I mean are you going to look at the budget for the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and still claim the gov't is doing little for this disease? (For one example)
https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/data/research-funding
I mean are you going to look at the budget for the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and still claim the gov't is doing little for this disease? (For one example)
https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/data/research-funding
wazzu1452 wrote:
One of the top ten states with the most restrictive gun laws in the country is Illinois, where last year there were 650 murders in Democrat run Chicago alone, according to a USA Today's compilation of crime data.
In Democrat run Maryland, another state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Baltimore had 343 murders last year and has highest per capita murder rate in the nation. The city is entirely run by democrats. The city was also just named the most dangerous city in America by USA Today.
Good points. There are other countries with gun laws as loose as the US with lower gun homicide per capita. Guns are not the problem, people are. This has always been about freedom and willingness to accept some risk in order to keep those freedoms. Without guns the people are much more reliant on the government and the government becomes more powerful which is exactly what the US was not founded on.
The other problem is the left's obsession with Assault Rifles. Statistically that does not compute. The number of murders with a handgun is 30-40 times that of murder by rifle. In fact, knife murders are usually 5 times as many more annually as well. So when you look at what is the large-scale problem it is actually handguns yet the restrictions are always aimed at assault rifles. The media and the left focus on this tiny number of mass shootings to drive fear of these weapons while ignoring the dozens of murders daily occurring by use of hanguns.
OP -- you can't regulate diseases (like the ones listed, not vaccines obviously). People are sold guns who shouldn't have access to them. There are too many guns in circulation. There are weapons nobody should have in circulation. If you could curb cancer, would you? 39k isn't enough death for you?
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
wazzu1452 wrote:
One of the top ten states with the most restrictive gun laws in the country is Illinois, where last year there were 650 murders in Democrat run Chicago alone, according to a USA Today's compilation of crime data.
In Democrat run Maryland, another state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, Baltimore had 343 murders last year and has highest per capita murder rate in the nation. The city is entirely run by democrats. The city was also just named the most dangerous city in America by USA Today.
Good points. There are other countries with gun laws as loose as the US with lower gun homicide per capita. Guns are not the problem, people are. This has always been about freedom and willingness to accept some risk in order to keep those freedoms. Without guns the people are much more reliant on the government and the government becomes more powerful which is exactly what the US was not founded on.
The other problem is the left's obsession with Assault Rifles. Statistically that does not compute. The number of murders with a handgun is 30-40 times that of murder by rifle. In fact, knife murders are usually 5 times as many more annually as well. So when you look at what is the large-scale problem it is actually handguns yet the restrictions are always aimed at assault rifles. The media and the left focus on this tiny number of mass shootings to drive fear of these weapons while ignoring the dozens of murders daily occurring by use of hanguns.
Erm, I know people like to use Chicago as a punching bag on this topic but 2 things:
1) Ask people living on the north side if they're remotely worried about gun violence. Your zip code matters when it comes to this issue. None of that is an excuse to not strengthen gun laws.
2) Indiana has more lax gun laws. Where do you think people are getting guns from? Pretty narrow take to look at gun laws in Illinois without thinking about neighboring states.
NERunner00053 wrote:
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Good points. There are other countries with gun laws as loose as the US with lower gun homicide per capita. Guns are not the problem, people are. This has always been about freedom and willingness to accept some risk in order to keep those freedoms. Without guns the people are much more reliant on the government and the government becomes more powerful which is exactly what the US was not founded on.
The other problem is the left's obsession with Assault Rifles. Statistically that does not compute. The number of murders with a handgun is 30-40 times that of murder by rifle. In fact, knife murders are usually 5 times as many more annually as well. So when you look at what is the large-scale problem it is actually handguns yet the restrictions are always aimed at assault rifles. The media and the left focus on this tiny number of mass shootings to drive fear of these weapons while ignoring the dozens of murders daily occurring by use of hanguns.
Erm, I know people like to use Chicago as a punching bag on this topic but 2 things:
1) Ask people living on the north side if they're remotely worried about gun violence. Your zip code matters when it comes to this issue. None of that is an excuse to not strengthen gun laws.
2) Indiana has more lax gun laws. Where do you think people are getting guns from? Pretty narrow take to look at gun laws in Illinois without thinking about neighboring states.
Maybe Chicago should clean their own house before making others suffer for their problems. If you make the guns illegal you'll just create a black market for these already violent areas.
Once again Chicagos violence issues are with handguns and Democrats are targeting assault rifles which is not the problem.
Wuzzle Wuzzle wrote:
Guns are also only useful for killing (or injuring); that is the main purpose of their design. We could live in a society free of guns with minimal impact to our lives.
Yes, I believe this has been stated. The main reason for the second amendment is to have the ability to fight the government if the government attempts to remove freedoms from the populace. It's sad that humans by their nature create the need for such a protection, but it is what it is. To pretend otherwise is not wise.
We could live in a society free of guns with minimal impact to our lives, IF you could get rid of ALL guns, and ALL weaponry across the entire planet. Certainly having a government that is fully armed and a populace that is disarmed is not a safe way to live. Certainly removing all weapons from a country, while other countries have weapons is not a safe way to live.
But better yet, just get rid of evil. That would be an even better solution.
Can you do that? If you can't, then sadly we still need ways to protect against human evil.
People keep saying "other countries don't allow their citizens to have guns and they are just fine!" Are you talking about Western Europe? Things may be alright there right now, but what is to stop the governments there from abusing their people? Did the German's, especially the Jews, during Hitler's reign benefit from being disarmed? How are the North Korean people doing now without any way to protect themselves from their government? How about China? There are many countries that don't allow personal ownership of guns, whose people are being abused and killed by their governments.
“Ask people living on the north side if they're remotely worried about gun violence.”
Translation: it’s just blacks killing blacks so who cares?
This is every progressive white person I know!
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
The second amendment is the second amendment of the US Constitution intentionally. It was that important to the founding fathers.
Why was it so important? Not so they could go hunting, though that is a nice option. Shooting sports didn’t really exist, so it wasn’t to go target shooting, though that is a fun hobby. Personal self defense might have been a consideration, but that isn’t the real or most important reason the second amendment exists and is the SECOND amendment of the US Constitution.
It was so important to the founding fathers because it was absolutely essential to the success of the Revolution and they knew it was just as essential to having a chance to ensure the country and freedom remained in the future. They knew there is no United States of America at all without the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Like it or not, the second amendment is to ensure the United States remains free. It exists to give the population an insurance policy against a government that threatens Liberty. Yes, it is a threat to those in power, letting them know they are answerable to the people. They understood human nature and the effect power has on humans. They saw all other rights and freedoms as being secured by the second amendment.
A very important question to the Liberals on here would be, Do you trust the government completely? Do you believe humans have “evolved” over the past 200 years to no longer pose a threat of tyranny? In other words, is the 2nd amendment now unnecessary because humans in power no longer pose any threat to those they rule? In the current United States naturally immune from any threat of tyranny now and forever so there is no longer a reason for the second amendment?
If your answer is yes, and the government is of no threat, then I would enjoy hearing your proof to back such a claim.
If your answer is not a clear yes, which means you don’t have total trust in the government to benevolently take care of everyone, then what is your insurance policy to ultimately protect the people if not the second amendment? Debate? Asking nicely? The courts? Logic (where has logic gone?)? Science?
The philosophy behind the second amendment is the reason the US exists and is a reason we are still mostly free over 200 years later.
And yes, the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined the development of weapons we have today. However, in their day they were able to fight the World power of England with the same weaponry they had. The spirit of the second amendment would be for the people to have arms that were powerful enough to be a deter ant to tyranny. The second amendment doesn’t make much sense if the populace has muskets and the government has weaponry that renders muskets useless.
I know, I know, the Liberal response will be “so you are saying everyone should have nukes to defend themselves”. That would obviously not be safe, practical or in the best interest of the populace. The government is not likely to use nukes anyway as it is not in there best interest for power. Having nukes is very different than keeping and bearing an “assault rifle”, which as has been shown previously in this thread to account for very few gun deaths.
No death is good. I wish no one died ever, for any reason. I wish all people were good and made perfect decisions. Unfortunately, because some people are not good, there are cases in which guns are used for evil. I’m not sure there is anything that can completely be done about that. There are some costs to keeping freedom in a flawed world.
Oppressive governments also kill people, usually with the guns the populations don’t have. Some estimates are close to 100 million people put to death by communist regimes in just over 100 years. The Nazi’s, in advanced western Germany, murdered 17-million in just over 10 years, not including combat deaths.
At the end of the day though, the question is do you completely trust the government and the people in power? If you do, please explain why. If you don’t, please explain what power we have to hold the government accountable and ultimately protect Liberty.
Nobody wants to answer this?
wazzu1452 wrote:
“Ask people living on the north side if they're remotely worried about gun violence.”
Translation: it’s just blacks killing blacks so who cares?
This is every progressive white person I know!
They really don't want a discussion. It's evident.
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
The second amendment is the second amendment of the US Constitution intentionally. It was that important to the founding fathers.
Why was it so important? Not so they could go hunting, though that is a nice option. Shooting sports didn’t really exist, so it wasn’t to go target shooting, though that is a fun hobby. Personal self defense might have been a consideration, but that isn’t the real or most important reason the second amendment exists and is the SECOND amendment of the US Constitution.
It was so important to the founding fathers because it was absolutely essential to the success of the Revolution and they knew it was just as essential to having a chance to ensure the country and freedom remained in the future. They knew there is no United States of America at all without the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Like it or not, the second amendment is to ensure the United States remains free. It exists to give the population an insurance policy against a government that threatens Liberty. Yes, it is a threat to those in power, letting them know they are answerable to the people. They understood human nature and the effect power has on humans. They saw all other rights and freedoms as being secured by the second amendment.
A very important question to the Liberals on here would be, Do you trust the government completely? Do you believe humans have “evolved” over the past 200 years to no longer pose a threat of tyranny? In other words, is the 2nd amendment now unnecessary because humans in power no longer pose any threat to those they rule? In the current United States naturally immune from any threat of tyranny now and forever so there is no longer a reason for the second amendment?
If your answer is yes, and the government is of no threat, then I would enjoy hearing your proof to back such a claim.
If your answer is not a clear yes, which means you don’t have total trust in the government to benevolently take care of everyone, then what is your insurance policy to ultimately protect the people if not the second amendment? Debate? Asking nicely? The courts? Logic (where has logic gone?)? Science?
The philosophy behind the second amendment is the reason the US exists and is a reason we are still mostly free over 200 years later.
And yes, the founding fathers couldn’t have imagined the development of weapons we have today. However, in their day they were able to fight the World power of England with the same weaponry they had. The spirit of the second amendment would be for the people to have arms that were powerful enough to be a deter ant to tyranny. The second amendment doesn’t make much sense if the populace has muskets and the government has weaponry that renders muskets useless.
I know, I know, the Liberal response will be “so you are saying everyone should have nukes to defend themselves”. That would obviously not be safe, practical or in the best interest of the populace. The government is not likely to use nukes anyway as it is not in there best interest for power. Having nukes is very different than keeping and bearing an “assault rifle”, which as has been shown previously in this thread to account for very few gun deaths.
No death is good. I wish no one died ever, for any reason. I wish all people were good and made perfect decisions. Unfortunately, because some people are not good, there are cases in which guns are used for evil. I’m not sure there is anything that can completely be done about that. There are some costs to keeping freedom in a flawed world.
Oppressive governments also kill people, usually with the guns the populations don’t have. Some estimates are close to 100 million people put to death by communist regimes in just over 100 years. The Nazi’s, in advanced western Germany, murdered 17-million in just over 10 years, not including combat deaths.
At the end of the day though, the question is do you completely trust the government and the people in power? If you do, please explain why. If you don’t, please explain what power we have to hold the government accountable and ultimately protect Liberty.
Nobody wants to answer this?
This is a fantasy perpetrated by the NRA. The fact is gun nuts are quite happy to allow government suppression. Did the NRA stand up to Georgia for it's destruction of voting rights? Do you give a single crap about how minorities are treated by the justice system? Are you brandishing arms because the gov't continues to oppress native americans? No. Sorry but your "I have guns to keep the gov't in check" is complete BS when you allow the gov't to oppress everyone who doesn't look like you.
Why don't you support more voting rights? That is the ultimate check. Guns are simply for weak minded people who can't think of other ways to deal with problems. They are a cop out.
BTW- The Nazi loosened gun restriction before they came to power. A lot of good that did. The will of the people was not there to fight. It was people like you who are happy to let "certain" people have power and "certain" other people to be treated poorly that allowed the Nazis to happen. Nothing to do with guns .
Had Enough wrote:
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
Nobody wants to answer this?
This is a fantasy perpetrated by the NRA. The fact is gun nuts are quite happy to allow government suppression. Did the NRA stand up to Georgia for it's destruction of voting rights? Do you give a single crap about how minorities are treated by the justice system? Are you brandishing arms because the gov't continues to oppress native americans? No. Sorry but your "I have guns to keep the gov't in check" is complete BS when you allow the gov't to oppress everyone who doesn't look like you.
Why don't you support more voting rights? That is the ultimate check. Guns are simply for weak minded people who can't think of other ways to deal with problems. They are a cop out.
BTW- The Nazi loosened gun restriction before they came to power. A lot of good that did. The will of the people was not there to fight. It was people like you who are happy to let "certain" people have power and "certain" other people to be treated poorly that allowed the Nazis to happen. Nothing to do with guns .
1) Not surprisingly, you didn’t answer the question. Nobody has. Also not surprisingly, you chose to spout and accuse about unrelated things as an angry, emotion laden distraction. Typical.
2). It’s not a fantasy perpetuated by the NRA. It’s our history and the reason the founding fathers created the second amendment. Please don’t try to distract with lies and or false statements.
3) You are a bigot, by the definition of the word. Or I should say, your post is bigoted, so you have responded in a bigoted way. You may or may not actually be a bigot. That would depend on if what you said in your response is how you actually think. You have no clue as to who I am, what color my skin is, what my socio-economic status is, what my life history and experience looks like or anything else about me, but you have no problem deciding what all those are for me based on a religious level belief and prejudice of apparent hate and labeling. Bigotry is hate. It’s an intense emotion that is not based on facts, nor is it’s goal to work together, find common ground, and make the world better. It’s a simplistic and emotional response that justifies feelings of hatred and instills a false feeling of righteousness. It’s sad and destructive and if at all possible I would encourage you to look in a mirror and consider this, for your own benefit most of all.
4). Humans do bad things. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes unintentionally. Bad things have been done in the past. Slavery and the treatment of Native Americans are two examples of horrific acts and policies that were and are evil. So how do we go forward? By spitting out hate and anger like you appear to be doing? Can we change the past? Can we learn from the past? What is the goal going forward? Vengeance? A better life for everyone? Something else?
5). Guns have nothing to do with voting rights. I have no idea why you are bringing up things that a) have nothing to do with the topic, rather are just emotional dogma talking points. And b) that you obviously don’t really know anything about, other than what you are picking up from sensationalized media and like minded’s.
6). “Guns are for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems” is as useful and accurate a statement as “Ice cream is for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems” or “bigotry is for weak minded people who can’t think of other ways to deal with problems.” It is an insult, which is basically the liberal, identity politics, divide and conquer playbook. If you can’t answer the question, distract with fear or anger. Dehumanize your opposition. It’s easier to hate isn’t it?
7). Finally, the topper on the cake was your Nazi statement. First, how could the Nazi’s loosen gun restrictions before they came to power??? They weren’t IN power BEFORE they came to power, so they had no POWER to do anything. Second, there is nothing about your statement that is true. It is a lie that you either believe or are intentionally stating to confuse and deceive.
Anyone want to intelligently (and preferably unemotionally) answer the original question(s)?
The founding fathers did not consider mass school shootings. If they had known that their second amendment would lead to sandy hook - a kid getting an assault rifle from his mom and mowing down school children - then they would have hedged it more than they did.
They did say “well regulated militia” and a modern (not founding farther era) activist conservative judge pretty much said you can ignore that first part of the second amendment because the founding fathers didn’t mean it.
So keep enjoying your fantasy land.
govLie wrote:
The founding fathers did not consider mass school shootings. If they had known that their second amendment would lead to sandy hook - a kid getting an assault rifle from his mom and mowing down school children - then they would have hedged it more than they did.
They did say “well regulated militia” and a modern (not founding farther era) activist conservative judge pretty much said you can ignore that first part of the second amendment because the founding fathers didn’t mean it.
So keep enjoying your fantasy land.
“Well-regulated” in the language of that day, means “proficient”, “well trained” “well armed”. It did not and does not mean “controlled”. The common meaning of language changes over time.
Certainly the founding fathers would have been disturbed by mass shootings. How would they have responded? Who knows. It is very reasonable to say they would not have diminished the second amendment though, for the reasons I’ve already stated.
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
At the end of the day though, the question is do you completely trust the government and the people in power? If you do, please explain why. If you don’t, please explain what power we have to hold the government accountable and ultimately protect Liberty.
So when are you getting your tanks, artilleries, fighter planes and nuclear missiles?
Can regular citizens afford them?
A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
At the end of the day though, the question is do you completely trust the government and the people in power? If you do, please explain why. If you don’t, please explain what power we have to hold the government accountable and ultimately protect Liberty.
So when are you getting your tanks, artilleries, fighter planes and nuclear missiles?
Can regular citizens afford them?
I would say it’s comical that nobody will answer the questions, but it is actually very sad, and more than that, it’s dangerous.
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:
So when are you getting your tanks, artilleries, fighter planes and nuclear missiles?
Can regular citizens afford them?
I would say it’s comical that nobody will answer the questions, but it is actually very sad, and more than that, it’s dangerous.
You are the one who is refusing to answer the question.
You are planning to defend yourself against the federal government, right?
So when are you getting your weapons?
Uncle Samson wrote:
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 173,040
How many of those were caused by automobiles?
Imagine how many more we might have if...
-- drivers were not required to have licenses to drive their cars.
-- they were not required to register their cars.
-- they were not required to purchase liability insurance.
-- they were not required to wear seatbelts.
-- there were no speed limits and other traffic regulations.
Oh, I forgot. Only "law abiding drivers" follow those rules, so there would be no difference, right?
A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
[quote]A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:
[quote]Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
At the end of the day though, the question is do you completely trust the government and the people in
I would say it’s comical that nobody will answer the questions, but it is actually very sad, and more than that, it’s dangerous.
You are the one who is refusing to answer the question.
You are planning to defend yourself against the federal government, right?
So when are you getting your weapons?
Umm, you haven't attempted to answer a very important question I invited anyone to answer. Nobody has. The question is hugely significant as it indicates what reality is, and then asks for solutions to that reality. It forces people with an emotional opinion to either show they are coo coo for Cocoa Puffs, or to confront difficult realities in a logical solutions focused way.
I realize it is far easier to avoid difficult questions that are either beyond a persons ability or that force them to think critically on difficult subjects. Even more difficult if the answers could cause a person to reconsider their view or look stupid for not reconsidering. Thinking hurts. Not having all the answers sucks.
The world is not simple. If it was, we would have solved all the problems long ago. No political party has the answers. No politician has the answers. No news report has the answers. I’m sorry to be the one that has to tell you this.
I know it is much easier to avoid and to go back to the playbook of insult and emotional nonsense. It speaks for itself.
Avoiding the question does not reduce its relevance. It just shows that it is a question that you cannot effectively answer.
As for your question, I’ve never said I have or am getting weapons. I’ve never said I “plan to defend myself against the government”. I’ve spoken on the reason the second amendment exists. It has nothing to do with me, it is about a philosophy and the history and reason behind it, so your question is irrelevant and your attempt at distraction is tragic.
Sheep = Slaughter wrote:
A Typical LRC Idiot wrote:
You are the one who is refusing to answer the question.
You are planning to defend yourself against the federal government, right?
So when are you getting your weapons?
Umm, you haven't attempted to answer a very important question I invited anyone to answer. Nobody has. The question is hugely significant as it indicates what reality is, and then asks for solutions to that reality. It forces people with an emotional opinion to either show they are coo coo for Cocoa Puffs, or to confront difficult realities in a logical solutions focused way.
I realize it is far easier to avoid difficult questions that are either beyond a persons ability or that force them to think critically on difficult subjects. Even more difficult if the answers could cause a person to reconsider their view or look stupid for not reconsidering. Thinking hurts. Not having all the answers sucks.
The world is not simple. If it was, we would have solved all the problems long ago. No political party has the answers. No politician has the answers. No news report has the answers. I’m sorry to be the one that has to tell you this.
I know it is much easier to avoid and to go back to the playbook of insult and emotional nonsense. It speaks for itself.
Avoiding the question does not reduce its relevance. It just shows that it is a question that you cannot effectively answer.
As for your question, I’ve never said I have or am getting weapons. I’ve never said I “plan to defend myself against the government”. I’ve spoken on the reason the second amendment exists. It has nothing to do with me, it is about a philosophy and the history and reason behind it, so your question is irrelevant and your attempt at distraction is tragic.
Your question - “do you trust the government completely?” Is just a stupid straw man premise - so my response is why would anyone engage?
govLie wrote:
The founding fathers did not consider mass school shootings. If they had known that their second amendment would lead to sandy hook - a kid getting an assault rifle from his mom and mowing down school children - then they would have hedged it more than they did.
They did say “well regulated militia” and a modern (not founding farther era) activist conservative judge pretty much said you can ignore that first part of the second amendment because the founding fathers didn’t mean it.
So keep enjoying your fantasy land.
Our founding fathers endured a war that left tens of thousands dead triggered at taxes that would barely make most people think twice today. Given there risk tolerance in pursuit of liberty I'm pretty sure you do not know what they would have done.
And the second amendment does not state the right to bear arms is only as part of a militia as you suggest. It says the need to form a militia is a requirement to liberty and in order for that to happend the people need to be allowed to have guns. Anti-gun activists have tried to twist the second amendment language and the militia phrase to suit their needs. But it clearly implies that citizens need the ability to own guns in order to form a militia therefore the government can not infringe on that right. If you take away people's arms through regulation the ability to form a militia is impossible. Once the government takes away the people arms it will not give them back. Its not like the people can say government we feel you are violating our rights, we want to form a militia and the government is going to give them guns. The point of the the second amendment is the people need to be armed in defense of the tyranny of government before the government becomes tyrannical, not after.
If you look at the number of deaths caused by guns in the hands of private citizens vs the number of people killed by the government over time, its the government that is a bigger threat to people.