5cd8c766   
   XPost: uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns, aus.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "bringyagrogalong"  wrote in message   
   news:b67d9038-6818-49f4-9bc1-434c5ff9a604@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...   
   > RD Sandman  wrote:   
   >> bringyagrogalong  wrote:   
   >> > RD Sandman  wrote:   
   >> >> bringyagrogalong  wrote:   
   >> >> > RD Sandman  wrote:   
   >> >> >> GOP_Decline_and_Fall  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > From a global POV they are gun deaths inflicted on Americans by   
   >> >> >> > Americans .   
   >>   
   >> >> >> > That more Americans died at the hands of their fellow Americans   
   >> >> >> > that in all the wars they fought in from the Revolutionary War   
   >> >> >> > to to day is the startling point made by Shields.   
   >>   
   >> >> >> Startling to whom?   
   >>   
   >> >> > Startling to anyone with functioning neurones.   
   >>   
   >> >> We are aware of those numbers, you ignorant fuck.   
   >>   
   >> > Yet you are still against gun control.   
   >>   
   >> > Have you got a screw loose?   
   >>   
   >> I don't think guns are the problem.  They are a tool.  They do nothing on   
   >> their own.  What needs to be addressed are things I have mentioned   
   >> several times in here.......gang culture, employment and educational   
   >> opportunities in the dense urban areas, single parent homes with absentee   
   >> fathers, etc..  Start coming up with suggestions on the real problems and   
   >> you be surprized at how much help you get.  Keep blaming guns and trying   
   >> to put the controls on the people who aren't the problem and you won't   
   >> get much from our side.   
   >   
   > I agree that guns are a tool. The problem is with tools who have   
   > access to them.   
   >   
   > The Second Amendment appreciated that fact, so limited the right to   
   > bear arms to an organised militia not individuals.   
      
   Really??   
      
   By what twisted rules of English do you come to that conclusion?   
      
      
   > This is the original text;   
   >   
   > "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".   
      
   Yep, and I don't see where the right to keep and bear arms is protected only   
   for the "organized militia". If that is what they meant to say they were   
   certainly educated enough to say it that way rather than acknowledge it as a   
   protected right of THE PEOPLE.   
      
   Oh, and you might want to look up what a "nominative absolute" is and how it   
   has no grammatical connection to the rest of the sentence.   
      
   > I doubt that the Founding Fathers ever envisaged that more Americans   
   > would be killed by fellow Americans then by all their enemies.   
      
   You can doubt what you like, but that does not alter the nature, application   
   or extent of the 2nd Amendment.   
      
   If times have changed.....then that is why the Founding Fathers included   
   Article V.   
      
   If you can't get such a change enacted via Article V then the 2nd is clearly   
   still seen by enough of the people to apply and be adequate for the world as   
   it exists today.   
      
      
   > To say, as you do, that guns do nothing on their own is 100% correct,   
   > hence the need to *keep them on their own* and away from potential   
   > psychopaths.   
      
   Fine, and given our system of personal liberty and freedom, how exactly do   
   you plan to do that in a way that isn't contrary to our founding principles   
   or the Constitution of the United States of America?   
      
      
   > The problems you mentioned, such as gang culture, unemployment, lack   
   > of educational opportunities, single parent homes, will always be with   
   > us...as will poverty and mental health issues.   
      
   They will be as long as no one works for a solution, but apparently you   
   don't care about doing anything to address the causes of violent crime.   
      
   >So nothings going to   
   > change.   
      
   Then quit trying to use it as your excuse to enact your anti-Constitutional   
   police state.   
      
      
   > The only way to end the slaughter is through gun control.   
      
   Let's say we do. Let's assume that space aliens fly down and eliminate all   
   firearms and knowledge of firearms.   
      
   Do you really think that would end the slaughter, or would the people intent   
   on violent crime simply switch to another means of instrumentality?   
      
   Now can you show any nation that has demonstrably been shown to have reduced   
   violent crime ONLY because they enacted gun control.   
      
   If gun control is the solution, why is it that Chicago with the strictest   
   gun control laws in the nation....also has the highest homicide rate?   
      
   Why is it when DC has it's near total ban on guns....that it was the murder   
   capital of the nation?   
      
   Sorry, but I don't see the causality you assert exists between gun control   
   and violent crime rates.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)