At 6/24/07 04:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
That depends on how you interpret it.
"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."
The 2nd amendment entitles Americans to two things, a well regulated militia, as well as the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Two separate yet related things.
I interpret it as "If you're a member of a well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of the Free State, you can have a gun. If you aren't, you can't."
It's a condition, like your mother saying "When you've done your chores, you can play video games."
See, that is nothing but an appeal to emotion. 32 people were killed, it was a tragedy, but statistically it was a fluke, and statistically, many things kill a lot more people than guns do. So if you want to ban guns entirely, besides not even lowering gun violence, you're only addressing a tiny fraction of the unnatural deaths in the US.
Ah, that sentence again...
Wait..."statistically it was a fluke"?
Right, were the 21 gunned down in a McDonalds by James Huberty (armed with an Uzi semi-auto, a pump-action Winchester, and a 9mm Browning) a statistical fluke, or bad shooting?
Also, why do you seem intent to duck the issue - plenty of people are killed in unnatural accidents, but plenty are killed by design by some gun-toting soon-to-be murderer with the Constitutional right to have the weapon he's about to discharge in their general direction.
And how is the deaths of 15,000 people addressing "a tiny number" of unnatural deaths?
Per 100,000, 9.1 Americans are murdered.
Per 100,000, 3.6 Americans are shot to death.
That's over a third of all murders in the US being directly linked to guns. I dread to think what you consider tyo be a large quantity if 39.56% is considered "a tiny fraction."
Gangsters and burglars tend to be criminals before they use guns, therefore making LEGAL gun ownership more difficult isn't going to prevent them from getting guns. Seriously, use your fucking brain for once. The majority of crimes with firearms are committed by people who CANNOT LEGALLY PURCHASE OR OWN A FIREARM, and therefore making LEGAL ownership more difficult after we ALREADY bar criminals from attaining them, does NOTHING to target gun crime! All it does is target people who obey the law anyway, and can purchase guns legally and therefore are statistically much less likely to use guns in crime, and statistically prevent more crime than they commit.
So ILLEGAL gun ownership won't make it more difficult for them to own a gun, due to the rise in the black market price overnight (which will put it beyond the reach of a nickle and dime robber or two-bit wannabe gangster as they won't have the money to hand).
Now, here's a list of people that could legall use a firearm:
James Huberty
Charles Whitman
Robyn Anderson (supplier of Harris & Klebold)
Thomas Hamilton
Michael Ryan
Ronald DeFeo
Patrick "Godfather of the term 'Going Postal' Sherrill
David Berkowitz
Aileen Wournos
All of them (among numerous others I could list) are responsible for murdering large numbers of people using a firearm (Berkowitz and Wuornos being serial killers - and not the only ones to use a gun as their main weapon), and none wer eineligible for purchasing guns by any means - USE YOUR BRAIN.
And, once again, it's hard to prevent criminals buying guns if there are plenty out there being sold in pawn shops which are less stringent when it comes to background checks, or in the case of Cho easily available on fucking eBay.
Your flawed logic actually saddens me. Since it is ALREADY a violation of the law for criminals to have firearms, its NOT GOING TO LESSEN THE GUN CRIME WE ALREADY HAVE. You make absolutely no fucking sense.
Sure I do - make it illegal to own a gun before they can become a criminal with it. Is it rocket science?
"Make legal ownership illegal, even though legal ownership isn't the cause, but illegal ownership by criminals who won't heed new laws IS the cause."
And a marketplace flooded with guns (legally or illegally) of course ISN'T the cause...
You never know what is going to have politically in the future. It's not just to protect you from an invader, it is also from a future potential tyrant, or other internal threats (ahem Re Conquista). It's kind of scary knowing that the tens of millions of illegal immigrants coming to your country don't even believe it rightfully belongs to you hmm? Of course, you'd know nothing about such a concern because you're one of those typical people that ignore history and its trends and instead dictate your views on your very false sense of "oh that would never happen"
Alright, if the threat does come from within, I have one thing to say on that: it was pretty stupid to arm them by holding up the Second Amendment all this time, wasn't it?
Sorry, is that making too much sense? Stop the violent uprising from within: don't arm them so willingly. Gee, you'll look pretty damn stupid when they march on Washington, rifles in one hand, recepit in the other.
And you want to label people that make sense as delusional while you make out somehow a massive invading force will swim to the US? Please, for the love of God, get an argument.