Adam Lanza used an AR-15 to blow up the bodies of all those children. You can debate the merits of my argument, but at least I've got my facts straight.
So, I don't want to take away anything from you or anyone. How many times do I have to say that?
A ban on the manufacture of assault rifles wouldn't apply to you, unless you MANUFACTURE them.
Most of the "fruitcakes" are dead. And, research on suicide indicates that people are not "permanently suicidal." People's heads get in a bad but temporary place. Usually, they try once, and if they fail, they don't try again.
The same holds true for suicidal murderers. If Adam Lanza had not had access to military style rifles on that day, there is a very good chance he would not have killed anyone. But he had them right there. That's the problem.
And look, there is nothing "hysterical" about what I'm saying.
Saying that the 2nd Amendment has no limits, and hinting about fighting the government, is way more hysterical in my view.
I don't have to "believe" it Lifer, I've got the stats.
Where are your stats? All you have is your "government is the problem" slogan, which, if you're a gun or a cigarette manufacturer, is a pretty handy little slogan to spread around, isn't it? And you repeat it for them. Hope you're getting a cut, or else you're just a sucker.
I don't need slogans. I've got the numbers.
Still like shootin' fish in a barrel over here...
Since you're so into the Miller decision, what do you think of this language from the case?
"The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
Kinda sounds like the Miller court thought that the 2nd Amendment provided for the right to bear arms only for a militia that Congress could call forth to defend the U.S. against invasion or insurrection.
Funny how the NRA tells you guys to interpret it as a militia that would fight against the U.S. government. Funny, huh?
Connor, since you're so into the Miller decision, maybe you'll sign up for the militia to protect the U.S. government from your fellow rebels?
No it hasn't. The smoking rate has gone way, way, down. Alcohol abuse is still bad, but not nearly the problem that it used to be. Regulation of alchol and tobacco aren't ineffective at all.
"Military small arms"? Really? I don't remember that phrase from the decision.
Can you quote from the decision where it says that, please? I mean, since you're so concerned about lies and all that...
I'm not a liberal, I'm a conservative. There's nothing "conservative" about legislation that criminalizes the bringing of bills to the floor.
And I'm not asking you to surrender any of your firearms. I'm supporting a ban on the manufacture and civillian sale of semi-automatic rifles and other military equipment.
Thanks for making my point. We regulate the heck out of tobacco and alcohol, way more than guns.
Of course, "suicide" and "homicide" don't capture accidental gun deaths, which are neither suicide nor homicide.
By 2015, annual gun deaths are expected to exceed 32,000, eclipsing car accidents (cars... another thing we regulate more than firearms... have been increasingly safer thanks to REGULATION).
Wake up people. Take this debate back from the NRA.
Some common sense from a real conservative, David Frum:
Why do the gun manufacturers fear information and debate?
Come on. "Infringed" is not the ambigous word in that amendment. "Arms" is. So is the reference to a "well-regulated militia." Your right to keep and bear a handgun or hunting firearm will not be "infringed" in any way by an assault weapons ban.
Of course, if you're a real conservative devoted to Scalia's mode of Constitutional interpretation, "originalism," you'd have to say that you only have the right to keep and bear "arms" that existed at the time the Constitution was written.
But you know that "originalism" is a sham, don't you?
Last login: Thursday, August 8, 2013
© 2014 News Tribune Publishing.