Gun control ... actual question

[justaguyathome]

OK, I've said this before but I'll say it again - the only time a stranger has attempted to rape me, I was very glad he DIDN'T have a gun, because he would have succeeded. I was 15. Can 15 year olds legally carry a gun anywhere? But if we lived somewhere guns were routinely carriex, HE probably would have had one. And I would have been raped.
I fought him off. I have a friend who hospitalized a would-be rapist with her teeth. We're not littlle flowers - we're fairly capable of defending ourselves. But we absolutely can NOT defend ourselves against an armed attacker.

RD - I'd really like to see the research that demonstrates the correlation between lower gun ownership and higher rape rates (actual rates, not just better reporting/conviction rates).

So women on average are as strong as a man? If a woman is raped by a man.. was it because she wanted it to happen? Based on what you said, things should be fine as long as no gun is used! Oh.... would you be able to fight off 2 or more men?

 

[Rightguide]

So women on average are as strong as a man? If a woman is raped by a man.. was it because she wanted it to happen? Based on what you said, things should be fine as long as no gun is used! Oh.... would you be able to fight off 2 or more men?

If they could defend themselves against men, there would be no rape. The fact is they can't, so they get raped. They need more than a false sense of security, they need an equalizer.

 

[Rightguide]

I do not know what to think.

But of course many people here are trying different gender roles, yes?

I was just kidding.

 

[mcFart]

A few points and my opinion

Gun deaths in the US are exaggerated because ANY death by gun is reported.
Suicides statistics included in those reported "gun deaths" would not likely to be impacted significantly with the absence of guns.
Police shootings, which also contribute to reported gun deaths, would also not decrease significantly just by disarming law abiding citizens.
The US has comprehensive reporting that many other nations don't bother with.

Yes, if guns were less available, then there would be fewer gun deaths. Whether or not there would be less overall murder is just supposition for either side of the argument.

Still, the 2nd amendment was not about the right to have guns to kill game. It was about the right to defend yourself in the face of evil people. It's about the right to bear viable, effective weapons. It's about the right to create a militia to face an unjust government. This requires weapons designed to kill people, like AR-15 - and worse. Sorry if that scares people who don't want to think about conflict ever - but it is what it is.

The US government is now an old government. When civil unrest becomes great enough and as the economy erodes enough that the common person has enough difficulty surviving, the government will fall. They always do - it's inevitable that it will happen, the only question is when.

The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the common person from what can happen even after the government that provided it fails by making sure that no one was made defenseless to things like genocide or another sort of oppression. If you don't think that these things can happen in a modern, industrialized society, then you haven't paid much attention to history.

Freedom has never been free. I know it's cliche, but it's true. Yes, the 2nd amendment carries a price in lives. But anyone who thinks banning guns of any sort makes us safer as a nation is just mistaken. The cost of a society not being able to defend themselves is ultimately a lot higher than the cost if it isn't once the crap hits the fan. IMO, the price has been relatively modest overall.

I am sorry for those who have lost people to senseless gun violence. I know that no reasoning, no statistic and no rationale matters - you just want it to stop. I get that. But I just can't agree with gun bans. The world is a cruel place and it's not fair. Thinking we can create some utopic society where we don't have to think defensively is not realistic. It wasn't 250 years ago, and it's still not today.

 

[curious_nick]

I think the 2nd amendment should just be removed all together.... its not made for the 21st century

 

[mcFart]

I think the 2nd amendment should just be removed all together.... its not made for the 21st century

I call bullshit. That assumes mankind has evolved to a point that we can assume governments/people will all be benevolent. Look around the world. We haven't.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Oh FFS. If being armed means having to live in a society where people were routinely armed, I'd rather be unarmed. Yes, in the extremely unlikely scenario you've invented, that probably increases my chance of being raped. I'm OK with that risk.

Ok so you're just one of those "I'll be attacked until the cops show up to protect me!!" folks who's so scared they feel the need to force everyone else around them to be as big of a victim as they are.

And just in case it isn't obvious, yes I'm fucking angry. People's sexual assault is not fucking ammunition to be used in your ridiculous political arguments. Have a bit of fucking sensitivity. Stick to fucking bears or drug addicts or whatever other stupid things you're scared of.

Yes it is because that's exactly what this political argument is about, the right to self defense.

You don't think people should be able to defend themselves.

Americans hold it as a protected right.

You mean she's smart enough not to play your little game? Maybe you and dickie can go play with yourselves and save the world.

No, learn to read.

And I didn't think you'd answer the question either...because you'd either look as dumb as she did or a total hypocrite.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think the 2nd amendment should just be removed all together.... its not made for the 21st century

How do you figure it's not made for the 21st century?

Guns aren't any less a tool today than they were in the 18th.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So women on average are as strong as a man? If a woman is raped by a man.. was it because she wanted it to happen? Based on what you said, things should be fine as long as no gun is used! Oh.... would you be able to fight off 2 or more men?

The police will save her!!!

Just like last time.

 

[Rightguide]

I think the 2nd amendment should just be removed all together.... its not made for the 21st century

Good luck with that fantasy.

 

[snugglestruggle]

Gun deaths in the US are exaggerated because ANY death by gun is reported.
Suicides statistics included in those reported "gun deaths" would not likely to be impacted significantly with the absence of guns.
Police shootings, which also contribute to reported gun deaths, would also not decrease significantly just by disarming law abiding citizens.
The US has comprehensive reporting that many other nations don't bother with.

Yes, if guns were less available, then there would be fewer gun deaths. Whether or not there would be less overall murder is just supposition for either side of the argument.

Still, the 2nd amendment was not about the right to have guns to kill game. It was about the right to defend yourself in the face of evil people. It's about the right to bear viable, effective weapons. It's about the right to create a militia to face an unjust government. This requires weapons designed to kill people, like AR-15 - and worse. Sorry if that scares people who don't want to think about conflict ever - but it is what it is.

The US government is now an old government. When civil unrest becomes great enough and as the economy erodes enough that the common person has enough difficulty surviving, the government will fall. They always do - it's inevitable that it will happen, the only question is when.

The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the common person from what can happen even after the government that provided it fails by making sure that no one was made defenseless to things like genocide or another sort of oppression. If you don't think that these things can happen in a modern, industrialized society, then you haven't paid much attention to history.

Freedom has never been free. I know it's cliche, but it's true. Yes, the 2nd amendment carries a price in lives. But anyone who thinks banning guns of any sort makes us safer as a nation is just mistaken. The cost of a society not being able to defend themselves is ultimately a lot higher than the cost if it isn't once the crap hits the fan. IMO, the price has been relatively modest overall.

I am sorry for those who have lost people to senseless gun violence. I know that no reasoning, no statistic and no rationale matters - you just want it to stop. I get that. But I just can't agree with gun bans. The world is a cruel place and it's not fair. Thinking we can create some utopic society where we don't have to think defensively is not realistic. It wasn't 250 years ago, and it's still not today.

Suicides are not reported by the media because it doesn't fit their agenda, Guns being used to kill other people. The exception is if Swat or the police show up, then RATINGS.

I think most people over think the 2nd amendment. The Founding fathers had a strong distrust of any governmental rule , they understood the character of men or more specifically their flaws and their susceptibility to being corrupted by power.

This is a link to Washington's last address, it's a long read. It might be the single most insightful document I've ever read about their mindset. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

 

[mcFart]

Suicides are not reported by the media because it doesn't fit their agenda, Guns being used to kill other people. The exception is if Swat or the police show up, then RATINGS.

I think most people over think the 2nd amendment. The Founding fathers had a strong distrust of any governmental rule , they understood the character of men or more specifically their flaws and their susceptibility to being corrupted by power.

Exactly.

When I get a minute, I'll read that link.

 

[toeskr]

I think the 2nd amendment should just be removed all together.... its not made for the 21st century

As should your profile pic.

WTF do you know about the USA?

Go ride an iceberg.

 

[Wats_butthole]

Ok so you're just one of those "I'll be attacked until the cops show up to protect me!!" folks who's so scared they feel the need to force everyone else around them to be as big of a victim as they are.



Yes it is because that's exactly what this political argument is about, the right to self defense.

You don't think people should be able to defend themselves.

Americans hold it as a protected right.



No, learn to read.

And I didn't think you'd answer the question either...because you'd either look as dumb as she did or a total hypocrite.

I can read just fine.

Sorry I didn't play onto your little trap question, back to the drawing board for you I guess. Now you'll have to find another way to wow us with your super smarts!

Maybe women need little guns implanted in their vaginas to stop all of this rape. Some nipple pistols couldn't hurt either. Perhaps toddlers wouldn't get diddled if they were packing heat?

Is there anything guns can't fix when you really think of it?

 

[toeskr]

I can read just fine.

Sorry I didn't play onto your little trap question, back to the drawing board for you I guess. Now you'll have to find another way to wow us with your super smarts!

Maybe women need little guns implanted in their vaginas to stop all of this rape. Some nipple pistols couldn't hurt either. Perhaps toddlers wouldn't get diddled if they were packing heat?

Is there anything guns can't fix when you really think of it?

Did YOU say "todd----" on this site?

Hmmmm.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sorry I didn't play onto your little trap question, back to the drawing board for you I guess. Now you'll have to find another way to wow us with your super smarts!

It's not a trap question, it's just one that gets to a very specific and ultimately the most relevant point of this topic and forces you to be honest about your own position.

I don't need to go back to the drawing board, I've got you by the ninnies via vice grips right here right now......

You can answer it or you can tuck tail and run from it via shit talk and deflection.

Either way the actual argument is already over has been for a while because of that very question.



So.... would you or would you not want to be armed if you had to defend yourself from an attack?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Gun deaths in the US are exaggerated because ANY death by gun is reported.
Suicides statistics included in those reported "gun deaths" would not likely to be impacted significantly with the absence of guns.
Police shootings, which also contribute to reported gun deaths, would also not decrease significantly just by disarming law abiding citizens.
The US has comprehensive reporting that many other nations don't bother with.

Yes, if guns were less available, then there would be fewer gun deaths. Whether or not there would be less overall murder is just supposition for either side of the argument.

Still, the 2nd amendment was not about the right to have guns to kill game. It was about the right to defend yourself in the face of evil people. It's about the right to bear viable, effective weapons. It's about the right to create a militia to face an unjust government. This requires weapons designed to kill people, like AR-15 - and worse. Sorry if that scares people who don't want to think about conflict ever - but it is what it is.

The US government is now an old government. When civil unrest becomes great enough and as the economy erodes enough that the common person has enough difficulty surviving, the government will fall. They always do - it's inevitable that it will happen, the only question is when.

The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the common person from what can happen even after the government that provided it fails by making sure that no one was made defenseless to things like genocide or another sort of oppression. If you don't think that these things can happen in a modern, industrialized society, then you haven't paid much attention to history.

Freedom has never been free. I know it's cliche, but it's true. Yes, the 2nd amendment carries a price in lives. But anyone who thinks banning guns of any sort makes us safer as a nation is just mistaken. The cost of a society not being able to defend themselves is ultimately a lot higher than the cost if it isn't once the crap hits the fan. IMO, the price has been relatively modest overall.

I am sorry for those who have lost people to senseless gun violence. I know that no reasoning, no statistic and no rationale matters - you just want it to stop. I get that. But I just can't agree with gun bans. The world is a cruel place and it's not fair. Thinking we can create some utopic society where we don't have to think defensively is not realistic. It wasn't 250 years ago, and it's still not today.

Excellent point, and one which I tend to forget myself. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect a "right" which we now prohibit by statute: violent overthrow of the federal government.

So, does the statute support the illegitimacy of the Amendment with respect to current law, or is the statute unconstitutional?

I'd suggest the latter, but at the point when such an question would have to be adjudicated in a court of law as the result of an overt attempt to do that very thing, the legal issues may well be moot, depending on who won. There would also be treason statutes to contend with.

 

[Que]

Excellent point, and one which I tend to forget myself. The 2nd Amendment was designed to protect a "right" which we now prohibit by statute: violent overthrow of the federal government.

So, does the statute support the illegitimacy of the Amendment with respect to current law, or is the statute unconstitutional?

I'd suggest the latter, but at the point when such an question would have to be adjudicated in a court of law as the result of an overt attempt to do that very thing, the legal issues may well be moot, depending on who won. There would also be treason statutes to contend with.

Overthrow of any government is always legal if you win.

 

[Wats_butthole]

It's not a trap question, it's just one that gets to a very specific and ultimately the most relevant point of this topic and forces you to be honest about your own position.

I don't need to go back to the drawing board, I've got you by the ninnies via vice grips right here right now......

You can answer it or you can tuck tail and run from it via shit talk and deflection.

Either way the actual argument is already over has been for a while because of that very question.



So.... would you or would you not want to be armed if you had to defend yourself from an attack?

I own several guns, thanks for asking.

 

[Hypoxia]

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..."

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only of levying War upon them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The Second Amendment does not authorize insurrection against the Union. There exists no 'right' to violently overthrow the Union. Arguments for that 'right' are nonsense. Yes, Congress has failed to regulate the Militia. This doesn't change the fact: insurrection is treason. Those who would raise arms against the Union are traitors.

 

[doowdniw]

Good luck with that fantasy.

Pretty unlikely, but it wouldn't be the only amendment to be repealed.

 

[Rightguide]

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..."

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only of levying War upon them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The Second Amendment does not authorize insurrection against the Union. There exists no 'right' to violently overthrow the Union. Arguments for that 'right' are nonsense. Yes, Congress has failed to regulate the Militia. This doesn't change the fact: insurrection is treason. Those who would raise arms against the Union are traitors.

So is the unconstitutional usurpation of authority. When the government itself violates the Constitution, there is no Constitution or constitutional protection for anyone including government usurpers. Familiarize yourself with the American Revolution. Insurrection was against the law then as well.

 

[Unabatable]

When time for actual revolution arrives, success or failure of the revolt depends on physics, not politics.

 

[Wats_butthole]

A bunch of drunk dipshits will never overthrow the US government no matter how tyrranical they get.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

US Constitution, Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..."

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only of levying War upon them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

The Second Amendment does not authorize insurrection against the Union. There exists no 'right' to violently overthrow the Union. Arguments for that 'right' are nonsense. Yes, Congress has failed to regulate the Militia. This doesn't change the fact: insurrection is treason. Those who would raise arms against the Union are traitors.

I don't disagree with you, but it is an indisputable fact that the framers opted for a militia and the arming of individual citizens by endorsing their preexisting right to "keep and bear arms" (presumably through their own purchase or manufacture) because those same framers mistrusted the presence of a standing army in the hands of the very republican government they were forming.

Now if that falls short of a legal sanction of rebellion in light of the other language you cited, you would at least have to admit, would you not, that the establishment of the militia with that thought in mind was, at the very least, disingenuous?