"The gun industry's most overlooked marketing demographic isn't Americans who want to protect themselves, it's Americans who want to kill themselves. In America, guns aren't really about self defense, they're about self-destruction, and that makes you the planet's most obscenely profitable assisted suicide program. Congratulations!"
https://youtu.be/AmWAFz7LjKs
"A gun is the only cause of death that has civil rights or immunity from law suits or congretional gag orders."
"Every school shooting is like free ad for your merchandise."
"You can't yell fire in a theater, just open fire in one."
First started to laugh but then...I shut up. It's really good.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 11, 2016, 05:40:04 PM
"The gun industry's most overlooked marketing demographic isn't Americans who want to protect themselves, it's Americans who want to kill themselves. In America, guns aren't really about self defense, they're about self-destruction
About half of your suicides are done with guns, when people whinge about firearm suicides it tells me they don't give a fuck about those who use any other method to kill themselves it also shows they have irrational fear of guns.
Some of these hypocrites are also in favour of assisted suicide , as long as you don't use a gun they prefer drugs pushed by the powerful pharmaceutical lobby.
In Australia the gun grabbers cherry pick firearm suicide reductions as a great result of our gun laws, it did nothing to reduce suicides which increased after our gun laws all it has done is change the most common method which is now hanging.
When the gun grabbers point to Australia for reduction in firearm suicides it shows they don't give a fuck about those who use any other method and they feel they have achieved something.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12882416
I met Phil Bolger even sailed on some boats he designed, he used a Colt 45 pistol to end his life, not a single person who knew Phil is upset with his decision and I think it's despicable how gun grabbers use suicides like his to push their gun grabbing.
Many think Phil was lucky to leave on his own terms.
www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/reports/bolger/index.htm
Quote from: baronvonrort on July 12, 2016, 06:26:07 AM
About half of your suicides are done with guns, when people whinge about firearm suicides it tells me they don't give a fuck about those who use any other method to kill themselves it also shows they have irrational fear of guns.
Some of these hypocrites are also in favour of assisted suicide , as long as you don't use a gun they prefer drugs pushed by the powerful pharmaceutical lobby.
Honest question. Do you have some sort of a disorder like severe reading, dyslexia-comprehension problems?
It seems like you cannot distinguish some concepts or put them into the right contexts.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 12, 2016, 06:07:53 AM
"A gun is the only cause of death that has civil rights or immunity from law suits or congretional gag orders."
Should Ford-Toyota-GM-etc be liable for death/injuries caused by someone deliberately running someone down and killing them or even a drunk driver with a perfectly functioning car?
If the car was faulty which caused the accident then yes they should be liable.
Why should firearm manufacturers be held liable for their products that function flawlessly that are used illegally in committing a crime?
If the gun is faulty causing it to blow up in your hands then they should be sued
Why should Bushmaster be sued over Sandy Hook when the offender killed his mother and stole her guns before going on a rampage?
Quote from: baronvonrort on July 12, 2016, 07:28:02 AM
Should Ford-Toyota-GM-etc be liable for death/injuries caused by someone deliberately running someone down and killing them or even a drunk driver with a perfectly functioning car?
If the car was faulty which caused the accident then yes they should be liable.
The inevitable false equivalence, yet again. The primary purpose of a car isn't to kill people. Millions of people use cars every day without anyone dying for purposes other than violence.
Quote from: baronvonrort on July 12, 2016, 07:28:02 AM
Should Ford-Toyota-GM-etc be liable for death/injuries caused by someone deliberately running someone down and killing them or even a drunk driver with a perfectly functioning car?
If the car was faulty which caused the accident then yes they should be liable.
Why should firearm manufacturers be held liable for their products that function flawlessly that are used illegally in committing a crime?
If the gun is faulty causing it to blow up in your hands then they should be sued
Why should Bushmaster be sued over Sandy Hook when the offender killed his mother and stole her guns before going on a rampage?
Answer my previous post. You are doing the same thing here. What's the problem?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 12, 2016, 07:40:01 AM
The inevitable false equivalence, yet again. The primary purpose of a car isn't to kill people. Millions of people use cars every day without anyone dying for purposes other than violence.
It's not a false equivalence, why should a manufacturer be sued over a product that worked as it was designed to work, lawsuits are reasonable when the product fails to work as intended.
Was the M16 designed to kill or wound, when the US military started using it the theory was wounding could be better because it took 2 enemy to remove the screaming wounded person from the battlefield which took 3 out of the battle, if they killed them it would only take one out.
Give me 2 good reasons why Bushmaster should be sued over Lanza Killing his mother then stealing her guns to go on a rampage?
In Australia we have a loser pays the winners legal bills to discourage frivolous lawsuits, it also reduces lawsuits when you point out they will be liable for your legal bills if they don't settle before going to court.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 12, 2016, 07:55:15 AM
Answer my previous post. You are doing the same thing here. What's the problem?
What's your problem are you drunk again?
A gun is a substitute for a small penis.
Quote from: Atheon on July 12, 2016, 08:30:59 AM
A gun is a substitute for a small penis.
What about women who own guns do they have a small penis, would that make them a ladyboy like you?
Shooting is an Olympic sport, no killing done there since they stopped using pidgeons for targets around 100 years ago.
Does this woman think a gun is a substitute for your small penis?
www.twitter.com/teashy
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 12, 2016, 07:40:01 AM
The inevitable false equivalence, yet again. The primary purpose of a car isn't to kill people. Millions of people use cars every day without anyone dying for purposes other than violence.
The first gun I bought was a deer/elk rifle. I was living in Montana and surrounded by hunters. I would have guessed that the first purpose of guns was to hunt. Or so it seemed in a hunting community. Killing people didn't cross my mind. Although the NRAs primary argument is not killing people, but rather self defense, which is a much more justifiable reason for killing people.
I admit that self defense did cross my mind. If a thug broke down my door, and if I knew he was coming, I could get my rifle out of the closet, and shoot the son of a bitch, although this was not the first thing on my mind as a gun owner. It was more like reason number 104 on my prioritized list. I needed a rifle to hunt, and self defense was a weak, "Well, so there's that too," kind of reason.
After living 45 years in Montana, the actual times I've needed a gun for self defense was exactly zero. Come to think of it, I can't think of a single one of my hunting friends that ever needed a gun for self defense, although some of them did own guns for that reason. But I did have a friend who had a daughter with a propensity to fall in love with assholes. She married one, and while she and her husband were sitting around the kitchen table getting drunk with her mother and father one evening, an argument irrupted. The son-in-law got pissed and announced that he was going to go home, get his gun, and come back to kill her father, and he left in his drunken snit.
So he comes back to his in-law's house with a gun, gets out of the car, but of course, his father-in-law, who was sober enough to comprehend that that is daughter's husband was going to come back and kill him, was standing there with his own gun, and the minute his son-in-law stepped out of the car, he shot him dead. Now he could have called the police, but shooting the guy outright was much less bother, and the son-in-law was just a jerk anyway. So it's all good. Right?
Still, I don't quite understand why self defense is a better argument for gun ownership than hunting wild game. But I will admit, it seems to get the most attention.
The problem with guns related to suicide are their availability and lethality. The vast majority of people I see who attempt suicide, and I see about five each day, attempt to overdose on various substances: pills, heroin, bleach, etc or they slice their wrists open or both. These things are available but not as lethal as the average person believes. Imagine if there was a suicide pill in your home that was ninety eight percent lethal. When feeling depressed, anxious and hopeless, when your girlfriend dumps you, you lose your job, you are diagnosed with cancer, instead of having to find a tall building, drive there, climb to the top and look down at the drop you can just impulsively pop that pill in your bedroom and it would be over. This is the problem with guns and suicide- they are available and lethal. Whether you like or dislike guns, this is how they relate to suicide.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 12, 2016, 09:36:16 AM
The problem with guns related to suicide are their availability and lethality. The vast majority of people I see who attempt suicide, and I see about five each day, attempt to overdose on various substances: pills, heroin, bleach, etc or they slice their wrists open or both. These things are available but not as lethal as the average person believes. Imagine if there was a suicide pill in your home that was ninety eight percent lethal. When feeling depressed, anxious and hopeless, when your girlfriend dumps you, you lose your job, you are diagnosed with cancer, instead of having to find a tall building, drive there, climb to the top and look down at the drop you can just impulsively pop that pill in your bedroom and it would be over. This is the problem with guns and suicide- they are available and lethal. Whether you like or dislike guns, this is how they relate to suicide.
Just curious, Do you know how many of this majority had access to a gun? or is this something you don't ask about. I mean pretty much everyone I know has access to a gun and I could borrow one at any time under the guise of " damn woodchuck needs to die..." scenario.
Quote from: baronvonrort on July 12, 2016, 08:24:12 AM
What's your problem are you drunk again?
I am not a drunk also not a shoe. It's a nick name. Do you have a problem with understanding what you read? Because it seems like you do. I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to understand you.
Quote from: chill98 on July 12, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
Just curious, Do you know how many of this majority had access to a gun? or is this something you don't ask about. I mean pretty much everyone I know has access to a gun and I could borrow one at any time under the guise of " damn woodchuck needs to die..." scenario.
I don't know the exact statistics for my area, although now that I think about it I could run a report from our medical records. I am required to ask every patient if they have access to firearms or other weapons. I would guess about twenty percent of the people I talk to have access to a firearm. NC statute 14-404 states no person may obtain a permit to purchase a handgun if he or she has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution, so some people I see cannot legally own a gun. I inform patients who need psychiatric hospitalization and are reluctant to voluntarily participate that if involuntary commitment is completed they will lose their right to own a firearm and their involuntary commitment will be a matter of public record. I don't see that many people use a gun to kill themselves because their dead, although I recently saw a patient who is paralyzed from the neck down from a failed suicide attempt by gunshot.
Quote from: chill98 on July 12, 2016, 09:52:24 AM
Just curious, Do you know how many of this majority had access to a gun? or is this something you don't ask about. I mean pretty much everyone I know has access to a gun and I could borrow one at any time under the guise of " damn woodchuck needs to die..." scenario.
According to the post you 'liked', you don't even know the difference between assisted suicide and someone commiting suicide. I am curious where will you go with this.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 12, 2016, 10:17:08 AM
I don't know the exact statistics for my area, although now that I think about it I could run a report from our medical records. I am required to ask every patient if they have access to firearms or other weapons. I would guess about twenty percent of the people I talk to have access to a firearm. NC statute 14-404 states no person may obtain a permit to purchase a handgun if he or she has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution, so some people I see cannot legally own a gun. I inform patients who need psychiatric hospitalization and are reluctant to voluntarily participate that if involuntary commitment is completed they will lose their right to own a firearm and their involuntary commitment will be a matter of public record. I don't see that many people use a gun to kill themselves because their dead, although I recently saw a patient who is paralyzed from the neck down from a failed suicide attempt by gunshot.
We know that suicide rate is way higher in males. It's also often said that that males mostly use guns to kill themselves. Do you think there is a connection there if we think males are more likley to own a gun than females?
May be a traditional approach, but I am curios, because I thought this could be.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 12, 2016, 10:17:08 AM
I don't know the exact statistics for my area, although now that I think about it I could run a report from our medical records. I am required to ask every patient if they have access to firearms or other weapons. I would guess about twenty percent of the people I talk to have access to a firearm. NC statute 14-404 states no person may obtain a permit to purchase a handgun if he or she has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution, so some people I see cannot legally own a gun. I inform patients who need psychiatric hospitalization and are reluctant to voluntarily participate that if involuntary commitment is completed they will lose their right to own a firearm and their involuntary commitment will be a matter of public record. I don't see that many people use a gun to kill themselves because their dead, although I recently saw a patient who is paralyzed from the neck down from a failed suicide attempt by gunshot.
Sorry, my question was about the people who had attempted suicide and if you knew how many of that particular group who chose a different method in their attempt also had access to a gun.
For me, if I go to see a doctor they always ask whether I have access to a gun and I lie and tell them No. I clarify by admitting I can borrow a gun if needed but none in the home. I see no reason to give this info on a visit for a cold.
Quote from: baronvonrort on July 12, 2016, 08:22:18 AM
It's not a false equivalence, why should a manufacturer be sued over a product that worked as it was designed to work, lawsuits are reasonable when the product fails to work as intended.
You didn't read my post, I see.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on July 12, 2016, 10:27:46 AM
We know that suicide rate is way higher in males. It's also often said that that males mostly use guns to kill themselves. Do you think there is a connection there if we think males are more likley to own a gun than females?
May be a traditional approach, but I am curios, because I thought this could be.
In 2015 a gallop poll reported 37% of males owned guns and 31% of women owned guns, compared to 2004 when 45% of men owned guns and 11% of women. If these statistic are accurate then then gender gap in gun ownership is closing. There is what some have called the "gender paradox of suicidal behavior" with women reporting suicidal ideation and non-fatal suicidal behavior more frequently but men completing suicide three to five times more frequently. In a lecture I recently attended the presenter addressed the gender paradox of suicide as "women talk and men do" and proposed that women communicating their feelings of depression and anxiety is a preventative factor in completing suicide. Men are more likely to use lethal means for suicide, including guns. Gender roles and societal expectations obviously play a role here. The presenter also discussed how suicides are becoming more common under age 25 and over age 55 and that whites and native Americans are twice as likely to commit suicide as blacks or Hispanics.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 12, 2016, 11:03:59 AM
In 2015 a gallop poll reported 37% of males owned guns and 31% of women owned guns, compared to 2004 when 45% of men owned guns and 11% of women. If these statistic are accurate then then gender gap in gun ownership is closing. There is what some have called the "gender paradox of suicidal behavior" with women reporting suicidal ideation and non-fatal suicidal behavior more frequently but men completing suicide three to five times more frequently. In a lecture I recently attended the presenter addressed the gender paradox of suicide as "women talk and men do" and proposed that women communicating their feelings of depression and anxiety is a preventative factor in completing suicide. Men are more likely to use lethal means for suicide, including guns. Gender roles and societal expectations obviously play a role here.
Thanks. This all makes sense. I bet this is related to a lot of mess males have to deal starting from when they are little boys 'you don't cry, you don't get cold, you don't get emotional...be a man' bullshit. We are mostly free to give emotional reactions, even cry in public if we really need the feel to. Though women are changing and new generation females are acting more stoic I guess. Showing emotion has become a 'no-no'. Same with people not touching each other anymore.
QuoteThe presenter also discussed how suicides are becoming more common under age 25 and over age 55 and that whites and native Americans are twice as likely to commit suicide as blacks or Hispanics.
I think I get the youngesters and the elders thing, but whites and native Americans bit is quite interesting. Because they are pretty different groups.
Not too many people commit suicide with a bolt action rifle. A bolt action rifle is primarily a hunting weapon. I've never seen a ban on bolt action rifles. An AR-15 or AK-47 is classified as an assault rifle. It is meant to kill humans. a weapon whose primary function is to kill humans in my opinion should be regulated as to who is allowed to buy them. There should be a process for vetting people that wish to buy said weapon and justification for their purchase.
Pistols- I grew up with them, I have some training (Federal Protective Service; I hired on as a firefighter but ended up packing a weapon) and I am comfortable with them. None of my family but my wife even knows I have them. (A .45 ACP and a .357 revolver) but pistols in untrained hands are just as likely to kill a bystander as a perpetrator. My personal belief is that anyone purchasing a pistol should be vetted and show training in the use of the weapon. I plan to get a concealed carry permit in the near future.
When I buy a weapon- I currently have 3 with one more being considered- my driver's license is submitted for any negative record I might have against it. A former coworker (now deceased) was a gun dealer. He was adamant he would never deliberately sell a weapon to anyone deemed a nut case. I suspect if you queried gun dealers most if not all would agree to that. You can sign a form that allows electronic processing of your history and wait 2 weeks for results. 2 weeks eliminated people wanting guns for immediate use and could identify unstable people with mental issues.
There is nothing against gun rights or 2nd amendment rights to qualify people who own weapons as to their psychological makeup or their intentions with owning a weapon or what kind. Simple common sense.
Quote from: stromboli on July 12, 2016, 12:31:59 PMThere is nothing against gun rights or 2nd amendment rights to qualify people who own weapons as to their psychological makeup or their intentions with owning a weapon or what kind. Simple common sense.
I agree. And I've seen this exact argument play out a Dunken Peasants episode with a conservative-leaning avid gun fan. He rejected any sort of psychological screening or training requirement as tantamount to gun-grabbing since some people would be rejected. He argues that any restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever violate the second amendment. His exact words: "registration leads to confiscation".
This is the sort of ideological divide we have in this country. I just don't see any sort of common ground to be had.
QuoteHe argues that any restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever violate the second amendment.
I guess "well-regulated" are two words too big for him.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 12, 2016, 11:57:53 PMI guess "well-regulated" are two words too big for him.
Conservatives tend to gloss over those words as well as ignore the intended goal of the amendment ("necessary to the security of a free State", presumably from a foreign aggressor, which was a plausible threat at the time). Though he did recognize the necessity of militias for overthrowing a tyrannical federal government, so he's got that going for him.
We have two deeply entrenched sides with differing values and visions for day-to-day life who literally can't even read the same sentence and get the same thing out of it. I don't see how we can possibly bridge that ideological chasm.
Question: "Well, we can't say we want to ban guns. Can we do that? We gotta, like, hide that."
A: "No, right. You got to say you want common sense gun legislation."
"You have to take that sort of moderate, we just wanna have common sense legislation so our children are safe. You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it."
- Mary Bayer, alternate Hillary Clinton delegate.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2016, 12:10:11 AM
Conservatives tend to gloss over those words as well as ignore the intended goal of the amendment ("necessary to the security of a free State", presumably from a foreign aggressor, which was a plausible threat at the time). Though he did recognize the necessity of militias for overthrowing a tyrannical federal government, so he's got that going for him.
They have to be cafeteria Constitutionalists or they have to ignore the Constitution.
Real men shoot this: :) Perfect for daily carry and/or pesky marmots!
http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20MM-RIFLE.htm
If you don't like guns; don't own 'em. Your call.
Kinda glad I spotted this thread; reminded me I needed to swap out the mags for my 10mm (I do that once per week to let one mag rest--prevents any chance of spring sack).
I'm not sure what the bid deal about suicide is. If they're tired of life and determined to do it............it's like any other life" decision--they'll do it. Whether I (or anyone else for that matter) thinks they're right is irrelevant--it's not our call to make (with in circumstances). If they're just bullshitters looking for attention it's unlikely they'll choose a gun anyway.
I've prevented five suicides (both in prison). One hanger (one of the bigger surprises in my life as I walked by his cell and saw him hanging). I yelled for help (one other CO on the floor--he had the radio); then reached between the cell door bars, grabbed the makeshift rope (twisted blanket) lifted up as much as I could (not much--no leverage), and cut the rope with my pocket knife.
One cutter; I ordered the CO (who was supposed to be watching the guy) to call for help; I had to wrestle the fucker down while he waving the razor blade around. Got blood all over my hands (his from previous attempt)--cost me a year of HIV prophylaxis).
Three times I talked my manic depressive ex out of shooting herself (and me). You can imagine the fondness of my recollection.
I assisted on a jumper; teen aged girl on bridge rail, two other guys trying to talk her down. As I walked by she pushed off. We all snatched and grabbed her, and pulled her back (she was a fightin'!). The local police came screamin' up right then, and we stuffed her into the back seat of the cruiser. Who ever the other two guys were; they jumped in on either side of her to control her and away they went!
I have two former friends who committed suicide; one with a gun the other with pills. I still miss both.
Hey! If any of you BIG PENISED anti gun whiners have some spare change; I'm accepting donations for an assault rifle!
My first choice: Just a pic (this one has already been sold) so you know what you're helping me with
http://www.impactguns.com/fn-fs2000-tactical-semi-auto-rifle-223-30-rd-green-3830000000-818513002899.aspx
Second choice:
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/bushmaster-acr-enhanced-semi-auto-rifle-223-rem-556-nato-165-hammer-forged-barrel-30-round-side-folding-stock-quad-rail-forend-magpul-buis-black-604206119933.do
Just send to Flanker's Firearms Fund. Thanks!
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2016, 12:10:11 AM
Conservatives tend to gloss over those words as well as ignore the intended goal of the amendment ("necessary to the security of a free State", presumably from a foreign aggressor, which was a plausible threat at the time). Though he did recognize the necessity of militias for overthrowing a tyrannical federal government, so he's got that going for him.
We have two deeply entrenched sides with differing values and visions for day-to-day life who literally can't even read the same sentence and get the same thing out of it. I don't see how we can possibly bridge that ideological chasm.
Thats because you are reading it wrong. Reflect on the 1st ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now the 2nd:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Militia's worked on behalf of the state, therefore needed regulation to ensure the constitutional rights were not violated by a subset of state rules. Police forces within state boundries could be considered an evolution of 'militia' as well as the national guard. ie they are working/volunteering for the state.
But to ensure the individual right the caveat of "the right of [we] the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is not any different from "Congress shall make no law .... or abridging the freedom of speech".
So while you 'gloss over' -the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed- to focus on "a well regulated militia" when you know full well the militia was a weapon of the state, a separate power from congress, look within to see why there is such a divide.
^ a good example what I've been talking about. All the emphasis on "the right to keep and bear arms" with little to no consideration of the rest of the sentence, specifically why it's important for people to have arms. This one even has the added hypocrisy of accusing someone else of glossing things over while glossing things over. Cringeworthy.
QuoteIf you don't like guns; don't own 'em. Your call.
Oh, that will protect me from getting shot. Thanks!
(Actually it statistically will... significantly... as well as protecting my family from being shot. But what's a few thousand upon thousands of dead people to, "Ooo it's cool I want it!")
Quote
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Chill, I think you missed the entire point of the sentence; the rights shall not be infringed so as to not hamper the
well regulated Militia from doing it's duty, protecting
the security of a free State.It is not saying that the average person should have a gun because they should have the right to a gun, it's saying the average person should have a gun because (at the time it was drafted) it was a smart idea; you needed the commoners armed to protect the government since it was too weak to maintain a sizable standing army.
However, like the idea that blacks were not fully human or the prohibition of alcohol, situations change. A militia is no longer part of our culture, and thus (as worded in the Constitution), the primary reason for having an armed populace no longer exists. It is an outdated loophole that served it's purpose and now needs to be retired because of how heavily it is exploited and misused to justify an untrained, unregulated population owning firearms.
Tell me, what good is a Glock or a Bushmaster going to do when the Russians or Chinese invade? The only reasonable application would be if we were to start training people in the use of anti-air and anti-tank weaponry and keeping them well regulated. If we want to take the second amendment seriously and for what it is, then forget fighting for your handguns and rifles... get out there and fight for your right to own the latest and greatest military hardware you can so you can do what the Founding Father's intended and protect the country from foreign threats. Or better yet, just join our standing army which replaced the militia system.
the Right of THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall NOT be infringed.
We the People.
Unabridged Freedom of Speech.
RIGHT of We the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be infringed.
I read it and its clear to me. I think its clear to you which is why you focus on the state militias:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
Clearly, militias were organised by the state to function for the state. This is separate from the caveat built into the constitution:
the Right of THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall NOT be infringed.
Quote from: chill98 on July 27, 2016, 02:14:06 PM
the Right of THE PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall NOT be infringed.
We the People.
Unabridged Freedom of Speech.
RIGHT of We the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall NOT be infringed.
Hence the problem. I'm reading the actual amendment in its entirety and you're reading only that. We're not on the same page.
I know literacy isn't exactly a conservative forte, but being able to read an entire sentence relating to gun ownership is a crucial component of debating government policy as it relates to gun ownership. Without even the pretense of understanding what you're talking about, you won't be taken seriously.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 27, 2016, 04:32:41 PM
Hence the problem. I'm reading the actual amendment in its entirety and you're reading only that. We're not on the same page.
I know literacy isn't exactly a conservative forte, but being able to read an entire sentence relating to gun ownership is a crucial component of debating government policy as it relates to gun ownership. Without even the pretense of understanding what you're talking about, you won't be taken seriously.
While I am sure you believe this of yourself, ie that you are reading the whole sentence, one only has to read what you wrote in post #29 with your emphasis on 'glossing over' well regulated militia to emphasize your point, you ignore the actual meaning.
As the constitution was being drawn up, the founders recognized each states right to have a regulated militia - to defend the state itself, but also recognized the potential for abuse by the state leading to " the Right of the People to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Enumerating both the states right to have a militia and the peoples right to Keep and Bear Arms. No american has to join a state approved militia to Keep and/or bear arms.
Its not me who is ignoring 1/2 of the 2nd amendment to propel a personal agenda.
While not a hunter myself...
http://gothunts.com/hunting-age-requirements/
If the intended reason to own guns freely no longer exists, then the right to own guns freely logically ceased as well.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 06:29:03 PM
If the intended reason to own guns freely no longer exists, then the right to own guns freely logically ceased as well.
That's only if you believe the 2nd amendment applied only to a state's right to defend itself and ignore "the right of the people to KEEP and bear arms SHALL not be infringed".
Logic is not applicable to your translation of the 2nd amendment. The only applicable part that can be discarded (well replaced) is Well regulated militia can be replaced with well regulated State/county/local police....
You didn't read the hunting link did you? Lots of people hunt. Nothing to do with militias.
*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have came to this thread.
QuoteThat's only if you believe the 2nd amendment applied only to a state's right to defend itself and ignore "the right of the people to KEEP and bear arms SHALL not be infringed".
Let's break the sentence down...
Quote"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
-"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the subject and independent clause of the sentence.
-"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the verb and dependent clause of the sentence.
The two are not separate statements but one over-arching statement. If the second amendment read as such,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shale not have it's right to bear arms infringed. Nor too shale the right of the American People to bear arms, (insert reason here), be infringed."
That is simple English and simple logic.
I don't really need to read the hunting link, given that I own hunting rifles and shotguns, and grew up in the country where we occasionally had to shoot animals. I am not against people owning bolt-action hunting rifles with proper permits and background checks. But the police/military grade weapons, your handguns, "civilian" assault rifle knock-offs, etc. have no place in anything but a well-regulated militias' hands... which as we don't have anymore, belong only with actual professionals.
And even then, I don't think my right to these guns are protected by the second amendment since it is not applicable to my situation. I am not a militiaman, so it is not protecting my right to own them and if the state wanted to come and take them... they have every right to, as far as I see it.
Cafeteria constitutionalists, gotta love 'em.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 07:11:16 PMLet's break the sentence down...
-"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the subject and independent clause of the sentence.
-"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the verb and dependent clause of the sentence.
The two are not separate statements but one over-arching statement.
Exactly. And of course, things have drastically changed since that was written. America's initially weak military position has greatly improved, militias are no longer necessary, and gun lethality is much, much higher. All of these changing circumstances naturally lead one to re-examine the amendment (or examine it for the first time, for many conservatives). This sort of adjustment has already happened in most other Western industrialized countries - countries that sought and found a good balance between gun rights and not having a national tragedy almost every month.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 07:11:16 PM
*sigh* I knew I shouldn't have came to this thread.
The two are not separate statements but one over-arching statement. If the second amendment read as such,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shale not have it's right to bear arms infringed. Nor too shale the right of the American People to bear arms, (insert reason here), be infringed."
That is simple English and simple logic.
"A well regulated Militia (police force nowadays) being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There is no requirement for an 'insert reason here'. And lookie! I didn't have to substitute nearly as many words as you! Occams razor.
I have no problem with the police force, working as an army for the state, being well regulated. If the framers meant "the right of the people (while being well regulated) to Keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, they would have wrote it that way.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 07:11:16 PMI don't really need to read the hunting link, given that I own hunting rifles and shotguns, and grew up in the country where we occasionally had to shoot animals.
Because it has nothing to do with a militia and only the individual's right to own a gun.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 07:11:16 PM
I am not against people owning bolt-action hunting rifles with proper permits and background checks. But the police/military grade weapons, your handguns, "civilian" assault rifle knock-offs, etc. have no place in anything but a well-regulated militias' hands... which as we don't have anymore, belong only with actual professionals.
Well that's your opinion. And I have absolutely no problem with you choosing not to own an AK-47.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 07:11:16 PM
And even then, I don't think my right to these guns are protected by the second amendment since it is not applicable to my situation. I am not a militiaman, so it is not protecting my right to own them and if the state wanted to come and take them... they have every right to, as far as I see it.
Well, thankfully, you see it wrong :)
I did Not Know you can get a shoot the guns package! Someday....
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/g2228/drive-a-tank-here/
You can't change how the English language works just because you disagree with it. You added new subjects to the sentence, the exact opposite of what Occams Razor would do.
Also, police and militia is not interchangeable.
Your entire argument is therefore irrelevant because it is based on the assumption the second amendment expands far beyond what it linguistically implies.
Legally the rights you enjoy for guns are granted through separate rulings by the supreme court that interpret the amendment as they want ( because believe it or not, the Constitution is not an infallible legal bible), but as the Founders wrote it it only protects the need for militia to have firearms, and as militia are obsolete so too is that law. And again, militia and police are two separate entities... but even saying police are the continuation, you do realise they are issued guns and are well regulated and trained, right? If anything you are only furthering the argument that the unregulated, untrained should not have free access since it's the militia ( police ) it protects.
Quote from: chill98 on July 27, 2016, 12:41:22 PM
Reflect on the 1st ammendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I'm sure you know that one cannot freely, legally, or constitutionally shout fire in a crowed theater. And so the constitution may say that congress cannot pass laws that abridge that right--but it did. And one cannot libel or slander, either. More abridging.
In fact, the constitution has been changed many, many times. And the constitution even included a method in which it could and should be changed. The founders realized that change would come and they also thought, therefore, a system should be in place for that to happen. So, we have the amendments. If the constitution did not have ability to be amended, then only white, landed men would still be running the country and the slaves would still be slaves.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 09:52:34 PM
You can't change how the English language works just because you disagree with it. You added new subjects to the sentence, the exact opposite of what Occams Razor would do.
You're funny!
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 09:52:34 PM
Also, police and militia is not interchangeable.
It sure can be and was just fine in my example.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 09:52:34 PM
Your entire argument is therefore irrelevant because it is based on the assumption the second amendment expands far beyond what it linguistically implies.
Legally the rights you enjoy for guns are granted through separate rulings by the supreme court that interpret the amendment as they want
Again, thats your interpretation of the 2nd. Its not mine and the reality is, its your argument that is irrelevant as demonstrated by separate rulings by SCotUS.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 09:52:34 PMIf anything you are only furthering the argument that the unregulated, untrained should not have free access since it's the militia ( police ) it protects.
Only when the 'militia' is doing the states business! If Bubba is gonna be riding shotgun because the ETs have just taken over the football stadium, yeah, I want him to follow the same rules the cops have to, until they take back the stadium. Once Bubba is headed back to the homestead, it ain't none of the states business. It is still illegal for Bubba to shoot at the roadsigns on the way home regardless of what caliber bullet his gun barrel is designed for, just like its still illegal for him to be over-celebratory on the victory for the team. ie his BAC better be below 0.08... until he gets home that is...
And finally, because you don't feel the need to read the hunting link, there are wide variations on the rules regarding kids and hunting with guns. Again, not militia related but individual right to keep and bear arms outside of doing the states business.
There are clearly two issues addressed in #2. The state right and the individual right.
Just like the 1st deals with multiple issues. Religion, speech/press, assembly and petition government.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 27, 2016, 11:24:39 PM
I'm sure you know that one cannot freely, legally, or constitutionally shout fire in a crowed theater. And so the constitution may say that congress cannot pass laws that abridge that right--but it did. And one cannot libel or slander, either. More abridging.
Depends on the context doesn't it? I mean an actor on stage in that crowded theater can most certainly shout "Fire" during his performance. And the bar for libel/slander has been set kinda high, much to the dismay of many public figures, yet to the relief of many cartoonists/actors/commentators etc.
And iirc it's always been illegal to go into a theater and discharge a weapon, again regardless of what caliber bullet used so your point is moot at best.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 27, 2016, 11:24:39 PM
In fact, the constitution has been changed many, many times. And the constitution even included a method in which it could and should be changed. The founders realized that change would come and they also thought, therefore, a system should be in place for that to happen. So, we have the amendments. If the constitution did not have ability to be amended, then only white, landed men would still be running the country and the slaves would still be slaves.
But it ain't been changed regarding the 2nd has it? Rather some of those added amendments have insured the 2nd does apply to the individual.
QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is nothing there that either curtails or allows use of any type of weapon.
Read the Wikipedia article. Be informed on the reasons for it. Doubt it will change anyone's mind, but at least you will understand it better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Quote from: chill98 on July 28, 2016, 10:05:18 AM
You're funny!
It sure can be and was just fine in my example.
Again, thats your interpretation of the 2nd. Its not mine and the reality is, its your argument that is irrelevant as demonstrated by separate rulings by SCotUS.
Only when the 'militia' is doing the states business! If Bubba is gonna be riding shotgun because the ETs have just taken over the football stadium, yeah, I want him to follow the same rules the cops have to, until they take back the stadium. Once Bubba is headed back to the homestead, it ain't none of the states business. It is still illegal for Bubba to shoot at the roadsigns on the way home regardless of what caliber bullet his gun barrel is designed for, just like its still illegal for him to be over-celebratory on the victory for the team. ie his BAC better be below 0.08... until he gets home that is...
And finally, because you don't feel the need to read the hunting link, there are wide variations on the rules regarding kids and hunting with guns. Again, not militia related but individual right to keep and bear arms outside of doing the states business.
There are clearly two issues addressed in #2. The state right and the individual right.
Just like the 1st deals with multiple issues. Religion, speech/press, assembly and petition government.
No point arguing with someone who thinks the English language can be subjectively changed to have definitions mean things they don't and that syntax is "funny"...
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 06:29:03 PM
If the intended reason to own guns freely no longer exists, then the right to own guns freely logically ceased as well.
So there has to be a reason to own something? That's ridiculous.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on July 12, 2016, 09:36:16 AM
The problem with guns related to suicide are their availability and lethality. The vast majority of people I see who attempt suicide, and I see about five each day, attempt to overdose on various substances: pills, heroin, bleach, etc or they slice their wrists open or both. These things are available but not as lethal as the average person believes. Imagine if there was a suicide pill in your home that was ninety eight percent lethal. When feeling depressed, anxious and hopeless, when your girlfriend dumps you, you lose your job, you are diagnosed with cancer, instead of having to find a tall building, drive there, climb to the top and look down at the drop you can just impulsively pop that pill in your bedroom and it would be over. This is the problem with guns and suicide- they are available and lethal. Whether you like or dislike guns, this is how they relate to suicide.
Suppose there is such a suicide pill. Why is it your place, or that of anyone else, to say a person can't have it? Autonomy and personal responsibility are principles that I value and I won't advocate depriving others of them. I strongly disapprove of suicide for almost any reason, but I can understand why some choose that route. There is a distinction between doing your best to convince someone to not kill themselves and forcing them not too. Where do we draw the line? If a person suffering chronic incurable pain from cancer wants to commit suicide, should you force them not to, or make them choose a slower, less sure method of accomplishing it? What if it's chronic depression, or grief from a loss of a loved one? It's my strong opinion that we should do our best to convince a suicidal person to choose life, but not to deprive them of the choice.
Quote from: Jack89 on July 28, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
So there has to be a reason to own something? That's ridiculous.
When something is a tool used to end the live of other human beings (and that's what handguns are for), then yes I think having a valid reason for owning one is necessary.
Guns aren't a book, or a piece of candy, or some other inconsequential item. They are a tool, and like so many other tools you need to prove you have a need and the responsibility to own one. You have to have a license and be proven competent to use certain tools, and I don't see why one intended to harm other living beings should somehow be exempt. You can call that rediculous all you want, but that is simple common sense.
And all that aside, my remark was that the Second Amendment shows that the need for one is no longer existent and so they right to own a gun is not protected by the Second Amendment but rather separate Supreme Court rulings and/or lack of laws. If people want to argue that the SC and lack of laws prove that everyone should have the right to a gun, that is perfectly fine and fits the reality of the world we live in, but arguing that the SA protects that right is, at least linguistically, wrong.
Quote from: Shiranu on July 27, 2016, 06:29:03 PM
If the intended reason to own guns freely no longer exists, then the right to own guns freely logically ceased as well.
Intended reason? SCOTUS decision below.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, is a dependent clause.The entire argument depends on whether you see it as a simple lead in statement or a qualifier to the second part:
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Hence the mishmash and why there have been SCOTUS attempts at defining it further. NRA et al claims it to be a lead in statement, gun opponents that it is an important qualifier.
QuoteIn Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15]
Hate to tell you this, but even if you are right morally, the SCOTUS decision justifies the ownership of firearms. I don't agree with the absolute right to own firearms. There should be conditions and qualifications to ownership.
States have the right to implement controls so far as they deem it within the bounds of the amendment, but there again you have conflict. I would personally like to see, at the state level, qualifiers for gun ownership such as background checks and providing courses- at the buyer's expense- for handling firearms, especially handguns. More accidental deaths occur with handguns than any other. In Utah you have to clear a background check concerning your police record and driving record. You can only buy a firearm without a background check if you have a concealed carry permit, which requires an initial background check. And you have to demonstrate competency with the weapon as well.
Bear in mind that millions of people own many millions of firearms. If mere ownership constituted imminent danger, there would be dead people all over the place. It doesn't. And yet gun crimes are most often done with illegal weapons, and the victims themselves are often criminals
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/
Quote71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
64% had been convicted of a crime.
Each had an average of 11 prior arrests. 1, 2
63% of victims had criminal histories and 73% of that group knew their assailant (twice as often as victims without criminal histories). 3
74% of homicides during the commission of a felony involve guns. 4
Most gun violence is between criminals. This should be the public policy focus.
Versus mass shootings which have been done with legally purchased weapons. So if you institute regulations that scrutinize purchasers of firearms, you can in theory control the use of them for mass shootings.
Gun crime apart from inner city environments is vanishingly small by comparison. Chicago is a shooting gallery. Rural Illinois isn't. Based on number of weapons alone, the number of total deaths is actually miniscule- less than 1% of total owned guns and owners.
Quote from: Jack89 on July 28, 2016, 01:18:23 PM
Suppose there is such a suicide pill. Why is it your place, or that of anyone else, to say a person can't have it? Autonomy and personal responsibility are principles that I value and I won't advocate depriving others of them. I strongly disapprove of suicide for almost any reason, but I can understand why some choose that route. There is a distinction between doing your best to convince someone to not kill themselves and forcing them not too. Where do we draw the line? If a person suffering chronic incurable pain from cancer wants to commit suicide, should you force them not to, or make them choose a slower, less sure method of accomplishing it? What if it's chronic depression, or grief from a loss of a loved one? It's my strong opinion that we should do our best to convince a suicidal person to choose life, but not to deprive them of the choice.
I didn't argue it was my place, or the place of anyone else, to say a person can't have access to lethal means. I used the example of a suicide pill to explain the consequences of having lethal means, such as a gun, readily available to explain known factors for completed suicides; access to lethal means is a major factor in completed suicides. Whether suicide or euthanasia is acceptable is a different topic.
The problem with the Cafeteria Constitutionalists is that if the 2A is legally changed they'll ignore the new amendment and then they're prediction will come true, "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." It just won't be the outlaws they were talking about, it will be them.
I find it ludicrous that people hug the Constitution solely because it currently supports them.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 28, 2016, 03:45:44 PM
The problem with the Cafeteria Constitutionalists is that if the 2A is legally changed they'll ignore the new amendment and then they're prediction will come true, "If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." It just won't be the outlaws they were talking about, it will be them.
I find it ludicrous that people hug the Constitution solely because it currently supports them.
Constitutional interpretations. wonder how many lawyers that phrase employs.
Quote from: stromboli on July 28, 2016, 05:14:59 PM
Constitutional interpretations. wonder how many lawyers that phrase employs.
Lies, damn lies, and attorneys.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 29, 2016, 09:51:34 AM
Lies, damn lies, and attorneys.
You should get between doctors and lawyers. its a trade off. Have experience in that area.
Quote from: stromboli on July 29, 2016, 09:58:30 AM
You should get between doctors and lawyers. its a trade off. Have experience in that area.
Happily, I use the VA for medical care, no attorneys around.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 29, 2016, 10:16:12 AM
Happily, I use the VA for medical care, no attorneys around.
I've never had anything to do with the VA other than GI Bill for education, but my son went the rounds with them for 3 years. I had to loan him $1,000 to stay afloat because they were "too busy" to see him at the local hospital and were months late on reimbursing for costs. That when he was between jobs and a daughter with severe health issues. Nice people.
Quote from: stromboli on July 29, 2016, 10:26:24 AM
I've never had anything to do with the VA other than GI Bill for education, but my son went the rounds with them for 3 years. I had to loan him $1,000 to stay afloat because they were "too busy" to see him at the local hospital and were months late on reimbursing for costs. That when he was between jobs and a daughter with severe health issues. Nice people.
Like everything else, it varies from place to place. I love the VA here in St. Loser. Indy, not so much.