[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

How is Piers an idiot again?

Anyone calling for gun bans at this point is an idiot. We've had mass shootings in the US since 1764 (Pontiac School Massacre, 10 children killed, plus school master). We've had oodles of gun laws since then and they did nothing. Also, Connecticut has had an "assault weapon ban" for 18 years. it did no good at all.
So yes, Piers Morgan is a fucking moron.

With the regards to the video you posted, the argument about guns and violence doesn't hold up, not because it isn't true but because it is irrelevant to the gun control debate. The reason the country wants gun control is to make it harder for deranged individuals to commit mass murder.

The gun control debate isn't about crime, nor about guns, it is solely about control.

The argument in favor of Feinsteins outlandish bill is not valid
The idea that it is okay to punish 100,000,000 people for the actions of only 140 people over the last 100 years is not only illogical it is insane. Banning paramilitary arms and equipment is not only unconstitutional in the United States, but it is also puerile given that less than 1% of 1% of all firearm related deaths are by either paramilitary weapons and/or standard capacity magazines (20 to 30 rounders).

If you want to solve the country's wide spread violence then you need to reduce inequality, but oh wait, I think that's a non starter for you because you will draw the conclusion that I am trying to spread communism.

On that we agree. One of the primary reasons for violent crime in the US is poverty and inequality. That needs to change.

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

When you see the likes of John Lott Jr. going into verbal sparring with other people (probably relatives of shooting victims) during a commercial break in that town hall format show a few weeks ago, that tells me a huge lot about how overly stubborn the people ranting against any form of gun control are.

John Lott is a Olin Fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, has a PH. D in economics and is a leading researcher on the issue of gun violence, and gun control in the United States. He knows full well what he is talking about and his research has been tested by Criminologist Gary Kleck of the University of Florida who concurred with Lott's general premise.
There is no ranting against "gun control," there is logical and reasonable resistance to what is a useless and unconstitutional infringement on the rights of US citizens.

Seriously, with 4 armed branches of US military, FBI, state police, local police and the National Guard (matching the definition of a well regulated militia made of volunteers) being paid to defend people, why the need to own so many guns in the drawer?

You are WRONG about the National Guard.
It is NOT the constitutional militia spoken of in Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution, nor is it the militia of the 2nd amendment which was ratified in 1789. The National Guard wasn't created until 1903.
It is a reserve branch of the United States armed forces and is a "select militia" force. Meaning it is part of the regular armed forces and thus not the militia of the constitution.

Title 10 Section 311 of the USC clarifies the difference between the organized (select) and unorganized (constitutional) militia forces of the United States.

10 USC Sec. 311
01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

-SOURCE-
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7),
Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V,
Sec. 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)



The police in the United States have NO obligation to protect the citzenry as per Castle Rock vs. Gonzalez.
As for need, we don't have a "bill of needs" in the US, we have a "Bill of Rights."
The right to own military weaponry has been decided in the SCOTUS case of US vs. Miller:

The court also upheld the National Firearms Act in Miller because a double-barrel sawed-off Savage model hunting-shotgun was:

“…in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense…”

Therefore, US v. Miller make four things clear:

•1) The original meaning of “militia” had not changed in 159 years and it still meant “every able bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45.”

•2) The Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are the SUPREME LAW of the land and take precedence over State laws.

•3) Weapons which are not of a military nature or useful to the common defense are not useful to the militia and thus not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

•4) There IS a “litmus test” for determining what weapons are and are NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment, and that test is simple: the weapon must be of a military nature and useful by the militia to a) uphold the laws of the union (Constitution and Bill of Rights), b) put down insurrections, and c) repel invasions.

The Miller decision was twisted in 1994 to pass the assault weapon ban by using the exact same argument you're trying to use here about the "militia" being the National Guard. That argument was known as the "collective rights" model. That argument was destroyed by DC vs. Heller in 2008 when the SCOTUS ruled the following:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation

Therefore, the 2nd amendment is now officially an individual right, thus there is no longer a miltia requirement to own military firearms. I say military firearms because Scalia deferred to US. vs. Miller as the definition of what firearms are protected. He did that to protect the gun control laws that already exist, while at the same time blocking any new bans that would render the 2nd amendment null and void in violation of the constitution.

Now, can we get back to the News. I was rather enjoying reading about the food issue, etc. etc. before Sugetsu rubbed the Aladin's Lamp of gun control and summoned me hither.