Gun Control is Completely Useless.

[JamesBondo]

Notice that the US is the highest positioned of the developed, modern Western powers on the list. Half of those places mentioned are pokey little islands, etc. that probably have a few thousand people on them and a couple of shooting skews the numbers every which way. What an ingenuous bit of propaganda you've posted. What an evil agenda you are representing.

so more guns equals more deaths per capita, once you've admited that you need to cross off the countries that did not fit the mold.

It is very relevant to what you know to be right and wrong.

and how is that relevant?

All the ban did was take some guns from law abiding citizens. As usual criminals ignored that law too.

sounds like we should enforce the existing laws with the law breakers, instead of imposing more laws for the law abiders.

 

[Curious Cdn]

so more guns equals more deaths per capita, once you've admited that you need to cross off the countries that did fit the mold.



and how is that relevant?

Maybe it isn't. Maybe, you either have no notion of what is right and wrong or maybe your notion is not a Christian one but one that comes from elsewhere. That is what I see in you.

 

[JamesBondo]

Maybe it isn't. Maybe, you either have no notion of what is right and wrong or maybe your notion is not a Christian one but one that comes from elsewhere. That is what I see in you.

ok, how is that relevant?

 

[Curious Cdn]

ok, how is that relevant?

By supporting, enabling this NRA style insanity you have chosen violence over peace, suspicion over openness, hatred over love, death over life, deceit over truth, swords over plowshares. Whatever it is you are, it is not Christian. If you do not care, well, have a nice day. If it is possibly important to you, I sincerely hope that you walk the road to Damascus someday and recognise what you are selling.

 

[JLM]

Do you have proof? real bonafide internet proof?

Almost as much proof as you can get, I was listening to the whole thing on the radio as it was happening. They knew right off the bat where the shots were coming from and within about 15 minutes they had him under arrest c/w the offending weapon. A couple of days later as they were transferring him between jails Jack Ruby showed up out of the blue and put a lethal bullet in him.

 

[pgs]

By supporting, enabling this NRA style insanity you have chosen violence over peace, suspicion over openness, hatred over love, death over life, deceit over truth, swords over plowshares. Whatever it is you are, it is not Christian. If you do not care, well, have a nice day. If it is possibly important to you, I sincerely hope that you walk the road to Damascus someday and recognise what you are selling.

The deep end is over there ,

 

[Curious Cdn]

The deep end is over there ,

Piss off, asshole. I wasn't talking to you.

 

[JamesBondo]

By supporting, enabling this NRA style insanity you have chosen violence over peace, suspicion over openness, hatred over love, death over life, deceit over truth, swords over plowshares. Whatever it is you are, it is not Christian. If you do not care, well, have a nice day. If it is possibly important to you, I sincerely hope that you walk the road to Damascus someday and recognise what you are selling.

I believe that the 10 commandments is a relatively good blueprint for a successful community, but i would say the same about laws, justice, human rights, and principles of proportionality as described by the Oaks test.

And, even though your words move me, I don't agree they apply to me. I would encourage you to keep this dialog open and add it to your posts whenever and whereever you think it is relevant. Then maybe I'll get a better sense of what you are talking about. You don't need my persmission, but it is totally ok for you to approach this topic from a religious point of view. I'll respect it but not sure if others will.

"swords over plowshares"

we can both agree that the police, military, and unlawful criminal has no intention to trade their swords for plowshares.

How is it reasonable to insist that law abiding citizens squander their swords?

go ahead and quote scriptures if you want but I'll be better able to understand you if you cite ideas that explain away the writings of people like John Locke.

 

[Curious Cdn]

I believe that the 10 commandments is a relatively good blueprint for a successful community, but i would say the same about laws, justice, human rights, and principles of proportionality as described by the Oaks test.

And, even though your words move me, I don't agree they apply to me. I would encourage you to keep this dialog open and add it to your posts whenever and whereever you think it is relevant. Then maybe I'll get a better sense of what you are talking about. You don't need my persmission, but it is totally ok for you to approach this topic from a religious point of view. I'll respect it but not sure if others will.

Well, I know where you come from, now. The religious point of view does not include a second amendment that facilitates the spreading of death machines so that boys can have their toys. I doubt very much that the US Constitution does either and it is only happening because of a twisted, perverse interpretation of it so that a minority of boys can have their toys. The death of other boys is irrelevant to them.

 

[pgs]

Piss off, asshole. I wasn't talking to you.

Scary , are you angry ? Planning on calling me out maybe ? Big tough ex forces pansy .

 

[DaSleeper]

Scary , are you angry ? Planning on calling me out maybe ? Big tough ex forces pansy .

Watch out for the rolling pin......He was pastry cook in the CDN navy.....

 

[JamesBondo]

just wondering what you believe to be an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd amendmendment.

do you interpret the 2nd ammenent as a militia right that does not apply to civilians?

if that is true, then clearly somewhere between the declaration of independance and the writing of the 2nd ammendment, the founding fathers of the US radically and privately changed their minds on civilian rights.

I think you might enjoy reading about John Locke.

 

[Curious Cdn]

just wondering what you believe to be an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd amendmendment.

do you interpret the 2nd ammenent as a militia right that does not apply to civilians?

if that is true, then clearly somewhere between the declaration of independance and the writing of the 2nd ammendment, the founding fathers of the US radically and privately changed their minds on civilian rights.

I think you might enjoy reading about John Locke.

I think that the authors of the Second Amendment wished to create a civilian militia as a supplement to the federal or state military in case of a military emergency. The one and only one that they would have had in mind would have been a return of the Redcoats or perhaps an Indian attack here and there. The weapon that all of them, for sure, would have had in mind was a Springfield Pattern .58" calibre single shot muzzle loading musket over the fireplace mantle. PERHAPS they had a sabre of some sort if they were rich guys. A few would have had the exotic, newfangled "rifled" muzzle loader.

What they could not have possibly conceived of everyone having the right to possess weapons as a hobby, because they like shiny objects, because their lives are empty or fearful enough that they need the "power" that firearms gives them. They would have looked upon that kind of person as a misguided child, 250 years ago. Repeating firearms and the accompanying danger to public safety would not have been intended and the loaded repeating pistol under the pillow would likely have been seen as slightly insane 250 years ago. It is speculative but no sane legislator would have wanted the current situation to occur, you can be sure of that.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think that the authors of the Second Amendment wished to create a civilian militia as a supplement to the federal or state military in case of a military emergency.

No, they wished to recognize the already-existing citizen militias. The Framers did not believe in a standing army. They ha plenty of experience with the redcoats oppressing them, and they felt that a standing army would just be a tool for the government. Given that the new U.S. was a month's travel from any enemy, that's not surprising.

The one and only one that they would have had in mind would have been a return of the Redcoats or perhaps an Indian attack here and there.

Or attacking the Indians here, there, and everywhere. Also groups of bandits beyond the ability of the county sheriff to handle.

The weapon that all of them, for sure, would have had in mind was a Springfield Pattern .58" calibre single shot muzzle loading musket over the fireplace mantle. PERHAPS they had a sabre of some sort if they were rich guys. A few would have had the exotic, newfangled "rifled" muzzle loader.

The Brown Bess. And it would be used for much more than hanging over the fireplace. Most Americans in the 18th century hunted their food. The rifle was fairly common, enough so that several states had entire militias composed of riflemen, like the famous Kentucky Rifles.

What they could not have possibly conceived of everyone having the right to possess weapons as a hobby, because they like shiny objects, because their lives are empty or fearful enough that they need the "power" that firearms gives them. They would have looked upon that kind of person as a misguided child, 250 years ago. Repeating firearms and the accompanying danger to public safety would not have been intended and the loaded repeating pistol under the pillow would likely have been seen as slightly insane 250 years ago. It is speculative but no sane legislator would have wanted the current situation to occur, you can be sure of that.

But they also wouldn't have been able to conceive of the pressures and social problems of cities of millions of population in a small area, or the existence of entire classes of career criminals.

Same way they couldn't have conceived of the internet or the television. Doesn't mean the First Amendment is irrelevant to those fora.

 

[Curious Cdn]

The Brown Bess.... The lucky ones would have had the Brown Bess, not the shoddy knock-offs of French designs that the Yankees were flogging.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The Brown Bess.... The lucky ones would have had the Brown Bess, not the shoddy knock-offs of French designs that the Yankees were flogging.

No, the lucky ones would have rifles.

 

[Curious Cdn]

No, the lucky ones would have rifles.

30 shot mags?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

30 shot mags?

75-round drums. That way you can bag a deer AND grind him up in one simple operation.

 

[Curious Cdn]

75-round drums. That way you can bag a deer AND grind him up in one simple operation.

You have to be sure. Real men shred their targets into ground Chuck.

 

[JamesBondo]

i think the founding fathers of america showed a lot of foresight in everything they did, so you can't convince me that they thought the 2nd ammendment should limit civilians to black powder muskets so that some gun control lawyer in 202x can take away everyone's 1911 autoloader.