The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[JoeB131]

Rather than ban guns we should ban criminals.

Funny thing about liberals - the absolve the killer of all responsibility while viciously attacking an inanimate object and blaming society.

No, we just don't think locking up a pot smoker with a rapist is going to give you a more mellow rapist. It'll give you a more dangerous pot smoker.

 

[Mom]

Simply repeal the 2nd amendment. The constitution isn't written in stone.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the problem with the gun fetishist.

They give you two basic reasons why they need guns.

1) To protect themselves against that hoarde of criminals that is out there. (Forgetting the fact that the US has an unacceptable level of crime compared to other industrialized nations because we leave so many to fend for themselves.)

2) To protect themselves from the government on that day the government turns on them. (Usually defined as when people elect a Democrat to the White House.)

The first point is absurd when put under scrutiny. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the gunowners family than a bad guy. (Kellerman study). While 11,000 gun murders and 16,000 gun suicides occur every year, according to the FBI, only 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" were recorded in 2010 with guns.

The second is absurd beyond words. if things ever get bad enough where the government is taking out a group that isn't playing nice anymore, the government has tanks, rockets, warships, nukes, fighter planes, attack helicopters, and, oh, yeah, nukes.

 

[P@triot]

Simply repeal the 2nd amendment. The constitution isn't written in stone.

Exactly. Do that - and for once you guys would actually have a leg to stand on (but good luck with that... you'll need 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the senate, 3/4 of the states, and the presidents signature )

By the way, the Constitution is written in stone, until such time as it is legally amended.

 

[P@triot]

The second is absurd beyond words. if things ever get bad enough where the government is taking out a group that isn't playing nice anymore, the government has tanks, rockets, warships, nukes, fighter planes, attack helicopters, and, oh, yeah, nukes.

Which is glaring proof that you libtards have already violated are 2nd Amendment rights to an extreme level (I love when libtards have a temporary moment of honesty ).

 

[JoeB131]

The second is absurd beyond words. if things ever get bad enough where the government is taking out a group that isn't playing nice anymore, the government has tanks, rockets, warships, nukes, fighter planes, attack helicopters, and, oh, yeah, nukes.

Which is glaring proof that you libtards have already violated are 2nd Amendment rights to an extreme level (I love when libtards have a temporary moment of honesty ).

Um, no, not really, Poodle.

I want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them.

I just think it's absurd that you think we shouldn't deal with domestic terrorists the exact same way we deal with foriegn ones.

 

[JoeB131]

Simply repeal the 2nd amendment. The constitution isn't written in stone.

Exactly. Do that - and for once you guys would actually have a leg to stand on (but good luck with that... you'll need 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the senate, 3/4 of the states, and the presidents signature )

By the way, the Constitution is written in stone, until such time as it is legally amended.

Or until a court interprets it differently.

Oh, wait, there is that part about Well-Regulated Militias in there.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Here's the problem with the gun fetishist.

They give you two basic reasons why they need guns.

1) To protect themselves against that hoarde of criminals that is out there. (Forgetting the fact that the US has an unacceptable level of crime compared to other industrialized nations because we leave so many to fend for themselves.)

2) To protect themselves from the government on that day the government turns on them. (Usually defined as when people elect a Democrat to the White House.)

The first point is absurd when put under scrutiny. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the gunowners family than a bad guy. (Kellerman study). While 11,000 gun murders and 16,000 gun suicides occur every year, according to the FBI, only 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" were recorded in 2010 with guns.

The second is absurd beyond words. if things ever get bad enough where the government is taking out a group that isn't playing nice anymore, the government has tanks, rockets, warships, nukes, fighter planes, attack helicopters, and, oh, yeah, nukes.

That 43 times reference has been debunked so many times I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed for using it.


Fact is you retard, gun ownership has increased and gun violence has decreased.


One question, do you dress yourself?

 

[P@triot]

The second is absurd beyond words. if things ever get bad enough where the government is taking out a group that isn't playing nice anymore, the government has tanks, rockets, warships, nukes, fighter planes, attack helicopters, and, oh, yeah, nukes.

Which is glaring proof that you libtards have already violated are 2nd Amendment rights to an extreme level (I love when libtards have a temporary moment of honesty ).

Um, no, not really, Poodle.

I want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them.

I just think it's absurd that you think we shouldn't deal with domestic terrorists the exact same way we deal with foriegn ones.

Oh....My......God

You want the government to have an arsenal because (and I quote) "other countries have them" but you want to disarm the American people even though their enemy - criminals - "have them".

As if that wasn't contradictory enough, you follow that up with falsely claiming I don't want to deal with domestic terrorist the same way we deal with foreign ones. In both case, I want the good guys armed to fight the "terrorists". You are the buffoon who "thinks we shouldn't deal with domestic terrorists the exact same way we deal with foriegn ones" because you want to disarm the people targeted by domestic terrorists.

Ladies & Gentlemen - I give you the libtard known as JoeB. Guaranteed to defeat his own argument every time. Just give him enough rope and he will hang himself.

The debate on the 2nd Amendment is officially over. Game. Set. Match.

 

[P@triot]

Here's the problem with the gun fetishist.

They give you two basic reasons why they need guns.

1) To protect themselves against that hoarde of criminals that is out there. (Forgetting the fact that the US has an unacceptable level of crime compared to other industrialized nations because we leave so many to fend for themselves.)

2) To protect themselves from the government on that day the government turns on them. (Usually defined as when people elect a Democrat to the White House.)

The first point is absurd when put under scrutiny. A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the gunowners family than a bad guy. (Kellerman study). While 11,000 gun murders and 16,000 gun suicides occur every year, according to the FBI, only 201 cases of "justifiable homicide" were recorded in 2010 with guns.

The second is absurd beyond words. if things ever get bad enough where the government is taking out a group that isn't playing nice anymore, the government has tanks, rockets, warships, nukes, fighter planes, attack helicopters, and, oh, yeah, nukes.

That 43 times reference has been debunked so many times I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed for using it.


Fact is you retard, gun ownership has increased and gun violence has decreased.


One question, do you dress yourself?

I'm not surprised - JoeB. is a vintage libtard. Facts mean nothing to him. He will lie until he dies because libtards believe "the ends justifies the means".

 

[JoeB131]

[

That 43 times reference has been debunked so many times I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed for using it.


Fact is you retard, gun ownership has increased and gun violence has decreased.


One question, do you dress yourself?

Kellerman hasn't been debunked once. Stamping your feet and screaming, "I don't want it to be true" isn't debunking. Debunking is finding that the methodology was wrong or the numbers don't support it.

If anything, Kellerman was probably conservative.

Gun violence hasn't really decreased. And gun ownership is actually down. Less households have guns in them now. It's just that the households with guns have more guns inthem, because the Gun Industry decided that they had to sell more guns to Nancy Lanza.

 

[P@triot]

I want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them.

You want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them, but you don't want law-abiding citizens to have weapons even though criminals have them?!?

Game. Set. Match. The irrational contradictions of the libtards exposed once again...

 

[JoeB131]

Which is glaring proof that you libtards have already violated are 2nd Amendment rights to an extreme level (I love when libtards have a temporary moment of honesty ).

Um, no, not really, Poodle.

I want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them.

I just think it's absurd that you think we shouldn't deal with domestic terrorists the exact same way we deal with foriegn ones.

Oh....My......God

You want the government to have an arsenal because (and I quote) "other countries have them" but you want to disarm the American people even though their enemy - criminals - "have them".

As if that wasn't contradictory enough, you follow that up with falsely claiming I don't want to deal with domestic terrorist the same way we deal with foreign ones. In both case, I want the good guys armed to fight the "terrorists". You are the buffoon who "thinks we shouldn't deal with domestic terrorists the exact same way we deal with foriegn ones" because you want to disarm the people targeted by domestic terrorists.

Ladies & Gentlemen - I give you the libtard known as JoeB. Guaranteed to defeat his own argument every time. Just give him enough rope and he will hang himself.

The debate on the 2nd Amendment is officially over. Game. Set. Match.

I don't want criminals or civilians to have guns, dumbass. That's the point. The NRA opposes background checks and ownership restrictions. If you want to carry the metaphor the full completion, the NRA are like the arms merchant who arms both sides in a war.

And since a gun in the house is 43 times more likely to kill a member of your family than a criminal, it strikes me that the cure is worse than the problem.

The difference between an armed soldier and an armed civilian is a soldier is trained to know what he is doing, he's in a regimented organization that directs his actions.

As opposed to the gunowner, who is more likely to shoot his brother in law in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best than a criminal.

 

[P@triot]

I don't want criminals or civilians to have guns, dumbass.

But you want foreign enemies to have tanks, missiles, and nukes?!?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[

That 43 times reference has been debunked so many times I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed for using it.


Fact is you retard, gun ownership has increased and gun violence has decreased.


One question, do you dress yourself?

Kellerman hasn't been debunked once. Stamping your feet and screaming, "I don't want it to be true" isn't debunking. Debunking is finding that the methodology was wrong or the numbers don't support it.

If anything, Kellerman was probably conservative.

Gun violence hasn't really decreased. And gun ownership is actually down. Less households have guns in them now. It's just that the households with guns have more guns inthem, because the Gun Industry decided that they had to sell more guns to Nancy Lanza.

You've probably heard the claim that gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used in shooting a fellow occupant than a criminal. Read this and find out why this claim is a fraud.


Further reading (some are related to Kellermann's previous work on the subject, just to show how tortured his conclusions are):

Dave Kopel on NRO

Kellermann-Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

Public Health Pot Shots - Reason.com

GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?

Risks and Benefits of Keeping a Gun in the Home...[Fulltext, Aug 5 JAMA. 1998;280:473-475] (c) AMA 1998 -- this one is an especially good article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association


The authors note that "One or more guns were reportedly kept in 45.4 percent of the homes of the case subjects," This implies that no guns were kept in 54.6% of the households. No study was made of how many were killed by guns kept in the home versus those brought in by a perpetrator.

Secondly, no correlation was made between "independent" factors that actually may have been factors related to each other- they treated illicit drug use, having an arrest record, living alone or not, renting, having a gun, and a history of domestic abuse as independent variables without any relationship to each other. No collateral multivariate analysis was performed. The correlation to each control was not predicated on other factors, just gun ownership. They gave the same weight to a gun death in a household with someone with a previous arrest as to a gun death in a household where an intruder brought their own gun to a home invasion and shot the occupant (each weighting was independent, not cumulative). No correlation was explored for similar situations with the only difference being gun ownership.

Thirdly, there were significant differences between the study participants and the control. There was a 30% difference between home ownership vs renting between subjects and control, and a 15% difference in living alone or not. Only 48% of the control subjects were interviewed in person. Never mind that there were more users of illicit drugs, alcoholics, and persons with a history of violence in the households of the case subjects than in the households of the controls.

Finally, correlation doesn't equate to causation. They state in one place, "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide". "Associated with", not "causally related to". The possibility of why a gun was kept in the home was not explored nor accounted for- so a person who lives in a high crime neighborhood who may already be at higher risk of homicide death was treated the same as a person shot in a "nice" neighborhood.

 

[JoeB131]

I want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them.

You want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them, but you don't want law-abiding citizens to have weapons even though criminals have them?!?

Game. Set. Match. The irrational contradictions of the libtards exposed once again...

No, I don't think criminals should have them, either.

Hence, why I would like to ban ALL privately owned guns.

But since most gun deaths are suicides and domestic violence, it strikes me that your cure is worse than the disease.

I see a big difference between a trained soldier with a tank in a military organization and Nancy Lanza leaving her guns out where her crazy kid could get them. Dont' you?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them.

You want the government to have tanks and warships and nukes because other countries have them, but you don't want law-abiding citizens to have weapons even though criminals have them?!?

Game. Set. Match. The irrational contradictions of the libtards exposed once again...

No, I don't think criminals should have them, either.

Hence, why I would like to ban ALL privately owned guns.

But since most gun deaths are suicides and domestic violence, it strikes me that your cure is worse than the disease.

I see a big difference between a trained soldier with a tank in a military organization and Nancy Lanza leaving her guns out where her crazy kid could get them. Dont' you?

Link?

 

[JoeB131]

I don't want criminals or civilians to have guns, dumbass.

But you want foreign enemies to have tanks, missiles, and nukes?!?

I don't mistake Israel's enemies or people not willing to hand over their country's national resources to big corporations for my "enemies".

They are sovereign states, they have a right to defend their countries.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Finally, correlation doesn't equate to causation. They state in one place, "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide". "Associated with", not "causally related to". The possibility of why a gun was kept in the home was not explored nor accounted for- so a person who lives in a high crime neighborhood who may already be at higher risk of homicide death was treated the same as a person shot in a "nice" neighborhood.

So if they aren't white, they don't count?

Point is, guns in the home are more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy. This is what Kellerman and every other study has proven.

Yes, most of those are suicides and domestic murders.

It's case of the "solution" being worse than the disease.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[

Finally, correlation doesn't equate to causation. They state in one place, "keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide". "Associated with", not "causally related to". The possibility of why a gun was kept in the home was not explored nor accounted for- so a person who lives in a high crime neighborhood who may already be at higher risk of homicide death was treated the same as a person shot in a "nice" neighborhood.

So if they aren't white, they don't count?

Point is, guns in the home are more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy. This is what Kellerman and every other study has proven.

Yes, most of those are suicides and domestic murders.

It's case of the "solution" being worse than the disease.

No Kellermann didn't prove any such thing, his study has been debunked many times and if that's the only thing you can point to, to support your argument then you lose.

Show us these "every other studies".