The problem is, you propose any sort of restrictions, and people complain about it infringing on 2nd amendment rights
Like they complain if there's any sort of restrictions on abortions (which aren't mentioned in the least in the constitution)? I'm not proposing any sort of restriction. Just that someone who owns a gun better be very responsible for it.
If socialized health care was the alternative to strict gun control, would (most) gun advocates still hate it?
Here is an interesting article I saw on a friend's facebook page. I had never heard of this as the reason for the 2nd Amendment before. Pretty interesting. Some will say consider the source, and I don't take the information as gospel. Just an interesting historical perspective I had not heard prior to reading the article. http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
For yuks, I googled for "second amendment slavery" and there were quite a few WWW pages about the subject. Every one of them that I checked (a couple of pages of results worth) referred to the truth-out.org page as its source.
Heh. My view is that the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd amendment, were all in response to grievances the colonists had with the King and British rule prior. Seriously. Nobody talks about the 3rd amendment. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." The British forced the colonists to house soldiers before and during the revolution. I see similar beefs with the British in every one of the first 10 amendments. Like 1st: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" - it was British law that its citizens be members of the Anglican Church (state established religion). &c
Seems to me that the article itself indicated that Madison composed the 2nd amendment originally with no reference to "state militias", and that it was only revised after the state autonomy concerns were raised. Regardless of the history, the main thrust of the 2nd is still about citizens being permitted to possess and use armaments. The "slavery" aspect doesn't change that.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't know why everyone sees this topic so black and white. The gov't hasn't suggested completely getting rid of guns, you'll still have the ability to bear arms. What is so wrong with banning assault rifles (like that'll happen), or having tougher background checks? Is it because all the women who need to protect themselves from roving packs of rapists need to do so with assault rifles? Is that really what they use, Denny? This is mind-boggling to me that anyone would get so outraged over the banning of assault rifles. Reminds me of little kids who get their shiny toy fire truck taken away. Wouldn't be the end of the world people, somehow I think we'd pull through. You've truly gone off the deep end...
Green font is required for you? I didn't mention anything about the politicians who want to ban guns - like mayors of certain cities. I was referring to people who've posted here that want to ban them. I'm talking about handguns, too. As for assault rifles? I think attempting to ban them is all huff and puff kind of stuff. There are plenty of them around, but they're so rarely used in the commission of any crime at all, including the recent shootings (Aurora, Connecticut). I mean, if they banned and somehow eliminated EVERY rifle (assault rifle or otherwise) in the world, it'd cut out about 300 deaths in the USA a year. I don't oppose background checks. But they're not any sort of panacea either. You go buy one. Someone breaks into your house and steals it. What good did the check do? My concern about "bans" is about Liberty. If I don't want anything to do with guns, but you want to collect them or otherwise use them in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, then I absolutely have no interest in telling you what to do. If two guys came at me armed with pistols, I'd think an assault rifle would be pretty good defense. http://blogs.marketwatch.com/electi...olved-in-many-u-s-murders-a-look-at-the-data/ The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with rifles: 323. The number involving handguns? A whopping 6,220. Or 49% of the 12,664 homicides committed in the U.S. in 2011, according to FBI data. And that’s a longstanding pattern. See murder statistics by weapon. The huge gap suggests President Obama’s call for new firearm restrictions would do little to reduce the number people murdered each year – even if a reluctant Congress were to pass all his requests. His proposals don’t really addresss handguns. ... As for rifles, they are used even less than body parts, blunt instruments or sharp objects to commit murder. (more at the link)
Ah, then carry on. In that scenario not much. But you can find holes in any scenario the gov't does. There isn't a perfect plan, there never will be. But I've read the 23 executive orders he passed, and I've read the laws he'd like congress to pass (and never will), and I don't see a problem with any of it. It's hardly infringing on our liberties. They seem to be simply trying to make our society a small fraction safer. If, at it's MOST EXTREME, that would result in a few gun collectors unable to collect military style weapons, I truly could give a shit. (Maybe you agree with me, not sure if you're referring to an assault-weapons ban or a total ban on guns) What percentage of your day do you have an assault rifle immediately handy? If two guys came at you with pistols already drawn, unless you were already holding your assault rifle like Rambo, ready for anything, I doubt it'd come in handy. And if you have time to get it, load it and aim it, then you'd also have time to call 9-1-1 and get a handgun. I gotta be honest, I don't see stories very often in which a housemom successfully wards off a pack of theives with an assault weapon in a shoot-out like the OK Corral. Do you have any statistics on how many lives assault weapons save each year? Honest question, I have no idea. Thanks for the link. It says that while murder has been on the decline, mass shootings is on the rise. And it says Mass-shootings seems to be the growing problem, and if this could help, why not do it? What hunter NEEDS a larger magazine? What responsible gun owner NEEDS an assault weapon? I simply think it'd do more good than harm. The solution seems clear. I'd like a complete ban on all hands, fists and feet.
Well, consider what rhetoric means. It's language intended to persuade people to action. I have zero doubt that progressives want to ban all guns, and it's just a matter of doing it "death by 1,000 cuts" style. That said, people really need to think with their head, not act on their hearts. So to speak. Using your head, you might look at the claim that "mass shootings is on the rise." Really? NO. http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common
I've seen the right using a ton of rhetoric, I know what it is and how it's used. You'll have extreme viewpoints on either side. I can't convince you that your "death by 1,000 cuts" theory is wrong, but I'm convinced it is. Uh, Denny, I was just quoting the link you gave... You know, the one you referenced multiple times in defending your argument? Should I discount the entire thing now? Which links that you post should I believe?
The marketwatch blog I linked to does not state mass shootings are on the rise. You said it, but you're not alone in using that rhetoric. The first link disputes whether taking away millions of peoples' assault rifles because a couple of people have abused them lately is a good idea. The second link disputes whether there is an actual increase in the rate of mass shootings. Look at post #36 in this thread.
It says "seem to." They seem to because a very small number of (terrible) incidents get a lot of press. So far, I'm seeing the expert criminologists saying that there is no increase. The opposite is true to a degree - since the previous assault weapon ban expired, all types of violent crime has basically been reduced by a full one half. Here's another story that cites USA Today's own study and a 2nd criminologist: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/18/mass-killings-common/1778303/ Without more complete records, it is impossible to know whether mass killings increased over those years — though they have become less common since the mid-1990s, according to Grant Duwe, director of research at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, who has studied mass murders. (USA Today can't prove there's any increase, Duwe says there's a decrease) But for all the attention they receive, mass killings still accounted for only a tiny fraction — about 1% — of all the Americans who were murdered over those five years. During those five years, more died from migraines and falling out of chairs than were murdered by mass killers, according to death records kept by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Three times as many people perished from sunstroke. (Ban migraines!)
It's interesting that the link seems to treat the words 'homicide' and 'murder' as the same thing. I think the data is based on homicides. Homicides include where good guys kill bad guys. Much more importantly, and probably accounting for over half of gun homicides, is suicide. Those deaths should be parsed out of any 'murder' statistics, as there are plenty of ways to do that without a gun. Go Blazers
The article links to the FBI report here: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 It's definitely Murder Victims they're counting, even though they title the page "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8" 12,664 total by weapon, 8,583 by any kind of firearm, 323 from Rifles 1,694 by knives or cutting instruments 728 by Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) 496 by blunt instrument
Another interesting tidbit from the USA Today article: A third of mass killings didn't involve guns at all. In 15 incidents, the victims died in a fire. In 20 others, the killer used a knife or a blunt object. When guns were involved, killers were far more likely to use handguns than any other type of weapon.
