quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

and the chances of being killed by a terrorist is considerably less than that, yet look at all the money the govt has spent and how not only Americans but all people around the world have lost freedoms and rights due to the Patriot Act & other new US laws regarding terrorism and few Americans even said a peep to oppose it..

quote:

But you have no problem with destroying a Constitutional right to hopefully slow down the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

But you have no problem with destroying a Constitutional right to hopefully slow down the same.

One way to look at it might be that the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' trumps that of the 2nd Amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

But you have no problem with destroying a Constitutional right to hopefully slow down the same.

One way to look at it might be that the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' trumps that of the 2nd Amendment.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a goal of the Declaration of Independence. The second is a Constitutionally protected right. I know that this is a fact that doesn't resonate with you as our concept of an inalienable right does not seem to exist in your culture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

But you have no problem with destroying a Constitutional right to hopefully slow down the same.

One way to look at it might be that the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' trumps that of the 2nd Amendment.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a goal of the Declaration of Independence. The second is a Constitutionally protected right. I know that this is a fact that doesn't resonate with you as our concept of an inalienable right does not seem to exist in your culture.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I looked it up quite some time ago.

The point I'm havering towards making is that, while the gunsters have made an eternally vigorous argument about the 2nd Amendment in terms of the great notion of freedom, the anti-gunsters have not. So, the gunsters have been able to cast their argument in terms of freedom, while they've been able to cast the anti-gunsters in terms of *limits' on freedom. And in so doing, the most blindingly important and obvious freedom of all - the freedom to remain alive - has somehow got sidelined. Such is the power of so much energetic propaganda over so many years.

I've always been somewhat bemused by that. It strikes me that if you don't have your life, you have no freedom whatsoever. You don't have the freedom even to pursue liberty or happiness. Guns - or more correctly, people who use guns against other people (yes, yes, yes - I'm aware that guns don't kill people, people do - please don't let me hear a huge bleating chorus about that one) - commonly and *very* frequently in the USA, remove that most basic of rights and freedoms - the right and freedom to have a life and use it.

Any human's 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun is worth fuck all if that human is dead. The founders of your nation took it for granted that the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' was so obviously the right that trumped all other rights that they didn't spell it out pedantically in your Constitution. That's my feeling. It really should go without saying.

quote:


Yes Peon but did you stop to think that one might have to defend that right to life ? Or in an extreme context, defend the right to liberty (The basic intent for having a Second Anendment) ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

But you have no problem with destroying a Constitutional right to hopefully slow down the same.

One way to look at it might be that the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' trumps that of the 2nd Amendment.

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a goal of the Declaration of Independence. The second is a Constitutionally protected right. I know that this is a fact that doesn't resonate with you as our concept of an inalienable right does not seem to exist in your culture.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I looked it up quite some time ago.

The point I'm havering towards making is that, while the gunsters have made an eternally vigorous argument about the 2nd Amendment in terms of the great notion of freedom, the anti-gunsters have not. So, the gunsters have been able to cast their argument in terms of freedom, while they've been able to cast the anti-gunsters in terms of *limits' on freedom. And in so doing, the most blindingly important and obvious freedom of all - the freedom to remain alive - has somehow got sidelined. Such is the power of so much energetic propaganda over so many years.

I've always been somewhat bemused by that. It strikes me that if you don't have your life, you have no freedom whatsoever. You don't have the freedom even to pursue liberty or happiness. Guns - or more correctly, people who use guns against other people (yes, yes, yes - I'm aware that guns don't kill people, people do - please don't let me hear a huge bleating chorus about that one) - commonly and *very* frequently in the USA, remove that most basic of rights and freedoms - the right and freedom to have a life and use it.

Any human's 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun is worth fuck all if that human is dead. The founders of your nation took it for granted that the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' was so obviously the right that trumped all other rights that they didn't spell it out pedantically in your Constitution. That's my feeling. It really should go without saying.

quote:

This is just more proof that the Second Amendment not only works, but that personal safety isn’t the responsibility of the government through police. It’s up to each individual to watch out for themselves and their families.

The only way to do so in modern society is by carrying a firearm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


Of course I did. But, for me, it's much more of a case of 'Hey, did you stop to think of how totally and irrevocably you take away someone's freedom by killing him?'

quote:

ORIGINAL:
I mean, it seems to me that you Americans value freedom very highly. That's admirable to me, seriously. But how do you square it so apparently easily with taking people's lives? Why isn't obvious that you have no freedom if you have no life and why does that matter so little?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is just more proof that the Second Amendment not only works, but that personal safety isn’t the responsibility of the government through police. It’s up to each individual to watch out for themselves and their families.

The only way to do so in modern society is by carrying a firearm.

Come on, lovemuffin. You must know that's tommyrot. Nearly all modern societies don't operate on that premise, but still operate much more successfully in terms of people's physical safety than does that of the USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is just more proof that the Second Amendment not only works, but that personal safety isn’t the responsibility of the government through police. It’s up to each individual to watch out for themselves and their families.

The only way to do so in modern society is by carrying a firearm.

Come on, lovemuffin. You must know that's tommyrot. Nearly all modern societies don't operate on that premise, but still operate much more successfully in terms of people's physical safety than does that of the USA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

This is just more proof that the Second Amendment not only works, but that personal safety isn’t the responsibility of the government through police. It’s up to each individual to watch out for themselves and their families.

The only way to do so in modern society is by carrying a firearm.

Come on, lovemuffin. You must know that's tommyrot. Nearly all modern societies don't operate on that premise, but still operate much more successfully in terms of people's physical safety than does that of the USA.

Its two different mindsets.. in US they are still thinking the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away.. so everyone is a "Dirty Harry"..

according to this Harvard dude..
"How does the United States compare to other democracies in the Western world?
The United States has a higher rate of violence, partly because large parts of the country were in a state of anarchy until the 20th century. People could not count on the government to protect them. The cliché of the cowboy movies is that the nearest sheriff is 200 miles away, so you have to protect yourself with your six-shooter. When governments did arrive, people were reluctant to hand over their self-protection. And because the first government in America was a democracy, people were able to impose their wishes. In European countries, first the government disarmed the people and exerted its control many hundred years ago. Then the people democratized the government, but by then the government had already established control."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/12/23/why-america-is-more-violent-than-other-democracies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
FR
IMHO, it doesn't much matter if such shootings are becoming more common. What *is* becoming more common is the number of headlining atrocities that involve violence between races; between the forces of law and of racial minorities, and involving deaths. This is *not* a good thing, in my view. Things don't look good in the USA, from this side of the pond, that's all I can say.

"If it bleeds, it leads."
There are no "Black Lives Matter" protests when a black person kills another black person.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
Murders in 2013

• White on White: 2,509 (83.5% of all white-victim murders)
  
• White on Black: 189 (7.6% of all black-victim murders)
  
• Black on Black: 2,245 (90.1% of all black-victim murders)
  
• Black on White: 409 (13.6% of all white-victim murders)

Why is it such a big deal when a white person murders a black person, but not when a black person kills a white person? FFS, it happened twice as much!! Why aren't there "Black Lives Matter" protests when a black person kills another black person? In 2013, There were 3,005 white people murdered, and 2,491 black people murdered.
The reason it seems like it's happening more frequently is because it's being sensationalized to sell more advertising. Headlines are the hook, and blood, murder, and death are mighty hooks (as are anything the Kardashians do).

I notice you left out the ethnicity factor, where latinos have killed more whites than blacks.
edited to add relevant snip of page

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

My second amendment right is to protect me from the government, not Bonnie and Clyde.