.
Quote:
|
Quote by: minorwork How many would have suffered if they hadn't used a gun for self defense? |
Ignoring the fact that Kleck's study is the
subject of considerable skepticism, the answer to your point is essentially a great big 'So what?' What does Kleck's (completely speculative) research tell us? Well, that huge numbers of Americans are brandishing guns at one another.
But are we safer because of it? Obviously
not, because,
ONCE AGAIN, despite having more guns per capita and a higher percentage of households owning guns, the U.S. remains among
the most gun violent free, civilized nations on earth. So having more guns, despite increasing the number of gun defenses, increases the number of gun violence even more.
Quote:
|
Quote by: minorwork The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People. |
LIke for instance... the right to feed and shelter my family? Nope, no guarantees there. The right to medical care for my family? No again... health care is a commodity according to Republicans. The right to travel wherever and however I see fit? No, I still have to register and insure my car, have a license to operate that car on public roads and to re-qualify for that license on a regular basis.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Apeman And in that magic world in which no pendulum swings, what happens when enough people look down their all too intellectual noses at the remaining practitioners of their inalienable right recognized by the limiting of Federal power as recorded in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? |
Some pendulums simply don't swing back, Apeman. America is never going back to being a lightly populated, pastoral agrarian society surrounded by pristine wilderness, and we're never going back to a time when a high tech military meant lining up as many men as possible, shoulder to shoulder, armed with single shot muskets, or when the defense of this country, from enemies foreign and domestic, was left to volunteer civilian militias. And there was no "inalienable
individual right" to own firearms before this past June. Quite the opposite.
Quote:
|
Quote by: Apeman Amend the constitution or obey it. |
LOLOL
Right... like we have with the 1st Amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
And yet, in 1893 Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion on our currency, and did the same thing in 1868, and in 1954 Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion into our school children's Pledge of Allegiance, and in 1957 Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion in our national motto.
But I digress... we don't need to do either. The better option is for the next SCOTUS to return to their senses and overturn
DC v. Heller, thus restoring the definition of the 2nd Amendment to what it was for the last 70 years, and the only legal definition since the Constitution went into affect, which is
U.S. v Miller, and the various lower court rulings that confirmed and expanded on Miller, which stated that we have the right to keep and bear arms PROVIDED THAT it was necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated volunteer civilian militia.
.