Do you even read the garbage you post? The poll mentions nothing about automatic weapons, mainly because automatic weapons are already banned. If you don't understand the difference between an automatic weapon and an "assault-type weapons", please stop posting at once.
Again, YOU might think that it fails the balancing test, but the vast majority of Americans disagree. YOU might think that the right of free speech or free press passes the balancing test, but others might disagree. Fortunately for us all both of those anti-civil rights groups are only a tiny minority that is fairly easily ignored most of the time. I agree, the problem is fear which leads to illogical decision making. The fear based illogical thinking is what leads to eroding civil liberties and the power of the people being stripped in order to empower the federal government.
Learn to read more carefully. I said that if you're looking for a DISARM SOLUTION, then it's too late. Also, learn to spell the word "ridiculous".
I'm aware what the quote is from and its incredibly stupid and clearly coming from someone who doesnt understand why the constitution is great. Every document can be changed. Thats not whats great about the constitution. Being dependent on others is weakness (though it doesn't necessarily make you weak). This is why nobody respect the 30 year old living off their parents. This is why sick people get angry/embarrassed at someone nursing them. You should strive to be dependent on nobody. See how weak and helpless you feel when somebody comes into your house with a gun and threatens your family and their is nothing you can do because you are dependent on another for protection (who might take 10 minutes to show up). WTF? its necessary? what crazy ass **** is this. i'm not dependent on anyone now it is not necessary for me to be so.
Almost everyone is dependent on others to a certain extent. Very few people provide all of their own food, water, shelter, fuel, heating, cooling, and other needs. That said, people should strive for as much independence (and thus freedom) as possible. Some embrace the slavery of total dependence, and it is their right to do so....i just don't see many picking that when they have options.
I barter for those things with my earnings. That doesnt make me dependent on another. I could get my own if a really needed.
You'd create your own fuel and build your own vehicles from scratch? I doubt it but maybe that's true. Either way, I was just talking about how nearly everyone is dependent on some level to others, the goal should be to seek as much independence as possible. Maybe you have enough land to grow your own crops and raise your own animals, maybe you create your own biodiesel and have your own mines and whatnot for your other needs. Most don't. Of course that's not to say that everyone is a totally dependent slave to the system either.
Right, so because the problem is so bad, there's nothing that can be done about it. Swell logic. Let's just not have any policy at all for anything LOL. You'll never disarm everyone. But it's not hard to have less arms in a country that has by far the most civilian guns per capita in the world. re: spellchecking, Texx give me an address and I'll forward you 5 cents every time you spell check, thanks buddy
I don't really get the arguement that cars cause death as well so why not regulate cars? the way I see it, cars are not designed to kill, but rather is an accident, obviously hit and runs are different. guns on the other hand is designed to kill. i see it as a potential danger. you will always have those troubled people who will act violently against others with or without a gun, so it is right that people are killing people, guns just make them hell of a lot more dangerous. Why does NK experimenting with nukes a problem? cause it makes them a lot more dangerous, again its people who kill people. I would like it to be all out ban on handguns, assault rifles...those/organizations with hunting licences can own hunting rifles and that's it.
Fair enough, I'd suggest you look into moving to a country that shares your beliefs because unfortunately if you live in America, that'll never be a reality. I think someone pointed out earlier that Greece has a similar system to that so maybe see if they'll take you in.
Why are you so angry? I misread it. In either case, I wasn't making a pro and anti gun-control argument, so there's no reason for you to get defensive here.
When one looks to strip away civil rights, they always seem to make a "it's for your best interest" argument. Anti-civil rights/anti-civil liberties groups never really change, they are all the same they just pick different targets, different things they want to ban or make illegal.
Ok, so this is an aside, but rights are always a balance. Many people seem to allow for complete disregard of the 4th/5th/8th Amendment for very meager outcomes. That is a terrible atrocity, but for the 2nd, not even reasonable changes that promise a great amount of positive outcomes and which reflect the changing of time and upgrades in technology can get anywhere. It's a mind-boggling amount of cognitive dissonance. Getting back to my main point, America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, the highest gun ownership rate, and one of the highest homicide/gun crimes rates for a developed nation. there's something very wrong with this picture. Saying that, "well, there's no point of doing anything since we're so screwed anyways" is the worst way to approach it.
So you want to justify what would be a "terrible atrocity" with the fact that other "terrible atrocities" happen? That's interesting. I would think it would be smarter to simply fight the "terrible atrocities" that already happen and not fight to add another.
I'm not justifying anything. Reasonable regulations on gun rights are not at all an atrocity or a constitutional violation and they would lead to better outcomes for a lot of people (much less deaths as homicide by gunfire is statisically a much greater threat to Americans than terrorism), a lot more than any of the direct violations of the 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments deployed in warrantless wiretapping, drones, and the no-fly list. I know you like debating in black and white, but the distinction does exist. For example, I would not have been nearly as vehemently opposed to violations of the 4th if the NSA had chosen to filter out domestic communications from their program. Binney demonstrated that the technological capability to do so existed, but the NSA actually spent MORE money to violate the Constitution and scoop up domestic records. Not only was a repressive law enacted, but it was misinterpreted and disobeyed in secret! In order for something even close to that to even happen for the 2nd Amendment, there would have to be a law passed in the first place. And that isn't even close to happening. The balance on the 4th, 5th, and 8th is way out of line. Nobody can even bother addressing the balance on the 2nd!
There are currently reasonable regulations on the 2nd amendment even if you don't seem to realize it. We could talk about potentially adding more, but the conversation was about outright bans....that's not reasonable.
Depends on if you mean outright bans on all guns or specific categories. (yes I'm aware the context of this thread has people arguing for the former and Texxx was probably countering this point. I was countering his point that "Criminals will have access to guns, and we need the ability to defend ourselves against them.") Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller Unedited testimonial of Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School, in front of Congress.
No one is suggesting that people be able to own "the full array of weapons possessed by the United States Military", that is currently regulated and no one is trying to overturn that. The issue here is that some people are scared of big bad assault rifles that kill 1/5 as many people as knives every year. That ignorant freaking out as if there is an assault rifle murder epidemic is why those in the anti-civil liberties crowd are pretty hard to take seriously. Every time they want to take from the people, they always talk up whatever they are trying to steal from the public as some kind of menace despite the actual facts. They did the same with mar1juana and alcohol at one point. I simply don't have time for fear mongering prohibitionists.
