Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:

ATXMILEY wrote:

Meanwhile, you get despicable politicians and individuals(not going to name them but they should be obvious), who are homophobic, possibly racist religious fundamentalist who seem to get a lot support from many just for their stance on guns alone.

Because a lot of voters are despicable individuals who are homophobic, possibly rascist religous fundamentalists too.

It's not jsut Gun Rights.

Opening up this discussion to a debate on gay marriage could be interesting.

My gay Aunts in law are worthy Texas women who can shoot long barrelled shotguns like nobody's business.

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How does that line go for the Libertarian party? "I support gay married couples' rights to defend their pot farm with firearms?"

Which part of that is the bad part?

None of it is bad.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
How does that line go for the Libertarian party? "I support gay married couples' rights to defend their pot farm with firearms?"

Which part of that is the bad part?

None of it is bad.

Ah! I misread the tone of your message then. Carry on.

Guns.

America overall loves guns. As much as we love freedom, because the two are the same.

The 2nd amendment was originally intended to allow for the people to protect the state, it was adapted from the English bill of rights is often not fully quoted, and the actual quote pertains to the rights of protestants to not be disarmed by parliament of any weapons on their possession..

regardless prior to the 2nd amendment being ratified by congress, many of the states had their own laws allowing people to additionally have arms for self defence as well as to form militias for the state, along the lines of the English Bill of Rights.

The love of guns began then.

When some of the members of states who were defiant to the crowns rule decided it would be wise to stockpile weapons and form their own militia as they had the right to do so under the english bill of rights. in response the Brits embargoed firearms, parts for firearmes, and ammunition as trade items to the American colonies.

When supply went down, demand went up, and people got uppity about their "rights"- which at this time were British rights, not even 2nd amendment.

So the right to keep and bear arms was pre exisiting.

The continued problem with it, was even after the patriots formed an army and America came out of it, and even after many years of argument about how this right should even be worded, from the state level [many states have their own version of the right to bear arms int he states bill of rights, which is usually more detailed than the federal bill of rights with such things as "its absurd not to have arms.."] then being argued from the standpoint of the state levels elected politicians on a federal level.

so in the 20th century it was even more recently argued that individuals did not have rights to keep arms and rather it was that states had it, hence the national guard was born. It came from the state militias which were divided into to parts the national guard, and the reserve militia. It was argued at this time that the right to bear arms was given to the state militia, and then to the national guard. Another group argued that people had to right to keep and bear arms if they formed militia groups [hence all the militia groups in the 90s early 2000s], and lastly it was argued that it was an individual right. I am fairly certain this was just recently ruled by the supreme court back in 2010s.

In effect the government tried to change the rights given by the bill of rights to be rights of the state, but not rights of the individual.

Americans have a long history of rebellion, so obviously the general population did not take well to this interpretation, and not actually wanting to overthrow the government the next best thing is to buy more guns and ammo to show your opinion.

Of course i think some states, like Michigan, have more guns and ammo than many countries but hey...

It does keep the government from just coming in and taking your stuff like what was reported to happen prior to the revolution, but none of us lived through.

I guess in modern times it also prevents people from collecting debts from the U.S. or if the government ever collapsed would still be a major deterrent to anyone invading U.S. soil. Of course if the U.S. Government collapses so does most of the "1st world" so that's a whole different thing lol.

Yes America has a lot of gun deaths, but the majority of the world has much higher murder rates than the U.S. with many less guns per person...so maybe the idea that America is full of death and violence everywhere and guns is a little off.

blaktoof wrote:
Guns.

America overall loves guns. As much as we love freedom, because the two are the same.

The 2nd amendment was originally intended to allow for the people to protect the state, it was adapted from the English bill of rights is often not fully quoted, and the actual quote pertains to the rights of protestants to not be disarmed by parliament of any weapons on their possession..

regardless prior to the 2nd amendment being ratified by congress, many of the states had their own laws allowing people to additionally have arms for self defence as well as to form militias for the state, along the lines of the English Bill of Rights.

The love of guns began then.

When some of the members of states who were defiant to the crowns rule decided it would be wise to stockpile weapons and form their own militia as they had the right to do so under the english bill of rights. in response the Brits embargoed firearms, parts for firearmes, and ammunition as trade items to the American colonies.

When supply went down, demand went up, and people got uppity about their "rights"- which at this time were British rights, not even 2nd amendment.

So the right to keep and bear arms was pre exisiting.

The continued problem with it, was even after the patriots formed an army and America came out of it, and even after many years of argument about how this right should even be worded, from the state level [many states have their own version of the right to bear arms int he states bill of rights, which is usually more detailed than the federal bill of rights with such things as "its absurd not to have arms.."] then being argued from the standpoint of the state levels elected politicians on a federal level.

so in the 20th century it was even more recently argued that individuals did not have rights to keep arms and rather it was that states had it, hence the national guard was born. It came from the state militias which were divided into to parts the national guard, and the reserve militia. It was argued at this time that the right to bear arms was given to the state militia, and then to the national guard. Another group argued that people had to right to keep and bear arms if they formed militia groups [hence all the militia groups in the 90s early 2000s], and lastly it was argued that it was an individual right. I am fairly certain this was just recently ruled by the supreme court back in 2010s.

In effect the government tried to change the rights given by the bill of rights to be rights of the state, but not rights of the individual.

Americans have a long history of rebellion, so obviously the general population did not take well to this interpretation, and not actually wanting to overthrow the government the next best thing is to buy more guns and ammo to show your opinion.

Of course i think some states, like Michigan, have more guns and ammo than many countries but hey...

It does keep the government from just coming in and taking your stuff like what was reported to happen prior to the revolution, but none of us lived through.

I guess in modern times it also prevents people from collecting debts from the U.S. or if the government ever collapsed would still be a major deterrent to anyone invading U.S. soil. Of course if the U.S. Government collapses so does most of the "1st world" so that's a whole different thing lol.

Yes America has a lot of gun deaths, but the majority of the world has much higher murder rates than the U.S. with many less guns per person...so maybe the idea that America is full of death and violence everywhere and guns is a little off.

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

 Random Dude wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Guns.

America overall loves guns. As much as we love freedom, because the two are the same.

The 2nd amendment was originally intended to allow for the people to protect the state, it was adapted from the English bill of rights is often not fully quoted, and the actual quote pertains to the rights of protestants to not be disarmed by parliament of any weapons on their possession..

regardless prior to the 2nd amendment being ratified by congress, many of the states had their own laws allowing people to additionally have arms for self defence as well as to form militias for the state, along the lines of the English Bill of Rights.

The love of guns began then.

When some of the members of states who were defiant to the crowns rule decided it would be wise to stockpile weapons and form their own militia as they had the right to do so under the english bill of rights. in response the Brits embargoed firearms, parts for firearmes, and ammunition as trade items to the American colonies.

When supply went down, demand went up, and people got uppity about their "rights"- which at this time were British rights, not even 2nd amendment.

So the right to keep and bear arms was pre exisiting.

The continued problem with it, was even after the patriots formed an army and America came out of it, and even after many years of argument about how this right should even be worded, from the state level [many states have their own version of the right to bear arms int he states bill of rights, which is usually more detailed than the federal bill of rights with such things as "its absurd not to have arms.."] then being argued from the standpoint of the state levels elected politicians on a federal level.

so in the 20th century it was even more recently argued that individuals did not have rights to keep arms and rather it was that states had it, hence the national guard was born. It came from the state militias which were divided into to parts the national guard, and the reserve militia. It was argued at this time that the right to bear arms was given to the state militia, and then to the national guard. Another group argued that people had to right to keep and bear arms if they formed militia groups [hence all the militia groups in the 90s early 2000s], and lastly it was argued that it was an individual right. I am fairly certain this was just recently ruled by the supreme court back in 2010s.

In effect the government tried to change the rights given by the bill of rights to be rights of the state, but not rights of the individual.

Americans have a long history of rebellion, so obviously the general population did not take well to this interpretation, and not actually wanting to overthrow the government the next best thing is to buy more guns and ammo to show your opinion.

Of course i think some states, like Michigan, have more guns and ammo than many countries but hey...

It does keep the government from just coming in and taking your stuff like what was reported to happen prior to the revolution, but none of us lived through.

I guess in modern times it also prevents people from collecting debts from the U.S. or if the government ever collapsed would still be a major deterrent to anyone invading U.S. soil. Of course if the U.S. Government collapses so does most of the "1st world" so that's a whole different thing lol.

Yes America has a lot of gun deaths, but the majority of the world has much higher murder rates than the U.S. with many less guns per person...so maybe the idea that America is full of death and violence everywhere and guns is a little off.

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Dig deeper.

I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

aint nobody got time for that.

although looking at that I cant help but wonder whats going on in Greenland.

 Frazzled wrote:

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

You're new here... ain't ya?

 Random Dude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

We're number one in that too.

 daedalus wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

We're number one in that too.

OKay... I lol'ed at that.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

Good.

Further lets double down. I don't care if it were 3x. Its a right under the Bill of RIghts not subject to cost benefit analysis.
Or as the immortal bard once said: I find your lack of faith, disturbing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
aint nobody got time for that.

although looking at that I cant help but wonder whats going on in Greenland.

It just proves that hippy tree huggers - aka "greenies" are a threat...

Look at Latin America. We're right as we should be. Better than Latin America, worse than Canada, safe from Greenland.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

Good.

Further lets double down. I don't care if it were 3x. Its a right under the Bill of RIghts not subject to cost benefit analysis.
Or as the immortal bard once said: I find your lack of faith, disturbing.

I'm not arguing against the right to bear arms. I'm saying something needs to be done to lower the murder rate (preferably more mental health care). I know that the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who would never murder anyone. We need to help the mentally ill people who are driven to go on killing sprees.

Put them in a box with other mentally ill people. Throw in super soakers filled with old wiener dog pee. Watch the antics commence.

Alternatively, if like my Wife you frown on my admittedly unique desire to spray people I dislike with old wiener dog pee, its up to the states to report mentally nutso people to the database.

 Random Dude wrote:

Spoiler:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

Good.

Further lets double down. I don't care if it were 3x. Its a right under the Bill of RIghts not subject to cost benefit analysis.
Or as the immortal bard once said: I find your lack of faith, disturbing.

I'm not arguing against the right to bear arms. I'm saying something needs to be done to lower the murder rate (preferably more mental health care). I know that the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who would never murder anyone. We need to help the mentally ill people who are driven to go on killing sprees.

If you truly want to drive down murders... you'd might want to look at the culprits.

Drug related crimes....
Gang related crimes...
Organized Criminal compiriacy...

 Random Dude wrote:
Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

And yet many other things are far more deadly



Some context

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

And yet many other things are far more deadly



Some context

I say it again, I DON'T blame the violence on guns. I have an issue with violence of all kinds.

 Random Dude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The murder rate in America is higher than Canada and most Western European countries.

Good.

We're Number One Not Number Two!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
I didn't say the rest of the world, I said the majority of the world...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Probably should modify that to comparable countries with a major influx of criminals from other countries and open warfare on its border.

Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

Good.

Further lets double down. I don't care if it were 3x. Its a right under the Bill of RIghts not subject to cost benefit analysis.
Or as the immortal bard once said: I find your lack of faith, disturbing.

I'm not arguing against the right to bear arms. I'm saying something needs to be done to lower the murder rate (preferably more mental health care). I know that the majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who would never murder anyone. We need to help the mentally ill people who are driven to go on killing sprees.

The problem here is twofold. Most of those people that do this have no reliable indicators. There was some with the recent Isla Vista shooting but nothing with many others. The other problem is that laws in crafting that are looking to tackle this problem are looking to be highly abuseable, with very little proof or reason needed for the police to bust in and confiscate someone's firearms other than "someone called in and said they think he's crazy".

While I can agree there is a problem, I'm not sure that there's a reasonable answer in legislation.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Random Dude wrote:
Even though you were being sarcastic, I find your lack of concern for the problem of murder repulsive.

And yet many other things are far more deadly



Some context

Just saw this, but I noticed fire arms is one of the few on there which people dont kill themselves with (as much). I mean smoking? Thats killing themselves. Obesity, also killing yourself. The toxins MAYBE can be someone else fault along with diseases of sexual nature. But guns are something that USUALLY result in someone else killing you.

But the graph is really simple and doesnt explain much. For every graph there should be a graph AGAIN for each bar showing what each bar encompasses etc. Or we are only getting general information. I hate graphs that dont have heaps more graphs explaining it.

ALso thats a lot of guns.

I started this thread to talk about why people would antagonize and idolize politicians and public figures on their stance on guns alone.

To get my point across, people like Ted Nugent and Rick Perry, who are all massive bigots are praised whenever they talk about guns

ATXMILEY wrote:
I started this thread to talk about why people would antagonize and idolize politicians and public figures on their stance on guns alone.

To get my point across, people like Ted Nugent and Rick Perry, who are all massive bigots are praised whenever they talk about guns

I agree that they are massive bigots.

I don't think Ted Nugent is all there at this point. He's not a politician though.

Perry is definitely not praised on firearms. He's Obama esque in moving legislation forward. A lot of it was done despite him.

Perry is better known for his famous "adios mofo" to a cop who pulled him over one time.

ATXMILEY wrote:
I started this thread to talk about why people would antagonize and idolize politicians and public figures on their stance on guns alone.

To get my point across, people like Ted Nugent and Rick Perry, who are all massive bigots are praised whenever they talk about guns

The 'Nuge is an donkey-cave... and he'd be the first to tell you that.

But, Perry? I have problems with him being a politician... (and his hipster glasses) but, how is he a bigot?

I think the less said about Nugent the better...

The guy is seriously crazy.

EDIT: personally I'm not a huge fan of Perry either, but he's not my governor either so I don't have to care too much.

ATXMILEY wrote:
I started this thread to talk about why people would antagonize and idolize politicians and public figures on their stance on guns alone.

To get my point across, people like Ted Nugent and Rick Perry, who are all massive bigots are praised whenever they talk about guns

Why is perry a "massive bigot"?

ATXMILEY wrote:

But the bill of rights should be up to interpretation. Just as there are laws regarding the usage of the 1st Amendment, there should be laws regarding all of the other amendments as well.

Do you really want to give up more of your own rights?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Random Dude wrote:

ATXMILEY wrote:
I started this thread to talk about why people would antagonize and idolize politicians and public figures on their stance on guns alone.

To get my point across, people like Ted Nugent and Rick Perry, who are all massive bigots are praised whenever they talk about guns

I agree that they are massive bigots.

Do you guys know what the word bigot actually means? Even if you don't like those two, which is fine, how are either of them bigots?

Ehhhh. I think the case could be made for nugent with his "subhuman mongrel" remarks.

I agree with a fair amount of what he says, but he does cross a line for me with that stuff.