Oh ,my god!It is very pity and the USA government should prohibit the guns now!!!

Further refutation of your argument, Spexx, may be found in Thomas Hobbes' The Leviathan: in Chapter 14, he presents two natural laws:

The structure is rather strangely inverted, but the idea is a good one.

You're pretty good at the first of these; I'm considerably better than you at the second. That this discrepancy should anger you so, and motivate you to dish out the guff you have is puzzling, for I do not despise nor do I fail to practice the first.

The Leviathan

And who are you to ask us to clear the path to a genocide -- which only happens to unarmed populations? Gun prohibition is necessary before you can get your victims shipped to Aushwitz and Dachau, fullove.

But if the victims have got guns, your Einsatzkommandos die before they can shove the targeted group into the boxcars.

What, are let Chairman Mao's minions run roughshod over us?

With every Swiss gun is massive, repetitive training. Since number of guns has not increased in Switzerland, then violent crimes do not increase. Where number of guns increase, then violent crimes increase. Charts comparing gun ownership in America compared to a following increase in violent death demonstrates a problem that is also well proven throughout the world.

Yes, the other parts of the western world regard America as a most violent nation - because they look at the numbers. In America, if someone 'disses' you, then you have the right to a gun. That attitude is now becoming more prevalent. So prevalent that American school yard massacres get a response called "Yawn".

How did Britain stop schoolyard slaughters? Everyone now carries a gun? A solution advocated by those who deny basic facts and numbers.

Meanwhile, every home in Switzerland does not have a gun. In Switzerland, those who are mentally unstable cannot have a gun. In Switzerland, everyone is carefully vetted. Urbane Guerrilla forget to mention that part. He also got to mention that many gun advocates oppose 'mental stablity' rules are contrary to the their interpretation of the Second Amendment. According to second admendment 'advocates' even the mentally unstable have a constitutional right to guns - even 155 mm howitizers.

Urbane Guerrilla forgot to mention so much. Therefore what is his poltical agenda?

Cite.

Second Amendement: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Quoted exactly as interpreted by the NRA. The right of the people, if or if not mentally ill, shall not be infringed. Arms - anything from hunting rifles to assault weapons to 155 mm howitzters - shall not be infringed.

Where "arms" is defined as weapons that you can carry, i.e., an extension of the arm.

next

Nice try, now cite where the NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied.

You really can't compare gun control and deaths with other countries and expect it to be accurate. Gun deaths are just a product of something much larger that can not be controlled through laws. If you live in a peaceful society, legalizing or illegalizing guns won't make gun deaths go up or down because people will be less likely to use them to kill in the first place. If you live in a violent society, you will still get violent deaths no matter how many laws you make.

But that is still on the surface. Then you have to consider how many deaths banning guns or making them harder to get will prevent and how much it hurts then find a compromise.

Is that a generally accepted definition? IYHO, would the Framers have considered cannons covered by the 2nd Amendment?

Bruce, you are doing this more and more often. Are you alright?

I never said, "NRA says the mentally ill should not be denied." Let's look exactly at what I posted: Bruce - again you have jumped to conclusions rather than read what was posted.


9th Engineer makes another relevant comment in another thread: Exactly. Many have completely contradictory opinion - none based in political agendas. Whereas the NRA leadership now advocates action to restrict guns from the mentally ill, the Medical industry opposes complete access to everyone's medical records. That (now) NRA advocated gun restriction calls for all such medical records to be accessed by government - a violation of privacy rights.

Meanwhile, what gets lost? Court records (public records) are not even being used to restrict weapons, in part, because of those who opposed 'any and all' gun restrictions. Eventually gun ownership will require one to display responsibility. In so much political spinning, that demand for responsiblity is completely lost in mud and distortions.

And so a hunter in Allentown PA fires a high power rifle. The bullet strikes a pregnant woman in the head in her driveway one half mile away. The hunter would not even apologize for his irresponsible actions. Therein lies the problem. Responsibility is now secondary and irrelevant to rights.

Meanwhile, Bruce should read before making such accusations. Lately he has been doing this more often.

Show me where anyone needs hardware to fire a round every 3 seconds for nine minutes. Clearly he needed that for personal defense, hunting, or to have fun. A post that begs for responses from non-Americans (including Canadians). Tell me if that 'need' sounds justified, necessary, and essential to you?

I think it is accepted. I don't know if they picked the word specifically.

Bouvier's law dictionary (c. 1856, closer to the framers than we are) sez
The word "anger" seems subjective here, but I think it makes the point that a rock can be "arms" in certain circumstances.

I was talking about placing restrictions on guns and maybe banning a few. You seem to be talking about placing restrictions on guns and maybe banning a few. I don't see where our disagreement is?