Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

The Cost of Gun Deaths and Injuries in the US is Staggering.


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#31 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:34 PM

Guns are designed and manufactured for the specific purpose of killing living entities .. vehicles are designed and manufactured for the sole purpose of transportation ..

Apples and chimpanzee's? .. :picard:


Close enough. Guns...for the most part...the shotguns, the revolvers, the pistols that are not semi-automatic...they were manufactured (originally) for a different purpose than the so called "assault weapons" were. In my view, no one should need to own a military grade assault weapon. There is no justifiable reason for it. No one needs an AR-15 to hunt with...no one needs fragment grenades or flamethrowers either. It seems to me the only groups that are getting air time are the nuts on either side. Middle ground seems to be the safest footing, at least at this point. Hey...if these two groups decide to start "thinning out the numbers" of those who are radically opposed to them, I say let em have at it. I'm not in favor of and I'm not advocating going out and shooting stupid and ignorant people...I just feel the "ignorant" and "stupid" labels need to be stripped from them...eventually the entire mess will sort itself out. /tongue-in-cheek
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#32 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,650 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:02 PM

Or it could be due to past practises of throttling research and research money on gun violence pushed by the NRA changing like what occurred when the Big Tobacco lobby was pushed aside, similar things are happening in respect of firearms.


Come on now, what's next, the FAA, the USDA, the FCC and the U.S. Geological Survey all releasing studies on why civilian firearms are bad all of a sudden?
  • 2
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#33 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,974 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:06 PM

Come on now, what's next, the FAA, the USDA, the FCC and the U.S. Geological Survey all releasing studies on why civilian firearms are bad all of a sudden?


You forgot to include the Food and Drug Admin .. they should do a study on all the American folks who "eat their guns" .. or the Gamblers Anonymous Association's detailed research into the sudden increase in accidental death due to folks playing Russian Roulette .. it just may be a Commie plot ..

Edited by Tearloch7, 21 January 2013 - 05:07 PM.

  • 2

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#34 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:17 PM

You forgot to include the Food and Drug Admin .. they should do a study on all the American folks who "eat their guns" .. or the Gamblers Anonymous Association's detailed research into the sudden increase in accidental death due to folks playing Russian Roulette .. it just may be a Commie plot ..


I LOLed so hard. :P
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#35 key2thecup

key2thecup

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,013 posts
  • Joined: 28-November 07

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:05 PM

The Single Best Anti-Gun-Death Policy? Ending the Drug War

Universal gun confiscation is impossible, and even aggressive gun control might not dramatically reduce gun-related deaths. But ending our ridiculous and expensive war on drugs could.

Posted Image

Reuters


This is not a column against gun control. Gun control is a good idea. The assault-weapons ban is a good idea. So are background checks, stricter licensing agreements, and greater efforts to keep guns out of the hands of minors. A prohibitive tax on ammunition? There's another good idea finally getting attention it deserves, after being suggested by comedian Chris Rock a decade ago.

But much of the gun-policy commentary that has come in the wake of the tragic Newtown massacre is misdirected. Stringent gun-control measures are unlikely to turn the United States into a peaceful gun-free society like Japan. In addition, much of the hysteria over "rising gun deaths" is badly misplaced, since the violent-crime rate and the murder rate have both been declining since the early 1990s. If we really, truly want to reduce gun deaths, there is a much better way to do it than the gun-control measures.

THE IMPOSSIBLE DREAM: ZERO-GUN AMERICA

Having lived in Japan, I've known for many years how peaceful it is. Women can (and often do) walk down the street at night alone in a big city without fear of attack. Fights are rare, and murders rarer. And much, though not all, of this is due to the fact that Japan doesn't allow people to own guns. If you think Japan is a special case, check out Germany, France, and other gun-free countries.

But to become like Japan, banning gun sales wouldn't be enough. We'd have to actually confiscate all the guns that Americans now have. This is because guns are very durable; they last many, many years. The United States has far more guns per 100 people than any other country (88.8 in 2007, compared to 58.2 for second-place Serbia). It would take many decades for a gun sale ban to reduce that number to rich-country averages.

Nor is there any certainty that marginal reductions in gun ownership would bring matching reductions in the murder rate. Brazil, for example, has a murder rate more than four times as high as the U.S., with less than 10% of the gun ownership that we have. In other words, it's possible that appreciably reducing gun murders might require a truly huge (and unrealistic) reduction in gun ownership.

Now, if the U.S. banned gun ownership, and confiscated all the guns that people currently own, it would probably be very effective. But this is almost certainly politically infeasible, and if somehow the 14th Amendment were repealed and this law were passed, it would cause violent civil unrest. Additionally, lots of people could hide their guns. The effort required to confiscate them would be likely to turn our country into a police state.

So universal gun confiscation is out.

THE GUN NUMBERS TO FOCUS ON

Any gun control we enact will have a limited effect. But this should not be cause for despair. Much of the recent hysteria over gun deaths is misplaced.

A lot of people have been citing a recent report, "American Gun Deaths to Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 2015." The article shows that gun deaths in America are slowly rising, and now stand at 32,000 per year -- a staggering toll. Now, 32,000 deaths per year is a lot of death, and I'd never minimize that. But what the article's authors fail to mention is that gun murders comprise less than a third of that total -- about 9,000 per year in recent years. With accidental gun deaths steady at around 500-600 per year, the bulk of those 32,000 "gun deaths" are suicides.

In fact, murder by gun has been falling steadily since the early 1990s. Some of that is due to improvements in emergency medicine, but most is a result of the overall decline in violent crime that America has enjoyed over the last two decades. The fact that overall gun deaths has risen since 2000, despite the fall in murders, suggests that increased gun suicide has accounted for more than 100% of the increase in gun deaths. Obviously, suicide is a tragedy, and I don't want to minimize it. But people aren't panicking over suicide, they're panicking over murder, and gun-related murder is on the way down.

Of course, 9,000 gun deaths a year is still a lot. Still more than other rich countries, still a disgrace, still far too many! But people who have been watching the round-the-clock coverage of the Newtown massacre need to understand that "mass killings" of the Newtown type account for a very small percent of that 9,000. Most of those 9,000 gun murders are of the more mundane, but no less deadly variety -- drive-by shootings, gang wars, personal quarrels, and other easily comprehensible crimes.

And if we really care about those 9,000 souls who are shot to death each year, there is an extremely effective policy that we could enact right now that would probably save many of them.

I'm talking about ending the drug war.

A DRUG-WAR POLICY, NOT A GUN POLICY

Reliable statistics on the number of drug-related murders in the United States are hard to come by. A 1994 Department of Justice report suggested that between a third and a half of U.S. homicides were drug-related, while a recent Center for Disease Control study found that the rate varied between 5% and 25% (a 2002 Bureau of Justice report splits the difference). Part of this variance is that "drug-related" murders are hard to define. There are murders committed by people on drugs, murders committed by addicts to get money for drugs, turf-war murders by drug suppliers, and murders committed by gangs whose principal source of income is drug sales.

But very few would argue that the illegal drug trade is a significant cause of murders. This is a straightforward result of America's three-decade-long "drug war." Legal bans on drug sales lead to a vacuum in legal regulation; instead of going to court, drug suppliers settle their disputes by shooting each other. Meanwhile, interdiction efforts raise the price of drugs by curbing supply, making local drug supply monopolies (i.e., gang turf) a rich prize to be fought over. And stuffing our overcrowded prisons full of harmless, hapless drug addicts forces us to give accelerated parole to hardened killers.

Ending the drug war would involve reducing all of these incentives to murder. Treating addicts in hospitals and rehab centers, instead of sticking them in prisons, would reduce demand for drugs, lowering the price and starving gangs of income while reducing their incentive to wage turf wars. Decriminalization would relieve pressure on our prison system, allowing us to focus on keeping violent people off the streets instead of pointlessly punishing drug users for destroying their own health.

And full legalization of recreational marijuana -- which is already proceeding quickly among the states, but is still foolishly opposed by the Obama administration -- is an obvious first step.

In other words, yes, gun control is good. BUT don't expect it to be a panacea for America's gun violence problem. If we really want to save some of those 9,000 people, we need to end the self-destructive, failed drug policies that have turned us into a prison state and turned many of our cities into war zones.

http://www.theatlant...rug-war/266505/


Edited by key2thecup, 21 January 2013 - 07:08 PM.

  • 1

Dr. Ron Paul 2016!

Dr. Rand Paul 2016!

INFJ


#36 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,572 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:05 PM

Take out the suicides, who would have killed themselves through other means, if guns weren't available, and the gangster and thug related deaths, and you don't have much of a point from a government that presides over all sorts of costly and harmful practices.

One that's in no hurry to lead by example and give up its own firearms, be they state, private security detail or personally owned.


No, no, a thousand times no. Guns turn attempted suicides/murders into sure things.
  • 1

#37 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,974 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:08 PM

I LOLed so hard. :P


Thanks. man .. not everyone here has such a refined sense of humor as we do .. we be blessed .. B)
  • 1

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#38 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,974 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 21 January 2013 - 07:09 PM


Great read .. thanks for posting ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#39 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:41 AM

<p>

This is wrong. Highly wrong, no surprise the Huffington post makes **** up to justify gun control bias. Also, forgive me if part of the media's attempt to influence gun politics, and surely gun control sycophants will eat it up without questioning it.

What's wrong with the Huffington Post? I've seen you use stuff from Breitbart before.
  • 0

#40 woofwoofmoomoo

woofwoofmoomoo

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 11

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:57 AM

You don't know very much about US politics, so I can't blame you for repeating this nonsense yet again. Your inability to critically assess a source is blatant.

Okay, what makes YOU an expert on U.S. politics? You live in Canada too, right? He can't critically assess a source? A trained lawyer? What training do you have to assess this stuff?
  • 1

#41 Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,573 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 06:01 AM

YOU may all in favour of regulation but it seems a sizable number of Americans gun owners and the NRA are not. To them any regulation seems to equate with a ban on firearms.

Personally I am unsure how one can be happy given the carnage and cost inflicted by the ready availability of firearms in the US - it is a public health epidemic.

Because the NRA is little more than a mouthpiece for the gun manufacturers who see any regulations as a threat to their profits, most Americans could care less about Smith & Wesson's profits so they wave the second amendment around and make gun control sound like an attack on the constitution.

This is what the right to bear arms was referring to
Posted Image

Single shot, max four rounds per minute (by a professional soldier under ideal conditions) accurate up to about 50 yards.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Funny how the NRA and pro-gun nuts always ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment and jump right to the end.
  • 1
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal

#42 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:05 AM

<p> What's wrong with the Huffington Post? I've seen you use stuff from Breitbart before.


I ****ing LOVE the Huffington Post...I mostly just mess with the teabaggers and the fundamentalist Christians...they have such short fuses over there. muhahahaha.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#43 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 07:17 AM

Because the NRA is little more than a mouthpiece for the gun manufacturers who see any regulations as a threat to their profits, most Americans could care less about Smith & Wesson's profits so they wave the second amendment around and make gun control sound like an attack on the constitution.

This is what the right to bear arms was referring to
Posted Image

Single shot, max four rounds per minute (by a professional soldier under ideal conditions) accurate up to about 50 yards.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Funny how the NRA and pro-gun nuts always ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment and jump right to the end.


I'll make this statement assuming that the majority of the NRA and pro-gun nuts understand a: How to read at all, or b: reading and comprehension. "Context" is a dirty word among teabagging gun fanatics. Of course...someone who understands context...and understands the time frame in which that document was written...recognizes that when that clause was put into the Constitution, this extremely young and fledgling country had just gotten out of a long battle for independence from the British. The writers of this document put this clause in to provide that there would be a militia or "citizens' army" strong enough to fend off any other invasions from the Redcoats. In their WILDEST dreams...none of the authors would EVER have envisioned semi or fully automatic weapons nor anything really beyond a musket...let's be honest. The Constitution is firm and strong, but in some places needs to be updated to dispel extremists like the National Redneck Association.
  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#44 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,060 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:29 AM







:picard:

Edited by Heretic, 22 January 2013 - 08:35 AM.

  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#45 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,557 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:30 AM


  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#46 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:33 AM

I'll make this statement assuming that the majority of the NRA and pro-gun nuts understand a: How to read at all, or b: reading and comprehension. "Context" is a dirty word among teabagging gun fanatics. Of course...someone who understands context...and understands the time frame in which that document was written...recognizes that when that clause was put into the Constitution, this extremely young and fledgling country had just gotten out of a long battle for independence from the British. The writers of this document put this clause in to provide that there would be a militia or "citizens' army" strong enough to fend off any other invasions from the Redcoats. In their WILDEST dreams...none of the authors would EVER have envisioned semi or fully automatic weapons nor anything really beyond a musket...let's be honest. The Constitution is firm and strong, but in some places needs to be updated to dispel extremists like the National Redneck Association.



Makes me think that we should return to medical journals of the late 1700s too.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#47 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,974 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:37 AM

Makes me think that we should return to medical journals of the late 1700s too.


Bring on the leeches and "bleeding" .. B)
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#48 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,060 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:50 AM

Here's part 2:



More Americans have died from guns on their own soil since JFK was killed then all the Americans killed in all the wars that Americans have fought in. That's all the wars since there have been Americans.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#49 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:54 AM

Here's part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo&NR=1

More Americans have died from guns on their own soil since JFK was killed then all the Americans killed in all the wars that Americans have fought in. That's all the wars since there have been Americans.


I'll say this tongue-in-cheek...but in some ways I am quite thankful there are idiots out in this country speeding up nature's course as it were. This planet is severely overpopulated, and as there is no LEGAL way to thin out the numbers of the human race, I suggest we take all the warning labels off of everything in this world and let the problem sort itself out.
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#50 Mr. White

Mr. White

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,554 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:00 AM

More people die in the US from hands and feet than from guns
  • 0
Posted Image
^VanCauck93^

#51 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,060 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:09 AM

I'll say this tongue-in-cheek...but in some ways I am quite thankful there are idiots out in this country speeding up nature's course as it were. This planet is severely overpopulated, and as there is no LEGAL way to thin out the numbers of the human race, I suggest we take all the warning labels off of everything in this world and let the problem sort itself out.


What's so funny (not funny ha ha) is that Alex Jones talks about the issue with mental stability.
Well...I'm not a psychiatrist but Alex Jones is about as mentally unstable as there is - so he should not be allowed to own guns.
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#52 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:10 AM

What's so funny (not funny ha ha) is that Alex Jones talks about the issue with mental stability.
Well...I'm not a psychiatrist but Alex Jones is about as mentally unstable as there is - so he should not be allowed to own guns.


Hahaha (and yes funny haha) I agree with you 100%. Alex Jones would give Sigmund Freud a headache. ;)
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#53 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,650 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:25 AM

1968 is incidentally about the time when the street gang and thug demographic started settling their disputes with guns, after a long hiatus from the Prohibition era.

For that problem to be allowed for so long is mind boggling.

Anyway, take out the gang related deaths, the self defense killings by civilians and police, the suicides, and its a different story.


  • 1
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#54 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,060 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:27 AM

1968 is incidentally about the time when the street gang and thug demographic started settling their disputes with guns, after a long hiatus from the Prohibition era.

For that problem to be allowed for so long is mind boggling.

Anyway, take out the gang related deaths, the self defense killings by civilians and police, the suicides, and its a different story.


Anyway, take away all the wars that were fought and it's a different story.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#55 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:34 AM

Anyway, take away all the wars that were fought and it's a different story.


I'm yet to find any legitimate reason for the US to have been involved in any wars except the American Revolution and WWII after what happened at Pearl Harbor. In my opinion the US had no business in Korea, no business in Vietnam, no business in Iraq, the first or second time, and no business in Afghanistan. We have a very bad penchant for sticking our nose into other countries' business or playing policeman or playing older tougher brother to Israel. We need to start focusing on problems here domestically before trying to solve anyone else's. Guns are indeed an issue right now, but I honestly see the plummet of the failing economy and healthcare (for example insurance companies no longer paying for visits to a cardiologist, etc) as a much bigger one. The gun control thing to me is nothing more than a red herring to distract the American public from how badly they are getting screwed on health care and with the economy.
  • 1
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#56 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,650 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:36 AM

Because the NRA is little more than a mouthpiece for the gun manufacturers who see any regulations as a threat to their profits, most Americans could care less about Smith & Wesson's profits so they wave the second amendment around and make gun control sound like an attack on the constitution.

This is what the right to bear arms was referring to
Posted Image

Single shot, max four rounds per minute (by a professional soldier under ideal conditions) accurate up to about 50 yards.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Funny how the NRA and pro-gun nuts always ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment and jump right to the end.


The civilian firearms manufacturing industry just isn't that big, worth only a few billion a year, it's not a monster like Big Oil or Big Pharma, most of the NRA's budget must come from private donations. Nor is the NRA exactly unopposed, as well as most of the DNC and many Republicans, you have a dizzying array of NGOs and professional shills trotted out by the media to represent the opposing viewpoint.

Anyway, the 2nd Amendment didn't specify any technological limits on arms just as the first Amendment didn't specify any technological limits on means of communications.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#57 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:40 AM

The civilian firearms manufacturing industry just isn't that big, worth only a few billion a year, it's not a monster like Big Oil or Big Pharma, most of the NRA's budget must come from private donations. Nor is the NRA exactly unopposed, as well as most of the DNC and many Republicans, you have a dizzying array of NGOs and professional shills trotted out by the media to represent the opposing viewpoint.

Anyway, the 2nd Amendment didn't specify any technological limits on arms just as the first Amendment didn't specify any technological limits on means of communications.


So...because it didn't specify "limits" it gives these baboons today free reign to just take what the Second Amendment actually says and stretch it to include military grade weaponry?
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.


#58 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:53 AM

Because the NRA is little more than a mouthpiece for the gun manufacturers who see any regulations as a threat to their profits, most Americans could care less about Smith & Wesson's profits so they wave the second amendment around and make gun control sound like an attack on the constitution.

This is what the right to bear arms was referring to
Posted Image

Single shot, max four rounds per minute (by a professional soldier under ideal conditions) accurate up to about 50 yards.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Funny how the NRA and pro-gun nuts always ignore the first part of the 2nd amendment and jump right to the end.

Unfortunately the NRA and pro-gun nuts have the support of the Supreme Court of the US in the 5-4 majority ruling in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008) in that position.

The Heller case ignored decades of precedent to find an individual right to bear arms divorced from the "well regulated Militia" preamble by mixing in a common law right of self-defence.

The majority opinion is schizophrenic because it reaches back to historical writings outside the Constitution to try to base its decision and claim this was always what the Founding Fathers intended - an application of the "frozen concepts" or strict constructionist approach to constitutional interpretation yet they also say that modern weapons are covered by this individual right which covers modern weapons in current use??? The majority decision makes no internally coherent sense.

Personally I go with the dissenting four SCOTUS justices whose dissent and criticism of the majority opinion makes much more sense by being logically consistent, historically grounded and follows past precedent while being highly critical of the reasoning of the majority.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.


Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , provide a clear answer to that question.


The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Since our decision in Miller, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there;2 we ourselves affirmed it in 1980. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980).3 No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.

The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons. Unable to point to any such evidence, the Court stakes its holding on a strained and unpersuasive reading of the Amendment’s text; significantly different provisions in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and in various 19th-century State Constitutions; postenactment commentary that was available to the Court when it decided Miller; and, ultimately, a feeble attempt to distinguish Miller that places more emphasis on the Court’s decisional process than on the reasoning in the opinion itself.

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

http://www.law.corne.../07-290.ZD.html

However the majority opinion is currently the law and in 2010 its reach was extended to state legislation as well in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010). Thus there is a independent right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" irrespective of the "well regulated Militia" clause protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#59 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,650 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:00 AM

So...because it didn't specify "limits" it gives these baboons today free reign to just take what the Second Amendment actually says and stretch it to include military grade weaponry?


"Military grade" is inherent, in fact pretty much all the traditional hunting rifles used today were derived from what were at one time state of the art military rifle designs. The weapons used by the early U.S. Militia were in many cases better than what standing national armies of the day were using.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#60 Scott Hartnell's Mane

Scott Hartnell's Mane

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,211 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 12

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:03 AM

"Military grade" is inherent, in fact pretty much all the traditional hunting rifles used today were derived from what were at one time state of the art military rifle designs. The weapons used by the early U.S. Militia were in many cases better than what standing national armies of the day were using.


Realized I misworded that. What it was supposed to read is military grade ASSAULT weaponry. No one needs an assault weapon to hunt with...what are you hunting, Mastodon?
  • 0
Posted Image

Well I tell you what Heretic..if Tim Tebow becomes Terry Bradshaw I will shave off all my hair, convert to Christianity, go into the ministry and become a preacher.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.