Gun control debate (merged)

[0nelilreb]

If only the author had left us letters explaining his thoughts on the government restricting our rights to bare arms , the governments actual role , taking our freedoms and liberties or the FF had left us a way to change anything we didn’t like about the constitution,… Oh wait

 

[luthervol]

If only the author had left us letters explaining his thoughts on the government restricting our rights to bare arms , the governments actual role , taking our freedoms and liberties or the FF had left us a way to change anything we didn’t like about the constitution,… Oh wait

Surely you're not claiming that all of those things were not taken into consideration in 1939.

 

[85SugarVol]

Surely you're not claiming that all of those things were not taken into consideration in 1939.

Did you look up the latin from from Jefferson’s letter to Madison? We were talking about it the other day.

 

[luthervol]

Did you look up the latin from from Jefferson’s letter to Madison? We were talking about it the other day.

I did not.

 

[85SugarVol]

I did not.

It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.

There are 2 translations. The first is the one often seen, but I prefer the second.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"
"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."

 

[C-south]

Surely you're not claiming that all of those things were not taken into consideration in 1939.

Of course it wasn’t. It was a knee jerk, unconstitutional reaction to gangs/organized crime that did nothing.

 

[turbovol]

So, as I understand it, the gun crazies think we have not a gun problem but a "people problem." Not quite. We have a people problem AND
a gun problem--and that's why we have so much gun violence in America. The contend that we need to solve the "people problem."

Never has there been such an absurdly naive remark.


From the Gun Control Network:


US UK Comparative data

The more guns there are in society the more gun violence there is. International studies of high-income countries typically find that firearm availability is positively correlated with firearm homicide and usually overall homicide (Grinshteyn & Hemenway, 2016 American Journal of Medicine, in press). Comparisons between the United States and the UK make this abundantly clear.


The rate of gun ownership is 3.3 per 100 people in the population in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) compared with the US rate of 101, thirty times higher.


The annual rate of gun homicide per 100,000 of the population is currently 0.03 in Great Britain. This compares with 3.6 in the USA, a rate that is 120-fold greater. The total firearms death rate (including suicides and accidents as well) is 51 times higher in the US than in the UK.


Some other figures are worth noting:

• In the US some two thirds of homicides involve a gun while in Great Britain the figure is approximately 5%.
• There were 5,800 handgun homicides in the US in 2013. In the same year in Great Britain - where handguns are prohibited - fewer than 20 murders involved a handgun.

So gun control clearly does work! The UK has a low rate of gun crime but more can be done - people are still being killed and injured unnecessarily.



Guns are a serious problem in America. Everybody knows it but the crazies who value their neighborhood sheriff wannabe toys more than public safety. Fact.

 

[C-south]

So, as I understand it, the gun crazies think we have not a gun problem but a "people problem." Not quite. We have a people problem AND
a gun problem--and that's why we have so much gun violence in America. The contend that we need to solve the "people problem."

Never has there been such an absurdly naive remark.


From the Gun Control Network:


US UK Comparative data

The more guns there are in society the more gun violence there is. International studies of high-income countries typically find that firearm availability is positively correlated with firearm homicide and usually overall homicide (Grinshteyn & Hemenway, 2016 American Journal of Medicine, in press). Comparisons between the United States and the UK make this abundantly clear.


The rate of gun ownership is 3.3 per 100 people in the population in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) compared with the US rate of 101, thirty times higher.


The annual rate of gun homicide per 100,000 of the population is currently 0.03 in Great Britain. This compares with 3.6 in the USA, a rate that is 120-fold greater. The total firearms death rate (including suicides and accidents as well) is 51 times higher in the US than in the UK.


Some other figures are worth noting:

• In the US some two thirds of homicides involve a gun while in Great Britain the figure is approximately 5%.
• There were 5,800 handgun homicides in the US in 2013. In the same year in Great Britain - where handguns are prohibited - fewer than 20 murders involved a handgun.

So gun control clearly does work! The UK has a low rate of gun crime but more can be done - people are still being killed and injured unnecessarily.



Guns are a serious problem in America. Everybody knows it but the crazies who value their neighborhood sheriff wannabe toys more than public safety. Fact.

Guess they should’ve won a war 250 years ago. Seems that may be a reason they don’t want it’s citizenry being armed.

 

[luthervol]

It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs.

There are 2 translations. The first is the one often seen, but I prefer the second.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery"
"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude."

But it's obviously not an either or.
There is neither 100% freedom (liberty) nor 100% slavery (servitude).

The most free people I know of are homeless vagrants.
People have the freedom to give up a little freedom for security. Every person who is employed has made that choice.
Every person who has purchased any type of insurance policy has made that choice. Every person who has signed a loan has made that choice. Every person who was ever in the military made that choice.

Probably the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to barter your freedom. Or you can always just live under the bridge.

 

[luthervol]

Of course it wasn’t. It was a knee jerk, unconstitutional reaction to gangs/organized crime that did nothing.

Nonsense. Go read the opinions. (or re-read the opinions)

 

[C-south]

But it's obviously not an either or.
There is neither 100% freedom (liberty) nor 100% slavery (servitude).

The most free people I know of are homeless vagrants.
People have the freedom to give up a little freedom for security. Every person who is employed has made that choice.
Every person who has purchased any time of insurance policy has made that choice. Every person who has signed a loan has made that choice. Every person who was ever in the military made that choice.

Probably the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to barter your freedom. Or you can always just live under the bridge.

It wasn’t a choice for many to serve in the military. Not everyone was a dodger like you. The rest is dumb as well. Typical.

 

[C-south]

Nonsense. Go read the opinions. (or re-read the opinions)

Opinions are meaningless when there’s nothing to interpret.

 

[LouderVol]

The Confederacy of Dunces.

That sounds like you are claiming that I have repeatedly accused people of having beliefs which they do not hold.
Which of course, I have not. That seems to be a practice which you guys feel the need to resort.

oh you definitely have made those accusations.
Like thinking that the "gun nuts" want absolutely no restrictions on guns. despite there being pretty much no discussion on many of the existing elements. I haven't seen anyone question people younger than 18 being able to buy a gun. I haven't seen anyone question not being able to buy a gun while out of state. I haven't seen anyone push for expanded USE of guns despite your claims that we want to just shoot whoever we want.
You have described gun nuts as childish, and self centered, and dangerous simply because they don't agree with your limitations of their rights.
You have alluded to them wanting to carry a gun as compensating or being scared.

your entire view on guns is based on false assumptions.

 

[luthervol]

Opinions are meaningless when there’s nothing to interpret.

Which obviously isn't the case with the 2nd amendment, but maybe if you say "there is nothing to interpret" 1000 times it will change that fact.

 

[hog88]

oh you definitely have made those accusations.
Like thinking that the "gun nuts" want absolutely no restrictions on guns. despite there being pretty much no discussion on many of the existing elements. I haven't seen anyone question people younger than 18 being able to buy a gun. I haven't seen anyone question not being able to buy a gun while out of state. I haven't seen anyone push for expanded USE of guns despite your claims that we want to just shoot whoever we want.
You have described gun nuts as childish, and self centered, and dangerous simply because they don't agree with your limitations of their rights.
You have alluded to them wanting to carry a gun as compensating or being scared.

your entire view on guns is based on false assumptions.

You miss a lot of my posts then.

 

[GroverCleveland]

He can’t vote for Stacey Abrams if he’s living in Uganda.

If he is living in Uganda, he might consider owning a real assault weapon.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Surely you're not claiming that all of those things were not taken into consideration in 1939.

What case are you talking about? Miller?

 

[LouderVol]

But it's obviously not an either or.
There is neither 100% freedom (liberty) nor 100% slavery (servitude).

The most free people I know of are homeless vagrants.
People have the freedom to give up a little freedom for security. Every person who is employed has made that choice.
Every person who has purchased any type of insurance policy has made that choice. Every person who has signed a loan has made that choice. Every person who was ever in the military made that choice.

Probably the greatest freedom of all is the freedom to barter your freedom. Or you can always just live under the bridge.

there is a fallacy in your assumption.

There is a reason we "have" to trade freedom for those securities you mentioned. Because the government says we have to.

we have to work because we have pay the taxes on the land we "own". the government has said we have to continuously pay them, or else.
Insurance, required by the government.
Loan's wouldn't be a big deal if the people actually owned their land, and could do what they want with it (freedom). But the government has restricted that freedom, and made loans are far greater necessity than they should be. and as far as the costs of those loans, the 30% of the cost of home construction is due to government requirements. Government Regulation in the Price of a New Home: Georgia.
People don't join the military for their own security. Doesn't even make sense, because they are putting themselves in harms way.
The governments controls and dictates are interpersonal relationships and interactions. it dictates how we do business. it denies us any sort of freedom at every turn, and for questionable at best returns.

 

[LouderVol]

You miss a lot of my posts then.

apparently. luther, consider those items revoked.

 

[C-south]

Which obviously isn't the case with the 2nd amendment, but maybe if you say "there is nothing to interpret" 1000 times it will change that fact.

“Shall not be infringed” along with countless examples for context from the authors. Again if it’s that simple just amend it because otherwise there’s nothing to interpret or debate.

 

[luthervol]

oh you definitely have made those accusations.
Like thinking that the "gun nuts" want absolutely no restrictions on guns. despite there being pretty much no discussion on many of the existing elements. I haven't seen anyone question people younger than 18 being able to buy a gun. I haven't seen anyone question not being able to buy a gun while out of state. I haven't seen anyone push for expanded USE of guns despite your claims that we want to just shoot whoever we want.
You have described gun nuts as childish, and self centered, and dangerous simply because they don't agree with your limitations of their rights.
You have alluded to them wanting to carry a gun as compensating or being scared.

your entire view on guns is based on false assumptions.

1st, Hog has advocated for all those things (as each of those things were discussed - and he probably isn't the only one). A number of people on here have claimed there can be NO INFRINGEMENT - which by their definition is "no regulations or restrictions."

2nd, you didn't give a single example of where I have attributed a belief to a specific person that the person does not hold.

 

[hog88]

apparently. luther, consider those items revoked.

I'm of the opinion that if you old enough drive/own a car there is no reason you shouldn't be able to buy a gun and the ban on buying handguns out of state (you can buy long guns OOS) is ridiculous. What's the logic behind that?

 

[luthervol]

I'm of the opinion that if you old enough drive/own a car there is no reason you shouldn't be able to buy a gun and the ban on buying handguns out of state (you can buy long guns OOS) is ridiculous. What's the logic behind that?

I believe you actually said you thought a 5 year old should be legally allowed to buy a machine gun.

I have always given you credit for being one (maybe the only one) who was willing to take your position to its logical, all be it insane and indefensible, conclusion.

 

[hog88]

I believe you actually said you thought a 5 year old should be legally allowed to buy a machine gun.

I don't recall that exact statement but sure, if the 5yo has the money and their parents are good with it why should anyone else care?

 

[luthervol]

I don't recall that exact statement but sure, if the 5yo has the money and their parents are good with it why should anyone else care?

That was your position.

I have always given you credit for being one (maybe the only one) who was willing to take your position to its logical, all be it insane and indefensible, conclusion. (like 'why should anyone care if a 5 year old has a machine gun')