Wow. My comment was to the fact that as a species, we are dangerous. I am not and have not been "indoctrinated by the NRA". Your assumptions seem to fall into a very narrow slot in your box of possible ideologies. Sorry, bud. I was born in Mississippi and voted as a Democrat for most of my life. I've also been around and related to police and military people for most of my life. I've hunted since I was eight years old, and I never shot anyone. I am also a bit more complicated than you seem to have decided, so you can piss off, too.
Okay, fair enough. The way you posted it made it seem as though you were saying that you, personally, were dangerous because you know how to use a firearm. Actually, my assumptions were based primarily on your previous posts in this thread. Kudos for you, I guess (this is akin to the "I have a black friend so I can't be racist" argument, and is just as terrible an argument to boot) Ultimately, people aren't that complicated... for example, I already knew you wouldn't offer any sort of in depth explanation, based on past examples. Again, it seems you are more interested in being pissed off than you are about solving an obvious problem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ute-right-to-own-guns/?utm_term=.e98535c25ad8 and and Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Then we have: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../second_amendment_allows_for_gun_control.html Let me reiterate - Justic Scalia said, verbatim, “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
Further: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.70d278fa75ec By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014 John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.” Let that sink in... Now, how often do you think the average gun owner trains and participates in actions with the local militia?
How are we going to solve what is an inobvious "problem"? What is the problem? Guns or crazies? Seems to me that there are more crazies than there are gun owners, but you know about the media...
Great example. And as a result, we have airbags, drunk driving laws, emergency braking systems, crashworthiness requirements, requirements for brakes, brake lights and horns, requirements for training before someone can drive, registration and insurance requirements, and an organization (the NTSB) dedicated to analyzing accidents and determining how to fix the system to prevent them in the future. And as a result traffic fatalities per mile have been going down for decades. We should do the same with guns. Common sense.
Crazies with guns. Crazies with cats and/or shopping carts aren't the problem, nor are responsible gun owners.
The problem is with the gun crazy desperate American Confederates and their Republican Party enablers. They are blocking both the needed new laws and the needed better enforcement. You might as well claim that slavery was illegal in the US in 1845, because the Constitution explicitly stated all men have certain basic rights. It's not just some "people" who do this believing and perceiving: it's the police and judges and juries and appelate courts and legislatures. Argue with them, not with the people who observe the facts and report them to you. Your interpretation of the law and what it "explicitly" states has been noted before. It's stupid, and wrong, and the facts put in front of you disprove it. Why do you insist on repeating erroneous stupidity in the face of verifiable fact? Why do you think you have a point? Why do you think people are purposefully picking on you? You post deluded bs, and your delusions trigger disproportionate anger without anything approaching reasonable cause - that kind of baseless, flailing, frustrated, unreasonable and delusion-motivated losing of one's shit is a symptom. It's not sanity. You are getting very angry, for no reason, and at the wrong people entirely. Why? Too late - the usual crowd has already started throwing impassioned and intemperate garbage about the "cockroaches" in "the media", and using the Constitution for chaff while refusing to consider basic issues.
That is of course exactly the threat to civil liberty, Constitutional rights, and ordinary freedom that the gun regulation supporters insist they are not making. So have gun homicides per capita, without all of that. And gun homicides per weapon are way down, in the US.
Several of them - including the guy usually named as the "first" of this modern phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman - had medical issues involving their brains. Others have had a history of serious abuse and/or trauma. And there is always maternal and developmental lead exposure - many US mass shooters are still from high-exposure generations. The US is unique in its combination of high tech weaponry all over the place and grudging, inadequate medical care. It might also be an outlier in its combination of head injury prevalence and access to such weaponry, btw - I can't find any good stats on that, but cars and violent sports and other such sources of brain trauma are ordinary aspects of childhood and adolescence in the US, and apparently less so elsewhere. At least among those wealthy enough to have easy access to firearms. The killer looking for notoriety can gain it far more easily from celebrity murder, after all - and live to enjoy it.
pot meet kettle the exact same could be said about yall above, eh? regardless of the idiocy of the psychopath that is the cause of the problem, yall advocate call for irrational ineffective measures that contradict or screw up the legal system creating loopholes for shyster lawyers to exploit ending in yet more laws that aren't actually enforced because your emotional state doesn't allow you to think logically therein lies the problem with creating yet more laws or banning guns because idiots use them for nefarious purposes none of you advocate banning cars because of the drunk driving epidemics... none of you advocate banning lighters because of the arsonists... not one of you ever advocated for licensing chisels, hammers, screwdrivers or other tools still very often used in homicide... it's easier to say i'm a "terrible human being, and you should be ashamed of yourself" rather than admit to yourself that your personal irrational beliefs fail on this point ahem... http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-punching-a-nazi-ok.158810/page-16#post-3437762 you do know i linked those for a reason, right? ah wait. echo chamber i forgot unfortunately for you it's written in black and white and it's not a matter of interpretation though i suspect you will still argue the point for the record: 1- it aint slander - http://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-does-libel-differ-from-slander/ 2- it also aint libel if it is proven ("publishing opinions or facts cannot be considered defamation" - http://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-does-libel-differ-from-slander/ ) you will choose to take it any way you wish, regardless of the facts and i asked you in the past, so i will ask you again: where is the evidence proving my "interpretation" wrong? so far, all you've done is support my argument not once have you presented evidence that proved your interpretation is "legal" ... only that current laws are not enforced period full stop we agree on the latter, but what "new law" would actually be effective? we already have existing laws that are effective should they actually be enforced ... making new ones gives rise to confusion, loopholes and shyster lawyers getting rich off of the tragedy of others
You appear to be misreading the Amendment - in particular, mistaking "regulation" for rules of behavior and mistaking "militia" for some kind of prior organization one "participates" in. "Well regulated" in this Amendment means appropriately armed (among other aspects) - as a well-regulated ship would have the appropriate ropes and sails on hand, or a factory crew would have the right tools and lighting. A sawed off shotgun is (was determined to be) not appropriate armament to bring if one's militia is called up (last I checked every adult man in my county was in the militia, by definition). OK. But an AK47 fully automatic? That might easily be determined to be ordinary militia weaponry these days - look around. By your argument, every adult man in my town has a Constitutional right to keep and bear a fully automatic assault rifle and all associated ammunition etc - in case he is called upon for militia service. I doubt you want to go down that road too rigorously.
So how is the NRA going to protect citizens from the crazies getting guns? After all isn't being a responsible organization (NRA) about being uhm..... responsible?
Don't be silly, of course I care. I just think that the anti-gun loonie soundbites are eclipsing critical thought. I do not think that focusing on being anti- constitution nor anti - nra bespeaks critical thought. I will continue to believe that most likely, it is the media that is conducting operant conditioning and desensitization which has more of an effect on weak and diseased minds. Just flick on the tv and channel surf, and you will see several bang bang shoot-'em-ups wherein, an extraordinary amount of ammunition is expended. Meanwhile, the news is giving this particular loonie his 15 minutes of fame. ........................... Re-reading Heller, it seems that the court opened the door for reconsideration of the machine gun/assault rifle ban. If memory serves?, it is still legal to own machine guns manufactured before 1986
