Best Gun Buyback Program Ever (Page 2)

Please point me to the amendment that says specifically you have a right to an abortion? 

Lets see 200+ years vs Oh 40 years, boy your solid leaves a little to be desired.

And you can play the drama queen all you like that does not change the fact that 2A specifically gives on the right to keep and bear arms.

God forbid something like the school shooting happened to my family or loved ones I still believe in the 2A and what it stands for and no I would not ask for bans. I think having real laws about safety, the way firearms are stored or back ground checks that are actually enforced are a much better deterrent to future deaths than banning a small percentage of rifles.

Far from it.

At issue is what rules you must conform to when you exercise that right.  Take the car analogy that gun supporters often point to.  We license people to drive.  They even pass a test.  Is that such a bad idea for guns?  The NRA is solidly against it.

And no, driving is not a right granted by the constitution.  But I'll circle back to the 2nd amendment which specifies "a well regulated militia..."

Gun rights are not absolute.

Your bolded part has already been decided by the SCOTUS.  Sorry.  

350,000,000 guns and counting are not going anywhere.  At the current rate of purchase it'll be well over 1/2 billion by the end of next year.  I haven't bought anything new in about 5 years.  I think I'll buy another one or two as my own means of activism.  

3-4% is 300 odd people.  That's a really small town.

Regardless would we like ot prevent those deaths?  Sure we would.  But what about the other 30,000 - odd deaths with non-rifle weapons (shotguns and hand guns).  Why is the left not going after those?  That's the lion's share of deaths...

Grandstanding is why....political grandstanding.

And let's get this "militia" talk settled.  The 2nd A reads:

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.

I'm going to borrow some text from another site I found that sums it up very well..

----

As any militia (armed body such as the military, police, FBI, BATF[E], etc.), however necessary for security, is a threat to the freedom of any state it serves (as witnessed by the many military takeovers of governments around the world), keeping them ‘well regulated’ is always the very first concern. And the last line of defense in that effort is for the citizens (in order to outnumber them) of that state (because you can never count on someone else to come and rescue you from your own militia) themselves to be at least as well armed as any and all of those militias (in order to outgun them).

Can you see it now? “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.”

You see, all this talk about the militia being made up of the citizens, and therefore the citizens being armed, is misguided and dangerous. The militia has always been separate from the citizens. Not all the citizens were in the militia. Not all militias are made up of citizens of the state they serve. The founders used the word, militia, to cover it all: Any armed body, whether they be police, military, mercenaries, FEMA, and, now, oddly, even the EPA. Yes, the EPA is now armed. They are a militia. And we need to keep them honest, keep them in check, keep them ‘well regulated’. Because that is what is necessary to the security of a free state.

If "the other" is 30,000, 3-4% would be 900-1200 people, not 300. That's around, what, upwards of 1/3 of the amount of people who perished on 9/11. There's been an awful lot of action taken in this country to prevent that from happening again. Taking action to prevent another 900-1200 people seems appropriate.

Do you really think that most people who support increased gun control are "political grandstanding?" Am I grandstanding now? I have no idea.

Anyway, to your question, my guess would be that there is not a legitimate reason other than someone's so-called "rights" to own such a weapon. There's no reason a civilian needs to own a weapon capable of pumping X bullets in Y seconds into a deer, or another human being.  There are legitimate arguments for someone to own a shotgun, or a handgun, so a ban is most likely not the best way to reduce those deaths.

Uhhh no. Murders are only 9000.... 3% of that is 270.

So I take it you didn't bother reading the article?

Thank you, at least somone read it. As far as drugs... and I'm certainly on a island on this one... but I feel all drugs should be decriminalized. Prohibition does not work. And not because legalization is such a great idea, but because the alternative is much much worse. Every body in America knows the "War on Drugs" is a failure, and not one sigle person will say "enough". If all the gun control folks actually gave a crap about actual people dying from gun violence, they would demand we stop funding criminal organizations through the illegal drug trade.

And here is the point of the article.....

It is my perception, based on public evidence, as well as countless conversations on the subject, that the latter position (they do not want the political right to be armed)is that of most self-identified American liberals.  However they may occasionally, tactically, craft their discourse to pretend, for an audience that does value the right of citizens to arm themselves, that they too value that right, most American liberals just do not. They do not even understand why it should be considered a right at all, in the sense elaborated above. They would love to restrict it as much as possible, and they would just as soon be done with the American constitutional guarantee of that right, the Second Amendment, which they see as some kind of embarrassing anachronism.

Ya... and that's the point.... all these "great ideas" bandied around are not to do anything about the actual problem, they are all end around measures to limit the exercising of the right. Training, taxes, fees, restrictions.... has nothing to do whether they are actually effective at doing anything about the stated prblem.. public safety/gun violence.... and everything to do with limiting law abiding people exercising their RTBAs.

What article?

Is this grandstanding?

Yes.... but you are missing the forest through the trees.... you missed the part where they ruled it was an individual right, and incase you missed McDonald vs. chicago... that right most certainly applies to the states.

At least you have the guts to tell the truth, that you want all guns confinscated... well, the SCOTUS already told you you can't. You only move left is to mount a political effort to repeal the 2A. good luck with that.

And I would really love it if you read the article, and actually tell me where it is wrong.

Did I not make it clear enough... serious question, not comentary.

The link in the OP, the opening sentence. My bad if it blended in. Here.

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

  You just can't make this stuff up.

Tealeaf.....really....try to keep up.  

I'm willing to explain how completely wrong you got that, but I'm not sure you'd listen or even understand.  

I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at all of it.  I just find the entire deal to be comical because it's ridiculous and based only on emotion.  

Listen up......the OVERWHELMING majority of firearm murders (over 90%) are committed with handguns.  There is not a single law proposed to ban THEM.  Still, you all are gaga to ban a weapon that accounts for 4% of murders.  Well.................O-tay.

I'm telling you.....you couldn't make this crap up....nobody would believe you.

Bingo. So 270 people (I think the real # last year was 300ish but close enough) is a pretty small town...

Handguns kill FAR FAR more people than rifles.  Yet the anti-gun crowd is ignoring them.

Grandstanding...

Firstly these were not my words as I explained.  It was a quote from an article.  Secondly the USC was written AFTER the Constitution.  You cannot define an earlier document by a following document.

I used to hold the argument that every US citizen was in the militia as well.  However the more I think about it I find the explanation above to be more accurate and less open to ambiguity.  It also reenforces the concept that the 2A was written to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government.

My 2 cents...

So sometimes, there are these "moles", that try to say they are one thing to gain some street cred, but they really are not. But this guy "claims" to be "liberal", and argues a case fro gun rights. Many of the objections brought up by gun control folks are brought up.

I would just like to hear from those that support more restrictions to the 2A what they think. Call B.S. on it, or explain to me why I am wrong. It has nothing to do with magazine capacities or back ground checks: DO you, or do you NOT, feel that gun rights are an important political right we should have? Why?

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

So I take it we are done with this?

So let me get this straight... as a law abiding citizen I can't be trusted with a magazine over 10 rounds, and a pistol grip on a rifle is too deadly for me to possess.... but the administration has ZERO problems with a 13 years old going to war with full auto-weapons... PAID FOR BY ME.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-waives-child-soldier-ban-yemen-congo/story?id=14663930