Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Wallenburg]

The decline of homicides reflects the growing competence of our police, not the "safe effect" of having thousands of bullets packed in your closet.

I never said there was a correlation between gun ownership and "safety". I was pointing out that there's minimal correlation between number of guns and homicide rates. As has been mentioned, violent crime in general has been on the decline for years, even with current gun laws and regulations/the availability of semi-automatic weapon to the general public/etc., which is why I don't see any need for any measures as drastic as repealing an amendment.

There's a correlation between the measles epidemic and the state of the economy, but I'm not saying people should be able to stop vaccinating entirely and expose themselves to measles every chance they get.

[Big Jim P]

Actually, as long as you are posting known left-leaning media sources, I am free to ignore them.

No, you're free to ignore them regardless.

See, I am honest enough to recognize the bias in any sources I am likely to post.

This has nothing to do with honesty, it has to do to with understanding how bias actually works. Bias exists in ANY source. Nowhere have I said anything otherwise. However, the only reason to use bias as a reason to dismiss a source is if you have a way to demonstrate if the bias in that source is prevalent or relevant enough to impact the source itself. Given that you haven't provided anything like that, I see no reason to conclude that you actually care about bias. Rather, you care more about maintaining your faith on the question at hand.

The articles I have read from each of your sources have shown a great deal of bias and false information. That is very common among supporters of gun control.

As for my stance on the subject at hand:

No it should not. There is no good reason to. Will it be? Not likely as more people, more states and the courts support gun-rights as opposed to those who do not.

[Big Jim P]

I just got your edit.

I have read (I don't have the links handy but when I do I will post them) that there are a large number of new shooters/gun owners entering the market. My sources will likely be biased as well.

And that would be interesting, but that's nothing special nor does it refute a general downward trend. I believe in around 2012 there was a significant spike on gun ownership, but that doesn't impact the overall trend. Gun ownership fluctuates occasionally depending on a number of factors.

This is akin to arguing that we had a year that was colder than the previous and therefore Global Warming is a hoax. Trends don't work like that.

New gun purchases also spiked in 2014.

[Jordanistan]

Only if we can also repeal the First Amendment and instate a theocracy.

[Wallenburg]

No, you're free to ignore them regardless.

This has nothing to do with honesty, it has to do to with understanding how bias actually works. Bias exists in ANY source. Nowhere have I said anything otherwise. However, the only reason to use bias as a reason to dismiss a source is if you have a way to demonstrate if the bias in that source is prevalent or relevant enough to impact the source itself. Given that you haven't provided anything like that, I see no reason to conclude that you actually care about bias. Rather, you care more about maintaining your faith on the question at hand.

The articles I have read from each of your sources have shown a great deal of bias and false information. That is very common among supporters of gun control.

As for my stance on the subject at hand:

No it should not. There is no good reason to. Will it be? Not likely as more people, more states and the courts support gun-rights as opposed to those who do not.

I went to your guns save lives link in your sig. Really? They save lives? I think the people who were shot would beg to differ. They don't deserve summary execution, no matter how fucked up their behavior is.

[Mavorpen]

No, you're free to ignore them regardless.

This has nothing to do with honesty, it has to do to with understanding how bias actually works. Bias exists in ANY source. Nowhere have I said anything otherwise. However, the only reason to use bias as a reason to dismiss a source is if you have a way to demonstrate if the bias in that source is prevalent or relevant enough to impact the source itself. Given that you haven't provided anything like that, I see no reason to conclude that you actually care about bias. Rather, you care more about maintaining your faith on the question at hand.

The articles I have read from each of your sources have shown a great deal of bias and false information.

And you arrived at this conclusion through the method of...?

I mean, for all I know you could have extrapolated this from a fortune cookie. What basis is there for me to take you seriously on your assertion of bias?

That is very common among supporters of gun control.

And this is relevant how?

[Wallenburg]

Only if we can also repeal the First Amendment and instate a theocracy.

Yes, do it! End democracy and protection of rights now!

[Scomagia]

It does matter if they are legal, since restrictions only apply to legal gun owners.

How do you think they got the illegal firearms? Someone had them legally at some point, unless they were produced by an illegal firearms manufacturer.

How they got them is, frankly, irrelevant. The fact is that they have them now and no level of gun control is going to make illegally owned guns disappear in any significant amount.

[Mavorpen]

And that would be interesting, but that's nothing special nor does it refute a general downward trend. I believe in around 2012 there was a significant spike on gun ownership, but that doesn't impact the overall trend. Gun ownership fluctuates occasionally depending on a number of factors.

This is akin to arguing that we had a year that was colder than the previous and therefore Global Warming is a hoax. Trends don't work like that.

New gun purchases also spiked in 2014.

...Okay? Did you read my post? That still doesn't demonstrate the lack of a downward trend. Unless you think two years is enough to reverse over a four decade trend.

Edit: your wording is also confusing me. By "new gun purchases," you mean people who did not own guns are purchasing them, right?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The articles I have read from each of your sources have shown a great deal of bias and false information. That is very common among supporters of gun control.

As for my stance on the subject at hand:

I went to your guns save lives link in your sig. Really? They save lives? I think the people who were shot would beg to differ. They don't deserve summary execution, no matter how fucked up their behavior is.

No, they threaten the lives of law abiding citizens by violating their personal property then that citizen has every right to use whatever means necessary to defend themselves, family, or property, be it simply pulling the gun or being forced to shoot the assailant.

[Big Jim P]

The articles I have read from each of your sources have shown a great deal of bias and false information.

And you arrived at this conclusion through the method of...?

I mean, for all I know you could have extrapolated this from a fortune cookie. What basis is there for me to take you seriously on your assertion of bias?

That is very common among supporters of gun control.

And this is relevant how?

For what reason should I take you or your sources seriously?

Knowingly spreading false information is a good indication of bias and does nothing for ones credibility. Nor does CNNs posting a poll concerning American gun rights in its International edition to skew its results.

[Wallenburg]

As I said before, keep the second amendment. It protects state militias, aka the national guard, and if the fascists turn the federal government into a dictatorship I want us to be ready. But gun ownership should be restricted to sensible, responsible people. Handguns for exposed individuals in the city, and shotguns for isolated farmers who need to protect themselves and their livestock from natural predators.
That's it. No more guns.

[Big Jim P]

The articles I have read from each of your sources have shown a great deal of bias and false information. That is very common among supporters of gun control.

As for my stance on the subject at hand:

I went to your guns save lives link in your sig. Really? They save lives? I think the people who were shot would beg to differ. They don't deserve summary execution, no matter how fucked up their behavior is.

They were not summarily executed. Some died in the execution of criminal attack when the potential victims defended themselves. Thus innocent lives were save, sometimes at the expense of the criminals lives.

[Mavorpen]

And you arrived at this conclusion through the method of...?

I mean, for all I know you could have extrapolated this from a fortune cookie. What basis is there for me to take you seriously on your assertion of bias?

And this is relevant how?

For what reason should I take you or your sources seriously?

Um, any special reason you just dodged my question?

Knowingly spreading false information is a good indication of bias and does nothing for ones credibility. Nor does CNNs posting a poll concerning American gun rights in its International edition to skew its results.

And again, you haven't substantiated any of this.

[Imperializt Russia]

No. It is confusing though, with some people thinking it means the right to create a militia and some people thinking it is the right to own guns as an individual.

The Supreme Court has ruled that both meanings stand.
I believe the interpretation is something along the lines that a man can own his personal arms, which he can then take into a militia.

The National Guard is not a militia in its current form, and probably hasn't been for a long time. It has its own damned air force, complete with all-weather attack helicopters and Mach 2 fighter-bomber wings.

[New Strausberg]

The problem isn't guns.

It's fucktarded people with fucked brains that think they can kill anyone they want.

The absence of a gun is not going to change someone's fucked up brain, their brain is fucked they are fucked they are going to do some fuckery one way or another

Basically this

[Big Jim P]

New gun purchases also spiked in 2014.

...Okay? Did you read my post? That still doesn't demonstrate the lack of a downward trend. Unless you think two years is enough to reverse over a four decade trend.

Edit: your wording is also confusing me. By "new gun purchases," you mean people who did not own guns are purchasing them, right?

No, I was just pointing out an additional spike in sales, and that is all: New gun sales. Some no doubt went to people who already owned guns, and some to people who did not.

[Greed and Death]

The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when either Native Americans or Brits were liable to be kicking down your door at any given moment, so a simple flintlock musket was a granted form of defence.

By all means, let the 2nd Amendment stay... but only extend as far as the weapons it was intended for: flintlock muskets. You can still 'defend your castle' with it, but you won't be able to slaughter an entire school in ten minutes.

Worth pointing out during the drafting of the second amendment known weapons with military uses were there as well including rifles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_rifle">Kentucky Rifle as were pistolshttp://revolutionarywarantiques. ... ar-Pistols and semi automatic weapons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle

So worth pointing out using the only protects types of weapons available then falls inline with current gun laws.

[Terioa]

Thing is, its not satire

I have reason to doubt that the post that says "god given right to an AR-15" is serious. Because, where in the Bible does it say "Thou shall not take away thou neighbor's AR-15?" Genesis?

He's either trying to be comical or just a plain imbecile... Likely the latter as most americans these days see this statement to a god-given right to own said AR-15 as being completely true however I do agree please do open up the holy book and highlight quite prudently where it is says "Thou shalt not take away my AR-15"...

[Uawc]

No. That should be the end of this discussion.

[Mavorpen]

...Okay? Did you read my post? That still doesn't demonstrate the lack of a downward trend. Unless you think two years is enough to reverse over a four decade trend.

Edit: your wording is also confusing me. By "new gun purchases," you mean people who did not own guns are purchasing them, right?

No, I was just pointing out an additional spike in sales, and that is all: New gun sales. Some no doubt went to people who already owned guns, and some to people who did not.

Okay, so then you don't have any information refuting a downward trend. Glad we got past that.

[Sociobiology]

No. It is confusing though, with some people thinking it means the right to create a militia and some people thinking it is the right to own guns as an individual.

The Supreme Court has ruled that both meanings stand.
I believe the interpretation is something along the lines that a man can own his personal arms, which he can then take into a militia.

The National Guard is not a militia in its current form, and probably hasn't been for a long time. It has its own damned air force, complete with all-weather attack helicopters and Mach 2 fighter-bomber wings.

of course people forget it also states that all militias are under the direct authority of the president, so if the president orders your militia to do something any you don't then your no longer a militia, you are a rebellion.

[Terioa]

The Second Amendment is fine. The problem is maniacs getting weapons, not the weapons themselves.

That actually isn't really a problem.

We all certainly see where your priorities lie now don't we?

[Greed and Death]

The Supreme Court has ruled that both meanings stand.
I believe the interpretation is something along the lines that a man can own his personal arms, which he can then take into a militia.

The National Guard is not a militia in its current form, and probably hasn't been for a long time. It has its own damned air force, complete with all-weather attack helicopters and Mach 2 fighter-bomber wings.

of course people forget it also states that all militias are under the direct authority of the president, so if the president orders your militia to do something any you don't then your no longer a militia, you are a rebellion.

No Article I Section 8 says "The Congress shall have Power To ...provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

That is clearly a congressional power and one with limits, must be to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrection, or repel invasions.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

That actually isn't really a problem.

We all certainly see where your priorities lie now don't we?

Preserving the second ammendment right for law abiding citizens to own fire arms?