Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Most people are unwitting tools...
There are many who would gladly give up all the guns if it saved one life.

Originally Posted by Volker

I can't understand this knee-jerk issue of gun laws...

If someone does not mind to go to the gallows for murder...

why he would care about a 150$ ticket or whatever for firearms possession?

Logic failure!



My understanding of Plutocracy is that "rich subset of population controls country". Well, yeah in a point yes. And thank God, as poor people are almost always idiots (if they were smart, they'd be rich). But... there is President always railing about low tax rates for rich people, high tax rates for high earners, and no real indication of rich people doing anything. Why would rich people running firearms companies (for example) let this argument fly around, or rich people owning automobile companies give their equity stakes for free to the government and unions as "bailout"? It seems that, aside from the existence of the rule of law (unlike say Russia), rich people in the USA don't seem to have a lot of power or influence, despite a few people throwing millions into ad campaigns, that seem to accomplish nothing (e.g. the tycoon bankrolling Romney, and indeed also Romney himself)


Bickering is a great thing about America. You need a free market of ideas, to find what is right. Some places there is a kind of social influence to stop people from saying anything "out of line", so nothing can change.

Originally Posted by my83300cd

As my kids say, 'there are people who are just tools"

tool:
someone who is a complete idiot/ someone who can't think for themselves/ an asshat.

Unwitting or not, do I want them deciding on constitutional amendments? Ceding power to the governing authority is what the 2nd amendment is specifically designed to prevent.

tool: A device or implement, esp. one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.

Its not the tool that is the issue- it is the person utilizing it. Do you let your nutty uncle set off the fireworks on the porch? Permit your drunk friend to drive home? If so, please attend to the first definition. Personal responsibility and instilling responsibility as part of a civilized society is the key issue.

Originally Posted by davidmash

Really?

Really?

Originally Posted by Botnst

I assume the reason gun control advocates are motivated is to decrease the murder rate.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports show homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011, the last year available. The murder rate has dropped from 9.3 per 100,000 in 1992 to 4.7 per 100,000 in 2011.

FBI — Table 1

Originally Posted by Botnst

Yeah, like the USA Patriot Act. The creation of DHS. Now there's some big-time rights expansion. No nibbling around the edges like a buncha pansy-eating goats. Take the whole enchilada and gov has a fait accompli.

Think DHS is going away? USA Patriot Act going away?

Oh well, at least we can get a bj in a motel now.

Originally Posted by Botnst

Clearly the violent crime rate has been dropping without a need for background checks on gun purchases. Why?

Clearly the violent crime rate has dropped significantly without implementing any onerous gun control. Why?

Clearly the "assault weapons" legislation had no impact because the trend was downward before, during and after it was implemented and went away. Why?

Perhaps if we knew more about the 'why' we would have a more focused and accurate, 'how' to deal with violent crime.

Personally, I vote for more Wolfenstein and Doom!.

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Maybe you misinterpreted my comment.
When I said 'enough people' I meant an overwhelming number.
Mandate from the masses is required.
The amendment process is not a simple majority.
It is not 51% deciding to screw the other 49%
In fact it is a very painstaking process, and IMHO sure as heck better represent the will of the people.
2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of all state legislatures. That is a mighty high hurdle (as it should be).
Unless the states wish to call a Convention and bypass the House and Senate.

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Exactly how does one amend an "inalienable right"? If it is "inalienable" how can it be taken away?

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Lets peel out the murder by guns only number...and to be truly accurate, you need to localize those numbers to states/areas based on their gun laws. You will see the unarmed areas have the highest crime rates.

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Inalienable?? We're not talking about inalienable rights.

Even the big three listed in the Declaration Of Independence can be taken away from you if you commit heinous enough criminal acts.

Our enumerated rights outlined by the Constitution can be amended.

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

That was EXACTLY the trap that the Founders wanted to avoid. They were afraid that sometime in the future, that some repressive group would get control of the government and decide that the enumerated Rights were granted and not inalienable.
They were wise.
We are so screwed.
Trading Freedom ( and its responsibility) for security is always a loser's game.