- Joined
- Jan 23, 2015
- Messages
- 57,881
- Reaction score
- 29,075
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Ok. You have established that you are unable to provide an argument without evidence to support your claims.
Try again with some substantiation. Canada and Australia have large populations that are diverse and socioeconomically as varied as the US with far less firearm violence. Read Heller. Prior to Heller, there was NO individual right recognized constitutionally apart from as necessary for service to the collective need of a people's militia. (https://afj.org/article/15-years-af...ng-chaos-but-theres-hope-for-gun-regulations/).
There was no intense discussion of 2A originally as personal right to a firearm and some argue that it was primarily included to pacify slave owner concerns for armed slave retrieval posses. There was certainly no interest in guaranteeing a human right to firearms that might then be owned by former slaves. The focus of 2A was for 200 years was to populate a militia as need by the government in war. That was supplanted by a standing army
Interpretation: The Second Amendment | Constitution Center
Interpretations of The Second Amendment by constitutional scholarsconstitutioncenter.org
Throughout the US, ALL the various diverse states have firearm violence rates greater than Canada or Australia:
On gun violence, the United States is an outlier | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
When we look exclusively at high-income countries and territories with populations of 10 million or more, the US ranks first for its high levels of gun violence.www.healthdata.org
If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".
How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.
There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.
Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.
So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?
And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?
When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.
even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.
What? So youve devolved to 'where is your source' behavior, so lets go through what i said and you can answer and i will answer accordingly.Ok. You have established that you are unable to provide an argument without evidence to support your claims.
2) "Canada and Australia have large populations" No. The state of California has around as much as the entire country of Canada. Australia has less than 10 million people than California. That puts them at 37 and 54 in the world. Just the state of California would be 38. Canada has a little more than 10% of US population and Australia has a bit less than 10% of the US population, so those are not the same metrics by any statistical means.Try again with some substantiation. Canada and Australia have large populations that are diverse and socioeconomically as varied as the US with far less firearm violence. Read Heller. Prior to Heller, there was NO individual right recognized constitutionally apart from as necessary for service to the collective need of a people's militia. (https://afj.org/article/15-years-af...ng-chaos-but-theres-hope-for-gun-regulations/).
3) Canada is 4.3% black.that are diverse and socioeconomically as varied as the US
Do you really think the founding fathers didn't intend for non militia members to own weapons? Youre joking right?Prior to Heller, there was NO individual right recognized constitutionally apart from as necessary for service to the collective need of a people's militia.
It wasnt, it about the Lexington and concord, the government confiscation of weapons. Not a single individual was cited or put in prison for owning a gun on the basis of being an individual from the early 17th century through 2008 and you know that. This is fantastical left wing semantics.There was no intense discussion of 2A originally as personal right to a firearm and some argue that it was primarily included to pacify slave owner concerns for armed slave retrieval posses.
The continental army was made a year before the revolution, stop rewriting history. Stop acting like individual gun ownership isn't a precedent.There was certainly no interest in guaranteeing a human right to firearms that might then be owned by former slaves. The focus of 2A was for 200 years was to populate a militia as need by the government in war. That was supplanted by a standing army
Thats cool.Simple.
I deal with it and have for over 25 years by NEVER entering the Excited States of Assassins.
I simply don't go there.
In 1999, a friend returned home from a shopping trip with a 3" hole in the side of his car. A bullet had been fired into the car (brand new Nissan) from a hard angle going away from the shooter.
With police assistance we determined it was a .45 caliber bullet likely from a hand gun. Was told "someone doesn't like Canadians".
Other than to change planes, I have not set foot on American soil since, and won't.
Is this what you're after here?If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".
How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.
There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.
Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.
So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?
And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?
When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.
even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.
Heh?
If you are against the right to own firearms in the United States, even if you just want to legislate out things liberals call "assault rifles".
How do you plan to work with the fact the there are approximately 400 million (probably way more) in circulation.
There are more guns that people in the US and guns last longer than car and a human.
Gun legislation is not a new thing, guns have been continuous legislated every decade to no effect.
So if gun legislation is the answer, then why hasn't it worked the countless times its been implemented?
And how do you do so without clearly violating the bill of rights?
When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.
even if you still believe in gun legislation somehow, do you really think you have great take on the issue, when the issues just above are seldom talked about or given attention by your side of the isle by any sort or recognizable degree.
36.7 incidents per 100,000 population.Thats cool.
Canada is not non violent.
In 2022, the rate of firearm-related violent crime was 36.7 incidents per 100,000 population.
I guess there's some arbitrary line that designated what makes a good country from a country of assassins. Your gun crime is good because they are less, got it.
Im referring to overall idea that guns have been continued to be legislated and controlled over time and to no correlated effect on the population.What specific gun legislation that has been implemented are you referring to that didn't work?
Im referring to overall idea that guns have been continued to be legislated and controlled over time and to no correlated effect on the population.
Ex. Automatic weapons were made illegal in 1986. There are more mass shooting post 86 than pre 86.
Is the purpose of gun legislation not to bring down gun related crime?It's a good thing automatic weapons are illegal and harder to get. Look at one mass shooting that used those, 2017 Las Vegas that had converted guns to fully automatic and was the worst US mass shooting ever, killing 58 and wounding 546.
So I say that the legislation banning automatic weapons does work. Or what, do you want to see higher body counts?
The number that is important is 100,000 dead and injured yearly..0045% eh?
How many of that very tiny percentage are gun owners responsible for?
It's a good thing automatic weapons are illegal and harder to get. Look at one mass shooting that used those, 2017 Las Vegas that had converted guns to fully automatic and was the worst US mass shooting ever, killing 58 and wounding 546.
So I say that the legislation banning automatic weapons does work. Or what, do you want to see higher body counts?
The number that is important is 100,000 dead and injured yearly.
go for it.What? So youve devolved to 'where is your source' behavior, so lets go through what i said and you can answer and i will answer accordingly.
Ok. so my claims:
What does that even mean? "highest gun rights"?1) New Hampshire. Shall i really source that they are often sourced as the state with the highest gun rights.??? yes or no.
tens of millions would be a large population.2) "Canada and Australia have large populations" No.
How does the firearm violence in California compare to Canada?The state of California has around as much as the entire country of Canada.
You do realize that RATE /100,000 adjusts for population, don't you?Australia has less than 10 million people than California. That puts them at 37 and 54 in the world.
Source and why do you think that matters?Just the state of California would be 38. Canada has a little more than 10% of US population and Australia has a bit less than 10% of the US population, so those are not the same metrics by any statistical means.
3) Canada is 4.3% black.
Australia is 1.6 black
United States is 13% black
Canada is 3.3% Latino
Australia 0.77% Latino
United States in 20% Latino
Canada is 19% Asian
Australis is 17% Asian
United States 7% Asian (24 million Asians/ almost the entire population of Australia.
in 2024, the United States hosted over 50 million immigrants.
Tell me how you can determine what the representatives to the Constitutional Convention thought. Their words are in the Constitution and the Amendments.Do you really think the founding fathers didn't intend for non militia members to own weapons? Youre joking right?
Not making much sense there. There was no affirmation of isolated individual right until Heller. Fact.It wasnt, it about the Lexington and concord, the government confiscation of weapons. Not a single individual was cited or put in prison for owning a gun on the basis of being an individual from the early 17th century through 2008 and you know that. This is fantastical left wing semantics.
Stop fabricating history and promoting patriotic myths.The continental army was made a year before the revolution, stop rewriting history. Stop acting like individual gun ownership isn't a precedent.
We have long ago established there is no such thing.Why are you afraid of legislation that you seem to think is ineffective?
Turns out, those states (and countries) with stronger legislation tend to have less firearm violence.
This is demonstrably false. Every single court that has ever looked at it, beginning in 1858, has ruled it’s an individual right. No court in US history has ever ruled it a militia right.Inadequate legislation is not effective legislation.
Heller (2008) was really the start of the "individual" right to firearms opinion. Previously it was generally treated as a right related to a militia.
Why does Canada and Australia have firearms and so much less firearm violence?
Handguns are probably the biggest problem in the USA.
Automatic weapons are not illegal. You can’t show legally go to any class 3 dealer and purchase a machine gun today.Im referring to overall idea that guns have been continued to be legislated and controlled over time and to no correlated effect on the population.
Ex. Automatic weapons were made illegal in 1986. There are more mass shooting post 86 than pre 86.
The last Vegas shooting did not contain a single fully automatic firearm. Converted or otherwise.It's a good thing automatic weapons are illegal and harder to get. Look at one mass shooting that used those, 2017 Las Vegas that had converted guns to fully automatic and was the worst US mass shooting ever, killing 58 and wounding 546.
Automatic weapons aren’t banned.So I say that the legislation banning automatic weapons does work. Or what, do you want to see higher body counts?
When is it time for the left to focus maybe just even a little bit on things like uhhh...... prescription drugs, metal health, culture or media handling of mass shooting.
It's a good thing automatic weapons are illegal and harder to get. Look at one mass shooting that used those, 2017 Las Vegas that had converted guns to fully automatic and was the worst US mass shooting ever, killing 58 and wounding 546.
So I say that the legislation banning automatic weapons does work. Or what, do you want to see higher body counts?
what liberal media outlet lied to you about that ?
see - that's the problem .... liberal media lies and people just believe it and 9 years later, they STILL believe it
wow
"He purposefully had these weapons modified to be even deadlier than they would be in the capacity that they were originally manufactured," Sutton said. "The difference between a semiautomatic and a full automatic is that when a semi-automatic, every time you depress the trigger, one round comes out. When it's fully automatic, when you press the trigger it continues at a rate of about 400 rounds per minute which is why this death toll was so incredibly high."
Sorry, I guess I should have known better than to trust a police officer and the facts. Perhaps you can prove that cop wrong with evidence Paddock didn't modify his weapons to allow a semi automatic to perform like a fully automatic one.
Former Las Vegas officer says modified semi-automatic guns show "greater intent"
Police say the shooter who gunned down concertgoers in Las Vegas Sunday night had 23 guns in his Mandalay Bay hotel roomwww.cbsnews.com
that article clearly states he used semi-automatic rifles
what did you read to make you think they were fully automatic ? he did NOT convert them to fully automatic like you stated, did he ?
Part of Paddock's plan, officials said, was the modification of weapons from semi-automatic guns into fully automatic ones that could rapidly dispose of bullets at a pace—10 shots a second—and so could mow down concertgoers before they could make their escape from the Route 91 Festival below. Some converted semi-automatics can fire as many as 800 rounds per minute. Though it would likely decrease accuracy, 20,000 people spread out across the festival grounds provided ample targets over a wide area. Paddock killed 59 people and injured 527 more in what is the deadliest shooting in U.S. history.
The modification means that the rifle used is still legal and not an outlawed fully automatic weapon—even though it acts like one.
Yes, I messed up the first post and said convert instead of modify but it's still a fact Stephen Paddock used modifications to turn a semi-automatic gun into one that acts like a fully automatic one and that is the main reason it was the deadliest mass shooting in American history.
Devices That Gun Enthusiasts Use to Make Weapons Faster
Stephen Paddock used two "bump-stocks" to carry out the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, officials said.www.newsweek.com
now that said .,..... if you're a conspiracy theorist ....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?