It's the Guns

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Well, it actually means well trained, in good order, as in ensuring the firearms are in working order, cleaned and the people well trained in their use.

I can provide a link to an 18th Century dictionary to back this all up if needed.


DENY IGNORANCE

Exactly. The Fed power to 'regulate commerce' had nothing to do with imposing burdensome 'regulations' or taxes, it meant to 'make regular', or 'to facilitate the free-flow of trade'. To make rules preventing States from imposing inter-state tariffs, that kind of thing.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: shooterbrody

Interesting and one can certainly argue for it. My point was that founders were not perfect and maybe tgeir intent doesn't always fit into modern situations.

I just think saying "but the second amendment!" Is a cheap cop-out in gun debates sometimes.

In any case, im not arguing for gun confiscation or bans.

No, they were not perfect, and they accepted that in the manner in which they developed the architecture of the Constitution. See, they provided the ability to amend it, yes, change it! Imagine that, they knew times would change requiring the Constitution to change as needed. So, there is a legal process in place to amend that document. However, none of the people that rail against the 2nd Amendment want to use the legal means to change the amendment because "it's too hard". Well, YES, it is intentionally hard to do since these founding principals are the cornerstones of our entire republic (we are not a democracy, that too is lost in education). It SHOULD be hard to change them...or else it would be an easy step to tyranny. Something they personally witness and fought to prevent happening here again.

I sure wish this basic stuff was taught in school still. But, I can understand why it was stripped from the curriculum. TPTB wouldn't want the masses understanding their rights or why they exist. That would make it harder to gain power over them with their willing and ignorant acceptance.

DENY IGNORANCE

a reply to: blueman12

My point was that founders were not perfect and maybe tgeir intent doesn't always fit into modern situations.

Is that in totality or simply for the 2nd?

I just think saying "but the second amendment!" Is a cheap cop-out in gun debates sometimes.

no more so than saying the 1st or 4th or 5th imo
there is a point to be made that the specific right seemed important enough to them to write it

They did forsee changes in future times and provided a vehicle for such....it can be changed; it is just difficult and requires a LARGE MAJORITY to change it.
see the volstead act, enacted and retracted

a reply to: ErEhWoN

Really, it's you, not the guns.

But it's somewhat moot as Democrat politicians work around the 2nd Amendment to harass and bully companys into stop working with gun manafacturers and to curtail our rights a whole other way...and banks and Colt for insance, a folding.

a reply to: ErEhWoN

The claim has already been debunked by Author John Lott.

" So Lott undertook a study of his own, which was obtained late last month by RCP and is now available online. Titled “How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings: U.S. Rate Is Lower Than Global Average,” it looks at the years 1998 to 2012 – the last 15 years of Lankford’s time frame.

In it, Lott has some eye-opening statistics. For starters, in the just last 15 years of the 47-year period covered in the NYPD and Lankford reports, Lott found 1,448 mass public shootings -- and 3,081 shooters -- outside the United States. This means he discovered 15 times as many mass killers as Lankford in less than one-third the time frame.

It also means that instead of having 31 percent of the world’s mass shootings, the United States has fewer than 3 percent. The key takeaway here is that, with 4.4 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. has less than its share of mass murderers, a finding that utterly undermines the prevailing narrative. Take the Philippines, for example. It is one of the countries for which Lankford provides statistics. He says it had 18 mass shooters from 1966 to 2012. Lott says the Philippines had 52 mass shootings cases from 1998 to 2012 carried out by 120 gunmen. In Russia, Lankford had the total as 15. Lott found 34 in the tighter time frame. In Yemen, it was Lankford 11, Lott 29.
Filipino mass shooting mourners.
AP Photo/Bullit Marquez
In raw numbers, the U.S. still made the Top 10 on Lott’s list, but barely. Leading the pack is India, followed by Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Columbia, Nigeria, and the Philippines leading us. (Sudan has the dubious distinction of coming in 10th.) "

www.realclearpolitics.com...

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
gizmodo.com...

“I’m not gonna say that there’s no connection, but every other country on the planet has social media, video games, online harassment, hate groups, crime, and mental health issues. But they don’t have mass shootings like we do,” Senator Tammy Duckworth said this morning. “Nothing highlights the absurdity of Congress’s inability to solve the gun violence crisis like seeing 318 mass shootings in 260 days and then holding a hearing on extremism in social media.”

Americans do not spend an exceptional amount of time on social media Americans do spend a comparatively greater amount of time playing video games, but that... Neither of those numbers are remotely proportionate with the number of gun deaths—a figure which tracks most closely with (and now might be a good time to feign shock if you’ve looked at the news at any point since Columbine) the number of guns people own in the U.S.

Common sense eludes the American public.

In a Democracy (or Republic or whatever you want to call it), if you have to raise arms against a tyrannical government, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.

Common sense seems to elude you, and most people who ignorantly comment on guns in America.
The problem isn't the guns.
The problem is mind altering drugs used to treat mental health conditions (some bogus, some real).
THAT is the problem. Do you think it's a coincidence that most, if not all, mass shooters are on some form of these drugs, these so called anti-depressants? It's a fact, look it up, do some research, stop relying on MSM fake news to form your opinion.

Look at the UK. Gangs are out of control with knife crime.
What do you think would happen in the US if you magically banned guns? The same problems would still exist, the same use of those drugs would still exist, so instead of guns being used, potential mass shooters would instead be mass stabbers...they'd still be mass killers.
People like you don't seem to get that. You're too brainwashed into thinking that guns should be banned.

What you fail to realize, is that it is not about gun violence.
If they cared about gun violence, they'd do something about the gang problem. But the gang problem has been festering for how many decades now? Exactly. More people die in gang gun violence then mass shootings. But don't let those facts hit you in the face.

The other problem that exists, with these gangs, is that this gang culture, the thug life as they call it, the kill or be killed ethos, is promoted and held up on a pedestal as something for young black (& hispanic) men to aspire to in life. It is reinforced in popular black culture, such as in movies and music. You then add the drugs epidemic, and the fact that they are disadvantaged from the day they are born, living in ghettos, no job prospects, a very very poor education in local schools, and a prison system that is used by gangs to reinforce them selves, and you have your gang (gun) violence problems.

But don't address the reasons you have a problem with violence America. Just ignore everything that signals you have some serious problems in your society. Instead go after something that will have little impact on the violence and mass killings. Are you going to promote banning knives next? Why aren't you promoting banning on knives in the UK since you're so concerned with mass violence? Terrorists have even started using knives in attacks in western countries in the last few years. Ban knives?

If you don't agree with banning knives, but you want to ban guns, you are a brainwashed conditioned hypocrite.

You only think that mass shootings are the biggest problem because that's what the media focuses on and that's what you've been brainwashed, and conditioned to think.


You know, I'll point out something else to you as well since I know someone will have brought it up in the thread.
Australia banned many guns, many semi-autos, automatics, and certain types. You might think great, cant get guns in Australia. Wrong, that's more media brainwashing and conditioning.
It's very easy to get a gun in Australia. The only hurdle you face, is a few months wait to get your license and then get your gun. There's no mental health checks here either.

There's now more guns in Australia then before the new gun laws were introduced.
That includes more legally owned guns, and more ILLEGAL guns.
Gun crime actually increased in Australia after the new gun laws. Just ask the people in western Sydney about all the drive by shootings and gang violence. Melbourne had an underworld war with what was it two dozen dead? The after effects of that are still happening. North Western Melbourne is also a hot bed of gang activity with illegal guns being seized by police on a daily basis. And that's just a small taste re guns in the two biggest cities here.

You want an illegal gun? It's very easy to get one. What do you want?
In many police raids/confiscations, they've even found people with rocket launchers.
There's even been "gun factories" uncovered, and many 'home made' guns even fully automatic machine guns found.

The problem isn't guns. And gun bans don't work.

What tougher gun laws do, is make it harder for Joe Citizen to obtain one. Joe Citizen isn't what you should be worried about.
It's the gangs and organized crime.
Criminals do not obey the law. That's why we call them criminals.
Do you think that criminals in Australia handed in their guns during the gun buy back schemes? Do you think criminals suddenly went and applied for gun licenses and bought guns from gun stores because Australian introduced new gun laws?


How naive and gullible are you people?

originally posted by: Generation9
a reply to: ErEhWoN

The American public has common sense. Guns protect our freedom.

Explain how guns protect your freedom?

If you think you can defend yourself against the military, you are deluded.

If you draw a gun on police (or if they think you are doing so), they have been trained to shoot for the center of your body mass in reaction. Things will most likely not end well.

Once upon a time, trained militias had the capability of defending the rights of citizen groups, but who is in a militia these days? The paramilitary groups are too small to oppose government agencies, the military or the police.

And, just for a minute, consider if the words "freedom" or "liberty" are even valid to use in the situation. At the time of the war of independence, the US had slavery and the British didn't. In fact that 'libertine' state of the US was one of the last countries in the world to abolish slavery. Such freedom under the Constitution!

And, look at the situation today, look at your prisons. There are more people in prison, and a higher percentage of citizens per capita, than any other country in the world. On those grounds, the US is the least free nation on Earth.

But wave that flag like crazy and keep chanting the slogans they taught you in your indoctrination civics classes. Then you can be excused for not reasoning out the obvious.

Your enemy wants you to lay down your gun and give up. Just roll over and die.

Who is this enemy that is seeking to kill or enslave you? Is slavery even legal or condoned by any nation? I'm fairly sure that murder is illegal across the planet, too.

Also, don't you know of the gun death statistics? Lots of people are dying of GSW. The vast majority of them are killed by their own gun! It's not some 'pew pew' game of goodies vs. baddies.

Seems like you lack common sense.

Really?

a reply to: chr0naut

Could you please stop making claims about what would happen in any military conflict? You don't actually know what you're talking about.

a reply to: blueman12

Allow a quote from one of those old fuddy duds?

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ― Patrick Henry

Sounds pretty modern of point. And that was just one of Patrick Henry’s many points for the inclusion of the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Virginia would not abandon the old Articles of Confederation without the Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

Could you please stop making claims about what would happen in any military conflict? You don't actually know what you're talking about.

There is precedent:

Whiskey Rebellion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Showed that the Constitutional US government would use troops against the citizenry. Government wins.

Bonus Army From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Where the US government used the military, including tanks, against the citizenry. Government wins.

Battle of Blair Mountain From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia More of the same. Government wins.

Executive Order 9066 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia US government putting its citizens into concentration camps enforced by the military. Government wins.

Kent State shootings From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not much of an armed conflict as the citizens weren't armed. Government wins.

1992 Los Angeles riots From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Riots after police shoot and kill Rodney King. National guard brought in, 63 dead, 2,383 injured. Government wins.

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina, City and local response From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia From the Wikipedia article: Gov. Blanco warned that troops had orders to shoot to kill, saying, "These troops are fresh back from Iraq, well trained, experienced, battle tested and under my orders to restore order in the streets. ... They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.". Government wins.

There are other instances which support my case, but you get the gist.

Today a gun called me a racial epithet.

originally posted by: Lysergic
Today a gun called me a racial epithet.

Are you sure it was real? I mean Lysergic, right..?

a reply to: chr0naut

The feels were real brah.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
...
Common sense eludes the American public.

Have you even bothered to read the despicable ideologies of the last 4 mass murderers?...

They were all LEFT-WING, they all believed that "Earth is overpopulated and we are damaging the environment..." They all also thought "killing people will save the environment..."

THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM... Far left-wing ideology which has indoctrinated millions of people into believing murdering people will save the environment/Earth...

Heck, who forgets the video of British children saying with smiles in their faces "I would happily die to save the Earth..." Those same children all participated in a video in which the teacher asked "whom of you don't believe in mankind is causing climate change?" Those who raised their hands had their heads explode in some delusional left-wing belief that those children that would dare not believe in such ideology are evil and need to die...

If there were no firearms, these aholes/murderers would have chosen some other method to murder and could have murdered more people...

How about we instead ban left-wing ideology all together that teaches this extremism?... Banning the tools such murderers use will not stop other murderers from doing the same with other tools.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
In a Democracy (or Republic or whatever you want to call it), if you have to raise arms against a tyrannical government, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST.

If the American people were disarmed the left would have probably put anyone who is not left-wing in jail or in an asylum for holding different political views. Heck, your leftist scientists, psycholo-crazy-gists and philosophers/scholars have already proclaimed that holding conservative values equals a danger to "progressivism and the future." The Obama administration with all his socialist/communist Czars labeled more than half of the U.S. as "possible extremists/possible terrorists" for holding conservative values. Left-wing Harvard psychologists, among others, even claimed POTUS Trump is insane for holding conservative values. Then we have the shadow banning, and outright banning of conservatives by Liberals who don't want different opinions from their own to exist. The left is nothing more than a bunch of authoritarians, and you are one of them.

I was born in a communist regime which to this day has a socialist economy which disarmed the people. You want to do the same? Try to come get them.

a reply to: chr0naut

I see your instances and raise you Vietnam and Afghanistan.

Now back to your lane.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN

Are we banning cars next since it's also a tool that when operated incorrectly or illegally kills millions a year?

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Are you implying we should register and insure ALL firearms?

I think thats a great idea!

Glad you thought of it!

LOOOOLL !!!..zing!!

a reply to: chr0naut

And you love every one of those conflicts, as the authoritarian you are.

There are literally millions of veterans whom are now civilians and are armed. The armed populace is the only thing which has slowed down left-wing authoritarianism.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

Could you please stop making claims about what would happen in any military conflict? You don't actually know what you're talking about.

Yeah, TPTB would never go to war with the American people head on... just look at how the authorities where treading on eggshells during the wacko and Ruby ridge sieges.

Now, just imagine that on a large scale. All those thousands of close knit and extremely patriotic communities around America, who are armed to the teeth... It'd get extremely messy really quickly, if the government got them all riled up all at once.

But psychological warfare, that's a different story... left verses right... rich verses poor... the have gots verses the have nots.

Its like a frog in boiling water... ya never even saw it coming.

To think, that the most well armed society in world, also has the highest incarceration rate on the planet... your being imprisoned on mass for petty drug possession and traffic violations.

They totally own you, despite your well armed society... explain that?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

You have to be individually licensed to drive a car legally and there are all sorts of safety requirements to reduce the road toll. Yet people can purchase arms anonymously, in most cases, and carry them in public.

there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to have a car

No, but there is statutory law.

I believe

also not in OUR constitution

not that you understand or give a crap

Well, I think that there is clear justification for carefully, and with great consideration and discussion, amending your Constitution, as has been done previously. It was framed for an 18th Century society and we are now in the 21st Century.

Of course I give a crap. I'd be happy to hand it to you by the steaming load.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: chr0naut

The feels were real brah.

Yeah, na, yeah. (traditional way NZ'ers show they have considered and are in agreement).