It's situational based on political views. It's only too great because he supports gun control. If it were 5000 deaths that would probably be too great.
The UK isn't the US. Not the same culture, not the same demographics. In fact very little is comparable. Also they are subjects of a government. We are not.
You already lied about ever human life being precious. Millions of people are expendable for transportation. So already you're convenience is more valuable than human lives to you. For you to single out just fire arms and praise lesser countries for their subjugation of their subjects undermines your claim that human life holds as great a value to you. Let's also not forget wars, a distant second in loss of human life behind vehicle traffic that you greatly benefit from.
That is how I interpret the 2nd amendment. I do not agree but given the founders intentions at the time the militia would need whatever arms are necessary to protect people's freedom and liberty. If the enemy is coming at you with attack helicopters should you be restricted to a musket?
That’s an emotional response, not one based on logic. And, to solve your ‘too costly’ complaint you propose what practical, workable solution that hasn’t been rejected hundreds of times before? What ‘new’ insights do you have besides an appeal to emotion?
It’s faulty reasoning. We have both an organized and unorganized component to the militia. The organized militia for the Army has nearly as many people enlisted as the standing army. It’s a huge number of people in the Guard and reserves. The idea that they are going to be allowed to do anything but be restricted like the regular Army, who can’t use any of their weapons unless commissioned to do so by being in a war zone is fanciful. Enlisted personnel can’t even carry military weapons around on base, let alone off. The unorganized militia is really, those of draft age that we haul into service during war time. That’s the only reason the draft is constitutionally valid. The idea that any Military associated militia could bring military weapons out side of their assignment areas is faulty also for one big reason; liability and the costs associated with it.
Only when you have a fascist style government as exemplified by Trump. He’s trying to over turn a proper run democratic election NOW. Be concerned for that !
I have repeatedly asked you why there are over 50 countries in the world where private firearm ownership is forbidden yet these countries have significantly higher homicide rates than the US which is the only country on the planet to have anything like a 2nd Amendment. According to your opinion, "permissive" gun laws are responsible for more homicides however, if that were the case the US should have the world's highest homicide rate but it doesn't......Why? * "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking" https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings
I think the problem is the left have decided that since there are some restrictions fine, that that means every damn restriction they can come up with is fine. Like since I can’t own a nuke, that means I can’t own a semi-automatic weapon. Then once that gets locked in, it will be “since I can’t own a nuke, that means I can’t own a revolver.” Then we get into the UK stuff. “Since I can’t own a nuke, that means I can’t own certain types of knives and all kitchen knives should be dulled.” No thanks. This is why we won’t give the gun grabbers an inch, because they won’t stop. They are never satisfied. The UK got rid of the guns, they were not satisfied, so they went after kitchen knives. They still were not satisfied, so now anything you use to defend yourself from an attacker is considered an offensive weapon; which means your defense was illegal. Which is why you don’t want to get caught there with a hammer in your car; it would make you a terrorist. And it all started with disarming the public first. Which is one reason why they have no problem going into people’s homes and arresting them for giving a Muslim a sad online. Once you take the guns, you can take all the rest of the freedoms. Which is why I will never give up my AR-15s.
There are no limits on the right to "free speech", as protected by the 1st. No more than not being allowed to commit murder with a gun is a limit placed on the right to keep and bear arms.
That's exactly right. To them, "no right is unlimited" means every limit to the right to keep and bear arms is acceptable. Never mind the fact they'd never allow similar limits to the right to an abortion.
In reference to your statement that " Not that [the founding fathers] could possibly have known the types of weapons that would exist down the track.", I asked you two questions Since you avoided then, I'll ask again: 1: Do you believe George Washington would have been taken exception to the idea that each of his militiamen owned and had in his possession an AR15? 2: Do you believe George Washington would have been taken exception to the idea that each of his frontier families had an AR15 (or three) above their transom? Please explain your answers.
List them. In general they are not industrialized free democracies. They tend to be right wing fascist dictatorial, and many third world countries. What’s your point ? A different story in higher income industrialized free nations
If they like being disarmed and at the mercy of the government, good for them. I am not interested in letting the police be the only ones with access to the guns worth a damn in a shootout.
Funny. Why isn’t our firearm death rate much lower. We have the highest private ownership rate ? Each year as more guns are sold along with our weak gun laws, you’d think we would be the safest in the world..we aren’t.
Exactly.....which is in full agreement with every firearm decision by the Supreme Court, even the conservative balanced SC. Until challenge and overturn, every regulation is enforceable. Few rights is absolute, including the militia related 2a.