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

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock



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.


Really? Where does it say that in the 2nd amendment? Or, is that just your interpretation of what it says?




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by intrepid
 


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


en.wikipedia.org...

Ok, what has that got to do with the 2nd?


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.


Or the emotion of an amendment who's time has passed?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
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.


It isn't? I think Blacks would disagree with you. As would women. Gays? Probably. That is the exact reason for amendments. The world changes and the country has to change as well.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Logarock


This is not quite true. There were loads of WWI and WWII combat weapons in the closets of the american public in the 40s and 50s. Bolt actions and semi automatic weapons, rifles, american, british, german ect brought home from the war.



Not sold for mass consumption.


Well mass consumption isnt against the law. And there is such a slight use to owner ratio. Its not even 100th of a % of these weapons owned that are used in crimes. On top of that, whatever we say and do here, the 2nd amendment is law and if its to be changed the constitution has to be tampered with.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Logarock
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.


It isn't? I think Blacks would disagree with you. As would women. Gays? Probably. That is the exact reason for amendments. The world changes and the country has to change as well.


I think you misunderstand me and will asume that thats all it was. But what you are saying is just what I said.....the rights...women voting isnt going to fall off at some point in the future because it has become a moot point. its not going to happen. Same with the 2nd and the 5th and the 13th. Thye are not going to fall off like training wheels.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by marbles87
 


Are you implying that we should feel guilty that in other countries there are people who are starving? There are people starving right here in the good ol USA too shame on us. Its not like we picked where we get born on this rock. We get lucky and we land here in the land of plenty. We dont get lucky we end up in a place where finding food is a struggle. I give to charity. I refuse to feel guilty because I was born where the food is plentiful. Its the luck of the draw. To those who live where life is a daily struggle, I say move. Go to where the food is.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
On top of that, whatever we say and do here, the 2nd amendment is law and if its to be changed the constitution has to be tampered with.


Ok, would you consider the 13th Amendment to be tampering with the Constitution?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


I'm just trying to imagine the world if you got your way.

First off, criminals would still have firearms and be conducting crimes with near impunity.

Gun free zones are also free-fire zones across America.

Normally innocent people are now prisoners and soley dependent on the state for protection.

The government gets to decide what size, caliber, max load of firearm they deem you to have.

Sales in crossbows increase until government steps in to deny those as well.

Crime increases.

Homicides increase.

School shootings increase.

Home invasions increase.

Of course, just mere speculation on my part. But it is a right that should be kept. Not limited, denied to Americans.


I think its mere speculation on your part.
Let me tell you how this goes here in my country.

We have bans on bullpup designs.
We have bans on automatic weapons (some are allowed to be converted if it doesn´t fall into the next line).
We have bans on war-weapons (such as Steyr AUG)
We have bans on single calipers such as 5,7 × 28mm.
You can fire the weapon at the range and get a permission to buy them after 1 year of regular training (means 1-2 times a month or 18 times unregular) and a written test. If you are under 25 you need a psychologist to proof you harmless.
Then you can buy 2 long rifels and up to three handguns to own for yourself.

If police finds you drunk in the public, doing road rage, even throwing a punch will have the consequence that you loose your permission. Your supposed to be a trusted and adult behaving person if you want to use guns.

I understand American gun law is strongly tied to your history and "bearing arms" is amendment since ever. No one likes to give up his protection. Its also true that it wont prevent criminals from getting access to them but it will hinder them.

Now think about it that way: There are far more idiots with guns then criminals with guns in your country. Of course this is true per definition because a good part of the criminals are idiots. I see it when I watch youtube.
Guys giving their DE .50 to small women in the know they will probably
a) hurt themselves
b) hurt someone outstanding
c) never hit the target
d) damage the gun
-> probability to kill either a bystander or the one who discharges)


Look at him. Heard him? I´m teaching my wife gun safety. I know he might have been so intelligent to unchamber and detach the clip. But do we and you need such people?




"9 year old shootin´ 50 caliper"
Wow you must be so proud.

THESE kind of people get sorted out here.

I live in Germany. Look at our crime rate.
Now tell me, is it that low (relative to the USA) because we have wide gun ban
or is it so low because people here are generally nicer then in the USA?
A good crossbow/bow cost you 250€ upwards.

I ask myself -I´m sorry if this is widely known info- why don´t do it like here in Germany?
Ban full-auto
Ban .50
Require regular training and a test.
Require young people under 25 to get a psychological test.

To clarify I own a Beretta FS92, a H&K 512 myself and I had to bring the psycho test.
And I find the weapon cult in USA disgusting.
edit on 29-12-2012 by StareDad because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Or the emotion of an amendment who's time has passed?


Freedoms are never passe'. They should never be considered as something that can be eliminated over time.

Governments that wish for more control and people who desire less are the only ones that are supporting the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Logarock



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.


Really? Where does it say that in the 2nd amendment? Or, is that just your interpretation of what it says?


Well no, sugar, its says that right here...."....bear arms" (not ball bats). You should school up on this before you go on. We are talking law here not opinion.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by StareDad
 


Germany is doing it right.


God, those videos exemplify exactly what scares me about dumb Americans getting hold of assault style weapons.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Freedoms are never passe'. They should never be considered as something that can be eliminated over time.


That's the thing Beez. You might see it as a "freedom" but most of the 1st world nations see it as a shackle. Many Americans too. You're drowning in the gun culture. It's not saving you from anything. It just propagates further violence and death. Don't believe me, just look at the news man.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Well no, sugar, its says that right here...."....bear arms" (not ball bats). You should school up on this before you go on. We are talking law here not opinion.


OK, "sugar". When are you getting your shipment of nuclear "arms"?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by StareDad
 


I currently live in Germany as well. Comparing the two countries is difficult because only one has the Constitution.
If a country wishes to live with certain restrictions and benefits from it, then good for them. I think there are a number of other variables that play into the gun issue with other countries, especially Germany. Germany has it's own dark history of disarming its populace.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Logarock
On top of that, whatever we say and do here, the 2nd amendment is law and if its to be changed the constitution has to be tampered with.


Ok, would you consider the 13th Amendment to be tampering with the Constitution?


Hay look dude, I have the right to expect a Mod not to play these rabbit hole games. You know what I am talking about. Dont even try it.

We are not talking about adding something here we are takling about taking an amendement out, the 2nd. As far as the 13th no its wasnt tampering with already established rights it was an addition to the already standing rights.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Hay look dude, I have the right to expect a Mod not to play these rabbit hole games. You know what I am talking about. Dont even try it.


I'm a member first and a staffer second. If that is your only argument, give it up. I WILL try whatever I feel like, inside of the T&C of course.


We are not talking about adding something here we are takling about taking an amendement out, the 2nd. As far as the 13th no its wasnt tampering with already established rights it was an addition to the already standing rights.


Really? I wonder if the law abiding, tax paying slave owners saw it the same way.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Logarock
Well no, sugar, its says that right here...."....bear arms" (not ball bats). You should school up on this before you go on. We are talking law here not opinion.


OK, "sugar". When are you getting your shipment of nuclear "arms"?


Ok nuke me then but when it happens I wont be packing a ball bat.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Logarock
Hay look dude, I have the right to expect a Mod not to play these rabbit hole games. You know what I am talking about. Dont even try it.


I'm a member first and a staffer second. If that is your only argument, give it up. I WILL try whatever I feel like, inside of the T&C of course.


We are not talking about adding something here we are takling about taking an amendement out, the 2nd. As far as the 13th no its wasnt tampering with already established rights it was an addition to the already standing rights.


Really? I wonder if the law abiding, tax paying slave owners saw it the same way.


But the blacks loved it. Now you try taking that away from them now and they will use thier 2nd rights.

Oh I better edit this or someone will twist my words around on me.

But the blacks loved the 13th amendment and you try taking that from them they will break out the 2nd amendment on that azz.
edit on 29-12-2012 by Logarock because: n



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
Freedoms are never passe'. They should never be considered as something that can be eliminated over time.


That's the thing Beez. You might see it as a "freedom" but most of the 1st world nations see it as a shackle. Many Americans too. You're drowning in the gun culture. It's not saving you from anything. It just propagates further violence and death. Don't believe me, just look at the news man.


The news? The news has it's own agenda.
The "gun culture" is uniquely American. So are many of the freedoms we enjoy.
Society propagates violence and death. Guns are just a tool some idiots use..



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Logarock



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.


Really? Where does it say that in the 2nd amendment? Or, is that just your interpretation of what it says?


Well no, sugar, its says that right here...."....bear arms" (not ball bats). You should school up on this before you go on. We are talking law here not opinion.


"Arms" is open to interpretation. During the writing of the second amendment, "arms" meant muskets using gun powder.

Here's a link describing some tactical nuclear weapons. Those could be considered "tactical arms". Think we need to start selling those at Academy, do you?

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh and don't EVER call me sugar again. Comprende? I find it highly offensive coming from you.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join