.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Kite You own many deadly weapons, many ways of killing people. |
Nah, the only "Weapon" I own is my .40 cal Beretta. It's the only thing I possess that was invented, designed and built for the purpose of easily killing from a distance. Everything else you can pretty much easily get out of the way of or run away from.
Note that the Constitution makes no claim to your right to bear bricks, knives or big sticks. It's only firearms that the founders considered as an effective, purpose built deadly weapon.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Kite Bottom line, your thoughts of gun control reducing crime drastically is nothing but a pacifist fantasy. Wake up and smell the cordite. |
And once again I'll refer you to the murder rates of other free, democratic, 1st world nations that, unlike us, maintain reasonable gun control.
Obviously human nature, combined with a more limited access to the most efficient of all weapons... guns... seems to equal less violent, murderous societies.
And while I actually like guns, I'd rather wake up and smell the coffee, thank you very much.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Kite Honestly are we going to go here AGAIN? There are way too many variables in any given country to say that gun control definitively reduces murder rate. Size, population, battling ethnic/religious factions, police force, theres simply too much |
When you're looking at murder rates, access to guns -- which make it really easy -- strikes me as a no brainer.
For instance, note that Switzerland -- a peaceful, pastoral, homogenous country, hasn't fought a war in centuries, doesn't even have an army but is has a famously broad gun ownership -- and they're number 8 on the gun death rate... just behind basket cases like Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Norther Ireland... basket cases we're
AHEAD of.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Kite Ha...I've not only pointed out that you are either completely clueless or a LIAR about the origins of the Bill of Rights, but I've shown that your "interpretation" of the law is simply false....and stupid. :) |
LOL!!!
Yeah, Roxy, you've shown my "interpretation" of law is false and stupid... by calling it false and stupid.
The thing is, I haven't interpreted ANYTHING. The U.S. Supreme Court and the majority of the Federal Courts have. I'm simply pointing out that fact.
.