Gun Control is Completely Useless.
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
the rest of the crap you mentioned is your idea, wasn't part of my thoughts at all, and still isn't,
ridiculous, nope don't want to go further down that path, not necessary or wise., and quite espensive
buying new furniture all the time.
If someone with a gun attacks you with rape as his goal, pulling a gun on him will be your demise,
unless of course he trips over a chair, falls on his face and his gun goes flying across the room,
then of course, shoot him, go for it, I would, with his own gun, or mine if I was that lucky to get
the chance, but having a gun in your purse in that situation will do you no good at all.
Rape is a terrible thing, but being dead is worse.
I agree education is not an indication of "smart" at all.
However, we are not discussing the definition of intelligence so to go back to the beginning; Toyota did not locate in the deep south precisely because they could not train enough workers to run the line even with pictorials. How are they supposed to support their family if they are unemployable? I don't care if every genius on the planet resides in the States, if the average individual has no means to support themselves due to a lack of education... I call that a fail.
And then we get into the gun issue from there. Put guns into their hands and they are going to take what they need. We would.
And now the average level of education is college. Once again, times change, the world moves forward. Most worked in the factories on the line that was an okay education because you could live well. They made enough money to keep the wife at home, the kids in shoes, food on the table, the mortgage paid for, and a car in the driveway. In Canada you need grade 12 now to work a line.
it's a different world.
or running around armed
K...thanks for the clarification.
Gun crime statistics by US state: download the data. Visualised | World news | guardian.co.uk
3 or 4 big student mass killings in the last year or so certainly suggests that
some kind of gun control is needed. How about automatic jail time for all parents who's
guns fall into the hands of their kids and end up used to shoot other students.
The Obamas of The World ‘Don’t Want to Save Lives’: The Ted Nugent Gun Interview You’ve Been Waiting For
Ted Nugent and Peter Schiff Talk Gun Control - YouTube
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the...-nugent-gun-interview-youve-been-waiting-for/
Ted Nugent and Peter Schiff Talk Gun Control - YouTube
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the...-nugent-gun-interview-youve-been-waiting-for/
US Catholic bishops favour gun control. Will this be enough to persuade the NRA to take a sanity wafer?
Catholic bishops favor gun control - but who knows it? | National Catholic Reporter
Catholic bishops favor gun control - but who knows it? | National Catholic Reporter
From the article:
“We support the development of a coherent national handgun control policy that includes: a several day cooling-off period between the sale and possession; a ban on "Saturday Night Specials"; the registration of handguns; the licensing of handgun owners; and more effective controls regulating the manufacture, sale and importation of handguns. We recognize, however, that these individual steps will not completely eliminate the abuse of handguns. We believe that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police, military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence.”
Laws like this have already found by the SCOTUS to be unconstitutional.
How many were killed in the Australian confiscation of arms??
Really!! An amendment that was instituted to allow towns to arm & form militia, before the formation of Sheriff, town,state & federal protection agencies, should be changed to reflect the changing times. Heck,otherwise, might as well go back to going back to waving a lantern before passing through an intersection as well.
Oh my Gawd, the Presbyterian leadership supports gun control, too!
Gun control — Presbyterian 101 — Mission and Ministry — Presbyterian Mission Agency
Gun control — Presbyterian 101 — Mission and Ministry — Presbyterian Mission Agency
From the article:
“We support the development of a coherent national handgun control policy that includes: a several day cooling-off period between the sale and possession; a ban on "Saturday Night Specials"; the registration of handguns; the licensing of handgun owners; and more effective controls regulating the manufacture, sale and importation of handguns. We recognize, however, that these individual steps will not completely eliminate the abuse of handguns. We believe that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police, military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence.”
Laws like this have already found by the SCOTUS to be unconstitutional.
I'm not quite sure where/when I expressed a "deplorable attitude" toward the people who use guns in self defense. Please clarify!-
! think it all started with Birdie's inability to quote properly and it went "downhill"? from there.....You put all these bad quotations together and you can't figure out who said what............I'm not quite sure where/when I expressed a "deplorable attitude" toward the people who use guns in self defense. Please clarify!-
Australia does not have a clear and unrestricted constitutional right to bear arms, as in Australia the Parliament is superior to the constitution.
In the United States, you have to suspend the constitution to seize arms.
If you want the Bill of Rights to say something different YOU HAVE TO AMEND IT, not edge around it, setting a very dangerous precedent. There is a process. Do it. Work towards it. And if you fail, then you live in the society chosen by the American people. This end-run around individual rights is simply unacceptable.
BTW, your interpretation of the second amendment is nonsense.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson
I'm not quite sure where/when I expressed a "deplorable attitude" toward the people who use guns in self defense. Please clarify!-
She didn't say that to you, I said that to HER!!!
Confused yet???
The Supreme Court ruling in the recent case of the District of Columbia versus Heller states:
"like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:* For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
"like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:* For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Australia does not have a clear and unrestricted constitutional right to bear arms, as in Australia the Parliament is superior to the constitution.
In the United States, you have to suspend the constitution to seize arms.
If you want the Bill of Rights to say something different YOU HAVE TO AMEND IT, not edge around it, setting a very dangerous precedent. There is a process. Do it. Work towards it. And if you fail, then you live in the society chosen by the American people. This end-run around individual rights is simply unacceptable.
BTW, your interpretation of the second amendment is nonsense.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson
She didn't say that to you, I said that to HER!!!
At first glance I thought you said it to me, but that DIDN'T make sense, so I got really confused.-
(Maybe posters should learn how to quote before trying to express opinions) -
Hmmm....well, the Court does recognize it as an individual right....
And the AR 15 is the BEST selling centre-fire rifle in the USA, with more than 3 million in private hands. And believe me, every single one of those has a few 30 round magazines with it. According to your own article, that makes it protected, as well as the magazines.
The idea of consentual policing was put forth by Robert Peel with the following principles:
Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles:
- The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
- The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
- Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
- The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
- Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
- Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
- Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
- Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
- The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.