[Godstud]

You don't find it alarming that something designed for transportation kills more people than something which is actually designed to kill people?

That is not a problem with gun control, however. Can you acknowledge that fact?

Start a thread about how tragic car accidents are. You are merely trying take attention away from the original topic, to defend your precious guns.

Your ad hominem is childish. If you had half a brain, you'd know that.

I absolutely do acknowledge that.

Ok. So you can demonstrate how gun manufacturers are making safer guns, right?
You have to purchase liability insurance, in case you hurt someone, with your gun?
You have to take a test to get a gun license?
You have to register your gun?
You can have your gun taken away if you are found to be impaired?

My point, though, which you're afraid to acknowledge, is that with all those "controls" in place, motor vehicles kill more people than something that is actually designed to kill people... in 2017 more people were killed by guns than in motorvehicle accidents.

Yes, while being used far more than guns are, as you'd know if you read my last post... which you didn't.

Deaths per mile of motor vehicle travel- 1 per 60 million (60,000,000)

Deaths per round fired- 1 per 475 thousand (475,000)

Also: ACCIDENTS. Why can't you tell the difference between accidental and intentional(homicide)?
300 vehicular homicides vs. 11,000 gun homicides.

Incidentally...
2017 marked first year firearms killed more people than car accidents: study
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... e-than-car

[BigSteve]

Ok. So you can demonstrate how gun manufacturers are making safer guns, right?
You have to purchase liability insurance, in case you hurt someone, with your gun?
You have to take a test to get a gun license?
You have to register your gun?
You can have your gun taken away if you are found to be impaired?

'Da fuq?

I merely agreed that automobiles were far more controlled than guns. They should be. Nowhere in that acknowledgement, though, is any suggestion that I believe guns should have the same controls. They shouldn't...

[Finfinder]

'Da fuq?

I merely agreed that automobiles were far more controlled than guns. They should be. Nowhere in that acknowledgement, though, is any suggestion that I believe guns should have the same controls. They shouldn't...

nor in the constitution

[late]

nor in the constitution

The constitution talks about militias. Funny how the original intent of the Founding Fathers gets thrown under the bus when it suits you.

The problem was that they didn't want the militias to be just farmers. They wanted city folk in there. But the few city folk that did have guns had sporting guns that weren't suitable. Some militias had required you to bring your own gun, and it had to be the same gun they were used to. So that required every militia to be able to equip a person who didn't have the gun they wanted to see.

The 2nd is not at all relevant in the Modern World, for a number of reasons.

https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar-ebook/dp/B000SEPKIU/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1PDHBZ34ZHLBV&keywords=the+constitution+a+biography&qid=1574347287&sprefix=the+constitution+a+bio%2Caps%2C146&sr=8-1

[Finfinder]

The constitution talks about militias. Funny how the original intent of the Founding Fathers gets thrown under the bus when it suits you.

The problem was that they didn't want the militias to be just farmers. They wanted city folk in there. But the few city folk that did have guns had sporting guns that weren't suitable. Some militias had required you to bring your own gun, and it had to be the same gun they were used to. So that required every militia to be able to equip a person who didn't have the gun they wanted to see.

The 2nd is not at all relevant in the Modern World, for a number of reasons.

https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar-ebook/dp/B000SEPKIU/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1PDHBZ34ZHLBV&keywords=the+constitution+a+biography&qid=1574347287&sprefix=the+constitution+a+bio%2Caps%2C146&sr=8-1

You post like a used car salesman and Adam Schiff. No one buys it.

this is the exact line in the constitution

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

[BigSteve]

You post like a used car salesman and Adam Schiff. No one buys it.

this is the exact line in the constitution

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

And here's the definition of "militia": a military force that is raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

The "civilian population" would be us...

[late]

this is the exact line in the constitution

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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 well regulated Militia..."

It's about militias.

Facts are stubborn things..

Getting back to reality, for a moment, one interesting idea is returning gun laws to the way they were in 1960.

"My proposal is simply that we revert to the gun laws that prevailed in the United States around 1960...A return to these basic restrictions on loadings would appeal to most...

To be sure, a simple prohibition on the sale of military-style weapons such as the AR-15 assault rifle with “drum magazines” holding up to 300 rounds would not restore sanity to our political discourse.

But the mass-shooting scenarios, repeated most recently in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, are proof enough for any reasonable person that a shooter who had to reload after 20 rounds could kill fewer people before police or bystanders could intervene."

That's a compromise. It's less than I want by several country miles. But it would be better than nothing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-nra-two/

[B0ycey]

And here's the definition of "militia": a military force that is raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

The "civilian population" would be us...

Still needs to be raised. And more importantly well regulated. Aren't you against regulation? Seems the constitution is against you.

[Finfinder]

"A well regulated Militia..."

It's about militias.

Facts are stubborn things..

Getting back to reality, for a moment, one interesting idea is returning gun laws to the way they were in 1960.

"My proposal is simply that we revert to the gun laws that prevailed in the United States around 1960...A return to these basic restrictions on loadings would appeal to most...

To be sure, a simple prohibition on the sale of military-style weapons such as the AR-15 assault rifle with “drum magazines” holding up to 300 rounds would not restore sanity to our political discourse.

But the mass-shooting scenarios, repeated most recently in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, are proof enough for any reasonable person that a shooter who had to reload after 20 rounds could kill fewer people before police or bystanders could intervene."

That's a compromise. It's less than I want by several country miles. But it would be better than nothing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-nra-two/

True, facts are stubborn and you made a decision to exclude parts of the actual language in the constitution to fit your narrative. That is simply dishonest. I'll take my chances in the supreme court but I'm guessing you and your ilk know that is a major problem for liberals. That is why all this dishonesty is coming from the left. Democrats and liberals should not be trusted you have lost your ability to negotiate no one should ever believe a liberal anymore.

[late]

True, facts are stubborn and you made a decision to exclude parts of the actual language in the constitution to fit your narrative.

The sentence starts with "A well regulated militia". That gets ignored by the Right because it is at odds with their narrative.

They don't like regulation, and they don't want to bring back what it includes, that every able bodied man be a member.

In addition, that was a defensive measure. The idea was to stall long enough so we could raise and deploy an actual army.

But we not only have an army now, we have the most powerful military in the world. And the militias were replaced by the National Guard.

Supreme Court decisions were largely consistent for over 200 years. One of these days we will get a court that knows what stare decisis means.

[Finfinder]

The sentence starts with "A well regulated militia". That gets ignored by the Right because it is at odds with their narrative.

They don't like regulation, and they don't want to bring back what it includes, that every able bodied man be a member.

In addition, that was a defensive measure. The idea was to stall long enough so we could raise and deploy an actual army.

But we not only have an army now, we have the most powerful military in the world. And the militias were replaced by the National Guard.

Supreme Court decisions were largely consistent for over 200 years. One of these days we will get a court that knows what stare decisis means.

You should hold your breath on that. With record judge appointments and another Supreme vacancy the USA is protected from any of the communists the Democrats try to get elected.

[late]

the USA is protected from any communists

Like I said, fiction.

That you don't have substantive rebuttal, reminds me that you never have a substantive rebut.

[B0ycey]

I don't know why the confusion. Clearly the right to bare arms is linked to being part of a regulated Militia. Otherwise the sentence is missing "and". So anyone who is part of a well regulated Militia has the constitutional right to own weapons.

[late]

I don't know why the confusion. Clearly the right to bare arms is linked to being part of a regulated Militia. Otherwise the sentence is missing "and". So anyone who is part of a well regulated Militia has the constitutional right to own weapons.

That would require a couple of things that are clearly missing.

[B0ycey]

That would require a couple of things that are clearly missing.

Not really. The militia are its members. What is says in laymen terms is that those who are part of the recognised militia of the national guard, which are groups required for security of the individual state, have the right to own arms and this must not be challenged. It doesn't say mental Joe who has a history of crime and violence has the right to shoot up a school.

[Drlee]

@BigSteve According to the CDC, in 2017, roughly 39,800 people were killed by firearms in the United States.

The National Safety Council estimates that in 2017, some 40,100 people were killed in automobile accidents in the United States.

So, in the instance of guns, you've got 40,00 people killed because the "killing device" is used as designed. The automobile, though; this "transportation device" you speak of, which isn't designed to kill people, in fact kills more people than guns.

Why not address that problem?

And this is the kind of idiocy that right wingers often post. They absolutely do not see that it is absurd to the point of humor on the face of it. Let's take it apart.

Now this is supposed to be an argument against substantial controls on guns. In fact it clearly argues for more control of guns. Why? Consider.

We DO very substantially "address that problem" and have for a couple of generations now. We have increasing safety regulations on cars. Did it work. Bet your ass it did. In 1968 about when safety features started to be deployed there were more than 5 auto fatalities per hundred million miles traveled. Today, after strict controls on vehicle safety, increased law enforcement on speed and drunk driving and additional training for new drivers, the rate has fallen to right at 1 fatality for every 100 million miles driven.

Do in other words, your example proves our argument. When you ask "Why not address that problem" the answer is...we did. And it is working.

So now I ask you....Why not work on the gun problem?

Godstud, late, myself and others have all posted statistics and studies showing that gun controls work. And that they work without prohibiting gun ownership altogether.

This is why the vast majority of Americans support realistic gun controls like requiring registration, gun safety, closing the gun show/private sale loophole, etc.

Another thing you simply can't seem to get through your head is that when the government pays for something, everybody pays. Nobody is off the hook. The government paying does NOT mean something is free. What you are advocating, it seems, is to require non gun owners to pay for your toys. (For the majority of guns are toys used for hobbies such as hunting, skeet shooting and target practice.) Well I would like non car owners to pay for my plates too but I am mature enough to understand that this would not be fair.

It seems to me completely reasonable to ask people to pay to register their own toys. You like to use cars as an example and I would simply point out that we do not ask for free auto registration.

[late]

Not really. The militia are its members. What is says in laymen terms is that those who are part of the recognised militia of the national guard, which are groups required for security of the individual state, have the right to own arms and this must not be challenged. It doesn't say mental Joe who has a history of crime and violence has the right to shoot up a school.

I don't have a problem with that, but it wasn't to whom I was referring.

[Godstud]

@Drlee No, @BigSteve is right. I am going to purchase a Corvette C8 for home defense. They are, literally, the same thing.

[ingliz]

@BigSteve

The 'from my cold dead hands' crowd say the people (3%?) will rise up.

You will get to use your toys and show off your prepper tactical shite for just as much time as the US government takes to squash you like a bug.

I don't know what the problem is.

[B0ycey]

All I can say is that I am routinely shocked at the level of stupidity I encounter here on PoFo...

Well you do bring it down a level I must say.

What well regulated Militia are you part of again?