Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?

Post Reply New Topic

It's a perfectly legitimate argument to cite the 2nd amendment since it does cover those things in the sense that it says that our right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed.

It is legitimate that to say the 2nd Amendment grants them the right the bear an keep arms, which shan't be infringed. I agree.

lets put the 2nd amendment aside for a moment.
think of the lives that could be saved if we abolished the 1st amendment.

one cant deny that if speech is free that it makes it easier for people to promote a violent agenda.even if someone doesnt insight violence and they only promote hatred of a person or group of people without specificly asking for action,hate speech threatening or not leads to violence.or banning doomsday cults that engage in mass suicide.if we gutted the 1st amendment we could save more lives then gutting the 2nd amendment.imagine we could ban any and all tobaco and alchohol advertisments.

next lets get rid of the 4th amendment.imagine the drugs,guns, that could be taken off the streets if police could search without probable cause.the saying" if guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns" would be mutt".outlaws would have no weapons if police could search anyone without probably cause.
police could prevent suicides if police could break in to your house and read personal diaries.imagine all the guns that banning guns wouldnt take off the street could be taken off the street if police no longer needed search warrants procured with legal definition of probably cause.

even though banning guns wouldnt affect the black market if we did gut the second amendment that would safe a life here or there even if it didnt end all violent crime and i think liberals know that.the left wing viewpoint isnt realy that banning giuns would end all crime but that if a new gun law saved just one life that if would be worth it.

if we sacrificed all our freedoms just think of the billions of lives that would save.
so instead of endless arguements about the second amendment and gun death statistics we must remember freedom isnt free and if we all lived our lives without ever taking a risk or legalizing anything potentialy dangerous.

what kind of lives would we have anyhow? meditate of that!

This reminds me of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.

ruveyn

A well regulated militia.

All ablebodied men between the ages of sixteen and old men of forty.

Are required to come when called for the defense of their community, and to bring arms, powder, shot, flint, swords, and such clothing and food that would allow them to take to the field for several days.

The local militia elected it's own leaders. Leaders picked their second in command.

The Fire Brigade was about the same, except bring a bucket.

With the main body of men away with the militia, the old, women, children, should arm themselves, and be prepared to defend their homes. The home guard also had leaders, and chose the best places for defense.

Outlying farms should be abandoned, the people massed in defendable places, and be prepared to tend to the wounded. Fire buckets should be filled and waiting. Food should be prepared for the milita.

None of these jobs paid, supplies were provided out of everyones stores.

It goes along with, in the event of house breaking, highway men, murder, all people shall search the area, run down any strangers, and give them a fair trial before hanging them.

This was the regulation of local self defense. It did not involve any higher level of government. Local Reeves were appointed to hunt for strangers, and find out their purpose. They were local, the Shire, and from that we get Shire Reeves, Sheriffs.

The last witch burned at the stake was in England, 1799, a local option.

Hanging witches in Salem was also a Village of Salem affair.

A sense of fairness was maintained by the Jury System, where a dozen had to find someone guilty. In one of the first cases on record a man was hanged for having sex with a cow. I think he was sixteen.

Under religious practices, it did not involve the whole population, only church members, dealing with other church members, who could be whipped, drowned, hung, as the congragation saw fit. Mostly it was whipping followed by dunking, partial drowning, followed by hanging.

Congress shall make no law infringing on the freedom of religion. These matters were held to be above the law, and no jury trial was required. The free practice of your faith before your god was exempt.

Being removed from the church this way was often followed by being drawn, quartered, and buried at the crossroads at midnight.

Religious poor houses, orphanages, were not regulated, and no death certificate was needed. In a recent case in Florida, a religious home for troubled children was found to have up to a hundred unmarked graves of children, and no records. It could have thousands. The State took it over, had contractors moving dirt, and kept turning up bones.

It was in context of this world that the people were allowed to keep and bear arms.

Few people ever went more than ten miles from home, all justice was local, and being armed at all times was a good idea.

This is English Common Law as imported to America.

Later you had to be tried at the County level, and only the State could hang people. That is what happens when Liberals get involved in God's Justice. To make it fair the State could not retry someone for the same offense, so if convicted at the County Courthouse, they had to hang them.

It still took away the community of gathering in the County Square to watch someone being hung.

Still later, it added the cost of having a local lawyer defend the person to be hung, so the upper courts would uphold it.

It is still local, and a Prosocuter who lets someone get off because he was in jail in another state at the time of the crime, will not get reelected.

Hanging people closed cases, that otherwise would have left people asking who killed that little girl down by the creek. A conviction and hanging ended all questions. Justice was demanded, because she was the girlfriend of the son of of an important local man.

Later his first wife just vanished, run off with a traveling salesman, who no one knew, ever saw, or had any idea what he sold. None of her family ever heard from her again.

So the right to keep a scoped rifle, keeps a lot of things from happening in the first place. DNA has shown that the legal system serves some purpose other than convicting the guilty.

If banning guns would work, then why hasn't banning murder worked?

_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com

Anybody can make a bomb that really wants to do it and probably could do it cheaper than flashy looking black guns + ammunition. Goat herders in Afghanistan do it. This isn't heavily guarded knowledge. You don't have a lot of bombings tho because 99.9999999999999~% of people aren't murderous psychos that will kill indiscriminately. The same holds true for guns. Unfortunately, a sick individual who is determined kill will fall thru the cracks and tragedies happen from time to time. You cannot cure humankind of this sickness. These aren't spur of the moment killings, these individuals plan their crimes months in advance.