War on #2A [Archive] - Virtual Teen Forums

Merk

April 28th, 2018, 05:24 PM

Firt off, thank you all for you responses!
This one stuck out the most to me.While from a historical standpoint I 100% understand the reason people in the USA own firearms let's not forget the 2n'd A was created back when the guns people had weren't really the mean killing machines they are today. Would I ever want to own a gun myself? No not at all, but that doesn't mean I would like to see them banned per say. I believe that assault rifles have no place in a common household. I strongly believe these weapons should be regulated much more tightly. The reason people have a pistol in their homes is for self defence, which is not really that weird concidering they live in a country where the ownership of a gun is a very, very common thing. I would also feel safer with a gun in my home if I were to live in a neighbourhood that has a lot of criminal activity going on. I do think the main issue here does not lie with the smaller firearms but rather with the bigger assault weapons (although smaller firearms should be regulated more tightly). A ban on these would not be bad in my opinion. There is a distinct difference between a hunting rifle and an AR-15. The latter being designed after an actual military rifle. Of course a hunting rifle can kill, but the damage it can do when brought to a public area is far less significant than what the AR can do.

As a somewhat conservative thinking person myself I must say that sometimes the American conservative right overreacts. It is not because someone wants to regulate guns more that they are taking away your rights as an American. The regulation on assault rifles and hand guns is a completely different debate in my opinion, as they both fullfil a different role. I can understand the outrage when people want to band your right to own a firearm as a whole though, however I still believe there is a lot of overreaction.

Ever heard a a .22 rifle? It is the smallest caliber you can get for a rifle. .223 is the same caliber, just faster.

The AR-15 is a .223 caliber round, most hunting rifles are above .270, and one of the most popular rounds for large game is a .308, aright?

.308 and similar rounds are often used for hunting, because they cause so much more damage than just a .22 round.

For personal defense, the most commonly used rounds are 9mm, which is .35 caliber, and the .45, that can also be written as .450 for comparison. That's a lot bigger. A lot more damage. The reason people choose this, is because not only can you conceal it, but it's a stopper. One shot, and that guy isn't going to still be attacking you. But in a stressful situation, it can be hard to hit your target, and there's a lot of kickback.

For home defence, the AR-15 is most popular, you know why? It's a .223 round. Which means very little kickback. The ar-15 is a rifle, meaning it's easy to aim. Because of the little kickback, even the wife can use it. It will stop an attacker, and you work get hurt using it. 'Why not use a shotgun' You say? Not only are they heavy, they can hurt the user, and they are 12 guage! That's .730 caliber! That's not a common defence weapon, that's a killer. Would you rather hit someone with a 22 that causes the attacker some pain and saves your life? Or would rather blow an inch wide hole through the and kill them?

Also, at the time of writing the second amendment, firearms had already been being developed into much more lethal machines than we have now.

By the way, what does 'Assault Weapon' mean?
----------Also, what is an 'Assault Rifle'?

Firstly the hashtag in the title, not necessary. I have to respectfully disagree, with not only this sentence, but also how you compared it to healthcare. 'healthcare' is not a constitutional right.

mattsmith48

April 28th, 2018, 06:32 PM

This may come as surprise but its hitting the target that counts. You know anyone can pull trigger but hitting the target like clay pigeon is totally another thing.
That is why its called sport. Any fool by the way can kick ball but soccer is many other things too.

Kicking a ball requires some athletic ability, aiming and trying to hit a target with a gun doesn't.

Governors are NOT a result of the electoral system, states like NY are WHY we can look at the electoral system and say "yea it works" right now NYC, Albany, Binghamton & Rochester can control the happenings in the rest of the state and that is B.S.

FPTP is the electoral system use to elect the governors, so yes the governors are a result of the electoral system.

every vote should count as 1 and not being worth more or less, or be completely worthless based on where you live. I don't understand how anyone can be against that

on the guns vs healthcare, guns were in the constitution, health care wasn't. BUT healthcare IS available to all (you walk into the ER and you get care, yes they want $$ but the local hospital will cap the bill at $4,500 which isn't unreasonable by any means)

I have to respectfully disagree, with not only this sentence, but also how you compared it to healthcare. 'healthcare' is not a constitutional right.

You are both right health care is not a constitutional right, its a human right.
Guns are not a right.

Merk

April 28th, 2018, 08:11 PM

You are both right health care is not a constitutional right, its a human right.
Guns are not a right.
I prefaced this discussion with stating it be a U.S. topic in relation to our laws, so please, I'm more then happy to help you understand, but please, dont state things as fact, if they're aren't fact!

I won't event bother to comment on everything you said,

But, oh, my god...
This is a direct quote of the Second Amendment from the U.S. Constitutional Bill of Rights "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."
How is this not a right!!??:mad:

Firearm sports, are not 'just aiming and pulling the trigger' it's education of our rights, and so much more. it's a competitive sport, you have to learn, you have to gain the talent, you have to be good at it. if you werent afriad of guns, then if you went to on of these events and you tried, you would see the its not aiming a gun and shooting. it's the actual proper movment, proper speed and acuracy, and consistancy. it's a competitive sport, so deal with it.

Healthcare is not a 'right' in any way. I's a service. It's not what we are talking about. It is not the same, so stop using it as an argument or comparison. if you want to talk about healthcare please start another disscussion. I'd like to hear why you think healthcare is a "right" and i'd also apreciate it if you showed what "heathcare" is, and in what way it would be applied if it actually were to be right or 'human right'.

Edit: You're right! "Guns" are not a right. But it is a "Right of the people to keep and bear Arms," which "shall not be infringed!"

Dalcourt

April 28th, 2018, 09:50 PM

Firearms sport is not an education of your rights. It's just a competitive sport where you learn how to be the best at aming and shooting to win against your competitors. I have done that sport for years.

I really wish people would get so heated about the rest of our Constitution like they get about this 2nd amendment. But obviously the rest of it isn't so important at all.

Nothing seems so important like carrying a gun. This is so sad. There would be so many other things in our country worth fighting for but people just cling to this.
Where I live, people experience gun violence on a nearly daily basis. There are hardly any families who have not lost someone to guns or at least someone to get hurt by a gun.
So how are guns such a necessity?
Nobody here is save because of people having guns. You don't have to be a gang member or criminal...you just have to happen to be outside your house at the wrong time.
My own Dad threatened to kill me once as he was mad and high on something.Can you imagine how it feels having a gun pointed at your head?

So honestly I cannot understand this fuss at all. Look at countries with strict gun laws...you find clubs for competitive shooting in them and people are allowed to go hunting.
You can get a license and get an education about guns if you want to take part in one of those things.
There are just not so many guns around in daily life. This makes it harder for people to just use one and regret later. It prevents accidents with small kids and guns. And since they are not as easy to access there are also fewer on the black marked. Not every small dealer or teen who would mug you in the street has a gun.

Really, I have never heard anything argument that could persuade me to find directions this whole gun thing so important.

mattsmith48

April 29th, 2018, 01:35 AM

I prefaced this discussion with stating it be a U.S. topic in relation to our laws, so please, I'm more then happy to help you understand, but please, dont state things as fact, if they're aren't fact!

I won't event bother to comment on everything you said,

But, oh, my god...
This is a direct quote of the Second Amendment from the U.S. Constitutional Bill of Rights "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."
How is this not a right!!??:mad:

Firearm sports, are not 'just aiming and pulling the trigger' it's education of our rights, and so much more. it's a competitive sport, you have to learn, you have to gain the talent, you have to be good at it. if you werent afriad of guns, then if you went to on of these events and you tried, you would see the its not aiming a gun and shooting. it's the actual proper movment, proper speed and acuracy, and consistancy. it's a competitive sport, so deal with it.

Healthcare is not a 'right' in any way. I's a service. It's not what we are talking about. It is not the same, so stop using it as an argument or comparison. if you want to talk about healthcare please start another disscussion. I'd like to hear why you think healthcare is a "right" and i'd also apreciate it if you showed what "heathcare" is, and in what way it would be applied if it actually were to be right or 'human right'.

Edit: You're right! "Guns" are not a right. But it is a "Right of the people to keep and bear Arms," which "shall not be infringed!"

And that is exactly why I use terms like ''war on decency" and "parody of itself." I like to say this for both your gun and health care debate because they are very similar in multiple ways. Anyone looking at them from the outside can only say WTF. For both debates both parties rather make money of the deaths of millions of people then to go with an easy solution the rest of the world already figured out.

No human being should die because they cannot afford to see a doctor or a treatment. If you don't have access to health care you will die, thats why it is a right. They are two kinds of rights the ones that are necessary for the survival of any human, water, food, health care etc. and the one that are necessary to any working democracy, free speech, equal opportunity, freedom of religion. Having a gun is not a basic need, you will not die if you have one, and they multiple great example of democracy all around the world that work great without the right to bear arms. Now do you see why it is not a right? The only reason you have the 2nd amendment is because the founding fathers were scared that of a new dictator getting in power and they would lose everything they fought for in the revolutionary war so they put that part in as protection just in case so it would be easier to overthrow the government, 300 years later everyone knows it is impossible, the US have the biggest military in the history of everything, and anyone even trying to overthrow the government would be crushed in minutes, minutes that would be better used trying to climb the wall to Mexico.

Leprous

April 29th, 2018, 02:21 AM

Firt off, thank you all for you responses!
This one stuck out the most to me.

Ever heard a a .22 rifle? It is the smallest caliber you can get for a rifle. .223 is the same caliber, just faster.

The AR-15 is a .223 caliber round, most hunting rifles are above .270, and one of the most popular rounds for large game is a .308, aright?

.308 and similar rounds are often used for hunting, because they cause so much more damage than just a .22 round.

For personal defense, the most commonly used rounds are 9mm, which is .35 caliber, and the .45, that can also be written as .450 for comparison. That's a lot bigger. A lot more damage. The reason people choose this, is because not only can you conceal it, but it's a stopper. One shot, and that guy isn't going to still be attacking you. But in a stressful situation, it can be hard to hit your target, and there's a lot of kickback.

The main difference with hunting rifles and an AR-15 is the amount of round they can both unload upon a group of people in a short amount of time. Again, they are also build for completely different purposes. While yes the 9mm can do more damage in a single shot the main issue with the AR-15 is how many bullets it can unload and the potential it has when taken to for example a school. One can't deny it is still a very potent and dangerous rifle.

For home defence, the AR-15 is most popular, you know why? It's a .223 round. Which means very little kickback. The ar-15 is a rifle, meaning it's easy to aim. Because of the little kickback, even the wife can use it. It will stop an attacker, and you work get hurt using it. 'Why not use a shotgun' You say? Not only are they heavy, they can hurt the user, and they are 12 guage! That's .730 caliber! That's not a common defence weapon, that's a killer. Would you rather hit someone with a 22 that causes the attacker some pain and saves your life? Or would rather blow an inch wide hole through the and kill them?

Well first of all it is the reason that it is so easy to handle that also makes it more powerful when brought to a group of people. I think the sentence "cause the attacker some pain" is a bit wrongly used here. All guns are killers, wether or not it's a shotgun or an AR they are all lethal. I do believe shotguns shouldn't be in the hands of regular people either, so there's that.

Also, at the time of writing the second amendment, firearms had already been being developed into much more lethal machines than we have now.

By the way, what does 'Assault Weapon' mean?
----------Also, what is an 'Assault Rifle'?

Now the definition of an assault weapon is very vague, for both sides of the gun arguement. I know pro gun people tend to say that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon/assault rifle since it is not automatic. While yes it is a semi-automatic weapon it doesn't take away the fact it is still designed after a military grade rifle and is far more potent than your average handgun.

Merk

April 29th, 2018, 04:05 AM

.
I would fisrt like to point out, this is going to be one hell of a long post....

I really wish people would get so heated about the rest of our Constitution like they get about this 2nd amendment. But obviously the rest of it isn't so important at all.
The reason they don't, is because most of the antigunners out there were raised being told guns are bad, they cause violence, they kill people, etc.. but the reality is, it's the people, the people cause violence, death, and the rest. The reason these people get guns, isn't because 'we need new laws', it's because the current laws aren't being enforced. And even if they were, criminals would still break the law. That's what they do by definition.

Nothing seems so important like carrying a gun. This is so sad. There would be so many other things in our country worth fighting for but people just cling to this.
Where I live, people experience gun violence on a nearly daily basis. There are hardly any families who have not lost someone to guns or at least someone to get hurt by a gun.
So how are guns such a necessity?
Nobody here is save because of people having guns. You don't have to be a gang member or criminal...you just have to happen to be outside your house at the wrong time.
THATS WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS GREAT! The average citizen CAN have a gun, and with that gun, they can defend themselves against criminals.

My own Dad threatened to kill me once as he was mad and high on something.Can you imagine how it feels having a gun pointed at your head?
I Feel sorry for you, that you had to go through such a horrible experience, but your father isn't allowed to be in possession of firearms because he is a drug abuser, and domestic/child abuser as well, alright? He should not have a gun.

So honestly I cannot understand this fuss at all. Look at countries with strict gun laws...you find clubs for competitive shooting in them and people are allowed to go hunting.
You can get a license and get an education about guns if you want to take part in one of those things.
There are just not so many guns around in daily life. This makes it harder for people to just use one and regret later. It prevents accidents with small kids and guns. And since they are not as easy to access there are also fewer on the black marked. Not every small dealer or teen who would mug you in the street has a gun.
These countries with strict gun laws... Only the elites have the 'luxury' of defense. Alright? No average citizens can legally defend themselves, this means, 'dealers and muggers', (ok first, these shouldn't be grouped) 'dealers' will still have guns. 'muggers', most will have guns, alright? Muggers, no longer have to be careful of robing the wrong person, everyone is a target, a nice fresh juicy target, you know why? It's because people can't have guns. To comment on 'the black market', the black market for guns has grown immensely. You know why? Because legal sale of guns doesn't exist there. Strict laws don't prevent 'accidents with small kids and guns' that's what parents are for, if they need laws to tell them how to be parents, they shouldn't have kids.

Really, I have never heard anything argument that could persuade me to find directions this whole gun thing so important.
I hope this helps, and I'm more than happy to give more reasons.

----------
And that is exactly why I use terms like ''war on decency" and "parody of itself." I like to say this for both your gun and health care debate because they are very similar in multiple ways. Anyone looking at them from the outside can only say WTF. For both debates both parties rather make money of the deaths of millions of people then to go with an easy solution the rest of the world already figured out.
THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SHIT (lol that's an exaggeration, but not by much)
The UK and EU, with there laws, free speech doesn't exist. They're government has betrayed there own people because they are mislead socialists who have too much control over it's citizens, and still want more. Violence there has only gone up since there gun bans, and now they want to ban pointy knifes.
Countries like China, NKorea and SKorea, they have communistic governments. Free speech, not allowed. Censorship? All the way. Life sentence for publicly speaking against there 'leaders'? Yup.
But somehow, there murder rate are still some of the highest in the world, Chinas suicide rate? Still world leading as the highest. Did gun laws solve this? No. It allowed them sensor, and violate human rights. If all gun manufacturers stopped producing guns right this second, violece would only go up in the U.S., you know why? It's because the criminals will still have there guns, but citizens won't be able to purchase guns to defend themselves.

No human being should die because they cannot afford to see a doctor or a treatment. If you don't have access to health care you will die, thats why it is a right. They are two kinds of rights the ones that are necessary for the survival of any human, water, food, health care etc. and the one that are necessary to any working democracy, free speech, equal opportunity, freedom of religion.
Good argument, but 'healthcare' is is not the topic.

Having a gun is not a basic need, you will not die if you have one
THATS RIGHT! Its not a need, it's a right. You will not die if a have a gun. Because you can defend yourself against anyone who poses a threat to your life.

and they multiple great example of democracy all around the world that work great without the right to bear arms. Now do you see why it is not a right? The only reason you have the 2nd amendment is because the founding fathers were scared that of a new dictator getting in power and they would lose everything they fought for in the revolutionary war so they put that part in as protection just in case so it would be easier to overthrow the government,
I gotta stop you there, the second amendment, is in place to PREVENT a socialist overthrow of our government. And name 1 country that has as not only free speech, but also has no form of censorship, and has complete freedom of religion, and a quality of life anywhere near as good as what we have here.

300 years later everyone knows it is impossible, the US have the biggest military in the history of everything, and anyone even trying to overthrow the government would be crushed in minutes, minutes that would be better used trying to climb the wall to Mexico.
Crushed in minutes by who? The military that's controlled by the government? No, that's what the free citizens are for. The government is supposed to be an extension of the people arm. Not to control the people, but for the people to control their own government. An overthrow of our government is actually one of the biggest threats against our country at this time. So don't say it isn't. Our second amendment is to keep our government in check, to protect ourselves from the threat of a tyrannical government. And without our second to protect our fisrt, there is no constitution.

-----------
The main difference with hunting rifles and an AR-15 is the amount of round they can both unload upon a group of people in a short amount of time.
'Hunting rifles' can shoot just as quickly as an AR-15, And cause a lot more Carnage.

Again, they are also build for completely different purposes. While yes the 9mm can do more damage in a single shot the main issue with the AR-15 is how many bullets it can unload and the potential it has when taken to for example a school. One can't deny it is still a very potent and dangerous rifle.
All guns are potent. To this day, pistols are more commonly used for Mass shootings then are AR-15s. If schools weren't 'gun free zones', these school shootings would end a lot faster. A sign is not going to stop a person who's set on killing children. A teacher or security guards would, you know why? Criminals are cowards, if they want to kill people, they wouldn't choose a place that they knew they would walking in on their own death. We harden our schools, we end schools shootings.

Well first of all it is the reason that it is so easy to handle that also makes it more powerful when brought to a group of people. I think the sentence "cause the attacker some pain" is a bit wrongly used here. All guns are killers, wether or not it's a shotgun or an AR they are all lethal. I do believe shotguns shouldn't be in the hands of regular people either, so there's that.
Your right about one thing, I did use that phrase wrongly, the intended meaning of that was, you're a lot more likely to survive a shot from a .223 round then you are an inch wide hole through your body.
What guns do you deem acceptable? Any?

Now the definition of an assault weapon is very vague, for both sides of the gun arguement. I know pro gun people tend to say that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon/assault rifle since it is not automatic. While yes it is a semi-automatic weapon it doesn't take away the fact it is still designed after a military grade rifle and is far more potent than your average handgun.
An AR-15 actually is not military grade. The military grade m-16 is designed after the ar-15, because of it's lightweight reliable design. There are differences between them, I hope you know.
An assault weapon is any weapon used for assault. The weapon itself does not assault people, the user of an otherwise average gun makes it an 'assault' whatever. If I used a knife to assault, would the knife be an assault knife? How about a rock? Will the most average rock be defined as an assault rock?

Leprous

April 29th, 2018, 04:24 AM

All guns are potent. To this day, pistols are more commonly used for Mass shootings then are AR-15s. If schools weren't 'gun free zones', these school shootings would end a lot faster. A sign is not going to stop a person who's set on killing children. A teacher or security guards would, you know why? Criminals are cowards, if they want to kill people, they wouldn't choose a place that they knew they would walking in on their own death. We harden our schools, we end schools shootings.

Actually in a country where guns are so common I do believe that gun free zones are kind of pointless, as you said a sign won't stop a school shooter. I am generally against turning schools into heavily guarded areas because I doubt a lot of children will feel safe with armer personell all around them. However, banning all guns is something that I doubt will ever happen in the near future, so it would be the best (albeit temporary) solution to keep schools safer.

Your right about one thing, I did use that phrase wrongly, the intended meaning of that was, you're a lot more likely to survive a shot from a .223 round then you are an inch wide hole through your body.
What guns do you deem acceptable? Any?

Actually I have no problem with someone owning a gun if it makes them feel safe. What I do have a problem with is how easy it is to obtain weapons in the US. Is there anything wrong with having a waiting period when buying a gun or having much more tighter regulation on all firearms for the general public?

An AR-15 actually is not military grade. The military grade m-16 is designed after the ar-15, because of it's lightweight reliable design. There are differences between them, I hope you know.

Actually I did not say it is military grade, it is the commercial variant of a military weapon, but I did not say the AR-15 itself is military grade.

An assault weapon is any weapon used for assault. The weapon itself does not assault people, the user of an otherwise average gun makes it an 'assault' whatever. If I used a knife to assault, would the knife be an assault knife? How about a rock? Will the most average rock be defined as an assault rock?

Again, the definition of an assault weapon is very vague, however I do not believe it comes from the fact people use it to assault others with it. Of course people use the weapons to assault people, but does that justify how easy it is to aquire a rifle?

Merk

April 29th, 2018, 04:48 AM

*Gasps in amazement* a reasonable reply!! You sir, are wonderful!

Actually in a country where guns are so common I do believe that gun free zones are kind of pointless, as you said a sign won't stop a school shooter. I am generally against turning schools into heavily guarded areas because I doubt a lot of children will feel safe with armer personell all around them. However, banning all guns is something that I doubt will ever happen in the near future, so it would be the best (albeit temporary) solution to keep schools safer.
Schools don't have to have visibly armed personnel, conceal carry, not all, but some administration. Eg, teachers, recourse officers, etc. Not required, but allowed, maybe with a thank you incentive..

Actually I have no problem with someone owning a gun if it makes them feel safe. What I do have a problem with is how easy it is to obtain weapons in the US. Is there anything wrong with having a waiting period when buying a gun or having much more tighter regulation on all firearms for the general public?
Actually, I think a lot of people are confused or just misinformed about how way it is to buy a gun. To buy a gun, you have to submit to a background check. If you have any felonies on your record, or are a repeat domestic abuser, (so many other disqualifiers as well) you can't but a gun. This isn't even conceal carry. Concealed carry varies across different states, but for the most part, you have to do a background check, for carry, the rules are often even more strict, and in some states, you do have to wait 3 days to be approved.
Restrictions on law abiding citizens won't keep criminals from getting guns, as said before, criminals break the law by definition. America has a black market too xD

Actually I did not say it is military grade, it is the commercial variant of a military weapon, but I did not say the AR-15 itself is military grade.
Lol yeah, but you did says are was based from a military rifle and I pointed out it was the other way around xD

Again, the definition of an assault weapon is very vague, however I do not believe it comes from the fact people use it to assault others with it. Of course people use the weapons to assault people, but does that justify how easy it is to aquire a rifle?
Haha yeah, I really wish people would stop using the term 'assault rifle/weapon' it can be very misleading.

I would like to know, as a serious question, how easy have you been told it is to acquire a rifle, or any gun for that matter?

Leprous

April 29th, 2018, 06:38 AM

*Gasps in amazement* a reasonable reply!! You sir, are wonderful!

Why thank you, can say the same for your replies to me during this thread ^

Schools don't have to have visibly armed personnel, conceal carry, not all, but some administration. Eg, teachers, recourse officers, etc. Not required, but allowed, maybe with a thank you incentive..

Actually, I think a lot of people are confused or just misinformed about how way it is to buy a gun. To buy a gun, you have to submit to a background check. If you have any felonies on your record, or are a repeat domestic abuser, (so many other disqualifiers as well) you can't buy a gun. This isn't even conceal carry. Concealed carry varies across different states, but for the most part, you have to do a background check, for carry, the rules are often even more strict, and in some states, you do have to wait 3 days to be approved.
Restrictions on law abiding citizens won't keep criminals from getting guns, as said before, criminals break the law by definition. America has a black market too xD

In all honestly I think this is common sense. The waiting period on buying a gun is something that should be implemented everywhere in my opinion. It it not bad at all and can in some cases prevent a person who's in a fit of rage from buying a gun and using it.

Lol yeah, but you did says are was based from a military rifle and I pointed out it was the other way around xD

Yeah that was my bad there, misread it.

I would like to know, as a serious question, how easy have you been told it is to acquire a rifle, or any gun for that matter?

Well first of all let's not forget that Nikolas Cruz passed the background checks needed to buy a weapon, although his social media activity was already very worrying. When it comes to the overal ease of buying a weapon (that is past the background checks) as far as I'm aware it differs from state to state. I do know there are states where after the checks you can walk in a store and walk out a couple of minutes later with a gun. I think the main problem here lies with the background checks, as I am convinced they aren't always as strict as they should be.

Dmaxd123

April 29th, 2018, 06:41 AM

FPTP is the electoral system use to elect the governors, so yes the governors are a result of the electoral system.

every vote should count as 1 and not being worth more or less, or be completely worthless based on where you live. I don't understand how anyone can be against that

governors are elected by popular vote. 1 vote = 1 vote

once you live in the US in a state with a very diverse & lopsided population you would understand why we have a mixed voting system like we do. from town, school, county, state, and federal elected officials we have different forms of representation... on the state level many towns/counties pretty much have no representation because they don't have enough population to have their voices heard

not having enough/balanced voices in state government is how the second amendment was attacked here in the state of NY with the "SAFE" act, BUT having a bit more even keeled approach to national politics makes me grumble about the state but figure at least on some playing fields it is a bit more even

one problem with many of our politicians is they lump two unrelated things together: second amendment & healthcare... they are 2 different things so need to be debated as 2 different things

lliam

April 29th, 2018, 07:56 AM

yes they want $$ but the local hospital will cap the bill at $4,500 which isn't unreasonable by any means)

cool. good news for the unemployed and homeless people.

Merk

April 29th, 2018, 02:24 PM

Well first of all let's not forget that Nikolas Cruz passed the background checks needed to buy a weapon, although his social media activity was already very worrying. When it comes to the overal ease of buying a weapon (that is past the background checks) as far as I'm aware it differs from state to state. I do know there are states where after the checks you can walk in a store and walk out a couple of minutes later with a gun. I think the main problem here lies with the background checks, as I am convinced they aren't always as strict as they should be.
When it comes to Nikolas Cruz, multiple agencies did not to do their duty. FBI did not follow through with reports, local police ignored many reports that his neighbors submitted, had the existing laws been enforced, this would not have happened.

As far as his sm posts, exercise of free speech should not limit ones second. (Unless it is terroristic, etc..)

The background check system, is broken. The majority of states in the U.S. don't submit all required information to the NIC systems.
I highly recommend you look that one up.
NICS works, and it's already in place. It's the states not submitting records that breaks it.

Leprous

April 29th, 2018, 02:32 PM

When it comes to Nikolas Cruz, multiple agencies did not to do their duty. FBI did not follow through with reports, local police ignored many reports that his neighbors submitted, had the existing laws been enforced, this would not have happened.

As far as his sm posts, exercise of free speech should not limit ones second. (Unless it is terroristic, etc..)

The background check system, is broken. The majority of states in the U.S. don't submit all required information to the NIC systems.
I highly recommend you look that one up.
NICS works, and it's already in place. It's the states not submitting records that breaks it.

I mainly agree with this post so there's not much for me to reply to. The main problem (wether or not we agree regulations should be tighter or not) still lies with the amount of effort put into these background checks and the amount of information being given to authorities. About the freedom of speech thing too, while yes social media should be a place where you can express your opinion freely I still feel like when threats like he made start showing up people should start getting concerned.

Merk

April 29th, 2018, 04:40 PM

I mainly agree with this post so there's not much for me to reply to. The main problem (wether or not we agree regulations should be tighter or not) still lies with the amount of effort put into these background checks and the amount of information being given to authorities. About the freedom of speech thing too, while yes social media should be a place where you can express your opinion freely I still feel like when threats like he made start showing up people should start getting concerned.
I definitely agree with this!
The authorities already have the necessary information, the main problems lie in the way they enforce the preexisting laws, they often don't enforce them properly, and when they do, the bureaucracy of the court systems only assigns reduced sentences and lower bails. Resulting in the same people the cops just arrested back on the street in a matter of days to weeks.
Then there's state 'governments' who play with politics instead of enforcing the rules they were elected to do.
Different police departments, often just neighboring counties have different variations of local nics, resulting in reports from one county won't be seen by others. Their reports go into a different database instead of to the national NICS. So if someone in X county is a domestic abuser, the local police will log that, but unless that department uses NICS, that abuser could move to J county and the police there would never know he's an abuser.

NICS is already here, we just need to use it.

Social messaging should be an extension of our right to free speech, and violence should be dealt with, but there's a fine line between letting everyone use it unmonitored, and only letting happy rainbows and unicorns on the platform. And the challenge of balance is often abused, weather it be banning conservative accounts, essentially censoring them, or allowing terrorists to recruit on the platform, and not 'catching' it in 'time'.
And lately, it's a political game. If Facebook blocks a conservative account, nobody talks about it in the news, but if they block the account if a (no offense) black or Muslim user, for clearly violent posts, the news goes wild claiming racist bigotry of bias, when it's the 'news' that creates the non existent bias.

Edit: Just saying, censoring Cruz would not have stopped him from shooting the school, it only would have prevented people from seeing his threats. Had he been blocked, there would have been no way to prevent this, but because he wasn't blocked, there was warning, people could see, that he was ill, this could have been prevented, had the 'authorities' done their job.

Merk

April 29th, 2018, 04:46 PM

Please delete this blank post.

Dalcourt

April 29th, 2018, 10:06 PM

Murk
I'm feeling unwell today so I'm way too lazy to go through all this quoting your answer to me. But yeah...nothing you said would in the slightest make me revoke my opinion on guns.

I'm not some liberal hipster. I'm not against guns cuz someone has educated me like that, most of my family is fairly conservative and would never see weapons as a bad thing.
I have a mind of my own and can think and form an opinion on my own.

I'm not talking about hearing stuff about people getting killed on the news. I talk about people getting killed right in our neighborhood, not by criminals but by their friends and relatives. The reason guns are easily accessible,everyone has them and all conflicts are solved with them. If you have beef with a friend you don't go and talk it out, no you drive by his house and shoot at it. His lil sis is just walking out the door while ya do? Well bad luck...but maybe you just hit her arm.
This gay guy who got cheated on by his young boyfriend? Did he just throw him out? No he shot him and caused half of French Quarter to be under lock down since the cops didn't know what's going on. So how should even more weapons for even more people solve anything here and be a good idea??? This is just totally crazy.

And my Dad he lawfully and legally owned his weapon. To the authoritiesnand the people who sold him his guns hehe was a law abiding citizen.

The stuff you said about other countries...sorry but that's all so wrong I don't even know where to begin with. Weapons just for elites? I mean wtf? Where'd you even get this stuff from???
I sent it to a friend from Germany and she had a real good laugh.
Why would we need to defend ourselves she asked? So are we all just paranoid here?
So honestly we sound crazy to others,ya know?

I already said I used to shoot as a sport and I'm going hunting but still...the relationship between Americans and weapons is just wrong.
Society has to learn that we don't need weapons in our daily life. They are not cool and all people who think like that just need them to compensate other things.

So yeah...you can amuse me with better arguments if you want.

lliam

April 29th, 2018, 10:54 PM

The saying goes: "People who glorify weapons have just small dicks." Don't know how to apply this to women, but most Gun worshippers are males anyway. I suppose that's no coincidence.

Instead of playing around with weapons as a masturbation substitute, they could smoke weed or volunteer in social projects. The Constitution should be amended accordingly. The right to carry a weapon etc is such a outdated right from older times. Totally pointless these days.

Also, I find it strange that people nowadays insist so much on their rights, but never mention their duties.

Instead of a right to carry arms or such, the constitution should have an obligation to do more social work for society. And who thinks that is not his thing, just pays three or four times more taxes. For this he acquires the right to speak out as much garbage as he wants to.

Merk

April 30th, 2018, 01:15 AM

Merk

April 30th, 2018, 01:19 AM

mattsmith48

April 30th, 2018, 01:21 AM

THATS WHY THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS GREAT! The average citizen CAN have a gun, and with that gun, they can defend themselves against criminals.

No they can't, unless someone is breaking into your home armed and threatening you, you can't legally use a gun to ''defend'' yourself against criminals. And that one scenario is very unlikely to happen.

These countries with strict gun laws... Only the elites have the 'luxury' of defense. Alright? No average citizens can legally defend themselves, this means, 'dealers and muggers', (ok first, these shouldn't be grouped) 'dealers' will still have guns. 'muggers', most will have guns, alright? Muggers, no longer have to be careful of robing the wrong person, everyone is a target, a nice fresh juicy target, you know why? It's because people can't have guns. To comment on 'the black market', the black market for guns has grown immensely. You know why? Because legal sale of guns doesn't exist there. Strict laws don't prevent 'accidents with small kids and guns' that's what parents are for, if they need laws to tell them how to be parents, they shouldn't have kids.

THE REST OF THE WORLD IS SHIT (lol that's an exaggeration, but not by much)
The UK and EU, with there laws, free speech doesn't exist. They're government has betrayed there own people because they are mislead socialists who have too much control over it's citizens, and still want more. Violence there has only gone up since there gun bans, and now they want to ban pointy knifes.
Countries like China, NKorea and SKorea, they have communistic governments. Free speech, not allowed. Censorship? All the way. Life sentence for publicly speaking against there 'leaders'? Yup.
But somehow, there murder rate are still some of the highest in the world, Chinas suicide rate? Still world leading as the highest. Did gun laws solve this? No. It allowed them sensor, and violate human rights.

Wow that a lot of bullshit:

1. You do not need to protect yourself against dealers.

2. there is no evidence that strict gun laws increase the likeliness of being mugged.

3. As oppose to drugs, it is really hard to make guns illegally, most guns on the black market are either stolen or bought legally.

4. Strict gun laws do prevent accidents with kids because the accidents happens because the parents have guns in the fucking house. If they are not allowed to own guns, no gun accidents will happen.

5. Western countries except the US have free speech with ban on hate speech.

6. South Korea is not communist and they do have free speech

7. The murder rate in China is 0.74, that's good for 176th in the world tied with Poland and South Korea. The highest in the world is El Salvador with 108.

You can Google this shit you know.

If all gun manufacturers stopped producing guns right this second, violece would only go up in the U.S., you know why? It's because the criminals will still have there guns, but citizens won't be able to purchase guns to defend themselves.

If all gun manufacturers stopped producing guns right this second, violence would stay the same because people would still have the guns they already have.

Good argument, but 'healthcare' is is not the topic.

Thanks for saying I'm right :)

THATS RIGHT! Its not a need, it's a right. You will not die if a have a gun. Because you can defend yourself against anyone who poses a threat to your life.

You will not die if you don't have a gun. If you own a gun you are more likely to die, either by accident, stupidity, suicide or someone stealing the gun and killing you with it.

I gotta stop you there, the second amendment, is in place to PREVENT a socialist overthrow of our government.

Yes the 2nd amendment was written to prevent a socialist overthrow of the government 50 years before socialism became an idea.

And name 1 country that has as not only free speech, but also has no form of censorship, and has complete freedom of religion, and a quality of life anywhere near as good as what we have here.

First for the quality of life, almost every other western countries. For free speech that is also almost every other western countries, most of them have laws against hate speech, with what happen in Germany in the first half of the 20th century it is understandable that some countries may want to prevent that from happening again, but besides that you are free to say and believe any bullshit you want.

And its not like US is as free as a country as you think, the government is openly doing racial profiling, black people are constantly getting murdered by the police, the political party currently in power openly hates and discriminate against anyone who isn't a rich white straight man, refugees and immigrants are constantly illegally crossing the border because they don't feel safe in the US and the President openly supports Nazis and white supremacists.

Crushed in minutes by who? The military that's controlled by the government? No, that's what the free citizens are for. The government is supposed to be an extension of the people arm. Not to control the people, but for the people to control their own government. An overthrow of our government is actually one of the biggest threats against our country at this time. So don't say it isn't. Our second amendment is to keep our government in check, to protect ourselves from the threat of a tyrannical government. And without our second to protect our fisrt, there is no constitution.

This quote is incredibly contradicting, did you steal this from Trump?

The 2nd amendment is suppose to be there so the population can overthrow the government not to protect it.

governors are elected by popular vote. 1 vote = 1 vote

once you live in the US in a state with a very diverse & lopsided population you would understand why we have a mixed voting system like we do. from town, school, county, state, and federal elected officials we have different forms of representation... on the state level many towns/counties pretty much have no representation because they don't have enough population to have their voices heard

not having enough/balanced voices in state government is how the second amendment was attacked here in the state of NY with the "SAFE" act, BUT having a bit more even keeled approach to national politics makes me grumble about the state but figure at least on some playing fields it is a bit more even

All your elections including the president are under the First Past The Post electoral system also used here in Canada and in the UK. Under this system who ever gets the most votes wins and everyone else running loses regardless of percentage of the vote, if you take an election for governor as an example who ever gets the most votes wins, any votes cast for anyone who isn't the winner, plus all the extra votes the winner got (the total votes to the winner minus the total for the candidate who finished 2nd got plus 1) are worthless and all those people could have stayed home it wouldn't have made a difference. The presidential election is even worst because om the majority of the states the winner is already determined before the campaign even begun, voting for president in those states is just pointless and campaigning there is a waste time and money.

Even thought the high level of political division this system created lead to the War on decency the gun debate became, this is a little out of subject so I suggest that if you have anymore questions just PM me :)

one problem with many of our politicians is they lump two unrelated things together: second amendment & healthcare... they are 2 different things so need to be debated as 2 different things

Like I said earlier the two debates are quite similar in the way the are treated by the right and how it as become a war on decency and a parody of itself

Stronk Serb

April 30th, 2018, 03:21 AM

Firt off, thank you all for you responses!
This one stuck out the most to me.

Ever heard a a .22 rifle? It is the smallest caliber you can get for a rifle. .223 is the same caliber, just faster.

The AR-15 is a .223 caliber round, most hunting rifles are above .270, and one of the most popular rounds for large game is a .308, aright?

.308 and similar rounds are often used for hunting, because they cause so much more damage than just a .22 round.

For personal defense, the most commonly used rounds are 9mm, which is .35 caliber, and the .45, that can also be written as .450 for comparison. That's a lot bigger. A lot more damage. The reason people choose this, is because not only can you conceal it, but it's a stopper. One shot, and that guy isn't going to still be attacking you. But in a stressful situation, it can be hard to hit your target, and there's a lot of kickback.

For home defence, the AR-15 is most popular, you know why? It's a .223 round. Which means very little kickback. The ar-15 is a rifle, meaning it's easy to aim. Because of the little kickback, even the wife can use it. It will stop an attacker, and you work get hurt using it. 'Why not use a shotgun' You say? Not only are they heavy, they can hurt the user, and they are 12 guage! That's .730 caliber! That's not a common defence weapon, that's a killer. Would you rather hit someone with a 22 that causes the attacker some pain and saves your life? Or would rather blow an inch wide hole through the and kill them?

Also, at the time of writing the second amendment, firearms had already been being developed into much more lethal machines than we have now.

By the way, what does 'Assault Weapon' mean?
----------Also, what is an 'Assault Rifle'?

I have to respectfully disagree, with not only this sentence, but also how you compared it to healthcare. 'healthcare' is not a constitutional right.

Assault rifle by military definition is a select-fire rifle firring an intermediate rifle cartridge like the 5.56 NATO, 7.62x39 or 5.45x39. Examples are the M16, the M4 carbine, AK-47 and the AK-74. Assault weapons... It's really what the government deems to look mean in appearance so it must be dangerous.

The .223 has more penetrative power. Also for handguns and home defence, get a CZ-75 SP-01 in 9mm, a great gun. Even under stress you will have a tight group. I mean the only time I would justify having an AR or a military grade rifle set for civilian use is if you are a hunter or live on a large property where the extra range and accuracy really helps. Still, I dislike the whole AR cult. There are many better firearms.

Merk

April 30th, 2018, 03:34 AM

Assault rifle by military definition is a select-fire rifle firring an intermediate rifle cartridge like the 5.56 NATO, 7.62x39 or 5.45x39. Examples are the M16, the M4 carbine, AK-47 and the AK-74. Assault weapons... It's really what the government deems to look mean in appearance so it must be dangerous.

The .223 has more penetrative power. Also for handguns and home defence, get a CZ-75 SP-01 in 9mm, a great gun. Even under stress you will have a tight group. I mean the only time I would justify having an AR or a military grade rifle set for civilian use is if you are a hunter or live on a large property where the extra range and accuracy really helps. Still, I dislike the whole AR cult. There are many better firearms.
Yeah the definition is mostly apparence, thanks for recognising that xD

The people out here defending the AR aren't obsessed with the gun, it's just that, the ar-15 is almost the most average gun you can get, technically speaking. But they try to demonize this one gun just because it looks 'scary and black,' when there really propose is passing a bill that bans the most generic gun, meaning it's a whole lot more than just the model 15 Armalite that get banned. The latest bill that's trying to be passed in my state claims most pistols as well are 'assault weapons'. It's really just going too far.

Merk

April 30th, 2018, 04:19 AM

mattsmith48 if you want to be part of a legal debate about U.S. laws, at least learn the laws before stating things fact. At least you tried, I find myself selling these arguments well written, but... There you provide nothing to back up your statements...

No they can't, unless someone is breaking into your home armed and threatening you, you can't legally use a gun to ''defend'' yourself against criminals. And that one scenario is very unlikely to happen.

Every law abiding abiding US citizen who isn't metally ill can own as many firearms as they please. "unless someone is breaking into your home armed and threatening you, you can't legally use a gun to 'defend' yourself against criminals." so you're saying, a 24 year old girl can't use a firearm outside of her own home to defend herself against a rapist? If you believe that, I feel bad for you. Because your wrong.
If you have a concealed carry permit, your permitted to carry your gun concealed, in public in case of the need to defend yourself or others. That's the law.

Wow that a lot of bullshit:

1. You do not need to protect yourself against dealers.
I'm referring to drug dealers, ok? If someone is illegally selling drugs, then they clearly are willing to break the law.
Let's go on a hypothetical for a moment here, {your walking down the street, in a bad neighborhood, and you see a shady dude passing something to someone. Alright, you keep walking. That dealer decides you've seen too much.(let's say) He doesn't want the risk of you reporting him. So, he approaches you, he grabs you, maybe it's a bad day for him, so, he pulls out his gun to shoot you. Or maybe, he just wants to beat you to death.} Would you like to defend yourself with a firearm your licensed to carry, or would you rather just suffer and die? I'd choose life, but it's your choice.

2. there is no evidence that strict gun laws increase the likeliness of being mugged.
Look, if a criminal wanted to mug someone, would they mug a cop who they know is armed, or rather someone who they know doesn't have a gun, because it isn't legal for them to?

3. As oppose to drugs, it is really hard to make guns illegally, most guns on the black market are either stolen or bought legally.
Ayy, that's right, they were stolen at one point! But it is actually really easy to make a gun with a CNC machine. But, the thing is, even if a complete ban on gun sales and possession of guns were to be passed, there are already so many in circulation on the 'black market' that criminal would still be able to get guns whenever they wanted. Criminals do not legally buy guns. They can't.

4. Strict gun laws do prevent accidents with kids because the accidents happens because the parents have guns in the fucking house. If they are not allowed to own guns, no gun accidents will happen.
Do you know how rare it is for these accidents to happen? Extremely rare. And when they do, it's the fault of the parents for not teaching their child properly.

5. Western countries except the US have free speech with ban on hate speech.
That's not free speech. Any ban of speech, is sensorship. And that means, restricted speech, not free speech. If you don't like what someone saying, just ingore it. You can't punish others for just saying something you don't agree with.

6. South Korea is not communist and they do have free speech
Alright, you got me there. I accidentally included that in reference to the others. Thanks for catching that, I do appreciate it.

7. The murder rate in China is 0.74, that's good for 176th in the world tied with Poland and South Korea. The highest in the world is El Salvador with 108.
I said Chinese suicide rate! Ok, I know. Those countries don't have #1 murder rate, I said 'some of the'. But you did get me there. In El Salvador, the average citizen can not get a gun. But really quickly here I want to point out two countries: Honduras, has about 111 homicides per 100,000 residents, and Switzerland, with about 0.44 per 100,000 residents. With both countries having similar population size, the main difference between these countries is that it's almost impossible for Honduran law abiding citizens to carry guns, while all men in Switzerland are subject to mandatory military recruit, meaning, almost all law abiding citizens have firearms. Just wanted to point this out. I know it's a weak argument, but it's not supposed to be, an argument. Just a point.

You can Google this shit you know.
I know xD

If all gun manufacturers stopped producing guns right this second, violence would stay the same because people would still have the guns they already have.
Yes, the crime rate would not immediately change, but over time, criminals would still steal the guns from people, and even just the ones on the current black market would be enough to speed more illegal guns. Currently, there are a lot of legal gun purchases every day, but crime rate isn't dropping anywhere near as fast as legal sales are increasing, that's because guns are being sold illegally on the black market at observably near the same rate. And that illegal rate would presumably continue well after legal sales stopped.

You will not die if you don't have a gun. If you own a gun you are more likely to die, either by accident, stupidity, suicide or someone stealing the gun and killing you with it.
Suicide? If you want to kill yourself, you don't need a gun, You'll kill yourself anyway. Stupidity? I don't understand this one...
Accidentally? Yeah, that does happen, but rarely.

I do want to show you this, there are over 500,000 to more than 3 million legel defensive uses of firearms each year. This isn't even including the uses of just brandished ones gun to prevent a crime, which by the way, is highly effective. This study was done by the CDC is 2013.

Yes the 2nd amendment was written to prevent a socialist overthrow of the government 50 years before socialism became an idea.
Lol I did write the wrong didn't I, I meant tyrannical government. Because the founders of our country had just escaped a tyrannical government, and thats what the second amendment prevents. The reason I said socialist, is because most socialist/communistic government are tyrannical, and I was tired.

And its not like US is as free as a country as you think, the government is openly doing racial profiling, black people are constantly getting murdered by the police,
SO ARE WHITE PEOPLE! But this is a fun discussion. Stop highjacking the thread.

the political party currently in power openly hates and discriminate against anyone who isn't a rich white straight man
This isn't true, you need to stop watching CNN and MSNBC... It's a shame that you actually believe that.

refugees and immigrants are constantly illegally crossing the border because they don't feel safe in the US
Where the hell did you get that idea? Washington Post?

the President openly supports Nazis and white supremacists.
Don't make claims that aren't true, it makes you sound stupid.

Your the one telling me to use Google, your the one that needs to use it.

This quote is incredibly contradicting, did you steal this from Trump?
That's all you could come up with? No, I didn't.

The 2nd amendment is suppose to be there so the population can overthrow the government not to protect it.
Yes, in the case that it become tyrannic.

All your elections including the president are under the First Past The Post electoral system also used here in Canada and in the UK. Under this system who ever gets the most votes wins and everyone else running loses regardless of percentage of the vote, if you take an election for governor as an example who ever gets the most votes wins, any votes cast for anyone who isn't the winner, plus all the extra votes the winner got (the total votes to the winner minus the total for the candidate who finished 2nd got plus 1) are worthless and all those people could have stayed home it wouldn't have made a difference. The presidential election is even worst because om the majority of the states the winner is already determined before the campaign even begun, voting for president in those states is just pointless and campaigning there is a waste time and money.
Hmm, this is a little contradicting, but for the most part, yes. The majority wins.

Even thought the high level of political division this system created lead to the War on decency the gun debate became, this is a little out of subject so I suggest that if you have anymore questions just PM me :)
I may do this...

Question: mattsmith48 how long did it take you to write all this?

Merk

April 30th, 2018, 04:23 AM

Let's ban them all haha *evil vampire liberal mode activated*

I really do find this entertaining xD especially as the first response :D

Edit: second response... Close enough xD

lliam

April 30th, 2018, 04:41 AM

So... Communism?

I get the feeling that you are much more conservative than you actually realize about yourself. So, no. Not communism. Not even close to socialism. Just Humanism.

Tim the Enchanter

April 30th, 2018, 09:30 AM

Edit: second response... Close enough xD

rip. :yeah:

Spooky_Eli

April 30th, 2018, 09:37 AM

instead of a right to carry arms or such, the constitution should have an obligation to do more social work for society. And who thinks that is not his thing, just pays three or four times more taxes. For this he acquires the right to speak out as much garbage as he wants to.

I get the feeling that you are much more conservative than you actually realize about yourself. So, no. Not communism. Not even close to socialism. Just Humanism.why should you owe society anything?

lliam

April 30th, 2018, 10:47 AM

why should you owe society anything?

just because you live in it. I guess what sickens modern societies, is the pronounced egoism of our times.

Everything is measured by performance and costs. Social thinking and acting is almost completely unkown to the most of us.

I could even live with that, if we were honest with it. But instead, we often praise humanistic ideals without actually mean it.

And this bigotry makes me sick. Imo anyone who lives in a society and benefits from it, is also obliged to the society. Either by paying a lot taxes, so that the govs can maintain social facilities and services, or by volunteering in these institutions or services.

And who's withdrawing all this is just an asocial creep. However, a society has to endure that too.

mattsmith48

April 30th, 2018, 03:50 PM

mattsmith48 if you want to be part of a legal debate about U.S. laws, at least learn the laws before stating things fact. At least you tried, I find myself selling these arguments well written, but... There you provide nothing to back up your statements...

Every law abiding abiding US citizen who isn't metally ill can own as many firearms as they please.

That's not true, anyone who never got caught and prosecuted for a crime can own as many firearms as they please. And for the mental health part of it, it should be pretty clear to everyone by now that doesn't stop crazy people from legally acquiring a gun.

"unless someone is breaking into your home armed and threatening you, you can't legally use a gun to 'defend' yourself against criminals." so you're saying, a 24 year old girl can't use a firearm outside of her own home to defend herself against a rapist? If you believe that, I feel bad for you. Because your wrong.

They are multiple self defence options and techniques that do not require the victim to murder their aggressor. If a rapist catch their victim in a way she cannot defend her self without a weapon it is very she won't be able to use a gun either.

If you have a concealed carry permit, your permitted to carry your gun concealed, in public in case of the need to defend yourself or others. That's the law.

If you feel the need to have a gun on you at all times to feel safe when in public, you don't need a gun, you need to see a psychiatrists.

I'm referring to drug dealers, ok? If someone is illegally selling drugs, then they clearly are willing to break the law.
Let's go on a hypothetical for a moment here, {your walking down the street, in a bad neighborhood, and you see a shady dude passing something to someone. Alright, you keep walking. That dealer decides you've seen too much.(let's say) He doesn't want the risk of you reporting him. So, he approaches you, he grabs you, maybe it's a bad day for him, so, he pulls out his gun to shoot you. Or maybe, he just wants to beat you to death.} Would you like to defend yourself with a firearm your licensed to carry, or would you rather just suffer and die? I'd choose life, but it's your choice.

Who the fuck would you report a drug dealer? Most drug dealers are low level criminals who don't want any trouble, at worst if he ends up being something more then that and he threatens you just buy some drugs and throw it in a dumpster later.

Look, if a criminal wanted to mug someone, would they mug a cop who they know is armed, or rather someone who they know doesn't have a gun, because it isn't legal for them to?

Who the fuck would think its a good idea to mug a cop?

Ayy, that's right, they were stolen at one point! But it is actually really easy to make a gun with a CNC machine.

That sounds really expensive and really difficult, raising the price too much on the black market to even make enough of a profit to be worth it.

But, the thing is, even if a complete ban on gun sales and possession of guns were to be passed, there are already so many in circulation on the 'black market' that criminal would still be able to get guns whenever they wanted. Criminals do not legally buy guns. They can't.

A complete ban on guns would cut the supply of the black market, making it more difficult to acquire guns, while the demand would rise, therefore raising the prices on the black market limiting who could buy guns on the black markets.

Do you know how rare it is for these accidents to happen? Extremely rare. And when they do, it's the fault of the parents for not teaching their child properly.

among the deaths, 53% were homicides, 38% were suicides, 6% were unintentional, and 3% were related to law enforcement or undetermined. Among the injuries, 71% were assault, 21% were unintentional, 5% were related to law enforcement or undetermined, and about 3% were from self-harm.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/health/child-gun-violence-study/index.html

That's not free speech. Any ban of speech, is sensorship. And that means, restricted speech, not free speech. If you don't like what someone saying, just ingore it. You can't punish others for just saying something you don't agree with.

It is free speech with common sense limitations on hate speech that is no different then threatening to kill someone or inciting violence not being protected as free speech.

I said Chinese suicide rate! Ok, I know.

My bad, China's suicide rate is 8.5 that's good for 115th highest suicide rate in the world tied with Luxembourg, Portugal and Niger.

Those countries don't have #1 murder rate, I said 'some of the'. But you did get me there. In El Salvador, the average citizen can not get a gun. But really quickly here I want to point out two countries: Honduras, has about 111 homicides per 100,000 residents, and Switzerland, with about 0.44 per 100,000 residents. With both countries having similar population size, the main difference between these countries is that it's almost impossible for Honduran law abiding citizens to carry guns, while all men in Switzerland are subject to mandatory military recruit, meaning, almost all law abiding citizens have firearms. Just wanted to point this out. I know it's a weak argument, but it's not supposed to be, an argument. Just a point.

Latin American countries lead the world in homicide rates, that is due to multiple factors.

Switzerland got about 46 guns per 100 people, which is half of what the US got. Yemen is 2nd in the world at 55 with an homicide rate of 6.67, the US who got the nearly half of the world's guns got an homicide rate of 4.88. So the possibility of someone having a gun to protect themself doesn't really change anything.

Yes, the crime rate would not immediately change, but over time, criminals would still steal the guns from people, and even just the ones on the current black market would be enough to speed more illegal guns. Currently, there are a lot of legal gun purchases every day, but crime rate isn't dropping anywhere near as fast as legal sales are increasing, that's because guns are being sold illegally on the black market at observably near the same rate. And that illegal rate would presumably continue well after legal sales stopped.

Its basic supply and demand, guns on the blackmarket need to come from somewhere, if you ban the manufacturing, selling and possession of guns, you cut the supply, while at the same time raising the demand and the prices, limiting who can get guns of the blackmarket, and who will sell them on the blackmarket. Everytime the police catch someone selling or buying of the blackmarket it hurts it even more. Its not like drugs where you can just make more meth just by making a quick stop at any store.

Suicide? If you want to kill yourself, you don't need a gun, You'll kill yourself anyway. Stupidity? I don't understand this one...
Accidentally? Yeah, that does happen, but rarely.

You don't need a gun to to kill yourself, but if you have a gun and you want to kill yourself, how are you gonna do it?

Stupidity it can be anything from a dumb mistake like not realizing the gun is loaded to doing something that his really stupid, it is similar accidents.

Lol I did write the wrong didn't I, I meant tyrannical government. Because the founders of our country had just escaped a tyrannical government, and thats what the second amendment prevents.

Thats what I said at the start, why it was written, now we all know its just a fantasy and it will never happen. The overthrowing of the government not the tyrannical part.

SO ARE WHITE PEOPLE! But this is a fun discussion. Stop highjacking the thread.

Unarmed black people are way more likely to be killed by the police then whites

This isn't true, you need to stop watching CNN and MSNBC... It's a shame that you actually believe that.

Don't make claims that aren't true, it makes you sound stupid.

Your the one telling me to use Google, your the one that needs to use it.

I don't need to watch CNN or MSNBC to know that, just listening to them and their policies anyone can realize that.

Where the hell did you get that idea? Washington Post?

People illegally crossing the border to claim refugee status here because they fear of losing the status if they stay in the US is talked a lot here.

That's all you could come up with? No, I didn't.

That was a joke

Hmm, this is a little contradicting, but for the most part, yes. The majority wins.

Its not because the person with the most votes wins that he got the majority of the votes. If you take the last presidential election, no matter if you go with popular vote or electoral college, they are still more votes against the winner then the winner got votes

Dmaxd123

April 30th, 2018, 05:01 PM

i'm just going to say that I'm glad I live in the USA where I know darn well that unless I personally do something wrong my guns will NOT be taken away from me :-)

i'm not happy on some of these restrictions but to go along with matt's ideas of "just give the drug dealer $$" let someone break into your house and try to fend them off some other way....

if I have the choice between duking it out and showing you a rifle/handgun/shotgun to deescalate a situation, you had better believe I'm going to show you whatever weapon is closest to me at the time. doesn't matter if the person is bigger the same size or smaller than me the firearm WILL put us on an equal playing field and I would bet that person breaking in and not prepared will comply quickly without any shots being fired

now onto some of your other comments:
-get over the freaking voting process and go learn about it. there are direct votes for pretty much everyone but the president so ONE person in ONE branch of our judicial system is picked by the electoral system and there IS a reason for it and it works
-if you want to take the word of illegals fleeing the USA vs those that live here... be my guest, you can keep them although I think Canada is missing a few american celebrities that said "if trump wins i'm moving to Canada" a lot of us were looking forward to them leaving lol
-https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/ take a look at how many blacks vs whites were killed by the cops in 2017 twice as many whites killed by cops but the media doesn't get as crazy about them since it doesn't sell. I'm not saying cops are always right, but if you want your day in court to tell your side of the story when an officer of the law says to stop you stop you don't start arguing then you don't reach for anything you comply with their demands and figure out who is right and wrong later on

Stronk Serb

April 30th, 2018, 05:29 PM

If you feel the need to have a gun on you at all times to feel safe when in public, you don't need a gun, you need to see a psychiatrists.

Not really, in some areas even having a gun doesn't help. What is needed is of the police to do its' job. That means more spending on more police personnel, more police equipment and more patrol cars.
If you ever wind up in Belgrade, stay clear from the part of the city known as Karaburma (black ring in Turkish, it was an execution place during the Ottoman days). The place is riddled with crime. I literally have to follow my girlfriend home through that area and pray nothing happens. A few times we even heard gunshots. If some shit is about to go down there, not even a gun would help me. I simply would not have enough ammunition to handle anything.
When police intervenes during the night, they do so in full force, not just a patrol. They are regularly fired upon.

Also in Serbia's case we need police militarization like the US. Bring the Posebna Jedinica Policije (Special Police Unit) back. It was the police wing with access to military equipment, weapons and vehicles.

PlasmaHam

April 30th, 2018, 07:44 PM

They are multiple self defence options and techniques that do not require the victim to murder their aggressor. If a rapist catch their victim in a way she cannot defend her self without a weapon it is very she won't be able to use a gun either.
You tell me how a 100lb 5'1" woman would be able to take down a determined 200lb 6' male rapist without a weapon. I'm waiting.

Now let me tell you how that same woman with a gun would be able to take down that same guy, in just two steps:

Aim
Fire

If you feel the need to have a gun on you at all times to feel safe when in public, you don't need a gun, you need to see a psychiatrists. I just heard a gay guy complain about not feeling safe on the streets holding hands with another guy, because he is afraid of being assaulted. Would he then "need to see a psychiatrist" if he feels the need to have a weapon to protect himself whenever he goes out with his BF?

Who the fuck would you report a drug dealer????

Most drug dealers are low level criminals who don't want any trouble, at worst if he ends up being something more then that and he threatens you just buy some drugs and throw it in a dumpster later.Funding and perpetuating crime, great job.

Who the fuck would think its a good idea to mug a cop? Exactly. You know why? Because a cop is almost certainly armed. (and because the only thing you'll get out of him is a few Krispy Kreme giftcards, but that's not my point.:P)

A complete ban on guns would cut the supply of the black market, making it more difficult to acquire guns, while the demand would rise, therefore raising the prices on the black market limiting who could buy guns on the black markets. Yet there are still guns in the black market, thus guns in the hands of criminals. And a complete gun ban would mean that no well-meaning good Samaritans would be there to stop it once some thug decides to shoot up a church or school. And the police aren't everywhere, and y'all Lefties are advocating for the police to stop using firearms anyway, so you can't really depend on them.

It is free speech with common sense limitations on hate speech that is no different then threatening to kill someone or inciting violence not being protected as free speech.You keep making this false comparison. Let me explain in simple terms so you might finally understand. Yelling fire in a theater, threatening to kill a man, and encouraging riots on the streets are banned because they result in immediate chaos and violence that can injure and kill people for no just reason. Calling a gay guy a fag or a fat guy a doughboy is just a personal insult that may hurt some feelings, but isn't going to result in immediate and bloody violence.

Stupidity it can be anything from a dumb mistake like not realizing the gun is loaded to doing something that his really stupid, it is similar accidents.The rights of a majority should not be revoked because of an idiotic minority.

Thats what I said at the start, why it was written, now we all know its just a fantasy and it will never happen. The overthrowing of the government not the tyrannical part.Successful rebellions are a minority, but they exist, even nowadays when there are tanks, planes, and missiles. But regardless, the mere state of rebellion is a huge factor in an of itself. Of course I don't expect you to understand this, but huge positive advancements have been made from failed rebellions. For instance, Slave rebellions bought the morals of slavery unto the national stage. They weren't successful, but they nevertheless convinced the people that something needed to be done. As I stated earlier, almost all rebellions are won from changing the minds of the populace, not true military victory. Just imagine how unpopular an US government would be once it is seen riding tanks down the street and sending planes to kill US citizens. Especially in this digital age, where the gore of it can be seen by anyone and everyone. Even if that rebellion fails within a month, it will dramatically change the world.

Unarmed black people are way more likely to be killed by the police then whitesBlacks are also way more likely than whites to commit crimes. Of course that doesn't fit your narrative, so you will just ignore that fact and continue your whining.

Its not because the person with the most votes wins that he got the majority of the votes. If you take the last presidential election, no matter if you go with popular vote or electoral college, they are still more votes against the winner then the winner got votesMattsmith, have you slid back into denying the reality of the 2016 election again? I am so disappointed.

Repeat after me, Trump won the electoral college, the popular vote doesn't count, and Trump is the legitimate president. Say that five more times before responding, and be sure to take your TDS pills.

Dalcourt

April 30th, 2018, 09:30 PM

Nobody should have to deal with that... I hope you guys can move away from there...
That situation is just fucked up. That neighborhood needs morality and police...

This is not fucked up but American reality. There are so many places around the states like that. This is was an abundance of weapons can create.

What would police be able to do? Take away the guns? What about the 2nd amendment?
Should the police raid US citizens homes to see if all weapons there are legal?

American society has too many weapons around and because there are so many weapons also have such a flourishing blackmailed.

You know you would just have to steal some random Southern Mommy's purse to get her money and find a gun in it. Anew ordinary thief doesn't need a gun but hey if he gets it for free he will either keep it to make future thefts more impressive or sell it for some extra dollar.
So basically our clinging to weapons doesn't make us safer but even more insecure.

Guns don't make us safe, I'm sorry.

Vlerchan

May 1st, 2018, 10:20 AM

I'm really just here to address the first claim:

You tell me how a 100lb 5'1" woman would be able to take down a determined 200lb 6' male rapist without a weapon. I'm waiting.

Thus, as firearm prevalence increased, homicide increased. Moreover, firearm prevalence was significant and positive for rape (B = .920, p < .01), robbery (B = 1.052, p < .001), and assault (B = .497, p < .05). For each unit increase in firearm prevalence, there would be .920 more rapes, 1.052 more robberies, and .497 more assaults. Again, the results of the current analysis demonstrate that the prevalence of firearms increases all violent crimes.

http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf

Please note the bolded.

Also, women who live with a gun in the house are much more likely to die at the hands of domestic partner violence than those who don't or be abused more generally. So, please, don't try to make guns seem pro-women. They're not.

Would he then "need to see a psychiatrist" if he feels the need to have a weapon to protect himself whenever he goes out with his BF?
It's still probably more efficient to tackle homophobia than to arm all the gays.

---

Otherwise, the argument against guns isn't that reducing legal ownership would eliminate violent crime. It's that it would reduce it.

The second amendment-protecting soloution to this problem is to make gun manufacturers culpable for the externalities their weapons generate.

That is, for each unlawful death a fire-arm results in, we should either (1) fine the manufacturer, or (2) allow the victims family to sue them (this is just simple Pigouvianism and it's demonstrably welfare-improving). The free market will learn to regulate itself, then, and no-ones right to bare arms is affected either.

Spooky_Eli

May 1st, 2018, 10:33 AM

It's still probably more efficient to tackle homophobia than to arm all the gays.
you mean the kind of throw a fag off a roof homophobia? the kind of stone a fag in the street homophobia? or where you referring to the kind of verbal & social homophobia that no longer exists? because i'm sorry but i'm i end up meaning a actual homophone (one who practices any of the above) then i'm gonna get medieval on there ass. boom! problem solved.

Vlerchan

May 1st, 2018, 10:59 AM

I mean the sort of homophobia which contributes to the large number of hate crimes, recorded and unrecorded, committed against members of the LGBT community annually [see, for example, the 2016 statistics (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2016-hate-crime-statistics)]. You'll find plasmaham helpfully referred to one such incident above.

I'm also delighted you agree that we should be tougher on these social reactionaries :).

Spooky_Eli

May 1st, 2018, 11:02 AM

Leprous

May 1st, 2018, 11:09 AM

lamo, at least half of witch are aether faked or blatant lies. why thank you*tips hat*

When one can not find a decent counter argument one will go of topic and claim the fbi is not a valid source for statistics on hate crime. I'm pretty sure that the cases the link is talking about are actual crimes, and not just someone saying you're ugly and the person shouting racism. Anyways I think it's better to keep this on topic since this thread has just been derailed massively.

*tips hat*

Spooky_Eli

May 1st, 2018, 11:11 AM

When one can not find a decent counter argument one will go of topic and claim the fbi is not a valid source for statistics on hate crime. I'm pretty sure that the cases the link is talking about are actual crimes, and not just someone saying you're ugly and the person shouting racism. Anyways I think it's better to keep this on topic since this thread has just been derailed massively.

*tips hat*exhibit A:https://www.yahoo.com/gma/blogs/abc-blogs/lesbian-couple-charged-staging-hate-crime-164243835--abc-news-topstories.html (https://www.yahoo.com/gma/blogs/abc-blogs/lesbian-couple-charged-staging-hate-crime-164243835--abc-news-topstories.html)

Leprous

May 1st, 2018, 11:14 AM

exhibit A:https://www.yahoo.com/gma/blogs/abc-blogs/lesbian-couple-charged-staging-hate-crime-164243835--abc-news-topstories.html

This is my last reply to this because this is seriously getting of topic, first of all don't use Yahoo blogs as a source for a debate, just don't, although I have heard of this story before.

And secondly, just because there are select cases where the crimes were lied about (which is something that happens and I'm not denying that), it doesn't mean that a valid source like the FBI is suddenly 50% fake.

Now, either we go back to guns or everyone just stops replying altogether because this is stupid.

PlasmaHam

May 1st, 2018, 11:17 AM

exhibit A:https://www.yahoo.com/gma/blogs/abc-blogs/lesbian-couple-charged-staging-hate-crime-164243835--abc-news-topstories.html

False hate crimes do exist. However, they are a small minority of instances and at most would only affect the stats by a point or two. There isn't some vast conspiracy of staging hate crimes in the world, and you can't just be going around denying statistics without showing any proof, besides citing a random incident that happened five years ago.

Spooky_Eli

May 1st, 2018, 11:36 AM

False hate crimes do exist. However, they are a small minority of instances and at most would only affect the stats by a point or two. There isn't some vast conspiracy of staging hate crimes in the world, and you can't just be going around denying statistics without showing any proof, besides citing a random incident that happened five years ago.

exhibit B:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146256/Was-relentlessly-gay-yard-campaign-giant-GoFundMe-hoax-Mom-raised-43-000-claiming-Christian-neighbor-homophobic-accused-FAKING-threats.htm (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146256/Was-relentlessly-gay-yard-campaign-giant-GoFundMe-hoax-Mom-raised-43-000-claiming-Christian-neighbor-homophobic-accused-FAKING-threats.html)l (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146256/Was-relentlessly-gay-yard-campaign-giant-GoFundMe-hoax-Mom-raised-43-000-claiming-Christian-neighbor-homophobic-accused-FAKING-threats.html)

exhibit C:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2977711/Gay-rights-activist-caused-national-panic-posted-kidnapped-individuals-threatening-kill-family-charged-faking-abduction.html

exhibit D:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3266456/North-Dakota-fraternity-cleared-hate-crime-accusation.html

exhibit E:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/16/jordan-brown-admits-hoax-after-accusing-whole-foods-of-gay-slur/

exhibit F:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3145333/Authorities-Gay-slur-carved-Utah-mans-arm-staged.html

i have more but then as others have said it is going rather off topic

mattsmith48

May 1st, 2018, 12:19 PM

Not really, in some areas even having a gun doesn't help. What is needed is of the police to do its' job. That means more spending on more police personnel, more police equipment and more patrol cars.

First they need better training

You tell me how a 100lb 5'1" woman would be able to take down a determined 200lb 6' male rapist without a weapon. I'm waiting.

Idk about kicking him in the balls.

Now let me tell you how that same woman with a gun would be able to take down that same guy, in just two steps:

Aim
Fire

Unless the rapist goes after his victim while facing her the whole time having a gun won't be of any help to her.

I just heard a gay guy complain about not feeling safe on the streets holding hands with another guy, because he is afraid of being assaulted. Would he then "need to see a psychiatrist" if he feels the need to have a weapon to protect himself whenever he goes out with his BF?

No but if he feel the need to have a weapon or to change your behavior in public because of it they won.

Funding and perpetuating crime, great job.

Thanks

Exactly. You know why? Because a cop is almost certainly armed. (and because the only thing you'll get out of him is a few Krispy Kreme giftcards, but that's not my point.:P)

No actually its because even if the cop doesn't have his gun, the mugger will got no chance to get away with it.

Yet there are still guns in the black market, thus guns in the hands of criminals. And a complete gun ban would mean that no well-meaning good Samaritans would be there to stop it once some thug decides to shoot up a church or school. And the police aren't everywhere, and y'all Lefties are advocating for the police to stop using firearms anyway, so you can't really depend on them.

How often does that happen? I'll be surprise if its higher then 10% of the time.

You keep making this false comparison. Let me explain in simple terms so you might finally understand. Yelling fire in a theater, threatening to kill a man, and encouraging riots on the streets are banned because they result in immediate chaos and violence that can injure and kill people for no just reason. Calling a gay guy a fag or a fat guy a doughboy is just a personal insult that may hurt some feelings, but isn't going to result in immediate and bloody violence.

The 2nd one is a insult. If you keep insulting and promote hatred of a certain group it will lead to violence against that group.

The rights of a majority should not be revoked because of an idiotic minority.

Its not a right

Successful rebellions are a minority, but they exist, even nowadays when there are tanks, planes, and missiles. But regardless, the mere state of rebellion is a huge factor in an of itself. Of course I don't expect you to understand this, but huge positive advancements have been made from failed rebellions. For instance, Slave rebellions bought the morals of slavery unto the national stage. They weren't successful, but they nevertheless convinced the people that something needed to be done. As I stated earlier, almost all rebellions are won from changing the minds of the populace,

You don't need guns for that.

not true military victory. Just imagine how unpopular an US government would be once it is seen riding tanks down the street

Does that include Trump's military parade?

and sending planes to kill US citizens. Especially in this digital age, where the gore of it can be seen by anyone and everyone. Even if that rebellion fails within a month, it will dramatically change the world.

When the planes are sent to kill civilians in the Middle East thats fine, but when its on US citizens that's terrible, kinda hypocritical don't you think? And racist?

Blacks are also way more likely than whites to commit crimes. Of course that doesn't fit your narrative, so you will just ignore that fact and continue your whining.

They are just more likely to be charged with a crime, then white people are to be charged of the same crime.

Mattsmith, have you slid back into denying the reality of the 2016 election again? I am so disappointed.

Repeat after me, Trump won the electoral college, the popular vote doesn't count, and Trump is the legitimate president. Say that five more times before responding, and be sure to take your TDS pills.

Thats not what I said, I said that no matter which method you use to pick the winner they are still more people that voted against the winner then for. If you go with the popular vote they are 52% who voted against the winner, if you go with the electoral college 54% voted against the winner

Vlerchan

May 1st, 2018, 12:47 PM

If you keep insulting and promote hatred of a certain group it will lead to violence against that group.
I would appreciate if you could provide the source supporting this claim. Thank you.

bentheplayer

May 1st, 2018, 01:27 PM

I would appreciate if you could provide the source supporting this claim. Thank you.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/crschwarz/fanning-flames-hate.pdf

Just to clarify hate crime in the EU includes Hate speech. In the US hate speech may not be a hate crime and largely depends on context which I won't go into since it gets quite technical.

Tim the Enchanter

May 1st, 2018, 02:27 PM

I would appreciate if you could provide the source supporting this claim. Thank you.

Hitler.

Dmaxd123

May 1st, 2018, 04:11 PM

Its not a right

the first post in this topic was about the second amendment which is #2 in the bill of RIGHTS so by the constitution of which our country was founded upon, we DO have a right to bear arms

and for those that say "but you should only be able to have the arms of the period when the Constitution & bill of rights were signed" I am a firm believer that our predecessors left a lot of things open ended knowing that technology would progress

mattsmith48

May 2nd, 2018, 12:33 AM

the first post in this topic was about the second amendment which is #2 in the bill of RIGHTS so by the constitution of which our country was founded upon, we DO have a right to bear arms

The rest of the world doesn't see guns as a right and as long as you as a country don't change your mind, innocents will continue to be killed, deaths that could have been avoided if you could leave your little fantasy world, and everyone who keep fighting this pointless fight are as responsible for those deaths then the shooters themself.

Constitutions can be changed, your constitution is almost 250 years old, what people thought as acceptable back then seem crazy now, time for you to add ''the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" to that list.

and for those that say "but you should only be able to have the arms of the period when the Constitution & bill of rights were signed" I am a firm believer that our predecessors left a lot of things open ended knowing that technology would progress

That is the first thing I ear that and its even dumber then putting the ''right to bear arms'' in the constitution. It would be like if some said the right to freedom of religion only applies to religions that existed back when the constitution was signed, don't you think Mormons had it hard enough already?

Merk

May 2nd, 2018, 03:00 AM

Seriously, I don't think this guy will ever understand decency. The world doesn't work the way YOU were told it does. Move to China if you don't like our laws, or better yet, don't move to here if you already live somewhere else.

The rest of the world doesn't see guns as a right and as long as you as a country don't change your mind, innocents will continue to be killed, deaths that could have been avoided if you could leave your little fantasy world, and everyone who keep fighting this pointless fight are as responsible for those deaths then the shooters themself.
OH, YEAH? My 'little fantasy world'? Your the one living in a fantasy world. But that shouldn't be the point of a debate on firearm laws! As long as you don't allow people to defend themselves with firearms, your just as responsible for their death as are the shooters are! How ya like that?

Constitutions can be changed, your constitution is almost 250 years old, what people thought as acceptable back then seem crazy now, time for you to add ''the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" to that list.
What list?

That is the first thing I ear that and its even dumber then putting the ''right to bear arms'' in the constitution. It would be like if some said the right to freedom of religion only applies to religions that existed back when the constitution was signed, don't you think Mormons had it hard enough already?
So, your saying that your own argument is the dumbest thing you ever heard? You don't need to tell us that, we already know.

I'm the United States of America, it IS the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. If you do not like that, then go where it isn't.

Vlerchan

May 2nd, 2018, 06:18 AM

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/crschwarz/fanning-flames-hate.pdfl.
This paper doesn't capture the effects of hate speech, per se, and I don't think there's a reason to believe it does versus alternatives such as enhanced salience. That the paper finds that news shocks--i.e. big stories--can crowd out the effects of refugee posts suggests it's more about generating salience to me.

We then, can't be sure whether hate speech is particularly potent in generating salience or not, because the paper doesn't capture the degree to which such sentiment is expressed--just an overall measure of the number of posts about refugees.

In a follow-up paper, Muller and Schwartz (2018) (https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/crschwarz/making-america-hate.pdf) found that Trump just tweeting about Muslims resulted in an increased number of hate-crime attacks against Muslims in the United States. This is more obviously about salience-inducement rather than hate speech prompting more violent hate crimes.

Hitler
Probably tapped into, rather than generated, antisemitic feeling in Germany.

---

As long as you don't allow people to defend themselves with firearms, your just as responsible for their death as are the shooters are!
The evidence I cited above suggests fewer people are going to die violent deaths under a system of enhanced regulation.

---

swedam: When you suggested you had evidence that hate crimes were over-reported, I was hoping for a robust analysis of the issue. I mean like Langton et al. (2013) (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0311.pdf) which found substantial rates of under-reporting of hate crime incidents in the United States. I was hoping it wouldn't be generalising from a handful of incidents which made it into the tabloid press.

Snowfox

May 2nd, 2018, 12:02 PM

What actually is hate speech or hate crime. Where I live just not being communist is hate crime and speaking against communism is hatespeech.

Everything that is against current offcial truth is hate speech and hate crime in EU.

mattsmith48

May 2nd, 2018, 12:44 PM

Seriously, I don't think this guy will ever understand decency. The world doesn't work the way YOU were told it does. Move to China if you don't like our laws, or better yet, don't move to here if you already live somewhere else.

So what? You can't criticize the laws of a country just because you don't live there?

OH, YEAH? My 'little fantasy world'? Your the one living in a fantasy world. But that shouldn't be the point of a debate on firearm laws! As long as you don't allow people to defend themselves with firearms, your just as responsible for their death as are the shooters are! How ya like that?

Yeah its just a coincidence the country with the most guns also leads the world in gun violence. Who lives in a fantasy world the guy who looks at your country compared to the rest of the world and say, ''countries with less guns have less gun violence maybe there is something there'', or the guy who says ''we need to keep our guns so we can keep our dream of overthrowing the government alive even thought its impossible.''

What list?

List of things that were acceptable back then but we find as crazy now.

So, your saying that your own argument is the dumbest thing you ever heard? You don't need to tell us that, we already know.

No whats dumb is saying only guns that existed back then are protected by the 2nd amendment

I'm the United States of America, it IS the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. If you do not like that, then go where it isn't.

And I told you its not a real right. You are not gonna die if you don't have a gun and the population being armed not necessary to a working democracy

Spooky_Eli

May 2nd, 2018, 01:14 PM

And I told you its not a real right. You are not gonna die if you don't have a gun and the population being armed not necessary to a working democracywith all due respect.. that's not the fuc**** point.
it doesn't have to be necessary to be a right, it is a right because the constitution decrees it to be.

Dalcourt

May 2nd, 2018, 01:32 PM

with all due respect.. that's not the fuc**** point.
it doesn't have to be necessary to be a right, it is a right because the constitution decrees it to be.

Without looking it up can you give a quick overview over other amendments and explain them?
Can you state your other rights according to the constitution of the US?
Which amendments/rights would you see as most important and why? What significance has the second amendment in comparison to the other?

Spooky_Eli

May 2nd, 2018, 01:39 PM

Without looking it up can you give a quick overview over other amendments and explain them?
Can you state your other rights according to the constitution of the US?
Which amendments/rights would you see as most important and why? What significance has the second amendment in comparison to the other?
no. no i cannot. what relevance does that hold exactly?

mattsmith48

May 2nd, 2018, 03:49 PM

with all due respect.. that's not the fuc**** point.
it doesn't have to be necessary to be a right, it is a right because the constitution decrees it to be.

Make your mind is it a right or is it not a right? because it can't be both

Without looking it up can you give a quick overview over other amendments and explain them?
Can you state your other rights according to the constitution of the US?
Which amendments/rights would you see as most important and why? What significance has the second amendment in comparison to the other?

Any American fighting for the 2nd amendment but are still answering no to those 3 questions are proving my point that they live in a fantasy world where they need to keep their guns just in case they have to overthrow the government.

Spooky_Eli

May 2nd, 2018, 03:57 PM

Make your mind is it a right or is it not a right? because it can't be both

Any American fighting for the 2nd amendment but are still answering no to those 3 questions are proving my point that they live in a fantasy world where they need to keep their guns just in case they have to overthrow the government.wtf are you talking about?
urrm how does that prove it exactly?

mattsmith48

May 2nd, 2018, 04:22 PM

wtf are you talking about?
urrm how does that prove it exactly?

You don't really care about your rights, you just want the opportunity to try to overthrow the government.

Spooky_Eli

May 2nd, 2018, 04:23 PM

You don't really care about your rights, you just want the opportunity to try to overthrow the government.that just might be the stupidest thing i've ever herd

Dalcourt

May 2nd, 2018, 07:55 PM

no. no i cannot. what relevance does that hold exactly?

Well you fight for this one amendment as a God given right as if this is the most important thing for an American citizen. So I just wanted to know what the significance for let's say the 4th amendment is for you.
But your answer and follow up talking with mattsmith48 said it all.

Spooky_Eli

May 2nd, 2018, 07:58 PM

Well you fight for this one amendment as a God given right as if this is the most important thing for an American citizen. So I just wanted to know what the significance for let's say the 4th amendment is for you.
But your answer and follow up talking with @mattsmith48 (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=101901) said it all.
i care mostly for the first, second & filth amendments(the first more so as without it all others can be eradicated with out resistance)

Porpoise101

May 2nd, 2018, 09:36 PM

So, how do you guys view the left's attacks on the second amendment? It's not even just 2A, it's our first as well.Wow that's concerning! I have not heard of such situations in our society. It seems really awful. Conservatives are being oppressedMan that's interesting. Last time I checked, conservatives have never been in a better political position in decades! The left in the US has never been more disempowered and all it has remaining is vocal opposition and protest. Perhaps that's why they are using those methods. Or, it's because they are whiny and bad people. idk, pick the option which suits you better.They actively attack us for having an opinion that doesn't 'align' with theirs.Replace 'attack' with 'criticize'. People have different opinions and you have to deal with it. I'm sorry, that's how the world operates.Their arguments are almost always impossible to back up!And that's why they often use modern research instead of using a document as a crutch.

Tim the Enchanter

May 2nd, 2018, 09:58 PM

You don't really care about your rights, you just want the opportunity to try to overthrow the government.

Ooooh it's getting heated!

Vlerchan

May 3rd, 2018, 03:26 AM

What actually is hate speech or hate crime.
A hate crime is when you commit a crime against a person on the basis of their race, ethnic or religious identity, or sexual or gender identity. For example, murdering someone for being gay or assaulting someone for being Christian.

Everything that is against current offcial truth is hate speech and hate crime in EU.
Wow! Really?

You are not gonna die if you don't have a gun[.]
Whether not having it will kill you is not the basis in Liberal theory used to elucidate whether a claim constitutes right or not.

This is a bizarre line of argument.

You don't really care about your rights, you just want the opportunity to try to overthrow the government.
This is an ad hominem.

Leprous

May 3rd, 2018, 03:36 AM

You don't really care about your rights, you just want the opportunity to try to overthrow the government.

Instead of answering his question you decide to start bashing. I have seen this happen time and time again in debates and there is no reason for you to act like this just because someone disagrees with your opinion. If you can't handle other opinions and pissed about other opinions then you shouldn't be in a forum for debates. I expected more from someone who won best debater on VT. Now if people here would kindly stop sticking to the "is it a right or is not a right" stuff and actually come with arguments instead of continuing what has become an extremely hollow debate that would be lovely. So yeah just fill this debate with actual arguments thank you.

Now for the actual debate. For American people it is a right. It is quite literally what the 2nd A says, it is a protection of the right to bear arms. It isn't really about wether or not you believe it is a right, and wether or not you like it or not that is what is written in the 2nd A so this whole discussion is very, very pointless.

Stronk Serb

May 3rd, 2018, 03:37 AM

with all due respect.. that's not the fuc**** point.
it doesn't have to be necessary to be a right, it is a right because the constitution decrees it to be.

So before the 13th ammendment, you wouldn't keep slaves because it was necessary but because you had a right to because the constitution decreed so?

I mean, replace gun with slave. You see how retarded it sounds? Oof I don't need slaves, but I would own some because it's my right.

mattsmith48

May 4th, 2018, 10:06 AM

Wow! Really?

No he's just trolling

Whether not having it will kill you is not the basis in Liberal theory used to elucidate whether a claim constitutes right or not.

This is a bizarre line of argument.

Instead of answering his question you decide to start bashing. I have seen this happen time and time again in debates and there is no reason for you to act like this just because someone disagrees with your opinion. If you can't handle other opinions and pissed about other opinions then you shouldn't be in a forum for debates. I expected more from someone who won best debater on VT. Now if people here would kindly stop sticking to the "is it a right or is not a right" stuff and actually come with arguments instead of continuing what has become an extremely hollow debate that would be lovely. So yeah just fill this debate with actual arguments thank you.

Now for the actual debate. For American people it is a right. It is quite literally what the 2nd A says, it is a protection of the right to bear arms. It isn't really about wether or not you believe it is a right, and wether or not you like it or not that is what is written in the 2nd A so this whole discussion is very, very pointless.

This is not about being a liberal or a conservative, or right, centre or left. This is about decency. As long as people don't understand guns are not a right a real debate on guns is impossible. A right is either something necessary to a person's survival, basic needs, or something necessary to a working democracy, guns are neither therefore not a right. Its not because its in the constitution that doesn't mean it is a right or that it can't be change or taken out. If the constitution said everyone had the right to a free car made entirely of gold, it doesn't make it more of a right that it is already when not in the constitution, same goes for guns.

Leprous

Any American fighting for the 2nd amendment but are still answering no to those 3 questions are proving my point that they live in a fantasy world where they need to keep their guns just in case they have to overthrow the government.

wtf are you talking about?
urrm how does that prove it exactly?

You don't really care about your rights, you just want the opportunity to try to overthrow the government.

I'm not question answering expert but that looks like answering the question

Leprous

May 4th, 2018, 03:07 PM

This is not about being a liberal or a conservative, or right, centre or left. This is about decency. As long as people don't understand guns are not a right a real debate on guns is impossible. A right is either something necessary to a person's survival, basic needs, or something necessary to a working democracy, guns are neither therefore not a right. Its not because its in the constitution that doesn't mean it is a right or that it can't be change or taken out. If the constitution said everyone had the right to a free car made entirely of gold, it doesn't make it more of a right that it is already when not in the constitution, same goes for guns.

It depends what you see as a right. For the people in the US who are pro 2nd A it is a right. Also the decency part is very, very subjective. While I do not agree with the 2nd A and would never want to own a firearm I don't see why owning one would make the person less decent than someone else. (If that is what you're getting at). How is a proper gun debate not possible though, I think the main debate right now is not about banning guns in general because that won't happen anytime soon but rather about regulating them more tightly.

mattsmith48

May 4th, 2018, 03:51 PM

It depends what you see as a right. For the people in the US who are pro 2nd A it is a right. Also the decency part is very, very subjective. While I do not agree with the 2nd A and would never want to own a firearm I don't see why owning one would make the person less decent than someone else. (If that is what you're getting at). How is a proper gun debate not possible though, I think the main debate right now is not about banning guns in general because that won't happen anytime soon but rather about regulating them more tightly.

It is not owning a gun that is not decent it is the fight for owning a gun to be a right that is like I said earlier a ''war on decency''.

If you want to debate should guns be banned or are regulations enough and which regulation should be in place, thats fine, no problem with that or having that debate. But when it gets to the point of trying to prevent school shootings by bringing more guns in schools so you can keep your dream of overthrowing the government alive a real debate is impossible because the only real answer to that is wtf is wrong you.

Leprous

May 6th, 2018, 02:04 AM

It is not owning a gun that is not decent it is the fight for owning a gun to be a right that is like I said earlier a ''war on decency''.

If you want to debate should guns be banned or are regulations enough and which regulation should be in place, thats fine, no problem with that or having that debate. But when it gets to the point of trying to prevent school shootings by bringing more guns in schools so you can keep your dream of overthrowing the government alive a real debate is impossible because the only real answer to that is wtf is wrong you.

I don'treally see a fight going on so people can own guns, because I'm not sure if you know but people can already do that. Bringing more guns to school is pretty stupid and I don't like it at all but good luck on trying to ban all guns at once.

mattsmith48

May 6th, 2018, 10:57 AM

I don'treally see a fight going on so people can own guns, because I'm not sure if you know but people can already do that. Bringing more guns to school is pretty stupid and I don't like it at all but good luck on trying to ban all guns at once.

They fight for the ''right'' to own guns.

good luck on trying to ban all guns at once.

Thanks :)

Leprous

May 6th, 2018, 11:56 AM

They fight for the ''right'' to own guns.

Thanks :)

I will make this point again here but I doubt it'll help. Wether you like it or not, they already have this right. I don't like it and a lot of people don't but the 2nd A gives the right to bear arms.

mattsmith48

May 6th, 2018, 12:19 PM

I will make this point again here but I doubt it'll help. Wether you like it or not, they already have this right. I don't like it and a lot of people don't but the 2nd A gives the right to bear arms.

And I'll answer by saying again it is not because it is in the constitution that it mean it should or that it is a right

Leprous

May 6th, 2018, 01:57 PM

And I'll answer by saying again it is not because it is in the constitution that it mean it should or that it is a right

Well I mean, it's not because you think it shouldn't be a right that suddenly what's in the constitution changes. Americans have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd A, it's very simple.

mattsmith48

May 7th, 2018, 11:56 AM

Well I mean, it's not because you think it shouldn't be a right that suddenly what's in the constitution changes. Americans have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd A, it's very simple.

Saying it is not a right doesn't suddenly change what's in the constitution, like any other crazy shit that was acceptable back when the constitution was written and signed, you need to fight for the change, just saying it won't change anything.

NewLeafsFan

May 8th, 2018, 12:47 AM

Is it the right to bare arms or the right to carry an unauthorized killing machine?

I have some news, the British aren't coming! Put your guns away. And if you want to carry around a gun like they had when the constitution was written, that probably takes 10 min to load go for it! I will support you! Why would you want a machine that can shoot 50 ppl in under 2 min? That isn't target practice or sport.

How many countries have gun laws as open as the United States? How many countries have regular gun attacks in schools? Do you think that you should own one? Do you feel special because almost 300 years ago, it was written on a piece of paper in your country that you can have a gun? If 18th century politicians had known what that amendment would cause with technological advancement, would they have edited or revised anything?

Dmaxd123

May 8th, 2018, 05:40 AM

i fully believe if the writers of the constitution meant "you have the right to bear muzzleloaders" they would have put muzzleloaders not arms in the second amendment

as has been discussed time and time again a firearm is just a tool. other places use acid to attack people, knives, vehicles, bombs of various kinds

ShineintheDark

May 8th, 2018, 09:08 AM

Is it the right to bare arms or the right to carry an unauthorized killing machine?

I have some news, the British aren't coming! Don't count your chickens before they hatch mwahahahahahah

mattsmith48

May 8th, 2018, 09:11 AM

How many countries have gun laws as open as the United States? How many countries have regular gun attacks in schools?

None

Don't count your chickens before they hatch mwahahahahahah

Yeah like you would like to be stuck with that

ShineintheDark

May 8th, 2018, 09:12 AM

None

Yeah like you would like to be stuck with that I meant about 'the British aren't coming' thing. Cos I'm British

Merk

May 11th, 2018, 01:37 AM

.
First thank you, Just Tim, and others for sticking in here while I've been gone. Respect.

Without looking it up can you give a quick overview over other amendments and explain them?
Can you state your other rights according to the constitution of the US?
Which amendments/rights would you see as most important and why? What significance has the second amendment in comparison to the other?
damn... Nobody needs to do this, but I will. I won't be able to cover all topics or reasons including all available proof, historical references to prove my points, or extensive logistical reasoning with fact and pre-existing proof. This is because, there is so much, that I would overfill the virtual teen sever storage in just this post alone. So, therefore, I will also not cause VT to go into DDOS prevention mode by posting numerous extensive threads. Be thankful.

Ok

1st
Keeps Congress from making any law that explicitly respects an establishment of religion, or restricts the free exercise or a religion; abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the Government without fear of persecution.

This means, the government cannot make any laws, that directly and explicitly support or discriminate against any establishment of religion.
Freedom of speech: the people have to right to speak about anything without fear of legal persecution or censorship.
Of the press: this means, the press shall not be subject to control or censorship by the government.

2nd
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.
First, I will supply the diction used at the time of this being written.
Well regulated: meaning working as expected, properly.

I will quote this for you, as it is the ONLY thing here I thought I should get a source for, as you would question it.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it

Militia: All White males, between the ages of 18-45. This criteria had also expanded to women, older people, and other races.
The militia was never state or government controlled. Police, and armies, are NOT public militia.
Being necessary to the security of a free state: this means, the it is the citizens responsibility to protect our government from being corrupted into a tyrannical government. Our government is meant to be run by the people, for the people.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms:
Key terms: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
This ensures THE PEOPLE'S, not the militia's, but the PEOPLE'S RIGHT. The people, (citizens) are the specific, and only ones who's right is guaranteed.

To keep and bear arms:
This means, to keep, own. And bear, meaning carry, the people shall bear, have, possess, carry with them. Their arms, meaning firearms.

Shall not be infringed: Do I really need to explain this to you? It means, it will never- be infringed upon by the government. Meaning, you gun ban, is not constitutional. Gun bans have been proven to fail, and not work.

3rd amendment: Soldiers can not, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner. Nor during a war, unless prescribed by legal requirement through exceptional law.

This means, no army soldier shall commender ones home as quartered base in [time of peace], (meaning no war at this location at the time) unless consent of the home owner is supplied ( meaning, if I own a house, the army can not station base in my home, unless I say they can.)
If there is a war, nearby at the current time, soldiers still, can not base in my home without my consent, unless ruled to by a judge of law with a warrant.

4th ammendent: I believe it goes something like the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, files, and belongings, against unreasonable searches and seizures, will not be violated. Warrants shall not be issued, unless probable cause be provided under oath. With a description of the location to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This one, means, unless a warrant is issued, the government can NOT search or seize my person or property. For a warrant to be issued, valid and reasonable cause, must be provided under oath in court, and it has to be specific on probable cause, location, and objective of seizure. This over, as the rest is self explanatory. I don't need to go further.

Shall I keep going? I'll do one more. I know my rights.

5th amendment this one is longer, it'll take me a minute to remember fully right...
Nobody will be punished for a crime, unless on a presentment or indicted by a grand jury. No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Shall not be compelled in a criminal case to be witness against oneself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Private property shall not be taken for public use, without proper compensation.

So, this means:
1: Right to a jury trial, this means any person as a citizen has the right to a trial by Jury, so, someone can't just be put on 'trial' and unreasonably be prosecuted by a single judge.
2:Double Jeopardy, no, not the game show. A person can not be put on trial for the same crime twice, with the same 'evidence' if ruled not guilty the first. So, here's an example [ if there's a murder, and I'm innocent, but nearby, let's say someone else sees my there, during an investigation, this person decided she wants to be a witness, so she reports her claim. The police decide, based on this claim, I might be the person who did it. Let's say, the 'whiteness' lies, and I'm arrested and tried is court for this murder based on, the witness testimony, a shoe print similar to my Nikes, and a security camera down the block that recorded my walking away from the area. If the jury finds that this 'evidence' does not make me look like the murderer, they rule not guilty. I CANNOT be tried on the same charges again with the same evidence. Unless police find more evidence suggesting I did it, I can not be tried again. ]

life or limb: life, meaning my life.
And limb, limb meaning any extension on my person, meaning my rights, belongings, and livelihood.

Shall not be compelled in a criminal case to be witness against oneself:
this is the one you hear of, so often on TV, 'i plead the fifth'...
Meaning the government can not make me say anything that is self-incriminating. Meaning, they can't make someone say they committed a crime.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: Due Process, meaning, the government CANNOT take someones life, liberty, or property, without fair process, going through the judicial system.

Private property shall not be taken for public use, without proper compensation. Meaning, the government can not take anything someone owns, such as land or property for use as public roadway or freeway without paying the owner proper market compensation for the lost property, as well as the damage of property value due to low flying aircraft, or nearby railway etc.

Merk

May 11th, 2018, 02:54 AM

.
Is it the right to bare arms or the right to carry an unauthorized killing machine?
It is the right to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arm's (Firearms). Now what is your definition of "unauthorized"?

I have some news, the British aren't coming! Put your guns away. And if you want to carry around a gun like they had when the constitution was written, that probably takes 10 min to load go for it! I will support you! Why would you want a machine that can shoot 50 ppl in under 2 min? That isn't target practice or sport.

Well, the British probably aren't coming, but that's not the purpose of the 2nd amendment. A muzzleloader can be reloaded is a matter of 20-25 seconds.
No, the Mass murder of 50 people is not Target practice, nor is it a sport, it's murder. What your point?
By the way, 50 shots over a span of 2 minutes is only about 1 shot every 3 seconds. That's pretty slow... Pump action shotguns can shoot faster than that. Lol

How many countries have gun laws as open as the United States? How many countries have regular gun attacks in schools?

Well, you see, that's the problem. There's no deterrent to keep criminals from attacking schools in the US. They are 'gun free zones' meaning, there's a guarantee for the criminals that nobody inside can defend themselves. Most Mass shootings occur where the victims can't defend themselves. If some teachers had guns, the schools would not be anywhere near as inviting to criminals, as they are now. Where it comes to mass shootings, No, I'm not saying we don't have a problem, But I am letting you know, is US ranked 11th, in mass shutting rates, meaning 10 other countries are far worse that the US.

Do you think that you should own one? Do you feel special because almost 300 years ago, it was written on a piece of paper in your country that you can have a gun? If 18th century politicians had known what that amendment would cause with technological advancement, would they have edited or revised anything?
Personally, yes. I do think I should own one. No, I don't feel special, I feel like an American. By the tone your question, I feel like you may be jealous of our rights, as you are from Canada, where the second amendment does not exist. Since the 18th century founders of our county sure the 2nd amendment during the same time as firearm technologies were already advancing, I believe that no, they would not have changed it to just muskets, had they better known the challenges to face the American people and our rights, I believe the founders may have strengthened or second amendment.

None
As a matter of fact, statistics show that between 2009 and 2015, the United States had a lower mass shootings death rate than several European countries with much stricter gun restrictions.

Merk

May 11th, 2018, 03:23 AM

I like that... 1:23am

mattsmith48

May 11th, 2018, 11:53 AM

Murk When you post bullshit trying to make it pass as fact please also post the link from where the bullshit came from so it is easier for the people you are debating with to show you why you are wrong.

Well, you see, that's the problem. There's no deterrent to keep criminals from attacking schools in the US. They are 'gun free zones' meaning, there's a guarantee for the criminals that nobody inside can defend themselves. Most Mass shootings occur where the victims can't defend themselves. If some teachers had guns, the schools would not be anywhere near as inviting to criminals, as they are now.

Yeah thats why countries with strict gun laws were almost no civilians are armed, school shootings happen all the time.

Where it comes to mass shootings, No, I'm not saying we don't have a problem, But I am letting you know, is US ranked 11th, in mass shutting rates, meaning 10 other countries are far worse that the US.

You mind telling us were you saw that because I can't find it anywhere?

As a matter of fact, statistics show that between 2009 and 2015, the United States had a lower mass shootings death rate than several European countries with much stricter gun restrictions.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/

Leprous

May 11th, 2018, 02:01 PM

.

As a matter of fact, statistics show that between 2009 and 2015, the United States had a lower mass shootings death rate than several European countries with much stricter gun restrictions.

It's funny because the same quote came from the link mattsmith48 provided, the same one I found after a very, very quick google search using "mass shooting country ranking". Please before using titles of articles read the entire source. The ratings there are per one milion inhabitants.

Out of the countries used for the comparisson Belgium has the highest population except for the US. Norway doesn't have a large population (of course large is relative) so of course they have a high rating here. The US has over 300 million inhabitants, Belgium about 11. If you would've read the artice which I suspect you got the quote from you would easily be able to find out the death rate compared to the population is larger in some European countries, not the actual death toll.

So yeah, please check your sources before using them blindly.

Merk

May 13th, 2018, 06:16 AM

Yeah, I should have used a different source for that point. But, the argument still stands. As it is shown in many other sources as well. :)
It's funny because the same quote came from the link mattsmith48 provided, the same one I found after a very, very quick google search using "mass shooting country ranking". Please before using titles of articles read the entire source. The ratings there are per one milion inhabitants.

Out of the countries used for the comparisson Belgium has the highest population except for the US. Norway doesn't have a large population (of course large is relative) so of course they have a high rating here. The US has over 300 million inhabitants, Belgium about 11. If you would've read the artice which I suspect you got the quote from you would easily be able to find out the death rate compared to the population is larger in some European countries, not the actual death toll.

So yeah, please check your sources before using them blindly.

mattsmith48
Yeah, matt did post the link to one of the articles, with the information, so his saying he can't find my stats anywhere showes he did not read the article he linked to, so his own argument of I should read the whole article has backfired on him.

I should point out, the overall stats are not anywhere near as accurate as per-capita. Overall 'death tolls' don't make a difference in statistics when comparing values from multiple places with extremely different populations. The only way to compare different populations, is per-capita, not The 'death toll'.

mattsmith48

May 13th, 2018, 12:18 PM

Yeah, I should have used a different source for that point. But, the argument still stands. As it is shown in many other sources as well. :)

mattsmith48
Yeah, matt did post the link to one of the articles, with the information, so his saying he can't find my stats anywhere showes he did not read the article he linked to, so his own argument of I should read the whole article has backfired on him.

I should point out, the overall stats are not anywhere near as accurate as per-capita. Overall 'death tolls' don't make a difference in statistics when comparing values from multiple places with extremely different populations. The only way to compare different populations, is per-capita, not The 'death toll'.

The link I posted is about the mass shooting death rate . The stat I can't find is the US being 11th in the world in mass shooting rates.

NewLeafsFan

May 14th, 2018, 01:09 AM

.

It is the right to KEEP (own) and BEAR (carry) arm's (Firearms). Now what is your definition of "unauthorized"?

Well, the British probably aren't coming, but that's not the purpose of the 2nd amendment. A muzzleloader can be reloaded is a matter of 20-25 seconds.
No, the Mass murder of 50 people is not Target practice, nor is it a sport, it's murder. What your point?
By the way, 50 shots over a span of 2 minutes is only about 1 shot every 3 seconds. That's pretty slow... Pump action shotguns can shoot faster than that. Lol

Well, you see, that's the problem. There's no deterrent to keep criminals from attacking schools in the US. They are 'gun free zones' meaning, there's a guarantee for the criminals that nobody inside can defend themselves. Most Mass shootings occur where the victims can't defend themselves. If some teachers had guns, the schools would not be anywhere near as inviting to criminals, as they are now. Where it comes to mass shootings, No, I'm not saying we don't have a problem, But I am letting you know, is US ranked 11th, in mass shutting rates, meaning 10 other countries are far worse that the US.

Personally, yes. I do think I should own one. No, I don't feel special, I feel like an American. By the tone your question, I feel like you may be jealous of our rights, as you are from Canada, where the second amendment does not exist. Since the 18th century founders of our county sure the 2nd amendment during the same time as firearm technologies were already advancing, I believe that no, they would not have changed it to just muskets, had they better known the challenges to face the American people and our rights, I believe the founders may have strengthened or second amendment.

As a matter of fact, statistics show that between 2009 and 2015, the United States had a lower mass shootings death rate than several European countries with much stricter gun restrictions.

My definition of unauthorized is unregistered. And as far as the number of bullets fired per second, it is in no way a joke. My point about it not being a sport is that there is no reason to own it other than to commit crimes. Can u name a situation when a weapon like that would be needed for protection? (other than when somebody else is attacking you with theirs).

As far as the numbers that you have provided go, being 11th on that list isn't something to be proud of. I'm sure that the 10 countries in a worse situation are aware that they are dangerous places to live. I'd bet that very few, if any are first world countries.

Lets say that every teacher is given a gun and trained to use it correctly. What about the teachers with mental illnesses that go rogue and attack their classrooms? What if a student is able to take it off of a teacher? Where could it be stored where the teacher could grab it easily during a shooting, but students would not have access to it?

Jealous? I'm not in anyway jealous. I'm Canadian! We haven't had a school shooting in years, and believe it or not, we don't have guns in our classrooms. I do know many Americans that are jealous of CANADIAN gun laws. And Americans should be jealous of our political system, gun laws, relationships with other countries, our history as peacekeepers,...should I keep going or do you get the picture?

Stronk Serb

May 14th, 2018, 03:28 AM

Arming the teachers is the dumbest idea ever. It literally blurs the line between law enforcement and citizen. Put cops or the National Guard in schools and shut up about it.

Merk

May 16th, 2018, 02:57 PM

Arming the teachers is the dumbest idea ever.
Who ever said we want to arm all teatchers?!?

It literally blurs the line between law enforcement and citizen.
In what way? The citizens arent making arrests, citizens are enforcing the laws, the police do.

Put cops or the National Guard in schools and shut up about it.
So, spend millions dollars to put police, or military personell in schools, Good plan(I'm joking, its not a good plan.), who pays for it?

The point of allowing, Not requiring, school staff to be screened and trained, and protect the children in the schools, is so that it won't cost everyone more, the schools are no longer soft targets, and students as well as staff can be safer.

mattsmith48

May 16th, 2018, 03:18 PM

Who ever said we want to arm all teatchers?!?

President stable genius, Republicans, the NRA and all supporters of the 2nd amendment.

In what way? The citizens arent making arrests, citizens are enforcing the laws, the police do.

If you carry a gun to protect yourself or to protect other people should the situation present itself you are doing the police's job.

So, spend millions dollars to put police, or military personell in schools, Good plan(I'm joking, its not a good plan.), who pays for it?

The point of allowing, Not requiring, school staff to be screened and trained, and protect the children in the schools, is so that it won't cost everyone more, the schools are no longer soft targets, and students as well as staff can be safer.

I agree having police officers in school is not the best option economically or the safest one. Banning guns is a lot cheaper and safer.

Merk

May 16th, 2018, 03:40 PM

President stable genius, Republicans, the NRA and all supporters of the 2nd amendment.
Not true, you must get you news from Vox if you truly believe that, and by the way, to emulate you critisism to a 'T' for a second, asside from the president and others who never actually said they want to arm all teachers I myself have never said that, therefore your statement is invalid. #FakeNews

If you carry a gun to protect yourself or to protect other people should the situation present itself you are doing the police's job.[/QOUTE]
The police dont actually have a legal obligation to protect you. FACT
As is our right to defend ourselfs and others, we are doing what the non-present police can't do for us.

[QUOTE=mattsmith48;3674336]
I agree having police officers in school is not the best option economically or the safest one. Banning guns is a lot cheaper and safer.
Sadly, you still belive that. No, banning guns is not safer, it would only disarm the law abiding citizens, so that they can not defend themselfs.

Merk

May 16th, 2018, 04:16 PM

My definition of unauthorized is unregistered. And as far as the number of bullets fired per second, it is in no way a joke. My point about it not being a sport is that there is no reason to own it other than to commit crimes. Can u name a situation when a weapon like that would be needed for protection? (other than when somebody else is attacking you with theirs).
In the US, every law abiding citizen is authorized to keep and bear arms.
I didnt say rate of fire is a joke. But mind you, any pistol can fire just as quickley as an ar-15, or any other rifle. exept for pump action shotguns or muskets, those things are slow.

Firearm sports not a sport? As recognised by the Olimpics, Firearm sports are indeed a sport.
Law abiding citizens dont commit crimes, what of this dont you understand?? Criminals can't legally have guns, Law abiding citizens can. Plain as day.

These are just a few of the many instances a person may need a firearm in defence of themselfs.

Someone breaks into you home, your in the house. They run at you with a machetty, knife, or even without a weapon, if a criminal is threatening you and runs toward you with intent of injuring or killing you, you can shoot them in defence
You got a check, you going to the back to check it. You now have a lot of cash, and you walking to you car theres a shady van parked next to you car, to get in your car to leave, you have to go past the van, as you pass the van, the door opens, as someone gets out and runs toward you in an agressive manner, he probbably wants you, (to rape, etc) or the money you have. Because of the manner of which he aproches you, you can assume he intends harm, you can prevent said crime againts you by threatening to shoot, or if contiued, fire at him in defence.
You forgot to get you childs food out of the fridge before leaving for an event, your half way there, and you kid in the back seat is hungery. So, you go to a corner store on the way there, you get 1 or two things, (only gone 2 minutes), on your way out carrying you bag in one hand and your keys in the other, a man runs up yelling at you to give him you keys you kid in in the backseat, you try to say no, he pulls out a knife or gun, and threatens you, to protect youself and child, you shoot in self defence. he clearly had intent to do harm.

As far as the numbers that you have provided go, being 11th on that list isn't something to be proud of. I'm sure that the 10 countries in a worse situation are aware that they are dangerous places to live. I'd bet that very few, if any are first world countries.
May I present to you this. It's even by CNN.
Per 1 million residents
https://i.imgur.com/ogNh4M0.jpg
According to the same source,
The US ranks 61st as far as gun-related homicides.
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/gbav
use
Violent deaths by firearm - Bar chart (2016)

Lets say that every teacher is given a gun and trained to use it correctly. What about the teachers with mental illnesses that go rogue and attack their classrooms? What if a student is able to take it off of a teacher? Where could it be stored where the teacher could grab it easily during a shooting, but students would not have access to it?
First, No. Not all teachers would be armed. The ones that are would have to go through strict vetting, as well as training. People with mental illness who may be a threat to others or themselfs are even curently not allowed to legaly have guns. Where to store them? in a locked drawer, or on-person holster.

Jealous? I'm not in anyway jealous. I'm Canadian!
Canadian = jealous of american freedoms XD

We haven't had a school shooting in years, and believe it or not, we don't have guns in our classrooms. I do know many Americans that are jealous of CANADIAN gun laws. And Americans should be jealous of our political system, gun laws, relationships with other countries, our history as peacekeepers,...should I keep going or do you get the picture?Yeah, canada does not elect a president, canada backs out of all confilct, canada doesnt have free speech, canada doesnt have gun problems as mush because of multiple things, of which I may go into in a future post, but your laws would not work here.

mattsmith48

May 16th, 2018, 07:22 PM

Not true, you must get you news from Vox if you truly believe that, and by the way, to emulate you critisism to a 'T' for a second, asside from the president and others who never actually said they want to arm all teachers I myself have never said that, therefore your statement is invalid. #FakeNews

All teachers or some teachers whats the difference? Arming one teacher is already too many and automatically eliminates you from debating guns.

The police dont actually have a legal obligation to protect you. FACT

And where did that come from.

As is our right to defend ourselfs and others, we are doing what the non-present police can't do for us.

On your previous post you say citizens can't arrest people because thats the job of the police then here you say everyone needs guns so any citizens can defend themself by doing the job of the police. Make up your mind

Sadly, you still belive that. No, banning guns is not safer, it would only disarm the law abiding citizens, so that they can not defend themselfs.

Funny how according to the map you posted none of those countries are western countries with strict gun laws. Its almost like if you have strict restrictions to guns people to get killed by guns.

Firearm sports not a sport? As recognised by the Olimpics, Firearm sports are indeed a sport.

Its a sport like Horse racing and poker are sport.

Law abiding citizens dont commit crimes, what of this dont you understand?? Criminals can't legally have guns, Law abiding citizens can. Plain as day.

People aren't just born criminals, they have to commit the crime first. If someone who never committed a crime or did but never got caught wants to legally buy a gun to commit a crime, tell me whats stops them?

These are just a few of the many instances a person may need a firearm in defence of themselfs.

Someone breaks into you home, your in the house. They run at you with a machetty, knife, or even without a weapon, if a criminal is threatening you and runs toward you with intent of injuring or killing you, you can shoot them in defence

If the situation present itself where someone breaks into your home and attempt to attack you they are plenty of everyday objects that can be used to defend yourself. Or you could you know, run away and call the cops.

You got a check, you going to the back to check it. You now have a lot of cash, and you walking to you car theres a shady van parked next to you car, to get in your car to leave, you have to go past the van, as you pass the van, the door opens, as someone gets out and runs toward you in an agressive manner, he probbably wants you, (to rape, etc) or the money you have. Because of the manner of which he aproches you, you can assume he intends harm, you can prevent said crime againts you by threatening to shoot, or if contiued, fire at him in defence.

Fuck you're paranoid. Also bringing a gun into a bank, you are probably the one getting shot thinking you wanted to rob the bank.

You forgot to get you childs food out of the fridge before leaving for an event, your half way there, and you kid in the back seat is hungery. So, you go to a corner store on the way there, you get 1 or two things, (only gone 2 minutes), on your way out carrying you bag in one hand and your keys in the other, a man runs up yelling at you to give him you keys you kid in in the backseat, you try to say no, he pulls out a knife or gun, and threatens you, to protect youself and child, you shoot in self defence. he clearly had intent to do harm.

It is more likely for the child to find the gun while your driving and accidentally kill you or himself with your gun.

May I present to you this. It's even by CNN.
Per 1 million residents
image (https://i.imgur.com/ogNh4M0.jpg)
According to the same source,
The US ranks 61st as far as gun-related homicides.
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/gbav
use
Violent deaths by firearm - Bar chart (2016)

First CNN not really the most reliable source out there.

First you say the US are 11th now 61st, thats a big difference. What happen there?

First, No. Not all teachers would be armed. The ones that are would have to go through strict vetting, as well as training. People with mental illness who may be a threat to others or themselfs are even curently not allowed to legaly have guns. Where to store them? in a locked drawer, or on-person holster.

So tell me how come most of the time when there is shooting done by “people with mental illness who may be a threat to others or themselves” the gun is obtain legally?

Canadian = jealous of american freedoms XD

Yeah, canada does not elect a president, canada backs out of all confilct, canada doesnt have free speech, canada doesnt have gun problems as mush because of multiple things, of which I may go into in a future post, but your laws would not work here.

We have the same electoral system as you, the only difference being we have a parliament and our senate is not elected and should be abolish, we don't fight unnecessary wars and use our military for mostly humanitarian missions, we don't have school shootings and instead of wasting money on a shit we don't need and never gonna use, we give everyone free health care. You are the one who should be jealous.

NewLeafsFan

May 17th, 2018, 10:57 PM

In the US, every law abiding citizen is authorized to keep and bear arms.
I didnt say rate of fire is a joke. But mind you, any pistol can fire just as quickley as an ar-15, or any other rifle. exept for pump action shotguns or muskets, those things are slow.

Firearm sports not a sport? As recognised by the Olimpics, Firearm sports are indeed a sport.
Law abiding citizens dont commit crimes, what of this dont you understand?? Criminals can't legally have guns, Law abiding citizens can. Plain as day.

These are just a few of the many instances a person may need a firearm in defence of themselfs.

Someone breaks into you home, your in the house. They run at you with a machetty, knife, or even without a weapon, if a criminal is threatening you and runs toward you with intent of injuring or killing you, you can shoot them in defence
You got a check, you going to the back to check it. You now have a lot of cash, and you walking to you car theres a shady van parked next to you car, to get in your car to leave, you have to go past the van, as you pass the van, the door opens, as someone gets out and runs toward you in an agressive manner, he probbably wants you, (to rape, etc) or the money you have. Because of the manner of which he aproches you, you can assume he intends harm, you can prevent said crime againts you by threatening to shoot, or if contiued, fire at him in defence.
You forgot to get you childs food out of the fridge before leaving for an event, your half way there, and you kid in the back seat is hungery. So, you go to a corner store on the way there, you get 1 or two things, (only gone 2 minutes), on your way out carrying you bag in one hand and your keys in the other, a man runs up yelling at you to give him you keys you kid in in the backseat, you try to say no, he pulls out a knife or gun, and threatens you, to protect youself and child, you shoot in self defence. he clearly had intent to do harm.

You really seem to struggle with debating as you clearly haven't read my previous responses. If you had, you would clearly understand that I agree that firearms is a sport, but certain military weapons are not used for that.

As for the other thing you said about "authorized" weapons, I am very familiar with the current American law....thats kind of what we've been discussing.

None of the situations that you described would require anything other than a simple handgun for protection. For the record, I m a gun owner, which is why I understand that I wouldn't need anything that powerful.

Dmaxd123

May 18th, 2018, 05:54 AM

newleafs: the problem many of us here in the US see with giving up the semi-auto rifle platform is that we know it will just be the first step.

Today we have to turn in all semi-auto rifles

Tomorrow it's the semi-auto handgun

then the semi-auto shotgun

next day pump rifles/shotguns

now we will take your lever actions

now we will have to go after bolt action rifles because they can be accurate at too far of a distance

now we are down to the single shots

also the AR-15 platform is NOT a military weapon, the ar platform rifles are used in some competitions, they are great for home defense and I would argue better than a handgun for me on-par with a shotgun but many don't like shotgun recoil so the AR platform is great for them

the AR is also reportedly a very fun platform to shoot which gets more people into shooting and potentially more people into hunting which means more people off the couch getting out and exploring the outdoors... seems like a win to me on that front

Jinglebottom

May 18th, 2018, 11:59 AM

Reminder: keep this thread on topic and do not make any inappropriate posts, or else serious action will be taken. Thank you.

Merk

May 18th, 2018, 03:22 PM

Reminder: keep this thread on topic and do not make any inappropriate posts, or else serious action will be taken. Thank you.

Hi!, What seems to be the problem officer?

Jinglebottom

May 18th, 2018, 03:53 PM

Hi!, What seems to be the problem officer?
Hahah, carry on :D

Hermes

May 21st, 2018, 08:00 PM

What is very clear from this discussion is why being pro-gun in the USA is considered a right wing view and why being anti-gun is considered a left wing view.

The evidence, already referenced earlier in this thread, is that there would be fewer deaths is there were fewer guns and yet those in favour of guns effectively say "I don't care, it's my right to defend myself". Or to put it another way, "No-one else's life is as important as mine. Even if my right to carry a gun results is more than one other person somewhere else in the country dying I don't care because they're not me".

With such extreme individualism you don't have a civilisation, you have a jungle. Having a civilisation means individuals accept restrictions for the common good and in the case of guns that means accepting restrictions on gun ownership even if means a change to the constitution; even if means extinguishing a current right because that means fewer people dying.

It is very tempting to try to have one's cake and eat it here by suggesting that if only other gun owners would refrain from shooting people with them then it would still be possible for gun ownership to be common and there to be no gun related deaths. I am not trying to argue against people being responsible for that actions but there is big difference between that and looking at the way people behave in aggregate. People are held responsible for thefts, for rapes, for committing fraud, for dealing illegal drugs etc. but accountability under the law for those things does not stop them happening and there is nothing special about gun crime for it to be exempt from that trend.

Ace.

May 21st, 2018, 08:27 PM

I'd rather have soldiers guarding schools than them doing nothing for money.

abcdeqwe

May 21st, 2018, 08:59 PM

Conservatives use hate speech and petty insults not free speech to get their words across. As far as the second admendment, despite me being librel, I am in favor of it because it is a right the constitution guarantees. However, it was created well before assault rifles and bunk stocks, the founding fathers never inticipated that, those kinds of weapons are only used for killing and hurting and should not be considered a constitutional right. Also the second admendment is strictly about defending ones property (and that doesn’t mean pretending that someone with a darker skin color or of a different ethnicity is committing some crime or something, like some people sometimes like to do). If anyone looks at all the mass shootings and thinks, “yes that’s the America I know and love” then they truly are more American than apple fucking pie.

PlasmaHam

May 21st, 2018, 09:15 PM

Conservatives use hate speech and petty insults not free speech to get their words across.
No legal difference between hate speech and free speech, gotta call a foul on that.

As far as the second admendment, despite me being librel, I am in favor of it because it is a right the constitution guarantees. However, it was created well before assault rifles and bunk stocks, the founding fathers never inticipated that, those kinds of weapons are only used for killing and hurting and should not be considered a constitutional right.

What were guns used for before "assault rifles" (an undefined term without no real meaning)? They were used for hurting and killing. And yes early automatic and rapid-fire weapons were around during the time of the writing of the Consistution. Many of the signers were military men and knew of these guns, yet there is no clause for them. I gotta give you a foul on that too.

Also the second admendment is strictly about defending ones property (and that doesn’t mean pretending that someone with a darker skin color or of a different ethnicity is committing some crime or something, like some people sometimes like to do).
It's about defending someone's property and rights from government encroachment upon them. I'll give you that on a technicality.

If anyone looks at all the mass shootings and thinks, “yes that’s the America I know and love” then they truly are more American than apple fucking pie.
???

abcdeqwe

May 21st, 2018, 09:56 PM

No legal difference between hate speech and free speech, gotta call a foul on that.

That’s is not true. Free speech doesn’t apply to hate crime because the Supreme Court ruled that free speech has its limits when it is used to abusive a specific group and make them feel less than human (Example: Trump calling all countries in Africa “shithole countries”)

Also I see that I was intentionally misquoted since I see the part about the fact that I said I support the second admendment was convienently left out.

What were guns used for before "assault rifles" (an undefined term without no real meaning)? They were used for hurting and killing. And yes early automatic and rapid-fire weapons were around during the time of the writing of the Consistution. Many of the signers were military men and knew of these guns, yet there is no clause for them. I gotta give you a foul on that too.

Assault Rifle, definition: a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Note “infantry use” meaning military, meaning non-citizen.

Yes, guns were always used for killing (as far as we know, I mean dynamite was originally made to assist in mining, but instead became a weapon of war. But probably not guns) but Assault rifles, however, are only used to kill many people very quickly.

Also, there were not even slightly automatic guns at that time, certainly no reliable ones. The first automatic weapon in us history was the gattling gun and that was made in the 1800s.

It's about defending someone's property and rights from government encroachment upon them. I'll give you that on a technicality.

Yes that’s correct, but let me ask something , what makes someone think, that no matter what weapons they have, they can stand up to the United States Government

???
Americans care more about protecting guns than protecting lives.

Merk

May 23rd, 2018, 06:29 AM

That’s is not true. Free speech doesn’t apply to hate crime because the Supreme Court ruled that free speech has its limits when it is used to abusive a specific group and make them feel less than human (Example: Trump calling all countries in Africa “shithole countries”)
Youre comparing Crime to speech. Free speech has nothing to do with physical crime.
THERE IS NO "HATE SPEECH" EXCEPTION TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT! The first amendment protects your so-called 'hate speech'. Where do you get your information? Even the Washington Post did a piece about the supreme Court ruling of Matal vs. Tam. The court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment. By the way, Trump did not call all countries in Africa shit holes, and the one he did, is definitely a shithole. Is it the people's fault in that country? No, it's the government that has not taken care of it's people. While I don't actually believe in these words, I can say "Mexican nigger faggots should die" or even "all white people who own guns should should burn to death" do I truly think those things? No, of course not, but I can say it. And I won't go to prison for doing so. Don't like these words? Ignore them.

Also I see that I was intentionally misquoted since I see the part about the fact that I said I support the second admendment was convienently left out.
What would be the point in quoting that? We're not trying to argue against your support...

Assault Rifle, definition: a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Note “infantry use” meaning military, meaning non-citizen.
As per your own supplied definition, the AR-15 and all other semiautomatic rifles are not 'assault weapons' :)

Yes, guns were always used for killing (as far as we know, I mean dynamite was originally made to assist in mining, but instead became a weapon of war. But probably not guns) but Assault rifles, however, are only used to kill many people very quickly.
All guns are...

Also, there were not even slightly automatic guns at that time, certainly no reliable ones. The first automatic weapon in us history was the gattling gun and that was made in the 1800s.
However, the intent was there. There were many designs for semi automatic firearms at the time of writing the 2nd amendment. Therefore indicating intent was present.

Yes that’s correct, but let me ask something , what makes someone think, that no matter what weapons they have, they can stand up to the United States Government while the federal government forces have grown immensely, tyranny isn't limited to the federal government. All organizations of government can easily and some already are, tyrannic.

Americans care more about protecting guns than protecting lives.
Eh? Guns are used for protecting lives. If no law abiding citizen had a gun, then only criminals, and the government (which at the point of banning guns would be tyrannic) would have guns. Every person would be an easy target for a criminal, all women would be open to rapists, all business owners open to robbery, all children open to kidnapping and murder. There would be no deterrent for criminals if the citizenry were disarmed.

PlasmaHam

May 23rd, 2018, 01:24 PM

American Media:

"Hamas is just a group of harmless protesters who only wanted to protest encouragement on their rights, and were attacked for just protesting the occupation of their ancestral homeland from those filthy Jews Zionists."

"MS-13 is just a group of humans who feel on bad times and resorted to gang violence to feed their family, how dare you care them mean things!"

"The NRA is a terrorist organization that wants to murder school children and see the streets run red with blood! We must drive them out of America immediately, for they are less than human!"

Merk

May 23rd, 2018, 04:35 PM

Nice... Exact quotes too...

lliam

May 24th, 2018, 04:10 AM

now we reached the fun level

TheMagicPotato

May 26th, 2018, 10:32 PM

There would be no deterrent for criminals if the citizenry were disarmed.

*ahem* A police force is a constituted body of persons empowered by a state to enforce the law, to protect people and property, and to prevent crime and civil disorder.

I believe guns can be used as a sport and as a collection item, not necessarily as a weapon, even if that's their main purpose.

I personally think that ''personal defence'' is not a good excuse. What counts as ''personal defence''? If somebody pushed me, and I took his move as a attack... that means I can shoot him?

There are several ways of protecting yourself without the necessity of using a gun.

Hermes

May 27th, 2018, 08:13 PM

I personally think that ''personal defence'' is not a good excuse. What counts as ''personal defence''? If somebody pushed me, and I took his move as a attack... that means I can shoot him?

I saw a TV program in which one American shot another one for reversing into his car. Now I know cars are expensive and people get attached to them but that is an vast overreaction. I don;t know how often it happens but clearly here is a case where someone got angry and, because he had a gun, he used it. Had he not had one, maybe there would have been a punch-up or maybe the two would have seen it as a more even contest and instead exchanged insurance details as they should have done at the start.

Waving a gun is all very well as a deterrent for someone else who hasn't got his out and ready but, soon enough, if people think that when they go to rob your house, they'll have a gun pointed at them they'll have their out ready to fire the first shot as soon as they approach.

DriveAlive

May 27th, 2018, 09:51 PM

If you are part of a minority group that knows what it is like to experience real oppression and has all too painful memories of what can happen at the hands of those in power, it is pretty hard to take a bunch of privileged white men seriously when they say that you should be disarmed.

Merk

May 28th, 2018, 02:02 AM

*ahem* A police force is a constituted body of persons empowered by a state to enforce the law, to protect people and property, and to prevent crime and civil disorder.
*ahem* to quote myself....
The police dont actually have a legal obligation to protect you. FACT
As is our right to defend ourselfs and others, we are doing what the non-present police can't do for us.
As I said, the police have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to "protect" someone. Not even you. This has been shown in multiple Supreme Court rulings. Just look it up if you don't believe be.

I believe guns can be used as a sport and as a collection item, not necessarily as a weapon, even if that's their main purpose. So, what your saying is, US citizens rights don't matter. Your statement just doesn't make any sense... Sorry, but it just doesn't...

I personally think that ''personal defence'' is not a good excuse. What counts as ''personal defence''? If somebody pushed me, and I took his move as a attack... that means I can shoot him?
NO! That does not count! That would be murder. Unless there's a group of people, and their threatening to kill you, and the one of them that approaches you looks like a 300 pound boxer, and actually assaults you, even then, most gun owners would be trying to deescalate the situation, trying not to need to pull his gun. We don't look too shoot people, we do everything we can to NOT need to. That's the fact.

There are several ways of protecting yourself without the necessity of using a gun. most of which would result fruitless, getting raped, etc. anyway. or just creating an escalation resulting in your own death.
You can't overpower the 200 pound rapist who is set on raping you. If the guy is on some kind of drugs, you attempts to stop him won't even phase him.

I saw a TV program in which one American shot another one for reversing into his car. Now I know cars are expensive and people get attached to them but that is an vast overreaction. I don;t know how often it happens but clearly here is a case where someone got angry and, because he had a gun, he used it. Had he not had one, maybe there would have been a punch-up or maybe the two would have seen it as a more even contest and instead exchanged insurance details as they should have done at the start.
Key words, 'TV program'
Aside from that, maybe it was a 'real' investigation reenactment or something. It doesn't matter. Situations like that are very rare. And if you looked into that murder, you probably would have found that the gun was possessed illegally.
If they guy didn't have a gun, then clearly his heart was set on killing the other guy. I find it funny you say (paraphrasing) 'if the guy didn't have a gun, they just would have exchanged insurance'... Truth be told again, if he didn't have a gun (unlikely, as he probably wouldn't have passed a background check {therefore couldn't have purchased it legally}, and probably got the gun illegally) he would have had something else, like a bat, perhaps.

Waving a gun is all very well as a deterrent for someone else who hasn't got his out and ready but, soon enough, if people think that when they go to rob your house, they'll have a gun pointed at them they'll have their out ready to fire the first shot as soon as they approach. and if they do, the homeowner won't have to question weather or not to shoot the intruder. If all home owners were armed all the time, and intruder came in 'guns a blazin' most Intruders would be dead, as homeowners would not have to question the intruder's intent, and would just simply defend themselves and shoot the bastard. Now, this is why criminals love gun laws, they don't abide by them, but there targets do. So the less legal guns, the less criminals have to worry about weather or not that woman is armed, or that guy coming it off the bank with a bag is armed.. their just open targets.

—+—+——+——+——+——+——+——+—+—

I hate to include this in the same Post, but I don't want to double-post...

If you are part of a minority group that knows what it is like to experience real oppression and has all too painful memories of what can happen at the hands of those in power, it is pretty hard to take a bunch of privileged white men seriously when they say that you should be disarmed.
I couldn't have said it better myself... Though, these days it's not just white men that have this 'privilege', it's the self proclaimed leftist 'Elites.' This includes, both white and black, 'men' and 'women' (and wherever other letters you may insert here.). These are the people Soros and Bloomberg fund to push their agenda.