Trump calls for raising minimum age to buy all guns to 21

For the second time.

 

Bullcrap, way more people save themselves by being armed, then those who die from criminal actions.

More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents

Millions of people protect themselves and their families with guns every day in the United States. They choose guns as a means of self-defense for the same reason the Secret Service uses them to protect the president: guns stop bad people from doing bad things to good people.

It’s absurd to speak about the right of self-defense in theory but then deny people the tools they need to exercise that right.

Without a gun, most Americans are defenseless at the hands of a violent criminal. How many of us have training in hand-to-hand fighting, the physical strength, and the mental resilience to react in a fight-or-flight situation to repel an aggressive predator, especially someone who attacks us first and is armed with a deadly weapon?

https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/

Yet based on your postings, you would prefer to have the law abiding disarmed, so they be victimized by criminals, why is it you wish that upon the law abiding?

 

So by most estimates the defensive use of guns per year vastly exceeds the 572,000 number of people that were killed by being shot in seventeen years.

 

It sure does and that calls into question why would someone want to remove firearms from law abiding people and inturn increase the firearm deaths per year by disarming those law abiding people?

My only thought is, they hate living so much, they want to force their suicidal tendencies upon everyone in an attempt to normalize the way they feel.

 

You have a little problem with ‘cause and effect’. The second amendment prohibits government from leaking law to infringe on an individual liberty, a right. What someone chooses to do with that liberty in another thing.fundamental to our foundation of law is it is that you cannot use one right to take away the rights, life, property, liberty, etc. of another.
Anyone advocating the removal the 2A, thus removing the protection of a long standing individual right that preexisted the Government and the Constitution is basically giving the government the power of the government to remove any individual right, which then extends even the individual right of life. The Constitution was written to limit the power of the government from becoming as tyrannical as the one they experienced and rejected which also was similar to the majority of governments of history. Thus advocating the removal of the second amendment is not much different than advocating against the undying logic and primary purpose of the Constitution, the preservation of individual liberty, which Madison argued in the Federalist Papers, was the primary purpose of government. The is why some of use see a politician’s position on the 2A as a litmus test.

 

Every year thousands die from drugs like Penicillin. The lives saved vastly exceed the risk. And it isn’t difficult to measure the benefit against the risk. Virtually, no one advocating gun control by citing the number of victims performs a benefit measure of the lives saved. One reason, among others, we can measure victims from crime and hospitalization reports, but few mechanisms are in place to capture the numbers of lives saved.

 

Very good reply Sir, I thank you for that.

 

We do not know how real are defensive uses of guns in which no one is even injured.

 

In my opinion, we can make an exception for the Amendment which has cost 572,000 lives between 1999 and 2016. People with suicidal tendencies also have a right to life.

 

The obvious question of "so what?" must ultimately be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such actually make?

Is the argument going to be presented on the part of yourself, that because the defensive use of firearms cannot be accurately measured, it should be regarded as too minute to be regarded as a justified usage of firearms?

 

I guess, it would take about 70% majority and the majority of legislators. A large majority can pass any law.

 

The united state supreme court has ruled that no such exceptions may be made, regardless of how many deaths can be attributed to the illegal use of firearms. The opinion on the part of yourself holds neither weight nor merit.

A right to life includes a right to end said life when and how the individual sees fit. And suicidal individuals have demonstrated that they no longer wish to continue existing, therefore they end their existence.

 

Some parts of Constitution like the Second Amendment are archaic and harmful to modern World.

 

I am nobody. Only the opinion of Majority matters. The opinion of a 70% Majority is The Law.

 

Bullcrap, they want to die so let them do it by the best method possible.

 

Very true.

Very incorrect.

 

And yet if one amendment within the bill of rights can be repealed on such a basis that it is deemed archaic to the modern world, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the same from being done to every amendment in the bill of rights. Due process could be eliminated entirely, meaning people such as yourself could be put to death without a trial. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment would be gone, meaning law enforcement could openly torture suspects into giving confessions of crime they did not commit.

 

Prove such to be the case. Prove that majority opinion supersedes the united states constitution in all cases.

 

Your opinion on the 2nd is just that; your opinion. At no time in US history, even during the height of the period, during which many supported infringing on the right protected by the 2nd, and gun laws were enacted, were there enough votes in Congress or among state legislatures to mount an effort to repeal the 2nd. If anything, opposition to the GCA agenda has increased demonstrated by the number of states that turned red in the last decade, switched from ‘may issue’ CCL’s to ‘shall issue’, and the number that have gone Constitutional carry.
As for the Constitution being Archaic and harmful, explain which parts or are you merely parroting what you have heard to weakly make a point?

 

There are protections in the Constitution to protect the minority from simple majority rule regardless of opinion.

 

Or what is known as mob rule.

Which produced a lot of lynchings of innocent people.

 

Most suicidal individuals lack capability to make rational decisions. The same is true for all minors -- they must be supervised by adults.

 

All Amendments can be repealed -- de facto or even de jure.

 

Maybe gun ownership was very important in protecting Liberty in the XVIIIth and XIXth Centuries. Now these guns serve to enable over 30,000 deaths per year in USA.

 

Sadly, Due Process is already gone.

Many people are tortured for decades by Supermax Prisons.