Tags:
Ahem.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.
As you were.
Then where does the whole right to bear arms thing come from?
Michael Perz said:Ahem.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.
As you were.
Thanks and ouch! I read every reply on this thread. what was my lapse of deep reading? I just don't agree with many/most Americans regarding the 2nd Amendment. I find it dated and misinterpreted. And I don't find it necessary to follow 200-year-old rules.
H3N3 said:Dunno. Heather is one of the smartest and most clear-headed people I know.
Might be better to just examine what it was about her momentary lapse of deep-reading that set you off. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:I think I just need to stop reading the forum.
H3N3 said:Someone needs a break from Chainlink.
Here's what I've learned:
When you delete your profile, all of the threads you create and all of your posts go away.
When you come back, your groups and your friends remain attached to your e-mail address so if you use the same one they will all reconnect to you regardless of your new handle. I can't remember but I think your events (the ones you've created) stay but become orphaned . . . I don't recall whether they become reattached to your when you return. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:What the fuck? What is it with people completely ignoring what's said in responses to their posts lately?
How about you respond to what I actually wrote instead of restating your feelings about the issue? I never attacked your stance on gun ownership. (Before you go assuming my stance on gun rights, keep in mind that you, or anyone else, hasn't a clue on my stance.) I was just clarifying that at no point was it stated that Miami muggers moving on to new prey was positive. It was stated as a FACT, not a 'that's good' or 'that's bad' opinion.
Your feelings are irrelevant to that shift in choice of victim the same way me stating that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago doesn't explicitly elicit anyone's opinion. It's merely a fact. And no, your post doesn't still stand because "I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone." had no place of being stated because it was never said that it was a win for anyone. Funny that I'm getting pissed about reading comprehension in a thread such as this.
heather stratton said:Well, I assume that Doug wouldn't consider that a positive result. But I think my point still stands regarding that comment. It's not better if the local criminal populace wants to mug tourists instead of locals.
My overall feeling is that it is not appropriate to carry a gun in most situations. I realize that many Americans already own guns, and I find that unfortunate. I wish things were different. But I am not going to own a gun, or support civilian gun ownership, just because some criminals own guns. PS, spare me the 2nd Amendment speech. It is vaguely worded, the Constitution has been wrong before, I am entitled to my opinion, etc. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:Heather,
Doug never said it was a win for anyone. It's simply that not knowing if someone is armed or not is a deterrent to would-be muggers. I doubt Doug was implying that tourists getting mugged instead of locals is a plus. heather stratton said:Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth. mattbikes1 said:
I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
The Constitution acknowledges that those rights already exist and only serves to protect those rights by strictly limiting how the government may act against them. The granting of rights is the realm of kings and dictators, not constitutional republics. I realize that many would see this as a toMAYto/toMAHto distinction, but I maintain that it is a crucial one.
notoriousDUG said:Then where does the whole right to bear arms thing come from?
Michael Perz said:Ahem.
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.
As you were.
Yes, for personal reasons I don't particularly care for the second amendment. I think it is UNETHICAL to own guns... not illegal. I know it's legal, and likely will be for a long time. I wish they were outlawed, true. But I know they're not. I maintain my principled stance against guns.
You have questions about women's suffrage or prohibition? Go ahead. We all benefit from wrestling with these issues. How do we interpret a document that was written over 200 years ago but that continues to shape our lives? I think these are profound and important thoughts, and I'm glad we're addressing them here.
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth.
mattbikes1 said:
I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
I actually have a question for you. Why do you seem to be so afraid of guns? In terms of physical trauma, I'm far more terrified of being stabbed than being shot.
mattbikes1 said:Great points. I agree that the ban is absurd because it did not produce the intended result of making Chicago safer from gun crimes. I would like to see some stronger laws about bad driving and dangerous use of motor vehicles too.
I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Maybe I have a differing view of why laws are passed. To make a society safer and less chaotic. Surely not the result that is always achieved but regardless, we are talking about guns and gun laws here. Why use obtuse analogies and comparisons?
my obtuse comparison was in line with what you were suggesting. and yes, i do recognize the difference. but a protective gun in the home IS a bit of insurance AND assurance...one that a policy on paper, nor the police can satisfy.
what we are talking about here...is that honest people were not able to protect themselves. from intruders or attackers, and even more substantially so...as to why this amendment was put instated in the first place...from the government.
this city is plagued with crime, crime often commited with the illegal use of handguns (which we have already covered that its an ineffective ban, and ultimately harms the security of non criminals trying to protect themselves from criminals).
mattbikes1 said:Great points. I agree that the ban is absurd because it did not produce the intended result of making Chicago safer from gun crimes. I would like to see some stronger laws about bad driving and dangerous use of motor vehicles too.
I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Maybe I have a differing view of why laws are passed. To make a society safer and less chaotic. Surely not the result that is always achieved but regardless, we are talking about guns and gun laws here. Why use obtuse analogies and comparisons?
Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth.
mattbikes1 said:
I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
Can you explain that a little further, or provide a source reading material? I don't understand why muggers moving to target tourists is a win for anyone. Certainly not for Miami, if it gets a reputation like that. Tourism is a big part of their economy.
notoriousDUG said:Actually more guns do make for a safer society. When Miami passed concealed carry muggings and other violent crime went down and the police discovered that muggers where staking out the international terminal at the airport because foreign tourists where sure to be unarmed and carrying something worth taking.
I hate to sound like I'm just blurting out talking points but as they say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' they are speaking the truth.
mattbikes1 said:
I just can't understand how adding more guns to a population equals a safer one. More free? Maybe. But safer? I don't think so.
262 members
203 members
269 members
63 members
172 members