FBI: More People Killed by Hammers, Clubs than with Rifles of Any Kind
|
CowBoysFan
|
Posted 8:54 am, 08/14/2019
|
It's D.C. vs. H.E.L.L.E.R., auto block software.
|
|
CowBoysFan
|
Posted 8:49 am, 08/14/2019
|
I win again, and not just me but also millions of law abiding gun owners in the entire US.
District of Columbia v. ****er, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),[1] is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's Right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated.
|
|
hangsleft
|
Posted 8:05 am, 08/14/2019
|
The term "militia of the United States" was defined to comprehend "all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have . . . declared their intention to become citizens of the United States," between the ages of eighteen and forty-five. The act reorganized the National Guard, determined its size in proportion to the population of the several States, required that all enlistments be for "three years in service and three years in reserve," limited the appointment of officers to those who "shall have successfully passed such tests as to . . . physical, moral and professional fitness as the President shall prescribe," and authorized the President in certain emergencies to "draft into the military service of the United States to serve therein for the period of the war unless sooner discharged, any or all members of the National Guard and National Guard Reserve," who thereupon should "stand discharged from the militia."1791
https://law.justia.com/cons...auses.html
|
|
thegwliar
|
Posted 7:55 am, 08/14/2019
|
antithesis | Posted 10:40 pm, 08/13/2019 | I'll throw down the trump card, the US Constitution gives me the right to purchase, own and collect anything that is considered legal to posses including firearms. I win, Constitutional Rights beats leftists liberals everyday and twice on Sunday.
No it doesn't. Have you read the 2nd Amendment?
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. It clearly references a militia only, and states that it should be well regulated. The original laws restricted people that were mentally ill from owning firearms at all.
You may not be keeping up, but we're discussing a possible ban on firearms, which would make them illegal. Which negates your argument. You can own and collect them now, sure, but I think it's only a matter of time before that's no longer the case. |
Who was the militia when this was wrote ?
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 11:44 pm, 08/13/2019
|
But someone can own and carry a gun all they want, it's not illegal until they actually hurt someone. This is about as whacky a post as I have ever saw on here
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 11:39 pm, 08/13/2019
|
Law abiding citizens who exercise their constitutional rights to own firearms are not the problem
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 11:35 pm, 08/13/2019
|
There are a estimated 395 million firearms in the US, No figures for handguns but even saying a third are handguns. Using your numbers multiply that by 44 Really?
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 11:06 pm, 08/13/2019
|
Are you saying millions of people should not have the means to defend themselves because of a small number of then abuse the tool
I haven't made any claims, really, I've just taken the words used by others and tried to show how silly they sounded in other context.
But handguns are used 44 times more often to commit violent crimes than in self defense:
A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the federal Bureau of Justice found that defensive gun use occurs at a dramatically lower rate, about 98.5% lower than the gun lobby has claimed. The V.P.C. also found that for every one justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 44 criminal homicides. This ratio does not take into account the tens of thousands of lives lost in gun suicides or accidental shootings every year. https://lawcenter.giffords....tatistics/
In fact, guns in general are used for self defense in an average of 0.9% of crimes:
So it's really the other way around. You're saying that people should not have the means to use a gun to commit a violent crime because a small number of them use it for self defense.
Well lets stop drunk driving by outlawing cars In 2017, there were 37,133 traffic fatalities (29%) due to a drunk driving accident:
In comparison, in 2016 there were 38,658 deaths by firearm:
https://www.bbc.com/news/wo...a-41488081
One key difference is that drunk drivers can be arrested and prosecuted for simply driving, before they hurt anyone. But someone can own and carry a gun all they want, it's not illegal until they actually hurt someone.
Another key difference is that individual transportation is critical to the US economy; most of us can't work without a way to get there. But owning a gun has no critical purpose. For every person that has a gun for self defense there are 44 more people that intend to commit a violent crime with it.
|
|
CowBoysFan
|
Posted 10:45 pm, 08/13/2019
|
Anti,
The US Supreme has never ruled that the Second Amendment only applies to the "militia" A ban, wishful thinking from the liberal left.
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 10:42 pm, 08/13/2019
|
|
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 10:40 pm, 08/13/2019
|
I'll throw down the trump card, the US Constitution gives me the right to purchase, own and collect anything that is considered legal to posses including firearms. I win, Constitutional Rights beats leftists liberals everyday and twice on Sunday.
No it doesn't. Have you read the 2nd Amendment?
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. It clearly references a militia only, and states that it should be well regulated. The original laws restricted people that were mentally ill from owning firearms at all.
You may not be keeping up, but we're discussing a possible ban on firearms, which would make them illegal. Which negates your argument. You can own and collect them now, sure, but I think it's only a matter of time before that's no longer the case.
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 10:37 pm, 08/13/2019
|
Are you saying millions of people should not have the means to defend themselves because of a small number of then abuse the tool, Well lets stop drunk driving by outlawing cars
|
|
CowBoysFan
|
Posted 10:36 pm, 08/13/2019
|
I'll throw down the trump card, the US Constitution gives me the right to purchase, own and collect anything that is considered legal to posses including firearms. I win, Constitutional Rights beats leftists liberals everyday and twice on Sunday.
|
|
Cajahah
|
Posted 10:31 pm, 08/13/2019
|
It's like saying cars aren't made for driving, they are made for collecting.
|
|
Cajahah
|
Posted 10:31 pm, 08/13/2019
|
So if you are using it for self defense..it's made for shooting people.
|
|
CowBoysFan
|
Posted 10:29 pm, 08/13/2019
|
Anti,
You should put down the crack pipe, if you think you've made a legitimate counter point.
|
|
168Amax
|
Posted 10:28 pm, 08/13/2019
|
What legitimate use is there for handguns other than shooting at people or making them think you're going to shoot at them
Well Self defense is the first thing that comes to mind. Did you notice that handgun sales have skyrocketed in EL Paso since the shooting
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 10:25 pm, 08/13/2019
|
I disagree. Both started out as legal and a law was passed to make them illegal, which is exactly what we're discussing with guns.
What legitimate use is there for handguns other than shooting at people or making them think you're going to shoot at them? You've brought up general collection, but by that same logic can't I just collect different strains of meth and crack, along with their paraphernalia, for fun?
|
|
CowBoysFan
|
Posted 10:17 pm, 08/13/2019
|
Anti,
Since meth and crack are both illegal to posses and have no legitimate use means your argument makes you sound the fool.
|
|
antithesis
|
Posted 9:58 pm, 08/13/2019
|
I find that these arguments can all be more easily countered by exchanging the noun with a similar noun. Then you can see how silly it all sounds.
* Explain to me how I have owned meth and crack my entire adult life and they have never killed anyone or anything?
* Meth and crack are not made for killing. * My point is meth and crack are not made for killing, they have other purposes and uses... meth and crack does not kill anyone itself, it depends on the hands that carry them. The FBI stats prove that you do not have to use a meth or crack to kill another person.
* Are you saying I should not own meth if I don't intend to use it to kill with?
|
|
|
