Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a supporter of the second amendment,however I also support banning semi and automatic weapons.No reason for anybody to have one of these.
 
Actually guns ARE part of the problem. No one person should be able to kill that many people that quickly with that type of weapon. Whenever there’s a fire or earthquake we adapt and take steps to help reinforce and prevent future structural and other architectual failures, but with guns we cannot simply do NOTHING. There has to be some kind of change, whether in closing gun show loopholes (which is almost unanimously agreed upon) , making these “bump stocks” illegal or at least harder to get//have to register etc, and most of all, just common sense, which no one seems to have on the panicked “Gun control means they’ll take our guns” side, which is false.
 
Remember: The 2nd Amendment was not put in place for hunting and target practice. It was put there to provide a check and balance against a government becoming too powerful. That’s why the people need weapons equal too or greater than those it will be fighting against.

-Lost Sheep
 
You really have no idea what it says without reading it, now do you?

-LS
 
It says exactly what I thought it would say: Nothing but hypothetical fear about the Government turning on it’s people ie they want to take your guns away, exactly the kind of tactic used to install fear and gather support.
 
Have you every actually tried to buy a gun? If not then let me tell you it is a lot more difficult than you think.

-LS
 
Here is some Food for Thought.

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically small number. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws.

• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.

• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons. (“Gun Violence”)

• 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now let’s look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have very strict gun laws so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose.

• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.

• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).
 
Part II:

Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. So what is the point? If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.

Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple:

Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the Second Amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”

-LS
 
Good points.

It’s interesting. with the sound and film of the rounds uploaded on private youtubes and fb. There is a group or two engaging in analysing sound for weapon type. Lots of speculation out there, including an M-60.
And some are claiming shots were fired from lower levels too.

Can he have bought the grandfathered rights concerning the pre 1986 ban on autos?

Time will tell.

Pray for the victims
 
Last edited:
SuperLuigi said:
Second, there isn’t much demand at all for these items because again it is the CULTURE not the government that determines society’s quality. Right now people are able to defend their homes and property with firearms and are content to do so.
Click to expand...
And judging by the full-on attempt to change the culture by completely dominating the media, the entertainment industry and education, it seems the progressive left understands this point better, perhaps, than “the people.”

I submit that the people need to raise their level of awareness, intelligence and commitment to the truth.

Ben Shapiro does an excellent job here demonstrating how the focus on emotion and soft heartedness by the progressive left in the media, entertainment industry and education needs to be answered by sound reason and judgement.

 
America’s gun problem “explained?”

That would be like claiming the problem of war in human history is completely explainable in terms of the existence of weapons.

If weapons didn’t exist there would have been no wars would be the implication.

It seems to me that the need for weapons (aggression and self-defense) gave rise to the development of weapons, and NOT vice versa.

The “gun problem explained” view seems to insist that the causal sequence goes the other way.

That doesn’t seem to be a defensible proposition.
 
One more time: America does not have a gun problem. It has a people problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top