9yr old girl and Uzi

[Stumpy 256]

Pretty sure God (whichever one you are talking about) has nothing to do with it.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[quade 3]

stayhigh

Gun rights are god given natural rights to an American.

Nonsense.

At best they are rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, which is actually quite debatable. Happens all the time based on comma placement and Supreme Court decisions.

Guns are absolutely NOT a "god given natural right" to anyone.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

At best they are rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, which is actually quite debatable.

Correct on the debatable. Well, not really. Like the others in the BoR, it did not grant anything, it protected and guaranteed that existing rights would persist. To suggest what you did - shows a terrible misunderstanding.

And then you really stepped in the dogshit talking about commas.

[dmkellett 0]

simple statistics seem to elude everyone inside the united states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

the only countires that are worse are utter hell holes in south america and places like south africa

in the developed world, USA leads the way in gun deaths.. Go team MERICA

[Bolas 5]

If the anti gun and gun restriction groups find a way to get criminals to obey the existing gun laws, gun owners might be more open to new ones if needed.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[cgriff 0]

quade

Nonsense.

At best they are rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, which is actually quite debatable. Happens all the time based on comma placement and Supreme Court decisions.

Guns are absolutely NOT a "god given natural right" to anyone.

One can debate "god given" if he likes. One cannot pretend that rights are not inherent and assign their creation to the Constitution. According to all of our Founders, founding documents, and plain common sense, rights are inherent in people and NOT granted by the government or the Constitution.

[quade 3]

cgriff

***Nonsense.

At best they are rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, which is actually quite debatable. Happens all the time based on comma placement and Supreme Court decisions.

Guns are absolutely NOT a "god given natural right" to anyone.

One can debate "god given" if he likes. One cannot pretend that rights are not inherent and assign their creation to the Constitution. According to all of our Founders, founding documents, and plain common sense, rights are inherent in people and NOT granted by the government or the Constitution.

Please use just a bit of logic here.

IF the rights are naturally inherent, then why would anyone need to add them into the Constitution at all, let alone a few years after the fact?

I have an inherent right to breathe. It doesn't need to be put in any constitution whatsoever because it is a natural part of simply existing. There are many things in that logical set.

Having a gun is not a part of that logical set.

In order for it to be a part of my rights as a member of a society, it HAS to be written down as part of the basis for living in a particular society. Otherwise they would not have to be written down at all.

The proof of this are countries where you do NOT have the right to a gun.

Again, it is, in fact, the Constitutional Amendment that is granting you the right. It's a construct of the society; not natural law or granted by god.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,122]

The attached article sums up nicely what I think is the complete;ly fucked up scenario the US has created for itself. Obviously you guys have the right to fuck things up, just don't wonder why others don't understand.

http://time.com/#3222257/a-tale-of-two-9-year-olds-the-one-on-the-playground-and-the-one-with-an-uzi/

[stayhigh 2]

You guys are gonna have to pry my gun off from my cold dead hand.

It is god given right. U.S. Constitution says so.

Bernie Sanders for President 2016

[D22369 0]

a simple concept seems to elude some folks

if we ban guns across the board the criminals/ gangbangers will still have them and still be committing the same crimes they do now

get rid of all guns in the USA you say? how? do you think criminals will obey some bullshit gun registration law when they ignore all other laws *(hell- do you really think even the non criminals will obey a gun registration?)


we do have a problem in this country but it begins way before a lowlife gets their hands on a weapon.

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

D22369

a simple concept seems to elude some folks

if we ban guns across the board the criminals/ gangbangers will still have them and still be committing the same crimes they do now

get rid of all guns in the USA you say? how? do you think criminals will obey some bullshit gun registration law when they ignore all other laws *(hell- do you really think even the non criminals will obey a gun registration?)


we do have a problem in this country but it begins way before a lowlife gets their hands on a weapon.

I don't think anybody thinks they can get rid of all the guns in the US.

The question is if guns are less easily obtainable if gun deaths in the US are reduced to a number where you can be equal to the rest of the modern world.

Secondly, the question is if that is even something Americans care about.

In my opinion, the original premise of the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid. Is that even important to that discussion?

[D22369 0]

it is valid - many of the antigun crowd feel that by disarming the honest/law abiding people in this country that somehow magically gun crimes will just stop.

we have mexico right next door - a border that if it were a boat couldn't hold any amount of water - our govmnt doesn't want to secure it and the mexican govmnt is complicit in the drug trades - both guns and drugs flow freely across it - right now I am pretty sure its more drugs than guns but if guns were banned/confiscated I have no doubt that the balance between the two would shift a bit as profit could be had.

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[Stumpy 256]

stayhigh

It is god given right.

Keeping saying something doesn't make it true.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 2,400]

>At best they are rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution,

Well, no. The 2nd amendment doesn't say that Americans are given the right to own guns. It says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Constitution operates on the principle that you have every right imaginable; the Constitution (and by extension the government) can only remove them. The Second Amendment says that that's one right you can't remove.

That, for example, is why BASE jumping is legal anywhere it's not prohibited, as opposed to the opposite.

[kallend 1,623]

stayhigh

You guys are gonna have to pry my gun off from my cold dead hand.

It is god given right. U.S. Constitution says so.

Please quote the section of the Constitution that states that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

billvon

>At best they are rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution,

Well, no. The 2nd amendment doesn't say that Americans are given the right to own guns. It says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Constitution operates on the principle that you have every right imaginable; the Constitution (and by extension the government) can only remove them. The Second Amendment says that that's one right you can't remove.

That, for example, is why BASE jumping is legal anywhere it's not prohibited, as opposed to the opposite.

Hence my the use of the phrase, "at best" and in a prior post the word "debatable."

While the US Constitution does imply the notion of "that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed." That doesn't mean it grants all rights to all humans unless there is specific verbiage to the contrary.

For instance, not being a slave.

I would say that not being a slave is a pretty basic human right and ranks much higher than "gun owner." Yet, it was only through legal actions that the right to "not be a slave" came to be.

While it's all fine, high and mighty to claim the US allows "that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed." The TRUTH is some very basic human rights do NOT exist in any country without them first being written down.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

SkyDekker

The attached article sums up nicely what I think is the complete;ly fucked up scenario the US has created for itself. Obviously you guys have the right to fuck things up, just don't wonder why others don't understand.

http://time.com/#3222257/a-tale-of-two-9-year-olds-the-one-on-the-playground-and-the-one-with-an-uzi/

If you (general you) think authorities should go after the parents of the girl in the Uzi incident then one of the least convincing arguments you can make is presenting an example of authorities over-reacting and trumping up charges when they got involved in some other situation.

"I knew it, I'm surrounded by assholes... Keep firing, assholes!"

[billvon 2,400]

>I would say that not being a slave is a pretty basic human right and ranks much
>higher than "gun owner." Yet, it was only through legal actions that the right to
>"not be a slave" came to be.

Good example. The original Constitution included a provision that you had to return escaped slaves, hence inherently denying a right to "not be a slave." It took an amendment to that Constitution to make it clear that was illegal.

Thus if there was a statement in the original Constitution about who could confiscate guns from people, that would inherently remove the right to own guns - and the Second Amendment would have, in fact, granted that right where there once was none.

[riggerrob 558]

stayhigh

You guys are gonna have to pry my gun off from my cold dead hand.

It is god given right. U.S. Constitution says so.

.............................................................................

God did not write the American Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Both those documents were written by long-dead white men.
They wrote both those documents for a vastly different country than the modern USA.
That was long before the industrial revolution, long before steam locomotives, long before breach-loading fire-arms, long before magazine-fed rifles, long before machine guns.
Back then the worst drug dealers imported tea without the appropriate tax stamps.
Back then some of the authors of the Constitution and BOR investing in tea importation business.
Their primary motivation was to arm local militias to prevent British soldiers from meddling in the tea trade .... tax stamps or no tax stamps.
By that logic the American Constitution and BOR were both written by out-law drug dealers who wanted to entrench their "God-given right" to arm their gang members against the British government's tax-enforcement officers.
B

[kelpdiver 2]

dmkellett

in the developed world, USA leads the way in gun deaths.. Go team MERICA

Meanwhile you retain the title for highest rate of shark deaths. True also for dingos and kangaroos, I understand.

[rushmc 18]

riggerrob

***You guys are gonna have to pry my gun off from my cold dead hand.

It is god given right. U.S. Constitution says so.

.............................................................................

God did not write the American Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Both those documents were written by long-dead white men.
They wrote both those documents for a vastly different country than the modern USA.
That was long before the industrial revolution, long before steam locomotives, long before breach-loading fire-arms, long before magazine-fed rifles, long before machine guns.
Back then the worst drug dealers imported tea without the appropriate tax stamps.
Back then some of the authors of the Constitution and BOR investing in tea importation business.
Their primary motivation was to arm local militias to prevent British soldiers from meddling in the tea trade .... tax stamps or no tax stamps.
By that logic the American Constitution and BOR were both written by out-law drug dealers who wanted to entrench their "God-given right" to arm their gang members against the British government's tax-enforcement officers.
B

You really need to read the Federalist Papers......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cgriff 0]

quade

In order for it to be a part of my rights as a member of a society, it HAS to be written down as part of the basis for living in a particular society. Otherwise they would not have to be written down at all.

The proof of this are countries where you do NOT have the right to a gun.

Again, it is, in fact, the Constitutional Amendment that is granting you the right. It's a construct of the society; not natural law or granted by god.

and that argument was, in fact, made. The opponents argued that people were too dumb for that to fly and that if they didn't spell out the rights, government would eventually run roughshod over them. Sadly, what we've seen is that, even if they ARE spelled out, government will run roughshod over them.

Let's look outside the US. Ever hear of countries/governments being accused of "human rights violations"? If you're correct and all rights come from those governments, how could any government ever violate them? No, again, all rights are inherent. Your particular government may not recognize them, and may violate them quite frequently, but that doesn't change the basic rights themselves.

(By the way, on a related note, look at ammendment ten... Very similar situation. In a vain attempt to idiot proof the Constitution, they decided to actually include a note that says only the powers listed here belong to the government.)

[doorgirl 0]

quade

***>At best they are rights granted by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution,

Well, no. The 2nd amendment doesn't say that Americans are given the right to own guns. It says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Constitution operates on the principle that you have every right imaginable; the Constitution (and by extension the government) can only remove them. The Second Amendment says that that's one right you can't remove.

That, for example, is why BASE jumping is legal anywhere it's not prohibited, as opposed to the opposite.

Hence my the use of the phrase, "at best" and in a prior post the word "debatable."

While the US Constitution does imply the notion of "that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed." That doesn't mean it grants all rights to all humans unless there is specific verbiage to the contrary.

For instance, not being a slave.

I would say that not being a slave is a pretty basic human right and ranks much higher than "gun owner." Yet, it was only through legal actions that the right to "not be a slave" came to be.

While it's all fine, high and mighty to claim the US allows "that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed." The TRUTH is some very basic human rights do NOT exist in any country without them first being written down.

The notion of "that which is not expressly forbidden is allowed" isn't implied, it is explicitly stated.

The ninth amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The tenth amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Just because the federal government is running roughshod all over the states and the people, at least as far as the restrictions written into the Constitution, does not make it OK.

...

And as to the several statements about why the amendments are needed... Have you ever sat down with a team to write something, and perhaps realized after you were finished and people were reading it that some of your points weren't as clear as you intended? Did you ever put out an addition or revision to clarify key points? The Bill of Rights immediately followed the Constitution for that reason.

Of course it took less than a generation for people in power to start maneuvering for more power, and sadly many Americans are as misinformed about the intended style of governance as our international friends here.

Those of us who can look in our family tree to relatives that escaped extermination by chance know that privately held guns, both in the sense of individuals and unregistered guns, are the best way to keep at bay other monsters who may wish to wipe us or others out in the future. If higher gun deaths vs other countries was actually a good metric, I would view some level of increased gun death as a maintenance payment to prevent a potential future genocide.

But how comparable are gun deaths rates as a comparison of the risk/benefit of privately held firearms? In the US, home invasions are very rare however in the UK the rate is terribly high. Having guns "out there" in the US makes bad guys and gals choose to wait til we aren't home to rob us rather than tie us up and do whatever when they rob us. What of other violent death rates? It has been a while since I looked up the numbers, but they are not so compelling. Does a murder victim care if they are shot, stabbed, or bludgeoned to death? Well, probably yes. I would have to guess that I would prefer to be shot and killed than beaten, stabbed, strangled, burned, killed through sodomization, stoned, or many of the other ways to kill someone without a gun. And as a member of the weaker sex, I would also like to have a tool that equalizes strength differences to protect myself from lethal or life altering attack.

So yeah, those of you in other countries I would appreciate it if you could just sit back and enjoy the show rather than trying to interfere in our political fights. Check out these resources if you want to learn, and help us poor Americans by letting people vote with their feet to move to your country rather than changing us. And those of you in the US who believe in gun control because you think it will make people safer, I would ask that you poke around on the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership site for a bit to learn of both the racist history (and present) of gun control in the US and it's other influences. The jfpo.org website has some great resources.

[riggerrob 558]

Criminals will always have guns.
If I fear gun violence, it is very easy to avoid armed criminals. Drug dealers shoot other drug dealers on a regular basis in Vancouver. Drug dealers rarely shoot innocent civilians in Vancouver. It is easy to avoid the neighbourhoods frequented by drug dealers .... ergo it is easy to avoid drug dealers ...... ergo it is easy to avoid armed criminals ...... ergo it is easy to avoid getting shot.

[DanG 1]

The right to bear arms is not granted by the second. The plain text makes it clear that the right exists on its own, and it shall not be infringed:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

- Dan G