Interesting that a country that repeats talismanically that ‘government fears an armed society’ and is compulsively proud of its ‘democracy’ (which doesn’t exist), despite making an idolatry of being armed, fears tyranny more than any other?
The United States is not a democracy. It is a constitutional representative republic.
No more idolatry than that of other rights. Is our defense of free speech idolatry? How about protection against self incrimination? Do you think this about free press, or religious free exercise? How about search and seizure protections, or the right to counsel? Maybe the right to peaceably assembly, or redress of grievances?
Actually, an armed populace makes it such that we can live without fear of tyranny. Allow the tyrants to fear.
Some people have a view of current day humanity, that it is somehow better, kinder, more tolerant and accepting than it used to be, that we can trust individuals with power now, far more than we could before. I, frankly, see no evidence that this is the case.
Absolutely. For example, when a politician tells you (s)he is going to take care of you, give your choice more thought. When one says that others should pay for your benefits, give it more thought. When one says that certain kinds of speech should be prosecuted, think it through. When one says we should use common-sense laws to limit certain protected rights, really really think it through.
:clapping: That is precisely what the constitution was intended to do!
I am aware of that, which is why I said that said democracy did not exist.
You can’t state as a premise the very thing you are trying to prove. That is called circular reasoning.
You assume too much from the choice of words. Why not just get your info from the simple and direct meaning of the words as they appear?
You have your cause-and-effect backwards in the Chicago and DC examples.
That was a one-time event, and a revolution against a foreign power. We are no longer ruled by a foreign power, so the likelihood of having to fight the British again is quite remote. And by the way, the Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought by a nascent government - not by a bunch of individuals who just happened so show up to a flash mob organized through Twitter.
Can it go far enough? Statistics, please.
In interviews with people who have tried and failed to commit suicide, those individuals report that the compulsion to kill themselves ebbs and flows, and sometimes the unavailability of a ready means of doing it is enough to get them past a critical window of vulnerability, where better reasoning finally takes over. These people report that ready availability of guns makes it possible to act on impulse without thinking. Yes, it is a mental heath issue, but we can give mental heath treatment a chance to work if these impulsive opportunities are reduced.
Exponentially more people than what? Non-governmental murders? Certainly not in the US. In 2013 there were 14,196 non-governmental murders. Do you think the government killed that many of our own people in 2013?
You have not made the case that murder by government is a bigger risk than non-governmental death from firearms (I am counting suicides and accidents too. You say they can be minimized, but offer no proof of that either.)
It’s not a “premise”. It’s simply a fact. Anyone with even the most elementary understanding of it’s drafting knows it. It’s OK to disagree with it’s need today but to disagree with it’s intent is simply disingenuous.
If it was about documented effect, we’d have no gun laws at all. This is simply about making people “feel good” despite any realities. Well that and the fact that like all fascist ideals, gun control laws are based in racism.
It is a myth. See this.
You are using the voracity of a single quote to eliminate the well documented purpose of The Second Amendment?
Have you have never bought a firearm before? If you go to a store, the dealer will have a federal firearms license and is by law required to conduct a background check. This background check can take several days to complete. If you want to buy a gun to commit a crime, buying it from your buddy is far smarter, easier, and less expensive.
Waiting periods and additional costs are definitely meet that definition. Why do I have to prove intent anyway? Think of it in terms similar to how the Left regards voter identification laws.
That action is already outlawed. There is no victim if I simply give my brother one of my guns.
You have probably never bought or sold a gun privately. I can go on several websites that sell guns such as armlist or gunbroker and private sellers will often require both a CCW permit and a driver’s license or some other form of photo identification. A person in possession of a valid CCW permit has not committed any crime. Furthermore, criminal records are public information and can be easily accessed via the internet. Finally, if I personally know and can attest to the character of the person I am selling a weapon to, a background check is unnecessary.
The right to own a gun is not a God given right. It is a right that the people, acting for the common good, can regulate. You are confusing the right to own a gun with the right to self-defense, which is a God given right. But the God given right is the right to act. It not the right to have.
I don’t know. But you were the one who claimed to know the intent of the law and made a statement about it. If you didn’t think it was necessary to know the intent, then don’t claim what that intent is.
I’m all for letting people be free to decide how they are going to exercise their God given right. The government not only has no business in it, they are horrible at it.
I’m sure both you and your brother are fine, responsible gun owners, and would not endanger the public by having guns. But if gun regulations are eliminated, many others whose brother is not so nice will have no reason not to give that irresponsible brother a gun. It is all of those transfers that create a risk.
Well, I am not.
That irresponsible brother already has a gun. The transfer of an **inanimate object ** does not “create a risk”. The individual is the risk.
) bans? More people are killed in the U.S. by hammers/blunt objects than by rifles yet we never hear about “assault hammer” bans. Why is that?
In every case? How could you know that?
No, the individual without a gun is less of a risk than that same individual with a gun.