Gun crime is down to a fifty-year low, not that any of this matters to either my argument about the rule of law or to your fantasy universe.
So let’s get them down even more. Highway deaths are down, should we stop improving highways and cars?
And, like virtually every other country in the world outside a couple of hellholes, almost entirely lacks the gun-fetish culture that is so entrenched here.
But maybe we’re the only civilized country, huh? And Britain et al. are groaning under the jackbooted tyranny of (democratically-elected) governments who decided to trample on their God-given rights, even if they don’t necessarily realize it themselves.
This rock hasn’t kept any tigers away, and the tigers are dying off anyway, but maybe if we get more rocks, we’ll have even fewer tigers.
The reason crime has gone down is because there has been a major focus on things that actually cause crime (unwanted children, lead paint, child abuse) through means like environmental regulation, increased access to contraception and abortion, and better attitudes about child-rearing. Any focus on the pseudoscientific idea that gun regulations will impact serious crime is going to dilute that message and probably lead to more crime. Also, this doesn’t matter because the government must follow the law. That the gun-confiscation crowd is actually arguing against the idea of the rule of law just shows how fanatical you are.
So you’re admitting that any drop in crime is not due to the increased availability of weapons. I agree with you to an extent, I just say that crime is going down DESPITE of guns being so freely available. My compassionate concern for my fellow humans dictates that I seek to eliminate a major cause of death and suffering, the almighty gun.
No evidence that obeys any reasonable principles of statistics suggests any meaningful correlation between gun ownership and crime rates in any direction. The reason that crime differs across societies is entirely due to cultural factors.
This. It doesn’t or shouldn’t matter WHICH law or Amendment or Article it is.
Please. Saying that there’s no relationship between guns and people getting shot by guns is ridiculous.
I do however agree with your argument that the Second Amendment shouldn’t be ignored. If it’s outdated (and I personally feel it is) it should be repealed.
It looks like it doesn’t matter if it is the Fourth Amendment or the Second, or WHAT it is, all you great thinkers as usual are still going for the “all or nothing” strategy.
Here it is in a nutshell. A company can datamine and annoy the shit out of us. They can royally fvck up our credit ratings. They can load us down with junk mail and cookies. But they can NOT decide arbitrarily to search through ALL our shit or use the info to break down the door and search our house or arrest us or charge us for any sort of crime or imprison us or "rendition us. The government can.
It is all about how the Fourth was SUPPOSED to check the arbitrary and willful misuse of “police powers”.
There is no relationship between guns and overall levels of crime, violent crime, or murder. It’s possible that there is a relationship between gun laws or gun ownership rates and shootings per se, but they can only be replacing other kinds of crimes. This is what the numbers show. If your gut instincts disagree, change your gut. Reality will not change for you.
There should be a lot more research to determine the alternative means of bullets finding their way into people, since guns are not the problem.
I suppose you’re right. I can imagine him twitching and muttering to himself as he types his posts.
I thought the complaint from the gun grabbers was that the gun nut interpretation is too originalist and the second amendment needs to be “reinterpreted in light of modern circumstances (i.e. disregarded”
I’m not sure I understand what you are talking about. How is private gun ownership infringing on the militia power.
Either this was general knowledge and no harm as done and there was no point to blowing the whistle or it wasnt and we just let a security secret out of the bag.
Well, then he is angry a LOT.
I don’t think you understand the gun nut position. Its like pretending that Michele Bachmann represents the conservative position.
What makes you think the Democrats are in power?
This was not the version ratified by the states and certified by the Secretary of State. That version has one comma between the prefatory clause. But even this version cannot be read the way you are reading it. Both versions read pretty much the same.
Congress has also made laws abridging freedom of speech and the press, the right of people to lobby their government.
The rights were violated and infringed from practically the very first day but there is a legal framework that we apply to when and how we can infringe of violate these rights and it is only with the second amendment that you seem to want to dispense with this framework.
And the founding fathers recognized that and and gave us a mechanism to change the constitution if the passage of time made some change to it necessary or desirable.
I was just kidding. I forgot the smiley. I never sold that POS, I didn’t want to have to go through the trouble of tracking it down, repurchasing it and apologizing to it for the rest of my life for ever letting it go. 
There is a meme among gun nuts about never selling your guns.
Seriously tho, while I haven’t sold any recently but I was trading pistols for a while trying to figure out which ones I liked best. And I am running out of room in my safe because I buy a lot of guns that I play with for a few weeks or months, put in the safe and then forget about.
But considering that this is not possible, because the criminals won’t give up their guns , you seem content to eliminate them from the possession of the law abiding and leave them in the hands of the criminals.
This has always been the weakest of the gun nut argument (not that it lacks competetition). Why outlaw anything if criminals will have it? Why not just ask criminals which laws they will obey and repeal the rest. Here’s what we do- just make possession of handguns illegal and imprison those who get caught. I won’t take long before people (including criminals) get the idea that the guns aren’t worth having.
There’s also the point that, in a feedback loop, criminals are more likely to be armed if they know their victims potentially are. If you’re breaking into a house to steal stuff and you’re worried the homeowner might try to shoot you, you will tend to take a gun yourself in (ironic) self-defense. So if guns aren’t outlawed, more outlaws will have guns.
As usual you are living on Mars. Possession of handguns was illegal for decades in huge swaths of the country. Some of them still have the laws on the books in defiance of the Supreme Court’s rulings (more of that lack of respect for the rule of law that you love). It doesn’t change anything.
You also fail to misunderstand the point of laws. We want to be able to prosecute and punish murder even if we can never reduce it to 0. A gun law is pushed as a means to an end (reducing crime). If it’s not serving that function it’s pointless, and if it gets ignored what purpose does it serve?
That’s completely wrong. Criminals by nature pick on unarmed civilians. That’s why you don’t see a lot of criminals trying home invasions on a cop’s house. Because the criminal will get shot.
Kinda like my house, if you break in here, you are going to get shot.
Criminals don’t necessarily know which homes have guns in them. So they bring one along just in case.
Unless they shoot you first. Hey, thanks for proving my point.
You’re taking an absolutist position here, assuming that if gun laws don’t stop all crime they’re useless. If guns are outlawed, fewer outlaws will have guns because they are harder to obtain (a significant number of illegally-held guns being initially purchased as legal straw buys). There will be less gun crime. Crime is thus reduced. We can reasonably argue about how much it would be reduced by and whether it’s proportionate, but that’s a different issue.
I love that argument from the self-declared sane, rational side: If there are probably going to be people who break laws anyway, why even bother *having *laws? 
While think Bob and Elvis may be overlooking the consequences of not not having guarantee constitutional rights, claiming that it’s pseudo science to be believe that the UK had just 35 handgun homicides last year to the US’ 10,000+ has nothing to do with gun control strikes me as silly.
Also, I think people should realize there is a middle ground between believing there’s a middle ground between calling for repealing the 2nd Amendment and believing that even the mildest forms of gun control is a gross violation of Constitutional rights.
Personally I agree with Thurgood Marshall that we should see the Constitution as evolving sort of like Sharia or English Common law.
Wrong. The disagreement is about what those rights are.
It’s silly because the gun-fetish position is held as a matter of quasi-religious belief, not as a matter of basic fact. That’s also how the “But America is special, and all those other countries’ experiences just don’t count because, well, something …” comes into it - we hear it from the gun-fetishists as strongly as we hear it from the teabaggers, many of whom are the same individuals.