No law can say how many guns I can own or what shape they should be in. Heller proved that.
Do you even have an idea of what I suggested? I doubt you do or you wouldn't be getting so emotional. Colorado treats weed like alcohol. Anyone 21 or older can buy it, and gift it to anyone that can buy it. Here's exactly what was implemented, with words changed to apply to guns.
Since the enactment of*Colorado Amendment 64, adults aged 21 or older can keep up to six firearms (with no more than half being fully assembled), privately in a locked space, legally possess all ammunition for the firearms they keep (as long as it stays with the firearms),[1]*legally possess up to three firearms while traveling,[2]*and give as a gift up to three firearms to other citizens 21 years of age or older.[3]*Use is permitted in a manner similar to alcohol, with equivalent offenses proscribed for driving.[4]*Public use remains illegal.[5][6][7]*Amendment 64 also provides for licensing of product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores.[8]
That's it, all of the restrictions are right there. Now, the restrictions on numbers are in there to deter illegal dealers, for guns we would probably throw out those and replace them with something about a background check, or a do not sell list, but I hope you get the idea.
I'm not emotional. I'm well versed on my rights and will die defending them.
Know what's bad? I'd die to defend yours too.
For all of you touting the virtues of utopian European society, I'd like to point out the countries with the fewest problems are mostly homogeneous.
Would you like to kick out all the colored people? Cuz that actually seems to work.
I'm not emotional. I'm well versed on my rights and will die defending them.
Know what's bad? I'd die to defend yours too.
uh, right. That there in bold, that's what mad looks like. You've done nothing but make assumptions and leaps of logic about my opinions, you don't know me at all but you're so sure you do because you're feeling instead of thinking.
This is an argument that's often brought up, and I think it's exactly right, especially since the numbers point that way.
US: 13% of the population was foreign-born in 2009,[107]
EU: In 2010, 47.3 million people living in the EU, or 9.4% of the total population, had been born outside their resident country. Of these, 31.4 million (6.3%) had been born outside the EU; 16.0 million (3.2%) had been born in another member state.
Those societies aren't successful because they kicked everyone else out, though. Those societies have had several hundred more years to get their shit together than the US has. In another couple hundred years I'm sure continued integration will make the US more homogenous and so things will settle down quite a bit. In the mean time we'll just have to grit our teeth and resist the urge to get involved in a *-supremacist cult.
so why do the french, british, and aussies all hate those coming into their countries?
asylum was a big issue for the aussies.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23897625
france banned the burqa
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/french-burqa-ban
belgium did too
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/belgium-poised-to-ban-mus_n_559269.html
the swiss banned minarets
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8385069.stm
actually, they are all very culturally homogenous, and just now beginning to experience cultural diversity similar to the US.
Europe is very different from the US with a much more sordid history. Their issues are fairly complex. It isn't always directly comparable to here.
I wouldn't say their history is any darker than the US's, but whatever. Few things are ever directly comparable, but would Oklahoma's banning of sharia law be out of place on his list? All of those issues deal with xenophobia.
Here's more of that silly data stuff. See we'll always find a study that supports our side. No one is right. We just disagree and there's plenty of data on both sides to support both sides. And?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/74055/these-maps-debunk-everything-the-nra-has-told-us-about-guns
"Yes, people kill people. But guns make a huge difference in how many people get killed.
Like any dangerous product cars, airplanes, explosives sensible regulation of guns clearly plays a positive role in reducing both misuse of this product and the number of deaths resulting from such misuse.
The map itself was part of a scholarly study by researchers from Boston Childrens Hospital and published this March in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The map is not without exceptions and outliers, but the general trend is clear: States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide. That's certaintly not the message we get from the National Rifle Association.
In the related study, the strength of gun laws was rated on a scale of 0 to 28."
That study doesn't support "your side," but everyone knows that you didn't even bother to read it. You just search the internet for summaries written by partisan hacks that share your baseless hatred of guns and regurgitate their drivel here. You have no interest in educating yourself.
In fact, the study shows that strongly anti-gun states with a huge number of gun laws have higher homicide rates than quartile 3, which includes pro-gun strongholds like Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, and Iowa. The difference in legislative strength between quartiles 4 and 3 is also significantly larger than the differences among any of the others: Q4 states have an average of 16 laws, compared to 6 for Q3, 3.5 for Q2, and 1.6 for Q1. There is little difference between most Q1, Q2, and Q3 states, but a huge gap between Q4 and everyone else.
Basically, the study shows the complete failure of overbearing gun control in authoritarian hellholes like New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. They have higher homicide rates than states with 66%+ fewer gun laws. Their only "advantage" is that suicidal people are less likely to shoot themselves.
:thumbsup::thumbsup: bradley's trolling.That study doesn't support "your side," but everyone knows that you didn't even bother to read it. You just search the internet for summaries written by partisan hacks that share your baseless hatred of guns and regurgitate their drivel here. You have no interest in educating yourself.
In fact, the study shows that strongly anti-gun states with a huge number of gun laws have higher homicide rates than quartile 3, which includes pro-gun strongholds like Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, and Iowa. The difference in legislative strength between quartiles 4 and 3 is also significantly larger than the differences among any of the others: Q4 states have an average of 16 laws, compared to 6 for Q3, 3.5 for Q2, and 1.6 for Q1. There is little difference between most Q1, Q2, and Q3 states, but a huge gap between Q4 and everyone else.
Basically, the study shows the complete failure of overbearing gun control in authoritarian hellholes like New York, New Jersey, California, and Illinois. They have higher homicide rates than states with 66%+ fewer gun laws. Their only "advantage" is that suicidal people are less likely to shoot themselves.
The irony is strong here.
That graphic sucks and indeed does not support a 'pro gun law' stance very well at all.
You reply with 'LOL that actually TOTALLY supports the opposite!' and somehow manage to pull shit out of thin air to claim how it supports your 'anti gun law' stance. Er, no, it doesn't do that, either.
In fact, it's just a big jumble-fuck of info that uses a formula of overly-simplistic baseless correlations to put wins on the board for both sides.
Yet you picked out the states with the lowest gun deaths per capita and toughest laws to gloat about?
But there is something that the constitution can not account for: A changing environment.
The clause of the importance of the militia is - in my opionon - no longer true. It was true in a much more direct sense, at the time the colony liberated itself from the former British proprietors. Then, there was no army, there was threat of invasion by foreign powers, and the defense consisted in that militia, which faced the conservative powers of the world.
Today, no external danger to the freedom of the people exists, that is not dealt with by either the army,
or the well-regulated militia, that is the national guard.
While in 1776 a scenario where the public was to defend was something that was imaginable, today this is simply no longer the case. Therefore, the second amendment covers an antiquated use case and is obsolete.
And don't get out the "but if the government suddenly goes rogue" argument, which is a tea-partier's wet dream - in the real world it doesn't happen. If a government turns on its people it does so through the people. If a turned government is wiped out, it's rarely because the people have a soldier's weapon, but either because of outside interference (Afghanistan?) or through more peaceful measures (South Africa).
In the real world, the second amendment holds no relevance.
This doesn't mean, that guns shouldn't be legal to own, BUT it means that the base of discussion should NOT be the constitution in its current form.
The constitution is NOT a holy book, that needs to be handed down over the ages. It is a text of law, which should be written in such a way, that ANYONE can understand it, as otherwise it becomes useless in its key function of empowering the people. If the word militia does not mean militia in the sense that is commonly used, this wording should be corrected. If something that was pertinent in '76 but isn't anymore today is used as the basis of a constitutional right, this basis should be re-evaluated.
If the second amendment read: "The self integrity of man is a key aspect of personal freedom and dependant upon the ability to defend one self against any threat, therefore the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", this discussion might still happen, but it would at least be grounded upon a reality.
I have no issue, with the "an armed society is a polite society" approach to things, even if the premise might be wrong - but at least its a better excuse than "omg, the poms (i.e. the gubernment) are out to get us!".
And declining the right to bare arms from a personal integrity standpoint is a much more modern, thing to do. Even the German Grundgesetz, one of the more recent constitution-like documents puts personal dignity as article number one, right up front. It wouldn't feel out of place to give the individual the ultimate means of assuring that this dignity is indeed untouchable.
Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope that this exposes, that I'm neither anti-gun nor pro-gun, I don't really care either way as long as I don't get shot, and that even a constitution can decay over time, and truths that are self-evident at one point in time, for one people, are no longer relevant a few centuries on. And despite the fear mongering, the protection of American freedom by individual fire power is just such a thing.
"America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free'."
Here's more of that silly data stuff. See we'll always find a study that supports our side. No one is right. We just disagree and there's plenty of data on both sides to support both sides. And?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/74055/these-maps-debunk-everything-the-nra-has-told-us-about-guns
"Yes, people kill people. But guns make a huge difference in how many people get killed.
Like any dangerous product — cars, airplanes, explosives — sensible regulation of guns clearly plays a positive role in reducing both misuse of this product and the number of deaths resulting from such misuse.
The map itself was part of a scholarly study by researchers from Boston Children’s Hospital and published this March in JAMA Internal Medicine.
The map is not without exceptions and outliers, but the general trend is clear: States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide. That's certaintly not the message we get from the National Rifle Association.
In the related study, the strength of gun laws was rated on a scale of 0 to 28."
And with all the $$$ that the gun industry generates and with all those politicians in their pockets - nothing will change. That's just the way it is.
Different supreme courts interpret the constitution differently. As it is written, guns apply to a "well regulated militia" - but you never hear gun nuts bring that up.