SCOTUS rules 5/4 - Keep Your Guns

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Big whoop! 300.

out of a population of roughly 7.5 million thats a pretty high rate of killings Subman

So what?

Nice attitude you have to people being killed

These people were already dead regardless if the tool was a baseball bat or a bomb.

Subman thats quite a claim can you back it up? Sounds like an opinion to me. :hmm:

PS. Your murder rate in the UK is more than double that.

Hmmm, must be all those assault rifles?:hmm:

UK murder rate is running at 2.03 per 100,000

Swiss murder rate is running at 2.94 per 100,000

Oh this is a good one:

According to a recent study of four cantons, family murders account for more than half of all homicides – a rate three times higher than in the United States.

Even higher than the US Subman!

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/W...87704000&ty=st

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Of course, nobody can.

You did seem to support every Supreme Court decision made by a conservative Supreme Court as upholding the Constitution. Just wondering.

PD

Lets see here. Where does the gay rights thing reside in the Constitution? Case closed.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by JetSnake

I like the way you think. Personally I would rather have some M1A1 Abrams.

I know where to get you a T-72. Will that work? Comes complete with 125 mm cannon.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

out of a population of roughly 7.5 million thats a pretty high rate of killings Subman

Nice attitude you have to people being killed

Subman thats quite a claim can you back it up? Sounds like an opinion to me. :hmm:

Hmmm, must be all those assault rifles?:hmm:

UK murder rate is running at 2.03 per 100,000

Swiss murder rate is running at 2.94 per 100,000

Oh this is a good one:

Even higher than the US Subman!

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/W...87704000&ty=st

But you're missing the point once again - The UK, when it had guns or not, had a murder rate that was a fraction of the rest of the world. This is normal for you guys. And 2.5 or 2.9 - same area roughly anyway, so I fail to see your point! Oh, by the way, your murder rate is rising but we've been through this in another thread. Maybe if you had a few firearms in the home, it would be going the other way! :p

Talking with children again.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Lets see here. Where does the gay rights thing reside in the Constitution?

According to a conservative SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment.

PD

Edit: I believe I've made my point. I will drop it.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

According to a conservative SCOTUS, the 14th Amendment.

PD

Edit: I believe I've made my point. I will drop it.

Lets analyze it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No one shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I am not arguing that it is in the Constitution!

I am simply pointing out that a Conservative SCOTUS does not always deliver decisions that uphold the Constitution.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

I see nothing giving Gay rights in the above.

And - laws have been on the books for hundreds of years for sex outside of marriage. Seems perfectly normal for them to deny a gay person to have free sex.

So SCOTUS in my opinion should have dropped this case and left it to the state of TX.

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I see nothing giving Gay rights in the above.

And - laws have been on the books for hundreds of years for sex outside of marriage. Seems perfectly normal for them to deny a gay person to have free sex.

-S

Again, I am not saying that the Constitution says anything about gay rights. You said, " Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution)."

This is not me saying anything about gay rights, this is me proving the statement in quotes wrong.

Well, not wrong, that was poorly worded. Just not the 100% truth.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Again, I am not saying that the Constitution says anything about gay rights. You said, " Conservatives vote for the law of the land (Constitution)."

This is not me saying anything about gay rights, this is me proving the statement in quotes wrong.

Well, not wrong, that was poorly worded. Just not the 100% truth.

PD

What exactly is not truth?

-S

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

What exactly is not truth?

-S

Taken to PMs, this is one hell of a tangent. Sorry folks.

PD

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

Taken to PMs, this is one hell of a tangent. Sorry folks.

PD

Its not best left to PM. Anyway, I agree - a tangent. Done with it.

-S

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

And 2.5 or 2.9 - same area roughly anyway, so I fail to see your point!

Point is Subman our murder rate is less that Switzerland's and having 300 people killed by guns compared to around 160 a year would seem to bear out that more guns = more people being shot dead.

Oh, by the way, your murder rate is rising but we've been through this in another thread. Maybe if you had a few firearms in the home, it would be going the other way! :p

Actually it fell by 1% from 2005/2006 compared to 2006/2007.

Even when it was rising it was still lower than the US.

Firearms offences fell by IIRC by around 14%, thats for the third year running I might add.

Talking with children again.

-S

Returning to type I see can't win the argument so lets start mud slinging.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Point is Subman our murder rate is less that Switzerland's and having 300 people killed by guns compared to around 160 a year would seem to bear out that more guns = more people being shot dead.

Actually it fell by 1% from 2005/2006 compared to 2006/2007.

Even when it was rising it was still lower than the US.

Firearms offences fell by IIRC by around 14%, thats for the third year running I might add.

Returning to type I see can't win the argument so lets start mud slinging.

No - any rational mind would see that the Swiss have similar rates to you, and that your irrational mind blames their higher rates on an inanimate object - this is actually a sickness, but that's best left for another thread.

There is no mud slinging - just that you are obviously inexperienced in the world. Trying to explain something to someone of your age is like hitting ones head against the wall - you just won't get it no matter how many times I explain till you hit your 30's+.

-S

[August]

You guys can't compare the murder rates in two different countries as an argument for or against gun ownership. There are too many variables that can effect the numbers.