Kill the Electoral College

[Eric the Green]

(01-03-2017, 04:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-02-2017, 03:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Guns are not a "right" that any sane person covets or values. Guns are a technological innovation that allows people to kill other people easily and with little effort. It is not a "right" like the others. It was an 18th century measure that met the needs of that time for a militia and a check on a slave rebellion, and in the days when guns were less efficient. We should restore the original meaning of the Second, and thus go back to the long-held interpretation that "gun rights" were for the purpose of arming a well-regulated militia, and thus allow a community like DC to ban certain weapons if it wants to.

But, it will be up to the people whether they remain brainwashed by right-wing propaganda, as they so easily are today, or return to a progressive agenda. It will have to be the peoples' choice to lay down their arms or not. An armed campaign to take away peoples' guns is a contradiction and won't work.

I've gone over all of that with you before, and read everything. No need to rehash it; my comments will not change your mind.

A gun can:

- Kill a feral hog that is about the injure or kill my wife.

Or more likely, much more likely, kill a deer or antelope that did not deserve to die, for a trophy or unneeded meat available at the store for most people.

Quote:- Put really great "free range" venison on the table.

Which we have no right to. Let the animals live. Let the rangers take care of the ecology. Meat is not healthy for most people anyway. We certainly don't need to eat as much of it.

Quote:- Stop or possibly kill a cougar, bear, or other dangerous apex predator.

Which are nowhere near most of us. And which can be more fairly dealt with by stunning or drugging and removing them. Most predators are criminals who got guns by stealing them, or are their own friends and relatives encouraged by the ease of killing, or themselves when depressed, or their own children by accident. Or insane creeps who find it too easy to get mass killing weapons to mow down innocent people to assuage their anger and lonliness or act out their sick ideology.

Quote:- Discourage or stop a criminal from committing a gun crime against my person or my loved ones.

Except it won't; it will only create gun battles in which the criminal has the advantage. And-- make the gun carrier himself a possible criminal, by having this tech gismo that makes killing so much easier. Or make guns much, much more available to criminals. There are 100 better ways to discourage criminals. Burglar alarms, locks, dogs, moving to a safe neighborhood, neighborhood watch, 9-11, mace and other safer weapons. Too many guns means too many gun deaths and too many crimes. The safest states are the blue states, because they regulate guns. Stats already posted. No need to rehash it. Just beware; Americans' assumptions that we need guns are one of our most serious afflictions and diseases.

Quote:- Make a hostile foreign power or terror organization think twice about any invasion or attack against the US homeland.

That it won't. Guns are no match for tanks, planes and missiles. Ask the under-armed Syrians.

Irrelevant, if interesting discussion. What I will not rehash with Bob is his constitutionalist claims. Nor should my comments be taken as advocating gun prohibition, but only gun control that is accepted and voted for by the people. And thank the Lord I live in California, where we do it.

We need to face the fact that America is a sick society compared to others, and this sickness is in part a belief in unlawful violence, and the instruments inevitably used for it, as the solution to problems.