"Repeal the Second Amendment" -- article

[kwm]

Since a registerd gun in the hands of a lawful and properly trained citizen shooting a would be criminal is not seen as a gun crime I would call that a pretty feasible and realistic way to lessen gun crimes.

[legion]

Why is it that a few thousand firearm-related deaths a year (mostly suicides, BTW) is a major problem that can only be solved by banning guns, yet tens of thousands of auto-accident-related deaths a year is an acceptable price for the freedom to be mobile?

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by kwm
Since a registerd gun in the hands of a lawful and properly trained citizen shooting a would be criminal is not seen as a gun crime I would call that a pretty feasible and realistic way to lessen gun crimes.

We don't have gun registration in VA - thank God.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by legion
Why is it that a few thousand firearm-related deaths a year (mostly suicides, BTW) is a major problem that can only be solved by banning guns, yet tens of thousands of auto-accident-related deaths a year is an acceptable price for the freedom to be mobile?

Because there are far more hoplophobes in the world than motorphobes.

[FrayAdjacent911]

Originally posted by legion
Why is it that a few thousand firearm-related deaths a year (mostly suicides, BTW) is a major problem that can only be solved by banning guns, yet tens of thousands of auto-accident-related deaths a year is an acceptable price for the freedom to be mobile?

It's true. More lives would be saved if people were forced to use public transportation.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
It's true. More lives would be saved if people were forced to use public transportation.

Yeah but then we'd have much more bus, train and air traffic increasing the odds of accidents that result in a high death rate so we'd have to ban public transportation and go back to horses and buggies which would result in casualties inflicted by horses and before you know it we'd all be friggin walking again until enough people stubbed their toes and they'd ban walking and then what?

[72doug2,2S]

I bought my last hand gun in VA and never killed a single person. Obviously, My gun must be stopped before it breaks free runs rampant.

[Here comes more sarcasm. The equivalent Gun argument with a different scapegoat.]

I can't believe these gun control advocates can be so wrong, clearly we need immediate discussion on banning South Koreans!

My ex-neighbor's employee was one of the VT kids that was shot. He was shot in the base of the neck and He is one of 2 that amazingly walked out of that classroom.

Although, he will never truly get over this, pea shooters are less destructive than the indiscriminate destruction of bombs.

April 19, 2007 12:07am
Article from: Agence France-Presse

A CAR bomb near a central Baghdad market killed 82 people today,

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by the
Gun control may be a nice fantasy, and may work on paper, but it can never be a reality in the US.

There are an estimated 250 MILLION guns currently in the US, and we have porous borders thousands of miles to the north and south of us (east and west, too, for those that have boats), over which flow thousands of people, legally and illegally, every day.

So the idea that we can prevent gun related crimes by depriving criminals or would-be criminals of the ability to get a gun simply is unfeasible, even putting aside Second Amendment issues. If we want to try to lessen gun related crimes, we need to look at other, more realistic ways of doing it.

A border that has proven to be breachable by every crimial endeavor, rum runners during prohibition, decades of drug runners, decades of migrant workers.

When you make things illegal it does not stop the demand, it makes the supply, use and psossesion of illegal.

It removes the registered law abiding reseller/manufacturer from the supply chain and turns it over to the criminals who are the ones that you are tring to protect society from.

[Superman]

Can I have another bong hit?

[stomachmonkey]

Why does that not make sense?

The UK banned guns. The regular police do not even carry them. The "SWAT" guys do but are required to call in for permission to use them.

Crimes involving guns has increased dramatically in the UK. So were are all these weapons coming from? A country the size of the UK can't control illegal guns coming in but we can?

[Superman]

Originally posted by legion
Why is it that a few thousand firearm-related deaths a year (mostly suicides, BTW) is a major problem that can only be solved by banning guns, yet tens of thousands of auto-accident-related deaths a year is an acceptable price for the freedom to be mobile?

Simple. Because mobility = commerce. Scary that you did not know the answer to that.

If a permit to operate a motor vehicle in this country were as difficult to get as they are in Europe, then.......

1) Less people would die
2) Less people would get hurt
3) Less automobile accidents would occur'
4) Insurance premiums would be much lower
5) Traffic congestion would decrease
6) Transportation costs would fall and
7) Road construction and maintenance costs would fall

Those are just the highlights. But of course, two other things would also be true:

1) Less cars would be sold and
2) Less gasoline would be purchased

So as you can see, we wouldn't want stuff like transportation safety and transportation ease and transportation costs to become more important than oil company and car company profits.

That's why we do what we do.

[Moneyguy1]

Arguments laced with emotion and the total and absolute lack of logic. In other words, fear. Even worse, the same arguments over and over again, thinking somehow that volume trumps calm, considered discussion.

[Tobra]

Originally posted by legion
As a criminal who are you going to rob? A group of people you know to be unarmed or a group of people where one person might be armed?

Criminals look for easy opportunities.

When I lived in Texas I did not hear about many carjackings or ATM robberies. Heard the odd tale of some little old lady shooting somebody trying to rob her

Originally posted by kwm
Since a registerd gun in the hands of a lawful and properly trained citizen shooting a would be criminal is not seen as a gun crime I would call that a pretty feasible and realistic way to lessen gun crimes.

It is in California. It is impossible to get a concealed carry license here. If you shoot someone, it has to be in your home and you must be in immediate fear for your life. If you shot someone climbing in your 10 year old daughter's window you would very likely do time in California.

[Hoots]

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

[Jim Bremner]

man with a gun= citizen

man with out a gun= subject

[kwm]

It is in California. It is impossible to get a concealed carry license here. If you shoot someone, it has to be in your home and you must be in immediate fear for your life. If you shot someone climbing in your 10 year old daughter's window you would very likely do time in California.


CA. doesn't count. It is basicially it's own socialist society. I heard it is even ran by some former Nazi who posed as a actor to get all the liberal pot heads in CA. to first think he was something that he is not then he plans to star his own 4th reich that is like a total flip flop reverse of Nazism called Swartzinism. I Swartzinism you first must cuddle with anyone before you could consider harming them and even then it stops and pinching and tickling someone till they can't breath.

[Rick Lee]

Originally posted by kwm
It is in California. It is impossible to get a concealed carry license here. If you shoot someone, it has to be in your home and you must be in immediate fear for your life. If you shot someone climbing in your 10 year old daughter's window you would very likely do time in California.


CA. doesn't count. It is basicially it's own socialist society. I heard it is even ran by some former Nazi who posed as a actor to get all the liberal pot heads in CA. to first think he was something that he is not then he plans to star his own 4th reich that is like a total flip flop reverse of Nazism called Swartzinism. I Swartzinism you first must cuddle with anyone before you could consider harming them and even then it stops and pinching and tickling someone till they can't breath.

Did you make it past the eighth grade with that English, which is worse than that of the guy you call a former Nazi?

[Victor]

Originally posted by legion
Why is it that a few thousand firearm-related deaths a year (mostly suicides, BTW) is a major problem that can only be solved by banning guns, yet tens of thousands of auto-accident-related deaths a year is an acceptable price for the freedom to be mobile?

The homicide rate in the United States of America is higher than that of other developed countries, with firearms used to commit 68% of the 14,860 homicides in the United States during 2005. Many more suffer non-fatal gunshot wounds, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimating 52,447 violence-related and 23,237 accidental gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Superman
Simple. Because mobility = commerce. Scary that you did not know the answer to that.

If a permit to operate a motor vehicle in this country were as difficult to get as they are in Europe, then.......

1) Less people would die
2) Less people would get hurt
3) Less automobile accidents would occur'
4) Insurance premiums would be much lower
5) Traffic congestion would decrease
6) Transportation costs would fall and
7) Road construction and maintenance costs would fall

Those are just the highlights. But of course, two other things would also be true:

1) Less cars would be sold and
2) Less gasoline would be purchased

So as you can see, we wouldn't want stuff like transportation safety and transportation ease and transportation costs to become more important than oil company and car company profits.

That's why we do what we do.

C'mon, Supe; I know you love your big evil corporate America conspiracy theories. You missed this one by a country mile, though.

It's actually far simpler than you depict. It all boils down to our fundemental right to travel. A right so basic, so intrinsic to human existance, so flippin' obvious, that our Founding Fathers saw no need to even include it in our Bill of Rights. So while commerce is inarguably a part of it, it is cast in the shadow of this fundemental right. Gubmint can regulate commerce; we have given them the authority to do so. We have not given gubmint the authority to regulate our personal travel.

"The State" has no more authority to impinge upon this right than it does to impinge upon the right to arm one's self. They have no place in dictating or regulating our chosen means to do either. They have duped the public into believing that driving is a priveledge they grant to us. Wrong, wrong, wrong... it is the common and accepted means of personal conveyance in use today. They have no more cause to interfere in (read: regulate) that than they do your ability to take a walk. Because our chosen means of conveyance has become mechanized, gubmint has seized upon the opportunity to jump in and regulate it, convincing the masses they actually have the authority to do so.

There have been a number of court cases wherein citizens have challenged the gubmint's authority in this area and have won. Do a cursory search on "right to travel" for more information. The precedent is clear on this point. Yet, like gun control and gun laws, the people are woefully unaware of the relationship between us, the citizens, and the government we have established.

Gun laws and transportation laws have gone down a remarkably similar path of government interference in our personal lives. We have not given them the charter to interfere as they do; they have taken it for themselves. They have over-stepped the bounds of the authority we, the people, have granted them in both of these areas. Most folks don't even seem to realize that anymore. They expect to be regulated; they expect some authority (our government) to grant them "permission" to partake of the "priveledges" that that government owns, to be doled out at that government's pleasure. That is most decidedly not the relationship between citizens and our original government of the people, by the the people, and for the people intended by our Founding Fathers.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
C'mon, Supe; I know you love your big evil corporate America conspiracy theories. You missed this one by a country mile, though.

It's actually far simpler than you depict. It all boils down to our fundemental right to travel. A right so basic, so intrinsic to human existance, so flippin' obvious, that our Founding Fathers saw no need to even include it in our Bill of Rights. So while commerce is inarguably a part of it, it is cast in the shadow of this fundemental right. Gubmint can regulate commerce; we have given them the authority to do so. We have not given gubmint the authority to regulate our personal travel.

"The State" has no more authority to impinge upon this right than it does to impinge upon the right to arm one's self. They have no place in dictating or regulating our chosen means to do either. They have duped the public into believing that driving is a priveledge they grant to us. Wrong, wrong, wrong... it is the common and accepted means of personal conveyance in use today. They have no more cause to interfere in (read: regulate) that than they do your ability to take a walk. Because our chosen means of conveyance has become mechanized, gubmint has seized upon the opportunity to jump in and regulate it, convincing the masses they actually have the authority to do so.

There have been a number of court cases wherein citizens have challenged the gubmint's authority in this area and have won. Do a cursory search on "right to travel" for more information. The precedent is clear on this point. Yet, like gun control and gun laws, the people are woefully unaware of the relationship between us, the citizens, and the government we have established.

Gun laws and transportation laws have gone down a remarkably similar path of government interference in our personal lives. We have not given them the charter to interfere as they do; they have taken it for themselves. They have over-stepped the bounds of the authority we, the people, have granted them in both of these areas. Most folks don't even seem to realize that anymore. They expect to be regulated; they expect some authority (our government) to grant them "permission" to partake of the "priveledges" that that government owns, to be doled out at that government's pleasure. That is most decidedly not the relationship between citizens and our original government of the people, by the the people, and for the people intended by our Founding Fathers.

Jeff, while I agree with your position that we have allowed the government to operate outside of its intended boundaries Sup is also correct re: corporate greed and it's affect on us.

This country once had a much greater mass transit infrastructure than it does today. It was systematically and purposely dismantled. The initiative was led by GM, Firestone, Standard Oil and Greyhound were also in on the conspiracy.

Google "Taken for a Ride"

http://www.newday.com/films/Taken_for_a_Ride.html

http://www.culturechange.org/issue10/taken-for-a-ride.htm