In the United States, Knives, Fists, and Feet are More Dangerous Than Rifles

a reply to: elysiumfire

anything they try to ban would actually have a good chance to get overturned in court. theres a little nugget in the DC vs Heller decision .....

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

en.wikipedia.org...

Even though in this case they were concentrating on the DC handgun ban, read the line well, to paraphrase, it would be unconstitutional to ban an entire class of arms (in our discussion , so called assault rifles) that Americans overwhelmingly chose for lawful purposes.

I guess it really doesnt matter since the left and their allies seem to pretend the constitution doesnt apply to them as it does everyone else

AmericanRealist:

...we can surely live with the infrequent psycho mass killer who rarely ever even uses rifles to kill.

Yes, obviously YOU can live and put up with the frequent gun rampages just as long as neither you or any of your loved ones are any where near the massacre. No doubt, you perceive gun rampages as an acceptable cost, equal to train, car, and plane accidents. What a skewed and pernicious mind you have.

You call yourself AmericanRealist, yet you live by an entirely different understanding to everyone else. You haven't opted out of anything, as you have yet to join and participate in the real world. How the hell do people who think like you actually arise?

SM2

Anything they try to ban would actually have a good chance to get overturned in court.

Well, the beauty of the 2nd Amendment is that it can be...amended. It can be struck off or changed to reflect the structure and functioning and dangers to...modern societies that have long since moved on from the initial reason for the original amendment. I wouldn't hold my breath for any change to the amendment in the near future, but I can see either time or an event that will bring about the change eventually. Societal laws have to reflect current society, not past society.

A sane country would not allow gun rampages to continue, and certainly not with the frequency with which it occurs in America. A sane country would look at the issue with justified moral reasoning on the issue that gun ownership comes at too high a cost for society, and take steps to remove guns (in incremental phases) off the streets except where they are lawfully required by law enforcement agencies only.

A complete ban on guns in public places could easily be legislated for. No concealed and carry, and if you want a gun for home defence, then by all means, but the gun stays in the home. Anyone found carrying a gun in a public place will have it confiscated and a ban placed on them for a set period from owning a gun. Solutions are available, you just need the will to put them in place.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Sorry but I don't think protection of one's self and family from danger or to protect your country from oppressive regimes and or ideologies is something that belongs in the past and it would seem that , no matter how much you want to believe differently, you and people that see things as you do are in the minority.

SM2:

Sorry but I don't think protection of one's self and family from danger or to protect your country from oppressive regimes and or ideologies is something that belongs in the past and it would seem that , no matter how much you want to believe differently, you and people that see things as you do are in the minority.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of what I am saying? Protection of one self, one's family, and even one's country, remains in the present, but it does so within a context. That context has to involve and invoke moral and ethical reasoning, none of which is being applied by gun owners or gun advocates to even remotely begin to stop gun rampages.

Gun owners and advocates perceive the issue from only one perspective, and that is through a fear of 'what if...?' What if a criminal tries to invade my home or harm my family? What if a terrorist attacks my city? What if the government seeks to draw greater power unto itself and turn tyrannical against the people?

Home invasion protection by gun is both logical and ethical. One should have the right to defend one self, one's loved ones, and one's property, but the gun remains at home. There is little you can do against a terrorist attack upon a city, particularly against bomb attacks, or planes being flown into buildings. As for a government turning tyrannical, one could argue that that has already occurred through the militarisation of domestic law enforcement agencies and the surveillance apparatus that has manifested around them. Yet not one gum owner or advocate stepped forward to combat this encroachment into silent tyranny...not one.

So, the only real argument gun owners and advocates have is for protection of loved ones and personal property. There is no argument that justifies the carrying of a gun in a public place, as the nation has domestic law enforcement agencies to protect the public in public places. It is they who are trained and authorised to do that, not ordinary members of the public.

Whether gun owners or advocates trust the law enforcement agencies is irrelevant, it is what is good for society as a whole that is more pertinent, and gun rampages are not good for society. Gun rampages are not the same or could even be remotely considered in the same context as train, car and plane accidents, or alcoholism, or smoking diseases, or the plethora of other pithy claims for equal context. America's gun problem, and it is a real problem, is way out there in its own context, and needs to be dealt with robustly and forthrightly, for the good of American people.

a reply to: AmericanRealist

I just joined this forum (I was searching if drugs inc was fake or not) and something you wrote caught my attention. Something similar happened to me and since I am new (I'm guessing?) I can't PM you. I would like to talk to you if possible. I'm referring to something you said about Verizon vans and especially when you mentioned rental cars. Like I said I've seen something similar so I beleive you and was hoping I could ask you a few questions/compare.

a reply to: elysiumfire

In regards to your opinion that guns should stay in the home, the second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms. That means, to keep and carry. So no, I do not agree with your statement. You state that we have law enforcement to protect the population while in public and that they are the ones trained and authorized to do so. I can not entirely agree with you here either. In theory, yes, i could, but in practice, no. Our law enforcement is poorly trained for starters. They have poor accuracy with their firearms....

"According to the LAC data, when only one officer fired during an encounter, the average hit ratio was 51 percent. When an additional officer got involved in shooting, hits dropped dramatically, to 23 percent. With more than 2 officers shooting, the average hit ratio was only 9 percent - "a whopping 82 percent declination," Aveni points out."

www.policeone.com...

They have no legal obligation, according to the supreme court to protect anyone. add in the attitude most police officers have to today, which is "us against them" and they have a tendency to instigate rather then pacify a situation. so lets just say, while I respect the police and yes there are a lot of great ones out there, I can not place my life into the hands of the average police officer with confidence.

Does America really have a gun problem? Or do we have a problem with inner city youth? most of those gun crime stats most likley come from places like Chicago where the gang members are shooting the place up every other day. More restrictive gun laws will not stop a maniac from doing what he wants to do. They always happen in gun free zones, it's already against the law to bring a gun there, it's already ilegal to kill people. So, tell me, how will more laws stop someone intent on killing?

SM2:

...the second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms. That means, to keep and carry.

Only within a specific context. The right to keep and bear arms (imo) can only be contextually interpreted for the time in which it was written, and correlates to keeping a gun at home, and to carry and use it in public only when called upon to do so as a member of a militia in defence of one's state or the nation as a whole against an enemy foreign or domestic. Therefore the debate resolves contemporaneously down to keeping the gun at home in defence of one self, one's loved ones, and one's personal property. I do not agree that the 2nd amendment allows for the carrying of a gun in a public place, therefore legislation should be debated in congress and the senate and the supreme court to robustly prohibit the carrying of a gun in a public place.

Once the legislation is in place, law enforcement agencies can then act on anyone carrying a gun in public whether on their person or in a vehicle. Over a period of time, this will rid the streets of guns.

I agree, that legislation against carrying in a public place will not stop a person determined to go on a gun rampage, but it will give law enforcement agencies the power to remove guns from a person or from their vehicle, and also, same legislation can set up greater restrictive laws on the sale of guns...which is what is needed. The solutions are there, you just need the will.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
SM2:

...the second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms. That means, to keep and carry.

Only within a specific context. The right to keep and bear arms (imo) can only be contextually interpreted for the time in which it was written, and correlates to keeping a gun at home, and to carry and use it in public only when called upon to do so as a member of a militia in defence of one's state or the nation as a whole against an enemy foreign or domestic. Therefore the debate resolves contemporaneously down to keeping the gun at home in defence of one self, one's loved ones, and one's personal property. I do not agree that the 2nd amendment allows for the carrying of a gun in a public place, therefore legislation should be debated in congress and the senate and the supreme court to robustly prohibit the carrying of a gun in a public place.

Once the legislation is in place, law enforcement agencies can then act on anyone carrying a gun in public whether on their person or in a vehicle. Over a period of time, this will rid the streets of guns.

I agree, that legislation against carrying in a public place will not stop a person determined to go on a gun rampage, but it will give law enforcement agencies the power to remove guns from a person or from their vehicle, and also, same legislation can set up greater restrictive laws on the sale of guns...which is what is needed. The solutions are there, you just need the will.

Some issues with your opinion. It has already been established in a multitude of case law that your vehicle is an extension of your home. As such, it is legal (in most states) to carry your firearm in your vehicle in a ready state. In some states, such as Georgia and Florida, among others, you have no duty to inform a law enforcement officer of said firearm during an interaction. These are rulings based on the fourth amendment as it pertains to the vehicle being an extension of your home.

This long used and tired argument of " in the context of the time it was written" , well that dog wont hunt. If that is the case, then the First amendment also has to be considered in the context of the time it was written, so no more free speech on the internet, twitter, ATS, Facebook. Using that arguments logic, we would only have free speech when using old antique hand crank flat bed printing presses that takes hours to set up a single page.

You can not cherry pick the bill of rights just because something offends your sensibilities. This is why it is so hard to change the Constitution. To protect the rights of all citizens against emotional knee jerk reactions to problems. Now, I am not saying there is not a violence problem in America, far from it, I think we have a huge problem that has gone unchecked for far too long with violence, especially in larger cities like New York, Chicago and LA. No one wants to touch that though, because as soon as you start to address the issues everyone gets butt hurt and starts screaming about racism

a reply to: veracity

Don't worry, the police will protect us... right?

10 minute average response time, can't foil a single mass shooting even though there are clear warning signs ahead of time.

The people on the left that you praise murder many innocent women and children while they want to revoke your right to protect yourself.

Just wait until your home is broken into and you rely on our corrupt government and dangerous police force to save you.

Good luck!

a reply to: elysiumfire

I literally just posted the mass shooter statistics. You say they are so frequent, and yet in three different eight year periods, the total death count never passed 200, over a period of eight years at a time. The first 16 im talking about barely push over 100 each.

Trains derail more frequently than mass shootings occur. More toddlers drown unsupervised in a single year than the amount of mass shootings in the last 20. Perhaps it is you who needs to go to the real world??
I can drive to that place in Orlando in about 80 minutes.
When I say that mass shootings are literally so infrequent, and then provide the data to show for it, I mean it. There are about the same, or more people murdered by arson as are murdered in a 'mass shooting' on an annual basis.

However, even the total death count to date is under 200 for the last eight. Tell me how many mass shootings are plaguing our urban centers that they can be called ridiculously frequent? What like up to six across all of the US?? Well I know that many banks are robbed on a daily basis across the US, and I frequent the bank to keep my cash out of it. I still feel very safe at the bank.

More people were stomped on or punched to death last year than died in the last eight in mass shootings. The media has drawn you into the hive mind. Because you see and hear about a single incident for upwards of a month at a time, the hive mind has the perception that mass shootings are taking America by storm. Well they are not. As far as I am concerned, the data speaks for itself.

I am a free man living in a free society. Thats comes with risks, which I am currently willing to accept. I got 5 kids. We frequently go to the malls, parks, movies, etc.. etc..
it comforts me knowing how many people I walk by everyday are probably carrying concealed, and they arent just going around killing people. Does that compute for you?? Is that something you believe to be completely unorthodox?? Florida has issued more CWP's than any other state. And yet, our violent crime, including murder is still on a downward trend year after year.


We just have better manners down here with each other. And the occasional zombie attack. After Rudy Eugene, we take the threat of zombie attacks very seriously.

a reply to: veracity

Soooo much BS in your response.

Do you understand the Constitution, BoRs and the Amendments?

Do you understand history at all?

Or.........is emotionally charged responses all that you know.

a reply to: elysiumfire

So, this applies to ALL of the Amendments as well? Like Free Speech, only in Town Squares and items off the printing press.
No quarter of troops, only if you are living in a farm house.


Your "opinion" is sooo incorrect, it really boggles the mind where one would get such a misunderstanding of things.

Why is it so hard for you all to accept that amendments are transitory. Amendments are subject to change for the right reasons, and thus the 2nd amendment is up for change due to the level of gun violence in America, with particular emphasis on gun rampages.

Trains, cars, planes, trams, boats are not equal to gun violence, they do not correlate to gun violence, they are just 'strawman' arguments to make yourselves look as if you made a point, but all you made was a redundancy in debate. Cars are not extensions of one's home, a garage is, but one's car is not, unless you live in the car. The car is nothing more than a utensil that carries you from A to B, so logically, there is no correlation to it being a home. Your argument would be better suited to describe it as your property, but if you own a gun, it is not registered to your car, but to your home address. Interpretations look to have been stretched beyond credibility.

Everything I have stated in my posts on gun control hold their ground and not a single rebuttal has been successful against the points I have made.

a reply to: elysiumfire

you sir are wrong. I see you are from the UK, so, you may not know about American law. The courts have ruled that personal vehicle is , in fact, an extension of one's home, with the exception of expectation of privacy.

Regarding your comment on the transitory nature of the amendments, yes and no. Yes you can change anything in the Constitution through the amendment procedures, but it would very difficult on an issue that most agree on. Getting any of the Bill of Rights changed or repealed would be nigh impossible...as it should be. Furthermore, that you feel is the right or good reasons, are not the consensus of the citizens of the United States, otherwise, it would be changed or repealed, instead the second has been bolstered through several recent court cases such as D.C v Heller and various state laws that lessen the restriction on carrying weapons, I.E Constitutional carry in several states.

In regards to your supposed "straw man arguments" , yes, trains, cars, boats etc do in fact matter from a statistical point. I will explain. A firearm has one purpose. To inflict massive physical trauma rapidly. I think we can all agree on this. Trains, boats, cars etc are not intended for that purpose, and there are just as many, if not more guns in America then modes of personal conveyance. So, if an object is meant to move you from point a to point b in a quick and safe manner is responsible for thousands more deaths and injuries to the population, then an item created to cause that damage, then common sense would say that there is not nearly as much problem with guns as you hypothesize.

a reply to: elysiumfire

I love it when foreigners chime in on OUR rights, laws and culture.
it is refreshing to hear from someone that comes from a country being overrun with Muslims so much that certain areas are now off limits.


How about this. Why don't you go and actually read up on American based Constitutional Laws and Amendments.

Here is one topic. "How to amend the Constitution". See......if the Amendments were transitory, or what we call here "living/breathing", a method to amend them would not have been created. Because after all.......they are "transitory".

a reply to: elysiumfire

Actually, your take on vehicles is incorrect as well.
The courts have ruled that a persons vehicle is an extension of their property, thus search and seizure laws apply, what can be in the vehicle while on other property and so on.


Your really should research our laws before you chime in any further.

It seems like a reasonable question to ask: Do we want to be able to keep a person from buying a gun based on the fact that they have been recently investigated for terrorist activity, even if insufficient evidence was found to bring charges?

originally posted by: Greggers
It seems like a reasonable question to ask: Do we want to be able to keep a person from buying a gun based on the fact that they have been recently investigated for terrorist activity, even if insufficient evidence was found to bring charges?

NO.

That sets a very dangerous precedent. That would get overthrown in court so fast for violating the Second and Fifth Amendments, possibly fourth as well, depending on specifics.

a reply to: Greggers

The irony of the 2nd being put in place, so the People can defend themselves firstly from a Govt, and people want the Govt to regulate this is insane.


The Wolf wants to make the rules about the hen house, and enforce said rules.

a reply to: Greggers

the question begs, if there is no evidence, what causes this person to be investigated to begin with? Is it a loyalty to the Bill of Rights, States rights, and loving America? Yes, that will do it.