Why Gun Control is Bullshit

[JoeB131]

you always say "common sense" yet you can not define what it means.

Sure i can.

Crazy people can't buy them.
Criminals can't buy them.
Weapons designed for warfare have no business in civilian hands.

 

[ralfy]

The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This is an example of militia control, not gun control.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.

It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.

It doesn't protect the right to bear arms because it doesn't need to do that, as the right to bear arms is a natural one, part of English common law. Instead, it uses the natural right to bear arms to justify mandatory and regulated military training. That's why the Second has to be seen in light of Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.

 

[bgr39]

LMFAO
Ain't you exaggerating (read that "LYING"), just a smidgen?
According to YOUR number, 7,000 guns a day, EVERY DAY, for 365 days a year, are smuggled across the Mexican border???
More likely 1/10 that amount.
Can you show where ANYTHING in my post that WASN'T factual?
2500 guns illegally sent to Mexican drug cartel that has murdered American agents and hundreds of innocent civilians ain't a "SILLY", and it ain't no "fantasy".
Ask Agent Terry's parents IF their son's murder was a "fantasy", or was the loss of their son "SILLY"???
Here, re-read it and show me any "fantasy" in it.
.............................................

Guy, if I didn't read it the first time, it was because it was fucking retarded.

Your whole premise is that if those couple hundred guns hadn't gone down, the gangs wouldn't have gotten one of the 250,000 other guns that gun shops sell every year that end up in Mexico.

Gee, maybe you could tell the surviving family members of the 200+ civilians that were murdered with those 2,500 guns (NOT a few guns), that it is just a "SILLY FANTASY" that their family was murdered with guns that Eric Holder put in the hands of the Mexican drug cartel.
Agent Brian Terry's parents STILL have NOT been told the facts surrounding their son's murder, thanks to Eric Holder's operation fast+furious.
Obama didn't receive Brian Terry's parents in the rose-garden for a ceremony.
Eric Holder has refused to even talk with Brian Terry's parents about the border agents murder.
Ohh, and according to your figure, I wonder how they smuggle almost 7,000 guns a day, EVERY day, into Mexico for the Mexican drug cartel to murder innocent civilians with?
They must smuggle them through our wide open border, ANOTHER thing we can thank obama for (wide open border with Mexico).
But, 2 American agents murdered and 200+ innocent civilians exterminated thanks to our government ............................. is "FUCKIN RETARDED"!!!
There you have it folks. the liberals logic about mass murders!!

 

[hazlnut]

[ame=[MEDIA=youtube]yTJVARoj7gc[/MEDIA] Gun Control is Bullshit - YouTube[/ame]





That's not their goal to begin with. Tyranny, oppression and control are their goals.

Two Posts Merged, to bring OP into compliance. Opening Posts require relevant personal Input by the Poster, not just a copy and paste or a link.

More straw men than you can shake a stick at.

 

[Wildman]

you always say "common sense" yet you can not define what it means.

Sure i can.

Crazy people can't buy them.
Criminals can't buy them.
Weapons designed for warfare have no business in civilian hands.

if you call THAT "common sense".., i know for certain you have no brain, your IQ rating must be around -5.


.......... .........

 

[M14 Shooter]

The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This is an example of militia control, not gun control.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.

It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.

No. Its regulation of the militia.
Related to, but separate from, gun control and not related to the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[JoeB131]

Gee, maybe you could tell the surviving family members of the 200+ civilians that were murdered with those 2,500 guns (NOT a few guns),

except there's nothing to really back that up other than inane conspiracy theories.

Again, do you think that if they didn't get THOSE guns, they wouldn't have availed themselves of the other quarter of a million guns that walk across the border without the government watching?

 

[JoeB131]

you always say "common sense" yet you can not define what it means.

Sure i can.

Crazy people can't buy them.
Criminals can't buy them.
Weapons designed for warfare have no business in civilian hands.

if you call THAT "common sense".., i know for certain you have no brain, your IQ rating must be around -5.


.........

are you actually arguing that crazy people and criminals SHOULD be able to buy military grade weapons?

 

[whitehall]

There is no question that there are controls over guns. The term "gun control" is such a broad issue that it has become a cliche. The dirty little secret of course is to substitute the word "confiscation" for "control" and that's the agenda of the low information often hypocritical left.

 

[ralfy]

The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This is an example of militia control, not gun control.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.

It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.

No. Its regulation of the militia.
Related to, but separate from, gun control and not related to the right to keep and bear arms.

Not just regulated militia units but forcing male citizens to join them, as seen in the Militia Acts. These, together with a small standing army and multiple threats (the threat of invasion, slave revolts, attacks by Native Americans, and attacks by fellow citizens) led to the need of such regulation.

The common view is that gun control simply means guns are forbidden. The truth is that gun control takes many forms, including forced registration, purchases, and training.

That makes the Second a good example of gun control.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no question that there are controls over guns. The term "gun control" is such a broad issue that it has become a cliche. The dirty little secret of course is to substitute the word "confiscation" for "control" and that's the agenda of the low information often hypocritical left.

We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. Clearly, we don't have enough control over guns.

 

[Geaux4it]

There is no question that there are controls over guns. The term "gun control" is such a broad issue that it has become a cliche. The dirty little secret of course is to substitute the word "confiscation" for "control" and that's the agenda of the low information often hypocritical left.

We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. Clearly, we don't have enough control over guns.

Or control of people.

Most of those people are criminals killed by criminals, according to the FBI "Crime in the United States" report. Also, many of those deaths are suicides. If someone is going to kill themselves, and they can't get a gun, they'll try something else. Again, guns are used far more often in self-defence.

-Geaux

 

[M14 Shooter]

The implementation of "well-regulated militia" is seen in the Militia Acts, which forced males of a certain age range (and with few exceptions) to obtain the equivalent of battle rifles and ammunition and receive training annually with units controlled by the federal government.
That is clearly an example of gun control.
The Militia Act of 1903 called for regulation, etc., of the National Guard. These and others are part of the history of national service:
National service in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This is an example of militia control, not gun control.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound.

It's gun control because the manner by which it is implemented, i.e., the Militia Acts, forced all males of a certain age range to obtain firearms and receive training with militia units regulated by the government.

No. Its regulation of the militia.
Related to, but separate from, gun control and not related to the right to keep and bear arms.

Not just regulated militia units but forcing male citizens to join them, as seen in the Militia Acts. These, together with a small standing army and multiple threats (the threat of invasion, slave revolts, attacks by Native Americans, and attacks by fellow citizens) led to the need of such regulation.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't speak to gun control outside the regulation of the militia - in other words, the regulation related to the militia applies only to people in the militia and is therefore not gun control across all those that the the right to arms; further, nothing in the regulation of the militia in reference to firearms may infringe on the right to arms held by those people in the militia.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and so any attempt to conflate service in the militia with the right to keep and bear arms in unsound. Period.

.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Or control of people.

Most of those people are criminals killed by criminals, according to the FBI "Crime in the United States" report. Also, many of those deaths are suicides. If someone is going to kill themselves, and they can't get a gun, they'll try something else. Again, guns are used far more often in self-defence.

Well, no, if you take a way guns, a lot of suicides won't happen.

And, no, DGU's are a myth.

 

[2aguy]

There is no question that there are controls over guns. The term "gun control" is such a broad issue that it has become a cliche. The dirty little secret of course is to substitute the word "confiscation" for "control" and that's the agenda of the low information often hypocritical left.

We have 32,000 gun deaths a year. Clearly, we don't have enough control over guns.

Suicides don't count...Japan and South Korea both have higher rate and no guns...Australia got rid of most of their guns...suicide rate stayed the same

 

[2aguy]

Or control of people.

Most of those people are criminals killed by criminals, according to the FBI "Crime in the United States" report. Also, many of those deaths are suicides. If someone is going to kill themselves, and they can't get a gun, they'll try something else. Again, guns are used far more often in self-defence.

Well, no, if you take a way guns, a lot of suicides won't happen.

And, no, DGU's are a myth.

Really...gun defensive uses are a myth...why don't you hold your breath and stamp your feet...that would be as effective an argument as you are making now....

16 studies over 40 years, done by both public and private researchers specifically on defensive gun use says you are wrong....1.6 million times a year, on average, law abiding citizens use Gus to stop or prevent violent criminal attack and save lives...as per all of those studies plus the other ones I can't get access to......so stamp your feet somewhere else...

 

[2aguy]

Joe...why do you still use suicide...well...you use it to increase your numbers because 8-9,000 gun deaths a year in a country of 320 million is tragic but not relevant.....but It doesn't matter that Japan has a culture of suicide.....your argument is that getting rid of guns lowers the suicide rate...and that is not true just from looking at Japan and South Korea....they have no guns. At all......

 

[JoeB131]

Suicides don't count...Japan and South Korea both have higher rate and no guns...Australia got rid of most of their guns...suicide rate stayed the same

Japan and South Korea have societies where Suicide is considered "honorable".

 

[JoeB131]

Joe...why do you still use suicide...well...you use it to increase your numbers because 8-9,000 gun deaths a year in a country of 320 million is tragic but not relevant.....but It doesn't matter that Japan has a culture of suicide.....your argument is that getting rid of guns lowers the suicide rate...and that is not true just from looking at Japan and South Korea....they have no guns. At all......

If your family member was one of the 11,000 people murdered with guns every year, it would be relevent. It would also be relevent if your found one of the suicide victims, if he killed himself a few feet where you are sitting.

 

[Geaux4it]

Joe...why do you still use suicide...well...you use it to increase your numbers because 8-9,000 gun deaths a year in a country of 320 million is tragic but not relevant.....but It doesn't matter that Japan has a culture of suicide.....your argument is that getting rid of guns lowers the suicide rate...and that is not true just from looking at Japan and South Korea....they have no guns. At all......

If your family member was one of the 11,000 people murdered with guns every year, it would be relevent. It would also be relevent if your found one of the suicide victims, if he killed himself a few feet where you are sitting.

^^^^^ blah, blah, blah, blah^^^^^^^

-Geaux