"gun violence" is a misnomer

[TurtleDude]

See? Here you go with "unconstitutional" again: nothing that has passed as gun control can be considered unconstitutional. Nothing in the constitution says anywhere that one can keep any gun they want for any reason they want. Gun control has been passed in the several states and federally for very good objective reasons concerned with public safety. And with respect to your reply, you've really not answered anything I put you other than you like conservative judges and the word "unconstitutional", which only goes to my point: you gun guys have prepared talking points that only echo useless right-wing gun sales agenda. You have nothing profound or historically accurate or socially constructive to add to anything that is put in front of you all as a thesis for good gun control that leaves the 2nd exactly as it stands today - unharmed and in full use.

Another jet whopper-I guess McDonald And Heller don't exist.

 

[TurtleDude]

Any gun law that restricts ownership of "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" can be considered to be unconstitutional.

Its hilarious watching error after error from him.

 

[TurtleDude]

The gun lovers absolutely do not care how many are killed by guns.

It's all about them and their self image.

And Gun fearers don't care how many peoples' rights they screw over as long as they can alleviate their irrational hatreds?

 

[zsu2357]

My advice is that if the thought of killing someone does NOT bother you - you need much more help that I ever will, my friend.

Never said it didn't,however I have a sense of self preservation that over rides anytime to be bothered if someone is out to kill me or a loved one. Apparently you don't.

 

[zsu2357]

Not if they don't hit a target of flesh, it depends on what they hit.

He'd love my small pieces of metal. 9mm 85 gr. frangible. Not as apt to over penetrate a wall in the advent of a miss.

 

[Rucker61]

He'd love my small pieces of metal. 9mm 85 gr. frangible. Not as apt to over penetrate a wall in the advent of a miss.

I found some YouTube footage of the round I'm using - .30 caliber 110 gr VMAX in a suppressed .30 Blackout. Good penetration with no over penetration.

 

[zsu2357]

In other words, you don't understand why it is dangerous to get hit with an object that has high kinetic energy.

Oh if were talking about bullets sure. I want to be sure that the "midnight visitor" is staying down,be it .45,5.56,9mm or 7.62x39.
Still don't get the part about though.:shrug:

 

[zsu2357]

Which of the founders, concerning the second amendment were ballistics experts?

WTF? But back to the here and now,we are talking about you and Co. and some kind of fantastical kinetic energy of shells (which are also known as casings).Or do you think maybe the whole cartridge leaves the muzzle?

 

[zsu2357]

No ****. Now address this flawed point of yours already:



High-KE objects are inherently dangerous to living beings. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a basic fact. Can you accept that fact?

Shells Phys shells. Can you except that fact? Yes bullets high kinetic energy upon impact with some varying. Shells burn on impact. I.E. landing on arm or down shirt. You do know the difference between the two right?

 

[jet57]

WTF? But back to the here and now,we are talking about you and Co. and some kind of fantastical kinetic energy of shells (which are also known as casings).Or do you think maybe the whole cartridge leaves the muzzle?

Nope: you were expounding your expertise in a gun thread, so the obvious question came to mind: Which of the founders, concerning the second amendment were ballistics experts?

If you cannot answer the question, then you have no business telling others they no nothing about guns, because such knowledge obviously doesn't count with respect to and cause and effect and policy.

 

[jet57]

Another jet whopper-I guess McDonald And Heller don't exist.

Nothing that has passed as gun control can be considered unconstitutional.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nothing that has passed as gun control can be considered unconstitutional.

The DC gun ban was passed-so you LIED

the School zone gun law struck down in LOPEZ was passed-so again you have LIED

the Chicago gun ban was passed-and STRUCK down in McDonald-a third LIE

 

[Media_Truth]

The DC gun ban was passed-so you LIED

the School zone gun law struck down in LOPEZ was passed-so again you have LIED

the Chicago gun ban was passed-and STRUCK down in McDonald-a third LIE

For the most part jet57 is correct. It was only since 2008, with the current NRA-endorsed Libertarian SCOTUS that they have overridden some local gun control measures. Prior to that, for over 200 years, the SCOTUS didn't interfere.

Local gun control laws were passed as early as the late 1700s. Alabama passed legislation. Kentucky had adopted the verbage of Amendment 2, and actually changed their State Constitution to depart from the national constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

For the most part jet57 is correct. It was only since 2008, with the current NRA-endorsed Libertarian SCOTUS that they have overridden some local gun control measures. Prior to that, for over 200 years, the SCOTUS didn't interfere.

Local gun control laws were passed as early as the late 1700s. Alabama passed legislation. Kentucky had adopted the verbage of Amendment 2, and actually changed their State Constitution to depart from the national constitution.

There was no federal gun control law until 1934 so that 200 year bit is nonsensical.

No one is denying that states could pass some types of gun control. No state banned types of firearms though until recently. BTW in GA, I believe in the 1830s, a ban on carrying concealed pistols was struck down by the state supreme court as violating the second amendment

 

[Media_Truth]

I recall when I was a teenager at a carnival. One of the swindler carnies pulled out a gun on me. He didn't point it at me, but still I perceive that experience as a victim of "gun violence".

In the words of Ronald Reagan (who wouldn't even make it through a Republcan Primary today) -

 

[VanceMack]

Heres why the 'gun violence' phrase is a misnomer...

Homicides in Chicago: A list of every victim | Chicago Sun-Times

Switch back and forth between the tabs "any type of" and "a stabbing" or "another type of" homicide.

Oh...theres a problem. General lack of regard of human life. Avoidance of the perpetrators. Life in a ****ty environment. but Gun Violence isnt 'the problem'.

 

[Rucker61]

I recall when I was a teenager at a carnival. One of the swindler carnies pulled out a gun on me. He didn't point it at me, but still I perceive that experience as a victim of "gun violence".

In the words of Ronald Reagan (who wouldn't even make it through a Republcan Primary today) -

View attachment 67252307

If a criminal pulls a gun on you, or a knife, or a blunt instrument, he's not a person of good will. There is no reason to deny a law abiding citizen the ability to defend themselves both in and out of their homes.

 

[jet57]

The DC gun ban was passed-so you LIED

the School zone gun law struck down in LOPEZ was passed-so again you have LIED

the Chicago gun ban was passed-and STRUCK down in McDonald-a third LIE

They didn't PASS the courts did they. I said gun control that's PASSED.

 

[Rucker61]

They didn't PASS the courts did they. I said gun control that's PASSED.

"Gun control that has passed" would typically refer to gun control passed by legislation, not by upheld by an appellate court. If the latter is what you meant, your terminology was non-standard and therefore easy to be misconstrued.

 

[TurtleDude]

They didn't PASS the courts did they. I said gun control that's PASSED.

Lying weasel words. What a silly bit of dishonest circular reasoning.

 

[TurtleDude]

"Gun control that has passed" would typically refer to gun control passed by legislation, not by upheld by an appellate court. If the latter is what you meant, your terminology was non-standard and therefore easy to be misconstrued.

That's the level of dishonesty we have come to expect from the hard core anti gun side. Laws that were on the books for years were "not passed" because they ultimately were stricken by a court. Too Funny!

 

[DebateChallenge]

Nope: you were expounding your expertise in a gun thread, so the obvious question came to mind: Which of the founders, concerning the second amendment were ballistics experts?

Well George Washington would've had to have been a ballistic expert for the ballistics at the time, what with him being a general and all.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Well George Washington would've had to have been a ballistic expert for the ballistics at the time, what with him being a general and all.

No. Back then you became a general from your birth, or from dead mens shoes promotion.

 

[DebateChallenge]

No. Back then you became a general from your birth, or from dead mens shoes promotion.

Well George Washington would've had to know stuff about ballistics since he trounced the redcoats.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Well George Washington would've had to know stuff about ballistics since he trounced the redcoats.

No, he had the French for that technical stuff. Until he won.