Yep, that happened at post #82. And went steadily down hill from there as the member in question posted more and more grotesquely delusional posts.So this degenerates into the usual as those without the mental equipment jump in.
Yep, that happened at post #82. And went steadily down hill from there as the member in question posted more and more grotesquely delusional posts.So this degenerates into the usual as those without the mental equipment jump in.
Ah. You beat me to it.Yep, that happened at post #82. And went steadily down hill from there as the member in question posted more and more grotesquely delusional posts.
So this degenerates into the usual as those without the mental equipment jump in.
Predictable. So is the inevitable 'ignore'.Ah. You beat me to it.
Funny how when someone shows one of these wingnuts that they are wrong and in return, are called "trolls".
I've had discussions with someone who has actually studied the Constitution, Constitutional law, and case law. At great lengths.You state that the writers of the Constitution did not consider the advances of technology- Yet offer no proof.
I did not say gun ownership lowered the crime rate, I said guns were used for defense more that a million times a year. There is no evidence than gun carry raises crime rates, thus, in a free country, carry should be allowed.
Purely anecdotal. There is no concrete evidence that guns have any real impact on preventing crime in the US. All of the sources you presented in a previous thread were 20 years out of date and presented by pro-gun types. As I said, criminals being criminals if they do fear guns they will simply seek a softer target or carry guns themselves.
One does not require a license to exercise a right. Any such law would meet with massive resistance and noncompliance, as licensing and registration laws have in Canada, where the right is not taken nearly as seriously as it is in the states. Better start building prisons, and call out the National Guard.
Wrong. Do you have a driver's license? A license and fundamental training can be required for any activity where a device that might endanger the public is to be used.
What's the difference??? He only fired at most 200 rounds, probably much less. Did 5800 rounds of unfired ammo do any damage? I own many different calibers, and I probably have 6,000 rounds, much of it .22 rimfire....so what??.
With all due respect. Anyone who requires 6000 rounds of ammo is either a damned poor shot, completely gun obsessed, or planing something unpleasant.
Wrong. The Second Amendment clearly outlines the purpose of the right as militia service, and before you go there, the militia is the entire body of the people. Therefore the right extends specifically to millitary-type weapons. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with duck hunting. See the SCOTUS case of Miller, 1939 .....in which the Court ruled
in other words, the ONLY weapons protected are military type weapons.
No you are wrong. If military types weapons are protected under the Second Amendment why then are grenades, RPGs, machine guns, bombs, etc. restricted to the military? Any weapon can be restricted simply by requiring that it be used properly.
Oh, and I especially love this!!
Well DUH! lol
Highest firearms ownership is in Wyoming Scores a miniscule FOUR POINTS out of a possible 100 on the Brady rating scale for states. Murder rate: 1.4 per 100,000 (2010) (45th out of 50 states, and a lower murder rate than Canada)
How about Vermont, about the freest state in the USA when it comes to gun laws?? (after Wyoming) Vermont scores SIX POINTS out of a possible 100 on the Brady scale for rating state laws. Murder rate in 2010??? 1.1 per 100,000. That is about 40% LESS than Canada's murder rate. It is 49th out of 50 on the state murder scale.
I appreciate the "uh," it perfectly sums up your thinking. Sorry, Colpy, but when it comes to guns you are simply not rational. Quoting select stats from a few states does not in any way opbscure the fact that the death rate from firearms in the US is vastly higher than in any other similar nation on the planet. I'm sure that if you used Disneyland as part of your statistics you could prove that there are one or two safe places in the US. No matter what you do you cannot deny that gun deaths in the US as a whole are horrific when compared to countries like Canada. Instead of comparing a semi-rural state like Vermont with all of Canada why not compare regions that are similar.
How about Toronto and Chicago? They are about the same size and are not too far apart geographically. Also Chicago has a restriction on firearms; not quite as strict as Toronto's, but I wanted to close that loophole for you. Toronto in its worst year for murders by gun had 89. Chicago regards the 198 murders it had last year as an improvement over its usual rate. Of course, I could always cherry pick the way you do and throw in Detroit and its 365 murders. One a day - yes, that's about right. After all the Second Amendment is all about carrying a device designed to kill people.
Purely anecdotal. There is no concrete evidence that guns have any real impact on preventing crime in the US. All of the sources you presented in a previous thread were 20 years out of date and presented by pro-gun types. As I said, criminals being criminals if they do fear guns they will simply seek a softer target or carry guns themselves.
.
Wellllllll.............
"Applying those restrictions leaves 19
NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of
the sample), representing 1.5 million
defensive users. This estimate is directly
comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in
the last column of exhibit 7."
http://tscm.com/165476.pdf go to page nine. This is a 1994 US Department Of Justice study.
Please don't tell me the Clinton era US Department of Justice was "pro-gun". And defensive uses will only have gone UP, as this was before most states brought in right-to-carry laws.
Wrong. Do you have a driver's license? A license and fundamental training can be required for any activity where a device that might endanger the public is to be used.
.
Driving is not a Constitutional right. That said, I admit I do not have a problem with reasonable licensing requirements.
With all due respect. Anyone who requires 6000 rounds of ammo is either a damned poor shot, completely gun obsessed, or planing something unpleasant.
...or preparing for something unpleasant, as the right to keep and bear was intended to allow them to do....
Actually, I probably fire 100 rds of centre-fire a week, and I don't compete. Competitors can fire hundreds of rounds a day. Bulk is much, much cheaper.
I probably have 6,000 rounds on hand, if you include .22 rim fire.
What difference does the 5,850 rounds he didn't fire make???
No you are wrong. If military types weapons are protected under the Second Amendment why then are grenades, RPGs, machine guns, bombs, etc. restricted to the military? Any weapon can be restricted simply by requiring that it be used properly.
No, you are wrong. The idea is that the unorganized militia can show up to a fight bearing their own personal weapons.
I appreciate the "uh," it perfectly sums up your thinking. Sorry, Colpy, but when it comes to guns you are simply not rational. Quoting select stats from a few states does not in any way opbscure the fact that the death rate from firearms in the US is vastly higher than in any other similar nation on the planet. I'm sure that if you used Disneyland as part of your statistics you could prove that there are one or two safe places in the US. No matter what you do you cannot deny that gun deaths in the US as a whole are horrific when compared to countries like Canada. Instead of comparing a semi-rural state like Vermont with all of Canada why not compare regions that are similar.
How about Toronto and Chicago? They are about the same size and are not too far apart geographically. Also Chicago has a restriction on firearms; not quite as strict as Toronto's, but I wanted to close that loophole for you. Toronto in its worst year for murders by gun had 89. Chicago regards the 198 murders it had last year as an improvement over its usual rate. Of course, I could always cherry pick the way you do and throw in Detroit and its 365 murders. One a day - yes, that's about right. After all the Second Amendment is all about carrying a device designed to kill people.
I didn't pick the states. The person I was arguing claimed the states with higher rates of gun ownership had higher murder rates. I disproved that by using stats from the state with the HIGHEST rate of ownership, Wyoming. While I was there, comparing gun ownership rates, Brady rankings, and murder rates, I noticed the two lowest ranking murder states (Vermont and New Hampshire) both had abysmal Brady rankings of 6 points of a possible 100. They also had murder rates of 1.1 and 1.0 per 100,000....MUCH lower than the Canadian rate, so I threw them in.
The USA is a relatively safe place to live, extremely safe if you stay out of the inner cities.
That is what it all comes down to......
![]()
So this degenerates into the usual as those without the mental equipment jump in.
Only when you show up. And I know this because I'm clearly right, anyone who has paid any attention to anything within the past decade will realize this, so there is no reason I have to demonstrate how I'm correct. My stating it simply makes it true.
You have no interest, inclination or capacity for discussion. You simply want to ramble on and expect everyone to take your word as gospel. Just because. So here's what you should do, start a blog and disable any comment features. That will give you everything your ego craves.
This constant, merely variations on a theme repeated postings of "I'm right and I'm not going to bother to explain myself because I'm superior because I say so" have gone beyond tedious. They have become the very epitome of mundane.
Leave discussion to those who have the capability to at least try to understand what their fellow human beings are saying. Because as far as discussion or debate goes, you are woefully under-equipped to participate.
You try to find one argument that has been presented here that tops what I have posted about the American Constitution. And I happen to know more about the American Constitution than the great majority of Americans because, of the years I spent in studying various Constitutions (mostly Canadian) a considerable time was on the American.
.
So you want to take over from the Bear with your supercilious claptrap. You just cloud yours in more verbiage.
How about trying to contribute to discussion instead of trying to show how "superior" you are to those who do.
You try to find one argument that has been presented here that tops what I have posted about the American Constitution. And I happen to know more about the American Constitution than the great majority of Americans because, of the years I spent in studying various Constitutions (mostly Canadian) a considerable time was on the American.
I have also given the roots of this questionable paragraph. They are what I said they are.
Try to find reason for the perversion of those roots which is what has happened in the USA.
The Second Amendment does not give any unrestricted Right to carry guns. Only political calculations allow that.
Before this turns nasty, I suggest that you try to participate in the discussion instead of sniping.
For perhaps the twentieth time, the Right to Bear Arms is not the same as the Right to carry Arms. I have posted the arguments about militias, also.The you should know that the US SJC ruled that the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right of the people and not limited to those in a militia.
I'd say that the Justices of the US Supreme Court "tops" Cabbagesandking of CanCon wouldn't you?
What do you want to know about the minset of the people who spawned the US Constitution? IT was not what it is usually said to be in the praise for the times - just as with the Canadian.The problem is that discussion with you is simply impossible.
You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but did not even understand that "bear arms" means "carry weapons".
You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but have no idea of the mind set of the people that wrote it.
You claim to have studied the US Constitution, but have no clue what the militia is.
You obviously are incapable of reading comprehension in the English language, as you do not understand the basics of sentence structure.
You are not to be taken seriously.
For perhaps the twentieth time, the Right to Bear Arms is not the same as the Right to carry Arms. I have posted the arguments about militias, also.
A militia, in its historical place, is the whole of the able bodied population. And, its role was always to own Arms that it brought when called upon to do so, and at the musterings for training - they were quarterly events in British tradition and they were paid for them so that they were drunken parties that real training sessions.
The rest of the year the weapons were kept at home. Just like under gin control legislation where they are kept under lock and key until required for a legitimate purpose.
What do you want to know about the minset of the people who spawned the US Constitution? IT was not what it is usually said to be in the praise for the times - just as with the Canadian.
It was actually an elitist document made by landed gentry and merchants that was to protect their positions. The high flown verbiage is fluff.
And, it is, as I said earlier, entirely derived from English Common Law. The only two innovations are: making no laws respecting religion and, the clause about contracts.
A huge jaded part of me can't help but think that anyone really damaged and needing to heal from the shootings, wasn't at that concert. What that cnocert did isn't help people heal, it took them on a trip of emotional voyeurism, convincing them to act and feel momentarily as if they were all victims and had had their lives torn apart. Of course they left feeling 'healed', they went back to their routine and nothing was changed for them. People love to feel like they are a part of something, a part of history, and our propensity to be drama addicts spurs us to play some horrible mental tricks on ourselves sometimes.
For perhaps the twentieth time, the Right to Bear Arms is not the same as the Right to carry Arms. I have posted the arguments about militias, also.
A militia, in its historical place, is the whole of the able bodied population. And, its role was always to own Arms that it brought when called upon to do so, and at the musterings for training - they were quarterly events in British tradition and they were paid for them so that they were drunken parties that real training sessions.
The rest of the year the weapons were kept at home. Just like under gin control legislation where they are kept under lock and key until required for a legitimate purpose.
What do you want to know about the minset of the people who spawned the US Constitution? IT was not what it is usually said to be in the praise for the times - just as with the Canadian.
It was actually an elitist document made by landed gentry and merchants that was to protect their positions. The high flown verbiage is fluff.
And, it is, as I said earlier, entirely derived from English Common Law. The only two innovations are: making no laws respecting religion and, the clause about contracts.
I notice you didn't disagree with her though, lol.So you want to take over from the Bear with your supercilious claptrap. You just cloud yours in more verbiage.
That would exclude you, lol.How about trying to contribute to discussion instead of trying to show how "superior" you are to those who do.
Easy, Colpy's.You try to find one argument that has been presented here that tops what I have posted about the American Constitution.
Nope.I have also given the roots of this questionable paragraph. They are what I said they are.
Yes it does.The Second Amendment does not give any unrestricted Right to carry guns.
Advice you should heed yourself.Before this turns nasty, I suggest that you try to participate in the discussion instead of sniping.
I'd say so too.I'd say that the Justices of the US Supreme Court "tops" Cabbagesandking of CanCon wouldn't you?
I knew it was coming...And I happen to know more about the American Constitution than the great majority of Americans because, of the years I spent in studying various Constitutions (mostly Canadian) a considerable time was on the American.