Listen to this argument for more gun control and please tell me how you can be against it..

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Then you actually didn't listen to the clip, because he addresses exactly that.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You made absolutely no sense.

Only republicans supported voter ID.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   
This is my problem which it seems no one has gotten. We have a Constitution which CAN BE AMENDED by US citizens and instead of following the law and amending it everyone seems to be trying to get around it. Until the 2nd amendment is amended and removed by the citizens of the US there is nothing to say. There should be ZERO gun control until that happens.

If the 2nd amendment is removed then and only then can there be legal gun control. Why has this not happened? Why has all the gun control advocates not gone this route? Because they would lose! If the government wants more control then they have to CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION but they know they would lose. So no amendments, just BS regulations not approved by the citizens.

As to people from other countrys complaining about our laws. Become a LEGAL US citizen and then work for an amendment to the Constitution. Quit trying to control us by the UN or by pushing BS regulations which are illegal in this country, even if most are to afraid to admit it.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You made absolutely no sense.

Only republicans supported voter ID.


No, it made a lot of sense. If you are against voter ID because it is requiring identification to exercise a right, then, conversely, you should also be against firearms registration because it requires identification to exercise a right.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Guns are like cars.

99.9% of people are responsible with them and use them for convenience and efficiency and sport - not to harm people.

But it only takes one bloody idiot, and everybody suffers.

When the small percentage err and the government imposes blanket laws upon the masses as a consequence of the small percentage, its time for the masses to reassess the governments ability to interfere.

A parked car and a gun in the cabinet don't kill - add an unstable human and all hell breaks loose.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I see what you are saying. Is it a privilege that you need permission to have or a right that you have inherently without asking or involving anyone else.
edit on 18-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of that do you commies not understand?


Back then, "arms" meant muskets. So, yeah, you can have all the muskets you want. Oh, I suppose you could have a cannon, but it would be hard to "bear" a cannon - kinda heavy.

What's that? You think the constitution should be re-interpreted to include the arms we have today? That's cheating, but if you want to re-interpret, then we can re-interpret to mean any kind of arms we want, and we can exclude any kinds of arms we want -- as long as you have muskets, you'll be following the constitution. Anything else, and you are using personal interpretation of the term "arms".



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by AwakeinNM
 


Then you actually didn't listen to the clip, because he addresses exactly that.


Actually I did listen to it, and I believe he is lying. That's why I said it's bullsh*t. People lie to get their way, even grownups. Hard to believe, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 

I listened to the audio of David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health. He uses a lot of innuendos, conjecture, and his own opinions to back a few skewed "statistics". There have been other studies that refute what Hemenway said in this interview. These studies show that those states that not only allow guns, but also allow conceal and carry have a lower crime rate. LINK to article


More RTC, less crime: Since 1991, when violent crime peaked in the U.S., 24 states have adopted “shall issue” laws, replacing laws that prohibited carrying or that issued carry permits on a very restrictive basis; many other federal, state, and local gun control laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive; and the number of privately-owned guns has risen by about 100 million.5 The numbers of gun owners and firearms, RTC states, and people carrying firearms for protection have risen to all-time highs. Through 2010, the nation’s murder rate has decreased 52 percent to a 47-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 48 percent to a 37-year low.6 The FBI preliminarily has reported that violent crimes decreased another 6.4 percent in the first half of 2011, translating into a seven percent decrease in the total violent crime per capita rate.7

NRA Firearms Fact card - 1995

CRIME RATES LOWER IN STATES THAT ALLOW LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS TO CARRY FIREARMS States with favorable concealed carry laws have lower rates of crime than states with restrictive concealed carry laws. Overall, the homicide rate for states with favorable carry laws is 31% lower, and the robbery rate is 36% lower, than for states with restrictive concealed carry laws. States which have recently changed their laws have experienced reductions in homicide rates. Since 1987, when Florida enacted a favorable CCW law, its homicide rate has dropped 22%, even while the national rate has risen 15%. Only .007% of Florida CCW permits have been revoked because of a crime after licensure.

The USA is a country founded on the idea that every individual has a right to protect themselves from those who would do them harm. The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut is a devastating tragedy. And, it was a horribly deranged person that committed this crime, but stricter gun laws or banning guns will not solve this kind of travesty.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You made absolutely no sense.

Only republicans supported voter ID.


Why do you think Republicans supported voter ID laws? Because it is easier to get illegals to fraudulently vote under fake registrations? Easier to get poor Chicago resident on a bus to accept $20 to vote for Obama in Wisconsin and other places that do not require an ID to vote?

Nah, I'm sure that's not why you want to muddy up the election process at all.

I'll tell you why: Because if the election process were actually fair and not teeming with this kind of fraud, democrats wouldn't win presidential elections.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by bjax9er
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of that do you commies not understand?


Back then, "arms" meant muskets. So, yeah, you can have all the muskets you want. Oh, I suppose you could have a cannon, but it would be hard to "bear" a cannon - kinda heavy.

What's that? You think the constitution should be re-interpreted to include the arms we have today? That's cheating, but if you want to re-interpret, then we can re-interpret to mean any kind of arms we want, and we can exclude any kinds of arms we want -- as long as you have muskets, you'll be following the constitution. Anything else, and you are using personal interpretation of the term "arms".

Actually, the interpretation has been made for us, it's the official law of the land and it's as clear and unambiguous as these things come.

D.C. Vs. Heller

That's the case with the ruling in some detail and it did establish modern firearms as being covered as an absolute and unassailable right of the individual....not tied to membership in any formal organization of any kind.

Nothing opinion based on that except those of the 9 Robed Ones in the Supreme Court. Their opinion is what literally is the Law of the Land. It worked out well in this case.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   
One reason that the Japanese dropped the idea of attacking the mainland USA in WW2 was because Admiral Yamamoto said that there was an armed American "behind every blade of grass." He wasnt talking about the Army or Marine Corps but about the citizens at large. That deterrent alone ("to ensure the security of a free state") should be good enough for you.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 

Why are they focusing on a cause of death that doesnt even make the top 10? Gun related deaths dont even come close. The leading cause of death claimed 600,000 lives last year. "Guns" claimed about 8,500...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by bjax9er
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of that do you commies not understand?


Back then, "arms" meant muskets. So, yeah, you can have all the muskets you want. Oh, I suppose you could have a cannon, but it would be hard to "bear" a cannon - kinda heavy.

What's that? You think the constitution should be re-interpreted to include the arms we have today? That's cheating, but if you want to re-interpret, then we can re-interpret to mean any kind of arms we want, and we can exclude any kinds of arms we want -- as long as you have muskets, you'll be following the constitution. Anything else, and you are using personal interpretation of the term "arms".


The musket was the assault weapon of the day and the smoothbore brown bess was suitable only for rapid fire military purposes as it was much quicker to reload than the rifled musket used for hunting. The intent of the amendment, as stated by the writers and codified by the militia act of 1791 was to ensure that every citizen be armed and equipped as the average foot soldier.

Think of what you are saying. Logically, if that was true, then the first amendment would only apply to quill pens, voice, and manual printing presses and would not apply to TV, radio, internet, e-books, computers, telegraph, and telephone.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


From your link:

.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:


That's pretty unambiguous too.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Gun homicides statistics are available for most countries around the world. You can download a spreadsheet here and play with it yourself. And for the lazy, the data comes from the The Guardian in the U.K. Not exactly a bastion of pro-gun sentiment.

If you DO bother to actually look at the data you'd find that the U.S. ranks 28th as far as gun-homicides per 100,000 population. More interestingly still, although we rank #1 for the number of firearms per person, we rank 66th for homicides per firearm (you'll need to create that column on your own). So the argument that reducing guns would reduce homicides-by-gun is not borne out by the statistics.

Ireland, for example, has a homicide-per-gun rate that is almost twice that of the U.S. even though

“Ireland has some of the least permissive firearm legislation in Europe. In order to possess a limited range of hunting and sport-shooting firearms,1 gun owners must renew their firearm certificates every three years.2 3 Although small arms-related death, injury and crime remain relatively low, rising rates of gun violence and firearm ownership in the Republic ― in particular the possession and misuse of handguns ― have become sources of national concern.4 In 2009, the private possession of handguns was curtailed. Licensing of all pistols and revolvers using centrefire ammunition was capped through 'grandfathering,' with new licences restricted to a limited range of small-calibre .22 rimfire handguns and .177 air pistols.3 5 The possession and use of realistic imitation firearms in a public place is prohibited.6 7 Ireland is an active supporter of the United Nations process to reduce gun injury (UNPoA).8”
source



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon


You guys make it seem like God is up there firing off AK47s


Isnt that what thunder is?

And lighting is when he hits a can of tannerite.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


You can't prove God exists, let alone gave you any rights.

The proof of existence of God is self evident unless you work hard to dwell in hedonism, sensualities, and satisying every whim of the ego, then your god is your pleasurings and all evidence is withdrawn from you. It is your choice to serve whatever god you want.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
The United States Constitution has benefited the world more than any document in the history of the world. The Second Amendment is second for a reason. To protect the first amendment. Taking the Second Amendment out of the Constitution will destroy the Constitution in it's entirety. The unintended consequences for the world would be horrific.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Think of what you are saying. Logically, if that was true, then the first amendment would only apply to quill pens, voice, and manual printing presses and would not apply to TV, radio, internet, e-books, computers, telegraph, and telephone.


We have to interpret how it would apply, as the founding fathers had no knowledge of mass media.

My point is, you can't take what the founding fathers said literally, because our world and everything in it has changed so much. It requires interpretation. And we can interpret that some weapons are just too dangerous to be in the hands of the public, because they cause more harm than good.





new topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join