musterion
Well-known member
You mean like leftists who instantly ring the bell for contributions as they start screaming afresh for massive gun confiscation? Like, never letting a tragedy go to waste? That what you mean, hypocrite?
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
You mean like leftists who instantly ring the bell for contributions as they start screaming afresh for massive gun confiscation? Like, never letting a tragedy go to waste? That what you mean, hypocrite?
No, but we now that it makes you feel good and comfy to continue with that particular meme.
Of course. A graphic about homicide rates is appropriate in a thread about murder. A graphic about gun deaths is not.
However, your correction does nothing to bolster your notion that stricter gun laws would decrease murders committed with firearms.
The high-concentration areas on your map would line up with areas that have more restrictions and would be predominantly Democrat-run cities.
The liberal mindset is to ban things. They think the law should be used so that people can not be evil, but the Bible explains the truth: The law teaches. Laws should be written so that people will not choose evil.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
ClimateSanity
New member
What makes you think leftists are actually interested in ending crime?
Sent from my SM-G930V using TOL mobile app
Given that your irrelevant graphic presented nothing but a data-less colored-in map of the US, you have no justification at all in making this claim.
Those suicide rates could have dramatic effects if removed from your graphic. There's no way to tell based on what you've provided.
Learn some basic maths before making sweeping statements.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Last edited:
You've used up half your quota now.
Data, mostly:
Over the last 50 years, the nation’s murder rate has been higher when a Republican is in the White House than when a Democrat holds the presidency.
In 28 years of Republican administrations, the murder rate has averaged 7.9 per 100,000 nationally. In 22 years of Democratic administrations, it’s been 6.7. Check out this chart.
https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/homicide-rate-1950-2014
Now, you could argue that leftists are indifferent to crime and lower crime happens as a consequence of other things they do, and that rightists want to lower crime, but just aren't very good at it.
Or you could try the usual excuses:
"The statistics are rigged!"
or
"They were just lucky!"
Whatever you like.
That means absolutely nothing, as most leftist generated news and statistics. Ice cream sales rise when shark attacks are more frequent, do ice cream sales cause shark attacks? Save your feeble anti-Republican crap.
Don't be naive, Patrick. Gun sales rise after tragedies like the one in Vegas. People jumping into the stocks are trading on that.
It's a hard, but honest way. Like investing in munitions because you see a war coming.
So do I. I also believe that the mentally ill shouldn't have them, that owners should register them, that everyone who owns one should pass a basic weapons safety course, that legal clip size should be dramatically limited, and that the means to transform semi automatics into automatic weapons shouldn't be legal. I'm open to other suggestions that don't attack the fundamental right.
To my mind it's more about what can be done to lessen the likelihood of it happening again, over time.
I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, as the SCOTUS has defined the meaning of the words as found in the Second Amendment. Namely, that keeping and bearing (owning and carrying) machine guns is protected by the Second Amendment.
Carefully defined, we probably agree, but that is a broad brush.
Disagreed.
Disagreed.
Disagreed.
Supra.
Ban mouse guns:
Spoiler
Short of repealing the Second Amendment, no law in accordance with the Constitution would have prevented the LVNV horror show.
Yeah, I think that's insane. You don't have a right to keep a nuclear weapon on your premises and you shouldn't have an automatic firearm. There's no good reason to have it and more than a few reasons to deny it. When the founders put the right to bear arms into play no one had any idea this level of potential would exist. Your neighbor had a flintlock and if he went mad maybe someone might die before his neighbors killed him or wrestled him to the ground while he tried to reload.
Of course, the reality is that between permits and expense, there's a near de facto ban on possession by the sort of people more prone to use it in a way that ends with someone dying or dead.
It's thorny ground, but we could probably find at least a threshold both of us would stop and say, "Yeah, that guy can't have one."
Other points then.
Registration
There are a lot of reasons why it makes sense and not a one against it that I've heard. It can make it easier to keep track of lost and stolen guns, among other things.
A safety course in handling firearms.
Great. Why? What's the rational objection to a safety course? To making people safer in the operation of the gun?
Reduced clip size.
Why? What's the argument?
The means to change semi automatics into automatic weapons.
Supra.
As long as people treat the right unlike any other, the way you appear to, nothing will, literally.
Rather, the laws I'm speaking to would have made that shooting less likely and over time can accomplish that. His purchases were legal. The thing you're fine with remaining legal was used to increase the killing power over short time stretches.
To suggest that we couldn't have stopped the shooting isn't an argument against trying to make that sort of thing appreciably less likely.
Meanwhile, Congress, in the pocket of the gun lobby, by which I mean the corporate variety, continues to advocate in the interest of their bottom line, which isn't your right, but their bank balance.
Those regulations exist.
Those regulations exist.
Those are illegal.
The "fundamentals" are the rights to life, liberty and property. All of the regulations you propose deny the right to property.
Generally speaking, have regulations like the ones you propose increased or decreased over the past 50 years?
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Liberals love incomplete sentences. Politicians could not have known about machine guns (they did), therefore... something. :idunno:
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Oh. That was the law until the 30s, and it wasn't much changed until May 19, 1986, when Reagan signed the bill into law that limited machine guns to only those manufactured before that date, and nothing's changed since then.
lain:The Second Amendment, according to the SCOTUS, disagrees with you.
Everybody's got one.
You are an attorney unless I've missed my guess, and this is what you trot out to defend your position? Disappointing.
Facile.
It is very difficult to obtain a machine gun right now, true.
That's what I meant, yes.
The problem is the threat of leftists getting into power and using registration to stage a campaign of confiscation, so I know you've heard at least one reason against.
If there is a legal way to ensure against this potential, then perhaps.
In fact I insist upon good safety practice for everybody who touches a gun, but it shouldn't be a law. I do however support the idea---that right now I don't know of anybody championing---to include mandatory firearms safety classes in all public school curriculum.
In the case where we must use our weapons to defend our lives, this is a nonstarter. It is absolutely true that larger magazines enable more rounds fired per unit time, all other things being equal, and that's exactly what you need in a situation where you're fighting for your life and limb.
The Second Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear one-person machine guns; their effective ban right now is against the law.
I treat the right as a right, and as the SCOTUS has defined that right. It stems from the right to life.
What will change things, is if carrying rifles becomes common.
Which is the point, your silly introduction of nuclear weapons notwithstanding.
Carry rifles. Nobody with a handgun could have stopped the guy from down on the ground, but the toll would have been 10x smaller if someone with a rifle hit him between the eyes, which would have been easy with a rifle.
If you really want to lessen the chances, while recognizing and protecting the RKBA, ban tall structures.
Congress is who they are because 60% of Americans believe in the RKBA. Your continued accusation that it's about money is simply false.
They deny the right to life. If you have a right to life, you have a right to defend yourself, and therefore, you have the RKBA, and the SCOTUS has ruled that these "arms" are those of bona fide military value. E.g. machine guns. If no military uses them, then you don't have a right to own or carry them, but otherwise, you do. That's the SCOTUS on the Second Amendment.
Good question.
===
I have no trouble accepting people who just want to repeal the Second Amendment. That is the only thing that would actually change anything wrt the law. I deeply disagree with that position, but I can accept that people would prefer to do that. Heck, every other nation has repealed their version of the Second Amendment already, so it's not a crazy position to take.
And if we're going to keep the Second Amendment, then we need to be better about thinking through how to handle it, and I've put forth two ideas: ban mouse guns, and encourage the carrying of rifles. The latter would have influenced the outcome of the LVNV mass murder.
True.
One step at a time, though.
From my vantage point, the second amendment was ended with the first rule limiting property rights wrt arms or munitions.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app