No 2A = A nation of lemmings cowering in their own homes

[Toggle Almendro]

Gun nuts

When all you have to back up your position is namecalling, perhaps it is time to abandon your position for something that can be defended with facts and logic.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

There are no torture prisons.

There is one in El Salvador.

If you're deporting criminals the place you're deporting them to probably doesn't want them running around in their country.

This is kind of off topic, but Trump was having El Salvador torture innocent people, not criminals.

I expect that US taxpayers will have to pay reparations one day.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Gun nuts

Yup, you just outed yourself as a narrow minded liberal bigot.

 

[CLAX1911]

There is one in El Salvador.



This is kind of off topic, but Trump was having El Salvador torture innocent people, not criminals.

I expect that US taxpayers will have to pay reparations one day.

Who are these innocent people and how do you know they are innocent?

 

[CLAX1911]

Yup, you just outed yourself as a narrow minded liberal bigot.

I was thinking gun nuts are used to retain flanges

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Who are these innocent people and how do you know they are innocent?

A group of Venezuelan refugees, plus that Abrego Garcia guy. (Don't know if I spelled his name right, probably didn't.)

Everyone who Trump had deported to the torture prison in El Salvador.

and how do you know they are innocent?

No criminal records. Also no credible claims of criminality.

I should add: while it is extra bad that Trump had innocent people tortured, torturing them would still be wrong even if they were dangerous criminals.

 

[CLAX1911]

A group of Venezuelan refugees, plus that Abrego Garcia guy.

Yeah Abrego Garcia isn't innocent.

(Don't know if I spelled his name right, probably didn't.)

Everyone who Trump had deported to the torture prison in El Salvador.

The only name you mentioned is not an innocent man so how do you know any of these people are innocent

No criminal records. Also no credible claims of criminality.

Who? Do you know?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

(formerly) Great Britain: an illustration of ceding personal responsibility to Big Bro

...Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom. The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant...

A sewer full of asinine assumptions. Maybe the intruder just wants your stuff. Or maybe your life. Or maybe your wife's life, or body. Ditto your kids' lives or bodies, maybe. The reality is the criminal's motives are unknown to all but the criminal himself.

The reason Brits coddle criminals at the expense of their victims is simple: the law-abiding have been systematically disarmed by the government, empowering Big Bro alone to make those calls on behalf of the great unwashed. The result: once-Great Britain is now a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks. We uncultured rubes on this side of the pond have embraced the opposite proposition: we prefer turning criminals into victims, and we have the law on our side.

There were 590 homicides in Great Britain in 2023. That is less than 10 homicides per million.

There were 22,380 homicides in the US in 2023. That is 57 homicides per million.

This means that Great Britain is about 6 times better at dealing with violent criminals than all the gun toting wannabe tough guys in the US.

US gun nuts talk big when posting their masturbatory power fantasies online, but when you get down to it, they are more likely to shoot themselves than to actually stop a violent intruder.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

US gun nuts talk big when posting their masturbatory power fantasies online,

Having to rely on childish namecalling is a big sign that your position is indefensible. I recommend shifting to a position that can be defended with facts and logic.

but when you get down to it, they are more likely to shoot themselves than to actually stop a violent intruder.

Wrong again.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Yeah Abrego Garcia isn't innocent.

That is incorrect. He has never committed a crime.

how do you know any of these people are innocent

No criminal records. No credible claims of criminal activity.

Who? Do you know?

So far as I know, all of them have no criminal record or credible claim of criminal activity.

 

[Peter]

(formerly) Great Britain: an illustration of ceding personal responsibility to Big Bro

...Never confront burglars. They could be armed. They could be high on drugs. You don’t know anything about them, except that they are in your home. And you want them out.

But don’t just lie there terrified, praying that they won’t come into your bedroom. The law allows a householder to act in self-defense. But prowling the house is not self-defense. And keeping a weapon by your bed implies premeditated intention to commit assault.

Burglars are not looking for a fight. They just want your valuables, probably so they can sell them to get money for drugs or drink. These days, with so many young people carrying knives or machetes, it’s increasingly likely that an intruder will be armed. But even so, if you go on the attack, the law will label you as the assailant...

A sewer full of asinine assumptions. Maybe the intruder just wants your stuff. Or maybe your life. Or maybe your wife's life, or body. Ditto your kids' lives or bodies, maybe. The reality is the criminal's motives are unknown to all but the criminal himself.

The reason Brits coddle criminals at the expense of their victims is simple: the law-abiding have been systematically disarmed by the government, empowering Big Bro alone to make those calls on behalf of the great unwashed. The result: once-Great Britain is now a nation of victims.

Thanks, but no thanks. We uncultured rubes on this side of the pond have embraced the opposite proposition: we prefer turning criminals into victims, and we have the law on our side.

I prefer not being worried if I'm about to be involved in a mass shooting at any moment.
The police also don't need to be armed like we live in an active war zone and treat everyone as a possible cop killer.

I'm 49 and I haven't been murdered even once in this land without guns.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Having to rely on childish namecalling is a big sign that your position is indefensible. I recommend shifting to a position that can be defended with facts and logic.

I presented facts and logic, which you conveniently ignored.

There were 590 homicides in Great Britain in 2023.

That is a fact.

That is less than 10 homicides per million.

That is another fact.

There were 22,380 homicides in the US in 2023. That is 57 homicides per million.

Two more facts right there.

This means that Great Britain is about 6 times better at dealing with violent criminals than all the gun toting wannabe tough guys in the US.

That one is a logical conclusion.

Furthermore, I didn’t address you, so if your fee fees got hurt because you think I was calling you names, it can only be because you actually self-identify with the name. If the shoe fits...

Wrong again.

Gun owners in the US are more likely to shoot themselves than to shoot a home invader, and that is a statistical fact.

 

[RF667799]

There were 590 homicides in Great Britain in 2023. That is less than 10 homicides per million.

There were 22,380 homicides in the US in 2023. That is 57 homicides per million.

This means that Great Britain is about 6 times better at dealing with violent criminals than all the gun toting wannabe tough guys in the US.

? It means that the US has about 6 times the homicide rate of Great Britain.

But 6 times a small number can still be a small number. As in this case.

US gun nuts talk big when posting their masturbatory power fantasies online, but when you get down to it, they are more likely to shoot themselves than to actually stop a violent intruder.

Derogatory, bigoted rant can be disregarded.

 

[RF667799]

I presented facts and logic, which you conveniently ignored.



That is a fact.



That is another fact.



Two more facts right there.



That one is a logical conclusion.

Furthermore, I didn’t address you, so if your fee fees got hurt because you think I was calling you names, it can only be because you actually self-identify with the name. If the shoe fits...




Gun owners in the US are more likely to shoot themselves than to shoot a home invader, and that is a statistical fact.

They're more likely to hang themselves than to hogtie a home invader also. Statistical fact.

They're also more likely to drown, than to drown an assailant. Statistical fact.

I doubt your statistics separate the non-suicidal gun owners from the rest when they are compiled.

 

[The Brad Dad]

? It means that the US has about 6 times the homicide rate of Great Britain.

But 6 times a small number can still be a small number. As in this case.

Ssomething that is 6x is a pretty significant jump.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

It means that the US has about 6 times the homicide rate of Great Britain.

Which is another way of saying that folks in Great Britain are about 6 times better at defending themselves.

Or saying that folks in the US suck 6 times harder at defending themselves than folks in Great Britain.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Which is another way of saying that folks in Great Britain are about 6 times better at defending themselves.

Or saying that folks in the US suck 6 times harder at defending themselves than folk in Great Britain.

ROFLMAO

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

They're more likely to hang themselves than to hogtie a home invader also. Statistical fact.

Correct. And anyone with macho fantasies about how they are going to hogtie anyone who tries breaking into their home is as divorced from reality as folks who fantasize about shooting home invaders.

They're also more likely to drown, than to drown an assailant. Statistical fact.

Correct. And anyone who is crafting a plan for how they are going to drown a home invader is equally delusional.

 

[Peter]

ROFLMAO

I have a PS5 i could throw at someone.
That'd do some serious damage.

 

[The Brad Dad]

I have a PS5 i could throw at someone.
That'd do some serious damage.

You probably have a greater chance of hitting something than any of the gun folks on the forum

 

[Peter]

You probably have a greater chance of hitting something than any of the gun folks on the forum

It is pretty hefty.

 

[RF667799]

Ssomething that is 6x is a pretty significant jump.

Relative to the smaller number. But how significant in reality?

 

[RF667799]

Which is another way of saying that folks in Great Britain are about 6 times better at defending themselves.

Or saying that folks in the US suck 6 times harder at defending themselves than folks in Great Britain.

Defending themselves from something that doesn't happen?

 

[RF667799]

Correct. And anyone with macho fantasies about how they are going to hogtie anyone who tries breaking into their home is as divorced from reality as folks who fantasize about shooting home invaders.

Do people who have fire extinguishers fantasize about putting out fires?

Correct. And anyone who is crafting a plan for how they are going to drown a home invader is equally delusional.

Yet there are many instances of gun owners defending their homes from home invaders.

 

[upsideguy]

That's a really lame argument, and you know very well that the 2A doesn't make provisions with laws promoting child safety with firearms. It only says that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Child access prevention laws require a gun owner to jump through legal hoops to legally own his or her firearm(s). It's an infringement, and the Second Amendment explicitly prohibits ALL infringements.


The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere. Our country was FOUNDED on the principles that citizens have the right to free speech (Amendment I) and the inalienable right to keep and bear arms (Amendment II).

The bolded part is actually not true. Regulating guns, even banning specific guns, may not be considered an "infringement"..... You have the right to a weapon. That right shall not be infringed, but that does not necessarily mean you have the right to have a particular weapon without conditions.

This is actually an unexplored area in terms of litigation, so there is no real legal basis for your take on it, nor actually mine. We do know, however, that no right in the constitution is absolute. The government has the right, through legislation, to better clarify rights and articulate exceptions. All, of course, subject to legal challenge.

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Loading…

jach.law.wisc.edu

Gun Rights: Before and After Heller - Civics Nation

Before the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment several times. Heller was a drastic departure from past rulings.

www.civicsnation.org

Supreme Court clarifies when a gun law is constitutional - Roll Call

The Supreme Court clarified on Friday how it analyses the constitutionality of a gun control law, as it upheld one federal possession ban.

rollcall.com

Gun Laws and What the Second Amendment Intended

As school shootings erupt with sickening regularity, Americans once again are debating gun laws. Quickly talk turns to the Second Amendment. But what does it mean? History offers some surprises.

www.brennancenter.org