I'm Pro Second Amendment, However I Can't Ignore the Numbers

The best deterant is capitol punishment for capitol crimes.
You will not deter ANYONE with a law. You only deter by punishment and taking the repeats out of the equasion.

Hey bud, we have poor white people around here and guess what.. They commit just as many crimes as any other race on the fringes of society, addicted to substances.

How would you like to have your brains bashed with a baseball bat where you remember most of it, sit in a hospital bed drooling in your lap, till finally one day you stop breathing? Yeah such a more human way to be a victim , huh? Pfft

What do you mean they aren't connected? They buy crack, that is illegal right? Then they buy crack from criminals. Black markets are loose connections, but the money is funneled up to the cartel. Nowadays that is most likely banks, but that is another topic.

I'm not advocating anything from governmental force/coercion as you are. I am simply stating that our constitution means rights applied to ALL PEOPLE of the United States. Limiting freedoms to individuals in the USA is tyrannical, fascist and as all command and control systems are fallacies, they end in disaster.

Liberty means everyone not just some who are socially or economically "better" than others.

.

And the suicide pills bigpharma and their lacky dog shit docs push.
Saw today more murders by medicated zombies.

You are full of fail today.

So what you're saying is, your against any or all restrictions? Why not let 12 year olds and multiple DUI convicts drive then? We can't restrict their individual freedoms right? In fact why bother having a driver's license at all?

Some restrictions are good. Like No glass bottles at concerts for example or no driving drunk. See, no one's saying you cant have a drink at a concert or that you can't drive your car. It's called ground rules.

Not sure where you live but Good Ol' boys around here range from law abiding to criminal. Rural, white meth heads will break into your house, steal your shit, drive off in your car and bash your brains in with a hammer they stole too.

Obvious Tactic is Obvious.

Of course you are pro 2nd Amendment and not a shill arguing for consensus.

Give up already.

Wow 3 alerts?! With that kind of alarm you'd think it would go off a little sooner. I made my OP like an hour ago, but nice try.

WalMart does not sell handguns.

How many crackheads are shooting each other with the scoped bolt action hunting rifles that WalMart does sell?

Let's see no glass bottles at concerts. Someone owns that concert venue, it is their property, so they are justified in making limitations on what can or cannot be done on their property. I have no problem with that. If you don't like the restriction then don't go to the concert.

Letting 12 year olds drive cars. I don't think that when automobiles were invented there were age restrictions on driving vehicles. In fact, there were no required "driver's license". In fact I would say that is a direct limitation on liberty as outlined by the constitution, limiting people's mobility is a transgression of our constitution. However, it may be debatable at what age a person "becomes" a person of the United States. I personally would say that if a person can vote at 18, then they are also a "person of the United States".

If someone is driving drunk and causes harm to another person or their property in an accident, then they should have to pay reparations to the party or individuals offended/violated. As it is now our legal code provides no such compensation. In fact, it is more like another tax where the violator either pays fines to the state or they are imprisoned placing the cost/burden of their incarceration on the taxpayers through the prison system. So, then the individual(s) must pay for another persons indiscretion.

Basically all this legal code enacted to circumnavigate individual freedom places further burdens on society or individuals. It does this through the guise of "protecting us from harm" but when harm is done there is no individual protection only cost to the individual firstly through the damage to person or property and secondly through punishment of the violator which cost is shifted again to the individual or tax payer and enriches individuals in the legal system.

The lie is that we can eliminate risk or harm by reducing individual freedom. When I think risk constrains or reigns in the potential for harm as then the violator must actually be held to account/payment for their damages caused to other individuals.

.

"Now with that said, I have an open mind and I'm also a numbers guy. I've been doing my own research and have come to some conclusions.."



Numbers just don't matter with the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is so easy to understand that you need help to misunderstand it.

No, just a molesting little kids tradition.

Don't bother to feed this troll. He is working from a script.

the Op is disinfo, wanna be spin agent. gtfo

Looks like I'm not the only one who noticed.

Thread fail.

OP doesn't appreciate you bringing critical thinking into his thread.

Nailed it!

Really, you think so? Well I will say this. I'm against any kind of restrictions on clip size or ammo restrictions. I think that's a non-issue. I don't believe in gun free zones, that's just a soft target for criminals. I do agree with the NRA that a good guy with a gun is about the only thing that would have prevented the tragedy that started this debate. So do I still fit in your box?

For someone who bumped his own thread a dozen times, OP sure did dissappear quick when he was called out.

Rock on GLP!

I feel the same, but then I see car accident deth rates are much much higher than gun violence so perhaps your government should ban cars too!

They should also ban Big Macs by this logic as heart disease kills more people than guns or automobile accidents.

.

But but...he's one of us. lol

Shills and disinfo agents are soooo obvious.

Your second grade tactics won't work at this site, asshole.

Beat it.

Yes you do. Your mission is get consensus on banning / confiscating 'assult weapons'. It is still an infringment on the 2nd Amendment and the Rights of The People.

Regardless of the consensus building and agreeing with a few of the tennents of pro 2nd advocates, you are still working to take away American's Constutional Rights.

As I said before, Obvious Tactic is Obvious.

Ahh yes critical thinking.. Is blindly adhering to your own ideology with disregard for new information or information that contradicts your presuppositions considered thinking?

That's just the example I choose to use not so much because of the store but the neighborhood it's associated with, and yes crimes are committed with shotguns, and pawn shops are a plenty in neighborhoods such as these.

Negative sir. If anyone is redirecting consensus it would be you. Trying to discredit, or say I stand for something I never said. You are the only one who said anything about "assault weapons". Wish I could afford one, but my wife would eat me alive. The one I want is $1100.