1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

300,000,000+ guns floating around in our society

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by Bugsy McGurk, Jun 14, 2017.

  1. Dawg

    Dawg President Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Messages:
    88,420
    Likes Received:
    16,328
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    15,195
    Likes Received:
    1,801
    But what you desire is to pass one-size-fits-all federal laws controlling guns across the nation -- all alike for Gary, Ind., and Osawatomie, Kan., whether they are culturally similar or not. Which means your attempt at analysis fails aborning because it does not factor in those differences and merely studies the presence or absence of guns (or at the very least that is all it has studied in this discussion).

    Yes, you are asking me to experiment with my rights. You have done so before. I expect you will do so again in the future. My sincere hope is that my little nephews will have sons in 20 or so years, and that the grandchildren of those sons never experience that generation that will change the 2nd Amendment, or desire to experiment with it or the other rights protected by the Constitution.

    Yes, experiment with limiting our rights in some way -- I invite you to start doing so with a different right, say, abortion, privacy or free speech (wait, I forgot, college liberals no longer respect free speech -- so far they aren't calling to experiment with the First Amendment, at least).

    That official, who was quoted in more than one publication and who was charged with doing that study, stated his bias. That's not a matter of opinion. He didn't say, "We'll study this as rigorously as possible and make recommendations on the results." He said, "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.” He also said, "We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” These are not hallmark statements of someone who is approaching a subject with scientific rigor, but the statements of an activist who has, upfront, stated his own confirmation bias.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Arkady

    Arkady The Departed

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    50,819
    Likes Received:
    5,297
    No. I'm open to an argument that a particular variation makes sense, as between one location and another. But, my preference is for consistency when there isn't a case for differences. Ironically, this makes me an ally of the NRA when it comes to concealed carry -- I'd like gun licenses to be more like driver's licenses, in that there are basic minimum standards nation-wide, but then there's full faith and credit from one state to the next.

    Pretty much every government action does that. For example, one day I have the right to spray my fields with DDT, the next day I don't, and it's essentially an experiment to see if reducing DDT use will reverse the issues that were popping up in nature that were attributed to that chemical. Again, to be clear, I'm not calling for experimenting with Constitutional rights -- the Second Amendment isn't going to change. We're only talking about non-Constitutionally-protected gun rights.

    You are asserting that he's biased. That's obviously different from the CDC stating that they're biased.
     
  4. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    15,195
    Likes Received:
    1,801
    Well, start by getting states like New Jersey to respect the Firearms Owners Protection Act and work from there. While such abuses go on you're unlikely to find support for consistency from the gun owners like myself. If you want consistency, we had consistent laws that worked perfectly before 1968. Go to that model, and I'll vote with you every time.

    If only DDT were comparable to speech, religion, and the right to keep and bear arms. You're being obtuse.

    He made those statements in his official capacity with CDC and no one in CDC silenced or censured him -- only Congress did that by reducing the funding.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Bernard_Fokke

    Bernard_Fokke Captain Fokke

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    3,424
    Likes Received:
    1,337
    With that many guns in existence there should have been one at least shoved up your backside by now.
     
  6. Capitalist

    Capitalist Mayor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    1,294
    Did you miss how silly of a concept it is to talk about personal nukes?
     
  7. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    24,503
    Likes Received:
    4,176
    fake news child when will you learn?You said firearms are not mentioned in the constitution.
    Well child what is the second amendment for if it's not about firearms?
    WEAPONS IN COMMON USE THAT WOULD MAINTAIN AN EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE MILITIA THOSE ARE THE FIREARMS PROTECTED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
    So you understand now child?
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  8. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    24,503
    Likes Received:
    4,176
    Remembe don't mess with his self imposed expert status even though he has no exprinece over a year with a firearm.
     
  9. Emily

    Emily NSDAP Kanzler

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2015
    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    423
    Was that necessary?
    There's an intelligent conversation going on here.
    (And that facetious post of mine was way back at the beginning.)
    Please try to develop a sense of humor and a sense of propriety.
     
  10. Arkady

    Arkady The Departed

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    50,819
    Likes Received:
    5,297
    It's about "arms." What that means, for second-amendment purposes, it open to legal interpretation. We know what the founders were thinking of -- things like muzzle-loading black powder muskets. As for the arms that have come along since then (semi-automatic rifles, MOABs, nukes, anti-aircraft missiles, chemical arms, biological arms, etc.), it's a question of interpretation. Where, along that spectrum, do we draw the line?
     
  11. Capitalist

    Capitalist Mayor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    1,294
    Don't be dumb.

    The founders were also thinking of canons, Belton flintlocks, and puckel guns.



    And so if. . .IF consistency is important to you, we must include semi-auto rifles, automatic rifles, and artillery as being protected by the 2nd Amendment. THERE is your starting point. Not muskets.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2017
  12. Arkady

    Arkady The Departed

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    50,819
    Likes Received:
    5,297
    Try thinking. See where I wrote "things like." Very obviously I didn't mean to limit it only to muskets. Obviously there were many arms that the Founders would have been familiar with (sabers, halberds, and so on). But there were other arms they couldn't have been thinking of, since they didn't exist. And when it comes to those arms, we need to decide whether they constitute "arms" for Second Amemdnet purposes. Do the people have the individual right to bear nuclear arms, for example? Do the people have the right to bear semi-automatic pistols with 10-round magazines? Do they have the right to bear nerve-gas grenades? Do they have the right to bear computer programs build for cyber-warfare? These are issues that the Founders didn't have to address.
     
  13. Capitalist

    Capitalist Mayor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    6,539
    Likes Received:
    1,294
    They could THINK of assault weapons and machine guns because they already existed at the time! That's not up for debate. That's a fact. THAT is your starting point. Not muskets.

    Try thinking yourself. It might hurt but so does penicillin.
     
  14. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    24,503
    Likes Received:
    4,176
    Weapons in common use is what they were thinking about.
     
  15. Arkady

    Arkady The Departed

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    50,819
    Likes Received:
    5,297
    That's not what they said. There's no reference in the second amendment, nor in contemporaneous writings about it, to "common use." That's just a bit of NRA rhetoric that's built around the end goal of preserving gun company profits.
     
  16. Arkady

    Arkady The Departed

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    50,819
    Likes Received:
    5,297
    Modern-style assault weapons and machine guns didn't exist at the time. Yes, there were incredibly primitive precursors to rapid-fire weapons at the time. But, that is like saying there were already bombs in 1789, and therefore nuclear arms --which are just bombs, after all-- are protected by the second amendment. Or that the founding fathers knew about the use of smoke to choke enemies, which is a form of chemical gas attack, and so private ownership of sarin gas warheads is protected by the Second Amendment. Or the founders knew about primitive efforts to spread disease in enemy camps (e.g., dumping bodies in wells, or catapaulting plague victims into besieged cities), and therefore they intended that we all have the right to own weaponized anthrax and smallpox.

    Use your brain, rather than relying on mindlessly regurgitated NRA talking points the way you do.
     
  17. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    24,503
    Likes Received:
    4,176
    Yes it is what they meant.
     
  18. Arkady

    Arkady The Departed

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    50,819
    Likes Received:
    5,297
    Then why didn't they say it?
     
  19. Constitutional Sheepdog

    Constitutional Sheepdog ][][][%er!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    24,503
    Likes Received:
    4,176
    Well son what type of weapon do you think they would want the militia member to supply themselves with to defend their rights and the country?
     
  20. Arkady

    Arkady The Departed

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2011
    Messages:
    50,819
    Likes Received:
    5,297
    The musket. That was the weapon of choice of the militia man in their time.
     

Share This Page