Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Why don't you libs concentrate on saving the millions of kids killed in car wrecks instead of trying to disarm an entire free society because of isolated instances where insane scumbags play Call of Duty with live ammo?

See post #248

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Why don't you libs concentrate on saving the millions of kids killed in car wrecks instead of trying to disarm an entire free society because of isolated instances where insane scumbags play Call of Duty with live ammo?

Dusty,
First, nothing wrong with being liberal on some subjects, this country was founded by Liberals.
Second, I'm still looking for the people or legislation that is trying to disarm our entire free society. Where are they and who are they? I want to know.
I'm with you, I just want to regulate the insane scumbags who play Call of Duty with guns and live ammo. i think most of those calling for some improvements to our gun laws feel the same way.

As for your comment of auto fatalities, regulation was very unpopular when it was called for initially in the 50's and 60. Regulation over the years has drastically reduced fatalities.

Next time you get in your car look around.
Do you have a driver's license? Mandatory personal training and periodic qualification
Licence and registration? annual licensing and registration of vehicle
Minimum insurance? you are responsible for the damage by you and or your car
Auto emission check? vehicle serviceability and safety check
One way sign? restrictions on where cars can and cannot go
Toll booths? limited access
Speed limit signs? restrictions on how cars can be used
Taxes on gasoline? pays for roads
Highway Patrol and other types of police? Random and ever present enforcement of existing regulations covering drivers and vehicles at state, county, community levels
Meter maids fair use of temporary storage
Seat belt? mandatory driver safety equipment
Highway emergency call boxes (not so much anymore but) in place services and recognition that driving is inherently dangerous
National Highway Safety Board, Department of Transportation? Federal regulation
Formula One racers? we're not allowed to drive anything we want

Need more?

[SF18C]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Next time you get in your car look around.
Do you have a driver's license? Mandatory personal training and periodic qualification
Licence and registration? annual licensing and registration of vehicle
Minimum insurance? you are responsible for the damage by you and or your car
Auto emission check? vehicle serviceability and safety check
One way sign? restrictions on where cars can and cannot go
Toll booths? limited access
Speed limit signs? restrictions on how cars can be used
Taxes on gasoline? pays for roads
Highway Patrol and other types of police? Random and ever present enforcement of existing regulations covering drivers and vehicles at state, county, community levels
Meter maids fair use of temporary storage
Seat belt? mandatory driver safety equipment
Highway emergency call boxes (not so much anymore but) in place services and recognition that driving is inherently dangerous
National Highway Safety Board, Department of Transportation? Federal regulation
Formula One racers? we're not allowed to drive anything we want

Need more?

^ All of that...not in the Constitution as a right that shall not be infringed.

Also "I'm still looking for the people or legislation that is trying to disarm our entire free society. Where are they and who are they? I want to know. "
Have you read the bill DiFi submitted???

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by SF18C

^ All of that...not in the Constitution as a right that shall not be infringed.

Also "I'm still looking for the people or legislation that is trying to disarm our entire free society. Where are they and who are they? I want to know. "
Have you read the bill DiFi submitted???

I knew your first point was coming. And I do not dispute the wording. It is what it is. Whether the word choice is open to interpretation is what the discussion focuses on.

My point in addressing our Brothers argument about regulating cars is that it doesn't contribute IMO.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

My point in addressing our Brothers argument about regulating cars is that it doesn't contribute IMO.

It absolutely contributes, especially when the "advertising" of the necessity of the law(s) is that it/they will save "at least one life". If you hang your hat on a point, you better be ready to defend that point, and the dems have completely failed in this "saving lives" propaganda.

The real irony here is that if we're truly ascribing to a liberal philosophy, then I would expect that the cry would be for harsher penalties on specific actions, such as using a gun in the commission of a crime, rather than an attack that infringes on a guaranteed personal freedom.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Razor

It absolutely contributes, especially when the "advertising" of the necessity of the law(s) is that it/they will save "at least one life". If you hang your hat on a point, you better be ready to defend that point, and the dems have completely failed in this "saving lives" propaganda.

You don't like the choice of the number "one"?

Would you prefer 2,947? That's the number of children and teens who died from gunfire in 2008.
Or maybe 2,793? That's the number of children who died from gunfire in 2009.
How about 3,625? That is the peak number of child homicides committed in 1993.
Maybe 13,791? that is the number of children and teens who were injured by gunfire in 2009.
I have one more, 20,596. Thats the decade high (2000-2010) the number of kids injured by gunfire in 2008.

I think even the most ardent gun rights advocate finds these numbers alarming.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/...s-new-gun-laws

I'm looking for a similar study detailing children who die in traffic. Still looking but found this one. its worth a read if just to remind you when not to drive or take to the sidewalks. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...s-by-2015.html

[Lan]

Restricting responsible gun owners' right to own what they need to to fight an oppressive government is not the answer.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

You don't like the choice of the number "one"?

Would you prefer 2,947? That's the number of children and teens who died from gunfire in 2008.
Or maybe 2,793? That's the number of children who died from gunfire in 2009.
How about 3,625? That is the peak number of child homicides committed in 1993.
Maybe 13,791? that is the number of children and teens who were injured by gunfire in 2009.
I have one more, 20,596. Thats the decade high (2000-2010) the number of kids injured by gunfire in 2008.

I think even the most ardent gun rights advocate finds these numbers alarming.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/...s-new-gun-laws

I'm looking for a similar study detailing children who die in traffic. Still looking but found this one. its worth a read if just to remind you when not to drive or take to the sidewalks. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146212,00.html

Disappointing how most of those children were killed in gun free zones like Chicago, Detroit and Wash D.C.

Dozer523, let's keep this on point, gun control by the liberals is stupid and it does not work.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Disappointing how most of those children were killed in gun free zones like Chicago, Detroit and Wash D.C.

Dozer523, let's keep this on point, gun control by the liberals is stupid and it does not work.

Team Sergeant, if the point is that Liberals' efforts to contain, much less prevent gun related fatalities among children are a failure; I will concede that point.
So what is the non-Liberal plan and how is it doing when measured against gun-related fatalities /injuries among kids? (Just kids, as far as I'm concerned all adults are on their own.)

2,136 was the total of children killed in motorized vehicles in 2003. And none of them were driving. Sorry, not as current as I'd like. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf

[Pericles]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Team Sergeant, if the point is that Liberals' efforts to contain, much less prevent gun related fatalities among children are a failure; I will concede that point.
So what is the non-Liberal plan and how is it doing when measured against gun-related fatalities /injuries among kids? (Just kids, as far as I'm concerned all adults are on their own.)

2,136 was the total of children killed in motorized vehicles in 2003. And none of them were driving. Sorry, not as current as I'd like. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf

If laws against murder fail to stop murderers, why would one think that laws restricting personal property will help.

The different approach is for all to be well armed, just as you are when sent somewhere dangerous.

Mutual Assured Destruction seemed to work out......

[Joker]

Dozer, I would think that those numbers would be higher as there are more than 1.4 million Outlaw Gang Members and more than 33,000 Outlaw Gangs running around here in the US. Gangs are a problem in most every major population centers. We should address the mental illness and criminals running free. Mental illness is a major problem with the attacks we have seen but most folks want to sweep it under the rug to hide it. In my opinion, all murderers that use weapons should be executed within one year of conviction. Other criminal acts with weapons involved, add 10 years to the sentence, no chance of parole. If the sentence has true teeth there is less likely of transgressions.

In my opinion, guns in the hands of RESPONSIBLE citizens is a crime deterrent.

2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/pu...eat-assessment

[sinjefe]

Dozer,

Just a little more perspective on those stats:

In 2003, there were more than 60 million children under 15 years old in the
United States. This age group (0-14 years) made up 21 percent of the total U.S.
resident population in 2003.

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children of every age
from 2 to 14 years old (based on 2001 figures, which are the latest mortality data
currently available from the National Center for Health Statistics).

In 2003, there were a total of 42,643 traffic fatalities in the United States. The 0-14
age group accounted for 5 percent (2,136) of those traffic fatalities. In addition,
children under 15 years old accounted for 4 percent (1,591) of all vehicle occupant
fatalities, 9 percent (253,000) of all the people injured in motor vehicle crashes,
and 8 percent (220,000) of all the vehicle occupants injured in crashes.

In the United States, an average of 6 children 0-14 years old were killed and 694
were injured every day in motor vehicle crashes during 2003.

In the 0-14 year age group, males accounted for 59 percent of the fatalities and 50
percent of those injured in motor vehicle crashes during 2003.

From: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf

This, compared to the over 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually. How many children might have been saved out of that 2.5 million?

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

[tonyz]

As far as "non-liberal" plans for protecting the 2A and all our citizens (including children) go...IMO there's a pretty good one in the OP...18 pages back. Just sayin'...

[Lan]

tonyz beat me to it

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

I knew your first point was coming. And I do not dispute the wording. It is what it is. Whether the word choice is open to interpretation is what the discussion focuses on.

My point in addressing our Brothers argument about regulating cars is that it doesn't contribute IMO.

Dozer, I understand your second point and would respectfully submit that your second applies to your first!