If you've ever been in a country where 8 year old kids carry assault weapons around, you'd understand Sly's point...gun control is a wide subject with a lot of fine lines to address...sort of like nuclear weapon control...we have nukes but that 8 year old kid can't have them..so..what's the argument here? Mentally ill folks also are not your normal everyday duck hunter...I don't get the point of avoiding these discussions whenever guns are involved in a tragedy..to me..that's the civil thing to do..look at the issue and address it. If you have issues with the politics of the area you live in, you may want to live elsewhere or lobby for change in your demographic.
Further, you are a smart guy, so why post like a dumb ass? Why talk to a person that uses the word restriction and fails to acknowledge they mean infringement? While I am sure your intentions are most noble when you speak of "certain medication", but no one knows what the hell that is. Same with your mental illness, disease or deficiencies.. Then we have the registration rant! What the hell right do you think you have to know jack about what weapons I have? Or anyone else for that matter? Then your competence training thing? Do I need to be competent in your eyes or mine? You propose to infringe on my God given right to the means of protecting myself and family without ever using the word "amendment"? Go fuck yourself or learn a reasonable understanding of the Constitution, the 2nd amendment and the reasons we thankfully have both.
I have three different ones right now. Of those, I think I like Tetley's the best. Then on second thought Tetley's is not really Earl Grey. Bigelow is.
That's fine but the fact is Marz...the constitution was designed to be amended and has been repeatedly, even still today. If you are truly a constitutionalist..you'll see amendments to freedom of speech, prohibition, and lots of changes throughout history. Whether you agree with them or not...until 1961 there were several states that required a religious test to run for political office. If you don't accept amendments, someone could scream insane things at you from the street 24 hours a day and be within their constitutional rights...the Supreme Court has reinstated amendments and gutted them throughout history..it's an ongoing process. Do you stop amendments in 1925, 1961 or 2010...all years when major amendments were reinstated or scrapped? Example...and I hope it's just taken as discussion, not angry debate 14th Amendment This is a good one. So, the Bill of Rights was created to protect us from the US federal government. This amendment extended our protection by establishing that the Bill of Rights applied to state governments as well. When slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment, this amendment had to be passed as well to force the states to free their slaves. Unfortunately, only five years later, the Supreme Court effectively gutted this amendment with its decision in the "Slaughter-House Cases". This decision is widely considered to be one of the worst rulings in the history of the court. Since the Supreme Court prefers to not outright rescind previous judgements, the Bill of Rights has had to be reincorporated one amendment at a time over the past 135+ years. The freedom of speech wasn't reincorporated until 1925, and the Fourth Amendment not until 1961. It's even still going on today as the right to keep and bear arms wasn't reincorporated until 2010.
These discussions never arise when ANY WEAPON OTHER THAN A GUN are used in violent crimes. The headline today says a man in India just murdered 14 members of his family with a knife. Drunk drivers murder far more Americans with cars than ANY gun-toters. 2/3 of all supposed "gun homicides" aren't even murders. They are suicides, mostly terminally-ill people, which in Oregon and several other states are perfectly legal medical procedures under our laws and are not violent crimes at all. The alcohol industry kills roughly half of all Americans, and has for over 40 years. Where's the complete ban on alcohol discussion that we should be having all day long, every day of the week? There is no Amendment protecting alcohol use from infringement. Why the fuck not unless it's that disarmament is the only goal rather than the pretense of people dying needlessly?
actually the length of a blade, crossbows and swords have all been discussed as well. It's not exclusive to guns..I couldn't legally own a crossbow when I was young in our state, although a bow was fine..and I really wanted a crossbow!
Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.
Yeah.....people abuse things like alchohol....what's probably even more staggering though would be loss of life through anger. We had prohibition and crime thrived...crooks got rich and powerful.
Wow! You can really go, but you are not really addressing anything I said. The amendment process is part of the Constitution. Again, ignoring it as well as the amendment process contained within is not a valid political position.
good line It's more a matter of this being an appropriate topic to have a discussion around. I know that I was on a stop-smoking medication a while back that had certain known side effects that included suicide ideation. I felt compelled to think about suicide all the time (although I was never really close to doing it) and a week after I went off the medication I never had those types of thoughts again. There are certain meds, for all sorts of maladies, that make people unstable. Many of the shootings turn out to be done by people on these meds. Perhaps one should have to postpone their rights to own or carry firearms as long as they are on these meds, or perhaps they should be required to see a therapist while on these meds. At minimum, the discussion should take place in a public forum, perhaps a congressional hearing, with experts being examined by congress. As far as mental deficiencies, that is a tougher one, the discussion could still take place, but I'm not sure how much we want to peer down that ally. Then we have the registration rant! What the hell right do you think you have to know jack about what weapons I have? Or anyone else for that matter? A test, like a driving test. A check of safety protocol and ability. They have these in some states, but perhaps it should be more universal. It's a bar that's set, not my level or your level, but s set standard which should be met.
Again, you want these things changed, or implemented, but I see not a word about following the process, the amendment process. Why do you think I or anyone else should allow you and Sly to limit, no infringe, on my natural and Constitution rights to arms, in any process other than the amendment process?
