Firstly. A distinction and thus context needs to be drawn from the premise of what I was stating. The Constitution itself, that is the original document, is consistent.
the fact is. that most of my firearms.. are not designed to kill humans. And the ones that I have that are "designed to kill"... as you would say.. have never killed anyone and are used for practice, for competition and for fun shooting targets.
Firstly. Never denied that notion. A "living" and "breathing" document is not one that doesn't recognise terrorism or extremist groups or gay marriage or gay rights or the firearm issues or mental illness or immigration and a plethora of other modern day issues. It implies brevity and clarity, not nebulous and vague terms and wordings as the Constitution demonstrates in many ways. Additionally according to you 225 years is not outdated??
This is just an article to affirm and highlight my point of view is represented by others-
https://www.hoover.org/research/our-outdated-constitution
Secondly. You stated the following and I responded
"number of deaths so significant that it requires a huge and expensive and restrictive change in the us laws? Now.. I get that you want to play into the emotion of "if it saves one life" I also never stated that inequality in the treatment of others should be adopted you put those words in my mouth, to enhance you point of view. Unfortunate you have to employ this "tactic".
Thirdly. Of course completely eradicating is something that is very likely to be unattainable. But this is discerning practicality for morality. Quite simply resources are not the sole driver of stopping all crimes even firearm crimes, individuals, NGO's and the Governments voice play an important role. Zero is better morally than stating 10 deaths is an acceptable number. For you personally, without outside influences, what do you believe an acceptable number of deaths is?? I suggest you watch this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHhiUv9hX-o
If we lived in a fantasy world everyone would be perfect, legislation would not exist, government would not exist and society would be structured very differently
To your next point. When did I state anything about billions?? It is not worth inflating such a figure because you dislike the concept of banning or strictly implementing gun policies. Additionally you tend to explore, intentionally, the issue with little depth and insight. It would actually attempt to alleviate the 33,000 deaths per year and the additional injuries sustained, save 5.5 billion in tax revenue (oh theres your billions you mentioned, being wasted in resources), 1.4 billion in Medicare, over 224 million insurance claims, reduce suicide rate, reduce impacts on families involved, reduce the abuse posed against woman (they are 500% more likely to be murdered if a gun is involved), reduce the 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.
To your fifth point. I am simply stating the truth, something you quite simply dislike and thus negate. Additionally any argument pertaining to death is going to illustrate emotion, emotion emanating from the action rather than myself. I acknowledge your perceptions but why would I focus on them when I disagree with, for the ongoing reasons I have discussed.
Finally. Simply listing items is an emotional response. Lets just claim everything I state is emotional to enhance your premise. Well everything you state is vile.....does that achieve anything????Quite simply "no"
Gasoline is a poison of sorts but its primary purpose is to fuel cars and the like. Not inflict harm or cause death.
Knives primary purpose is not to be used as a weapon, that distinction must be drawn.
Alcohol is not a poison, if it were it would be killing millions per year. It is merely a drink in which induces drunkenness, and does not have the primary purpose of killing or inflicting damage
It does not take away from the fact that in general firearms primary purpose is to kill or inflict damage. So according to you because a citizen has a, lets say Glock 19 or Glock 22, that it was not designed to kill or inflict harm. But soon as a police officer has the exact same weapon it suddenly becomes a weapon that kills and inflict
