Quote:
Originally Posted by rwthomas1
DieselAddict and Tankdriver,
You are both two peas in a pod. I have tried to explain things to you in a sane manner. I have tried to give you enough information so that you could do your own research and maybe try to understand some of my, and others points. By statements in your most recent posts you still do not have even a clue.
|
The only person here who doesn't have a clue seems to be you. I don't know what you're reading, but it can't be my posts.
Quote:
|
-The Second Amendment is not in any way vague. The only people who think it is vague are the anti-gun crowd. Even the top law professors in this country, who are admittedly anti-gun have openly stated that yes, it means exactly what it states. Arms are guns. Period. This is not MY interpretation, its THE interpretation. If you did a bit of research you would know that.
|
I didn't say anything about the vagueness of the 2nd amendment. But I would like to correct you on one thing here. Arms are not guns. Guns are arms. Swords are arms. Knives are arms. I think it's pretty clear the second amendment meant and means arms available. While it may not have any qualifiers, I do think for public safety weapons like RPGs and landmines should not be allowed.
Quote:
|
-A 50 caliber rifle is not a crime weapon. Never has been, never will be. Too big, too expensive and not useful to any criminal. The VA snipers used a .223 which is a sub-rifle caliber round. Its not particularly powerful, actually on the very low end of rifle power relatively.
|
Obviously you are not reading my posts because I never wrote that the 50cal is a criminal's weapon. I merely used it as an example. I know what the snipers used, I lived in the DC area (most of the snipers' victims were shot in MD, along my route to work) when they were on the loose.
Quote:
|
The bans have been promised to help crime, to be inexpensive to enforce, etc. They have been none of what they have been promised in every case. Gun rights groups in these countries have continued to try to reverse these laws but they have been unsuccessful, even when they have popular support. One of the problems they face is THEY DO NOT HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT! The people of these countries have rights at the permission of their governments. Not the other way around, as we are lucky enough to.
|
I don't know about the expensiveness of restrictions in other countries, do you have a link to that? As for crime, I think with both Bot's and Zeus's posts, it's pretty clear no one can draw any kind of meaningful conclusion regarding rates v. private ownership. Does crime go up as a result of restrictive ownership laws? No one has proven that. Does crime go down with restrictive ownerships laws? No one has proven that either. My suspicion is that crime rates are crime rates regardless of what weaponry is available to the public. I suppose it may theoretically be possible to prove mortality rates for various weapons, but not crime rates.
Quote:
I could go on and on but you both keep proving your complete ignorance of the topic at hand.
RT
|
The only one proving ignorance here is you. No matter what I write, you assign to me the anti-gun crazy label. Tell you what, it'll be easier to have this discussion if you just tell me what my position is, so I don't waste time with discerning points.