Replacement amendment for the 2nd amendment. Agree?

Who is your superior? That you hand over rights to?

 

If you want debate then dont ask stupid questions. Your premise is laws are ineffective since criminals dont follow them. It's called a false premise question

 

I know exactly why you say that, but tell me this, wouldn't states rights need to first be removed out of the constitution?

 

Vegas, you need to read the Russia section of this forum and see the photos Russians show to us. I talk to Chinese who tell me that China is prospering and gaining fast. A lot of poor people remain but the numbers are falling quickly.

 

Russia is ranked among the most corrupt nations on earth. Their laws are pointless

 

More avoidance. Not surprising in the least bit. It is your M.O.

 

I accept your concession

 

Ah yes...that tired line of yours when you want to avoid answering direct questions.

 

So Your supposition is that the normal citizenry of the country should disarm so that only cops and criminals will be armed? Sounds like a necessary first step on the road to tyranny to me. And why pray tell do wish to make criminal activity safer?

 

Thank you for your opinion

 

Nope. I support the second amendment

 

My pleasure

 

I thought Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the "Commerce Clause" did that.

 

Whats a false premise is to try and enact new laws when the first set did nothing to stop the criminals who broke the probably most stead fast law of "you cant commit murder". Especially when nothing being proposed on a federal level even works where its already in place like CA.

 

Because we travel. Sometimes just pulling a trailer can become a problem because of what is allowed from state to state.

 

Not that I've noticed.

 

Yeah... We're not perfect.

But we're still better than everyone else.

 

Their corruption is high huh? You know, maybe you should look at the US before you start calling other countries "corrupt"? But anyways, the 3(4) world concept is truly outdated since it was a slur used to degrade communist countries. How about the term "developed/developing"? But I know you wont use that because Russia and China do fall into that category, even if some of their rural areas don't. And the US have less than developing areas of its own, but the places mostly inhabited in these countries share the best this world has to offer really.

But anyways, many places have gun bans, and they still have a ton of crime. If you are just going to go off the fact that less than developing nations still have high murder rates as your means to claim why they don't count in your tunnel vision, then I guess that's why Detroit and Chicago have highest murder rates in the world because they are essentially as developed as the on Congo or Brazil.

 

Their laws are made for the people, their "corruption" is based on those who made those laws. Corruption doesn't make them any less developed.

 

Gun laws or any laws are pointless without rule of law. Russia and china dont have it

 

Russia and china rank very high on the list of countries with high corruption. The US ranks very low. Compare the US to any first world nation....we have massive gun deaths comparatively

 

Thank you for your opinion

 

If the first set of laws....or all laws are not working they should be repealed. That is your premise. Laws do not work.

It is quite laughable

 

Really? Cause almost 100 million dead people in China would beg to differ that their laws weren't enforced. Russia is corrupt in the government, just as many other countries all around the world. The citizens are still highly punished for their crimes. Its the great thing about socialism though, the people are always punish harshly while the politicians can skate away scott free. But that doesn't mean their countries are still not developed.

You know, you trying to make this point about how their laws are "pointless" while trying to say our murder rate is higher than any "1st world" country kind of makes me wonder where you draw the line at "pointless".