Zimmerman stalked a young man through the dark streets of a city in an unmarked vehicle, brought a loaded firearm with him, left his vehicle carrying the loaded firearm for the purpose of confronting the young man (in my town, chasing someone down the street at night with a loaded gun and attempting to impede their passage on a public sidewalk is misdemeanor assault in itself), and responded to the young man's attempts to defend himself by shooting and killing him without even first warning about the gun. That's according to Zimmerman's own account. Zimmerman was not severely beaten. He was not standing his ground - he was chasing somebody. And he was the assailant, not the defender. He's a poster child for "gun owner behavior that needs restriction for the safety of the public". And if you can't figure out how to do that without infringing on your rights, other people will figure it out for you.
The shear force that had trouble with guerrilla tactics in Vietnam and Iraq? People need to know the facts, not deceptive political talking points. Your rate of fire argument is just the first step in a transparent slippery slope. One that the facts about comparable rate of fire in handguns makes permanently unpalatable to most Americans. It can't done without your gradual and progressive lying. Handguns are used in many more gun crimes, and even mass shootings. In this data, 9mm semiautomatic handguns show up more than any other weapon. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/And two handguns can effectively double their rate of fire. No, the status quo has only changed recently in the direction of more guns rights, with many states passing concealed, open, and constitutional carry, the idea of nationwide reciprocity, and even gun rights sanctuary cities. "Nobody needs" is a transparently leftist talking point that exposes your concern trolling. Crime rates are quite real, and areas known to be legally well-armed do act as deterrent. Hey, if you think banning handguns is doable, good luck. AR-15s are not "military grade weapons", and that claim only demonstrates your ignorance. Thanks. You're like a walking billboard for gun control nuts being completely uninformed. Keep it up. Did Treyvon show any signs of being beaten? You're making up stuff not in evidence. I'm not threatened by nukes where I live. Then you don't read too well, since I just told you that ARs have similar penetration to a 9mm, while AKs punch right through, potentially creating more victims behind the target. ARs are low-powered rifles, while AKs are more mid-powered. Evidence to the contrary of paranoid leftist narrative.
Hmm? I was always clear about my thoughts of the Ruby Ridge siege. Why would you imagine any differently? That's really cute coming from you. You made claims about studies earlier in the thread and I asked you to cite them and you dodged the issue and I'm still waiting. You have pulled the same stunt, pitched the exact same fit every single time I so much as utter the words "gun control", or anyone else here for that matter who happen to believe in gun control. Where did I say that you cited Ruby Ridge? Sculptor did and you injected yourself into the discussion I was having with him and essentially took over for him. It's not that you cited it, it's that you picked it up for him and ran with it. I never differentiated from the fact that I was speaking about Sculptor's argument. Why do you believe differently? Are you accusing him of being a gun nut? Or does it illustrate what we all knew all along when it comes to the subject of you and guns? Or are you simply ignoring the "lies and slanders and misrepresentations" of anyone who partakes in this discussion and actually believes in gun control? And how do I "talk like"? I mean, from my experience, I live in a country where we have not had a mass shooting in decades. I guess that is what perhaps troubles you? What does it take, to "talk like you", though? How jaded do you have to be that you can still support something that ends the lives of so many because of the ease at which to obtain it? I guess your issue is that I am not morbid enough to accept that this many have to die every single year, because it's in the Constitution. I guess people who talk like me should be quoting from the NRA rule book to make you more comfortable.
lol... says someone who probably has to have an armory under his bed so he can sleep at nights...and you claim some one else is paranoid? You don't need your guns... you do know that don't you? Maybe you and sculptor can take turns watching the door so you can sleep at nights - locked and loaded.... lol
But you're going to post bullshit anyway? Seems unkind of you. Nonsense. It's a direct address of a defined problem, that avoids the irrelevant bs about the technicalities of design. So? It's a factual basis for a Court decision that you are going to see. Neither a well-regulated modern militia nor the right to keep and bear arms is infringed by severe restrictions on rapid-fire weapons, including their purchase and circumstances of ownership. No, it doesn't - as you will discover, if you persist in fantasy based irrationality. People will write appropriate laws, with informed advice, or they will write what seems best to them without regard for the wishes of the uncooperative - but they will enact legislation in this matter. The status quo is going to change, because it's insane. No. A straight account of what was presented by Zimmerman himself and recorded by photograph etc at the time. Not leftist, not paranoid. Your claim that Zimmerman was severely beaten, for example, was imaginary - his injuries were minor, his own account has him starting and losing a schoolboy fistfight. Martin was justified in putting him in the hospital, or even killing him under the stand your ground laws - Zimmerman was getting off easy. Reasonable people are often going to refuse to hand your kind political power. Even in a good cause. So the US gun control solution has to reach past you and yours, on the one hand, and the NRA, on the other, and reach the coin-flipping split-assessment reasonable majority - and that's not easy. You guys have thoroughly poisoned this well.
And what "kind" is that? You keep alluding to these things. First it was "faction", now it's 'my kind'. Aside from you sounding like a paranoid right-wingnut that probably belongs on Hannity or Info Wars, that is. Me and my what? My "kind"? Women? Black people? What, exactly is "my kind" or me and mine? You mean you? Because we believe in gun control? Poor you.
No. Because you talk like this: You guys - not just you - deal in that kind of stuff continually, and in lieu of reason or sense. And you have managed to make yourselves prominent in US politics, so that in the public discussion the advocacy of gun control has become identified with irrational and fantasy based authoritarian blithering lacking any visible self-awareness or comprehension of basic issues at hand. The fallout is that between you and the NRA, reasonable people end up flipping coins and dividing their votes. And that not only ruins the efforts to obtain sane gun control in the US, it damages liberal politics in general. It's a damn mess. This has been going on for decades - here's an example from 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Bouza It's an actual "bothsides" issue - maybe the only one.
Lots of posts in the thread, but I will start with the OP Nonsensical comment, IMHO One of the biggest problems with responsibility is lack of enforcement by states. The US Gov't already has effective laws but states fail to actually enforce them for various reasons. So one of the biggest problems isn't personal responsibility but rather State responsibility and enforcement. (see: Background check) https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics each individual is already responsible for their actions. again, the problem is enforcement and lack of State compliance problems: 1- would you like it if your adult son/daughter was the main perpetrator in a crime and you were punished and prosecuted for their actions simply because you didn't rear them properly? individuals are responsible for their own individual actions, Per US Law See: https://ecfr.io/ 2- NRA opposes actions that are unconstitutional as their primary purpose is to defend the 2nd amendment. They do this through lobbying and legal actions. Holding them responsible for the actions of a criminal or mentally unstable person would be like prosecuting you for the actions of a theif in your neighborhood because you failed to stop them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association 3- US CFR's already have legislation stopping mentally ill from obtaining weapons. However, much like other nations, you can submit forms to regain your rights should you be able to provide, for the court, evidence supporting your reform or rehabilitation. This does not, however, mean all mentally ill people are stopped from purchasing firearms. The US has problems in this area for several reasons starting with the lack of state complaince with reporting and ending with the lack of enforcement of the law, sometimes due to lack of community support. This is perfectly exemplified by the recent shooting in Florida you chose to make your example as the local law enforcement, FBI, community and mental health facilities failed epically WRT the shooter. http://www.ncids.org/Defender Training/Civil Commitment 2004/FirearmConseq.pdf 4- definition of assault weapon: This topic is contentious. 4a - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon So, technically, using the above definition, then all semi-automatic firearms are "assault weapons". What people generally mean is "assault rifle" which "refers to selective-fire military rifles that can fire in automatic and / or burst mode" . The assault rifle is already illegal to own unless special licence is assigned as per federal law. 4b - people are ignorant of facts regarding ballistics and firearms. People don't understand that the .223 Ruger hunting rifle is no different than the 5.56 AR platform rifle except cosmetically. And most hunting rifles can be modified to look exactly like an "assault weapon". Ballistics from a .223 hunting rifle and the .223/5.56 AR rifle are the same because it's the same round. Exactly the same round. The difference between the two will be the long range accuracy due to barrel length, if there is any. That is it. http://gundata.org/blog/post/223-ballistics-chart/ http://www.ballistics101.com/223_remington.php https://guide.sportsmansguide.com/ballisticscharts/ Please note that in a shooters calculator there is no calculation for AR platform vs Hunting rifle. This is because it's irrelevant and cosmetic differences do not apply to ballistics. http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=f31587ba 4c - relevant pic: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 4d - persecution of a person or company for actions outside their ability to control is illegal: https://ecfr.io/ one of the biggest problems the US has with the debate is the lack of ability of people to actually produce a factual argument and come together to make rational decisions. The topic is emotionally driven by fanatical adherents to belief by both sides. There really isn't anywhere you can have a fact based rational debate except in the courts system, which then leads to people irrationally cherry-picking data to support their argument. Even some of the "science" being presented is biased.
saved this for last: the cost of not having one is potentially greater It is irrational to believe that people should be refused the right to a firearms while then allowing the state to carry, own or use firearms. This essentially says that the individual, regardless of type of government, is not capable of making rational decisions while owning a firearm, yet the state, which is always derived from the people, regardless of type of state government, is somehow rational enough to own, carry or use firearms. That is logically inconsistent. You're giving power and authority to individuals of a system or group of people simply because of an irrational faith that said system will be more rational in their decisions. the US 2nd amendment was primarily for the ability to defend against tyrrany like Britian's lack of representation for the colonies. "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." notice the following: 1- "being necessary to the security of a free State" - this means in order to keep the state free, we require the firearms 2- "A well regulated Militia" - historically pulled from able bodied men, now includes women. Selective service registration still required in the US. This means all able bodied people. Whereas we don't typically require you to bring your own weapon to the Armed forces or ready reserves, you can still be required to act as a militant force per the state governed by your state authority, be it through deputization or various martial legal purpose, the latter requiring you to provide your own arms. 3- "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - notice it says the right of the people? not the state. not the government. not the militia... the right of the people. This is important.
still lying your ass of i see. ice when you peddle in conspiracy theories and use authoritarian as a slur word you don't get to pretend your reasonable. we dont have gun control because zealots like you have been pushing false information and trying to push your pro gun ideology for 40 years that's why we don't. the only person irrational here is you.
no it wasn't. it was a sop to the states to make them feel better with military authority going from the states under the articles of confederation to the federal government under the constitution. nothing more nothing less
Not primarily. Primarily to defend against, and attack as well, neighboring Indian tribes - which were not the scattered and relatively weak communities they became later, and were often proxy forces of European and (especially) corporate or financial interests. With the growing plantation slavery to the south, and the borderland tribal conflicts to the north and west (may as well call the frontier S-I what they most resembled, a new North American tribe), the critical importance of disarmament in subjugation was illustrated almost daily - if anyone had been inclined to put the lessons of the northern and western borders of England behind them. But magazine size and fire rate and so forth, which are the real issues, can be restricted without getting tangled in mechanical design details. And most people want to do that. They will do that. You can advise and consent, or not, as you choose.
Not in US setup democracy, where the State comprises the community of people rather than a solitary individual will. It is instead the reasoned foundation of government, wherein the known instabilities and irrationalities of individuals (kings, despots, aristocrats, landlords, pirates) are explicitly checked in their power to do harm. The powerful must answer to reason and the publicly debated free will of the powerless: basic principle. And an individual with the capability of easy mass slaughter is powerful.
You're crushing everyone's pirate fantasies with your talk of sensible gun restrictions. That's why they'll never budge.
so a historical fact is outlandish bullshit? i feel sorry for you so its trolling to post historical facts now? i feel sorry for you i really do the fact remains that the second amendment exists not to protect the individual from the federal government but the states from the federal government. one of the biggest reasons for scrapping the articles of confederation and drafting the constitution was the articles were deemed to hamstring the countries ability to defend itself.( a declaration of war, or hell granting letters of marque, or a bunch of other things need to properly defend a country) required 9 of the 13 states to support it or roughly 70% of the states to do anything. the second amendment exists to help codify the difference between the AOC the constitution to ease the anti federalist worries. the "right" you all are describing is a modern invention. if we actually look at the jurisprudential history of the second amendment everything you all are freaking out about was deemed legal, whether it was registries, requiring proof of safe keeping, or flat out banning gun from towns. all of these at one point in time deemed perfectly legal. until rogue conservative judges at the behest of a 40 yearlong campaign by the NRA to rewrite the meaning of the second amendment so people like you could feel better about packing heat in public. i suggest instead of acting all aggrieved and outraged you pull your heads out of your asses and learn some fricking history.
I'm thinking in this case he wants the population to be capable of overpowering Donald Trump in a worst-case scenario, much as others were probably chomping at the bit to have a crack at Obama.
Hahaha! I haven't even owned a gun for decades, and as of only a few years ago, I now own one rare gun, as an investment, and a .380 pistol, that many in the US don't consider a sufficient self-defense caliber. So if you're worried about me, yep, you're the paranoid one. Where have you refute a single gun fact I've posted? Nowhere, because you continually prove your ignorance. No, it justifies future gun bans, by the exact same criteria you propose. Only then the argument would be "but we already banned guns with the same rate of fire, and because of their rate of fire." So you don't care about that greater number of deaths? Or your feigned concern with gun owners being involved in gun control efforts is just trolling? Where's the precedent in federal law for "need?" Nowhere, just you're wishful thinking? No, the second anyone pushes rate of fire bans, they get tarred and feathered as wanting to ban most handguns. The status quo has been changing in favor of gun rights over the last decade, and shows no sign of reversing course. Wow, what a perversion of facts. Utter revisionist history and ignorance. There is no rate of fire difference between those two rifles. So you're advocating for banning most rifles and handguns. So quit lying and trolling.
and that is the key to your position... yes? I tend to agree even though I am somewhat naive about domestic American issues. It seems obvious from the discourse I have read so far that people essentially have a very limited trust, if any, in their elected representatives. This is why I am advocating adding to the constitution the capacity for the population to de-elect or vote to stand down an elected government, forcing an early election. (under a very specific criteria and set of conditions) Forcing the installation of a caretaker government until new elections are carried out. This addition to the constitution would mitigate most of the trust issues IMO. It should be applicable to both state and federal governments and even local council or mayoral roles. This empowers the electorate to deal with misrepresentation, false promise, and corruption, by the candidate and subsequent winner. Inspiring greater accountability and integrity among your politicians.
