Maybe they had a culture of burglarizing, raping, and murdering? Why focus on an inanimate object for protection when your ancestors should have been focusing on more important things?

Your best option in that case isn't to use an Anti-authority fluff piece that can't back up anything it states. All you do In that case is force everyone to question anything you put forth from that point on.

The Firearms Act of Jamaica was not passed until 1967. Up until that point there was no such thing as licensing. Many citizens, including my family, did not have the insane amount of money required to license and register a firearm.

This still doesn't mean that they have the power strip constitutional rights and force others to do the same.

So, you were for illegal possession of firearms then? Why, because the government said you had to pay to license a firearm?

More Anti-authority bs, and yet you want the second amendment to be written in stone and everyone who doesn't like it to get out.

That's an incredibly hypocritical line of thinking

Thank you for putting words in my mouth.

Ok fine, I'll ask, we're you for the illegal possession of firearms in Jamaica?

No.

However, I am even more opposed to the Firearms Act of Jamaica. I follow the law, and pay the hefty fee each year, but only because the consequence of not doing so outweighs the financial impact.

Why would you be against it? Best I can tell from searching their constitution for anything resembling the words arms, weapons, guns, etc. The Jamaican constitution does not guarantee its citizens any rights to owning weapons. Why then would you be against the Firearms act?

So you live in Jamaica not the Gunshine state? Don't lecture us about our own laws. lol

That's because Paul Farmer is a great person.

I really highly doubt that. From what you've said it sounds like your family were British colonists and thus probably considerably wealthier than most Jamaicans.


Using Jamaica as an argument against the effectiveness of gun control in the US is loldumb. The US should be compared to countries that are similar to it, not third world ****holes. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime is far better comparison.

There is no guarantee Jamaican citizens can own firearms. It is just an extremely overpriced tax on those wishing to remain quasi-legal, and I say quasi because the police are so unbelievably corrupt that you ultimately have no legal recourse should you not pay them off if they demand it.

There are thousands of illegal firearms imported into the country yearly. All you need to do is look at the warlike fighting that broke out when Christopher "Dudus" Coke was set to be extradited. Kids running the streets with fully automatic AK-47's and M-16's firefighting with the military. It was something I was actually glad to see brushed under the rug by the media.

Although, what I do wish was publicized is even worse, the police kill in cold blood themselves, and there is nothing being done about it except complaining to the UN, who choose to ignore what is going on.

I have dual-citizenship and reside in both countries, US as my primary residence.

So do you value a right in the Constitution more than the responsibility of the Constitution's principles and purpose?

Considerably wealthier? Not even close. My grandfather is a middle-class business owner that makes enough to take care of my grandmother and sometimes needs financial help from his children and grandchildren if unexpected expenses pop up. The days of living somewhat lavishly were very short lived, and only because of a real-estate boom in Jamaica during the same time the US was experiencing theirs.

My grandfather, my father, and I all carry in Jamaica because our business requires that we go and collect money, very often having over JA$1M on us at a time. In a country that people will kill for US$100, we are targets.

I would argue the "principles and purpose" of the constitution is to restrain the federal government from overreach.

Didn't seem to work.

I'm talking about the first 50ish words on the document.

I would consider myself a somewhat-Constitutionalist, registered Libertarian. I think that sums it up pretty well.

That doesn't answer the question or explain the unfounded explanation that Americans are either armed, uneducated, or needily suckling off the teat of the strawman daddy-police state.

A peaceful, typically unarmed society is even more baked into the constitution than the second amendment.

This:
One of which happens to be the 2A, strategically placed in the Bill of Rights to protect the free state. It is also the only one to explicitly state, "shall not be infringed".

Our founding fathers never said anything along the lines of, "lets tax a lot, limit the freedoms of all for the safety of a few, and let's all rely on the government for protection and sustenance, etc..", yet this is what society is becoming.

So y'all have done a talk radio inspired 'find and replace' job on the Constitution. Sorry, wishful thinking is not going to take away the clear purpose and responsibility of insuring domestic tranquility.

So going back to my point earlier in thread, are you ok with felons having access to firearms?

Violent felons? No.

Do I mind if some guy that got caught driving across state lines with a joint having a gun? Absolutely not.

But then you are infringing on their rights...

Which is exactly my point