Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

Neither do I. Nor do I believe all the propaganda put out be either the extreme right or left wing-nuts. I investigate and then respond based on my own research. And this makes a difference how? I have studied history and have heard the stories from various friends and family living at the time. Just because I was not alive at that time does not make me totally ignorant of what occurred then. Are historians unqualified to discuss past history because they were not alive when these events occurred? Really? I believe social security, unemployment and many of what you would term big brother legislation started with FDR in the 30s during the Great Depression when nearly 25% of the US working population was unemployed. As many people still do. Though, I do though agree that there abuses in the welfare and other similar government sponsored systems I believe they do more good than harm. I believe the problem is more to do with ineffective enforcement and poorly written legislation than anything else. I applaud your seemingly equable treatment of other ethnicities and your hard work ethic. However, you cannot tell me that racism was not rampant in many parts of the country, much more so back than that it is now. If you do I would have to call you a liar.I have lived in the South much of my life (Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia) and have seen racism even to this present day.One experience I distinctly remember is when my father was at the time filling in as a temporary preacher at a church in the western pan-handle of Florida (what we call Floribama). He had been preaching there for several weeks when one day an African-American family walked into the church. The entire congregation was white and gave the family the cold shoulder and effectively ran them out (they left before the end of the service). At a church meeting immediately following the service that morning one of the elders stood up and started a racist rampage which most of the congregation was visibly condoning of. My father started getting red in the face and was visibly shaking (which my father and I do when we are incited with righteous anger). The elder than asked my father what he was upset about. Basically in a nutshell, my father told this elder and the entire congregation how ungodly and wrong they were and our entire family walked out of the church never to return.I am positive this is not an isolated case and have witnessed racial slurs and hate speach from my earliest memories to present day. I have seen with my own eyes the progress this country has made in condemning and erradicating racial discrimination and intollerance. Racial intollerance and discrimination WAS a lot more rampant and vitriolic then than it is now. That is a fact. Ok. Good story, not sure what the point is. Some areas had more racial problems than other areas but you cannot deny blatant racism and discrimination was more rampant and severe back than it is now. Yes they did. Car insurance became compulsory in nearly every state beginning in the 1930s and 1940s. Yes, but the # of communists in the country was less at its peak 80,000 in the 1940s down from 200,000 in the 1920s (compared with a population of 138,000,000 that is still only 0.05% of the population). By the mid-1950s they were down to 5,000 (0.003% of the population). The amount of power you and McCarthy accredited these people with is ridiculously stupid and ill-founded.Yeah, I should believe good old McCarthy who was often intoxicated while Congress was in session, lied about his war record, censored by Congress for his outrageous and ludicrous accusations (him and his good friend J. Edgar), and died shortly thereafter of alcoholism. How do you know? Wow, talk about stereotyping. So all the "communist" children inherit the sins of there fathers? Now you are being deliberately ignorant. Jim Crow laws existed as enforced legislation until the mid and late 1960s.
Here are some examples that existed until the Civil Rights overturned them in the 1950s and 1960s: This law was not overturned until 1956 in the US District Court but Alabama still blatantly enforeced this law illegally until the mid 1960s.There are many more examples listed here: Examples of Jim Crow Laws I don’t care for Rev. Wright either but racial and political slurs is not the same as advocating racial segregation. #1 he is not a governmental intetity and has almost zero political power, #2 he may have used racially inciting language but he never advocated racial segregation that I am aware of Nothing. I don’t see anything wrong with this as long as it is voluntary and you do not guilt your wife or anyone else into doing this.There is also nothing wrong with women working outside the home. As long as the children are adequately cared for what difference does make whether the father or the mother stay at home?Men and women are equals, one should not be subservient to the other. Both my wife and I equally share household chores i.e. cooking, cleaning, taking out the trash, etc. When I am away on deployment or out to sea she takes care of nearly everything to do with the household i.e. paying bills, maintaining the vehicles, housekeeping, mowing the lawn, fixing broken things around the house, etc. Nothing. What is wrong with a woman wanting to provide a living for her family. If my wife had a better job and did not have the health problems she did I would have no problem staying at home and taking care of my family.To say otherwise is male chauvinism. Yes, unfortunately. But I don’t believe they deserve to stay there. Having worked personally with many of these people, Most of the people do not CHOOSE to live in poverty. What an ignorant and bigoted thing to say. How about we take you out of your comfort zone and place you in a home where the father is not there and the mother is trying to do everything to make ends meet and provide food on the table for her kids. Bullshit. Are you saying that a kid starving in Ethiopia or in the projects has equal opportunities to a rich kid? What a crock of shit. All human beings deserve equal human rights. Or have you forgotten the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.Your delusional if you are serious. That is nice, what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Um, that is a given. I read the amendment and am not understanding what the problem is. Please elaborate. That is not what I asked, I asked if you thought the Constitution in its 6 page entirety adequately address all the problems and issues present in our current society.The US Constitution only gives the framework of how our government should govern and it provides all the checks and balances to do this. The US Constitution clearly indicates the US Congress has the power to legislate federal laws binding on all US States. I think you are confusing legislation with amending the US Constitution. Amending the Constitution is different than legislating law. Amending the Constitution means changing the scope of powers granted to the federal or state governments. Legislation means creating new laws or modifying existing laws that fit within the scope of powers granted by the US Constitution. That is your opinion and one in which you need to provide specific examples to back up. Some states and local municipal governments have made restrictions on the 2nd amendment that are more stringent than federal mandates. How does this fit into your world of left wing conspiracy? So are you saying the 2nd amendment gives you the right to own and bear any weapon you think is appropriate for you to use i.e. an uzi, machine gun, bazooka, etc? I do not think the founding fathers wanted people to have guns and arms solely so they can revolt against the newly elected government. Arms back during that time were more of a necessity than they are now. There was few if any standing militias, police forces was non-existent, living off the land by farming and hunting was a necessity not a sport or luxury, etc. A lot of things have changed over the past 200 years. I still believe in the right to bear arms and gun ownership, I just believe that with our current and growing population gun regulation and registration is a necessity in order for law enforcement to track these weapons and bring the right people to justice for armed crimes. Are you saying you want the general public to have tanks and bombs so they can be on an equal basis with the US military? Are you that stupid? Really?!? Can what happen? This sword cuts both ways. Religion has the power to corrupt the government as well. America is nothing like Cuba. We do not have a dictatorship. We have elected representatives. If you don’t like yours, vote them out of office. That’s nice, again what does this have to do with the price of tea in China. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi Catholic Scientist,I'll just be brief. Not as much regulation as is possible, but I am fully in favor of having the same degree of regulation that other democratic governments have, such as Canada and England. The benefits to society are measurable.The constitution does not restrict how much regulation can be imposed on gun ownership so long as the ability to form citizen militias is not infringed, and it charges everyone with the need to provide justice in a court of law for every citizen as much as is practical.This condition is filled by having state National Guard units and by having state and local police forces. The National Guard units also provide necessary training in the proper care, and use of weapons of war. The police units also provide the necessary training in the proper care and use of weapons used to fight crime. State and local police units are also usually authorized to deputize citizens to provide additional resources when necessary. Regardless of where you live, I see absolutely no possible rational reason for an individual to own an automatic weapon. If you want to play with weapons like this, then even more reason for regulation, however please note that you are free to join a National Guard unit where you can be trained in the proper use and care of such weapons, and allowed to use them in controlled conditions. When the time comes that such weapons are necessary to be used you can then go to your unit and be issued a weapon and the ammunition for it.Same for handguns and joining a police unit. If you think that carrying a gun makes you able to enforce the law, then join a police force and get the training to do it properly. If you think carrying a gun can serve another purpose that is to the benefit of society, then think again. Any law that restricts the availability of guns will reduce the number of guns used illegally, and it will coincidentally reduce the number of accidents due to guns: the statistics show this. One needs only compare the US with Canada to see this.Enjoy.

---

Go back and look at your video again. And avoiding the issue. There are no circumstances that justify blowing someone away just because they happen to be where you don't want them to be. Which are not comparable societies to the US, either way you cut the cheese (nor are the statistics necessarily gathered and reported in the same way).Conversely, the facts show that where guns are regulated in countries like England and Canada, that ARE comparable, that the murder rate is lower than the US AND the rate of accidental death and injury is lower.As I noted in Message 303 you need to read Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control, you are making the same logical mistakes made in that thread. Please see Message 57 on that thread.The statistics for comparing the US, England and Canada on equal footing are there: the US is unequivocally the loser.Enjoy.

---

But the Supreme Court said that what can't be infringed is the right of individuals, the People, i.e. me and you, to keep arms. Its beside the point whether or not a criteria for a militia is filled by the police. The amount of the reduction of accidents doesn't justify disarming citizens. But again, since the 2nd amendment says that I have a right to own them, it doesn't matter if you want to take away peoples' guns to prevent some accidents.

Not merely where you don't want them to be, but where they are not allowed to be while in the commission of felony. Those are the circumstances I am referring to. If an intruder comes in to your home and attacks you, you have the inalienable right to defend yourself. That includes killing the intruder if necessary. Circumstances dictate action.Because of our other discussion on marxism it all makes sense now why you think you don't have a right to be secure in your person or property. It's because you don't believe in the concept of private property.You either are going to have to assimilate or defect to a country that holds similar beliefs as you, because I'm afraid that the concepts of private property and the right to bear arms are just too ingrained within the culture to change. How is Canada and England more comparable to the US in relation to murder and accidental death or injury than Mexico, Switzerland, Russia, or Saudi Arabia?!?! Murder is murder, RAZD. Mexico and Russia are far more regulated than the US and their murder rate is vastly higher. Switzerland and Saudi Arabia is armed to the teeth and have less than England and Canada. That's because there is no comparison. To suggest otherwise is a distortion from gun grabbers.Besides, again, guns don't equal murder. No tool equals murder. There are sociological reasons for murder, which you seem to gloss over.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Hi Catholic Scientist, Curiously, what the Supreme Court has said is that states have the right to regulate firearms and weapons. Interestingly, your opinion cannot alter reality. The reduction in the amount of violent assaults resulting in death AND the reduction in the number of accidents resulting in maiming or death IS a rational reason for the regulation of weapons.Certainly the regulation of weapons similar to what is in Canada and England is justified on this basis.The fact is that this can be done without violating the second amendment stipulation that militias can be formed by existing avenues, ones that also provide for proper training, thus making the users safer in the process.You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight crime, then join a police force and get trained in fighting crime.You want to carry or operate a gun used to fight a war, then join a National Guard unit and get trained in fighting a war.Enjoy.

---

Still not getting it? So they get the death penalty just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? I find it hilarious that you can't answer a simple question without bending it around, subtracting some elements or adding extra stipulations.The question is simple: is there a circumstance that justifies blowing someone away just because they happen to be where you don't want them to be? No other conditions, just being in the wrong (in your opinion) place.Now I've said there are no such circumstances. What's your answer (if you've got a straight answer)? Curiously, that right to self defense exists regardless of location, so tacking this on to the issue of blowing away someone just for being in a place you don't want to be, is just you begging the question.Interestingly, self defense doesn't depend on having a gun.Amusingly, if you invite a person in your own home and then attack them, they are legally justified to defend themselves. If someone wanders into your home and you attack them, they are justified in defending themselves. Obviously, you have failed to read the other thread. Color me surprised.There are several issues that, just perhaps coincidentally, have to do with data control. The kinds of controls typical of what is done in scientific population study experiments to remove factors that can cause false correlations. Without such controls you just have a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy in comparing numbers.There are also factors that have to do with how the various statistics are gathered and reported and the comparable accuracy of the reported statistics in different countries. These are much more likely to be done in a strictly comparable way in closely related and similar countries.Interestingly, I find that I can compare my cultural experiences with Canadian and English cultural experiences much more than I can with Mexican, Russian, Swiss and Arab cultural experiences.Certainly there is a common cultural history shared to a high degree between the US and Canada that does not exist for Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Russia. This shared common cultural history also exist to a lesser degree with England.This is born out by the first statistic reported in the post on that other thread that I link you to (for your edification): Note how this establishes that the data for the three countries is comparable.We now have controlled for cultural differences, and thus can focus on the differences between having guns generally available at will and having gun ownership restricted by regulations.The differences between the US, Canada and England are more likely to be just due to the different availability of guns than to any other factor.To make the argument even more logically and rationally sound we continue with the same source of information as the assaults to compare the following statistics: Canada is closer to the US than England in their gun regulations, and we see the results of this with Canada falling between the US and England in the statistics.With the only significant difference between the US, Canada and England being the gun regulations, the significantly higher rate of murder by firearms is unequivocally correlated with the possession of firearms in the US and the relatively lax regulations in the US compared to England and Canada.That's the reality here: lax guns laws result in more deaths by guns and a higher level of violence in assaults, even though the number of assaults is the same.It's almost like an evolutionary response.Enjoy.

---

There's nothing curious about that because nobody is advocating a lack of regulation nor claiming that there is no regulation. What's curious is why you even bring that up.Stay on point here... You're trying to say that having the police and national guard fullfills the requirements of the militia so taking away the citizens' guns wouldn't violate the amendment. But you're wrong because the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, i.e. it is an individual right that we all have. Arrogantly, you say that while acting like you think that yours can: A fine opinion, but like mine, it cannot alter reality. Bafflingly, you're still ignoring the Supremem Court ruling. Fortunately, it doesn't matter if militias would otherwise still be formed, the right is that of the individual people. We want to have the capability of defending ourselves and our families, protect our chickens from coyotes, protect out vegetables from rabbits, hunt food, entertain our favorite hobby, and enjoy some recreational shooting. How many deaths would be prevented? What are the adverse side-effects of the regulation?But regardless, weapons are already regulated.ABE:

quote:

---

Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

# 8 United States: 0.0279271 per 1,000 people

---

Assuming the population of the U.S. is 307 million people, 0.03 deaths per 1000 people comes out to 9210 deaths from murder by firearm.9210...From the CDC, I found this info:

quote:

---

Number of deaths for leading causes of death:
Heart disease: 631,636
Cancer: 559,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
Diabetes: 72,449
Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
Septicemia: 34,234

---

The death prevention from firearm regulation like that of UK/Canada is negligible.Its just too insignificant to be the main reason for taking away people's guns.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.