The 2nd Amendment

[Dolorous Jason]

I believe I stated earlier that allowing for open rebellion against the Union was not liberty, it was anarchy. It would appear that the father of our nation agrees with me.

If the father of our nation agreed with you we'd still be a colony of Great Britian , you horse's ass.

Do you even know why the Revolutionary War was fought, you imbecile? Odds are on no. I see some made up quotes from the founders getting posted again to set me straight...

The guy who didn't even realize his quote was from before the 2nd amendment , and didn't even know "republican form of government" was in the constitution is going to give us a history lesson now , LOL.

This ought to be good.

Was the war fought so that we could put down all rebellion against the crown and remain loyal to our rightful soverviegn King George ?? If not , you have no point , numb nuts. As usual.  Washington's own actions prove you embarrassingly wrong . Only you would claim a rebel war general is against rebellion in all circumstances. LOL . This is why the entire board simply laughs at you . Even the guy you thought was your buddy , Durango , thinks you're a dumb ass.



Now spin it . Spin baby spin !!!

[CBWx2]

I believe I stated earlier that allowing for open rebellion against the Union was not liberty, it was anarchy. It would appear that the father of our nation agrees with me.

If the father of our nation agreed with you we'd still be a colony of Great Britian , you horse's ass.

Do you even know why the Revolutionary War was fought, you imbecile? Odds are on no. I see some made up quotes from the founders getting posted again to set me straight...

The guy who didn't even realize his quote was from before the 2nd amendment , and didn't even know "republican form of government" was in the constitution is going to give us a history lesson now , LOL.

This ought to be good.

Was the war fought so that we could put down all rebellion against the crown and remain loyal to our rightful soverviegn King George ?? If not , you have no point , numb nuts.

Just because you are too much of a dullard to understand clear and concise arguments doesn't mean that I haven't presented one. The Revolutionary war was fought on the grounds of authority being imposed onto a populace that HAD NO SAY OVER HOW THAT AUTHORITY WAS USED! Does the phrase "No taxation without representation" ring a bell, you moron? Most, if not all of the founders actually would have preferred a peaceful resolution with Great Britain if they believed such a resolution were available.

When we gained our independence, and the founders put in place a representative government that balanced powers between local, state, and federal governments, they eliminated from this society what they believed was just cause to rebel. The goal was a sustainable, malleable, government in which representatives would be elected by a majority vote and disputes would be settled through policy debates and voter activity. Not a state of perpetual insurrection, or fear of insurrection.These rowdy, gun toting, radical anarchist that you seem to have created as representation of the founders are nothing more than a figment of your overactive imagination, jackass.

Washington's own actions prove you embarrassingly wrong . Only you would claim a rebel war general is against rebellion in all circumstances. LOL .

I'd say the fact that Washington raised a force to crush a rebellion, actively lobbied congress to give him further military authority to combat rebellions, and then used that authority to crush another rebellion 5 years later proves me embarrassingly right. Only a true moron would think that anyone would fight a rebellion and implement a government that he would support someone else rebelling against.

This is why the entire board simply laughs at you . Even the guy you thought was your buddy , Durango , thinks you're a dumb ass.

You speak for the entire board? I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing that. And let's keep score, George Washington is in agreement with me, and Durango is in agreement with you. I think I like my chances on which one of us looks more like a dumb ass between me and Durang's in that situation.

[spartan]

You know, it really does not matter what people think of the 2nd amendment, the Supreme Court has already decided all about militias etc, so all discussions should be framed in that perspective.

Spartan,

And what happens when Obama gets to appoint 2 or more Supreme Court Judges during this term?

mwk

Then all bets are off. They will probably make the law up as the go along.

[spartan]

So what part of his shifting position are we at now? Smaller clips and no AR-15's or just do away w/ the 2nd amendment altogether?

I haven't shifted anything. My argument has been the same from day 1. You, on the other hand, have attempted to change the focus of discussion into about a half dozen different directions. Are we still talking about mental health? Or are we talking about a different random, unrelated statistic that you've decided to toss into the arena?

The mental health issue doesn't satiate the demands of your political whim but If you were truly interested in discussing the causation then you would dismount this silly circle jerk of yours and welcome possible causations instead of foolishly trying to read the minds of the founding fathers to suit your own personal agenda at the expense of the kids that were killed.

How dare you accuse me of doing anything at the expense of the kids that were killed, you self righteous, hypocritical prick. Let me ask you a question. Is there any reputable evidence that Adam Lanza was actually prescribed any psych medication at the time he committed these shootings? Or perhaps was this a rumor that was picked up on and ran with by those who wish to cast shade on the issue of guns and violence and shift the focus onto something else, like the conservative media and the NRA perhaps?

The police found no prescription meds in Lanza's home, and all sources that Lanza was on any psych meds at the time of the shooting have been discredited. So it would seem that you never really cared as to the actual causation of this event, and simply clung to the meme adopted by those who agree with your personal political viewpoint on this issue.

What I find hysterically hypocritical and outright revealing about your motivations is the fact that you are arguing that a weapons ban is a futile endeavor because you cannot hope to prevent all gun violence by banning firearms, yet have shifted focus on even less obtainable goals, such as ending poverty and resource deprivation and seeking to accurately diagnose and effectively treat 100% of mental health issues.

Of course, the truly revealing part doesn't lie in you suggesting these things, it lies in your framing it as an either/or. As if we as a society have to choose between gun control or fighting poverty and advocating mental health reform. As you are so keen to point out, England has high violent crime rates, even though they have substantially lower murder rates. A logical person would view this and say that you cannot combat one and ignore the other. You have to both control the firearms, and address the social issues that lead to violent crimes. But of course, when the goal is to deflect from the gun control issue to satiate your political agenda, things tend to be framed in either/or fashion rather than a logical, common sense approach involving all of the above.

Not one word from you on the studies that have been posted. Instead you deceitfully started a new thread on the second amendment to stay clear of anything that doesn't suit YOUR agenda..

Actually, I started this thread to have this debate without bringing Sandy Hook into the discussion. You, who ironically have accused me of making arguments "at the expense of the kids who were killed", seem incapable of not constantly bringing them into the debate. What a sad, pathetic road you've decided to travel, Durango.

Not all mental illness is treated with drugs, and not all mental patients are diagnosed and prescribed drugs. It is rumored that Lanza has Aspergers Syndrome. There are no medications that specifically treat Asperger's syndrome. But some medications may improve specific symptoms — such as anxiety, depression or hyperactivity. So Lanza may or may not have benefited depending on his exact condition, and may legitimately have been diagnosed with Aspberger's but not any medication. Therefore the absence of "psyche" drugs proves nothing.

Gun enthusiasts defend guns because they are guess what? Enthusiastic about guns. On top of that, most people on our side of the argument recognize that due to political and emotional reasons, gun control advocates are picking on the weapon used LEAST in violence, crime and murder. If the goal was purely public safety and the reduction of violent crime, logic dictates that "assault weapons" would be pretty low on the list. But they are not, why? We conclude it is because they look bad and are symbolic to a whole bunch of people who do not share your political philosophy. Very much like the Fiscal Cliff. Obama insisted there be an increase in the tax RATES arguing he needed more 'revenue.'  Alternatives were provided that produced the revenue and he rejected them out of hand; Not because they failed to achieve the goal but because he wanted to make a political point.

[CBWx2]

Not all mental illness is treated with drugs, and not all mental patients are diagnosed and prescribed drugs. It is rumored that Lanza has Aspergers Syndrome. There are no medications that specifically treat Asperger's syndrome. But some medications may improve specific symptoms — such as anxiety, depression or hyperactivity. So Lanza may or may not have benefited depending on his exact condition, and may legitimately have been diagnosed with Aspberger's but not any medication. Therefore the absence of "psyche" drugs proves nothing.

Wrong. What it proves is that the rush to call out psyche medications in the wake of this tragedy, even though there is no concrete evidence that Lanza was even on psych meds at the time, was done for the sake of creating a political smokescreen, and so jackasses like Durango can pretend that they are morally superior to the rest of us for wanting to fix the mental health system rather than go after guns, even though he never spoke word one about mental health before anyone started talking about gun control. It proves that he accused others of playing politics for going after guns by way of adopting a politically motivated argument manufactured by pro-gun advocates. It proves that he is a pathetic, flaming hypocrite.

Gun enthusiasts defend guns because they are guess what? Enthusiastic about guns. On top of that, most people on our side of the argument recognize that due to political and emotional reasons, gun control advocates are picking on the weapon used LEAST in violence, crime and murder. If the goal was purely public safety and the reduction of violent crime, logic dictates that "assault weapons" would be pretty low on the list. But they are not, why? We conclude it is because they look bad and are symbolic to a whole bunch of people who do not share your political philosophy. Very much like the Fiscal Cliff. Obama insisted there be an increase in the tax RATES arguing he needed more 'revenue.'  Alternatives were provided that produced the revenue and he rejected them out of hand; Not because they failed to achieve the goal but because he wanted to make a political point.

The goal of an assault weapons ban is not to eliminate gun violence. That is a false narrative created by those who advocate gun ownership. The goal of an assault weapons ban is to eliminate mass shootings. It is to stop individuals like Adam Lanza from being able to enter a school and kill as many people as possible before anyone can do anything about it. And you can argue all you want about arming teachers or armed security, but the fact of the matter is that Columbine had armed security, and it did nothing to prevent this from happening. Now personally, I advocate more than just assault weapons bans. But for the sake of not mischaracterizing the issue, I just wanted to point out that there is a distinction to be made between wanting to end gun violence altogether and wanting to end mass shootings. Gun advocates have muddied this distinction for the sake of political expediency.

What I would advocate for, on top of an assault weapons ban, is stricter gun and ammunition controls in general. In 33 states, you can acquire firearms in this country without even so much as having to show an ID. If you think that all those guns stay in those 33 states, and that some don't eventually end up in the hands of an armed robber in "Washington DC", or drug dealer in "Chicago", you are kidding yourself. This is an inexcusable, reckless, and criminally negligent practice in my opinion, and this sort of thing needs to be outlawed immediately.

Logic suggests that there is no non-malicious reason, for self defense or otherwise, that anyone need to own a half dozen to a dozen firearms in their homes. Logic suggests that it is easier to responsibly store and track one or two guns per home than 6-12. There is no non-malicious reason, for self defense or otherwise, that anyone need to have over $100,000 worth of live ammunition stashed in their homes. Even in countries that gun advocates trot out as examples, such as Israel or Switzerland, are either of those things legal or unregulated.

[spartan]

Did I miss something? Who has 250 thousand rounds of ammo in their home? That would fill the house up.

If you goal is to eliminate mass shootings, banning so called assault rifles isn't going to achieve that. I very much doubt it will even reduce it by itself. Bear in mind also that most people who participate in mass shootings have their guns illegally so how would taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens help? You would have to remove 65,000 guns off the street to achieve a statistical certainty to save one life. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 500+ people were murdered there last year. Just this week a law abiding citizen who is not allowed to have a firearm was shot in the back and killed running away.

Let's say you get you goal and all automatic weapons are banned and the result is there are no more mass shootings ever. How many innocent people are you prepared to die to achieve this? If statistics show that an extra 30, 40 or perhaps 50 people are murdered in home invasions per year, would that be an acceptable sacrifice? Bearing in mind of course that burglars, with the absence of firearms prefer breaking into houses when the residents are at home because then they can steal wallets, keys, force them to open safes etc.

With regards to the number of guns a person owns, I will ask you the same question I asked Vin, how many Bucs shirts do you have?

[CBWx2]

Did I miss something? Who has 250 thousand rounds of ammo in their home? That would fill the house up.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/415843/20121217/indiana-47-guns-threatened-school-shooting-newtown.htm

My bad. The story says over $100,000 worth of guns and ammo. Still, the point stands.

If you goal is to eliminate mass shootings, banning so called assault rifles isn't going to achieve that. I very much doubt it will even reduce it by itself. Bear in mind also that most people who participate in mass shootings have their guns illegally so how would taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens help?

Because guns that are owned illegally were almost always owned by someone legally at some point, that's how. Criminals don't manufacture guns. They get them from the same places that legal gun owners do, other gun owners and legal distributors. The goal of a ban is to limit the number of a particular item that are in circulation. The fact that most of Europe has successfully achieved this suggests that it is not as impossible as gun advocates would have us believe.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country yet 500+ people were murdered there last year.

That doesn't prove that bans don't work. It proves that a city or state ban doesn't work as long as all you have to do is go outside of the city or state to be able to arm yourself to the teeth. It's not as though Chicago has a fence or moat and drawbridge around it. Chicago is about a half an hour outside of the state of Indiana, which has some of the most lenient gun laws in the country.

Just this week a law abiding citizen who is not allowed to have a firearm was shot in the back and killed running away.

And if that law abiding citizen had had a gun, he would have shot the bad guy and won a medal? In the movies, perhaps. Odds are, in real life, he would have still gotten shot, and the bad guy would have taken his gun and gave it to another bad guy.

Let's say you get you goal and all automatic weapons are banned and the result is there are no more mass shootings ever. How many innocent people are you prepared to die to achieve this? If statistics show that an extra 30, 40 or perhaps 50 people are murdered in home invasions per year, would that be an acceptable sacrifice? Bearing in mind of course that burglars, with the absence of firearms prefer breaking into houses when the residents are at home because then they can steal wallets, keys, force them to open safes etc.

Let me answer your question with a question of my own. Are guns the only way to prevent murders and home invasions? And is it more or less likely that, unless you keep your gun on your lap at all times, a home invader can break in and take the very guns that you keep for protection from them, and then turn around and use them on you or someone else? I'd venture to guess that there are more people who successfully steal guns from law abiding gun owners than there are law abiding gun owners that prevent home invasions.

With regards to the number of guns a person owns, I will ask you the same question I asked Vin, how many Bucs shirts do you have?

2

[Chief Joseph]

 "Just because you are too much of a dullard to understand clear and concise arguments doesn't mean that I haven't presented one."

Now when you say "clear and concise argument," did you perhaps mean 'idiotic nonsense'? This one, for instance:

 " The propensity of an individual to break the law doesn't lie in whether or not it will only affect himself or others, it lies in the consequences of breaking such a law."

Now if this were true, wouldn't the severity of penalties for shooting people be an effective tool for stopping such atrocities? Yet here we are, trying to save ourselves from the poorly thought out good intentions of shortsighted, emotionally overwhelmed idealists such as yourself.

[spartan]

Did I miss something? Who has 250 thousand rounds of ammo in their home? That would fill the house up.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/415843/20121217/indiana-47-guns-threatened-school-shooting-newtown.htm

My bad. The story says over $100,000 worth of guns and ammo. Still, the point stands.

Not really seeing as most of the guns at Meyer's home were antique collectables.

[spartan]

Let's say you get you goal and all automatic weapons are banned and the result is there are no more mass shootings ever. How many innocent people are you prepared to die to achieve this? If statistics show that an extra 30, 40 or perhaps 50 people are murdered in home invasions per year, would that be an acceptable sacrifice? Bearing in mind of course that burglars, with the absence of firearms prefer breaking into houses when the residents are at home because then they can steal wallets, keys, force them to open safes etc.

Let me answer your question with a question of my own. Are guns the only way to prevent murders and home invasions? And is it more or less likely that, unless you keep your gun on your lap at all times, a home invader can break in and take the very guns that you keep for protection from them, and then turn around and use them on you or someone else? I'd venture to guess that there are more people who successfully steal guns from law abiding gun owners than there are law abiding gun owners that prevent home invasions.

No, don't,  please answer the question. Less than 1% of homicides occur in 'mass shootings'. More people die falling out of a chair than in mass shootings. I don't want to belittle the issue but to put it into perspective, so please answer the question.

With regards to the number of guns a person owns, I will ask you the same question I asked Vin, how many Bucs shirts do you have?

2

You only need 1, why do you have 2? Maybe after you got the first you found a better one? Or perhaps the first got a bit old and tattered and you got a replacement?

[CBWx2]

 "Just because you are too much of a dullard to understand clear and concise arguments doesn't mean that I haven't presented one."

Now when you say "clear and concise argument," did you perhaps mean 'idiotic nonsense'? This one, for instance:

 " The propensity of an individual to break the law doesn't lie in whether or not it will only affect himself or others, it lies in the consequences of breaking such a law."

Now if this were true, wouldn't the severity of penalties for shooting people be an effective tool for stopping such atrocities? Yet here we are, trying to save ourselves from the poorly thought out good intentions of shortsighted, emotionally overwhelmed idealists such as yourself.

They are, genius. At least, to a degree. No penalty will prevent 100% of a particular crime from occurring. There are always those who simply don't give a crap about themselves or others. But even though murder is far too prevalent in our society, and is high in regards to the rate in other industrialized countries (and there are a myriad of reasons for this), it is still low in relation to other violent crimes with less severe penalties. For example, about 5 people out of 100,000 are victims of homicide in the US, compared to about 263 per every 100,000 that are victims of aggravated assault. If the penalties for both crimes were the same, how do you think that might effect those numbers?

[CBWx2]

Let's say you get you goal and all automatic weapons are banned and the result is there are no more mass shootings ever. How many innocent people are you prepared to die to achieve this? If statistics show that an extra 30, 40 or perhaps 50 people are murdered in home invasions per year, would that be an acceptable sacrifice? Bearing in mind of course that burglars, with the absence of firearms prefer breaking into houses when the residents are at home because then they can steal wallets, keys, force them to open safes etc.

Let me answer your question with a question of my own. Are guns the only way to prevent murders and home invasions? And is it more or less likely that, unless you keep your gun on your lap at all times, a home invader can break in and take the very guns that you keep for protection from them, and then turn around and use them on you or someone else? I'd venture to guess that there are more people who successfully steal guns from law abiding gun owners than there are law abiding gun owners that prevent home invasions.

No, don't,  please answer the question. Less than 1% of homicides occur in 'mass shootings'. More people die falling out of a chair than in mass shootings. I don't want to belittle the issue but to put it into perspective, so please answer the question.

The question is a loaded one, with numbers pulled out of thin air, so what is the point of answering it? You might as well be asking, "if curing cancer would lead to an extra 50 people a year getting herpes, would you still cure it?" There is no concrete evidence to suggest that a semi-automatic weapons ban would lead to such a scenario, because one does not need a semi-automatic assault weapon to stop a burglar from killing him/her. That was basically the point of my original answer.

With regards to the number of guns a person owns, I will ask you the same question I asked Vin, how many Bucs shirts do you have?

2

You only need 1, why do you have 2? Maybe after you got the first you found a better one? Or perhaps the first got a bit old and tattered and you got a replacement?

If I used my shirt for the sole purpose of stopping burglars from killing my family, I'd only need one. Since my shirt can't be used by a drug dealer in Chicago to shoot at a rival drug dealer, or by a kid with a personality disorder to shoot up an elementary school, then I'd say owning 2 is pretty harmless. Now if you can show me a Buccaneers shirt being used in either of those fashions, then I'd gladly get rid of one of them, or even both if necessary. I don't value owning a Buccaneers shirt more than I do the safety of my society.

[spartan]

If I used my shirt for the sole purpose of stopping burglars from killing my family, I'd only need one. Since my shirt can't be used by a drug dealer in Chicago to shoot at a rival drug dealer, or by a kid with a personality disorder to shoot up an elementary school, then I'd say owning 2 is pretty harmless. Now if you can show me a Buccaneers shirt being used in either of those fashions, then I'd gladly get rid of one of them, or even both if necessary. I don't value owning a Buccaneers shirt more than I do the safety of my society.

With all due respect, that is a stupid answer. Sometimes trying to be too clever backfires. You know what my point was and you tried to sidestep it, likewise with the other question.

[CBWx2]

If I used my shirt for the sole purpose of stopping burglars from killing my family, I'd only need one. Since my shirt can't be used by a drug dealer in Chicago to shoot at a rival drug dealer, or by a kid with a personality disorder to shoot up an elementary school, then I'd say owning 2 is pretty harmless. Now if you can show me a Buccaneers shirt being used in either of those fashions, then I'd gladly get rid of one of them, or even both if necessary. I don't value owning a Buccaneers shirt more than I do the safety of my society.

With all due respect, that is a stupid answer. Sometimes trying to be too clever backfires. You know what my point was and you tried to sidestep it, likewise with the other question.

For the sake of posterity, I'll answer both. Since the US averages about 20 mass shootings a year, and let's say an average of 10 people are killed per shooting, if a ban would guarantee zero a year, than the 50 more people a year being killed by home invaders would be more than offset by the number of people not killed in a mass shootings. So yes, I would still support the ban. Thankfully, since you made up that scenario where more people get killed by home invasions as the result of an assault weapons ban, and there is no realistic basis in which this scenario plays out, I don't have to sacrifice those 50 people in order to save the 200.

And there is no logistical difference in the use or potential use of a Buccaneer shirt from that of an Old Navy shirt, or any other T-shirt. Can the same blanket statement be made about all firearms? I can also think of a myriad of reasons why a person might need to own more than one shirt in our society without having to say "because it's his right" once. Can you do the same with firearms?

[spartan]

For the sake of posterity, I'll answer both. Since the US averages about 20 mass shootings a year, and let's say an average of 10 people are killed per shooting,

You can stop right there. FBI stats show there are about 20 mass KILLINGS per year. A mass killing being where 4 or more people are killed. Between 1980 and 2008, 4,685 people died in 965 mass-murders, which is 5 per incident. That plucked from Huffp and USA Today.

Read this, don't skim, read. You will be surprised at the content and it pretty much sums up my viewpoint:

http://rangelmd.com/2012/07/mass-shootings-dont-make-good-gun-control-examples/

Oh, and about the shirt, my point which you seemed to ignore is that at some point you get a newer and better one, and, when you do, you don't always throw the old one(s) away. With guns it is even harder cos you can't just toss them in the trash can.