Gun Control is Completely Useless.


bluebyrd35
No Party Affiliation
#10231
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

I was wondering why she isn't calling for gun control in those countries with higher gun related deaths?

There aren't any higher than the US among developed and civilized nations... Taking under developed, and dictatorship regimes and those involved in civil or drug wars wars as examples is not reasonable. It is the reason I gave the definition of civilized society
 
Colpy
Conservative
#10232
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Someday you will discover that there are ammendments other than the 2nd


Off the top of my head, I can give you the broad outline of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, thank you.


I bet that is better than 90% of Americans.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#10233
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Off the top of my head, I can give you the broad outline of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, thank you.
I bet that is better than 90% of Americans.

You should also get acquainted with the Ninth. The Third, Seventh, and Tenth are pretty technical or irrelevant these days, and the Sixth is basically representation in court and speedy, public trial. The Eighth is cruel and unusual punishment.
 
MHz
#10234
I'm pretty sure a big bore derringer with a low powered load with a flat faced plastic disk that bounces off rather than penetrate would still have the one just shot to coming up with better things to do than be there when the reloading is finished. He is the guy with all the 'doorknob' excuses for a strange bruise.
 
MHz
#10235
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You should also get acquainted with the Ninth. The Third, Seventh, and Tenth are pretty technical or irrelevant these days, and the Sixth is basically representation in court and speedy, public trial. The Eighth is cruel and unusual punishment.

Which one has the hanging in the morning and the trial in the afternoon?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10236
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

Which one has the hanging in the morning and the trial in the afternoon?

Take your pills.
 
Hoid
#10237
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

Off the top of my head, I can give you the broad outline of the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, thank you.


I bet that is better than 90% of Americans.

So how is a law affecting rifles burning up the bill of rights?

Obviously you are making hysterical claims here.

Settle down
 
JamesBondo
#10238
Quote: Originally Posted by bluebyrd35 View Post

Let me turn your argument around.....toddlers that shoot their mothers,siblings etc....How do you explain that to them when the time comes?? Where is the empathy for the child? As for the rape of women.....it needs changing the attitude to/ of men regarding rape MORE than shooting the rapist. Women have been made to feel ashamed for being raped. They no longer come forward.


Wow. You've made it quite clear that you have zero empathy for women that are defending themselves from a rapist.
 
JamesBondo
#10239
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

So how is a law affecting rifles burning up the bill of rights?

You mean the bill that was established by a country that was established by rifles?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10240
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

So how is a law affecting rifles burning up the bill of rights?
Obviously you are making hysterical claims here.
Settle down

The Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Any law affecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be carefully analyzed against the Second Amendment.
 
Hoid
#10241
Selective control of certain weapons does not infringe on anything.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10242
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Selective control of certain weapons does not infringe on anything.

I'm generally minded to agree with you. Still need to think it over carefully.
 
JamesBondo
#10243
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

Selective control of certain weapons does not infringe on anything.

you mean a beaver that chews on all sides of a tree doesn't eventually make it a fall. I think you are an asshole.
 
JamesBondo
#10244
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

The Bill of Rights, Second Amendment, states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the Security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Any law affecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms should be carefully analyzed against the Second Amendment.

The Oakes test in Canada is a good concept
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10245
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

The Oakes test in Canada is a good concept

OK, now I'm intrigued. I'll look it up.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#10246
 
JamesBondo
#10247
cliffy reincarnated
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10248
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

The Oakes test in Canada is a good concept

I like the Oakes test.

What we do down here is called "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny." Essentially, if the issue does not involve a fundamental right, the government need only prove that there is a "rational basis" for limiting the right. If the right is deemed fundamental (usually Constitutional rights), the government action is subjected to "strict scrutiny" and must prove it has a "compelling" government interest for limiting the right.

Probably the fundamental rights most often limited by government action are gun rights. Next-most would be equality for women.
 
spilledthebeer
#10249
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

I'm pretty sure a big bore derringer with a low powered load with a flat faced plastic disk that bounces off rather than penetrate would still have the one just shot to coming up with better things to do than be there when the reloading is finished. He is the guy with all the 'doorknob' excuses for a strange bruise.


================================================== ================================================== ===


Perhaps we could encourage MHz to demonstrate?


I would PAY MONEY to see him shoot himserlf in the head with a big bore derringer with a low power load!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It might smarten him up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Or at least reduce the amount of radical Muslim propaganda GARBAGE posts he makes?
 
spilledthebeer
#10250
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I like the Oakes test.

What we do down here is called "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny." Essentially, if the issue does not involve a fundamental right, the government need only prove that there is a "rational basis" for limiting the right. If the right is deemed fundamental (usually Constitutional rights), the government action is subjected to "strict scrutiny" and must prove it has a "compelling" government interest for limiting the right.

Probably the fundamental rights most often limited by government action are gun rights. Next-most would be equality for women.


================================================== ================================================== ====


Actually the Yankee constitution DOES SPECIFY that the arms being borne should be carried by "a well regulated militia"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This of course translates into NOT LETTING schizophrenic loons and white hating Muslims have weapons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
JamesBondo
#10251
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I like the Oakes test.
What we do down here is called "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny." Essentially, if the issue does not involve a fundamental right, the government need only prove that there is a "rational basis" for limiting the right. If the right is deemed fundamental (usually Constitutional rights), the government action is subjected to "strict scrutiny" and must prove it has a "compelling" government interest for limiting the right.
Probably the fundamental rights most often limited by government action are gun rights. Next-most would be equality for women.


In Canada, there are some that feel we don't have a right to something unless it is specifically stated in our charter. To me, that is a pretty shitty definition of liberty.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#10252
Quote: Originally Posted by JamesBondo View Post

In Canada, there are some that feel we don't have a right to something unless it is specifically stated in our charter. To me, that is a pretty shitty definition of liberty.

We had the same debate over adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Critics said the Constitution is islands of government power in a sea of individual liberty, but if we added a Bill of Rights, they would become islands of individual liberty in a sea of government power.

That's why we added the Ninth Amendment (the original Bill of Rights was only eight): "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But power tends to concentrate, and liberty tends to shrink.