/quote]

ZK, more name calling, blame or attack “people that don’t agree with you”.

[zk]

[quote=desmond][quote=zk][quote=CA renter]There is a much greater likelihood that they will be victims of criminals than victims of guns. That is the point. Smart people get this, and that is why they are so organized.[/quote]

Smart people? You’re kidding, right?

I’m pretty sure you mean, “people who agree with me.” Or maybe, “people who I think are smart because they agree with me.”[/quote]

ZK, more name calling, blame or attack “people that don’t agree with you”.[/quote]

desmond, you aren’t making any sense. I didn’t call anyone names, blame anybody, or say whether I agreed with CAR (for the record, I don’t).

I’m pointing out that to say that “smart people get this” is ridiculous, regardless of what “this” is.

By the way, didn’t you, just a few posts ago, say, “POS Morgan,” Mr. Pot?

[zk]

In any case, I was attacking her argument (“smart people get this”) not her, personally. Surely you agree that it’s ok to attack someone’s argument, right? I mean, that’s kinda how this works.

[Jazzman]

The whole pro-gun argument is pretty vacuous. The overwhelming evidence suggests the higher the rate of gun ownership, and the more lax the gun control measures, the higher the rate of gun-related fatalities. It is so simple a child could understand it. However, common sense has been besmirched by visceral arguments, which emanate from an overly-possessive desire to allow the current status quo to prevail. With the waters so muddied, fallacy can masquerade as reason, and is stoked by prejudice and fear. It is the creation of a pluralistic society that has severed ties with competing interests by allowing corporate hegemony the unfair advantage to influence legislation. For sensible gun control to happen, the debate needs to be kept alive until the next (inevitable) Sandy Hook. Hopefully, the impetuous will compel constituents to pressure their representatives enough to shake-off the NRA’s grip.

[CA renter]

[quote=Jazzman]The whole pro-gun argument is pretty vacuous. The overwhelming evidence suggests the higher the rate of gun ownership, and the more lax the gun control measures, the higher the rate of gun-related fatalities. It is so simple a child could understand it. However, common sense has been besmirched by visceral arguments, which emanate from an overly-possessive desire to allow the current status quo to prevail. With the waters so muddied, fallacy can masquerade as reason, and is stoked by prejudice and fear. It is the creation of a pluralistic society that has severed ties with competing interests by allowing corporate hegemony the unfair advantage to influence legislation. For sensible gun control to happen, the debate needs to be kept alive until the next (inevitable) Sandy Hook. Hopefully, the impetuous will compel constituents to pressure their representatives enough to shake-off the NRA’s grip.[/quote]

You’re referring specifically to “gun-related fatalities.” Those of us who support the Second Amendment couldn’t care less about how one decides to kill; we care that someone is willing and able to kill, irrespective of the tool(s) they chose to use in their crimes.

In the U.K., where they have some of the strictest anti-gun regulations, violent crime is off the charts. IMHO, we have the right (and duty!) to protect ourselves and our families. Nobody else’s emotionally-based feelings about guns should trump our rights to self-defense.

The legislation that’s been pushed would not have prevented Sandy Hook, nor the devastation caused by the scum in Boston. Gun registration does NOT prevent crimes, and background checks (which I would support if we could be sure that once someone is checked, their information would be permanently deleted) provide minimal protection against homicidal acts. Criminals can use stolen guns and background checks would do nothing to stop this.

Please provide *evidence* that gun bans and registration reduce homicides or violent crimes. From everything I’ve seen, cities/states with some of the strictest gun laws tend to have the highest crime/murder rates.

[Author]

Posts