At 1/19/13 03:18 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is nothing stating that the right is restricted by the size of the weapon, nor that anything but the simplest Arm is all that is allowed. The lack of any clarification language creates the ambiguity. (Trust me, I have actaully had to argue such empty texts before, and it really fucking sucks when the drafters leave such things out, as textually anything could be the right answer.
I see your point, however I do not think it is as ambiguous as many people on the gun control side make it out to be. I think there is more clarity than is presented in popular media.
So the militia language isn't throw away language?
The militia language is commonly misinterpreted and misrepresented by gun control politicians and advocates to make the argument that the amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms to the militia...which today they claim is the National Guard.
All the militia language is a preamble which establishes their purpose in making it an individual right. Therefore, it does establish what purpose they had in mind for an armed citizenry. Was it hunting, self-defense, or national defense?
Thus the lawful purpose behind the second amendment is military in nature...since it's the only purpose mentioned. It speaks directly to the type of individual arm that is being protected. So it is important in this regard. However, contextually and grammatically it does not effect to whom the right belong to. It is not a militia right...it is an individual right.
Doesn't matter. A gun is meant to harm living flesh in EVERY USAGE. It takes a qualification of that to turn a negative thing into a good thing. (i.e. hunting, or self defense)
A car is meant to transport. It takes a qualification of that to turn it into a bad thing.
But this is a difference on paper, not in fact. The reality is more harm is done by cars than by guns...and to more innocents. Furthermore, guns are a consumer that is a civil right wheras the ability to drive and own a car is a priviledge and not as much of a necessity as a gun.
* Quality is more important than quantity when discussing what disqualifies someone from owning/using something. Are the conditions that disqualify someone from owning a gun reasonable? Are they effective?No. They're horribly insufficient.
There is no excuse for a person convicted of DV to EVER be able to hold a gun again.
Hey...I think that there is some room for strengthening how firearms are acquired. On the other hand, there is no argument thus far presented to push for the bans on 'assault weapons' and high-cap mags.
That was not the point. And yes, a 10 shot AR-15 pales in comparison to an M1A1. That doesn;t mean the M1A1 is the guaranteed victor, but that is beside the point.
The point is that the existence of 3 measily rounds per clip when going up against a fully mobilized military with weapons that far outclass any civilian rifle make little difference. A 10 shot rifle and a 7 shot rifle are about equal in effectiveness against a fully armed military unit. The lack of difference is the point, not the comparison between civilian weapons and military weapons.
Think of it like going into a sword fight with a 2 inch switchblade versus a 2 inch stilleto. The difference in blade timing does little to even the odds.
This argument is invalid based upon that you seem not to understand what is currently permissible by your next statement...
Most allowable clips are 10 rounds, not thirty. The loss is only of 3 rounds per clip.
No...30 round magazines (the term 'clip' is erroneous) as well as 75 rd & 100 rd mags are allowable/legal. So yeah...we are talking a loss of 20+ rounds per mag.
Also, the M1 clad as an M1 versus the M1 clad as a M-16 fires exactly the same (not to mention the M1 look is just plain better). The look of an assault rifle doesn't magically make the gun fire harder, as you have pointed numerous times yourself.
Huh? An M1 is a battle rifle; which means it fires a high-powered round. Most are actually bolt action (although the M1 is semi-auto) with fixed mags less than 10 rounds. So there are no M1s clad as M-16s.
As for how it is clad...my AK-47 is a post-ban model. It lacks a bayonet lug and pistol grip...but it maintains the ability to accept a high-cap mag. I don't want to loose that feature just because people who do not understand it...and thus fear it (along with all guns)...weild power emotionally and irrationally.
So why is there even a need for ivilians to have such weaponry, or cheap knockoffs of such weaponry? If they'll end up getting it anyway.
The main reason it creates a natural reserve force that is shown to be effective both in 1776 and in 2012 against much more conventionally powerful militaries.
I've never ben a fan of the "because it exists it's Constitutional" argument. It;s nothing more than a cop out for judges too weak to actually take a stand.
Hey...it's a natural extension of Scalia's opinion that in order to be regulated a firearm must be either uncommon or unusual.
10,000 incidents of fatal shooting by civilians is a pretty stong indication that civilians can't properly handle the responsibility. Intentional or accidental has no bearing on this. Misuse is misuse whether intentional or accidental.
All unintentional injury deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 120,859
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 39.1
âEU¢Cause of death rank: 5
Unintentional fall deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 26,009
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 8.4
Motor vehicle traffic deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 33,687
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
Unintentional poisoning deaths
âEU¢Number of deaths: 33,041
âEU¢Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7
Firearms deaths (accidental)
* Number of deaths: 606
* Deaths pers 100,000 population: 0.2
What are the other types of firearms deaths?
Homicide: Having watched this and posted rates for the past (almost) 10 yrs on NG these rates fluctuate between 13K and 18K a year. Right now we are at an all time low...around 13K.
Suicide: Again...I've watched this too. The rate fluctuates less than homicide and is a little higher at 15K-18K.
Now the things with these:
* The people who are killed in homicide tend to not: own the gun legally and they tend to be criminals regardless of possession of a firearm.
* Substitution effects come into play with suicides. The availability of guns does not impact suicide rates...they will find other ways to kill themselves.
So in summation...
* Your stat of 10K is wrong...it actually underrepresents the amount of firearms deaths.
* It does not accurately represent the nature of firearms deaths.
The reality is:
* In the vast majority of cases of misuse, it is intentional misuse. This cannot be so casually dismissed. A gun is an inert object...it does not just up and decide to turn on its owner and go off on their own accord. There has to be deliberative, and thoughtful action.
* In half the cases of intentional misuse...the gun is (in a statistically significant number of cases) is acquired illegally. Therefore your point fails.
* In the other half, the presence of the gun has nothing to do with causing the death. The death will occur irregardless...and probably with more suffering.
* The number of accidental deaths is trivial.
Your point is emotionally charged here...as well as factually untrue.