Reply With Quote
DMC's absurd point was that swimming pools are deadly.
I think it's terrific, so I've made it my throw away line.
imo if you wanna own AK-47s or machine guns, you should be able to keep whatever arms you want in your own house.
DMC's absurd point was that swimming pools are deadly.
I think it's terrific, so I've made it my throw away line.
nukes too?
Cool slippery slope fallacy imo
We aren't cons utionally en led to nukes, B.....
All nukes and nuke power should be banned for ANYONE to own, because their doing so infringes on the rest of our rights to life. Any perpetrator should be risen up against by the whole and safely disarmed.
You said whatever arms.
Just making sure we are sticking with guns.
It's debatable you are cons utionally en led to guns, tbh.
Well, I don't know when those countries have banned guns and what the numbers were like before then, but their current gun homicide as a percentage of all homicide rates are WAY lower than that of the US.
Percentage of Homicides by Firearm
USA: 60
England and Wales: 6.6
Australia: 11.5
Homicide by Firearm Rate per 100,000 Population
USA: 2.97
England and Wales: .07
Australia: .14
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...?newsfeed=true
I think these numbers are meaningful.
If you compare these numbers with the overall homicide rates, you see that the homicide rate is much higher for the US, a country that allows guns, than the other countries we're comparing here that have more gun restrictions. This tells you that the ease of buying a gun may affect number of murders significantly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
Take a look at that wikipedia article. All of the countries that have higher homicide rates than the US are less developed, in most cases WAY less developed. Most of those countries are utter . There aren't any highly developed, wealthy countries (western Europe, Japan, etc) that have homicide rates anywhere comparable to those of the US, and most have tighter restrictions on weapons.
IMO, being able to get a gun so easily has influenced the homicide rates in this country. Unfortunately, there are so many guns in circulation that tighter restrictions will likely not do much, at least in the short run, to limit murders significantly. You may prevent some psychos like the Aurora theater case and other similar ones, but probably most of the people gunning people down get their weapons through the black market. It's probably mainly gang/drug related.
Not even remotely debatable, based on the Founder's own words AND the SCOTUS' interpretation.... gun control advocates get hung up on the militia clause while ignoring that the right to keep and bear arms is expressly given to the people, not just a militia, tbh.....
Federal bans "dont work", yet there is a federal ban on automatic weapons that seems to work quite well.
Dont you find it strange that these criminals keep complying with the law when in comes to obtaining their firearms? None went on the black market to obtain better stuff. They got the best firearm that was legally available to them.
And your "Colorado needs better screening" argument is worthless. There is NOTHING in Holmes' past to suggest he is a nut-job. Short of REGULATING that everyone who purchases a gun must undergo an EXTENSIVE psycho-analysis, theres no screening process that would have prevented this guy from buying any and all guns available for sale.
High homicide rate, sounds like concealed carry is a good idea.
I understand why you rednecks want a hunting rifle not to be banned and all that. Makes sense to hunt animals with a rifle.
But it is completely ing moronic to have semi-automatics not banned. No one in this ing country needs a semi automatic to hunt or for any other purpose. Anything other than a hunting rifle and maybe pistol should be completely banned.
And none of you hillbilly republicans can make one logical reason to have a semi-automatic.
Still waiting on DMC's answer: Should FULLY automatic weapons be legal?
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. er, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]
dj.1.en led - qualified for by right according to law; "we are all en led to equal protection under the law"eligible - qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen; "eligible to run for office"; "eligible for retirement benefits"; "an eligible bachelor"
GREAT!
Should FULLY automatic weapons be legal?
They are.
I own several.
Get your learn on before you get your yap on.
There's a federal ban on drugs that's been an expensive, racist mess, and there was a federal ban on alcohol that was such a disaster, a Cons utional amendment was ratified to prevent it from happening ever again....
Don't you find it strange that the federal ban on marijuana doesn't stop anyone from smoking pot? Take away the legal, convenient option and criminals will move to the black market, while normal law-abiding citizens will have no means to defend themselves, or perhaps even turn to the black market themselves....Dont you find it strange that these criminals keep complying with the law when in comes to obtaining their firearms? None went on the black market to obtain better stuff. They got the best firearm that was legally available to them.
Meanwhile, if states simply made their standards tougher and criminals STILL turned to the black market, they can still be punished through the justice system while responsible owners can still have their guns....
If state voters decide that every prospective gun owner should undergo a psych eval before they can buy a gun, then it would be a step in the right direction and a pragmatic solution that actually solves something, tbh....And your "Colorado needs better screening" argument is worthless. There is NOTHING in Holmes' past to suggest he is a nut-job. Short of REGULATING that everyone who purchases a gun must undergo an EXTENSIVE psycho-analysis, theres no screening process that would have prevented this guy from buying any and all guns available for sale.
Can you make one logical reason to own a corvette? Should they be banned?
The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify a requirement to show need. You don't need freedom of speech.
DMC why does anyone need a semi or fully automatic weapon? What need is there for it?
Why do you need a troll name?
The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, but about self defense. If I can do that better with a semi-auto, so be it.
Ah there it is. You have no answer to my question. You cant even logically reason for the stupid ing idea that anyone needs those guns.
It took 200 years for the SCOTUS to eek out a 5-4 decision in 2008 to confirm individual owners' rights.
It's definitely debatable.
for protection against foreign invasion or a tyrannical government of course, precisely what the founding fathers intending when writing the 2nd amendment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions