Trump: Hillary Backs Gun Control Therefore She Doesn’t Deserve Armed Guards

[Fiona Apple 13,006]

On 22/5/2016 at 8:41 PM, Luc said:

Question for Trump:

Should Muslims be allowed to buy guns?

 

 

Both a yes answer and a no answer would see him lose a considerable amount of support

 

 Well he could give a smarter answer than a "yes" or a "no"

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

On 5/22/2016 at 2:55 PM, Economy said:

I dont think it leaves people as vulnerable as what many Americans assume

 

Most of the developed world has gun control laws and our murder rates and general crime rates are actually lower than in the US

 

Australia for example used to be more liberal with guns and then placed gun control laws. Their population freaked out the same way Americans do now. But it did not result in increased robberies or murders as they feared

 

In most cases robbers will rob when they know no one is home. And in rare instances they break in when someone is home, more often than not they run away when they realize u are home cuz they fear u will call the cops...

 

But if you have a gun you are a bigger immediate threat to them which might explain why in the US criminals resort to using their guns more often

 

Statistics from other Nations simply dont support the Notion that gun control leaves the population vulnerable. 

We usually disagree on this kind of stuff, but this is spot on sis  

The problem with this statement is that the general public does NOT know this, and in fact are impeded from knowing things like this. Organizations with the funds to conduct large, conclusive studies to help inform the public of this knowledge, like the CDC, are actually BANNED from doing this by the NRA's efforts.

It's essentially a gag-order on further information, and the reasoning? Because the studies would "help" anti-gun sentiment and rhetoric, which is too "biased" in favor of some over others. They try to cover it like "Gun's aren't a disease, so the cdc can't research them!" when in reality the reason the CDC would be doing research is because they have the tools and resources to conduct the kind of research that could actually be useful, small private funded research grants can't do the large scale research that is what's necessary to have meaningful conversations about the actual facts and records on gun violence and gun ownership. IIRC, we even have prevented doctors from talking to their patients about safe gun ownership, which used to be a common thing, and has directly or indirectly lead to more household accidents caused by misinformation, ignorance, and just plain stupidity. It's all avoidable   Even the person responsible for this, Jay Dickey has publicly stated how foolish it was. The Dickey amendment was renewed as recently as LAST YEAR (it was enacted in 1995/6 I believe)

It is easy to look at other nations' histories with public gun control and violence, etc. and that is useful (though often entirely discounted by the NRA and its followers), but research based on the U.S's own actual social climate would be more conclusive and is effectively banned from occurring. Even though the mass shootings of the last few years have helped the majority of people swing towards being overwhelmingly FOR gun violence research regardless of political leanings, Republicans and Conservatives backed by the NRA still do not want to budge because they are afraid the research will support what is already presumed; The general public will be FINE if guns are more regulated and in fact less people will die, people will be SAFER, and the average person who actually does need a gun will STILL be able to get it

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

This seems relevant

I'm from Missouri, where we did have mandated defense drills  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

I have a question.

Doesn't the second amendment only apply to members of a militia?

"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."

Aren't the National Guard the militia?

Why is it applicable to regular joes? 

Honest question  

[Goosey 3,017]

3 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

I have a question.

Doesn't the second amendment only apply to members of a militia?

"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."

Aren't the National Guard the militia?

Why is it applicable to regular joes? 

Honest question  

Read Heller. It says "the right of the people" because back in the 1700s the militia consisted of "average Joes". It was not an organized force.

You will also see that prior to the writing of the Constitution, various states had protected the individual right to keep and bear arms:

Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state … .” . In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State … .” The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution presented another variation on the theme: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence… .”  In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords [...] Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.”

"Militia"

The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.

"The people"

The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment ’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment ’s Search-and-Seizure Clause ... these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body ... in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html