Take away Americans guns
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
PureX
Well-known member
So is the REGULATION of that right, as it was explicitly stated in the amendment.
"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."
"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
The Second Amendment does not state conditions under which the Second Amendment right to own arms is prohibited. It states that the militia should be well-regulated.
The key question to ask now is what is your reason or motivation for wanting to make guns illegal, take them away, or make some guns illegal, or make it illegal for some citizens to possess guns. Is it to protect American citizens or is the stated reason to protect American citizens when the real reason is to make it easier for the federal government to gain more control over the people.
A highly relevant issue to gun control now in 2016 is why is the current Administration is allowing numbers of Islamics to enter this country who are almost all males of military age. It would be very difficult to determine which ones of this group of males of military age are potential terrorists. If a male Islamic of military age has no history of terrorist activity or has not verbally advocated terrorism, how can you determine who might become a terrorist? And apparently it would be hard to gather data on each individual Islamic to determine if he was part of ISIS in the Middle East.
So the policy must become "politically incorrect" and not allow any men of military age, or any Islamics who are not American citizens into the country. Otherwise, political correctness will be the downfall of the culture, and lead to the death of many Americans.
"In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
The Second Amendment does not state conditions under which the Second Amendment right to own arms is prohibited. It states that the militia should be well-regulated.
The key question to ask now is what is your reason or motivation for wanting to make guns illegal, take them away, or make some guns illegal, or make it illegal for some citizens to possess guns. Is it to protect American citizens or is the stated reason to protect American citizens when the real reason is to make it easier for the federal government to gain more control over the people.
A highly relevant issue to gun control now in 2016 is why is the current Administration is allowing numbers of Islamics to enter this country who are almost all males of military age. It would be very difficult to determine which ones of this group of males of military age are potential terrorists. If a male Islamic of military age has no history of terrorist activity or has not verbally advocated terrorism, how can you determine who might become a terrorist? And apparently it would be hard to gather data on each individual Islamic to determine if he was part of ISIS in the Middle East.
So the policy must become "politically incorrect" and not allow any men of military age, or any Islamics who are not American citizens into the country. Otherwise, political correctness will be the downfall of the culture, and lead to the death of many Americans.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
And NO ONE IS PROPOSING THAT THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. Why can't you people understand this? It's like you've been brainwashed, or are robots, or something! But the amendment explicitly states that that the right to bear arms is to be "WELL REGULATED". Understand? The right to bear ams is to be "WELL REGULATED".
To anyone with any common sense at all, that means we do not allow criminals, terrorists, drug addicts, drunks, stalkers/domestic abusers, the mentally ill and unbalanced, and children to "bear arms". And this is all that has ever been suggested.
Common sense, and the second amendment, and the fact that gun deaths in the U.S. are absurdly high compared to any other peaceful nation on Earth, would be a good place to begin that discussion.
Both of these points are based on an absurd degree of unfounded paranoia. Almost no one in the U.S. has been killed by Muslim military personal. While many thousands are killed every year by idiots who think they need to have guns to protect them from all these imaginary Muslim military killers.
Likewise, there is no indication whatever that the government of the U.S. is preparing to establish a dictatorship. Especially since our fathers, brothers, sons, mothers, wives, and daughters make up the military. Remember all those wild promises about Obama declaring martial law and taking everyone's guns? It was nonsense spread by gun manufacturers and distributers to increase sales. And the idiots of America bought it hook, line, and sinker. They couldn't buy more guns and ammo fast enough! Result: more guns in the hands of paranoid idiots. And guess what will come of that!
theophilus
Well-known member
I guess it depends on how much you actually care about the kids.
I would take the stick and use it on the backside of the kid who had it in the first place.
Worked for my grandma.
CherubRam
New member
Actually it is being proposed. But no matter, there are safe guards to prevent it. Guns do not kill, people kill. Would taking away everyone's gun prevent murder?
You still have a right to speak freely without threat of penalty. That's supporting and defending the Constitution, by exercising one of the enumerated rights therein. Fact is, the Constitution itself dictates exactly how it is to be interpreted, including its Amendments, and that is, it goes according to Supreme Court cases. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the way in which the NRA officially interprets the Second Amendment is correct. That was clarified in 2008 and 2010. The Second Amendment therefore means what the whole body of work done by SCOTUS has said that it means. The right to keep and bear arms applies to firearms fit for an individual and also fit for military duty and utility. Therefore in my opinion, it does not recognize nor protect the right to keep and bear mouse guns, because they are of at best limited and inferior military duty, and are not used by most of the world's various militaries at all. The Second Amendment would not and does not, IMO, protect against us confiscating and outlawing our mouse guns.
The effect of this upon the most serious statistic involving guns in America---suicide by gun---would be dramatic and quick. There would be less suicides, immediately. Mouse guns are convenient guns for killing oneself, where rifles and other longguns are not, including machine guns.
And mouse guns are cheap. They're also easy to lose track of, drop, misplace, and accidentally/negligently discharge than pistols and handguns of greater military value, like full size revolvers and pistols, so accidental gun deaths, such as those involving children, would also drop quickly, but this statistic is at least an order of magnitude less severe than suicides by gun.
Did they at any time? Or have they each never recognized such a right? I don't know, I'm just curious.
Yes, it is. But it is not an exaggeration if we replace the people in that cartoon with nations, and replace the handguns with city-leveling explosives.
It's too many if law abiding people own guns and do not follow safety laws when handling guns. But that's not part of the Second Amendment. There's no room in the interpretation of the Second Amendment for those who accidentally and not deliberately violate safety principles with regard to firearms. We can't deny them their right to live, because they're accident-prone, but we can and should do what we can publicly to promote firearms safety.
We used to do this. It wouldn't be a new thing. Right now the people at the front in this effort are none other than the hated and unjustly maligned NRA. They have a corner on the market. If you hate the NRA so much then what you should do is compete with them as a government to be the best firearms safety instructors available. That would put a lot of the NRA out of business. The NRA is now a private, voluntarily funded and run organization of civilians and LEOs and military personnel who are teaching and preaching firearms safety. They're the only voice out there. It's certainly not coming from our government. I see plenty of anti-smoking campaigning, smoking which can kill you in a matter of decades, and zero firearms safety campaigning, gun negligence which can kill you in the SNAP of a finger or a hammer (or a striker, whatever that is
). Zero. It's shameful and censored stupid. It's censored.
Another terribly false analogy on your part, but that's become par for the course for you in very rapid time.
I guess it depends on how much you actually care about the kids.
We all agree on this. We all agree that we have the right as the government and with government force to regulate the right to live. What we disagree on is what the right to live actually means. I'm simple minded and believe the Constitution when it says exactly how to interpret that right, and what the SCOTUS has said on the matter is the official and authoritative interpretation of the right, even if you disagree with it personally, and you have every right to express the desire to change things, up to and including repealing or otherwise amending the Constitution. We have every right to disagree with you too.
PureX
Well-known member
By whom? Where's this legislative proposal? What does it say?
No, but it sure would limit the number of them each year!
But then, NO ONE IS PROPOSING TAKING EVERYONE'S GUNS AWAY.
PureX
Well-known member
None of this is about the "right to live". Nice try; throwing that red herring in there, though.
No, no one is debating that, either. We all know that we all have the right to live. And the right to defend our lives.
The debate is about regulating gun ownership and use for the sake of public safety. It's about keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, drug addicts, drunks, domestic abusers, stalkers, the mentally impaired and unstable, and children.
Please explain why you think these people should have access to deadly weapons even though they will kill thousands of your fellow citizens with them, every year.
Please explain why you presumably don't have a problem with government regulating motor vehicle ownership and use, food production and sales, medical practices and drug use, commercial advertising, nearly all forms of trading, and a thousand other human activities, and yet you can't bear the idea of government regulating the ownership and use of a mechanism that has no other purpose but to kill people.
And we know precisely what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has to say about that, authoritatively, so we're really not debating that since it's already an answered, closed question. So then, what you and others like you must be debating is whether or not to repeal or otherwise amend the Second Amendment, which is fine. But let's agree that that's what's being debated here. The SCOTUS has spoken loudly and clearly (and recently) on the matter, so if you disagree with what the Second Amendment recognizes and protects as far as individual civilian gun ownership goes, then say so.
Because at this point it most certainly is boiling down to a debate over whether or not there is a right to live, because this is the right that implies the right to self-defense, and this is the right that further implies the right to keep and to bear arms.
That ... and ... if you take sticks away, children who behave barbarically will smuggle them in the school and attack the children who follow the rules. However, if just one of those bullies were bonked on his/her feet or knees with a log, perhaps all the other bullies wouldn't so brazenly attack them.
"Because at this point it most certainly is boiling down to a debate over whether or not there is a right to live, because this is the right that implies the right to self-defense, and this is the right that further implies the right to keep and to bear arms. "
Yes.
And the right to live has to be foremost in any consideration of taking away the right to self-defense of people who have been called mentally ill. The standard for doing this is whether the person has shown evidence that he or she is a danger to others. Being put in some category of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by a psychiatrist or psychologist does not mean hat a person shows evidence of being a danger to others.
See: http://duluthreader.com/articles/2012/04/05/299_many_psychoactive_drugs_are_strongly_associated
"The peer-reviewed article evaluated the FDA’s (Food and Drug Administration) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS), which records drug side effects that are reported to the FDA, largely by patients, physicians, or drug companies. The adverse drug effects evaluated by the study were specifically limited to acts of violence or aggression associated with therapeutic drugs from 2004 through the third quarter of 2009."
"Among 484 evaluable drugs, 31 drugs met the study criteria for a disproportionate association with violence, and accounted for 1527/1937 (79%) of the violence cases."
"They found that eleven of thirteen antidepressants were significantly associated with violence. These eleven antidepressants were:
fluoxetine
paroxetine
venlafaxine
fluvoxamine
desvenlafaxine
sertraline
escetalpram
citalopram
bupropion
mirazpine
duloxetine
See: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billof...olence-part-1/
"Epidemiological studies in the community have found that the vast majority of people with serious mental illnesses do not commit violent acts toward others, and that the vast majority of violent acts are not attributable to mental illness (Fazel & Grann, 2006; Swanson, 1994). These studies would suggest that even if we completely eliminated mental illness as a violence risk factor, the population prevalence of violent acts towards others would go down by less than 4 percent."
The media emphasizes the mental illness of many shooters in mass shootings and this emphasis creates the public perception that all mentally ill people are potentially mass shooters, while in fact it is often specific anti-depression prescription drugs that lead to mass killings. But with the Islamic "refugees" it may not be drugs so much which lead to mass shootings, but the teachings of the Quran and the making of these teachings important by the Imams
Quran Quotes:
"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme "- 8:39
"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."
"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."
"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."
Yes.
And the right to live has to be foremost in any consideration of taking away the right to self-defense of people who have been called mentally ill. The standard for doing this is whether the person has shown evidence that he or she is a danger to others. Being put in some category of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by a psychiatrist or psychologist does not mean hat a person shows evidence of being a danger to others.
See: http://duluthreader.com/articles/2012/04/05/299_many_psychoactive_drugs_are_strongly_associated
"The peer-reviewed article evaluated the FDA’s (Food and Drug Administration) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS), which records drug side effects that are reported to the FDA, largely by patients, physicians, or drug companies. The adverse drug effects evaluated by the study were specifically limited to acts of violence or aggression associated with therapeutic drugs from 2004 through the third quarter of 2009."
"Among 484 evaluable drugs, 31 drugs met the study criteria for a disproportionate association with violence, and accounted for 1527/1937 (79%) of the violence cases."
"They found that eleven of thirteen antidepressants were significantly associated with violence. These eleven antidepressants were:
fluoxetine
paroxetine
venlafaxine
fluvoxamine
desvenlafaxine
sertraline
escetalpram
citalopram
bupropion
mirazpine
duloxetine
See: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billof...olence-part-1/
"Epidemiological studies in the community have found that the vast majority of people with serious mental illnesses do not commit violent acts toward others, and that the vast majority of violent acts are not attributable to mental illness (Fazel & Grann, 2006; Swanson, 1994). These studies would suggest that even if we completely eliminated mental illness as a violence risk factor, the population prevalence of violent acts towards others would go down by less than 4 percent."
The media emphasizes the mental illness of many shooters in mass shootings and this emphasis creates the public perception that all mentally ill people are potentially mass shooters, while in fact it is often specific anti-depression prescription drugs that lead to mass killings. But with the Islamic "refugees" it may not be drugs so much which lead to mass shootings, but the teachings of the Quran and the making of these teachings important by the Imams
Quran Quotes:
"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54
Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme "- 8:39
"When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4
(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly."
"When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes."
"Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
PLOS is a pay-to-publish journal with a pretty low article rejection rate (30%) compared to other scientific journals. For example, the Journal of Abnormal Psychology has an 84% rejection rate, and the Journal of Applied Psychology has a rejection rate of 91%. (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/2013-statistics.pdf). According to wiki, PLOS churns out papers at the rate of 85 a day, which is more than a year's worth for the Journal of Applied Psychology (2013).
I don't have the time or the inclination to go over the paper, but reader beware. Just saying something is "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean much unless you know who's doing the reviewing.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
double post
CherubRam
New member
Obama and Hillary are making proposals.
No one comes and takes away your gun ONE DAY, it is done by enacting laws over a long time. First you take away certain clips, then a certain caliber, then a certain type. In this way many become criminals. Why, because ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Public Library of Science Online Journal is not listed among the
psychology journals on
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fea...statistics.pdf
I don't know where the information came from saying that the Public
Online Science Journal has only a 30 percent rejection rate. If true,
its not important, because the same data is reported elsewhere.
If you type into Google Anti-Depression Drugs and Violence you get
858,000 links.
There are links down the page a bit on Google from sources saying that
often in the mass shootings heavily publicized in the media that
although it is not brought out immediately that the shooter was on
psychiatric prescription drugs - usually antidepressants - , this
information is reported later. I list a couple of these cases below
from the Google search.
Here is the first link:
https://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/drug_warnings_on_violence/
"Psychiatric Drugs & Violence—The Facts"
"Fact: Between 2004 and 2012, there have been 14,773 reports to the
U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system on psychiatric drugs causing violent side
effects including: 1,531 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide, 3,287
cases of mania & 8,219 cases of aggression. Note: The FDA estimates
that less than 1% of all serious events are ever reported to it, so
the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly
higher."
There are many more links on Google to Anti-Depression Drugs and Violence.
http://psychiatricfraud.org/2011/04/the-real-lesson-of-columbine-psychiatric-drugs-induce-vio
"Shooter Eric Harris was taking the antidepressant Luvox at the time
he and Dylan Klebold opened fire at Columbine High School, killing 12
students and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing
themselves. At least one public report exists of a friend of Klebold
who witnessed Klebold taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft and
urged him to come off them. Officially, Klebold’s medical records
remain sealed.
Luvox, Paxil and Zoloft are in a class of drugs called selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Among the international
regulatory agencies issuing warnings on these antidepressants, the FDA
issued a Public Health Advisory in 2004 warning that “anxiety,
agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility,
impulsivity, akathisia [severe restlessness], hypomania [abnormal
excitement] and mania [psychosis characterized by exalted feelings,
delusions of grandeur and overproduction of ideas] have been reported
in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants.”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/
"Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings
Expert: Psychiatric drugs likely cause of Lanza's extreme violence"
Jerome R. Corsi
"Some 90 percent of school shootings over more than a decade have been linked to a widely prescribed type of antidepressant called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs, according to British psychiatrist Dr. David Healy, a founder of RxISK.org, an independent website for researching and reporting on prescription drugs."
Apparently this is the Public Library of Science Online Online
Journal: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015337
Many Psychoactive Drugs are Strongly Associated with Violence
(including aggression, suicidal violence and homicidal violence)
by Gary G. Kohls, MD
"A recent study published in the Public Library of Science online
journal (PloS One @ www.plosone.org) by the Institute for Safe
Medication Practices (ISMP @ www.ismp.org) listed the top 31
prescription drugs that can cause violent or aggressive behavior in
those consuming them.
The original article was co-authored by Harvard psychiatrist Joseph
Glenmullen, MD, author of the ground-breaking “Prozac Backlash.”
Glenmullen has since written a second book titled “The Antidepressant
Solution” that mainly deals with antidepressant drug withdrawal
issues.
psychology journals on
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/fea...statistics.pdf
I don't know where the information came from saying that the Public
Online Science Journal has only a 30 percent rejection rate. If true,
its not important, because the same data is reported elsewhere.
If you type into Google Anti-Depression Drugs and Violence you get
858,000 links.
There are links down the page a bit on Google from sources saying that
often in the mass shootings heavily publicized in the media that
although it is not brought out immediately that the shooter was on
psychiatric prescription drugs - usually antidepressants - , this
information is reported later. I list a couple of these cases below
from the Google search.
Here is the first link:
https://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/drug_warnings_on_violence/
"Psychiatric Drugs & Violence—The Facts"
"Fact: Between 2004 and 2012, there have been 14,773 reports to the
U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system on psychiatric drugs causing violent side
effects including: 1,531 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide, 3,287
cases of mania & 8,219 cases of aggression. Note: The FDA estimates
that less than 1% of all serious events are ever reported to it, so
the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly
higher."
There are many more links on Google to Anti-Depression Drugs and Violence.
http://psychiatricfraud.org/2011/04/the-real-lesson-of-columbine-psychiatric-drugs-induce-vio
"Shooter Eric Harris was taking the antidepressant Luvox at the time
he and Dylan Klebold opened fire at Columbine High School, killing 12
students and a teacher and wounding 26 others before killing
themselves. At least one public report exists of a friend of Klebold
who witnessed Klebold taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft and
urged him to come off them. Officially, Klebold’s medical records
remain sealed.
Luvox, Paxil and Zoloft are in a class of drugs called selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Among the international
regulatory agencies issuing warnings on these antidepressants, the FDA
issued a Public Health Advisory in 2004 warning that “anxiety,
agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility,
impulsivity, akathisia [severe restlessness], hypomania [abnormal
excitement] and mania [psychosis characterized by exalted feelings,
delusions of grandeur and overproduction of ideas] have been reported
in adult and pediatric patients being treated with antidepressants.”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/
"Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings
Expert: Psychiatric drugs likely cause of Lanza's extreme violence"
Jerome R. Corsi
"Some 90 percent of school shootings over more than a decade have been linked to a widely prescribed type of antidepressant called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs, according to British psychiatrist Dr. David Healy, a founder of RxISK.org, an independent website for researching and reporting on prescription drugs."
Apparently this is the Public Library of Science Online Online
Journal: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015337
Many Psychoactive Drugs are Strongly Associated with Violence
(including aggression, suicidal violence and homicidal violence)
by Gary G. Kohls, MD
"A recent study published in the Public Library of Science online
journal (PloS One @ www.plosone.org) by the Institute for Safe
Medication Practices (ISMP @ www.ismp.org) listed the top 31
prescription drugs that can cause violent or aggressive behavior in
those consuming them.
The original article was co-authored by Harvard psychiatrist Joseph
Glenmullen, MD, author of the ground-breaking “Prozac Backlash.”
Glenmullen has since written a second book titled “The Antidepressant
Solution” that mainly deals with antidepressant drug withdrawal
issues.