BoatShoes;1384450 wrote:Because, despite the general decrease in crime that has occurred in wealthy countries over the last several decades...the United States is still a vary glaring outlier with regard gun violence.

This country is more religious as a whole than countries with less gun violence.

Countries with less gun violence watch the same violent television and cinema produced in our liberal "Hollyweird"

Other countries with less violence regulate abortion far less than we do.

YET, we are the ones with the gun violence problem??? What is the societal difference??? They are all worse than we are as far as becoming liberal hell-holes with abortion, gays, violent and ostentatious media and secularism....What they don't have is 300 million guns.

BoatShoes;1384460 wrote:I think, efficiency/speed of killing is a reasonable criteria.

The Second Amendment has proven largely false. Well regulated militias are not necessary for the security of a free state. ....

FatHobbit;1384459 wrote:When you have a group of people who want to ban guns from the public entirely but then decide they can't so they just want to ban the "scary" guns for now and they admit they will try to ban more guns in the future, that is when I dig my heels in. Their goal is banning all guns and they try to frame the argument in such a way that they just want what they call "common sense" measures in place and anyone who opposes them must be nuts. It is propaganda at its finest!

BoatShoes;1384470 wrote:I think they would be fine with leaving alone guns that are less efficient at killing humans in the long run. For instance...a 6 round pump action shotgun could do a lot of damage in a crowded place but you might have to live with that as people could reasonably suggest they need it for insurance against an intruder...if they when on a rampage you might hope carnage would be limited...

a single action army without a moon clip might be carried by a person with a CCW without much fear that he could take down a lot of people with it if he went on a rampage.


I think you could foresee a future wherein there still guns...just not guns that a SWAT team would choose because they're less efficient at getting the job done, but would be more than adequate for insurance against private coercion.

FatHobbit;1384466 wrote:The Europeans I know think our television and movies are too violent and can't understand why we are so hung up on seeing naked people. They don't watch the same shows.

FatHobbit;1384474 wrote:SWAT teams don't use shotguns? What makes you think a .223 is more efficient?

BoatShoes;1384484 wrote:You know that???

BoatShoes;1384486 wrote:Gosh you guys get so caugh up in the specifics of examples used to convey the more meta-issues....Swat teams use shotguns yes! but there are types of shotguns that they use and don't use...i.e. A guy can pull a double-barreled shotgun that you load two shells at a time on a would-be intruder but a SWAT team member is going to opt for a more tactical shotgun. :rolleyes:

Con_Alma;1384467 wrote:The second ammendment is about more than protecting the ability to possess arms for a regulated militia. The Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment protects the use of firearms for "any lawful purpose".

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

FatHobbit;1384495 wrote:I get caught up in specifics because you are saying x guns are ok, but not y guns because SWAT teams use them. You're trying to separate out specific categories of guns to get rid of based on appearance but your categories make no sense. (I don't think you even care that they make sense so long as it gets rid of some guns and you can worry about the other guns in the next push.)

BoatShoes;1384496 wrote:Have you read the case? It is narrower than "any lawful purpose"

This is the Holding: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The majority opinion also contained this:




And further, like all fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, they can be regulated with narrowly tailored laws when the People of the United States have a compelling interest in doing so.

The People of the United States have a compelling interest in trying not to be the only G8 country with such widespread gun-related carnage.

BoatShoes;1384500 wrote:No...I think you're being overly dismissive. as I said to Webfire, I think efficiency might be a good criterion...not "guns that look scary."

The reason people say libs want to get rid of "guns that look scary" is because they focus on "assault weapons" when there are obviously many semi-automatic handguns that could kill people efficiently (and do often). I don't care if the gun looks like a child's toy with flowers on it...I think how effectively a mad man might be able to take down a crowd of people is a good criterion if we're interested in trying to curb gun violence and mass shootings.

BoatShoes;1384460 wrote:There are countries all over the world that have large amounts of economic freedom who do not have them and they are not overrun by tyrannical despots.

BoatShoes;1384500 wrote:The reason people say libs want to get rid of "guns that look scary" is because they focus on "assault weapons" when there are obviously many semi-automatic handguns that could kill people efficiently (and do often).

O-Trap;1384512 wrote:"Often" is a relatively arbitrary term, as I'd consider the same metric to be very infrequent.

FatHobbit;1384507 wrote:That is exactly why people think Libs want to get rid of "guns that look scary." Because they think they are trying to get rid of guns that are super efficient killing machines but they aren't really any more efficient than "regular" looking guns.

Cleveland Buck;1384509 wrote:Having "large amounts of economic freedom" is not even close to the same thing as "a free state". In fact it suggests the opposite.

Con_Alma;1384503 wrote:I have read the case and I have never argued against the ability to regulate. The ability and desire to regulate doesn't negate the protection afforded by the second ammendment that individuals are able to maintain arms for lawful purposes. Lawful uses are inclusive of any regulation. The example of protection in the home was but one an example and not a limitation.

The point of the second ammendment not being limited to arms for a regulated militia is what I bring up when such claims that a militia is the justification for arms.

BoatShoes;1384530 wrote:I think that's fair...in the large scale of things...even the handgun-related-murders in Chicago right now wouldn't amount to "often" I'd agree. However, the occur more "frequently" than they do in other rich countries enough to raise concerns in the minds of otherwise reasonable people as to how we might act differently to decrease their frequency.

BoatShoes;1384530 wrote:I think that's fair...in the large scale of things...even the handgun-related-murders in Chicago right now wouldn't amount to "often" I'd agree. However, the occur more "frequently" than they do in other rich countries enough to raise concerns in the minds of otherwise reasonable people as to how we might act differently to decrease their frequency.

BoatShoes;1384540 wrote:I wasn't making that claim and haven't made that claim that it exclusively applies to the right to form a well regulated militia.

O-Trap;1384547 wrote:I don't disagree with that, at all. I do think, though, that we should step back and consider if the actions necessary might not be cultural/social/communal/etc. as opposed to anything that can be regulated, controlled, or legislated.

...

BoatShoes;1384539 wrote:On the contrary, people living in large welfare states are more free to pursue their own happiness and wealth than in negatively "free states" but that is another thread and I've already been scolded for derailing the thread.

So, stick to the topic...in this "un-free states" why aren't they being overrun by tyrants despite not having guns to repel them? Just docile and powerless enjoying their radical freedom I'd guess.

queencitybuckeye;1384542 wrote:Maybe, maybe not. If that concern translates to dollars, would we not be better served pointing them to causes of death not lumped into "all other causes", after the 15 that the CDC spells out specifically?

Cleveland Buck;1384563 wrote:They aren't more free to do anything except pursue what they are permitted to by their masters, just like here. Why do you not believe their rulers are tyrants? Was King George a tyrant? The colonists here were much more free under the crown than we are now or any of the people in the states you are talking about. Just because your CNN coverage tells you about how wonderful our freedom is doesn't mean we are actually free.

The whole point of freedom is the protection of your rights. Your idea of freedom is being taken care of and told what to do. It's fine that is what you prefer. Just don't call it freedom. Freedom isn't for the lazy.