Independent Study Proves Guns Don’t Kill People *Shocking Evidence

Originally posted by Morg234

Also, violent crime in the US has been on a steady decline for DECADES even as gun sales rise. Explain that!

reply to post by seabag

 

Oh yes, impossibly declining crime rates. Explain how they have been tampered with? Hmm, can't be that hard surely.

I showed you the stats provided by the justice department.



If you want to refute them then bring something to the table.

I'm not going to do your homework for you!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I don't think it is at all clear that the writers of the 2nd amendment imagined a right to oppose the government with force. The amendment doesn't say that and it would be pretty surprising if they were inviting their own violent overthrow. The connection in the amendment is to a well regulated militia not armed insurrection.

It is clear if you read some of the quotes of the founders.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

Thomas Jefferson



Amendment 2 clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The “militia” is the people. The supreme court has upheld this assertion:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes

wiki

You are giving me more phony quotes. This time from Thomas Jefferson. You didn't scroll down far enough on that link I gave :-

www.guncite.com...

Where did the Supreme Court endorse armed insurrection against the government ?

All these people who now defend guns are gonna be frowned upon by people in the future when they look back in history, Just like the ones who thought they had a right to own other people as slaves, people made a fuss about that too when they decided to take that right away, but history has proven that was the right decision.

So will be bringing your current gun laws into the modern age.

reply to post by Alfie1

Where did the Supreme Court endorse armed insurrection against the government ?

They’re not bogus quotes, they’re words spoken by one of the framers of the constitution speaking to the intent of the 2nd.

And nobody is endorsing anything. The SCOTUS shot down your bogus claim that the 2nd only applies to some “militia” that doesn’t exist.

Originally posted by liverlad
All these people who now defend guns are gonna be frowned upon by people in the future when they look back in history, Just like the ones who thought they had a right to own other people as slaves, people made a fuss about that too when they decided to take that right away, but history has proven that was the right decision.

So will be bringing your current gun laws into the modern age.

The first part of this post is just your opinion. And about slavery i do believe that still goes on in places around the world and possibly in secret too. please do correct me if I'm wrong though because I could very well be.

Originally posted by Lichter daraus
reply to post by Alfie1

 

the difference is that one is made of metal and shoots projectiles at a high rate of speed and the other is made of stone and can be thrown, slingshotted, or catapulted at high rate of speed. people have used both to kill people so what's your point. Im seriously asking what is your point.

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)

Do I really have to point this out ?!! I could set up my machine gun and slaughter hundreds while you are trying to belabour some poor old soul over the head with a rock and being swiftly overpowered.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Where did the Supreme Court endorse armed insurrection against the government ?

They’re not bogus quotes, they’re words spoken by one of the framers of the constitution speaking to the intent of the 2nd.

And nobody is endorsing anything. The SCOTUS shot down your bogus claim that the 2nd only applies to some “militia” that doesn’t exist.

If you say the Jefferson quotes are not bogus then you will be able to direct me to where they are to be found in his papers etc ?

Forget the militia but where did the SCOTUS endorse armed insurrection ?

reply to post by Alfie1


yeah you could, but guess what they're still both used to kill people no matter how you look at it. also there's ways you can throw more than 1 rock at a time or to kill numerous people trust me.
Imagine a group of people beating down people with good sized rocks, hell even sharpened rocks. Yeah a group of people with machine guns would be a lot worse, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either personally.

reply to post by Alfie1


Yes obviously you did have to point it out because i clearly asked what was your point and I was sincere about it trying not being a dick about it ya know.
please I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't talk down to me.

That is what gun control is all about only the police and the government gets to hold a gun to your heads as if a criminal is ever going to give up their guns.

reply to post by Alfie1

If you say the Jefferson quotes are not bogus then you will be able to direct me to where they are to be found in his papers etc ?

I provided a link to the quote.

The entire purpose of this thread is to poke fun at the ridiculousness of the anti-gun crowd and highlight the active conspiracy designed to scare people into disarming.

If you want to believe any quotes I’ve provided or not it really doesn’t affect my original post. There were no quotes in the OP to support my argument.

Forget the militia but where did the SCOTUS endorse armed insurrection ?

This endorsement came in the Declaration of Independence, not from the SCOTUS:

to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and happiness.

link



This issue was debated between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists extensively and it led us to the separation of powers and the Bill of Rights. They were very worried about government having too much power and they wanted to preserve the right of free people to resist tyranny.

Good arguments on both sides.
My bottem line is it's a constitutional right. Period. To me that trumps any negativity connected to it.

If this right is infringed on even more. Then what right isn't open to infringment? Perhaps your favorite? Even though it can be abused as any "right" can be abused?

Will gun restriction reduce gun violence? Perhaps, perhaps not. A nut job or a criminal, even when registered as such, merely has to get a friend or a family member to get it for him, not to mention a booming blackmarket that would result. Too easy.

There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue. There is no easy solution. More home guns reduces home invasion but increases accidental incidents and spontainious shootings.

Every sword has two edges. My deciding factor is the infringment on the constitution and the potential precident set for other constitutional rights being "changed".

If we don't hold the constitution as the senior and fundemental law then every single media driven or popularity driven issue will trump it.

We have gone to war to create, protect and preserve this document. The loss of innocent lives is a painful price that is paid to maintain it.

Maintain it or lose the definition of this country.

Obama's "if we can save even one child, we must try" shows his personal worth of the constitution he has sworn to protect. In other words, zero, none. No respect for those that have already given their lives for that ideal.

If the constitution isn't worth more than "one child" then it's worthless, at least in his mind and he has a fundamental flaw that disqualifies him to be president.

If it isn't worth defending with lives, it isn't worth defending at all. Ask anyone who serves...

The constitution isn't a smorgasbord where you can pick or choose your items.

It's all or nothing.

There seems to be some confusion about militias as per :

Amendment II 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.

Militia citizen soldier, but they also created the power for a standing army

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Pay attention to this next one

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Now anyone who read those know what the real deal is the second amendment was written to give the people a means of defense from all enemies both foreign and domestic, and a domestic threat named government.

Read the constitution people.

reply to post by neo96

Now anyone who read those know what the real deal is the second amendment was written to give the people a means of defense from all enemies both foreign and domestic, and a domestic threat named government.

Isn’t it ridiculous that anyone would question the founder’s intent for the 2nd amendment??

After all, these are the men who helped initiate the American Revolution!!!

As if they were pussy-footing around when they wrote it!

I think this is a rather simplistic way of viewing a complex issue. I understand the frustration of those who own guns in regards to recent legislative moves by the government. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and only use their guns for reasonable purposes. Valid arguments exist for the ownership of guns. Having said that, the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra is, in my opinion, not one of them.

No inanimate object kills someone, except of course in case of freak accidents (think natural disasters and flying debris). That does not mean that certain objects/weapons don't make acts of violence easier and faster to carry out. Tanks don't kill people, because someone has to operate them. Nukes don't kill people, because someone has to press the button.

I am in no way comparing a tank or a nuke to a semi-automatic rifle, so please don't misunderstand me. I am simply pointing out that many common sense restrictions already exist when it comes to what weapons the average person is allowed to own, and the dialogue should be about whether further restrictions are common sense or not. By dumbing the conversation down in this way, you are not promoting constructive dialogue - you are simply solidifying preexisting sentiments.

Originally posted by liverlad
All these people who now defend guns are gonna be frowned upon by people in the future when they look back in history, Just like the ones who thought they had a right to own other people as slaves, people made a fuss about that too when they decided to take that right away, but history has proven that was the right decision.

So will be bringing your current gun laws into the modern age.

WHAT??? Are you seriously comparing firearms ownership to slavery?????

Really???

WOW!

P.S. I think more realisticaly what will likely happen is people will look back on history and see that the founding fathers of the US had the right idea all along, and they'll wonder why they themselves ever allowed their rights to be stolen and trampled upon.

Good experiment! I'm convinced. Perhaps you should try this again but with silencers on all weapons. That way if on of them actually decides to kill someone none of the others can squeal on it. As for all the gun haters out there ... spend some time and talk to an individual who has lived under an oppressed society where all weapons are banned and only the government has them. Or better yet ... go live there to see the " utopia " these people fled from.

reply to post by ahyaprobly


Double

Post