Someone please tell me where the debate in the US says to ban all guns?

Someone please explain how a knife is equally as deadly as a gun? (It could be argued that anything could indeed kill you and therefore all things are equally deadly, but if I offer you a pint of water and a pint of cyanide, which would you want to consume?)

Someone please explain how gun laws = banning guns.

Someone please explain how increased restrictions is a punishment for law-abiding citizens. (for instance, if the road beside my house had the speed limit dropped from 35 to 15 mph, it isn't a punishment to those of us who currently do the speed limit. And yes, gun crime (just like the frequency of speeding tickets given on that road) will go up. That is because there would be new laws to break. So, when a country has new gun laws and restrictions and they see a subsequent "increase" in gun law violations, it does not mean the laws are not working, it means they are)

Quote:The 2nd amendment also lists things like "well-regulated" and "militia." I agree with both of those. Gun laws are necessary, and need to be regulated efficiently. And if militia does not mean military,

The gun nuts hate it when you mention that stuff, TBD. They love to yammer on about the fucking constitution as long as they don't have to read all the hard words.

The right to bear arms was a "collective" ( not individual ) right until Bush's fascist fuckwads on the court put the profits of the death merchants above the lives of the citizenry.

(December 6, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The 2nd amendment also lists things like "well-regulated" and "militia." I agree with both of those. Gun laws are necessary, and need to be regulated efficiently. And if militia does not mean military,

The gun nuts hate it when you mention that stuff, TBD. They love to yammer on about the fucking constitution as long as they don't have to read all the hard words.

The right to bear arms was a "collective" ( not individual ) right until Bush's fascist fuckwads on the court put the profits of the death merchants above the lives of the citizenry.

To be fair, the collective vs individual thing might go back to the 50's and the Supreme Court

Have we established the definition of "Gun Nut"? Personally, I'd appreciate some clarification.

(December 6, 2013 at 4:39 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 4:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The gun nuts hate it when you mention that stuff, TBD. They love to yammer on about the fucking constitution as long as they don't have to read all the hard words.

The right to bear arms was a "collective" ( not individual ) right until Bush's fascist fuckwads on the court put the profits of the death merchants above the lives of the citizenry.

To be fair, the collective vs individual thing might go back to the 50's and the Supreme Court

1939

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

Quote:On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held: The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

But what is such an argument when Smith and Wesson is waving metric fuck tons of cash around, eh?

(December 6, 2013 at 5:43 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: Have we established the definition of "Gun Nut"? Personally, I'd appreciate some clarification.

Min?

(December 6, 2013 at 6:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But what is such an argument when Smith and Wesson is waving metric fuck tons of cash around, eh?

Is this going to be one of those cases of "I have much evidences of this but I won't show them"?

My stance on guns is this:

Lethal firearms kill people. People are useful. People are not useful when they are dead or severely injured. Living people have redeeming qualities, especially a learning brain. People can fit any role required of them given enough time. Therefore I do not support lethal firearms if their main function is to kill or severely injure people.

That is my reasoning, emotions aside.

My solution is to equip the populace with non-lethal disarms to defend against any hostiles, including those with lethal weapons. Tasers, spray, infrasonics, photonic weapons, I support the research and development of them all.

(December 8, 2013 at 2:40 am)Walking Void Wrote: ..My solution is to equip the populace with non-lethal disarms to defend against any hostiles, including those with lethal weapons. Tasers, spray, infrasonics, photonic weapons, I support the research and development of them all.

Non-leathal weapons provoke a horrific surge in use. This TED talk has a great expose on non-lethal weapons.

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_coleman...apons.html

(December 6, 2013 at 7:52 pm)Chas Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 6:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But what is such an argument when Smith and Wesson is waving metric fuck tons of cash around, eh?

Is this going to be one of those cases of "I have much evidences of this but I won't show them"?

You really want to get into a discussion of how much the gun nuts spend so they can keep killing people, Chas?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/busine...-advocates