How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:44 pm

tude dog;1419301 wrote: Something is getting confused here.

The Creator thingy comes from the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-

I love the Preamble to our Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It was a two step process.

One establish the right as inherent. Next, Who is to establish this assumed right.

So, in what was has God declared that you have an unalienable right to bare arms rather than it being declared by the people who amended the Constitution to say it was so?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:46 pm

Bryn Mawr;1419303 wrote: So, in what was has God declared that you have an unalienable right to bare arms rather than it being declared by the people who amended the Constitution to say it was so?

As already been pointed out, no where is "God" mentioned.

I think I know where you are getting to.

Question being, "DO MEN HAVE RIGHTS"?

Next question is, if we do, where do they come from?

Are they inherent, or granted by King?

Our forefathers made a leap. They are inherent.

So now we have these rights, just what are they?

Everything except what we permit government.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:13 pm

tude dog;1419317 wrote: As already been pointed out, no where is "God" mentioned.

I think I know where you are getting to.

Question being, "DO MEN HAVE RIGHTS"?

Next question is, if we do, where do they come from?

Are they inherent, or granted by King?

Our forefathers made a leap. They are inherent.

So now we have these rights, just what are they?

Everything except what we permit government.

You point out yourself that the DoI makes that claim.

Whatever, in what way are they inherent - your forefathers declaring them so does not make it so, they remain man made as they have been declared by man.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:37 pm

Bryn Mawr;1419319 wrote: You point out yourself that the DoI makes that claim.

Whatever, in what way are they inherent - your forefathers declaring them so does not make it so, they remain man made as they have been declared by man.

Yea it does.

Don't know of any higher authority which proves different.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 4:51 pm

tude dog;1419324 wrote: Yea it does.

Don't know of any higher authority which proves different.

If it is an inherent right then it is built into nature, that is the meaning of inherent. A man or group of men declaring a right to be inherent is nothing more than posturing unless it is part of the very essence of life.

Put it this way, should the unthinkable (from your point of view) happen and the second amendment is overturned and removed from the constitution what force of nature is going to come and reinstate it. If the answer is none or is the action of a body of men then the right is not inherent, it is man made.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:33 pm

Bryn Mawr;1419327 wrote: If it is an inherent right then it is built into nature, that is the meaning of inherent. A man or group of men declaring a right to be inherent is nothing more than posturing unless it is part of the very essence of life.

I know of no species which do not act in self interest. Be it individual or as a group will fight tooth and claw for survival, either as a group or individual.

Bryn Mawr;1419327 wrote: Put it this way, should the unthinkable (from your point of view) happen and the second amendment is overturned and removed from the constitution what force of nature is going to come and reinstate it.

No force of nature institute the 2nd. That was an act of men.

Bryn Mawr;1419327 wrote: If the answer is none or is the action of a body of men then the right is not inherent, it is man made.

naw

We just codified it as a matter of law.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:00 pm

insure domestic Tranquility,

Isn't the whole problem with three hundred million guns is that they don't insure any tranquillity...for anybody?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:31 pm

Saint_;1419348 wrote: Isn't the whole problem with three hundred million guns is that they don't insure any tranquillity...for anybody?

No tool insures tranquility.

In my life never looked towards things to insure "tranquility". To me it is about, cultural values.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:05 pm

Saint_;1419348 wrote: Isn't the whole problem with three hundred million guns is that they don't insure any tranquillity...for anybody?
No.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:08 pm

Bryn, earlier I wrote my definition of "right". How does it balance against your definition?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:31 am

one of the marching girls at Obamas' inorgaration was shot ......hhhmmmm

'Walking angel': Girl who performed at Obama's inauguration shot dead in Chicago - U.S. News

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12 ... icago?lite

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:31 am

AnneBoleyn;1419264 wrote: I'm not the one calling people Turds. You are.

But libs are turds. Gen. George S. Patton-"Politicians are the lowest form of life on eart. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politicians."

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:40 am

hoppy;1419373 wrote: But libs are turds. Gen. George S. Patton-"Politicians are the lowest form of life on eart. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politicians."

I see the problem now. You are stupid.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:48 am

AnneBoleyn;1419395 wrote: I see the problem now. You are stupid.

Pfft, coffee spiller.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:32 am

:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

Tell me how you really feel...

Patsy

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:39 am

Accountable;1419356 wrote: Bryn, earlier I wrote my definition of "right". How does it balance against your definition?

Rights, generally, are those actions we can take independent of others, without obligating others to take action.

I'm not totally sure - it's a definition I've not come across before and it will take a while to work out the implications.

It's the second clause that worries me. For example, if you walk across someone's property they are not obliged to take action but they have the right to take action for trespass. You can start to dig a well on their land - you have no right to do so but they're not obliged to stop you.

To me, there are legal rights, traditional rights, moral rights and possibly, inherent, although I know of no right endowed by nature.

The difference between them is the type of recourse you have when you right is infringed - and if you have no recourse and can do nothing about it then it was not a right.

As an aside, if the DoI enshrines a God given and inalienable right to life and liberty, how can your government imprison and / or execute convicts?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Feb 07, 2013 5:39 pm

It's because they have violated someone else's rights in some way.

The definition I wrote was a loose, and too brief it seems, paraphrasing of John Locke. Natural rights of life, liberty, and property. It's actually pretty easy reading, I think.

Two Treatises of Government by John Locke - Free eBook

If the link to the free ebook doesn't work for you, he wrote two treatises of government. Maybe there's a UK ebook available.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:30 am

Accountable;1419474 wrote: It's because they have violated someone else's rights in some way.

The definition I wrote was a loose, and too brief it seems, paraphrasing of John Locke. Natural rights of life, liberty, and property. It's actually pretty easy reading, I think.

Two Treatises of Government by John Locke - Free eBook

If the link to the free ebook doesn't work for you, he wrote two treatises of government. Maybe there's a UK ebook available.

Downloaded, thank you - that's the train on Sunday sorted.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:43 am

AnneBoleyn;1419395 wrote: I see the problem now. You are stupid.

I'm not the stupid one. Obama voters are the mental midgets. They sold obama their souls for a cheap ass cell phone. Sad, really sad.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:48 am

hoppy;1419646 wrote: I'm not the stupid one. Obama voters are the mental midgets. They sold obama their souls for a cheap ass cell phone. Sad, really sad.

Beautifully analyzed! More please! :yh_rotfl

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 8:54 am

AnneBoleyn;1419648 wrote: Beautifully analyzed! More please! :yh_rotfl

Don't be a liberal pig.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:00 am

hoppy;1419651 wrote: Don't be a liberal pig.

Don't hopalong outta here before you say More! More, we want more! I think I'll call them hoppyisms! :yh_rotfl

PS-gmc: So lad, understanding better now?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:11 am

Anne

I do enjoy your - one liners :yh_rotfl

Carry - on

Patsy

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:27 am

Bryn Mawr;1419418 wrote: I'm not totally sure - it's a definition I've not come across before and it will take a while to work out the implications.

It's the second clause that worries me. For example, if you walk across someone's property they are not obliged to take action but they have the right to take action for trespass. You can start to dig a well on their land - you have no right to do so but they're not obliged to stop you.

To me, there are legal rights, traditional rights, moral rights and possibly, inherent, although I know of no right endowed by nature.

The difference between them is the type of recourse you have when you right is infringed - and if you have no recourse and can do nothing about it then it was not a right.

As an aside, if the DoI enshrines a God given and inalienable right to life and liberty, how can your government imprison and / or execute convicts?

Who decided it was their land? In england all property belonged to the crown who dished it out first of all to their mates who came across with the norman conquest and over the years a body of laws has built up around land ownership with different forms of leasehold and freehold. Nobody gave the ruling classes the right to dispose of land as they saw fit it was simply might was right and everybody bent the knee or died. Over the years we have built up rights but none of them were given and we have had to take some of them by force. As it happens in Scotland I have a right to roam and the owner of an estate or farm can ask me nicely to keep to certain parts of his land but he has no recourse in law to kick me off it unless I am engaged in criminal damage like walking through a crop.

Land is a resource whose use is regulated by custom and practice as much as by law. America is a conquered land the white settlers simply took over by force and forced the original inhabitants off their land if they weren't already dead through disease or warfare. There was no right about it except the right given by being more powerful. The US may have been set up on the liberal principles as enshrined in their constitution and bill of rights but the ideals lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry and tghen the rules were changed to suit the rich and powerful. Black people were subhuman and had no rights, those who fought in the war if they didn't own land didn't get to vote and the rights of women weren't even given a consideration.

You may argue there are certain inalienable rights but you are always going to be having that argument with each generation setting it's own parameters. Your right to own your own farm goes out the window if a big oil company wants to drill on it, like the mountains? Too bad of a big mining company wants to remove the tops to get at the minerals underneath.

Laws grow up to protect the weak from the powerful and that's the concept behind a government for the people by the people except in america it seems that people have been convinced that government intervening to curtail the actions of rapacious and powerful individuals and companies and big corporations is somehow communism rather than democracy in action laws preventing discrimination and abuse by one section of society on another are oppressive rather than ensuring fair play for all.

The second amendment made sense in 1776 or whenever it was put in place the right to self defence is one enjoyed by every citizen in every free country throughout the world but if your nut-cases can buy assault rifles and commit mass murder surely you are bright enough to come up with a solution better than buying your own assault rifle and putting armed guards in primary schools.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:33 am

Patsy Warnick;1419658 wrote: Anne

I do enjoy your - one liners :yh_rotfl

Carry - on

Patsy

Patsy? ALL libs are patsies.:yh_rotfl (How's that for a one liner)? Can't you concentrate well enough for more than one line at a time? freakin burnouts.:yh_rotfl

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:57 am

Hop

give me something worthy of a conversation

I'm burned out on your one liners actually.

but, what do I know? I'm a lib

Patsy

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:23 am

Patsy Warnick;1419663 wrote: Hop

give me something worthy of a conversation

I'm burned out on your one liners actually.

but, what do I know? I'm a lib

Patsy

Give and take. Typical lib. You got the "give" down pat,pardon the pun, but you can't handle the "take". :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:42 am

gmc;1419659 wrote: Who decided it was their land? In england all property belonged to the crown who dished it out first of all to their mates who came across with the norman conquest and over the years a body of laws has built up around land ownership with different forms of leasehold and freehold. Nobody gave the ruling classes the right to dispose of land as they saw fit it was simply might was right and everybody bent the knee or died. Over the years we have built up rights but none of them were given and we have had to take some of them by force. As it happens in Scotland I have a right to roam and the owner of an estate or farm can ask me nicely to keep to certain parts of his land but he has no recourse in law to kick me off it unless I am engaged in criminal damage like walking through a crop.

Land is a resource whose use is regulated by custom and practice as much as by law. America is a conquered land the white settlers simply took over by force and forced the original inhabitants off their land if they weren't already dead through disease or warfare. There was no right about it except the right given by being more powerful. The US may have been set up on the liberal principles as enshrined in their constitution and bill of rights but the ideals lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry and tghen the rules were changed to suit the rich and powerful. Black people were subhuman and had no rights, those who fought in the war if they didn't own land didn't get to vote and the rights of women weren't even given a consideration.

You may argue there are certain inalienable rights but you are always going to be having that argument with each generation setting it's own parameters. Your right to own your own farm goes out the window if a big oil company wants to drill on it, like the mountains? Too bad of a big mining company wants to remove the tops to get at the minerals underneath.

Laws grow up to protect the weak from the powerful and that's the concept behind a government for the people by the people except in america it seems that people have been convinced that government intervening to curtail the actions of rapacious and powerful individuals and companies and big corporations is somehow communism rather than democracy in action laws preventing discrimination and abuse by one section of society on another are oppressive rather than ensuring fair play for all.

The second amendment made sense in 1776 or whenever it was put in place the right to self defence is one enjoyed by every citizen in every free country throughout the world but if your nut-cases can buy assault rifles and commit mass murder surely you are bright enough to come up with a solution better than buying your own assault rifle and putting armed guards in primary schools.

Whether any person should have the right to own land is a separate discussion, I was just using that as the basis of examples of why I was wary of Acc's definition.

I would definitely NOT argue that there are inalienable rights - my discussion with Acc and TD started with my denying that rights were God given or inalienable.

The more I hear of shootings in the US the more I'm coming to the conclusion that the problem does not lie with the second amendment, that is the excuse, the problem lies with a culture where it is becoming accepted that the way to register a protest against society is to shoot as many people as you can

Guns don't kill people but every Tom, Dick and disgruntled policeman with a grievance can and does.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:44 am

The more I hear of shootings in the US the more I'm coming to the conclusion that the problem does not lie with the second amendment, that is the excuse, the problem lies with a culture where it is becoming accepted that the way to register a protest against society is to shoot as many people as you can

Guns don't kill people but every Tom, Dick and disgruntled policeman with a grievance can and does.

I most definitely agree. In the sixties we called it Wild West culture. Very astute Bryn, IMO.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:45 am

Give & Take - I don't recall giving you anything here.?

Hoppy - I've know you from yrs. back - you never displayed this side of you..?

for whatever reason you feel the need - not sure what you going thru - not sure why your

throwing arrows? remember every one is going thru something - I attend FG to get my mind off my own problems - not to blame you for them.

We're all playing the game of life

This thread is about the tragedy - gun control etc related - I am sorry if I've taken it off topic.

Patsy

Scrat · Post by **Scrat** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:07 pm

Who decided it was their land? In england all property belonged to the crown who dished it out first of all to their mates who came across with the norman conquest and over the years a body of laws has built up around land ownership with different forms of leasehold and freehold. Nobody gave the ruling classes the right to dispose of land as they saw fit it was simply might was right and everybody bent the knee or died. Over the years we have built up rights but none of them were given and we have had to take some of them by force. As it happens in Scotland I have a right to roam and the owner of an estate or farm can ask me nicely to keep to certain parts of his land but he has no recourse in law to kick me off it unless I am engaged in criminal damage like walking through a crop.

Land is a resource whose use is regulated by custom and practice as much as by law. America is a conquered land the white settlers simply took over by force and forced the original inhabitants off their land if they weren't already dead through disease or warfare. There was no right about it except the right given by being more powerful. The US may have been set up on the liberal principles as enshrined in their constitution and bill of rights but the ideals lasted about as long as it took the ink to dry and tghen the rules were changed to suit the rich and powerful. Black people were subhuman and had no rights, those who fought in the war if they didn't own land didn't get to vote and the rights of women weren't even given a consideration.

You may argue there are certain inalienable rights but you are always going to be having that argument with each generation setting it's own parameters. Your right to own your own farm goes out the window if a big oil company wants to drill on it, like the mountains? Too bad of a big mining company wants to remove the tops to get at the minerals underneath.

Laws grow up to protect the weak from the powerful and that's the concept behind a government for the people by the people except in america it seems that people have been convinced that government intervening to curtail the actions of rapacious and powerful individuals and companies and big corporations is somehow communism rather than democracy in action laws preventing discrimination and abuse by one section of society on another are oppressive rather than ensuring fair play for all.

Well said.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:42 pm

posted by bryn mawr

Whether any person should have the right to own land is a separate discussion, I was just using that as the basis of examples of why I was wary of Acc's definition.

I would definitely NOT argue that there are inalienable rights - my discussion with Acc and TD started with my denying that rights were God given or inalienable.

It's a useful example. I can argue about rights from all sides but to me it always boils down to the fact that you have to keep fighting those who would have power tom prevent them abusing said power. American films, especially it's westerns are full of stories about people fighting to preserve their right to a fair share of resources, the little man taking on the big powerful landowner protecting the rights of homesteaders against big cattle barons. If it's an activist objecting to agribusiness nowadays they are portrayed as communists in a forties western it would be john wayne taking on a cattle baron. A lot of hos films tout liberal values.

started with my denying that rights were God given or inalienable.

Actually i would agree with you. Or rather if you mean the church of any denomination is going to protect peoples rights. They don't.

Posted by hoppy

Give and take. Typical lib. You got the "give" down pat,pardon the pun, but you can't handle the "take"

Bet you're glad you live in a liberal democracy where that liberal doctrine of free speech holds sway. If liberals are such patsies why are you free to speak your mind, have a right to a fair trial - or used to anyway, can't be arrested and thrown in jail without charges being brought? If you live in a free country thank the liberals. Look at those places where they haven't won yet, saudi arabia, china, russia. The liberals are on the defensive in america now you can be arrested and held without trial the government has given itself the right to look at your mail and computer activity and you live in fear of your next door neighbour armed with machine guns because they believe the en of the world is coming and people like you think all is for the best in the best of all possible countries. Liberal and liberty have the same linguistic root. Where liberalism dies so too does liberty.

liberalism

1. a political or social philosophy advocating the f reedom of the individual, parliamentary legislatures, governmental assurances of civil liberties and individual rights, and nonviolent modification of institutions to permit continued individual and social progress.

libÂ·erÂ·alÂ·ism (lbr--lzm, lbr-)

n.

1. The state or quality of being liberal.

2.

a. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

Now tell me, why do you have a problem with liberals? Are you afraid of them, do you see yourself as one of the ruling classes? Why do you think individual freedom and a bad thing? Why do you think the consent of the governed is not a good thing ina democracy? Are you one of those that argues the law of god should be the law of the land?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:53 pm

gmc;1419659 wrote: The second amendment made sense in 1776 or whenever it was put in place the right to self defence is one enjoyed by every citizen in every free country throughout the world but if your nut-cases can buy assault rifles and commit mass murder surely you are bright enough to come up with a solution better than buying your own assault rifle and putting armed guards in primary schools.That's the one solution that honors liberty. I personally prefer it to a police state, which is what I consider a land where the gov't holds parental responsibility over society and the people have no recourse but to depend on gov't.

Bryn Mawr;1419669 wrote: The more I hear of shootings in the US the more I'm coming to the conclusion that the problem does not lie with the second amendment, that is the excuse, the problem lies with a culture where it is becoming accepted that the way to register a protest against society is to shoot as many people as you can

Guns don't kill people but every Tom, Dick and disgruntled policeman with a grievance can and does.Agreed. The Second Amendment has been around far longer than our problem with serial killers. That tells me that guns aren't the problem, and the problem wouldn't suddenly disappear if all law-abiding citizens were disarmed.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:58 pm

Accountable;1419719 wrote: That's the one solution that honors liberty. I personally prefer it to a police state, which is what I consider a land where the gov't holds parental responsibility over society and the people have no recourse but to depend on gov't.

Agreed. The Second Amendment has been around far longer than our problem with serial killers. That tells me that guns aren't the problem, and the problem wouldn't suddenly disappear if all law-abiding citizens were disarmed.

Maybe if you could get your nutters to shoot the politicians?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:30 am

hoppy;1419651 wrote: Don't be a liberal pig.

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Why? people might be hurt or killed in the ensuing panic. Your right to "free speech" ends where their right to "pursue life, liberty, and happiness" begins.

The founding fathers never envisioned a country where it's citizens slaughtered each other by the hundreds of thousands. That's why they made sure that the Constitution was a living document that could be changed to fit the situation the future found itself in.

You can't pound your chest and run around with your hair on fire about the "right" to own a gun when entire cities full of your fellow citizens are being murdered.

Your right to own a gun ends where another's right to not be shot begins.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:33 am

Accountable;1419719 wrote:

Agreed. The Second Amendment has been around far longer than our problem with serial killers. That tells me that guns aren't the problem, and the problem wouldn't suddenly disappear if all law-abiding citizens were disarmed.

You assume that conditions haven't changed since the second amendment was written. They have.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:44 am

Saint

I soooooo agree with you.

Once that shot is fired - my right have been blown away.

If you don't agree with me - that's ok - I'm a lib pig..!!!:yh_rotfl

Patsy

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:06 pm

Saint_;1419780 wrote: [...] That's why they made sure that the Constitution was a living document that could be changed to fit the situation the future found itself in.Saint_;1419781 wrote: You assume that conditions haven't changed since the second amendment was written. They have.

Then change the second amendment to this "living document" to fit the situation. Stop violating it. Stop being lazy. Insist on getting Amendment written and let's vote. Until then, honor the Rule of Law!

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:00 pm

Accountable;1419806 wrote: Then change the second amendment to this "living document" to fit the situation. Stop violating it. Stop being lazy. Insist on getting Amendment written and let's vote. Until then, honor the Rule of Law!

Whilst you have a portion of the population screaming "out of my cold dead hand" and threatening civil war should anyone try then it goes beyond a simplistic solution. First you need to heal the rifts in society - get the fanatics on side with the rule of law rather than using the fear factor to prevent meaningful discussion.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:28 pm

Accountable;1419806 wrote: Then change the second amendment to this "living document" to fit the situation. Stop violating it. Stop being lazy. Insist on getting Amendment written and let's vote. Until then, honor the Rule of Law!

So what if you do change the law and some refuse to obey it?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 4:54 pm

Bryn Mawr;1419817 wrote: get the fanatics on side with the rule of law rather than using the fear factor to prevent meaningful discussion.
That's what I'm trying to do. Of course, you don't see that the one's out of line with the rule of law, who are just as enthusiastically using the fear factor to prevent meaningful discussion, are the ones calling for gun bans and restrictions. The gun nuts are the fanatics on side with the rule of law this time.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:03 pm

Accountable;1419840 wrote: That's what I'm trying to do. Of course, you don't see that the one's out of line with the rule of law, who are just as enthusiastically using the fear factor to prevent meaningful discussion, are the ones calling for gun bans and restrictions. The gun nuts are the fanatics on side with the rule of law this time.

Go back to the part of the quote you chopped "First you must heal the rifts in society" - a rift has two sides and both sides need to be addressed but I continue to contend that the sole aim of the extreme rhetoric from the gun lobby is to prevent meaningful discussion of the possible change to the constitution.

If you see children being gunned down it is natural to say "something must change", the nature of the talk of armed insurrection is to prevent any movement in that direction.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:21 pm

Bryn Mawr;1419845 wrote: but I continue to contend that the sole aim of the extreme rhetoric from the gun lobby is to prevent meaningful discussion of the possible change to the constitution.And you don't see the same from the "other" side? If you don't then you're not paying close enough attention.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:21 am

Accountable;1419806 wrote: Then...Insist on getting Amendment written

Why, that's exactly what I'm doing in this thread! I may not have influenced any senators yet, but I'm influencing my fellow men and women right here in Forumgarden. When enough people have been influenced, they will influence our government, and the momentum of history will take over.

Until then, honor the Rule of Law!

In what way am I not honoring it? I haven't confiscated anyone's guns. I haven't stopped people outside gun stores and turned them away. I respect the amendment as it stands now, but I actively call for it to be changed.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:29 am

Saint_;1419911 wrote: Why, that's exactly what I'm doing in this thread! I may not have influenced any senators yet, but I'm influencing my fellow men and women right here in Forumgarden. When enough people have been influenced, they will influence our government, and the momentum of history will take over.

In what way am I not honoring it? I haven't confiscated anyone's guns. I haven't stopped people outside gun stores and turned them away. I respect the amendment as it stands now, but I actively call for it to be changed.
I was speaking generally, so I should have pointed that out better, but I find it hard to believe that you don't support legislation limiting access to firearms.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:39 pm

Accountable;1419857 wrote: And you don't see the same from the "other" side? If you don't then you're not paying close enough attention.

Obviously I'm not seeing the extreme statements from the "other" side then. The most extreme statement I've seen is to the effect that semi automatic weapons and high capacity magazines should not be in public hands. If you consider that is "designed to prevent meaningful discussion" then there is no hope.

Compared to "we'll start a civil war if the government tries to take our guns from us" it is a reasonable starting point for a discussion on preventing further mass killings.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 1:41 pm

Accountable;1419924 wrote: I was speaking generally, so I should have pointed that out better, but I find it hard to believe that you don't support legislation limiting access to firearms.

At what point do you consider that a weapon is no longer covered by the term "arms" as used in the second amendment?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:17 pm

Bryn Mawr;1419959 wrote: At what point do you consider that a weapon is no longer covered by the term "arms" as used in the second amendment?

And that really is the question, isn't it? personally, I think the number of people who could be killed in a short amount of time is a determining factor. That's why grenades and machine guns are banned. But semi-automatics can fire almost as fast.

Let's go back to bolt action.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:20 pm

Accountable;1419924 wrote: I find it hard to believe that you don't support legislation limiting access to firearms.

Where did you get that idea? Of course I support limiting access. I'd like to limit access as much as possible.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:26 pm

Today in Delaware a Looney entered a Court Room - (court room with security checks)

wounded a few and killed a few - the Looney died at the scene.

it just doesn't stop.

Where's AHSO with the count.?

Patsy