Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

So, shopping for a diagnoses is okay then.
And which is the Govt supposed to go with?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
So how many vets with PTSD and other mental diagnoses' will have their arms taken from them?



Sounds like a nice plan to remove a vastly experienced amount of fighters from any future civil war.

Haven't even tapped that keg, but it's been on my back burner.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

That civil war should have happened by now.
It hasn't.
We have a new season of Dancing with the Stars to look forward to next year.
A civil war could ruin all of that.

a reply to: TownCryer
So, what was the outcome of some of the most recent polling about this crap??

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

And we have our winner for today.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That's also because the US is the only nation that guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms.

Do we judge our nation by what all the other little nations do? If they all go jump off a bridge, must we?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, so how can you logically compare voter fraud to gun crimes in order to makes some point about regulation or laws?

What is your point?

Because you have already stated that you do not back ID for voting.
Why would you support laws being broken when it simply a matter of checking a valid ID before someone votes?

'Oh, no one dies, so it doesn't matter.' That's your retort.
Well guess what, it does matter.

because its only unconstitutional when when its a law THEY dont like........like voter ID laws

Are you ready to have your mind blown?

I agree with Voter ID laws.

AND I agree with measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally unfit.

What am I?

Are you aware of how easy it is to be labelled as both?

I was almost charged with domestic abuse at one point with a physical altercation with my ex wife, had it not been for the in home camera I had, they would have taken her testimony as gospel and i would now have domestic abuse on my record.....

Again.....things are not that cut and dry

So if things aren't so cut and dry, why not have a national discussion about exactly what kinds of mental disorders, what SORTS of domestic violence would preclude someone from having a firearm? Why not start a discussion on how we can keep guns from the hands of the unfit, instead of just saying "Screw it, arm everyone, let it sort itself out"?

Because, this......

That entire comic is a slippery slope fallacy.

For one, the U.S. already some of the most LAX laws on the books for firearms of any 1st world nation, and they will continue to have this for the foreseeable future. Secondly, as I've said in several posts on this very thread, if the government ACTUALLY tried to disarm the U.S. population, there would be an immediate civil war, and 90% of the military would turn on the government in support of it's citizens. You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

You're free to express your dismay at your perceived attack by the government on your 2nd amendment rights, but truth be told, unless they come for your guns, they aren't infringing on jack.

It most definitely IS an attack on the 2nd amendment. Read that amendment again, and tell me what part of it leaves room for ANY of the cake to be taken. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty specific in what amount of infringement it will allow.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

That civil war should have happened by now.
It hasn't.
We have a new season of Dancing with the Stars to look forward to next year.
A civil war could ruin all of that.

When should this civil war have happened? I must have missed this.

When the government take YOUR guns away? Again, I must be really behind on my current events.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

That civil war should have happened by now.
It hasn't.
We have a new season of Dancing with the Stars to look forward to next year.
A civil war could ruin all of that.

When should this civil war have happened? I must have missed this.

When the government take YOUR guns away? Again, I must be really behind on my current events.

Should I have to fill out a form and have a background check performed each and every time that I purchase a gun?

What law did I break?
How am I a 'bad guy'?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: intrepid
The ownership of those are to the person that committed the crime. Very simple really.

So they are collateral casualties then. Something one doesn't have to think about.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Do you wish to retract that statement before someone completely obliterates that ridiculous statement?

Please, please feel free to 'obliterate'.

OK.

Main Outcome Measures The outcome measures were state-level firearm-related fatalities per 100 000 individuals per year overall, for suicide, and for homicide. In various models, we controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, nonfirearm violence–related deaths, and household firearm ownership.

Results Over the 4-year study period, there were 121 084 firearm fatalities. The average state-based firearm fatality rates varied from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals per year. Annual firearm legislative strength scores ranged from 0 (Utah) to 24 (Massachusetts) of 28 possible points. States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2) (absolute rate difference, 6.64 deaths/100 000/y; age-adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).

Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

Source

Easily done. The statistics show that the more gun laws in place in a given state, the more likely it is that they will have lower death rates due to firearms.

Link

The link above shows a comparison between the US and other nations with stricter gun laws or outright bans. The difference is astounding!

That being said, I am a gun owner and advocate fro the 2nd amendment, but that does not mean that we, as responsible gun owners, cannot support good legislation that puts decent regulations in place.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, so how can you logically compare voter fraud to gun crimes in order to makes some point about regulation or laws?

What is your point?

Because you have already stated that you do not back ID for voting.
Why would you support laws being broken when it simply a matter of checking a valid ID before someone votes?

'Oh, no one dies, so it doesn't matter.' That's your retort.
Well guess what, it does matter.

because its only unconstitutional when when its a law THEY dont like........like voter ID laws

Are you ready to have your mind blown?

I agree with Voter ID laws.

AND I agree with measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally unfit.

What am I?

Are you aware of how easy it is to be labelled as both?

I was almost charged with domestic abuse at one point with a physical altercation with my ex wife, had it not been for the in home camera I had, they would have taken her testimony as gospel and i would now have domestic abuse on my record.....

Again.....things are not that cut and dry

So if things aren't so cut and dry, why not have a national discussion about exactly what kinds of mental disorders, what SORTS of domestic violence would preclude someone from having a firearm? Why not start a discussion on how we can keep guns from the hands of the unfit, instead of just saying "Screw it, arm everyone, let it sort itself out"?

Because, this......

That entire comic is a slippery slope fallacy.

For one, the U.S. already some of the most LAX laws on the books for firearms of any 1st world nation, and they will continue to have this for the foreseeable future. Secondly, as I've said in several posts on this very thread, if the government ACTUALLY tried to disarm the U.S. population, there would be an immediate civil war, and 90% of the military would turn on the government in support of it's citizens. You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

You're free to express your dismay at your perceived attack by the government on your 2nd amendment rights, but truth be told, unless they come for your guns, they aren't infringing on jack.

It most definitely IS an attack on the 2nd amendment. Read that amendment again, and tell me what part of it leaves room for ANY of the cake to be taken. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty specific in what amount of infringement it will allow.

And forced prayer in school was an infringement of the 1st Amendment rights, but the conservative right didn't complain about that.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

That civil war should have happened by now.
It hasn't.
We have a new season of Dancing with the Stars to look forward to next year.
A civil war could ruin all of that.

When should this civil war have happened? I must have missed this.

When the government take YOUR guns away? Again, I must be really behind on my current events.

Should I have to fill out a form and have a background check performed each and every time that I purchase a gun?

What law did I break?
How am I a 'bad guy'?

Yes, frankly, you should.

A simple background check would do wonders to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

It's a MINOR inconvenience for you, not an infringement of the 2nd amendment. At the end of the process, you still get a gun.

Some of you people crack me up with your support for more gun laws when in reality all gun laws should be removed completely.


Shall not be infringed!


If your a criminal then you are in jail and if you did your time and repaid your debt to society then you should be allowed to live your life like anyone else with no restrictions on your rights, right?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, so how can you logically compare voter fraud to gun crimes in order to makes some point about regulation or laws?

What is your point?

Because you have already stated that you do not back ID for voting.
Why would you support laws being broken when it simply a matter of checking a valid ID before someone votes?

'Oh, no one dies, so it doesn't matter.' That's your retort.
Well guess what, it does matter.

because its only unconstitutional when when its a law THEY dont like........like voter ID laws

Are you ready to have your mind blown?

I agree with Voter ID laws.

AND I agree with measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally unfit.

What am I?

Are you aware of how easy it is to be labelled as both?

I was almost charged with domestic abuse at one point with a physical altercation with my ex wife, had it not been for the in home camera I had, they would have taken her testimony as gospel and i would now have domestic abuse on my record.....

Again.....things are not that cut and dry

So if things aren't so cut and dry, why not have a national discussion about exactly what kinds of mental disorders, what SORTS of domestic violence would preclude someone from having a firearm? Why not start a discussion on how we can keep guns from the hands of the unfit, instead of just saying "Screw it, arm everyone, let it sort itself out"?

Because, this......

That entire comic is a slippery slope fallacy.

For one, the U.S. already some of the most LAX laws on the books for firearms of any 1st world nation, and they will continue to have this for the foreseeable future. Secondly, as I've said in several posts on this very thread, if the government ACTUALLY tried to disarm the U.S. population, there would be an immediate civil war, and 90% of the military would turn on the government in support of it's citizens. You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

You're free to express your dismay at your perceived attack by the government on your 2nd amendment rights, but truth be told, unless they come for your guns, they aren't infringing on jack.

It most definitely IS an attack on the 2nd amendment. Read that amendment again, and tell me what part of it leaves room for ANY of the cake to be taken. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty specific in what amount of infringement it will allow.

And forced prayer in school was an infringement of the 1st Amendment rights, but the conservative right didn't complain about that.

I couldn't say. I attended school back in the 60's, but never attended at any point in time where there was any forced prayer. I never saw it happen, even at my age. When was prayer ever forced in schools?

With that said, if it ever DID happen, then you are correct - it was a violation of the 1st Amendment, and it's good they got rid of it before I came along.

originally posted by: thesaneone
Some of you people crack me up with your support for more gun laws when in reality all gun laws should be removed completely.


Shall not be infringed!


If your a criminal then you are in jail and if you did your time and repaid your debt to society then you should be allowed to live your life like anyone else with no restrictions on your rights, right?

So according to you, the convicted murderer who did his 25 years should be able to walk out of prison, go to a gun shop, say "One gun please", and he has EVERY right to get that gun?

Wow. I dunno about you, but if a guy did prison time for KILLING other people, I don't want him owning a gun. Old habits die hard. And other humans, well, they die so easily.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Do you wish to retract that statement before someone completely obliterates that ridiculous statement?

Please, please feel free to 'obliterate'.

OK.

Main Outcome Measures The outcome measures were state-level firearm-related fatalities per 100 000 individuals per year overall, for suicide, and for homicide. In various models, we controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, poverty, unemployment, college education, population density, nonfirearm violence–related deaths, and household firearm ownership.

Results Over the 4-year study period, there were 121 084 firearm fatalities. The average state-based firearm fatality rates varied from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100 000 individuals per year. Annual firearm legislative strength scores ranged from 0 (Utah) to 24 (Massachusetts) of 28 possible points. States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2) (absolute rate difference, 6.64 deaths/100 000/y; age-adjusted incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate (absolute rate difference, 6.25 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.48-0.83) and a lower firearm homicide rate (absolute rate difference, 0.40 deaths/100 000/y; IRR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95).

Conclusions and Relevance A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association.

Source

Easily done. The statistics show that the more gun laws in place in a given state, the more likely it is that they will have lower death rates due to firearms.
.

That's why people obey the no gun zone laws around schools?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

A simple background check would do wonders to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

OK, they already have them. When is it going to start working?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Why not I've heard people on this site say once you have paid your debt to society then you should be free to go about business as usual.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, so how can you logically compare voter fraud to gun crimes in order to makes some point about regulation or laws?

What is your point?

Because you have already stated that you do not back ID for voting.
Why would you support laws being broken when it simply a matter of checking a valid ID before someone votes?

'Oh, no one dies, so it doesn't matter.' That's your retort.
Well guess what, it does matter.

because its only unconstitutional when when its a law THEY dont like........like voter ID laws

Are you ready to have your mind blown?

I agree with Voter ID laws.

AND I agree with measures to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and the mentally unfit.

What am I?

Are you aware of how easy it is to be labelled as both?

I was almost charged with domestic abuse at one point with a physical altercation with my ex wife, had it not been for the in home camera I had, they would have taken her testimony as gospel and i would now have domestic abuse on my record.....

Again.....things are not that cut and dry

So if things aren't so cut and dry, why not have a national discussion about exactly what kinds of mental disorders, what SORTS of domestic violence would preclude someone from having a firearm? Why not start a discussion on how we can keep guns from the hands of the unfit, instead of just saying "Screw it, arm everyone, let it sort itself out"?

Because, this......

That entire comic is a slippery slope fallacy.

For one, the U.S. already some of the most LAX laws on the books for firearms of any 1st world nation, and they will continue to have this for the foreseeable future. Secondly, as I've said in several posts on this very thread, if the government ACTUALLY tried to disarm the U.S. population, there would be an immediate civil war, and 90% of the military would turn on the government in support of it's citizens. You can claim "gradual this" "slippery slope that", but regardless of how many regulations are put in place, the government can't REDUCE the amount of armed people in country unless they go out and start confiscating firearms. When that happens, civil war. Easy as that.

You're free to express your dismay at your perceived attack by the government on your 2nd amendment rights, but truth be told, unless they come for your guns, they aren't infringing on jack.

It most definitely IS an attack on the 2nd amendment. Read that amendment again, and tell me what part of it leaves room for ANY of the cake to be taken. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty specific in what amount of infringement it will allow.

And forced prayer in school was an infringement of the 1st Amendment rights, but the conservative right didn't complain about that.

I couldn't say. I attended school back in the 60's, but never attended at any point in time where there was any forced prayer. I never saw it happen, even at my age. When was prayer ever forced in schools?

With that said, if it ever DID happen, then you are correct - it was a violation of the 1st Amendment, and it's good they got rid of it before I came along.

I graduated high school in 2001. I grew up in rural New Mexico. Every morning before class, we would stand, say the pledge of allegiance (which strangely has the words "Under God" in it), and then, we'd all sit, bow our heads, and pray.

I told my teachers and principal that I was uncomfortable with the prayer, and they told me I was a godless atheist that needed to find Jesus or I'd go to hell. We reached a compromise. during prayer time, I could stand outside. You know, and basically tell my whole class with that act that I'm a satanist or worse. Forced prayer in schools may not be a common sight in urban schools, but spend ten minutes in the locker room of a rural high school volleyball team before a game.