An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
 
Sheriff Joe said:
Nice try, you in no way answered the question, how much do illegal alien criminals[that means every illegal in the USA] cost the USA, welfare, medical, incarceration and education.
Click to expand...

Your original question. "How much do illegal alien criminals cost the USA?" Do you not recall?. My reply answered that question directly but also included all immigrants. So by reasonable inference or guess, based on the article somewhere below 1.8B. Ton of money yes, but if we eliminated gun violence 3B costs, the other costs would drop as well. Ive heard all the 2A arguments so bring em.

The govt has the right and duty for safety and welfare for all of it's citizens to limit and restrict and regulate as necessary all arms that could be overly detrimental to all the citizens. Thats not the explicit reason for Miller VS US but the effect.
 
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
-Benjamin Franklin

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
-Zachariah Johnson, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 25, 1788
 
Sheriff Joe said:
What is a weapon of war? Fists, stones, spears, sling shots, bow and arrows, knives, which ones?
Click to expand...
Modern definition or weapons of war in terms of armaments are weapons designed for the purpose of securing military contracts and all variants within that scope.
 
Lion Eyes said:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
-Benjamin Franklin

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
-Zachariah Johnson, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 25, 1788
Click to expand...

I get it that you are a pseudo constitutionalist, hey good for you.

"That decision, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is – so far – the most important decision the court has ever issued on the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms.” But in that very ruling, the Court said explicitly: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It went on to say just as clearly that it was not barring the government from imposing “reasonable regulation” on that right." - from
Constitution Daily

Good review here - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../second_amendment_allows_for_gun_control.html
 
Sheriff Joe said:
So a colt 45ACP 1911? AR15 in .556? Remington 700 rifle in 300 win mag?
Click to expand...

Let me be more specific Weapons of War specifically long barrel Assault Style Weapons of which - AR10 in .308, AR15 in .556/ and all the various other round variations and variants of gas piston or Direct piston should be considered for stricter regulation. Don't get me wrong, I like shooting, but I don't like it that much that 20 babies, 49 young adults and now 58 parents kids and adults can get mowed down and think we can do nothing. We know the guns that do this.
 
If padduck had any variation of handguns, bolt action, lever action and shot guns, he could not of pulled off this massacre. The tools he used were specifically designed to do the damage they did from the range and distance he shot from. They are human killers, designed to do strictly that.
 
Lion Eyes said:
He probably had the best firearms of the time. He was part of the Boston Tea Party and was a member of the Massachusetts convention to ratify the Constitution.
He knew that a disarmed population was easily ruled over, controlled and terrorized.

From wikipoo:
The Brown Bess Musket muzzle-loading smooth bore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the American Colonists. This musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a "shotgun" effect. There were two variations of the Brown Bess: the Short Land Pattern and the Long Land Pattern. The Short Land was shorter, less bulky, less heavy than the Long Land. Most American fighters implemented the Long Land Pattern.

Large numbers of Charleville Model 1763 and 1766 muskets were imported into the United States from France during the American Revolution, due in large part to the influence of Marquis de Lafayette.[6] The Charleville 1766 heavily influenced the design of the Springfield Musket of 1795.

Long rifles were an American design of the 18th century, produced by individual German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Based on the Jäger rifle,[3] long rifles, known as "Pennsylvania Rifles", were used by snipers and light infantry throughout the Revolutionary War

Colonial Firearm Regulation
An examination of the Colonial statutes reveals that, contrary to Bellesiles‟s claim of distrusted and disarmed freemen, almost all colonies required white adult men to possess firearms and ammunition. Some of these statutes were explicit that militiamen were to keep their guns at home; others imply the requirement, by specifying fines for failing to bring guns to musters or church. Colonies that did not explicitly require firearms ownership passed laws requiring the carrying of guns under circumstances that implied nearly universal ownership. None of the Colonial militia statutes even suggest a requirement for central storage of all guns. None of the Colonial laws in any way limited the possession of firearms by the white non-Catholic population; quite the opposite.
http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Colonial_Firearms_regulation.pdf
Click to expand...

How many victims would have been killed in Las Vegas with those weapons?
 
Buddhabman said:
If padduck had any variation of handguns, bolt action, lever action and shot guns, he could not of pulled off this massacre. The tools he used were specifically designed to do the damage they did from the range and distance he shot from. They are human killers, designed to do strictly that.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
Buddhabman said:
Let me be more specific Weapons of War specifically long barrel Assault Style Weapons of which - AR10 in .308, AR15 in .556/ and all the various other round variations and variants of gas piston or Direct piston should be considered for stricter regulation. Don't get me wrong, I like shooting, but I don't like it that much that 20 babies, 49 young adults and now 58 parents kids and adults can get mowed down and think we can do nothing. We know the guns that do this.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about the death penalty and abortion?
 
Buddhabman said:
I get it that you are a pseudo constitutionalist, hey good for you.

"That decision, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is – so far – the most important decision the court has ever issued on the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms.” But in that very ruling, the Court said explicitly: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It went on to say just as clearly that it was not barring the government from imposing “reasonable regulation” on that right." - from
Constitution Daily

Good review here - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../second_amendment_allows_for_gun_control.html
Click to expand...

And at every preceding instance in American historywhere the 2nd Amendment was part of an argument before the Supreme Court attempting to overturn a law, it was disallowed.
 
Buddhabman said:
I get it that you are a pseudo constitutionalist, hey good for you.

"That decision, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, is – so far – the most important decision the court has ever issued on the scope of the “right to keep and bear arms.” But in that very ruling, the Court said explicitly: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It went on to say just as clearly that it was not barring the government from imposing “reasonable regulation” on that right." - from
Constitution Daily

Good review here - http://www.slate.com/articles/news_.../second_amendment_allows_for_gun_control.html
Click to expand...
Coming from a 'pseudo' intellectual, it ain't that good...
We've had several discussions on Heller and the most important finding was the right of individuals to own firearms.
I don't know where you think I stand regarding gun control, but you're probably wrong.
 
I doubt the Founding Fathers meant for the US Constitution to be a document unable to evolve with Society and Technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top