SC rulings may lead to a Republican Administration

mysteryman wrote:

OE, you have to go to the CDC website to get the stats I used.

Ah, no worries. For the sake of the argument, I'll just accept your numbers.


But those numbers are still totals, right? Not deaths/1000 cars or something like that?

'Cause in that case they still don't really tell us anything....

Diest TKO wrote:

First off, I appriciate the detailed reply.

McGentrix wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

You are exactly WRONG about what I am saying here. I'm not saying that the dumbest parent's teachings become the acceptable standard, I'm saying the smartest parent's standard becomes the standard and that standard is taught formally.

Guns are not issues for every child, not every child will own a gun. It's not about the government doing what the parent can't it's about doing what the government should be doing to promote security and safety. Frankly I don't care how skilled you are, I still don't think you are qualified to teach.

The State of New york would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. What you are proscribing, IS state mandated education for a basic right as stated in the constitution. An education is nice to have regarding gun safety, and I would heartily agree that it is nice to have, but should remain voluntary.

A state mandated education would be me saying that all children and individuals would have to take the courses. What I am saying is that the lawful ownership and operation of a firearm should include a formal education and license.

What you utterly fail to grasp is that the state cannot be allowed to insert itself into the position of dispensing a fundamental right. People have an inherent right to defend themselves, and to the means to defend themselves, and the state has no moral authority to grant the right only at its pleasure and under its control. In America, rights are not granted to citizens by the government, but are rather considered to be the inherent possession of citizens. Remember that in addition to the recognizing the right of citizens to defend themselves against crime and to hunt, it is clear (and explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence) that the Founders believed citizens to have the right to overthrow the government itself by force should it ever become tyranical. This being the case, the government can hardly be allowed to set itself up as dispensing the means of defense. The government may, and should, help people defend themselves, as with police and the army, but it may not set itself up as being the granter of the right or ability of self-defense. Beyond this, I think that a big, invasive government that inserts itself into every walk of life and treats people like children is very undesirable.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

First off, I appriciate the detailed reply.

McGentrix wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

You are exactly WRONG about what I am saying here. I'm not saying that the dumbest parent's teachings become the acceptable standard, I'm saying the smartest parent's standard becomes the standard and that standard is taught formally.

Guns are not issues for every child, not every child will own a gun. It's not about the government doing what the parent can't it's about doing what the government should be doing to promote security and safety. Frankly I don't care how skilled you are, I still don't think you are qualified to teach.

The State of New york would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. What you are proscribing, IS state mandated education for a basic right as stated in the constitution. An education is nice to have regarding gun safety, and I would heartily agree that it is nice to have, but should remain voluntary.

A state mandated education would be me saying that all children and individuals would have to take the courses. What I am saying is that the lawful ownership and operation of a firearm should include a formal education and license.

What you utterly fail to grasp is that the state cannot be allowed to insert itself into the position of dispensing a fundamental right. People have an inherent right to defend themselves, and to the means to defend themselves, and the state has no moral authority to grant the right only at its pleasure and under its control. In America, rights are not granted to citizens by the government, but are rather considered to be the inherent possession of citizens. Remember that in addition to the recognizing the right of citizens to defend themselves against crime and to hunt, it is clear (and explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence) that the Founders believed citizens to have the right to overthrow the government itself by force should it ever become tyranical. This being the case, the government can hardly be allowed to set itself up as dispensing the means of defense. The government may, and should, help people defend themselves, as with police and the army, but it may not set itself up as being the granter of the right or ability of self-defense. Beyond this, I think that a big, invasive government that inserts itself into every walk of life and treats people like children is very undesirable.

RIIIIIIGHT.

Nothing I am advocating violates A2. We have freedom of Assembly too and the government outlines how to do that properly. Is the government denying a right by saying that a protest needs a permit, no. What about freedom of press? Can a paper print whatever it likes? No. The government can step in under a number of circumstances.

You miss the point so bad it makes me wonder if your aim is good enough to even hold a gun.

T
K
O

Acording to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearms deaths in the US in 2005...

There were 45,520 deaths caused by a motor vehicle in the same year.

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

First off, I appriciate the detailed reply.

McGentrix wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

You are exactly WRONG about what I am saying here. I'm not saying that the dumbest parent's teachings become the acceptable standard, I'm saying the smartest parent's standard becomes the standard and that standard is taught formally.

Guns are not issues for every child, not every child will own a gun. It's not about the government doing what the parent can't it's about doing what the government should be doing to promote security and safety. Frankly I don't care how skilled you are, I still don't think you are qualified to teach.

The State of New york would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. What you are proscribing, IS state mandated education for a basic right as stated in the constitution. An education is nice to have regarding gun safety, and I would heartily agree that it is nice to have, but should remain voluntary.

A state mandated education would be me saying that all children and individuals would have to take the courses. What I am saying is that the lawful ownership and operation of a firearm should include a formal education and license.

What you utterly fail to grasp is that the state cannot be allowed to insert itself into the position of dispensing a fundamental right. People have an inherent right to defend themselves, and to the means to defend themselves, and the state has no moral authority to grant the right only at its pleasure and under its control. In America, rights are not granted to citizens by the government, but are rather considered to be the inherent possession of citizens. Remember that in addition to the recognizing the right of citizens to defend themselves against crime and to hunt, it is clear (and explicitly stated in the Declaration of Independence) that the Founders believed citizens to have the right to overthrow the government itself by force should it ever become tyranical. This being the case, the government can hardly be allowed to set itself up as dispensing the means of defense. The government may, and should, help people defend themselves, as with police and the army, but it may not set itself up as being the granter of the right or ability of self-defense. Beyond this, I think that a big, invasive government that inserts itself into every walk of life and treats people like children is very undesirable.

RIIIIIIGHT.

Nothing I am advocating violates A2. We have freedom of Assembly too and the government outlines how to do that properly. Is the government denying a right by saying that a protest needs a permit, no. What about freedom of press? Can a paper print whatever it likes? No. The government can step in under a number of circumstances.

You miss the point so bad it makes me wonder if your aim is good enough to even hold a gun.

T
K
O

I actually would have answered you, but your rapid descent into insulting the poster makes me feel that it's probably not worth my time.

mysteryman wrote:

Acording to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearms deaths in the US in 2005...

60-80 million people own 200-280 million guns based on estimates from various sources. There seems to be no real data.

Quote:

There were 45,520 deaths caused by a motor vehicle in the same year.

According to Wiki there about 243,000,000 passenger vehicles in the US and about another 14 million other road vehicles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

That leads to all kinds of abuse of statistics.

A gun may be less likely to kill than a car but for a gun owner, his gun is more likely to kill someone than his car ever will. For every hour of use, a gun is more likely to kill someone than a car is. Cars kill more people on the road. Guns kill more people NOT on the road. People killed with cars are more likely to be hit by tires. People killed with guns are more likely to be hit by bullets.

If the Second Amendment has been clarified to allow citizens to defend themselves, does it only refer to guns? What happens when a Star Wars de-atomizer is invented. Can people then own one?

But Finn, what say you then about armor piercing rounds? Chain guns?

To me it seems like this is like it's obvious when someone has had way to much to drink, but it's not so obvious when someone has had just one too many to drink.

Having a gun does not guarantee safety, nor does having a bigger gun than your adversary.

I'm okay with people owning guns, but I think the line has to be drawn at a reasonable point.

T
K
O

mysteryman wrote:

Acording to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearms deaths in the US in 2005...

60-80 million people own 200-280 million guns based on estimates from various sources. There seems to be no real data.

Quote:

There were 45,520 deaths caused by a motor vehicle in the same year.

According to Wiki there about 243,000,000 passenger vehicles in the US and about another 14 million other road vehicles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

That leads to all kinds of abuse of statistics.

A gun may be less likely to kill than a car but for a gun owner, his gun is more likely to kill someone than his car ever will. For every hour of use, a gun is more likely to kill someone than a car is. Cars kill more people on the road. Guns kill more people NOT on the road. People killed with cars are more likely to be hit by tires. People killed with guns are more likely to be hit by bullets.

Foofie wrote:

If the Second Amendment has been clarified to allow citizens to defend themselves, does it only refer to guns? What happens when a Star Wars de-atomizer is invented. Can people then own one?

The SC's decision has enough latitude to allow the government to ban personal ownership of nuclear (or similarly "humongous") weapons.

Quite a Red Herring though because the possibility of a citizen obtaining incredibly advanced weapons of mass destruction is virtually non-existent, and virtually no advocate of gun-control has, for a second, considered mega-weapons.

So, how many people have you killed with your car MM? (Not that it matters since any anecotal admission that you killed more with your car than you gun doesn't disprove the statistic.)

Unlike Ted Kennedy, I have never killed anyone with my car, or any other motor vehicle.


Law abiding car owners don't kill people because we know how to handle our cars safely. (Doesn't that simple statement mean that cars are safer than guns? You seem to think it makes guns safer than cars.)

Except for DUI's, reckless driving, vehicular homicide, careless backing, tailgating, running red lights or stop signs and other criminal acts committed while driving a motor vehicle.
And yes I know that there are criminal acts committed by some legal gun owners also.
Also, please show me where I said that guns were safer then cars!
I only said that more people get killed by cars then guns, according to the CDC.


Your refutation of the statistical fact is meaningless. A gun owner is more likely to have his gun kill someone than his car. The stat itself may be meaningless for or against guns but it is a valid stat.
How do you figure that?
A gun owner is NOT more likely to [quote]have his gun kill someone than his car

Lets look at the numbers and find out.
Acording to the CDC, there were 30,694 firearms deaths in the US in 2005...
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

There were 45,520 deaths caused by a motor vehicle in the same year.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

I had mentioned the numbers I posted would lead to abuse of statistics.

I guess I failed to mention it would lead to people ignoring the statistics and making up their own.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Foofie wrote:

If the Second Amendment has been clarified to allow citizens to defend themselves, does it only refer to guns? What happens when a Star Wars de-atomizer is invented. Can people then own one?

The SC's decision has enough latitude to allow the government to ban personal ownership of nuclear (or similarly "humongous") weapons.

Quite a Red Herring though because the possibility of a citizen obtaining incredibly advanced weapons of mass destruction is virtually non-existent, and virtually no advocate of gun-control has, for a second, considered mega-weapons.

No. I am not talking about weapons of mass destruction. I am talking about the ray-guns we saw in 1950's science fiction movies, where a water pistol sized gun emitted a ray of light, and the alien then vaporized.

That should be developed at some point, since it is in our collective thought, from those movies.

I use a variation of the Monty Python "killer joke" whereby anyone hearing the joke cannot stop laughing. I've fined tune the joke based on a self-deprecating focus. Regardless, it is quite effective; more effective than a firearm.

And yes, I had to qualify as a marksman each year; first on an M-16, and each later year on an M-14. As far as I'm concerned guns are for war. I see no place for them in civil society. And, if the sad truth is that society is not "civil," then I choose not to compensate with weapons invented for war.