A law-abiding responsible gun owner strikes again.

Post Reply New Topic

According to NPR and the institute for health metrics and evaluation The US has 5 times the number of gun deaths as compared to the next highest country Portugal.

Npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/12/07/458815891/the-u-s-is-a-world-leader-in-gun-deaths

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW_noXjj6w8

Funny poke in the eye but shows actual Quotes like from the Federalist papers.

MORE CONTEXT
http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2 ... skets-only


The answer is no. Not then. Not now.

That's because they have so many firearms. If someone has access to firearms, they'll use them. If they don't, they'll use other means (method substitution).

Murder rate is what you want to look at.

US is around 5 or so per 100,000 IIRC
UK around 1-2
Mexico is about 15
Japan is under 1
Switzerland is 1
and so

If you look at say, Switzerland, they have a murder rate close to [or less than] many of the Western countries with strict firearm laws, but they themselves have high firearms ownership.

Generally, you need to look elsewhere to find why a specific country has more or less murders than another.

The Federalist papers are not law, they are political propaganda meant to convince the people of the nation into supporting the Constitution. The fact that Thomas Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every 20 years holds no bearing, if it was that important and accepted it would have written into the law. The fact that it is not in the Constitution merely shows it didn't have support beyond Thomas Jefferson. Also of note, of all the people quoted in the video, only Alexander Hamilton signed the Constitution. The others were not involved in any way, the vast majority of the document was written by James Madison before it went to working groups to edit, as far as I know Madison never discussed the 2nd amendment outside of writing the initial clause. Here'ssome notes to the working group on the 2nd amendment of the Bill of Rights-- it's pretty clear when all the working group talked about was national defense and the ability to raise an army what the 2nd amendment was intended for.

Just because I know a lot of people won't click a link here's some quotes from the actual Framers of the Constitution, not the politicians that made a name before or after it was written (bold highlights are my own):

The original draft by Madison



The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789:






So, the actual guys that wrote the Constitution, when they were writing it, never once did they talk about personal liberty on this issue, it was solely for defense of the nation through militia. One can reinterpret history any way they want, but the congressional notes are still out there. All that said, the opinion of people from that past has no bearing, the actual words themselves do-- that's how the law works in this country, it's based on the written law, not the opinion of the people that wrote the laws.

Well said, Aristophanes.

Seems like there's more to the story than we are hearing. They should have just divorced and let their children leave in peace.

Yes...well spoken.

However there seems very little of substance. We could trade quotes back-and-forth all day...like this one I just found (amongst many similar):

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison [This quote from GoodRead]

So it seems clear what we have: A group of people in the 1700s felt gun ownership was an individual right, and said so clearly.
And there was another group that may have felt armed men belonged in the militia? Right? But it appears none of the people in the second group actually come out and say (anywhere I've been online) that gun ownership should NOT be an individual right of each citizen. If you find something that you believe differs please let us know.

But in the meantime...as I've been saying...you're beating a very dead horse. I'd suggest you not hold your breath if you're waiting for "Heller" to be overturned...even if the witch gets in.

Little substance? Those are the views that were actually discussed by the writers of the Constitution WHILE they were writing it. That's the only substance there is since we're talking the viewpoint of the framers. Who cares what Washington, Jefferson, Mason, or Abe Lincoln for that matter thought about it-- none of them wrote it nor signed it.

As for Keller, public opinion is for gun regulation by about 15 points right now, even people on the right see the need to limit access since it's too easy for terrorists, nut-jobs, and psychos to gain access to deadly weapons. Furthermore, the court has already shifted to the left, in the 4-4 court we currently have, your side is losing Roberts-- he's slowly shifting left year by year because he's not a jurist he's merely a pollster looking at public opinion on his rulings. Furthermore, the Dems stand a really good shot at winning the election and putting in the deciding vote in any major case. That's the problem with having the court decide in your favor, it could just up and go the complete opposite direction next session-- like they did with Keller in the first place.

That's why I say, this should be brought up before the American people in the form of an amendment to clarify it one way or the other. Let the people vote on it and see where it falls.

Edit: as for an individual not being allowed to own a firearm, no one is claiming that. I'm for gun-control to keep deadly weapons out the hands of people that shouldn't have them, not banning-- and the only people ever claiming a full on ban are from your side, not mine. I'm claiming that original intent of the amendment had nothing to do with personal rights, the intent was militia, and I've supported that with a whole ream of evidence if you care to read the link. The personal right to a weapon was never discussed, a military for the new nation, however, was. I will give your side credit however, they've played a magnificent rhetorical game in attempting to rewrite history.

It's not so much they are fallible as they are just plain a corrupt right-wing court, put there by the oligarchy to repress the constitutional rights of American citizens, with their dumb biased court rulings. In the last 40 years the court has rendered the fourth and fifth amendments useless with their bizarre right-wing ideology rulings. The only reason they let us keep the First Amendment, is because of the religious part. Because we all know that the only two important rights are guns and god.

Anyway I agree. The important thing is the constitution, and what the founding fathers intended it to say, not the spin put on it by the corrupt modern SCOTUS.

They don't really care what the intent was, they just want to pervert it for their own agenda.

Anyway here is a bit of the history of it. The Second and Third Amendments were derived from The Constitution of Virginia SEC. 13. ratified June 29, 1776, which said:



The Militia became The National Guard with the Militia Act of 1903.

So in modern terms, A well regulated National Guard (the "well-regulated militia"), being necessary to the security and defense of The United States, the rights of National Guardsmen (the people of the militia) to keep and bear their arms shall not be infringed.

Again this is what the perpetrator of this awful crime posted before she carried out the crime.



This is the same BS propaganda repeated every day by gun rights advocates. When you hear people say this BS, ask yourself why this person feels they need a gun to protect their family? Despite the fact that we are living in one of the most violent crime ridden countries in the world, the majority of Americans still don't feel the necessity to have a gun in their home. Why do you think that is? Probably because they are smart enough to do some research and understand that if they have a gun, they are statistically 43 times more likely to shoot one of their family members, then an intruder. Which is exactly what happened in this case.

Gun ownership has nothing to do with self-defence, it has to do with having the biggest weapons possible, incase you need to settle a score.

Ain't this nice, another tragedy trivialised and exploited in order to restart the good old pissing contest "My politics and morals are better than yours"

Back on topic: are further details available yet? I mean, a "family argument" settled by a woman killing both her children in front of her husband? On his birthday? Did she have a history of violence or mental illness or something? WTF happened in there?!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... outh-caro/

responsible law-abiding gun owner and concealed carrier stopped a potential massacre at a nighclub in South Carolina on Sunday

not that you would of heard

I see they claim she let the husband live in order to "punish" him. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-shooting-idUSKCN0ZF1TQ , and

This is definitely one of the most revolting stories I've read in a while.

25.5 is larger then 20.9 same with 54.8
The assault rifle ban was in 1994, afterwards a large drop occured then some variations as happens with any statistical events. And then when it expired in 2004 there was a large increase in mass shooting deaths.
The test of the assault rifle ban is on mass shootings, the kinds of shootings they are used for.

Assault Weapons
“Assault weapon” is an invented term. In the firearm lexicon, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” 1 The closest relative is the “assault rifle,” which is a machine gun or “select fire” rifle that shoots rifle cartridges. 2 In most cases, “assault weapons” are functionally identical though less powerful than hunting rifles, but they are cosmetically similar to military guns.

Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.

Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3

Fact: In the first 7 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%. 4

Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5

Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6

Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:

For California:

Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
“I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7
For the rest of the nation:

Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9
Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10

Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11

Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12

Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes.” 13

More facts such as these can be found at: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-my ... t-weapons/

Something the anti-gun folks always (ALWAYS) forget is it's the person doing the crime that is at fault.

Maybe they feel unsure of their own reliability with guns, and they use this to judge the reliability/trustworthiness of everyone else?