The top 15 ways to die in the US and guns isnt one of them

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.

The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.

Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?

The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.

Its not vague. Its clearly a tactical meaning, tactical weapons. And its not about food, hunting and personal protection, its about the tactical capacity of the people.

Tactical capacity against what? Tanks, missiles, jet fighter planes, nuclear bombs? According to your logic, the average person should be able to have access to all these, in order to have "tactical capacity".

Originally posted by gladtobehere
In 2011, murders committed with guns accounted for 8,500 deaths in 2011.

Hospitals accounted for the largest number of accidental deaths: 200,000.

Yeah, well there's a lot more inherent risk (or at least there should be) in going to the hospital, than, say, going to your local elementary school.

reply to post by circuitsports

I say let's ban ( the 15 enumerated causes of deaths in the US............... )!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by circuitsports


The top cause of death in America. Being Born!

So you are 200 times MORE likely to be KILLED by a bungled medical proceedure , than die by a bullet?
Four or more times MORE likely to be killed in an MVA.....?
And a 100,000 times MORE likely to die of disease?
That it?

Last time I looked deaths and murders were only linked because of the outcome... death. The intent is totally different. While one could/should take care of themselves, thus putting off death as long as possible, it isn't remotely like someone intentionally taking the life of another. Another ridiculous gun argument shot down. Keep em coming. I've got the energy.

reply to post by intrepid


The Second Amendment describes the right that we have to bear arms.

No where is there any caveat about caliber, load capacity, or type.

If you are a proponent for getting rid of the Amendment, then that is different.

You cannot make conditions on a right and still call it a right.

reply to post by beezzer


I wasn't pushing for/against the 2nd here. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of most of the arguments that are put forth. Zero logic.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by beezzer

 

I wasn't pushing for/against the 2nd here. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of most of the arguments that are put forth. Zero logic.

There should be no debate on the topic.

It is either a right or it isn't.

The gun control advocates wish to negate it being a right. They would prefer it to be a granted privilege based on conditions.

The pro-right advocates simply wish it to remain a right.

Originally posted by beezzer
The pro-right advocates simply wish it to remain a right.

Well they better get better advocates and arguments that can stand the light of day because right now they are looking foolish.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
The pro-right advocates simply wish it to remain a right.

Well they better get better advocates and arguments that can stand the light of day because right now they are looking foolish.

What confuses so many on the pro side is that people are actively talking of suspending the 2nd Amendment, or at the very least, placing conditions on it.

By doing so, it negates so much of what America was founded on.

That silly thing called freedom.

So forgive us or being woefully unprepared to defend the very document that America was founded on. Many of us are still shocked that there is a movement to actually fundamentally transform America.

Originally posted by beezzer
So forgive us or being woefully unprepared to defend the very document that America was founded on. Many of us are still shocked that there is a movement to actually fundamentally transform America.

Beez, it's been going on since the Constitution was written. That's why there are amendments. Like the 13th. Or should America still have slaves? The country was founded with that. It's time didn't pass?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
So forgive us or being woefully unprepared to defend the very document that America was founded on. Many of us are still shocked that there is a movement to actually fundamentally transform America.

Beez, it's been going on since the Constitution was written. That's why there are amendments. Like the 13th. Or should America still have slaves? The country was founded with that. It's time didn't pass?

Good point. While the conditions and social landscape have changed to allow for the abolishment of slavery, the conditions that would require the 2nd Amendment remain valid.

Originally posted by beezzer
....the conditions that would require the 2nd Amendment remain valid.

OK, I'll bite. Like what conditions?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
....the conditions that would require the 2nd Amendment remain valid.

OK, I'll bite. Like what conditions?

Protection. From domestic elements, from a tyrannical government. Has it ever occurred to you that it is elements within the government that are pushing this effort? This is not a grassroots campaign to abolish something archaic, this is an effort by the government with help from the media to gain control over a right.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

There's really no such thing as a "military-style" weapon. All fire on the same principle. Some fire at a higher rate than others is all.

The Second Amendment doesn't hold a caveat on range, caliber, muzzle velocity or load capacity. Government, while trying to restrict firearms, does.

Regardless of the terminology, why does the average person need a weapon that can kill 50 people in 4 seconds?

The Second Amendment is fairly vague, in that it doesn't specifically state what qualifies as "arms". That leaves it up for interpretation. "Arms" could be interpreted as what would be needed for basic protection and food - not weapons of mass destruction meant to kill large crowds of people.

Its not vague. Its clearly a tactical meaning, tactical weapons. And its not about food, hunting and personal protection, its about the tactical capacity of the people.

Tactical capacity against what? Tanks, missiles, jet fighter planes, nuclear bombs? According to your logic, the average person should be able to have access to all these, in order to have "tactical capacity".

Any talk about tanks ect really does not confront questions about bearing personal tactical arms. At any rate the 2nd means I dont have to use a ball bat even if the effect on said tank would be about the same.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
....the conditions that would require the 2nd Amendment remain valid.

OK, I'll bite. Like what conditions?

Protection. From domestic elements...

Everyone has "domestic elements". Why do Americans need the 2nd when most of the rest of the world doesn't?

....from a tyrannical government.

Please. That's just fear speaking. That scenario can NOT happen. That IS why the 2nd was written but this isn't the 18th century. Can't happen today. You think the government is going to lock up its only means of revenue? When it needs it the most? It's passe.

Originally posted by beezzer
Has it ever occurred to you that it is elements within the government that are pushing this effort? This is not a grassroots campaign to abolish something archaic, this is an effort by the government with help from the media to gain control over a right.

While I am in agreement with your position on this issue, I have to disagree with your statement here. I- unfortunately- know many people who are part of the gun control crowd, and they very much consider themselves a grassroots campaign. If you were to call them agents of the gov they would laugh in your face (at the least).

reply to post by intrepid


NDAA certainly gives pause to what government can or cannot do. As does DHS, et al

This is an element of freedom that we are talking about eliminating. It should not be taken lightly nor be done based on the emotional tidal wave after a horrible school shooting.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
So forgive us or being woefully unprepared to defend the very document that America was founded on. Many of us are still shocked that there is a movement to actually fundamentally transform America.

Beez, it's been going on since the Constitution was written. That's why there are amendments. Like the 13th. Or should America still have slaves? The country was founded with that. It's time didn't pass?

Well it wasnt taken care of when it should have been. We ended up, by force of arms, having to wade in own own blood as a nation because this lack of justice wasnt taken care of.

The amendment that came later were like saying "and this as well". The consitution is not something where the rights start falling off as time passes but where new ones were added as we awakened further.