Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

 

[Brain357]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

 

[sakinago]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

What’s your point? that’s the reality we live in. You don’t have to like it, I don’t, but that’s the reality. You can talk about what if your aunt had a dick all you want, that’s the reality, those are the numbers. The if my aunt had a dick talk doesn’t do anything to solve the numbers of what’s reality

 

[Slade3200]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

Logic like nobody ever uses machine guns for mass murders outside of the rigged guns used by the Vegas shooter?

So what would your suggestion be, no semi-automataic guns available to the public?

No, I think we are pretty close with our current laws. I own guns and respect our right to have them. I don’t care if things like bump stocks and high capacity mags get restricted. Not a big deal IMO

The bump stock has only been used once and as we've seen, it jammed the shooters guns. He probably could have done more damage without them. Limiting magazine size won't stop one problem.

Nothing will stop the problem. That’s not the point

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

Which is an argument FOR keeping guns, but I agree. The Democrat party has kept them on the plantation and destroyed them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

I'm not the one who is confused

Inalienable or natural rights do not have to be sanctioned by government as they exist within each person

Yes, you are the one confused. Private justice is not public or social justice. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Self defense is not private justice.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols...so now, according to you, we can't have pistols either....right?

Absolutely not, you don’t seem to understand the opposing arguement. Or are you intentionally trying to distort it?

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

When was the last time a machine gun was used in a murder?

Exactly! Thank you. Seems like the restrictions have done some good

OK keep telling yourself that.

I don't think you know what a machine gun is.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but **** off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

No the second is about the right of the PEOPLE

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

 

[Slade3200]

Absolutely not, you don’t seem to understand the opposing arguement. Or are you intentionally trying to distort it?

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

When was the last time a machine gun was used in a murder?

Exactly! Thank you. Seems like the restrictions have done some good

OK keep telling yourself that.

I don't think you know what a machine gun is.

I’m not gonna ya word games with you. I’m speaking to automatic weapons which were used a bunch in the 80s. Now you don’t hear about them. That’s a good thing

 

[danielpalos]

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

I'm not the one who is confused

Inalienable or natural rights do not have to be sanctioned by government as they exist within each person

Yes, you are the one confused. Private justice is not public or social justice. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Self defense is not private justice.

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

It wasn’t at all, and they learned that during the revolution that took place before the creation of the 2nd amendment, that militias were terrible when going up against regular armies, yet they still banned a standing army...why did they ban a standing army that’s immensely more effective at a common defense?

And agian your not even acknowledging the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, not the right of certain well trained people, not the right of the government, not the right of the collective, the people, which refers to all individuals under jurisdiction.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union. They are mutually incompatible.

Says who, they don’t have an obligation, they are civilian ran. And it’s still a natural right to form up groups and do whatever you please in those groups as long as you’re not hurting anyone else, perhaps maybe a militia group...that’s a natural right haha. Again you have zero clue what natural rights are. And the legislative branch is charged with the common defense, article 1 section 8, good job pointing that out. The militia was always a local civilian group that the state (whether fed, or state government) had no control over. If they did have control over them, why not just use a standing army instead? I’ve asked you like 20 questions at this point that you have no answer for, instead you just parrot your incorrect suppositions over and over. You need to ask your professor to give you lots of these incorrect suppositions because you’re running out of them.

The governor is commander in chief of the militia; our Second Amendment applies to the militia of the State and of the United States.

 

[danielpalos]

I have already declared victory here, but I am going to go a victory dance anyway, with this:

danialpalos argues that 2A was a grant of rights to States to form militia. That is in DIRECT contradiction to the priviously adopted Article 1, Section 10, which states in part:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

The Constitution must be read as a whole, giving meaning to all its provision, and not in a fashion that renders part of it meaningless.

Victory Dance

We have a Second Amendment.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but **** off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

I’ll ask this for the 50th time IF IT WAS ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, AND A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...WHY DID THEY NOT USE A STANDING ARMY VS A BUNCH OF LITTLE GROUPS THAT MET UP EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, ELECTED THEIR OWN BUDDIES TO LEAD THEM??? A standing army is much more effective than a milita. The founders already knew this after the revolution. Militias back then were in no way shape or form “well regulated” like you seem to imagine. They meet whenever, elected their own leaders, and brought their own guns and ammo, no matter how shitty they were, and were very disorganized. USING THEM IN THE REVELOUTION WAS LIKE HERDING CATS, AND THEN TRYING TO HERD THOSE CATS AT A VERY WELL TRAINED ARMY THEY WERE AFRAID OF, AND HOPING THEY KILLED SOME OF THEM. So why entrust the “security of the free state,” to the herd of cats, vs the standing army that actually won the revolution.

dude, even Texas was not that slow.

It is about the security of a free State; it says so in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

I don’t think you know what an appeal to ignorance is

Funny. I have said this to him countless times. He is rattling off a bunch of buzzwords his idiot, communist professor taught him.

dude; y'all are just clueless and Causeless.

how Blissful of y'all.

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but **** off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

No the second is about the right of the PEOPLE

Only in right wing fantasy. There is No Thing concerning the whole and entire concept of natural rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

 

[2aguy]

I really have no issue with the automatic weapon restrictions in place.

But I do have an issue with the move to ban semiautomatic weapons

I think it is a fine debate to have. The merits behind the auto restrictions are the same merits for those that argue for further restrictions. Of course there are always going to be those who push for more and there are going to be those who want none and then there is the middle majority whose limitations vary, thus the debate.

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols...so now, according to you, we can't have pistols either....right?

Absolutely not, you don’t seem to understand the opposing arguement. Or are you intentionally trying to distort it?

No....you don't seem to understand...you stated that Americans should not have access to weapons that can kill a lot of people in a few seconds.....and yet the Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people with pistols.....following your logic, we won't be allowed to have pistols either....

I have already seen one journalist who commented on being in a restaurant in Texas where he saw people openly carrying guns...he wrote about the guy with the revolver...and the other guy with the military pistol...by which he meant the semi-auto pistol that had a magazine.....the anti gunners are not going to let those pistols be owned if they get any real power.....

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

No..it is.....a guy with pistols murdered 32 people...and you think that your saying law abiding people, who own 16 million rifles......can't own them because someone used 2 to murder 58 people....you think that logic will stand against the anti gunners?

 

[2aguy]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

And yet....we have not had anyone shoot anyone with a machine gun.....yet......at least not since the 1920s....

 

[2aguy]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

Tell the criminals to stop murdering people...

 

[2aguy]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

Logic like nobody ever uses machine guns for mass murders outside of the rigged guns used by the Vegas shooter?

So what would your suggestion be, no semi-automataic guns available to the public?

No, I think we are pretty close with our current laws. I own guns and respect our right to have them. I don’t care if things like bump stocks and high capacity mags get restricted. Not a big deal IMO

You don't understand...they want high capacity magazines so they can ban any weapon that takes a magazine.....then, after they get those, they will ban revolvers and all other rifles...

Here is the ruling by the judge putting a hold on California's magazine ban....he gives you all the information you need to understand the silliness of magazine bans....

http://michellawyers.com/wp-content...rra_Order-Granting-Preliminary-Injunction.pdf

(n) a slippery slope

What is clear from the preliminary evidence presented is that individuals who intend to engage in mass gun violence typically make plans. They use multiple weapons and come loaded with extra ammunition.

They pick the place and the time and do much harm before police can intervene. Persons with violent intentions have used large capacity magazines, machine guns, hand grenades and pipe bombs, notwithstanding laws criminalizing their possession or use.

Trying to legislatively outlaw the commonly possessed weapon de jour is like wearing flip flops on a slippery slope.
A downhill slide is not hard to foresee.

Tragically, when 30-round magazines are banned, attackers will use 15 or 17- round magazines.

If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned they will use multiple 10-round magazines.

If all semi-automatic weapons are banned they will use

40 17cv1017-BEN Case 3:17-cv-01017-BEN-JLB Document 28 Filed 06/29/17 PageID.4156 Page 40 of 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
shotguns and revolvers.

All of these scenarios already occur.

Because revolvers and handguns are the quintessential home defense weapon protected by the Second Amendment and specifically approved in Heller, and because the average defensive gun use involves firing 2.2 rounds (according to the State’s experts), states could rationalize a ban on possession of rounds in excess of three per weapon. Criminals intent on 13 violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons.


The State could then rationalize a one-weapon-per-individual law.

Since “merely” brandishing a firearm is usually effective as a defense to criminal attack (according to the State’s experts), it could be argued that a one-revolver-with-one-round-per-individual ban is a reasonable experiment in state police power as a means to protect citizens and law enforcement officers from gun violence.

Statutes disarming law-abiding responsible citizen gun owners reflect an opinion on gun policy. Courts are not free to impose their own policy choices on sovereign states. But as Heller explains, the Second Amendment takes certain policy choices and removes them beyond the realm of debate. Disarming California’s law-abiding citizenry is not a constitutionally-permissible policy choice.