another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Statements such as 'I'll tell you what the bottom line is: that my country is a unique one' would seem to suggest that you feel this applies solely to the USA. Certainly, it's very much implied in your tone.

---

Sure, pull the quote out of its context. Nice try.

"The bottom line" (presumably where you read my tone) was mocking ioan, who used the exact phrase in the post I replied to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

The intent of the writers of our Constitution is further explained in the 'Federalist Papers', as has been noted before. Those documents go at length to talk about many of our basic freedoms and not just the second amendment. They are relied upon by the Supreme Court when interpretations of the Constitution are in question.

---

The Federalist Papers though are not law, do not hold the weight of law and as legal opinion hold zero weight. Second to that, the right to self-defence as applied to defending one's self against other citizens is never discussed not even once in all 85 of them. Thirdly, even Hamilton warned about including the Bill of Rights in No.84 on the grounds that they would lead to a dangerous outcome which is precisely what you have now.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 84
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.
- The Federalist Papers : No. 84, -Andrew Hamilton

Is discussion relating to events 236 years ago, useful of helpful in relation to a set of conditions never envisaged? If law is to remain static, then are you still in favour of a man with a red flag walking in front of motor cars? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

Meh... :dozey:

My name will not appear on this "award"... see ya! :wave:


http://img272.imagevenue.com/loc415/..._122_415lo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

What I have said about you is Factual. What you have stated about me is based on your fascist opinion.


BIG DIFFERENCE.

---

Great stuff, Tony! Keep it up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

There's certainly a correlation, as without the firearm, there cannot be a firearm related crime. But a correlation does not prove causation. If that were the case, then communities with very high per capita firearms ownership should have higher than average firearms related crimes. But that is not the case. The area where I live has extremely high per capita firearms ownership, yet I don't believe there was a firearms related homicide in this area (so far) in 2012. I used to live near Washington, D.C. Handgun ownership (legal) was all but banned there when I lived in that area, yet Washington had one of the highest firearms related murder rates in North America back then. So that's why I would say that firearms ownership (in itself) is not a root cause. Firearms don't cause people to kill each other. They do assist in that endeavor though.

IMO, too often we continue to tip-toe around what the data shows us. That's why I posted that link. Finding better ways to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals (those who have already been convicted of violent crimes) is the low hanging fruit on this issue. And while I'm sure there is a wide variety of socio-economic reasons and explanations for how and why people commit crimes, the data points to criminals (and mental defectives) possessing firearms as the primary area that should be addressed. I would say that the root cause in their case is their complete and selfish disregard for the property and lives of others and their willingness to take or steal what they want. Why did you rob the bank? I wanted the money. Why did you rape the girl? I wanted her. Why did you jack the car? I wanted to see how it drove and then sell it. Why did you shoot and kill Jose and Pookie? I didn't like them. So on and so forth...

And while an examination and study of American culture would probably be interesting, I'm not sure that that would assist in getting firearms away from criminals. Maybe it would. And if so, I'd be all for that too. BTW, based on what I saw this weekend at a gunshow, I now feel that open gunshows may also be an area that needs to be re-examined - and that's not a position that most NRA members or gun owners would want to hear.

---

I am far from in agreement with much of what you say, but at least you put it in an educated, sensible manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

Sure, pull the quote out of its context. Nice try.

---

His stock in trade, thought you knew that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I am far from in agreement with much of what you say, but at least you put it in an educated, sensible manner.

---

Thank you. And (unlike some here), I'm not insulted or threatened when someone doesn't agree with me. In fact, when done in a constructive manner, that's precisely how solutions to a complex issue can be found.

I'd say that most of the European members and quite a few from the U.S. may not share my views on this topic. And I have some views that some of the gun owners on here probably wouldn't care for either. But if we want to discuss realistic, practical solutions, that can actually come to fruition, then trading ideas and relying on data (and not emotion!) is how we could accomplish that.

It's the holidays and I've already had enough emotional discussions (in real life) to last the rest of the new year... so if the thread can't progress, then (to me) it's a pointless exercise. Maybe a few of us can take it up a notch though and we can have a good discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

His stock in trade, thought you knew that?

---

To be fair, I am very clearly not the only one to have reached the same conclusion here.

As of Dec. 7, Stars and Stripes reports that 212 soldiers have died in combat-related deaths in Afghanistan. The ENTIRE country of Afghanistan is MUCH safer than the CITY of Chicago with its draconian, anti-gun laws.

Chicago police confirm 'tragic number' of 500 homicides - chicagotribune.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

as of dec. 7, stars and stripes reports that 212 soldiers have died in combat-related deaths in afghanistan. The entire country of afghanistan is much safer than the city of chicago with its draconian, anti-gun laws.

---

Nurse!