« First « Previous Comments 115 - 154 of 1,444 Next » Last » Search these comments
Of course some people claim money doesn't affect elections or politicians votes. Even some right here on patnet.
Yes - like the case of old age, in many ways those deaths ARE less important.
Like terrorism, gun violence is random, it is senseless, and often the victims are innocent.
We value predictability, and we abhor unpredictability. No more no less.
anon_d06f9 saysYes - like the case of old age, in many ways those deaths ARE less important.
Well, isn't that nice.
anon_d06f9 saysLike terrorism, gun violence is random, it is senseless, and often the victims are innocent.
anon_d06f9 saysWe value predictability, and we abhor unpredictability. No more no less.
OK, how about this unpredictability concerning children?
When are you going to start protesting Flu deaths of innocent children? When do the protest marches start trying to ban the flu?<...
When are you going to start protesting Flu deaths of innocent children? When do the protest marches start trying to ban the flu?
May Democracy prevail against Elite preference.
Amen. If only Democracy could overcome the $50MM+ in campaign donations from the NRA.
There are even some here that claim gun ownership in homes is down the last few decades.
Which organization represents a mass movement, and a democratic membership, and which one represents a steering committee financed from wealthy foundations ?
Which is more representative of democratic impulses? If there is such a mass movement for Gun Control, where are their million member single issue organizations?
Tell me.
The NRA is a private advocacy group of over 5 million citizens that gets $0 in Federal or State funding.
Seems like it's Democracy in action, not being overcome.
anon_cf6c6 says
There are even some here that claim gun ownership in homes is down the last few decades.
No there aren't. The percentage of households with guns is down 40%.
Not these percentages again, some just haven't learned math.
In 1978 there were 73 million households, so 51% of 73 = 37 million were gun owners.
In 2016 there were 126 million households, so 36% of 126 = 45 million were gun owners.
Quick math question, which is larger, 37 million or 45 million?
No there aren't. The percentage of households with guns is down 40%. The guns per household has doubled. Less of the population owns guns but the ones that do own a lot more of them. Numbers matter.
Not these percentages again, some just haven't learned math.
In 1978 there were 73 million households, so 51% of 73 = 37 million were gun owners.
In 2016 there were 126 million households, so 36% of 126 = 45 million were gun owners.
Quick math question, which is larger, 37 million or 45 million?
What was that again about "right wing math"?
More households own guns NOW.
Numbers matter.
No there aren't. The percentage of households with guns is down 40%. The guns per household has doubled. Less of the population owns guns but the ones that do own a lot more of them. Numbers matter.
Not these percentages again, some just haven't learned math.
In 1978 there were 73 million households, so 51% of 73 = 37 million were gun owners.
In 2016 there were 126 million households, so 36% of 126 = 45 million were gun owners.
Quick math question, which is larger, 37 million or 45 million?
What was that again about "right wing math"?
More households own guns NOW.
Numbers matter.
No there aren't. The percentage of households with guns is down 40%. The guns per household has doubled. Less of the population owns guns but the ones that do own a lot more of them. Numbers matter.
Nice try sniper.
Criminals do not follow laws.
Newly created and potential future laws will be ignored by criminals.
People who are not criminals do follow laws.
By this logic, we should get rid of all laws. Criminals don't follow them, after all.
By this logic, we should get rid of all laws. Criminals don't follow them, after all.
Uh no. That's not what people are saying.
You need to have laws that are calibrated to stop the problem WHILE also working to not deny people, who have done nothing wrong, their rights.
Hyperbole on either side is not useful or productive.
Unfortunately the NRA won't allow ANY laws to be passed that might affect the ability of someone to get a assault rifle
I'm all for a rational discussion of facts, but that's very hard to find because one side desperately wants to avoid it.
Liberals:
"Guns are only for the Militia"
Also Liberals:
"So let's have our Modern Militia be armed with Blackpowder Muskets!"
the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
Liberals: "Trump is literally Hitler!"
Also Liberals: "Trump needs to take away all of our guns!"
Gonna stop you right there. If truth is allowed to be re-defined every time it doesn't suit the current ruling class, then who gives a fuck what intent was?
Now that we're past that driveling intelligence of worm-slaves, let me point out that when we fought the most powerful empire in the world, without a standing army, we used the same/or better guns than what the British had. By today's standards that means every citizens should be in possession of an m16. So yes, we're being systematically fucked out of our 2nd amendment right to defend our freedom.
Liberals: "Trump is literally Hitler!"
Also Liberals: "Trump needs to take away all of our guns!"
Trumps needs to enact common sense gun control.
The citizens were in a militia. Which is what the 2nd Amendment protects. So strictly interpreting the 2nd Amendment, which is what you seem wont to do, would necessitate any gun owner need be a member of a militia.
By definition, all American citizens, if not employed by the government, are part of the current militia.
I'm sorry--by what definition? What's the name of the militia? Who is in charge of it? When do they meet?
How do you distinguish between "re-defining" and "determining intent"?
The citizens were in a militia
« First « Previous Comments 115 - 154 of 1,444 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.