National day of discussion: the gun issue in America
Forums › General Discussion › National day of discussion: the gun issue in America-
A good point I heard while listening to the radio. Back when the right to bear arms was created way back when there was no such thing as automatic weapons. Guns that fire hundreds of bullets per minute (seconds?) and kill hundreds with each bullet were not even possible or thought of back then. There is no real reason for owning these types of weapons if you can think of a real reason to have fully automatic weapons that spew bullets at insane speeds let me know.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
Is your handgun for self defense semi auto? You seem like a good dude and I'm enjoying this civil conversation, but hand guns kill 10 times the number of people than assault rifles do in the US. The rare, but tragic, mass shootings only represent a very small fraction of a fraction of gun deaths each year. I would gladly turn in my assault rifles if I thought it would make a difference but crazy is crazy. I feel as though any law the government could pass, (short of a total ban on all guns past, present & future) would only affect those who do use them legally for hunting, sport & home defense. don't forget, Columbine happened during the prior assault weapon ban.✂ I like having my hand gun for home defense. ✂
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
Support your claims. I don't think there have been 30 mass shootings since columbine and I would like to see a study that shows 70% of gun owners think regulations need to me "much stricter."4nick8r wrote:
I'm sure I would have fun. I love to shoot, but I value our children's lives much more so I'd certainly sacrifice the experience. You're fun is in no way worth 20, 6 year old lives though. Sorry, I support you doing something else for fun if it means preventing this from happening another 30 times after the last 30 since Columbine. And 70% of gun owners agree with having much stricter regulations. It's time our representatives listen to the majority rather than the minority.★Λddi★ wrote:
✂.
✂Maybe you could have fun blasting a watermelon👍
-
Not to burst anyone's bubble but there are nearly 300 million legally owned guns in the United States with almost 100 million of those guns being handguns.
The number of guns raises by almost 4 million annually.
That idiot in Connecticut that shot those children had 3 legally owned weapons.
Now I'm not very good at math but I'm pretty sure someone reading this is.
-
Tanthony43 wrote:
What made our system of government unique at the time was it's ability to adapt to a changing world. The 1st amendment had to be adapted and applied to the telegraph and telephone and now it's in the process of adapting to the Internet. The 4th amendment had to adapt similarly in addition to accomodating changes in how we travel brought on by rail, auto and airplanes. DNA evidence was once not admissable in court, laws had to change to make that possible. The constitution and our laws evolve as our technology does. It has to or we become a country of pointless traditions instead of meaningful laws.A good point I heard while listening to the radio. Back when the right to bear arms was created way back when there was no such thing as automatic weapons. ✂There is no real reason for owning these types of weapons if you can think of a real reason to have fully automatic weapons that spew bullets at insane speeds let me know.
-
★Λddi★ wrote:
That's an opinion not based in facts. Look at the research I did and read my links. Between 2006 and 2010 the FBI's dats shows less than 3% of homicides are committed with rifles. To say that a lot of bad comes from semiautomatic rifles is just incorrect.Just because we've turned guns into toys as a society doesn't mean that is their original intent and that we should blindly keep treating them as such no matter how many lives we needlessly lose. Don't misunderstand me, though, I'm not real keen on on control like the rest of the 1st world countries. I like having my hand gun for home defense. But we have no need for semi auto weapons aside from sport. And that just real never justify the bad that comes from it.
-
Tanthony43 wrote:
Nobody is talking about automatic weapons. They are largely illegal with very few special exceptions, and extremely expensive for those who are allowed to own them. There hasn't been a mass murder involving a fully automatic weapon since the st. Valentines day massacre that I'm aware of.A good point I heard while listening to the radio. Back when the right to bear arms was created way back when there was no such thing as automatic weapons. Guns that fire hundreds of bullets per minute (seconds?) and kill hundreds with each bullet were not even possible or thought of back then. There is no real reason for owning these types of weapons if you can think of a real reason to have fully automatic weapons that spew bullets at insane speeds let me know.
The only reason anyone is going to own a fully automatic weapon legally is to collect them.
-
I couldn't find any data, but i didn't look to hard. But i would guess that although only 3% of homicides are committed with rifles, somewhere around 95-100% of the homicides committed with rifles involve multiple victims that do not know the shooter. In other words, handguns are used for robbery, revenge, etc., rifles are used for mass murder.
Another interesting note, Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with somewhere between 1.2 to 3 million guns and 8 million citizens. In 2006 there were 34 recorded murders or attempted murders with a gun, representing a firearm homicide rate of 1 per 250,000. Src-the internet.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
A government formed by men who had just overthrown a government, men who felt that individuals had inherent rights endowed on them by their creator, not any government. Men who distrusted a strong central government and instituted checks and balances to ensure no one man could wield too much power. Men who owned guns and used them to change history. Those type of write the 2nd amendment.AMENDMENT II(b)
Despite the fact that we've provided for every possible contingency for you to peacefully resolve disagreements and ensure that the government continues to serve the will of the people, feel free to arm yourselves to the teeth and try to overthrow the government if things don't go your way.
Seriously, what kind of government would provide it's citizens, in it's founding documents, a means to violently overthrow itself? Idiotic.
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
👍👍👍👍👍👍★fnord★ wrote:
A government formed by men who had just overthrown a government, men who felt that individuals had inherent rights endowed on them by their creator, not any government. Men who distrusted a strong central government and instituted checks and balances to ensure no one man could wield too much power. Men who owned guns and used them to change history. Those type of write the 2nd amendment.AMENDMENT II(b)
Despite the fact that we've provided for every possible contingency for you to peacefully resolve disagreements and ensure that the government continues to serve the will of the people, feel free to arm yourselves to the teeth and try to overthrow the government if things don't go your way.
Seriously, what kind of government would provide it's citizens, in it's founding documents, a means to violently overthrow itself? Idiotic.
-
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/analysis-mass-multiple-murders-rates-constant-despite-overall-decline-in-homicides
That is a short article that looks at the trend of mass murders over time. The number has remained nearly constant despite a growing population and more guns. The really interesting part of this study is that during the years of the assault weapon ban the number of mass murders did not change.
On another note, I stand corrected, there have been more mass murders than I thought.
-
Imagine going back in time and trying to describe an assault rifle to James Madison (author of the 2nd amendment).
Madison: "What is this assault rifle of which you speak?"
Time traveler: "It's a precision self-loading long-range rifled musket with a precision targeting and ranging spyglass mounted on top. It can fire fragmenting bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. It enables one artilleryman to do the work of 100, essentially making him into a one man army."
Madison: "Cool. Every private citizen should be an army unto himself. No harm could possibly come of that. We're huge fans of private armies, the more the merrier. Furthermore, this right should be enshrined forever."
-
ℜagɳar Loðbrók wrote:
That's not really an answer. Show me an actual quote from a founding father that says citizens should have the option to take up arms against their own government.★fnord★ wrote: ✂
A government formed by men who had just overthrown a government, men who felt that individuals had inherent rights endowed on them by their creator, not any government. Men who distrusted a strong central government and instituted checks and balances to ensure no one man could wield too much power. Men who owned guns and used them to change history. Those type of write the 2nd amendment.Seriously, what kind of government would provide it's citizens, in it's founding documents, a means to violently overthrow itself? Idiotic.
-
And yes, I have a glock. It doesn't hold a 100 round drum or have the power capacity of a rifle though. Nor do I have an extended magazine for it because it's completely unnecessary.
And as I said in the previous thread our biggest concern is what creates this problem which is widely thought to be income inequality and lack of preventative mental health care. But if I start talking about how this country should be in line with nearly every other 1st world country (including Isreal) and have nationalized mental/health care then you know what happens. ;)
-
@Mojo:
Make that 31 including the most recent:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9414540/A-history-of-mass-shootings-in-the-US-since-Columbine.htmlUnderstand this is Frank Luntz polls, an ultra republican pollster. And really i undercut it by 10-15%. This isn't semi automatic specific - though I'm sure there are some similar polls out there with similar numbers, because lets be frank, most peoples toys aren't semi automatic rifles. I even found it on a conservative rags:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105354/do-nra-members-support-more-gun-restrictions-members-congress-do
Polls are arguably questionable no matter the subject, but it's what we have to show any sort of feeling for how the country leans on things.
-
mojopilot wrote:
★Λddi★ wrote:
That's an opinion not based in facts. Look at the research I did and read my links. Between 2006 and 2010 the FBI's dats shows less than 3% of homicides are committed with rifles. To say that a lot of bad comes from semiautomatic rifles is just incorrect.Just because we've turned guns into toys as a society doesn't ...
Incorrect according to whom? You can't stack lives against sport or lives against numbers. It's an emotional thing, I don't deny that. But we are talking about killing apparatuses here, not football. I could care less what the % is, 1 happening is too many.
-
I forgot to mention those were the most notable mass murders that I posted. Obviously you saw from your link, that's its an average of about 30 a year for 4+ murders at once.
-
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. -
We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. -
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46. -
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
John Adams recognizes the fundamental right of citizens, as individuals, to defend themselves with arms, however he states militias must be controlled by government and the rule of law. To have otherwise is to invite anarchy. -
★Λddi★ wrote:
R.E. your first half, are you saying we should outlaw all semi autos (glocks, ruger 10-22's, AR-15's) or just high cap mags?And yes, I have a glock. It doesn't hold a 100 round drum or have the power capacity of a rifle though. Nor do I have an extended magazine for it because it's completely unnecessary.
And as I said in the previous thread our biggest concern is what creates this problem which is widely thought to be income inequality and lack of preventative mental health care. But if I start talking about how this country should be in line with nearly every other 1st world country (including Isreal) and have nationalized mental/health care then you know what happens. ;)
R.E. the 2nd half. We do need far better mental health care in this country. I just read an interesting article linking antipsychotic overuse in adolescence to an increase in suicide & murder. I'll try to get a link posted when I get a minute. -
[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. -
[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason -
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
Gallatin's use of the words "some rights," doesn't mean some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, rather there are many rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, those rights that are listed are being established as unalienable. -
You need to reread those quotes.
-
Consider Madison; why are some governments afraid to have an armed people?
-
"W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms," here from Richard Henry Lee.
Do you suppose he only means the preservation of liberty from foreign forces? Is it not reasonable to think he would have sought to "preserve liberty" if our government took action to limit it.
-
Justice Story was an associate justice on the Supreme Court. In he 1830's he wrote a commentary on he bill of rights.
I suggest everybody read it. He was appointed to the bench by president Madison, the author of the constitution, and writes with great understanding of the intent of the founders.
-
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC