Guns are as well, plenty of places you can't carry (CC license or not), CC license is required for CC, no gun ownership in NYC except very specific cases, etc. Hell, guns are more regulated than skateboards and bicycles, and while I wouldn't put money on it, I'd be curious what the ratio is for injuries between guns and skateboard/bicycle accidents with preteens.I don't believe there is a freedom to own skateboards or bicycles. Those things can, and in some places are, regulated.
Anti-vaxxers are a tiny, tiny part of the herd that can easily be segregated. Estimated 30% of the US population owns a gun, that's a damn big part of the 'herd'.
Again, most people didn't 'agree' to this. There's so much shit that happens behind closed doors in the US govt, or gets twisted by the time it gets out. How about the fact we put HFCS in *everything* to include goddamn catfood and fruit juice, because of corn subsidies? You have to make sure you understand that saying 'americans voted this in' does us shit-all good when it comes in as riders on govt funding bills that cannot be rejected because you end up with a complete govt stoppage otherwise. *I* didn't vote on food policies in the US, none of us did, we voted in someone that was trusted to be competent (or possibly completely unknown aside from R or D), and they got bought, that's all there is to it. Also bear in mind most of these decisions were made decades ago. The food pyramid was developed in 1972 and has probably done more damaged to American health than all the guns, alcohol, co2, and nicotine combined.
Yep, ounce prevention is worth a pound of correction, but we're already in the shit. There's no 'preventing' the catastrophe of gun violence, toddler shootings, obesity, drunk driving, smoking, or global warming. We're in the thick of it, and the best we can do is roll back as much as we can, where we can. Heavy taxation (and thus financial 'encouragement') of certain vices is a solid starting point, maybe after education.
I'm just trying to limit wanton damage from Doctors, nurses and hospital workers.
Agreed, yet another thing our 'voted for' people agreed to, that I think most people would vehemently disagree with. Hence the quote 'I'll believe corporations are people when TX executes one'.From this outsider's point of view, you need to do some serious reform with regards to lobby laws. Corporations are not people, and Citizen United is just plain wrong.
Once you can put this in place, you can start changing the entrenched corporate interest, which would allow you to get rid of the shitty corn subsidy amonst other things.There is absolutely no reason why corps should be treated as people. Thus all corp contribution to parties and campaigns should be outlawed. No superpac bullshit. No anonymous donors either. also, individual donation limit has to be observed.
Partial disagree, wrt the fat. Unsaturated fats are good for you, and the restrictions of fats and replacement with sugars, specifically carbohydrates from breads/grains, are a major part of the reason the US (and by virtue, much of the western world) is currently dealing with an obesity epidemic.Lift the sugar limit. There is plenty of artificial substitute that the military can tap into should you get into a war. That will reduce the appeal of corn syrup.
Target food industry on use of fat and sugar. Add a health premium on them.
Agreed.AMA doesn't get to set limit on number of doctors needed in the country nor graduation rate.
Switch to single payer health insurance, cheaper and better outcome.
these are all things that I can see that will help. But if you keep electing legislators in corporate pockets, nothing can change.
Agreed.Agreed, yet another thing our 'voted for' people agreed to, that I think most people would vehemently disagree with. Hence the quote 'I'll believe corporations are people when TX executes one'.
Once you can put this in place, you can start changing the entrenched corporate interest, which would allow you to get rid of the shitty corn subsidy amonst other things.
In what State do you live in where firearms are not extensively regulated ?Agreed.
I don't believe there is a freedom to own skateboards or bicycles. Those things can, and in some places are, regulated.
Not true.You can walk in there with an M4 slung across your shoulder in full combat gear with extra mags and a bullet proof vest and you are fine to do that.
When the founding fathers created the second amendment. A "firearm" fired one, possibly 2 shots per minute, at most, very inaccurately. They were large and not easily concealed. Early America had wild animals a plenty and no supermarkets. A butcher at most. You needed a gun. Most citizens were white and christian, no societal issues. Small population. England was a real threat.
A right to own a weapon made perfect sense. In a militia or not.
Now its 200+ years later. Hunting is a leisure sport, not a necessity. We have a large military to deal with other nations. Supermarkets everywhere. Now guns are small easily concealed and can fire hundreds of bullets quickly. We have a huge population of diverse people who dont all like each other. Now owning a gun doesnt make as much sense for a private citizen.
The people who want guns to remain legal, their only real argument with any logic to it is that the founding fathers said so. But I doubt that if you explained automatic assault rifles and uzis to the founding fathers that they would let everyone outside the military own a gun.
With gun laws as they are anyone can suddenly decide to take the lives of many many people quickly. This was not possible with a musket in 1776.
Times have changed and laws need to change with those times.
Private citizens owning powerful automatic firearms with no training or psychological screening is foolish at best. Criminal at worst. And since the primary driver of gun lobbying and the NRA are gun manufacturers Im going to deem it criminal. They want their product legal so they can make money and they care not for the safety of anyone.
I bet if some of the families of the gun manufacturers were killed by gun violence or the owners themselves, things might change. But you never hear about those people do ya? weird, its like they are hiding for some reason..
Crap, now the damn Canadian think the government should tell us what food to eat......................................,(what follows is just making fun of authoritarians) how to eat it, where to eat it, how to shit it out, how to breath, when to take a shower, how much water we can take while showering. It pretty much never stops with the type people that think they know how everyone else should live their lives.
But the principle behind it has not changed one bit. That the people would have the ability to defend themselves from others who would do harm and especially defend themselves from a tyrannical government.
Owning 100 firearms and a rocket launcher would not stop the government from coming to get you if they want.
A swat team will come and no amount of guns will do a durn thing.
On a one off scale, yes. On a revolutionary scale, no.
LOL, yeah, without any form of organization you'd take your little .45 and shit and you'd shoot those jets right down.
Look, if things worked the way you play pretend they work then either the US armed forces are a gigantic waste of money or so inept that they are a gigantic waste of money.
In the end, if you have the military on your side you'll win, if they are on the other side you'll lose and in neither case your pathetic excuses for armament won't make one bit of difference.
ALL communication would be cut, you would have nowhere to assemble, if you managed to get a unit together they would know and blow you out of fucking existence...
Your fantasies are childish and naive.
It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not, that is what the forefathers wanted. And the overwhelming strength of our military is more reason NOT to give up firearms that to do so. Not to mention the idea of a military wanting to fight its own citizenry.
What part of locked in a hard case don't you understand? Hey I've got an even better idea. Why don't you try doing that in any U.S. airport and see what happens? You'll make the national news for it.Go re-read what I wrote. You are allowed to open carry within the airport but not feed your infant.
I can't believe how hard you are working to misunderstand what is clearly written and in the process, make yourself look like an idiot.
Not accurate, or true. There were different types of firearms including lethal air guns available at the time and not accurate? Seriously ignorant.When the founding fathers created the second amendment. A "firearm" fired one, possibly 2 shots per minute, at most, very inaccurately. They were large and not easily concealed. Early America had wild animals a plenty and no supermarkets. A butcher at most. You needed a gun. Most citizens were white and christian, no societal issues. Small population. England was a real threat.
A right to own a weapon made perfect sense. In a militia or not.
Now its 200+ years later. Hunting is a leisure sport, not a necessity. We have a large military to deal with other nations. Supermarkets everywhere. Now guns are small easily concealed and can fire hundreds of bullets quickly. We have a huge population of diverse people who dont all like each other. Now owning a gun doesnt make as much sense for a private citizen.
The people who want guns to remain legal, their only real argument with any logic to it is that the founding fathers said so. But I doubt that if you explained automatic assault rifles and uzis to the founding fathers that they would let everyone outside the military own a gun.
With gun laws as they are anyone can suddenly decide to take the lives of many many people quickly. This was not possible with a musket in 1776.
Times have changed and laws need to change with those times.
Private citizens owning powerful automatic firearms with no training or psychological screening is foolish at best. Criminal at worst. And since the primary driver of gun lobbying and the NRA are gun manufacturers Im going to deem it criminal. They want their product legal so they can make money and they care not for the safety of anyone.
I bet if some of the families of the gun manufacturers were killed by gun violence or the owners themselves, things might change. But you never hear about those people do ya? weird, its like they are hiding for some reason..
Interesting statistics, though I am not sold on them taking enough into account while looking at guns in a vacuum. But regardless ,I think they really don't have much relevance to be honest.
Wherever the truth lies, we've decided guns are a freedom that is worth keeping around despite the risks and possible cost to society.
And we know that guns kill us in far less numbers than other things that no one care about. Until the left cares about stopping other bigger killers, lower hanging fruit that do more harm, the gun debate will continue to look like nothing more than a partisan witch hunt. But that is what politics have devolved into the last few decades, if the right is for it the left must be against it and vice versa.
No, I don't think so because nothing else is held to that standard. This is what I was getting at earlier in the thread. When the anti-gun left wants to hold other things to such a standard I'll believe it really is about saving lives, but until that time this is just a see-through propaganda-led political witch hunt against guns. Compare guns to tobacco and ask yourself which kills more innocents, which kills more in absolute numbers, which is easier to get, which is more regulated, then lastly ask why no politician is running on an anti-tobacco platform, yet they'll gladly run on an anti-gun platform.
The same can be said about the freedom to own skateboards and bicycles. Should we outlaw anything that can harm children?
Guns are as well, plenty of places you can't carry (CC license or not), CC license is required for CC, no gun ownership in NYC except very specific cases, etc. Hell, guns are more regulated than skateboards and bicycles, and while I wouldn't put money on it, I'd be curious what the ratio is for injuries between guns and skateboard/bicycle accidents with preteens.