Well, this bill will certainly introduce a framework for failure in execution that will result in legal consequences for those the bill was intended to service.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A) How well regulated is the militia group you are a part of?

B) That right is already infringed in a number of ways. You can't [edit: legally and easily] buy an RPG, you can't walk around with a full-auto Thompson strapped on your back, you can't buy C4 explosives, etc. You can't even own a firearm if you are a convicted felon, if I recall correctly.


However, I do appreciate your honesty in saying, "No matter what the facts or reality is, I will never accept anything other than the religious-like perspective I currently hold." ;) Unlike most people, you're honest about it.

I'm suddenly remembering the Spider-Man in a tree picture...

Hustler -> :hustler: <- Jack

So you're back intentionally misinterpreting "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". You know the comma and how that works? It separates two thoughts or objects in a sentence, providing contrast or a difference in topic and sequencing. You probably feel this selection was written clumsily or that it should be adjusted because "the world is a different place" today. "The people" is not an undefined subset, which is a required and necessary assumption in your argument. So I will ask, who are "the people"? There are several ways to interpret this. Some believe the "well regulated militia" and "the people" are at odds in this statement and this provision is a "mutual destruction clause". Some believe these two are a series of dissimilar parties. I do not understand how anyone can believe this is a preclusion of "the people".
I agree, this right is already infringed.
This comment represents a fundamental difference between you and I. I chose personal protection of myself and loved ones as a primary responsibility. I made this decision in consideration with the Bill of Rights, which I consider the back-bone of this nation. So yes, in fact, I take a "religious-like" stance on personal protection based upon our nation's governing document, events like the 1994 LA Riots, and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster where, in both cases, lawlessness anarchy prevailed for some time and many were killed or injured. I promise you that my "out of touch religious attachment to guns and personal protection" can become a reality for you and many others the next time your government fails to protect you from crime. That may be in a natural disaster, widespread riot, or armed robbery in the night. The next time an unarmed woman is needlessly raped, the next time a man is killed for his car, or the next time there is a mall-shooting and no one fires back, all can rest easy knowing that victimization is a lesser-evil than owning a scary rifle or an 11-round magazine.

The core difference in our philosophy is most likely centered around my ego-centrism; my right to protection is greater than your opinion and belief which compromise my rights for what you perceive to be the good of others who choose to not protect themselves.
For this reason I don't care to hear the statistics, I'll take care of protection myself.

Quiz:
Which noun, separated by commas, does the "unreasonable search and seizure" comment apply to?

A. persons
B. houses
C. papers
D. effects

Answer correctly and win HIV for life.

Hustler is 100% correct. This should not even be a debate, just like any of our freedoms. You can post statistics all day, but they don't matter the least bit. Anyone who tries to disarm law abiding American citizens should be hung as a traitor.

If they take our guns now, what's next? Ask yourself that. "you don't NEED a gun", or "I don't trust most people with guns" are things I've been hearing lately.

Well you don't NEED a 300whp miata. Likewise I wouldn't trust most people with a car that fast. By some chance I was lucky enough to be born in the US, so I can have one. Same with guns. Let's keep it that way.

Just as I would ask the pro gun control people to be intellectually honest and admit that the end goal of any additional legislation - in order to make a meaningful difference in firearms-related homicides - must be the confiscation of currently legally (and illegally) owned firearms, I would ask something similar of people with the position above:


Acknowledge that - if it is true that strong firearms restrictions is correlated with other developed nations having much lower homicide rates - that more homicides in the USA is a worthwhile trade-off in order to feel more safe from events as unlikely as being present during a mass shooting (and having the where with all to stop it) to as improbable as a guerilla war against the United States Armed Forces.

In other words, if Japanese-style firearms restrictions could be proven to reduce the number of homicides, assaults and rapes in the USA to levels seen in Japan, you feel that thousands of additional deaths, assaults and rapes would be worth the right to own and carry a firearm, with as few restrictions as possible.

I think that's fine to establish that position, as long as it's been thought of in those terms and acknowledged.


Australia passed their sweeping gun restriction and confiscation laws in 1996.

AGE-STANDARDISED DEATH RATES FOR SUICIDE:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....ElemFormat=gif

Now I'm not agreeing that adopting such draconian gun laws will help, because I always see statistics thrown out on both sides constantly, each trying to prove a point. I honestly don't know. But yes, I do feel that our freedoms are worth the trade-offs even if it would help (again, debatable).

Now, what if implementing a curfew at 11:00pm, setting up CCTV surveillance on every street corner, and having heavily armed military patrol our streets would drop crimes, rapes, etc by a significant number? Would you be for that?

This is my point, freedom has its costs. I'll take my freedom, thanks.

Although I feel the wording is a bit synical I can back this view. The rights of the individual should not be trampled upon for the "good" of the many.

You could easily argue that those thousands of extra deaths, assaults and rapes were the result of those individuals choice not to exercise their own right to carry a firearm for their own protection. They made a choice and took a risk and were the unlucky few who suffered the consequences of a bad bet.

Given that premise, do you think it would be ok to take that choice away from everyone because some people made the wrong one?

Response A:
If we could give every woman in America a subcompact 9mm and holster, and that could be proven to reduce rape frequency in America by killing the aggressor, you feel that thousands of rapes would be worth living in a higher-state of consciousness without guns and appreciating the life of the rapist?

Response B:
Begging the question
Fallacy of composition
Fallacy of false cause
Irrelevant conclusion

Response C:
No, I wouldn't take it because your fallacy game-show question does not ensure my protection. If my home home is robbed, GF is raped, or I am assaulted I will find no solace in the statistical anomaly.

I think those are all reasonable responses and ways to think about it (well, most of what Hustler wrote, anyway). :party:

Fireindc - RE: The Orwellian police state premise. I think that's a really interesting question. Granted, fear of slippery slopes can always prevent marginal improvements but I think you make a great point.

Ryan_G - Another very interesting way to think about it.

Hustler - In your premise A, I would donate to whatever charitable cause helped ensure every woman had access to that sidearm and the training to use it effectively (or send a check to the US Treasury if it was a Federal program). :)

That would be an awesome charity.

Can it really be called "begging the question" if the person has openly stated that they are assuming certain (debated) facts? It's not question-begging if you're not trying to hide the implied assumptions.

Get rid of guns today and the internet tomorrow. Start compromising one freedom and the rest will soon follow.

That elementary school shooting happened 20 mins from our shop and lots of people I know have been affected by it. Not too many of them think it's the guns fault.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Australia, Japan, the UK, etc all still have plenty of access to the internet. Just sayin'.


Also, "guns don't kill people, but people kill people more often and more efficiently with guns in the USA than in other developed nations." :)

That is because America is #1 motherfucker.

Here is a really interesting study done in 2002 with some references to past studies done on the related topic. White, Black and Latino Homicide Rates: Why the Difference?

Some of the concepts are really obvious and intuitive, but framed in such a way that I hadn't thought about them in the same phrasing.

That got me thinking about whether the other countries mentioned like the UK, Germany and Australia have the same relative number of "bad neighborhoods" that the USA does. That is, these residentially segregated areas, usually as parts of larger cities, that probably make up 70 - 90% of the homicides in that city (and combined, 70+% of the state).

Murica fuck yeah!!!

I've always liked you, Vash. now i know why.

The internet is just an example, I'm sure you know each of those countries could be considered substantially less "free" than america each in their own ways.

I don't know if that's true. Can you think of some examples?

I know Britain has a lot more CCTV and automated speeding cameras. I vaguely remember Australia banning some video games. I'm not sure about Germany, Finland or Japan.

Hustler - spot on.

To the crowd of "US has more killings because we lack strict gun laws", read this

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

Also, you cannot honestly say that Japan's lower crime right is strictly correlated to gun laws, as there are many factors at play. Family life and structure, ACTUAL punishment for crimes, the Japanese society in general, etc. etc.

There is evil in the world, and the best way for me to be prepared to defend myself against it is a firearm. I have that natural right as a human being and it is protected by our Bill of Rights. Without the Second, there is no way to enforce the First, Third, Fourth, etc.