1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Simply must have more guns

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Dawkinsrocks, Feb 15, 2018.

  1. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    2,383
    Likes Received:
    340

    Even Scalia disagreed with your childish outlook on the toys you wish to play with, and others use to kill with:

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html

    " Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[Footnote 26]

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
     
  2. Openmind

    Openmind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,110
    Likes Received:
    119
    Location:
    Currently Belgium
    Big Rob. . .I think it's time that you give up trying to pull me (and others) into your delusional bubble. Today is a new day, and reality is pushing the truth. We don't have to CHANGE the second amendment. We ONLY have to accept that the second amendment has AGED and was not written for TODAY"S war technology.

    I know you can't accept that. But you will soon be a small minority. NO ONE wants to "take your gun away." What reasonable people want is to take away ALL the firearms that are used solely to KILL other people in great numbers.

    Keep your sad little gun. . .keep a 6 magazine gun. If you can't "defend" yourself with that. . .you are worthless with a firearm anyway! But stop allowing everyone and his neighbour access to killing machines that belong ONLY in the hands of "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" . . .LIKE MILITARY units under tight supervision!
     
    Lagboltz likes this.
  3. Openmind

    Openmind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,110
    Likes Received:
    119
    Location:
    Currently Belgium
    People who are delusional are not necessarily stupid! It is a form of protective skill. . .In fact, it is often intelligent people who use this form of protection, because they are smart enough to realise that their stand makes no sense, and they suffer cognitive dissonance. To avoid this very uncomfortable state, they choose (knowingly or not) to throw themselves fully into a bubble of ignorance and/or denial. . .where they hope those deep feeling of cognitive dissonance cannot survive.

    Good luck to you. . .I rather not debate with you. For what I am concern, you have made up your mind that you know it all and that everyone else is wrong. Enjoy!
     
  4. Walter

    Walter Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,519
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Heart of Europe
    One of the better discussions:
     
  5. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    USA
    In other words - change the meaning of the 2nd amendment without actually going through the amendment process...no thanks.

    The vast majority of killing with guns is done with handguns - not so called "assault rifles". Statistically it is simply not true that the majority of weapons, like an AR-15, are used "solely to kill other people in great numbers". That is just false based on available data.

    Your personal feelings on an issue do not trump Constitutionally protected rights. What an absurd concept.

    Again - if you want to amend the 2nd amendment there is a process in place to do that.
     
  6. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    163
    the country wIth the most guns has the highest murder rate of any developed country.
     
    Openmind likes this.
  7. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,527
    Likes Received:
    351
    Location:
    USA
    Your premise is effectively "more guns = more crime"...

    Given that - please explain why the murder rate in the United States has fallen over 50% between 1980 and 2016. Please explain why violent crime measurements have been cut in half (using FBI stats - and even more using BJS stats)...property crimes are down. Crime is just down generally. Despite all the rhetoric the data just simply doesn't back up the statement that the United States is a violent place. We see all these stats of "you are 25 times more likely be murdered in the US than elsewhere" - but they ignore the underlying data. 25 times more likely than statistically negligible is statistically negligible

    And to note - since 1994 there has been a 38% increase in the number of guns owned in this country. If it is true that "more guns = more crime" then why are crime rates falling in the face of an increasing number of guns in this country?

    And to go even further - according to FBI data - 70% of murders in the United States are done with a handgun! All this focus on so-called "assault rifles" doesn't make any sense if you actually want to make an impact in regards to any of this.
     
  8. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    163
    IT is true that Stats and definitions are hard to compare IT is true that undeveloped countrie LIke Bruni And Mexico have a higher homicide rate than the USA, But are they developed Australia rate is 13.10 and most of Europe is in t5he 30' wheras St louis USA is 65.63. it is impossble to say this is due to gun policy. When I was in SAn Franceso a while ago even in the middle of the night I felt safe. BUt in certain areas where I was the only white man I was nervousTHE causes of homicide is more important than availability of guns but the the easier laws for guns in the USA have not reduced homicides. IN austlia we have a high ban on guns but we do tackle the causes of homicide. It is impossible to say what action has resulted in different homicide rates.
     
  9. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    163
    The rime rate outside homicide dose not necessary relate to guns. Most countrires tackle crime and this reduces it regardess of guns.
     

    Attached Files:

  10. Texas_tea

    Texas_tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,947
    Likes Received:
    418
    Location:
    Great State of TEXAS
    These people cannot explain this and you know it.

    They are marxist sheeple parroting what the MSM tells them to say.

    You know they are incapable of discussing anything beyond parroting MSM talking points.

    Thank you for you comment.

    I hear what you are saying.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice