Americans And Their Guns

I'm not much of a gun person either, but this is a heavily symbolic gun. It's the classic symbol of revolution and resistance to unjust authority.

 

Why?

You must've posted the wrong pictures because nobody is pointing a gun at an infant's head.

It amazes me how little you know about America and Americans, yet you seem to speak as if you're some kind of expert.

Where on earth did you get that idea?

You mean the Muslim guy?

Oh, somebody think of the children!!!! LOL.

 

Have you ever fired a gun? Ever cleaned a gun? Ever been to a shooting range? If not, you should go.

Isn't it funny how less guns mean more crime? It's funny to the criminals to be sure.

 

It means less crime, yet is also means more cases of rampant vengance. As one that is learning about law, the framework of any ordered society is to have a system of punishment that prevents people from taking vengance upon others for wrongdoing. Like I said, the issue rides the slippery slope. The two opposing viewpoints on the matter require aspects of illogical reasoning. I say leave it up to the states because the federal government cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms. Furthermore, if you bring the issue closer to the authorities who run "a well-regulated militia" or the National Guard, which are run by state governments, the citizenry can better address the matter.

 

Your witnessing the reason they NEEDED us to rescue them from the Germans in WWII. They are free because someone ELSE fought and died to set them free. If it was up to me I'd have let Hitler have his way with them.

 

Three times as many people die at the hands of drunk drivers than are killed by guns in the US. That just doesn't seem to be a problem for you does it.

 

Well, before I state my opinion on the matter, what source did you get this statistic from?

 

I have looked through the statistics. People killed by guns and people killed by drunk drivers is incomparable.

According to The Century Council, which utilizes NHTSA statistics, only 10,839 people were killed in drunk driving crashes in 2009. According to the Brady Campaign, in 2008, 31,593 people died from gun violence.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/Gun_Death_and_Injury_Stat_Sheet_2008__2009_FINAL.pdf

You should not have used drunk driving in comparison to gun violence.

 

How is that statistic a lie? Felons overwhelmingly support democrats.

In fact, think of how many people each year are killed by democrats as compared to republicans. Maybe we should worry less about guns and more about Obama voters.

 

I doubt the guns are real, but even if they were, the child was simply holding the weapon without ammo. How does this justify the aggression of the state to intervene and prohibit such an exercise in parental freedom?

 

Private property is a Natural Right, and guns are necessary to protect us from the State. Why would you want to make criminals, i.e., the government, the only people able to own guns?

Guns will be particularly necessary when the Libertarian Revolution comes, in the distant future, and we overthrow the government. So I support the message behing Santa and his guns.

 

If you are using the Constitution to form your position, you should know that the 2nd Amendment is binding against the states as well.

 

The 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states whatsoever. The only relationship to states is that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon in order for a state to maintain "a well-regulated militia." The Supreme Court has applied the restrictions on the 2nd Amendment in relation to the District of Columbia, but not the 50 states.

 

The second has indeed been incorporated. See McDonald v. Chicago.

 

I would certainly challenge the court opinion. The Bill of Rights protects states and the people from the Federal Government.

 

Just throwing this out there, there were 14,748 murders last year. 12,632 gun related homicides.

If we use the figure that 93% of the prison population supports democrats, and assume 93% of the murders were committed by democrats that's 13715 murders. Democrats murder more people than guns do.

Also, considering that there are 200 million privately owned guns in America and there are far less people who vote democrat it's pretty obvious that democrats are far more dangerous than the average gun.

 

You're arguing against the 14th Amendment and incorporation as a whole now. Do you hold the same position regarding free speech, press, and religion as well?

 

Religion: Separation of Church and State. People should be free to worship any religion without preferential treatment or crackdown at the hands of government. State constitutions uphold these rights.

Free speech: Maximum free speech. People have a right to redress grievances, and to assemble.

Press: Free press. An unbridled media is what makes this nation, despite political polarization.

 

I was asking if you thought that states have the right to abridge those three particular rights despite the fact that they've been incorporated and held to be binding against the states as well as the federal government, just like the right to keep and bear arms.

In short, in your opinion, can the California government disregard the first amendment at their discretion?

 

Sorry, I am a bit confused by the case summary I am reading. States and localities absolutely have the right to impose gun controls. After all, it is a reserved power.

 

Devoid of judicial precedence, no. However, that is just my opinion. If the court system did not establish any precedence, then states and localities absolutely have the right to disregard the first amendment. When the Bill of Rights was made, it protected the states and people from the federal government, it did not protect people from states and localities.

Again, this is why I favor matters over gun control, and other social issues being left up to the states. On a federal level, judicial interpretation hinders upon electors from having a true voice on these matters.

 

By the same reasoning then, states and localities would also have the right to impose restrictions on speech, the press, and religion. The Supreme Court has used the exact same rationale, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, to rule that both the First and Second Amendments are binding against state governments. You can't agree that the First should be incorporated but then hold the opposite position concerning the Second...at least not while remaining consistent.

 

Does anyone know how many gun related mass shootings there were this past year?
I can recall about three or four but I know there have been more...

 

I feel that on all matters concerning the Bill of Rights, states are the ultimate authority. On gun control, states and their electorate should decide matters. The same thing for the first amendment, states and their electorate should decide matters. The Supreme Court should stay out of matters that deal with reserved powers. Do I think states should be able to impose restrictions on speech, press, and religion, no. Do I think states should impose restrictions on the right to bear arms, maybe. What I think is that each state's electorate should decide.

Essentially, Congress should change the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to prevent it from ruling on matters that include reserved powers. I made this stance clear to you by stating in post #147 "Devoid of judicial precedence, no."

 

You can feel that way but the reality of the matter is quite different and has been for over a century. The only way I can see the situation changing would be by repealing the 14th Amendment which isn't going to be happening anytime soon.