Summations Only

Faith, you never answered me on these points, so I will ask again. So, the purpose of the second amendment is protection against a tyrannical government, so we can basically go to war against our government if we need to, correct? This is your contention?If it is, I repeat my early question:
What on this planet known as Earth do you think that the citizens of the United States can do if the government decides it wants to actually control us?What can we do against this:
Hunter Killer Drone StrikeOr how about against this:
Terminator WeaponryOr this:
MOAB or Massive Ordnance Air BlastOr the Sensor Fuzed Weapon:
Sensor Fuzed WeaponOr, even the big boy:
Nuclear ExplosionWe are all worried about other countries gaining access to a nuclear weapon, but not concerned when our nation has hundreds to thousands of them. Look, maybe in 1776 it was for protection against a tyrannical government, but nowadays you are simply thinking of a pipe dream that when you and your friends try to stop it, if it ever were to happen, you will all simply get yourselves killed and get to go meet your maker.We have allowed the government to outstrip our capabilities by so much that the idea of revolution or forcing the government to bow to the people through force is long dead and gone. Ask the South how great it works out when you try to pick a fight with the United States government, I am sure there are a few stories about that thing that happened in the 1860's. And that was even before we let the government run rampant with weapons tech. The option that we have remaining to us is through the democratic channels that the founders set this country up with and those that have been added to the Constitution since.So, please if you could inform me otherwise of how the people would stand any chance whatsoever, I will gladly listen to it. But, as far as I see it, if the Big, Bad Government wants to put the fear of Jehovah into us, then they damn well can, and they damn well will and no amount of guns, homemade bombs, homemade grenades, or any other weaponry that the American People can get their hands on will stop it.

Please correct me if I am wrong, CS, but is it your contention that there is a correlation between prevalence of guns and number of homicides, but that the gun controls being suggested will be ineffective at reducing the homicide rate?If I am right that this is your point, then what suggestions do you have to reduce the number of homicides in the United States, which I think we can all agree are far too high for such a developed nation.I will agree, as I have stated in this thread, that simply enacting gun control measures will not completely eliminate the problem without also focusing on the social issues that the problem stems from. However, I think that limiting access to extremely effective means of homicide, plus focusing on the social inequalities and mental health will be far more effective in curbing the homicide rate, then doing simply one or the other.So, what means would you have our country take to lower the overall homicide (and suicide) rates?

Removing your off hand comment blaming all gun crime on those living in the inner city, I agree with your comment here. The ATF has been rendered essentially ineffective through previous acts of Congress.There was an excellent segment on the Daily Show about this point exactly. It aired on January 16th, 2013 and discussed the gun control debate currently raging in the US.After some clever introduction information, the video goes to a clip. As stated in this clip by Jerry Henry of Georgiacarry.org, "We have over 20,000 gun laws on the books, we need to enforce those gun laws."Very excellent point he is making, so why exactly are we not enforcing these 20,000 laws?So, why should local law enforcement not attempt to enforce these gun laws? Well, because according to Rep. Tiahrt we have an organization that will go after these illegal dealers and those selling to unqualified individuals known as the ATF. It is the task of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to deal with these gun laws.So, the question becomes, why does the ATF not enforce these gun laws....and here is where the silliness comes in...Michael Bloomberg - "We have not had a director of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for 6 years."Also, the current acting director is also expected to be the current US Attorney for the state of Minnesota. On this point, I absolutely love John Stewart's comment of "This dude. The guy who is the acting director of the ATF has another full time job? That regulating Alcohol.....Tobacco.....and Firearms... is his side gig?So, why are we forcing someone to split between two jobs instead of finding a full time director for the ATF? Well, The Senate will not confirm someone for the position. Of course, the Senate should have nothing to do with approving the person for this position because it is not Cabinet level. However, Wisconsin Senator Sensenbrenner inserted a provision into the Patriot Act which basically states that, "The provision would make the ATF Director subject to Senate confirmation."
(BTW - Sweet image of Sensenbrenner accepting the NRA's Defender of the Year award right after this)So how well is the ATF suited to enforce the laws that everyone wants them to enforce, even without a director?According to Former Special Agent James Cavanaugh, "In 1972, and I went on ATF in the 70s, there was 2,500 agents.....and there is still 2,500 agents."This means that there are 2,500 individuals responsible for the policing of over 100,000 gun dealers in the country. Why has this organization gained zero extra man-power in 40 years to enforce the gun laws that kohf2u states will solve the problem?Oh yeah, and don't forget that these agents must also regulate alcohol and tobacco while dealing with firearms.Another great point on the hamstringing of the ATF is brought up when they mention that 18 years ago a professor analyzed ATF tracing data and found that, "...a tiny fraction of dealers - 1 percent - were the original sellers of a majority of guns seized at crime scenes - 57 percent." Sweet, so the ATF knows who is responsible but for some reason we have not seen any progress, even though the bad apples are known. How could this be?So, since the ATF knows who the bad apples are, why don't they create a Federal Registry of these gun transactions so that they can crack down, with evidence on the dealers ruining it for the dealers who obey the law......well, as I am sure you can guess from how things have been going...."The Bureau is prohibited from creating a Federal registry of gun transactions...when law enforcement officers recover a gun and serial number, workers at the bureau's National tracing center...begin making their way through a series of phone calls, asking first the manufacturer, then the wholesaler and finally the dealer to search their files to identify the buyer of the firearm."Then, you have that the ATF cannot inspect a dealer more than once a year and in reality are not able to inspect them at an actual rate of about once every 17 years...perhaps some more agents might be necessary?Hopefully, dealers will report self-inventories to help with the problem....oh wait, the ATF cannot require dealers to take inventories!!!All of this is because a Congressman stuck an amendment into a spending bill, that refuses to allow the ATF to do its job. The same job kofh2u, the NRA, and others claim to want the ATF to do, enforce existing gun laws!!! This amendment "allowed dealers to ignore police requests for assistance, it denied Congress formally public crime [sic] data, it ended the oversight of used firearm sales, it required the destruction of background check records within 24 hours. You know, to make sure no mistakes could be corrected."So, which Congressman so brilliantly hamstrung the ATF and made them completely useless in the fight against gun crime?Oh...that's right....it was called the Tiahrt amendment! And who helped write it? The NRA. That's right, the same person and organization saying that we have the ATF in place to deal with and enforce existing gun laws, are the individual and organization responsible for writing the amendment that makes it impossible for the ATF to do so! How absolutely ridiculous is this? I agree that existing gun laws should be enforced, but to do so we must actually allow the ATF to do its job! Source Part 1
Source Part 2So, if your complaint is that there are a lot of laws on the books, how about we not only have the laws on the books, but make the organization responsible for enforcing these laws able to do its job again? Let's give the ATF back its teeth and actually enforce the laws because something needs to be done.

See, while I completely agree with you on these points, I also feel that creating effective gun regulation, such as making an owner responsible for a crime committed with his or her gun (even if only civilily responsible), would be an effective means of controlling illegal guns from getting on the street. People would take more care and lock guns up, so that these guns can't be stolen. Creating magazine limits only works to stop mass shootings (which I feel is a beneficial goal), but also do not limit defense. At least it does not limit defense outside of ICANT's ridiculous roving gangs of mercenaries attacking his house situation. Requiring background checks for all gun purchases and punishing straw purchases will keep those who have been denied guns from gaining access quite as easily.It is not a perfect plan, but you have to start somewhere to begin to get a handle on everything. How are the law-abiding citizens being punished? I am not saying to take away their guns! I am saying that we make the system for gaining access more stringent to ensure that the mental health and stability of the individual is well enough to trust them with such a dangerous and efficient weapon of death. And guns are not just lying around...if individuals are given the option of show responsibility with their firearms (Purchasing gun safes, keeping weapons in safes, not lending guns to others, not buying guns for others) or be held responsible (either through criminal or civil means) for the acts perpetrated with their guns, than slowly the amount of "Guns just lying around" will lessen. Those who are breaking the law will get caught, the guns will get confiscated and if people are doing their damnedest to ensure that their guns are not stolen, then there will be less guns flowing into the illegal market, slowly drying it up. I agree, like possibly find a way to better the inner city education systems, create more job opportunities (Maybe more ATF agents as one option), and lower economic disparity. However, just doing this will be slow improvement as well, so we should hit on as many fronts as possible with this problem.

And what is the point you are trying to make with this statistic? I have to agree with Straggler on the fact that there are far more variables than you are taking into account when claiming this is all due to single mothers.What about the fact that in those times religious murders were being done all the time?What about the fact that the economy of many nations were not reliant upon one another as it is today, so war between countries and, therefore, patriotism caused individuals to despise those from other countries (tribalism).What about the advancements in medical technology that allowed individuals to recover from far more serious attacks, therefore removing a murder that would have previously happened?What about civil rights movements and showing that there is no difference between the races and many people coming to agree with that fact? See above, perhaps we are better at living with one another because understanding of the human condition is so much more advanced. Stop it!! Stop your racist, inner city fatherless children cause all crime blather. All you do as you spout this off is tout your own ignorance. We understand that you hate people who don't have the luxury of having a father, but your own stats ruin you!You stated that the highest proportion of crime is caused by fatherless children in inner cities. So, you claim the average age of a person who commits homicide is under 25 (It is actually mid-30s, but we'll use your number). Why then, is the homicide rate so high in 1980? We are talking at this point about children born in 1955, a time where divorce or leaving a child fatherless was frowned upon, yet these individuals managed to put up a homicide number that is ridiculously high. Perhaps, it isn't the fatherlessness that is responsible, but other socio-economic factors (See crack epidemic in early 1980s).So, please, I am sick, personally, of hearing your racism bleed through on all of your comments and I would prefer if you could keep your hatred and your vitriol to yourself because no one else should (or I think does):A. Agree with your racist mindset, we should be civilized beyond that point.B. Believe any point you are making because your claims all seem to contradict one another.In your own argument, there are all the tools that I needed to refute your argument. You probably should have noticed that...

I do not agree with you in any English definition of the word "agree".I agree that the murder rate has gone down since 1200AD, but I do not think that the increase in guns has anything to do with it. I see many more reasons for the decrease, including those that I mentioned:Civil Rights Movements
A Global Economy
Reduced Racism
Reduced Sexism
Lower Religiousity (Strict adherence religiousity)
Higher moral construct
Learning from previous generation's mistakes
etc....You claim it is one thing...one thing, and you are wrong on that one thing! And Straggler, not Strangler, is correct. There are a ton of variables that play into the decreasing murder rates that our world has seen, most of all the fact that our morals have evolved to remove a large amount of hatred for others. And this is a bald-faced lie, so why should I focus on it. This is your own statistic, made up in your head so that you can feel that you are better than individuals who did not have a father around. And, I'm sorry but you are no better than anyone else, just as I am no better than anyone else. That is simply a fact, we are all humans, all prone to mistakes and errors in judgment. Then why, in the early 80s, were there so many murders? This was a generation predominately raised in two parent homes and yet the murder rate was astronomical! In science, if something refutes your hypothesis you are supposed to throw it out and look for a new explanation. It is time you threw out this useless piece of garbage argument.Also, your hatred of people raised in single parent homes is blatant. I have many friends who were raised in single parent homes, and guess what...not one of them is a murderer! Wow! And, I am saying that the abortions had nothing to do with the reduction in the homicide rates. The Crack epidemic ended in the early 90s and homicide rates began to reduce afterwards. So again, I think you are not taking into account all of the facts and simply blaming it on a group you hate, single mothers. This is rude to the women out there who are sacrificing everything they can...time, money, nights with friends...everything so that they can give their child some happiness. I state once more, your hatred is shining through. What is your suggestion to change welfare that will better this situation? You want to remove the safety net that many women need when the man in their life beats them one too many times and they must leave? Or is it removing the safety net when the man decides to go run an errand and never come back? I have seen both of these situations...how is reducing or changing welfare going to prevent these situations from occurring? The father is not getting any of that welfare money. In fact, from my single mother friends that are receiving help, 80-90% of that money is going toward the child. The ones I know choose to go with less for themselves, as long as their child is taken care of.

Cite the source or it is all BS.There is no source listed on either of those graphs.

So, after seeing the list of weapons that Adam Lanza stockpiled according to the police reports, I am even more for effective background checks that must be kept on file and for registration of guns and possibly ammo. Without these statutes there is no way we could have expected this tragedy. However, with background checks of all purchases on file and registration of purchases, law enforcement could have been informed that Adam Lanza had stockpiled:1 Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15 rifle with a 30-round magazine1 Glock 10mm handgun1 9mm Sig Sauer P226 handgun1 Saiga 12 shotgun with two magazines containing 70 rounds6 30-round magazines, three of them emptiedAt the home:Guns:1 Enfield bolt-action .323 rifle1 Savage Mark II .22 caliber rifle with magazine, 3 live rounds, 1 spent cartridge1 black marksman BB gunAmmunition:5 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells cut open, with buckshot1 white plastic bag with 30 Winchester 12-gauge shotgun shells1 can with .22 caliber and .45 caliber bullets8 boxes of Winchester Windcat .22 caliber bullets, 50 rounds per box20 "Estate" 12-gauge shotgun shells4 boxes of SB buckshot 12-gauge, 10 round per box1 box of Lightfield 12-gauge slugs1 box of 20 Prvi Partizan 303 British rifle cartridges1 box of 20 Federal 303 British rifle cartridges2 boxes of .22 long rifle Blazer rounds, 50 each box1 box with numerous rounds of Winchester .45 caliber bullets2 boxes of 50 rounds of PPU .45 caliber automatic1 box of 20 rounds for Remington .223 caliber3 boxes of Blazer 40 S&W, 50 rounds each2 boxes of Winchester 5.56 mm, 20 rounds each1 box of Magtech 45ACP with 30 rounds1 empty Box of SSA 5.56 mm1 box of Fiocchi .45 auto with 48 rounds80 rounds of CCI .22 long rifle6 boxes of PMC .223 rem, 20 rounds each6 Winchester 9 pellet buckshot shells, 12-gauge2 Remington 12-gauge slugs3 Winchester .223 rifle rounds31 .22 caliber rounds2 boxes of Underwood 10 mm auto, each with 50 rounds130 rounds of Lawman 9mm Luger2 spent shell casings for Glock 10mm1 empty box of Gold Dot 9mm Luger2 empty boxes of Winchester 9mm Luger1 box of Underwood 10mm auto with 34 rounds1 box of 29 miscellaneous 9mm rounds1 spent .22 shell casing1 small plastic bag containing numerous .22 caliber bullets1 tan bag with numerous Blazer .45 caliber bullets1 box of Blazer .22 long rifle with 50 rounds1 box PPU 303 British cartridges with 9 rounds2 Winchester 9mm rounds2 brass-colored shell casings1 small caliber bullet (live round) labeled CMagazines:1 Promag 20-round 12-gauge drum magazine1 MD Arms 20-round 12 gauge drum magazine3 AGP Arms 12-gauge shotgun magazines1 Surefire GunMag magazine with 8 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge, 9-pellet buckshot2 AGP Arms 12-gauge shotgun magazines, taped together, each with 10 rounds of Winchester 9-pellet buckshot2 empty Ram Line magazines for Ruger 10-221 AGP Arms Gen 2 12-gauge shotgun magazine with 10 rounds of Winchester 12-gauge, 9-pellet buckshot1 clear plastic Ramline magazine for an AR 151 magazine with 10 rounds of .223 bulletsKnives:Metal bayonet1 6-foot-10-inch wood-handled two-sided pole with a blade on one side and a spear on the other1 Samurai sword with a 28-inch blade and sheath1 Samurai sword with a 21-inch blade and a sheath1 Samurai sword with a 13-inch blade and sheath1 knife with a 12-inch blade and sheath1 wooden-handle knife with a 7.5-inch blade and sheath1 wooden-handle knife with a 10-inch blade1 knife with a 5.5-inch blade and sheath1 black-handled knife with a 7-inch blade and sheath1 black rubber-handled knife with 9.5-inch blade and sheath1 white and brown-handled knife with 5-inch blade and sheath1 brown wood-handled knife with a 10.25-inch blade1 Panther brown-handled folding knife with a 3.75 inch blade1 small blue folding knifeGear:1 Volcanic .22 starter pistol wth 5 live rounds and 1 expended roundLeightning L3 ear protectionPeltor ear plugsSimmons binocularsUncle Mike's Sidekick nylon holsterBox for vest accessoriesLeather dual magazine holderBlack leather handgun holsterHigh Sierra fanny packNumerous paper targets1 cardboard targets1 Bushnell sport view rifle scopePlastic bag of miscellaneous partsSafariland holster paperworkGlock handgun manualMD-20 20-round shotgun magazine manualMD Arms V-Plug guideBushmaster XM15 and C15 instruction manualSavage Arms bolt-action rifle manualGlock paperworkMiscellaneous:Adam Lanza's National Rifle Association certificateNancy Lanza's NRA certificateThree photographs with images of what appears to be a deceased human covered with plastic and what appears to be bloodHoliday card with a check from Nancy Lanza to Adam Lanza for purchase of C183 firearm1 digital print of a child and various firearms1 military-style uniformHandwritten notes with addresses of local gun shopsReceipts and emails documenting firearm and ammunition suppliesBlue folder labeled guns with receipts and paperworkPaperwork titled "Connecticut Gun Exchange Glock 20SF 10mm" dated 12-21-11Sandy Hook report card for Adam LanzaNew York Times article on a 2008 shooting at Northern Illinois UnversityBooks: Look me in the Eye: My Life with Asperger’s; Born on a Blue Day: Inside the Mind of an Autistic Savant; NRA Guide to Basics of Pistol Shooting; Train Your Brain to Get Happy1 Seagate Barracuda 500gb hard drive, damaged1 custom-built desktop computer, no hard drive1 Microsoft Xbox with partially obliterated serial numberOne cotton swab of blood-like substance1 tan sheet with blood-like substance1 tan fitted sheet with blood-like substance1 striped towel with blood-like substanceWhile, yes much of the end of this list would not have been known about with the addition of kept background checks and registration. The important parts, the weapons and ammo, could have been.Also, I love how quickly the NRA is trying to distance itself from Adam Lanza and his Mother, claiming today that they have no record of either ever being a member, even though membership certificates were in the house for both family members. SourceEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : Forgot to include source...

From what I have read not all of the guns belonged to the mother. I believe that Adam Lanza also purchased his own weaponry as they said they found a gift certificate (Card) that his mom got him to go and purchase another weapon.

I do equate the two. Our government should be focused on rehabilitation, mental health, and ensuring that the cost of incarceration is not astronomical. As it stands at this time, the death penalty is simply government sanctioned murder, that actually costs taxpayers more money to have in place. Another problem is something you have mentioned many times Faith. Here is a paraphrase, "human beings are fallible". This means that we can make mistakes and sentence the wrong person to death. One innocent death means that we, as the funding party of that death, all have that murder on our hands. Not only do we have the blood on our hands, but we paid more money to have this blood on our hands then we would have to simply incarcerate the individual for life. Plus, if evidence ever cleared the innocent person, there is still a chance to release them from prison. The death penalty takes away all chances on the decisions of fallible individuals. Ummmmm......just a little later in the entire comment Jaderis states: Jesus is supposed to be our example, correct? And according to Scripture even in the face of impending death Jesus chose to go quietly and accept what was to be done. How does this show that "Turn the other cheek" does not apply in life-threatening situations?In fact, let's look at the entire "Turn the other cheek" scripture, shall we? So, not only are you supposed to allow the person to slap you twice, but once he or she has robbed you of your cloak, you are supposed to remove your coat and hand that to him or her as well. You understandably want to defend yourself because it is the rational thing to do, but according to scripture that is never the method that should be followed. You simply want to reduce the meaning of the statement to apply only to slaps on the cheek, but it clearly reads as a metaphor for always display restraint, control and offer peace in exchange for violence and theft. So, they were going to defend themselves against the Romans and the Jews with two swords, huh? Seems like a plausible choice.......wait....Not even close! Also, when one of the disciples took out his sword during the arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, what was Jesus' reply? He tells him to put the sword away and no more violence, even again in the face of impending death. It definitely seems like your violent Jesus is based not on scripture but on reading scripture how you need to in order to get what you want."Two swords are not enough to resist arrest, to pull off a revolt of some kind, or to fully protect themselves in the Garden of Gethsemane."This site does a great job taking the entire verse in context and describing how the swords are much more a metaphor for the tensions that will be present in the Holy Land following the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalam. So, forget the "two swords" in defense of gun laws and ighteous wars, because that is not the intent of those verses. And if it was, then Jesus was a hypocrite for reversing on his earlier teaching of love, compassion and peace. SourceHere, you finally got something partway right. However, the government is not protecting its citizens by fighting for multiple causes across the world that have very little to do with the protection of the American people. Rather, they are protecting political and economical resources and creating more enemies in the process. I am not saying that radical fundamentalists (Christian, Islam, etc..)are not a risk, but the methods being employed do not seem to quell the risk, rather they accentuate it.The nation can be, and is, called to turn the other cheek. However, there are certain situations that arise in the political spectrum that this cannot be the solution. Iraq, Vietnam, Korea....these are not situations that the United States should have involved itself in. World War 2 and the attempted gross destruction of an entire segment of the population for being different...that is cause for a "righteous" war. Sadly, it wasn't this terrible treatment of humanity (6 million dead) that the US cites as its reason for entering the war but rather the deaths of over 1,000 US servicemembers. Made it less of a righteous action and more retaliation, which would go against Jesus' teaching.

Another aspect you are not looking at is the fact of wealth and its impact on violence. Percy mentioned this and you have not responded about how it may not be race, but lack of wealth that plays a significant role in this difference. And you could not have picked two better cities for seeing this. The median income of Phoenix is $44,000 while the median income in Philadelphia is $34,000. Both areas have a large community of minorities, although yes Philadelphia has more African Americans, Phoenix has over 40% Hispanics within their city limits according to recent census data. Perhaps we should focus in more on that difference in income of 10,000 dollars between these two areas. In addition to this the cost of living in these areas are: Phoenix is .3% above the national average, while Philadelphia is .6% above the national average. So, Philadelphia has a lower median wage, a higher cost of living, and a higher amount of violence. Is race really what you think the predominate factor is in increasing violence? Cost of Living Source

What about the fact that he, a 14 year old boy, was questioned by police at both the school and police station prior to his parents being contacted and allowed to be present. Isn't there a standard in law enforcement that a minor cannot be questioned without a parent or guardian present? What are your thoughts on the fact that the school and police skipped on this portion during the questioning?ABE - Never mind, as I read more about it, the police are not required to contact a parent just to begin questioning. Where they erred was on continuing the questioning after Ahmed requested the opportunity to call his parents. So, once he asked to phone his father, shouldn't the police have instantly stopped the questions instead of continuing through the questions for another hour?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.