How the right allow terrorists to get hold of weapons.

Scroll to see replies

However, you can start by deciding that the constitutional right only extends to the types of weapon available in 1789; bladed weapons and single shot muzzle loading pistols, rifles and smooth-bore guns regardless of calibre
, and blankets laced with smallpox.

(Would you also say that the 1st Amendment protects only opinions common in 1789?)

Reply 61

mojojojo101

Original post by LVRG

If this figure is true then it's difficult to see how people can justify the continued distribution of firearms to the public in the US. My only thoughts are that perhaps the population has been flooded by guns for so long that banning future purchase of them would actually cause more problems. It would seem that in some instances guns have become embedded in the fabric of what it is to be American. So many people both own and are trained to use a firearm and this leaves those without said ownership and training at a major disadvantage.

The amount of people who die in gun-related incidents in the US is terrifying, but seemingly a lot of people just don't seem to care very much. At this point I don't thik anything could shock the US public enough to allow the government to push through any legislation in this area.

Reply 62

username878267

Original post by Aceadria

I didn't know guns were sentient beings.

What?
Why is 3,000 deaths by one incident enough to justify foreign intervention but 33,000 deaths annually is not enough to restrict gun sales?

Reply 63

Observatory

Original post by Bornblue

What?
Why is 3,000 deaths by one incident enough to justify foreign intervention but 33,000 deaths annually is not enough to restrict gun sales?

I don't understand the equivalence. Murdering someone with a gun will prompt armed "intervention" by the state against you in America.

What you are proposing - seizing guns of innocent people - is more like attacking Afghanistan pre-emptively. Or ten Afghanistans, just on the off-chance.

Suppose the US decided that it would depose every government of every Islamic country and replace it with a Christian government.

Reply 64

username878267

Original post by Observatory

What am I proposing? How about restricting gun sales to prevent mass murder..
Duhh

Reply 65

Observatory

Original post by Bornblue

What am I proposing? How about restricting gun sales to prevent mass murder..
Duhh

You are not proposing to merely react to people who commit crimes with guns, as the US did when Afghanistan attacked its territory, but to pre-emptively act against peoplewho aren't guilty of any crime.

Reply 66

username2228735

Original post by Bornblue

What?
Why is 3,000 deaths by one incident enough to justify foreign intervention but 33,000 deaths annually is not enough to restrict gun sales?

Banning and restricting guns are two very different things, not only legally but also logistically. Moreover, you're suggesting that innocent individuals, who have committed no crime, should also see their freedoms reduced. A further point: you say you want to 'restrict guns' but don't suggest how. I have an inclination I know the answer but would much rather you tell me.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 67

username2228735

Original post by Observatory

Fantastic point.

Reply 68

username878267

Original post by Aceadria

Banning and restricting guns are two very different things, not only legally but also logistically. Moreover, you're suggesting that innocent individuals, who have committed no crime, should also see their freedoms reduced. A further point: you say you want to 'restrict guns but don't suggest how. I have an inclination I know the answer but would much rather you tell me.

No one should have the 'freedom' to have a gun,bar specially trained police units.

There are 33,000 gun related deaths a year in the USA. Last weekend 50 people in a gay club shot dead.

Yet people like you support this. Do you think it's a good idea to let anyone have access to guns?

Reply 69

nulli tertius

Original post by Observatory

, and blankets laced with smallpox.

No because this would not have been perceiveD as an "arm"

(Would you also say that the 1st Amendment protects only opinions common in 1789?)

No, because one can make sense of the 1st Amendment without doing so.

One has to define "arms" to make sense of the 2nd Amendment because common sense will not do so.

Reply 70

username2228735

Original post by Bornblue

You haven't addressed any of my points. Until you do so, there is no point continuing with this discussion.

(edited 7 years ago)

Original post by Aceadria

You haven't addressed any of my points. Until you do so, there is no point continuing with this discussion.

You didn't make any points worth addressinng. You just fed me the typical gun lobby line of 'protect our freedoms and ignore the 33,000 killed each year'

What points need addressing?

Reply 73

username2228735

Original post by Bornblue

You didn't make any points worth addressinng. You just fed me the typical gun lobby line of 'protect our freedoms and ignore the 33,000 killed each year'

What points need addressing?

Good to see I was right. You can read the previous posts and see which points need addressing.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 74

physicsphysics91

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-blocks-bill-stop-terrorists-buying-guns

The latest terrorist that killed all those LGBT people was known by the FBI. The government could astop him boaring a plane but could not stop him form buying a gun.

Sort your **** out right wingers.

Yet Hillary and the Obama administration gave a lot of weapons, equipment and vehicles that ended up in the hands of ISIS... used to kill many more people LOL. Typical liberal.

Reply 75

username878267

Original post by Aceadria

Good to see I was right. You can read the previous posts and see which points need addressing.

You made the logistics point which they always make.
It's not my role to come up with exactly how it will be achieved, that's the role of polticians. A good start would be to ban the sale of an item which causes 11 times as many deaths per year as there were in 9/11.

Reply 76

username2228735

Original post by Bornblue

You made the logistics point which they always make.

And it's a valid point. Simply pushing a liberal, anti-gun agenda is fine but unless you're able to suggest how this will be implemented efficiently, little progress will be made.

Original post by Bornblue

It's not my role to come up with exactly how it will be achieved, that's the role of polticians. A good start would be to ban the sale of an item which causes 11 times as many deaths per year as there were in 9/11.

Again, you're flip flopping between restrictions and bans. Moreover, there is little evidence to suggest that a ban or restriction will lead to a reduction in gun crime. Countries such as Australia, who introduced the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) experienced little to no change in homicide rates. It has worked in some countries, but that does not mean it will in the U.S.

Reply 77

LVRG

Original post by Aceadria

It has worked in some countries, but that does not mean it will in the U.S.

If it's worked in some countries then wouldn't it make sense to try it in the hopes of reducing the amount of gun related fatalities in the US? If you had said it failed in many countries then you would have a point, but seeing as it's working in more than one country and not having a negative effect anywhere else then it stands to reason that the US try and implement it. This whole freedom to own a gun is nonsensical to me. Have I less freedoms than an American because of my inability to buy a firearm here in the UK?

Reply 78

username2228735

Original post by LVRG

Firstly, a comparative analysis of the relationship between gun crime and homicide in different nations is very difficult and most likely will yield irregular results. The principle reason for this is that individual nations differ in their data collecting methods. If we want to come to a fair and unbiased conclusion on this topic the data would need to be more consistent.

Secondly, what you are suggesting is major policy changes and millions of dollars in costs simply as an 'experiment'. Instead, more detailed and rigourous analysis should be done to predict the implications of restrictions/bans. This would require better data collection, which at the moment is lacking.

Original post by LVRG

This whole freedom to own a gun is nonsensical to me. Have I less freedoms than an American because of my inability to buy a firearm here in the UK?

That's perhaps because you see freedom as a universally identical idea. One must take historical and cultural effects into consideration when analysing the idea.

Reply 79

LVRG

Original post by Aceadria

Secondly, what you are suggesting is major policy changes and millions of dollars in costs simply as an 'experiment'. Instead, more detailed and rigourous analysis should be done to predict the implications of restrictions/bans. This would require better data collection, which at the moment is lacking.

This is BS. It would be legislation not an 'experiment'... no repeal. You talk about investing "millions of dollars" in saving tens of thousands of lives per annum like it's a bad thing!? Where are you coming from with this quite frankly robotic argument?