How many shootings in the U.S. per year is too many?

[John_Gault]

Still that does not mean that I think that just anyone should be able to walk around with an AK47.

Who is advocating that? I don't think anyone here is debating background checks or safety classes...

Oh, BTW

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson.

Our founding fathers were men of arms with an unshakable questioning of authority in governmental form. In other words it would not suprise me if you made fun of most of them as gun-nut montana types had they been born during modern times.

Sounds like Jefferson would have disagreed with you about alot of things including football.

 

[DeeJayH]

11 pages into Saboteurs epic failure and he is stilll going
gotta atleast give him points for that

but in the end he still

just seemed really appropriate for this thread

 

[RightinNYC]

The original problem began with the escalation of firearms technology. Where does it say in the second amendment that the right to bear arms means anything more than single shot muskets, pistols, knives and swords?

This makes total sense. I mean think about it - the first amendment prohibits the government from passing laws restricting "the freedom of speech." It's obvious that this was only meant to cover the spoken word and other types of speech that had been commonplace in 1789. Thus, "free speech" doesn't apply to things like emails, text messages, or debate websites. The founders couldn't POSSIBLY have intended for these amendments to adapt to new developments, right?

 

[Doc Howl]

Amendment 2 - Right of the people to keep and bear arms in organized militia.

That's not what it says. Nice try.

 

[Doc Howl]

The original problem began with the escalation of firearms technology. Where does it say in the second amendment that the right to bear arms means anything more than single shot muskets, pistols, knives and swords?

It doesn't say "single shot muskets, pistols, knives and swords", it says "arms".

 

[Doc Howl]

That far, far more regulation is necessary to control gun ownership is obvious to anyone with at least a double digit IQ.

Why? Because you're scared?

 

[stevenb]

So how did the court hearing go for you then?

You do not have the right to kill anyone period. If you do kill in self defense you have to prove to a court that it was self defense.

Epic lulz, lots of states are adopting castle doctrine laws and various other self defense laws that prohibit criminals or their families from suing an armed victim for killing their perps.

If you are not going to provide a reference to your claim, my point is that you don't have a point other than you want to kill someone.

I carry a gun, I don't look forward to killing anyone.. but I will if I have to.

they are already shooting each other. so lets let them have at it.

The problem is they're killing innocent people too.

 

[Bodi]

Originally Posted by earthworm
That far, far more regulation is necessary to control gun ownership is obvious to anyone with at least a double digit IQ.

I certainly hope that you meant a TRIPLE digit IQ…

Originally Posted by Saboteur
The original problem began with the escalation of firearms technology. Where does it say in the second amendment that the right to bear arms means anything more than single shot muskets, pistols, knives and swords?

No. The problem began when people started going against the intentions of the Founding Fathers and decided that they should “interpret” meanings from words that are as plain as day.

Originally Posted by Saboteur
Amendment 2 - Right of the people to keep and bear arms in organized militia.

Doesn't say anything about the individual.

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.

Originally Posted by Zyphlin
PSSSST, I hate to tell you this but...you're wrong. See, there's this thing called the Supreme Court, and they ruled it was an individual right based on the full wording of the amendment. So, bitch and whine and complain all you want, but its 100% fact that at this time you are completely and utterly wrong about your interpritation.

The Supreme Court also ruled against Plessy. Nobody ever seems to want to address this obvious failure of the SC which illuminates their fallibility. Why should those of us that interpret the 2nd simply fold up and leave just because fallible human beings get together and form an opinion? Answer is that we shouldn’t.

Originally Posted by Saboteur
This does not say the 'right of the individual to keep and bear arms'

The argument about it being an individual right is understood to be accepted amongst all the rights… the issue that you are not connecting, and that these guys will never concede, is that the individual right to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia and not just so people can own guns because they simply want to go sport shooting.

That does not mean that people have to lose their guns, it simply means that people need to accept the responsibility of being part of a militia. They need to do more, not less in order to maintain the right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by GySgt
I don't see your point. The atom was split for one reason - to slaughter a massive amount of people. Does this mean that nuclear power must be forbidden? Obtuseness is breaking things down to black and white definition. A gun is a gun and it has many uses. It's the idiot behind the gun that decides.

That is incorrect. The atom was split over a decade before the Manhattan Project was ever conceived of.

1932 Cockcroft teams Walton to split the atom

British physicist John Cockcroft teams with Ernest Walton of Ireland to split the atom with protons accelerated to high speed. Their work wins them the Nobel Prize in physics in 1951.


Nuclear Technologies Timeline - Greatest Engineering Achievements of the Twentieth Century

The Fly in the Cathedral: How a Small Group of Cambridge Scientists Won the Race to Split the Atom

Review: The Fly in the Cathedral by Brian Cathcart | Books | The Guardian

Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton, Nobel Laureate and Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics, who died on 25 June 1995, was one of the legendary band of nuclear physicists who made 1932 an annus mirabilis. With John Cockcroft he caught the world's attention when he 'split the atom'

Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton Biography - School of Physics - Trinity College Dublin

What are a few of the many uses that a gun was made for, if not solely for killing things? This should be interesting indeed!

Originally Posted by

jfuh

Again, the exact obtuseness I was speaking of. A gun was built with being as lethal as possible for the category in which it was intended to fill.
It was meant to kill or cause massive injury so as to in turn become protective to someone that wields it, .

Correct.

 

[Goobieman]

individual[/I] to keep and bear arms'

The right of the people.
The same people mentioned in the other amendments, as individuals.
You do know the SCotUS decided this, right?

 

[Saboteur]

As far as how many shootings in the U.S. are too many goes, I guess it all depends on whether its Good Guys or Bad Guys getting shot.

Violence is violence, justified or not.

 

[Saboteur]

Oh, BTW

Our founding fathers were men of arms with an unshakable questioning of authority in governmental form. In other words it would not suprise me if you made fun of most of them as gun-nut montana types had they been born during modern times.

Sounds like Jefferson would have disagreed with you about alot of things including football.

Well that would be his and my perogative thanks to being free and all. Who cares?

 

[Saboteur]

This makes total sense. I mean think about it - the first amendment prohibits the government from passing laws restricting "the freedom of speech." It's obvious that this was only meant to cover the spoken word and other types of speech that had been commonplace in 1789. Thus, "free speech" doesn't apply to things like emails, text messages, or debate websites. The founders couldn't POSSIBLY have intended for these amendments to adapt to new developments, right?

Some would argue that pornography is not free speech probably including the founding fathers right?

 

[Gabby]

I could do this all day long, but to me, the intent of 2A is obvious.

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."
~Richard Henry Lee, Additional letters from The Federal Farmer 53 (1788)

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
~George Mason, during Virginia's ratification convention (1788)

Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever reamin, in the hands of the people.
~Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence.
~George Washington

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid michief would ensue were the law abiding deprived of the use of them.
~Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775)

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
~Thomas Jefferson (1764)

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
~Samuel Adams (1788)

Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.
~John Adams, A defense of the Constitution (1787-88)

In response to a proposal for gun registration: Absolutely not! If the people are armed and the federalists do not know where the arms are, there can never be an oppressive government.
~George Washington

 

[Saboteur]

I could do this all day long, but to me, the intent of 2A is obvious.

Well lucky for you I've already conceided to that view. Sorry you were too late to join the gang of bullies that are trying to harass me off of this web site.

 

[Goobieman]

Well lucky for you I've already conceided to that view. Sorry you were too late to join the gang of bullies that are trying to harass me off of this web site.

Aww... does your puddy hurt?

 

[Saboteur]

Sounds like Jefferson would have disagreed with you about alot of things including football.

Yes I would never have owned another man and called him livestock. I never would have raped the female livestock either.

 

[Saboteur]

Aww... does your puddy hurt?

Did I stutter? What part of being harassed means that I can't take it?

You know I think you are a small weak man with a simple mind who gets off on abusing people on this sight.

 

[Goobieman]

Did I stutter? What part of being harassed means that I can't take it?

The part where you're whining about it?

And, its telling that you think that questioning your arguments and your knowledge of the subject as 'harassment'. As I said before you dont know enough about the subject to have an informed conversation about it; since thenm you've done a great job of proving me right.

You know I think you are a small weak man with a simple mind who gets off on abusing people on this sight.

That's only because you posess piss-poor thinking skills.

 

[John_Gault]

I never would have raped the female livestock either.

Please source. :mrgreen:

 

[John_Gault]

Yes I would never have owned another man and called him livestock.

:yawn:

I love guys like you that think you have a magic moral compass that would allow you to cast off your upbringing and the norm of society regardless of the fact that you weren't there... If only you could have been born 200 years ago and informed our fore fathers of the err of their ways.:roll:

 

[Saboteur]

The part where you're whining about it?

Oh you though my stating a fact was whining? I was debating 3 or 4 of you guys at once and you all had the same thing to say "ehhyuck yer jus' dum.

And, its telling that you think that questioning your arguments and your knowledge of the subject as 'harassment'.

This post was hijacked by you. Where in the question of the OP does it ask 'should we ban guns?' This thread is about what people think is too much with regard to gun violence not control of guns or your right have guns.

However, it is interesting that once I found out that you and others support gun violence the debate went straight to the constitution where someone tried to trick me with 'what rights it grants'. You sneaks thought that the philosophical idea that people are born with rights was what grants rights when, unfortunately that's just philosophy.

As I said before you dont know enough about the subject to have an informed conversation about it; since thenm you've done a great job of proving me right.

I know what guns do and that is what the subject was here, once again you and your gun violence supporting friends hijacked this thread and made it about gun control.

That's only because you posess piss-poor thinking skills.

I am quite confident that it is not my thinking skills that are poor.

 

[Saboteur]

Please source. :mrgreen:

Oh my bad Jefferson loved his cattle.:roll:

 

[Saboteur]

:yawn:

I love guys like you that think you have a magic moral compass that would allow you to cast off your upbringing and the norm of society regardless of the fact that you weren't there... If only you could have been born 200 years ago and informed our fore fathers of the err of their ways.:roll:

These men were moral absolutists, they believed that christian moral laws were universal. They were just too ignorant to realize that an African man was a human being.

 

[MSgt]

That is incorrect. The atom was split over a decade before the Manhattan Project was ever conceived of.

Quite right.

What are a few of the many uses that a gun was made for, if not solely for killing things? This should be interesting indeed!

Why interesting? It's a pretty simple concept. The gun was made to kill. The same as the Bow and Arrow. The same as the Spear. And men have used all these items through history to hunt for food. Everything has a negative. I believe I've already stated all of this. But if we are to condemn the gun because it is used to kill people, then why don't we condemn the Bow & Arrow, Spear, etc.? Hell, the slingshot sends a projectile down range as well. And when it comes to killing, Caan didn't need anything beyond his fists to off Abel.

I think if there's anything history has taught us it is that man is determined to kill man. No matter the tool and no matter the lack there of.

 

[Goobieman]

Oh you though my stating a fact was whining?

Yes. You were whining.

:2bigcry:

This post was hijacked by you. Where in the question of the OP does it ask 'should we ban guns?' This thread is about what people think is too much with regard to gun violence not control of guns or your right have guns.

None of that negates anything I said.
Its telling that you think that questioning your arguments and your knowledge of the subject as 'harassment'.

I know what guns do...

You believe that guns are for killing.
While they can be used for that, and that's why we have a right to own and use them, only the patently (or wilfully) ignorant believe that all they do is kill.
Never mind that killing people is a legitimate and legal use for a gun.

I am quite confident that it is not my thinking skills that are poor.

Denial -- it's the first step. Good to see you're making progress.