Thread Rating:

TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 4022
November 10th, 2017 at 10:51:33 AM permalink
I thought this was interesting:

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 167
  • Posts: 9017
November 10th, 2017 at 12:28:01 PM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

I thought this was interesting:

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/



Trump and some radio jerks have been repeating the same lies for years. Toughest gun laws in the nation? No
Highest murder rate? Not even close. If Obama and Mrs. Clinton had been from New Orleans, do you we'd here half of what we do about Chicago? Is there a problem there? Yes. There is a problem there in in many other cities, counties, hamlets and villages.
RS
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
  • Threads: 62
  • Posts: 8623
November 10th, 2017 at 3:38:17 PM permalink
Quote: Romes

This is the largest and most pathetic excuse the right has for letting the NRA purchase up our government to run it how they see fit.

The NRA has BOUGHT AND PAID for legislation that makes it so the CDC can't even STUDY guns and their effects in America. Hmmm, sound like oppression of information and enslavement of our country by a private organization not elected by its citizens???

I'm not the biggest Obama fan, just jesus LISTEN TO THIS:



The NRA has made this 1000% true... Bring up ANY kind of gun legislation and all the sudden it's "OMG THEY WANNA TAKE 'ER GUNS!!!!"


Just because Obama or some other democrat(s) say they don't want to take away our guns, doesn't mean that's true. There are also plenty of people who do want to take away our guns and they do say that. But there are few (IMO) who say that....not sure about how many want that but don't say it.

It's a delicate situation because it can become a slippery slope. First you ban certain types of guns, implement new regulations, this or that. Then over time, you either see: A. It's working, but no well enough (would never work "well enough"), so you push for stronger regulations, make more types of guns illegal, etc. or B. The new regulations etc. AREN'T working, so something needs to be done, so they push for more regulations. Essentially -- it's going to happen, hopefully just not this century.
TigerWu
TigerWu
Joined: May 23, 2016
  • Threads: 21
  • Posts: 4022
November 10th, 2017 at 3:56:20 PM permalink
One thing I always thought was funny was that people think owning guns is some god-given inalienable right. It wasn't even in the original Constitution... it was added years later, hence why it's called an amendment. If it was a non-negotiable god-given right you'd think they would have put it in the first draft or something.

I saw a documentary years ago about gun ownership in Russia, and they think it's laughable that we are obsessed with gun rights so much. RUSSIA, of all places....you'd think they'd be a little more sympathetic considering their history, but no, they think it's silly how much we love guns.

Oh, here's another little nugget of info. Everyone is in favor of gun control. EVERYONE. We're only arguing about how much control is too much.

Whatever... I don't think an outright gun ban is a good idea at all, but gun rights and gun control are far from non-negotiable.
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3461
Thanks for this post from:
beachbumbabs
November 10th, 2017 at 8:44:53 PM permalink
Quote: TigerWu

One thing I always thought was funny was that people think owning guns is some god-given inalienable right. It wasn't even in the original Constitution... it was added years later, hence why it's called an amendment. If it was a non-negotiable god-given right you'd think they would have put it in the first draft or something.

The reasons for the delay in adopting the Bill of Rights are varied and significant:
"The Committee dropped Madisonís attempt to attach the prefatory natural rights language found in the existing Preamble to the Constitution, in the Declaration of Independence, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Select Committee, however, left his other proposals pretty much intact.

COLUMN ONE

The House agreed on 12 amendments to the Constitution on August 24 after debating the Select Committee Report. The whole House basically agreed with the Select Committee Report except, thanks to Roger Sherman, Madisonís proposals as altered by the Select Committee were extracted from their location within the body of the Constitution and presented as 17 amendments at the end of the Constitution. For a discussion of the various stages from June 8 through August 24 see the Debates in the First Congress section of the website. Suffice it to note here, that this is the first time, in the American context, that a declaration of rights has been annexed to a constitution rather than being a preface to the constitution or incorporated in the very constitution itself.

COLUMN TWO

The second column shows what the Senate did, and did not do, to the House Report. The most obvious alteration was the reduction, by omission and consolidation, of the number of amendments from 17 to 12.

The most glaring omission is the elimination of House Amendment XIV. This amendment was among Madisonís favorites because it applied the three essential rights ó conscience, press, and jury ó to the states as well as the nation." --am. hist.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 2794
November 11th, 2017 at 2:22:40 AM permalink
The word "arms" does not mean guns. it just means weapons in the general sense. if you take the 2nd amendment literally that would mean that citizens could not be prevented from acquiring any weapon, including nuclear bombs.
"but I don't care too much for money..........money can't buy me love".............. the Beatles
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 264
  • Posts: 14378
November 11th, 2017 at 5:40:11 AM permalink
At the time the word arms would have included pistols, muskets, swords and sabers. Such weapons as might be found around a home or farm for defense, hunting and fowling.

No need to carry things to absurdities. Canons were kept openly at town squares and the like.
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
November 11th, 2017 at 10:46:58 AM permalink
I am not in the favor of banning guns. People who say there's a slippery slope are full of it. There will no time soon that the NRA and the gun lobby will be out of the politician's pocket and there will be no time when guns are banned. The government has drones, millions of them, and can kill off its citizenry within an hour in a martial law situation.

There was an ban on assault rifles that took place and expired. Renew it and make it permanent. Buy the arms back. Criminalize anyone showing up at a gun range or trying to sell these weapons. Get rid of the ability to had 30 round magazines. Have available smart guns (activate on owner's fingerprint) which would make these weapons useless in the hands of children and criminals. If they can work on my Samsung or my computer to unlock my computer or phone in 1 second, that is plenty of time to unlock a gun to shoot at a bad guy and would drop accident and suicide rates.

At the same time, make the right to own handguns with up to 10 round magazines a federal right and deem it unconstitutional to ban ownership of handguns in cities. Toughen up mental health checks. Educate. Mandate it. Let states and municipalities own their own conceal and ownership laws to fit the crime situation and what the constituents and police forces want.

These things are not difficult. If Trump can sign an XO to ban Muslims at the stroke of a pen, if ObamaCare can get passed and barely working, then these regulations would be easy to pass.

These are easy measures and remove's no one's second amendment rights.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 154
  • Posts: 2794
November 11th, 2017 at 2:31:44 PM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

At the time the word arms would have included pistols, muskets, swords and sabers. Such weapons as might be found around a home or farm for defense, hunting and fowling.

No need to carry things to absurdities. Canons were kept openly at town squares and the like.



Nothing at all absurd about it. The authors were not stupid. They had to have realized that advancing technology would mean much more powerful weapons. Absurd is the idea that a society cannot protect itself by eliminating access to weapons that have much more capability than necessary for a person to defend himself and his family. Absurd is a society waiting for the next maniac to gun off a couple hundred rounds into a crowd with an AR15. Absurd is a society that does nothing.
Last edited by: lilredrooster on Nov 11, 2017
"but I don't care too much for money..........money can't buy me love".............. the Beatles

  • Jump to: