Guns, Waiting Periods and Anger

Toker, you idiot:

...so your challenge was somewhat skewed, yet I still found two principles espoused in the papers that did not make it to the constitution (ending slavery and non-necessity for a bill of rights).... Your original point was that the Federalist Papers detail the thinking of the founding fathers. Mine was that they detail the thinking only of a limited few of the founding fathers, and as in the example of slavery, could describe principles they held strongly that were intentionally not in the ratified document due to different opinions held by the majority.

Fire power increases. The ability to conduct mass killings will increase in lock step. More and more people will die till finally we the people will rise up and demand change.

How many more people will be slaughtered before we the people demand change.? I've hit my limit and am willing to consider significant restrictions on 2nd amendment rights. But if the gun toters don't rally to this cause then nothing will change and the bodies will continue to pile up.

We'll fix it. Liberal social remedies take time to implement, but we always win, eventually.

I would wager most of those good sheeple don't even know what the Bill of Rights is.

Still waiting for Madbolter's libertarian constitutional explanation why right to bear arms cannot be restricted in any way even when it infringes the equal rights of others, when all other rights are routinely limited?

Good luck - you picked the guy with the worst critical reasoning skills on the site.

The conflict with the right to life emerges ONLY when people DO (actively, positively) something that infringes another person's right to life... such as using a weapon to kill another person.

But that is ALREADY illegal on countless legal levels!

TE, you haven't explained exactly how my SALE of a gun constitutes a violation of anybody's negative rights. If that gun is later used in a murder, the GUN didn't violate anybody's rights; the USER of the gun did and should be held accountable for that ACTUAL violation of a negative right

You are free to decide which of your rights you consider most precious, but you DO NOT get to decide that for others. If you'd prefer to be shot than have your vote diluted by 1/1000000, fine, but most would choose otherwise. Earlier you suggested that "Give me Liberty or give me Death" meant that the founding fathers felt life was less important than liberty, you appear to have missed the fact they were prepared to give up their own lives, not endanger someone else's.

...they were prepared to give up their own lives, not endanger someone else's.

And you have never even started to make the case that the guns are the problem (nobody else on your side has either).

I earlier asked the question: How much of a reduction in gun homicide would be "enough" for you to feel good about the effects of your slate of proposed legislation? Would cutting gun homicides in half overnight have you feeling pretty solid?

If you say "no," then your position suddenly loses a lot of credibility.

If you say "yes," then I would point you to the gang problem in this country. Solve that, and overnight you will eliminate about half of the current gun homicides.

And none of the legislation I've heard suggested on this thread will even touch the gang-bangers getting their hands on guns.

No, I don't get to decide which rights are more important either, but society does, and as I originally pointed out, if society does not concur, the concept of inherent rights is wonderful, but irrelevant. If you disagree, then ask yourself what value was a slave's right to be secure in his own person?

Oh, and, as in Colorado, likely the majority of law enforcement officers will simply refuse to enforce such laws, knowing as THEY do that these laws are neither effective nor constitutional.

It is a Federal FELONY to sell a gun to a prohibited person, no matter what. Whether you knew it or not

They who cannot control themselves or emotions just proves why they should not have a gun

…….told negotiators in the town of St Joseph a device was implanted in his head, said police.

Really there is no argument here about the right to be armed, the Second Amendment solves the argument for us.

Ok you lost me there--lots of people have different views of what is "constitutional" and how the entire constitutional-law game should be played. But I've never heard a legitimate theory put forth that local LEOs are the guys who should be determining what laws are or aren't constitutional, and deciding which ones they'll enforce on that basis.

Although news agencies and blogs continue to report 2012 as a “record homicide year” for Chicago, and they also continue to falsely claim that Chicago has the highest “murder rate” in the country, both those claims are demonstrably false. Chicago’s homicide rate even in the deadly year of 2012 was lower than every year from 1991 to 2003. While, Chicago remains a dangerous city for homicides, statistically it is still safer than forty other American cities. If this nation is to engage in a debate about the merits or shortcomings of Chicago’s gun laws, they should at least begin from a foundation of truth, and not use a series of myths upon which to base their arguments.

"The UK has … a firearm fatality rate that is 40 times lower per capita than in the U.S.

"The UK has an unarmed police force….."

During 2010-2011, police "discharged a conventional firearm in three incidents," a drop from six such incidents in 2009-2010, according to data published by the British Parliament.

In 2011, the rate of gun deaths of all kinds, including suicide, was 10.3 per 100,000 population in the United States. In the United Kingdom, the rate was 0.25 per 100,000.

That is indeed 40 times less than the rate in the U.S. So Nightingale’s figure checked out.

(The gap is even wider for "gun homicides": in 2011, the United Kingdom’s rate was 0.04 per 100,000 people, 90 times less than the 3.6 per 100,000 in the United States.)