The majority of American people believe the right to own a firearm for self-defense is their choice to make, not the governments.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _own_a_gun
The U.S. Supreme Court said eight years ago that the Constitution guarantees our fundamental right to keep a firearm in our homes for self-defense. Vote was 5 to four with Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly in February, so now we no longer have a majority on the court who believe that.
Donald Trump has made it very well known that he supports our lawful right to keep and bear arms. Trump is ready to appoint Constitutional judges.
Hillary Clinton said that the Supreme Court "is wrong on the Second Amendment," and called the case upholding the right to own a gun for protective purposes a "terrible decision." She has tried to backpedal, but she cannot prove herself to be trusted. Hillary did that we should look to Australia's gun confiscation scheme as a model for American gun policies (to that effect).
I do not trust Hillary to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.
What are you saying here? That a quarter of the population is illiterate?
That is exactly what she is saying that like Australia she wants all American guns turned in and the crazy thing about all this is her and Obama are releasing terrorist loose in this country of the refugees (that we cannot legally keep track of!) by the thousands and letting them in by the border carry God knows what all weapons but surely just like the ones all of us saw of the ones Eric Holder and Obama sold them! Bringing in terrorists and wanting our guns? I have not heard one plan about getting the bad peoples guns have you? This is all the while they are trying to start trouble between races and parties as heated as they can get them. We should all wonder just exactly what they are up to but smells like martial law to me at least to start. Where they are going with it I really would like to know. I have heard one world government...I really don't know how that benefits them but if their bank accounts are loaded I guess they think they can escape the mayhem.
"Orwellian" is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. - Wikipedia
1984 book text online, from Part 3 Chaper 3
Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said.
'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.'
They already made ugly art the modern art, and said now that's art (Truman), instead of the greatest art in all the world. That is declassified government information that everyone knows about.
* http://www.openculture.com/2013/04/how_ … ganda.html
Orwell was a socialist. And a man whose main interest was the decent treatment, ('decent' was one of his most oft used words) of other human beings. Are you sure he has a place in these forums?
I wasn't referring to Orwell, I was referring to Orwellianism that Orwell warned about. I call them the evil New World Order Globalists that want to run the world, Goldman Sachs, etc.
Orwell was partly motivated by a loathing of communism when he wrote 1984. But the loathing for Western Capitalism was just as deep.
He believed that the chief method the political elites used to control their populations (in East and West) was perpetual war, essentially fear and violence directed outwards.
The wonderful thing about the American Right is that do not need any encouragement when it comes to paranoia. They are already on-board...
uhh... maybe we listened to two different versions of "exactly what she is saying" because what I found is a bit different than what you imply with your "Australia" reference.
Here is the context of her remarks:
"Clinton argued that the NRA has “so intimidated elected members of Congress and other legislative bodies that these people are passing the most absurd laws.”
“The idea that you can have an open carry permit with an AK-47 over your shoulder walking up and down the aisles of a supermarket is just despicable,” she said."
Of course I may have misheard her audio, so here is the link so you can check it out for yourself. Leaked Audio: Clinton Says Supreme Court Is ‘Wrong’ on Second Amendment
After all, we do want the real facts don't we?
ps. you forgot to add the link where she said she wanted all guns in the U.S. turned in like Australia did.
She said the Australia model was worth looking at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcWePEsg94
There is lots more but in a hurry now.
Was that the link you intended to post? It was about a ban on assault rifles.
It was an end to the 2nd amendment , maybe she is clearer on this one. Or maybe you think they are just going to take the bad guns away from everyone and the drug cartel is going to give back all they bought from Holder and Obama? Is that why people are called sheeple, because they really believe this is how it will work out? Hillary is going to get all the guns from the terrorists they have let in through immigration and these refugees that come here with us knowing nothing about them and we are not allowed to keep track of them legally. Real smart...if you are wanting the worst that could happen to this country which Obama and Hillary do. They have sold their souls...well I am not real sure either ever had one.
Yes, it is despicable that someone can walk down a grocery store aisle with an AK-47 slung over their shoulder.
And anyone who agrees is equally despicable.
100% of all Americans believe the right to life is more important than the right to a gun.
After all, you can't own a gun if you are dead.
Half of Americans consider themselves pro-choice!
74% of Americans believe the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of the people to own guns to protect life.
I don't think you understand my point.
What percent of Americans choose to die? Can you own a gun if you are dead? Do you prefer life without a gun or death with one sitting snugly in your cold hand?
Time magazine has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group." The Washington Post called Rasmussen a "polarizing pollster." John Zogby said that Scott Rasmussen has a "conservative constituency." The Center for Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign. The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush re-election campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans. - Wikipedia
Liberal logic 101. Do you prefer false dilemmas or non sequiturs?
It's nice to hear from you, Phoenix. I always eagerly await one of your snarling attacks.
At least you are as consistent as colorfulone in misunderstanding my point.
Nothing personal in pointing out your many fallacies. It is odd that you portray pointing out your illogical statements as a snarling attack, when you liberally lace your posts with : extremists, nutjobs etc etc just to name a few. Another liberal tactic: ad homs and then play victim. Just because someone supports the 2ND or owns a gun does not mean that it defaults to death.
But on another note we all gotta die sometime and to quote your candidate hillary " what difference does it make" ? Besides, arent we all going to die from global warming.?
You love to label without knowing. Must make life easy and simple that way.
Oh sure, that global warming is more dangerous than ISIS, good thing it is not progressing as quickly as ISIS with the help of this administration and Hillary's as Secretary of State.
But sometimes the right to live and the right to have a firearm handy for self-protection are intertwined. I had to use my shotgun once to protect myself and my three young children. If NO ONE owned a gun or any other type of weapon, your ideology might work.
Oh dear, habee! Thankfully, you had a gun for protection. Have you written an article about that somewhere, I would love to read all about that.
How do you interpret my comment to mean that no one should have a gun? I don't have a problem with people owning guns. I have a problem with people who think their guns are more important than the lives of other people.
A good example is the HP forum posters who think it's OK for children, violent felons and mentally ill people to get access to assault rifles.
You are looking at this from the wrong angle. Of those who believe life is 100% more important than owning a gun they are speaking of their lives first, then those of their family and then those of everyone else.
Anyone who thinks the average person thinks all lives are of equal value and should be afforded the same level of protection never drove on the highway dodging swerving cars of people texting or playing pokemon go. Given the choice between your life and theirs, the they will probably choose their own life to be of greater value 98% of the time and will demand the right to the ownership of a fire arm if they think that will ensure they protect their and their loved ones lives.
Funny thing, though - they will put their text messaging to pick up a gallon of milk as more important than the risk of your life at the same time they put a minute risk to their life from criminals and murderers ahead of your constitutional rights or freedom. Funny how that works, isn't it?
I had no idea it was getting that bad with Pokemon players being so distracted. I guess some people really do have the attention span of a goldfish these days because of electronic devices and the internet. Unbelievable stories I have read today because of your post. It just about blows my mind, but I did hear some conspiracy theories when Pokemon was first released that people would be having and causing accidents while playing the game. Pokemon should be banned, but it won't be because its helping to stimulate the economy.
If someone points an assault rifle at you, which right do you think then is more important: Your right to life or the right of that mentally ill person to buy an assault rifle?
Somehow you keep going off onto a tangent that has nothing to do with anything. The current fight against the constitution is not to keep mentally ill people from buying an assault rifle: it is to keep anyone from buying that faked up wannabe of a military gun. You keep harping on the mentally ill, or children, but the goal is to remove ALL semi-automatic weapons (not just that terrible "assault rifle" that is seldom used in murders) from the hands of Americans. Followed by another class to be chosen later.
Thank you, wilderness, you have great focus on the topic.
I think Americans are mostly liberal, basically, but somehow we have embraced many failed ideas and cure-alls of the socialists and fascists over the years, bit by bit. Gun free zones...I know I don't need to go on.
Right, all gun activists are logical, brilliant, etc., and anyone with an opposing view is stupid. You always have to make it personal, don't you?
Would you mind at least trying to see another point of view instead of being so cotemptuous?
The OP treats gun rights as paramount. I believe right to life is more important than gun rights. Apparently, it's difficult for gun people to understand such a simple point. You love guns. So what if people die?
I keep harping on the assault rifle issue because you and others refuse to answer even the most simple quesiton about it.
Take your own class in logic and get your vehement hatred of pro gun law people out of the way if you want a real debate.
"I believe right to life is more important than gun rights."
Then you desperately need to try and see another point of view. Like answering the question of "does taking guns save lives?". "it's difficult for <anti>gun people to understand such a simple point - that it doesn't save lives at all - because they don't care if it does or not. They just want guns gone.
What question is that about assault rifle issue? I've asked you before to define "assault rifle" as well as "children" but you just ignore it - once more the goal doesn't seem to be to save lives but to take guns away.
Perhaps you'd better take your own class in logic. And statistics, and actually learn something about what causes murders and loss of life instead of simply deciding that an inanimate chunk of iron is the cause - that if we take that away people won't die any more. How about it? Willing to research and find answers or just stick to a failed policy (all over the world) that no guns = no murders?
Like usual, you keep diverting. What is life? What is a child? What is an assault rifle? What a bunch of bull.
Gun nuts are liars, cowards and sociopaths who hide behind a 2nd Amendment for the sake of getting off on owning things that kill.
Same old same old. You want to take assault rifles, but won't say what that means. You want to talk about children and guns, but won't say what THAT means.
And anyone that wishes to take guns from anyone at all, including the insane, terrorists and babies are all liars, cowards ans sociopaths who work at creating fear in others to further their goals of controlling the population in general. Sound good to you, or would you like to continue in a more reasonable, polite vein?
You destroyed any chance of politeness with your previous posts, both today and all the other times that you have launched personal attacks. And they just aren't directed at me.
This highly personal battle is all on you. Again.
Where? Where I (again) asked you to define your terms? Where I said you aren't out to take assault rifles from only the mentally ill, but ALL people? Where I pointed out that assault rifles are used only in a small minority of murders?
Where did I deteriorate to a lack of politeness...except in direct reply to the same thing?
"Somehow you keep going off onto a tangent that has nothing to do with anything"
"You keep harping"
"Followed by another class to be chosen later"
In one post, followed by:
"Perhaps you'd better take your own class in logic. And statistics, and actually learn something"
"You haven't the faintest what you're talking about"
"You keep right on crying"
And that's just from today. It's perfectly OK when you guys talk that way to other people. But God forbid if anyone talks that way to you.
In response to this post, you will twist it all around into something that is no longer recognizable.
OK, let's see.
You DO keep going off on tangents; you aren't trying to keep guns (any guns) out of the hands of mentally ill or children - you're trying to take them all while saying it's only a few that can't have them. A tangent, then, and not germane to the question at all.
You DO keep "harping". On the same old thing, without ever defining what you mean.
You WILL choose another class later - it's the stated goal of too many liberals to think anything else. Especially when it doesn't work.
You're the one that suggested a class in logic, not me. I merely turned it onto you, whereupon it becomes objectionable.
You DON'T have any idea what you're talking about; if you did you would discuss it instead of simply repeating the same old thing. I even asked for specific data, but it wasn't forthcoming.
You DO keep right on crying for the same old thing, without ever saying what it is you want OR trying to show it will help.
So back up and discuss the subject - what you want to ban and why. Define it and then show why it can be expected to help. You want to ban all assault rifles: OK, define the term and discuss why you think it will save lives instead of saying "I believe right to life is more important than gun rights." or "I keep harping on the assault rifle issue because you and others refuse to answer even the most simple quesiton about it." while refusing to even define the terminology you use.
You were asked two very simple questions: "What is an assault rifle" and "how do you justify taking it away from law abiding citizens". Your response was simple to say that life is more important than rights - a complete non-answer even while you say that I won't discuss it.
Since I can't respond to your next response, I will do so here.
Thank you for acknowledging for the first time ever that your posts were mocking and insulting.
You can reply directly if you go to "chronological" viewing. Pain in the posterior, though, for those that prefer threaded.
Not mocking at all - just a statement of fact. If you don't like the facts, answer the question instead of ignoring it and taking offense at factual statements when none was ever intended and quit suggesting that anyone that disagrees take a logic class, are liars, cowards and sociopaths. Support your position with factual data rather than insults.
I'll repeat it again: what are assault rifles, and what can you show to provide any hope that banning them will decrease the homicide rate? In my opinion, taking rights from people - ANY rights - must be accompanied by firm evidence that society will benefit considerably. Freedom is important - it is not something we should be limiting because we have a "feeling", or it is "common sense" that society will benefit from our actions. Until you can show that what you want to do is very likely to provide considerable benefit, then, a person's rights are to be left alone.
Or you can disagree that our freedom is important - that it is more important to society to toy with it in the forlorn hope that this time the the same action will have a different result. Do you? Many people will agree - mankind seems to have an innate feeling that "I know best, and you should live the way I think you should" and are quite eager to limit what others can do. One has only to look at the far right and their demand that gay rights be denied as they know, somehow, that homosexuality is "wrong" to see this in operation. Or to the terrorists that demand the entire world follow the precepts of their prophet.
I'll repeat it: you asked a completely open ended question about gun controls, but you failed to define any of the terms used. As those terms have widely different meanings to different people I asked for a definition...only to find that you apparently intend to leave it open to taking all guns owned by everyone.
Answer the question and we can talk about it; until then the question you asked is just nonsense, without meaning. Communication does require understanding, you know, and you've refused to elucidate what you meant.
Plus, while evading the question, you also refuse to answer or acknowledge any of the points I seek to make. It isn't about idiotic liberals; it's about understanding what has happened to cause the violence. You claim it is guns (guns cause murders), but can't provide any evidence of that while ignoring any that shows otherwise. One of us is refusing to answer, but it isn't me!
Calm down a bit promisem, you have merely been challenged to define that which you question. Your angry and emotional tirade does nothing to answer that challenge. What are your answers to those questions you are asking others?
With the exception of illegal access, violent felons are already prohibited from owning guns. How would you prohibit their access, without a total gun ban?
From which children do you want to prohibit gun access? Those 10-year old pre-teens, (which are already prohibited from owning guns), or those 23-year olds that are increasingly being assigned that "child" label. It is a simple question, what is a child to you, relative to your desire to limit gun access? And if you are addressing access to guns rather than legal procurement, what solution can you offer other than a total gun ban?
Since documented mentally ill folks are already prohibited from legal procurement of a gun, how would you propose limiting their access to guns without a total gun ban?
If you would clarify your own question, then others could answer, but as it stands it is hard to address your question because as your points are generally stated, gun ownership is already legally prohibited.
Then there is the question of access, just what do you mean? Breaking Dad's gun safe combination? Or buying from a back-ally seller? Legal access and real-life access are not the same, so what do you mean?
I will leave the definition of assault rifle and the debate on whether your demands would even help reduce total deaths to you and Wilderness. I am just pointing out that you refuse to answer that which you demand others answer.
GA, if you would read all of the previous posts, you would see that I did not launch a series of personal attacks and insults. They did.
I understand that your beliefs are more aligned with theirs than mine. So I also understand your desire to put the onus on me. As a result, I have a "tirade" while the people attacking me are reasonable.
I no longer have any desire to discuss this issue reasonably with a bunch of immature bullies whose idea of a debate is mocking me because they don't like what they hear.
If they want to launch personal attacks as a standard practice, I guess I have to respond in kind.
The OP is about the Second Amendment, our "Constitutional Rights!" ... I think ALL of them are "paramount", but this thread is about the 2nd A.
I personally am Pro-Life! I believe everyone has the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. I believe in freedom, justice, and equality (and equalizers).
What would you do if an armed intruder broke into your house, call 911?
How ironic that people who claim they are pro life are also in love with something that is designed to kill.
It's even more ironic that many of them attend church as if somehow they think that makes them Christians.
The internet is full of reports about pregnant Mom's shooting and killing home intruders to save the life of their unborn child and their own, etc. Those stories are largely ignored by MSM.
Going in a garage doesn't turn anyone into a car.
Car crashes kill more people in the USA than guns.
According to him if one person owns an assault rifle everyone else is guilty of murder.
Beautiful. You folks are consistent at putting words into the mouths of other people.
What active imaginations!
The other day, I decide that whenever I feel stupid I will remember that people are driving vehicles looking for Pokemon. Seriously, that baffles me.
Well, let's certainly go to the most extreme and use that extreme as justification for working against the average citizen to a constitutionally protected right. How very DNC of you.
Neither do you. You haven't the faintest what you're talking about - you haven't even tried to find out results of taking guns away whether the dreaded (and undefined) "assault rifle" or any other gun.
But it doesn't stop you. You keep right on crying to take rights away in the same old failed policy that has been used for decades all over the world with zero results.
I have done all of that research, which is why I have never said we should take away all guns. It has nothing to do with my points. You continue to make silly claims about me that have nothing to do with reality.
Frankly, you are so emotionally out of control about this issue that you really shouldn't have a gun on you if you are debating with someone face to face.
Ah! Which state, city or country has found the homicide rate to decrease after taking guns - ANY kind of guns? Which countries, cities or states have found a correlation between the number of guns, or the type of guns, and homicide rates?
(just FYI, I don't own a gun. But I put a high premium on freedom and rights - to take away either one without a very good reason is what this country is about. Or at least what it USED to be about; more and more we see the taking of rights just because we wish to control the lives of someone else because we don't like the way they live their lives)
I agree with you..... and, I do own a gun which, I might add, i am keeping!
The reality is that if I have a gun and I know that you have a gun, I am bound to be more personable and polite to you..... We become equal in our own sight!
I own a bazooka and believe that everyone should have the right to own one. If we all owned bazookas, I can guarantee you there'd be a lot less crime. I also know that when people see me walking down the street with my bazooka, they don't mess with me.
Wait til you see the guy, with the laser guided missile launcher, lol. Your bazooka will need Viagra.
I want MY missile launcher to be an F22 Raptor. With unlimited fuel, missiles and maintenance.
That will certainly reassure your community, lol.
I'm not right wing. But it appears you don't let facts get in the way. You'd rather function from the corner of ignorance.
Of course you are. You consistently attack people who don't think the way you do in your Donald Trump mind.
You prefer insults over debate. You mock my post about the right to life being more important than the right to a gun. What could be more factual?
But wait! It is factual and logical. Can't counter with a reasonable response, so I'll do the usual right-wing response and simply mock the poster.
Or maybe you think a gun is more important than a life. Is that the case?
You seem to be too agitated to think clearly. I have not mocked your posts, until you chose to mock mine. My last response was in line with yours.
My mind is clear as a bell. Your post:
"Well, let's certainly go to the most extreme and use that extreme as justification for working against the average citizen to a constitutionally protected right. How very DNC of you."
I responded in kind. Don't you read your own posts?
Just found this:
"Personal attack? Not sure how anything I said qualifies as a personal attack."
You seem to think that way a lot.
You offered an extreme. I pointed that out. If that's an attack ok. I don't see it as such. And either way it is less caustic than many responses I've received from you over the course of our exchanges.
I don't remember calling you ignorant as you did me among your many other comments.
But I will grant that your above post is not caustic like others both you and I have exchanged.
So we agree we have both been caustic. We've made progress. Can we agree to attempt to disagree with civility and respect?
I'm not averse to the idea of reasonable laws such as a ban on assault rifles as long as we reasonably define what constitutes an assault rifle.
I can't reply directly to your response, so I will do it here.
Yes, I agree that we should discuss the issue with civility and respect.
Unfortunately, there are now so many variations that it is difficult to define assault rifles. One possibility exists with the magazine size.
When you push forward what I consider to be ignorant arguments such as "If someone points an assault rifle at you, which right do you think then is more important: Your right to life or the right of that mentally ill person to buy an assault rifle?" it is difficult to believe you want a serious debate on the issue.
No one has proposed that guns are more important than life. Other than you insisting they are to some. Your wishful thinking does not fabricate a fact out of thin air.
The fact that you don't like my post doesn't automatically make it wrong. It just means you don't like the way someone else thinks.
Of course some people think guns are more important than life. Gun extremists and the NRA oppose all gun laws and simply don't care when 20 children are murdered in a school or 30 students are massacred at Virginia Tech.
Your wishful thinking does not fabricate a fact out of thin air.
The great majority of gun owners don't own guns for protection. They own them because they get off on owning them.
You do not have a right to life if you do not have a right to a method to defend that life from those that would take it. And only a gun makes a little old lady or teenaged girl able to take down a 6' 2' rapist, fancy kung fu movie fantasies aside - and ONLY a gun will give the potential rape victim the ability to stop a gang rape.
Want to see a real war in America , want to see children die , your wives ,your husbands , your dogs and cats ? Imagine a modern day civil war , tanks in the streets , helicopters in the air over your children's soccer field.?
Elect a president that wants to AND then attempts to confiscate guns in America .
Just saying - it will happen .
So true. Believe me: some of the South Georgia "good ole boys" would die before they gave up their guns.
What is troubling is Hillary's record for the past 3 decades of being in favor of gun bans, for gun laws that prevent law abiding citizens form carrying concealed, for adding secret government black list to the
instant national criminal background check system, for national gun registration, and for Australian style gun confiscation.
She has been for pretty much every gun ban, gun law that's ever been proposed in the US in the last 3 decades. That is her record.
So, this is a very pivotal election when Hillary doesn't think the Supreme Court got it right. She would appoint a justice that in her mind would "get it right". I don't believe anything lying Hillary Clinton says
about not wanting to ban our guns.
Trump wants to appoint Constitutional justices to protect our Constitutional rights.
"What percent of Americans choose to die?" - promisem
2005 Pew Research survey "Right To Die"
Once your dead there is no choice.
Approximately 32,000 people are killed during home invasions each year in the United States. - Quora
"Right to die" for medical reasons and "choose to die" amid a healthy life are two completely different concepts. Pretty obvious.
Colorfulone said, ""What percent of Americans choose to die?" - promisem
2005 Pew Research survey "Right To Die"
Once your [sic] dead there is no choice.
Approximately 32,000 people are killed during home invasions each year in the United States. - Quora"
No wonder you're so terrified of everything! You think that 32,000 Americans are murdered in home invasions each year! I'd never leave my closet if I believed that. The real number is less than a thousand. Stop living in fear; you'll be more productive and happier if you aren't constantly afraid of being murdered in your home when you are almost as likely to die to die from falling out of bed and much more likely to die by being hit by someone texting and driving.
A random internet user who is selling a security camera system via a link in her answer isn't exactly the best source for your statistics. You just chose the comment on the Quora page that stated the highest number. That answer only has one upvote and links to no source. There's even a photo of what she's selling in the answer!
For the record, planning how your end of life medical care should go is not the same as choosing to die. Why not read the chart you put up? It is about end of life planning which is about writing down who gets to make medical decisions in the event you become unable and writing down the decisions you want made ahead of time. Plenty of those people on your chart could have written down that they want to be kept alive on life support until they are legally dead and start to rot. Choosing what you want medical personnel to do for you when you are dying is not the same as choosing to die.
I don't have a gun because I enjoy killing. Years ago, when I was a hunter, I did kill animals, and we ate them. Money was tight when the ex's union was on strike, so we did a lot of hunting and fishing. IMO, legal and ethical hunting is a much more humane way to procure meat than are factory farms and most slaughterhouses. I haven't hunted in years, though. I do still enjoy skeet and trap shooting, however.
When the men tried to break into our house in the middle of the night, when my husband was working the graveyard shift, I thank God I didn't have to fire my gun. Just seeing it was enough to scare the perps off. Even if I had to shoot someone in order to protect myself or my family, I wouldn't aim to kill. I'd aim to stop. Owning firearms is not a "power trip" for me.
From reading the comments already made; being from Britain (where attitudes on the issue of gun ownership is completely different to the American view) I know that by simply stating the British viewpoint I will mostly likely get lots of abusive replies, rather than just acknowledging that there can be alternatives in other parts of the world that makes life safer in society!
I can only speak for Britain, where the whole concept of legalised gun ownership is seen as just crazy; and from the British viewpoint the 2nd Amendment just seems immoral stupidity and simple madness.
In Britain, not only is gun ownership illegal but it is also illegal to sell a knife (including kitchen knives or a cutlery knife) to anyone under 18, and illegal to carry any knife in public (without good reason) unless it is a folding blade that is 3 inches or less in length.
And it’s not just guns and knives, but in Britain it’s also a criminal offence to be in possession of any item in pubic which is made or adapted to cause injury, and which is intended by the person carrying the item to cause harm e.g. a hammer or a cricket bat if used in malice (or self-defence with excessive force).
As regards self-defence, under British law, you can only use ‘reasonable force’; if you use excessive force and your attacker dies then you will be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter; or if they are grievously harmed then you would be prosecuted for ‘GBH’ (Grievous Bodily Harm).
Looking at raw states; in Britain and Japan (two countries where gun controls are the tightest in the world) firearm related death rates are amongst the lowest e.g. just 58 people in Britain in 2011; in contrast in America where gun control is the most relaxed in the world the firearm related death rates is one of the highest (per head of population) worldwide e.g. 8,775 American people kill by guns in 2010.
As a result of our laws, British people feel safer on the streets (and in our homes), and statistically it is significantly safer in Britain than in the USA e.g. in Britain 94.8% of Police are unarmed, and most criminals are unarmed also.
Before responding, please note that this is a British view only e.g. how the Brits see America.
And yet... England and Wales has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 and a homicide rate of 1.5. Japan's figures are 0.6 and 0.5.
For Austria, the numbers are 30.4 and 0.05, and Denmarks are 12.0 and 0.07. It seems that the more guns are available to the population the lower the homicide rate.
It's real easy to cherry pick specific countries to show whatever is desired, although I WILL point out that the dead don't care if they were shot by a gun, stabbed or died as a result of arson. Pretending that only gun related deaths is what counts is a major fallacy - total death rates is what matters as the old saw that if guns aren't available something else will be used is all too true and born out by statistics and hard experience.
(Stats from the UN study conducted by Small Arms and are for 2007, the most recent year with lots of countries when I wrote the hub.)
If you look at violence in the US and UK the levels are not dissimilar. In most of the rest of Western Europe there are far fewer assaults.
The mass brawls and ubiquitous drunken altercations that are typical of any town in the UK on a Saturday night are not reproduced in European cities, for one thing.
If the UK population were armed there would be carnage. It is a country where large sections of the population are disposed to violence.
The UK has remarkably low levels of actual death because it is able to look at itself realistically. We are dangerous to each other and need to keep instruments of death out of the equation.
Americans have some kind of strange notion that only good guys will buy guns, lol.
They pay a heavy price for that delusion.
'If the UK population were armed there would be carnage."
What can you support that statement with, except to compare it to the one country (the US) that is clearly out of line with the rest of the developed world - that is a huge anomaly in the graph of gun ownership vs homicide rates? Is it because "We are dangerous to each other and need to keep instruments of death out of the equation." even as you allow most weapons to exist in large numbers? (You might want to consider that, in the US, more people are killed with hands and feet than with all long guns combined. Or that Canada has more murders by bludgeoning than the US does.)
Not sure which weapons you are referring to. Handguns and assault rifles are not legally available for home use. Gun clubs are strictly regulated. Shotguns require licences and are generally restricted to farmers or other rural workers.
This reflects widespread cultural revulsion for weapons that are purely designed to kill human beings.
Guns are regarded as a coward's weapon.
Hands. Feet. Knives. Baseball bats (cricket bats?). Cars. Fertilizer + diesel fuel. 100's of different poisons. Matches. Airplanes. Large wrenches. Gasoline.
That enough weapons commonly available in the UK for you? Most of which can be far more deadly than any single gun could ever be.
Yep, wilderness, and (apart from your own body) under British law many of these objects you mention can be classified as an ‘Offensive Weapon’ if intent can be proved e.g. wielding a wooden chair leg outside a nightclub; and just being in possession of such an offensive weapon in the UK automatically carries a minimum custodial sentence of six months.
• The maximum prison sentence in the UK for carrying a knife (even if not used) is four years.
• The minimum prison sentence for being in possession of a gun in the UK is five years; the maximum prison sentence is ten years.
• The minimum prison sentence for murder in the UK is 15 years. If you kill them with a knife it’s 25 years, and with a gun 30 years.
Killing someone with one fatal blow of the fist in the UK (or a kick) e.g. in a fight (or self-defence if excessive force is used) is manslaughter and carries a minimum custodial sentence of 4 years (maximum is life); currently pressure groups want the minimum sentence increased to 8 years.
America is the only country in the world where there are more guns than people e.g. 112.6 guns per 100 USA residents; in Britain it’s just 6.6 guns per 100 UK citizens.
Other differences is that to own a gun in Britain you have to apply for your gun license through the Police, and if you want ammunition you have to buy a separate certificate which is also granted by the police e.g. some people just want an old civil war musket to hang on their wall for display; and if you are granted an ammunition licence you are limited to how much ammunition you can possess at any one time.
In Britain, fully automatic, semi-automatic, burst-fire and pump action weapons are all illegal, as is any disguised gun e.g. a gun disguised as a walking stick or mobile phone etc. Imitation guns made from wood and plastic toy guns are also illegal in the UK if they look realistic.
The only licensed guns that you can legally own in Britain, if the police grant you a licence, are rifles, pistols and shotguns; of which the vast majority (about 80%) are shotguns owned by farmers and licenced to them by the police.
In 2011 homicides committed in the UK with a firearm was just 0.05 per 100,000 citizens e.g. just 38 people. Total homicides in the UK in 2011 being just 577 people; compared to the USA where total homicides in the same year was 12,664 people of which 8,583 were killed with guns.
To put it in perspective the USA population (321 million) is five times greater than the UK population (65 million); so taking size of population into account if the level of total homicides in the USA was at the same rate as the UK it would have been just 2,500 homicides in the USA in 2011 and not the 12,664 that it actually was.
And Austria, with 5 times the guns of the UK, has 1/3 the homicide rate. And Switzerland, with 8 times the guns (mostly military grade, fully automatic) has half the murder rate. It is obvious that more guns results in fewer homicides, yes?
All the talk about how strict the UK is on guns rather pales before the hard stat that more guns means fewer homicides, right?
Or, just maybe, there is something besides the number of guns that is behind the high homicide rate in the US. Just maybe we need to look beyond the tool of choice to figure out why Americans murder so much (and the UK, too, when compared to other countries).
Now you are getting to the heart of it.
What is it about the US and UK that encourages violence?
The UK mitigates the problem to a large extent by reducing access to deadly weapons. But what really drives the violence in both countries?
I think particular groups of people have a propensity for violence and impulsive behavior.
And I think you're right. Poverty plays a part, culture plays a part, beliefs play a part and many other things contribute. But not a cold piece of iron.
Idk some really poor countries have low homicide rates. If you look at the demographics based more on like cultural type aspects, no matter what country, island or city, it seems that certain groups of people have a propensity for violence and I believe impulsive behavior. Until that is addressed it will continue imo, regardless of their weapon of choice.
The large majority of US violence comes out of the ghetto - the (relatively) poorest sections. Is it then poverty relative to those nearby? That would make more sense; when the entire country is poor, there is no resentment for all are the same.
That would have to hold true worldwide. The demographics on statistics of worldwide homicide rates suggest that poverty is not necessarily a factor. I try not to rationalize statistics.
Haven't seen anything like that. Can you point me to something showing that local relative poverty does not produce more violence than more (locally) affluent areas? Inner city vs suburbs or something similar? Or even a rich state with a higher murder rate than a poor one, but a rate that isn't primarily due to poverty stricken areas in the rich state?
I guess we would have to define poor or poverty. Poor like fashioning a cane pole and catching a fish or eating what you can find in a dumpster or poor like sticking up a liquor store, cause ya aint got no money.
That is indeed a part of the question: the poor in the NYC ghetto is rich beyond belief to a Nigerian native living off what he can throw a spear through.
Which is why I think it much more important to look at relative poverty; relative to those in fairly close proximity.
There are poorer people and countries right next door to your examples. The difference is culture and vast disparity in homicide rates. The only exception to the rule Ive seen is proximity to drug trade. Im not scared to walk down the streets of Nepal at night. Im not worried about a group of ghandis or mother theresas gonna mug me somewhere. Poor is no excuse to be a violent criminal nor is it a common denominator
Being violent is the common denominator in violence.
I'm not making myself clear. People in Nepal are poor and non-violent. Is a major factor that ALL of Nepal (or virtually all of it) poor? If the poor there lived alongside much more affluent people, also in Nepal, would there be violence? It does seem so - everywhere we look we see that. The people in the ghettos, in the same country but much poorer than the norm, are much more prone to violence.
It's certainly not an excuse, but it very much seems a common denominator.
There are countries that are all poor that have the same borders. Some countries are violent and others are not. They join the same borders. Financial inequality cannot explain that. Populations, groups, cultures are not static and have propagated into other countries and islands etc. Although the same cultures, because they have dispersed among poorer or richer areas and have become richer or poorer compared to their origins still have that high homicide rate whereever they go, regardless of their higher or lower standards and regardless of the standards that they move into or around. The same with the other cultures. They move, their rates go with them. Now im sure that in general there are some stats that poor people commit more crime....but if that was all there was to it, I certainly would not plan my trips to world destinations by that assumption.
No, poverty certainly is NOT all there is to it! There are dozens of contributing factors. I merely mention it because I think it IS one of the factors driving violence. Even then, though, there are multiple facets to it; were the inner city gangs busy feeding themselves they wouldn't be so apt to kill each other, for instance. Excessive leisure time contributes here even though at first glance it seems contradictory to poverty.
I have known some homeless people who have such a wonderful spirit, they wouldn't do anyone any harm. No, I do not think poverty is a great factor unless people are brainwashed to believe that's a good enough excuse or reason to be violent.
In my perfect world, everyone would be treated as equal.
Yes, true. People with guns are more likely to shoot someone than people without guns.
How blind , for one , generally speaking stolen guns used to commit inner city murders of Black Lives Matter people is more likely the reason for increased gun murders ! A gang member in Chicago , a felon in Detroit , a repeat offender of domestic violence in NYC , The pure naiveté of the left like you is the real reason for the denial that crimes with guns are happening increasingly in large part by a huge increase in inner cities run by liberal fools adopting "gun free zones " thereby advertising ..........."Come here and commit your murders there are no gun owners here to worry about "
Get some Real facts ---.Then come back to the debate .
There were 2,939 shooting victims in Chicago last year.
The city with the strictest gun laws in the USA.
Criminals are going to get guns no matter what.
I cannot blame law abiding citizen for moving out of Chicago.
How blind? Do you mean that people without guns can actually shoot someone? Do you make a sound that goes "bang bang"?
Look at the "other " reasons and items used in violent crimes , knives don't make a sound , neither does domestic battering at times , how about abortions of inner city blacks, that kill more children than ANY other cause TOGETHER - and totally silent , a child dying in a locked vehicle outside of a bar - doesn't make a sound after awhile either ,........People like yourself on the left should put violence , guns and death on a weighing scale - What you would find is that murder , gun crimes , and the general blind rhetoric far out-way other reasons for death by a gun , Like the fact that the major increase in gun deaths , like a four and five hundred percent increase in the last very few years -----Is directly related to inner cities and THIER crime rates .
By the way , I know you're not so blind that you cannot see that criminals don't care WHAT new law you invent , or how many law abiding people that THAT affects ...............at least I think you're not ? Criminals don't care about any law !
More likely to shoot someone...but no more likely to kill someone. Do you then think the dead will care? Will it make them, or their loved ones, feel better to know they were (knifed, bludgeoned, burned, whatever) than shot?
LOL. Yep, Omar Mateen bludgeoned 50 people to death in Orlando! The report that he used guns was all a bunch of liberal media lies!
Is there a reason you refuse to look at the big picture, choosing instead to cherry pick incidents where guns are the tool used for murder?
Come, let's talk about nations that have taken guns away and saw the murder rate drop. You'll have to start it as I can't find any.
Or we can talk about nations that have low gun ownership and low murder rates: you list one and I'll give you 2 that have either higher gun ownership and lower murder rates or lower ownership and higher murder rates. The big picture is so much more telling, don't you think, than single incidents that raise emotional responses but provide nothing germane to limiting violence?
We can even talk about how Australia took people's guns...and found murder by arson rising. Would Orlando have been burned if no guns were available? It's happening to the Aussies...but recognizing that sort of thing kind of ruins the drive to take guns, doesn't it? So we won't talk about it, will we?
Can you show the limiting guns limits the violence (homicide rate)? Or is that just an assumption with nothing to back it?
I keep asking that question, but you keep ignoring it while repeating that it is true. Do you have evidence of a causal relationship between guns and violence? Do you have anything, anything at all, that shows a correlation between the number of guns and the number of homicides? I have given you 3 examples clearly showing the proliferation of guns reduces homicides; can you provide anything showing the opposite?
As HP's reigning expert on everything about guns, maybe you can finally offer some suggestions on reducing gun violence rather than picking every post you don't like to death.
Or perhaps the NRA has no suggestions other than buy more guns.
Not interested in simply limiting gun violence (and don't understand those that are). Far more interested in limiting the murder rate whether it be by guns, knives or anything else.
But can you explain why you wish to limit only gun violence when we know the killers will keep on killing, just with a different weapon? What possible reasoning is there to do that? (Outside of a hatred/fear of guns, that is.)
Maybe itsa bait n switch thing. If they can ban ar15s later they can say ooops they made a mistake it was in actuality the semi auto pistol doing far more killing. Of course it will have to be proclaimed officially by CNN, Rosie or Whoopie. Guns bad, unless you are famous ( or of value to society) or liberal and elected and have security .
Of course it is. It has become common to use the term "gun violence" as synonymous with "violence" or "murder". It is not, but the little qualifier "gun" just disappears unless one is watching for it.
And just as you say, the dreaded "assault rifle" (used in a tiny minority of homicides) will become something else in the next round of gun banning when it becomes apparent that it did no good to ban one type of gun. Maybe we'll be able to retain our muzzle loaders, but I doubt it.
I ain't doing your research for you, the low murder rate in the UK is common knowledge.
Start your search here: https://www.google.co.th/webhp?sourceid … by+country
This is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 … -countries
Anyway, you were getting somewhere before on understanding the high murder rate in the US relative to other advanced countries. I would stay on that path instead of trying to head back into denial.
Yes, the UK has a low murder rate compared to the US. And high (as I've pointed out) to many others. Your point? Are you trying to say that lack of gun ownership is causal to that low rate without ever providing any evidence of it?
How is it interesting and what in the world could it possibly have to do with limiting gun ownership? And what does the link to searches for murder rates by country have to do with it either? I mean, throw in another link to gun ownership rates and then put the two together and you'll find there is no correlation, but just murder rates has nothing to do with anything.
What denial would that be? That guns somehow cause murders? I've asked and asked for the connection, but you won't even discuss it. Is there something else being denied?
You grasp that people in the UK and US are particularly prone to violence but think it is good idea to arm them with deadly weapons?
This goes back to the idiotic notion that only good people buy guns.
A good percentage of any population has these at least one of these characteristics:
a tendency to panic,
deep irrational grievances,
a belief they have been denied their just deserts,
boiling rage as a result of unjust treatment (real or imagined),
mental health problems,
drink or drug problems
dangerous extremist ideolgies
short term but very dangerous issues as a result of going through a bad patch
I would say that covers the entire population of any country. Anyone can commit murder if caught at the wrong moment. But is far more difficult to see it through if deadly weapons are not available.
Is there some reason you refuse to supply ANY evidence whatsoever that a decreased gun supply shows a decrease in homicide rates? Or that guns cause murders? What keeps you from responding to any data showing that neither is true, instead pretending it wasn't said?
Is it possible that you already know and acknowledge that, but simply don't want to talk about and ruin a fine emotional case for removing rights and freedoms that you don't want others to have? Is that what it is? Can you really expect anyone to accept the logic that "it has to be so" when it flies directly in the face of 100% experience to the contrary?
Come on, Will - you said I was in denial. Denial about what? What is it that I deny? I asked for any country that experienced a reduction in murder rates when guns were taken away - why haven't you provided one? I gave you 4 examples proving that more guns means fewer deaths - why haven't you commented on that? Why is everything I say ignored, only to give more irrelevant comments like there are people with drinking problems? Somebody's in denial, all right, but it isn't me!
After Australian Gun Reform 1996
Journal of the American Medical Association
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp … id=2530362
From 1979 to 1996, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths was rising at 2.1% per year. Since then, the average annual rate of total non-firearm suicide and homicide deaths has been declining by 1.4%, with the researchers concluding there was no evidence of murderers moving to other methods, and that the same was true for suicide.
The average decline in total firearm deaths accelerated significantly, from a 3% decline annually before the reforms to a 5% decline afterwards, the study found.
In the 18 years to 1996, Australia experienced 13 fatal mass shootings in which 104 victims were killed and at least another 52 were wounded. There have been no fatal mass shootings since that time, with the study defining a mass shooting as having at least five victims.
The lead author pointed out in an interview that, he does not believe the findings will have an impact on gun ownership laws in the US.
“The US is a good example of where evidence is going to take longer to prevail over fear and ideology,” he said.
Most of this is copy and paste since arguing with ideologues is too time consuming, lol.
HOMICIDE INCIDENTS IN AUSTRALIA
From the Australian govt., http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html
Does it look like an increase in homicide rates from '90 to '96? Doesn't to me. Nor does it look like there was any change in the rate of decrease from '96 to '06. Quoting from your link,
"There was a more rapid decline in firearm deaths between 1997 and 2013 compared with before 1997 <which disagrees with the Australian government data> but also a decline in total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths of a greater magnitude. Because of this, it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms.". In other words, other changes between 1996 and 2013 resulted in a change of the rate of decrease in homicide rates so we can't attribute it to the gun grab.
There is no correlation between the numbers of homicides and gun ownership. There is no causal effect of gun ownership on homicide rates. More guns does NOT mean more homicides. This is what I keep pointing out - that taking guns does NOT reduce homicide rates. Indeed, the only way the JMA can report an increase in the rate of decline is to take data from over a decade after gun confiscation - until that time there was no change in the rate of decrease of homicide rates. (https://soapboxie.com/social-issues/Gun … duce-Crime If you scroll to the bottom you will find a graph taken from UNODC data). 10 years is far too long to attribute any change to a confiscation of guns that happened over the span of just one year.
https://www.rt.com/news/216151-mother-a … -children/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/0 … index.html
"State officials in Victoria have launched arson investigations into some of the blazes, which have killed at least 173 people..."
"Victoria Police Chief Christine Nixon said investigators think "14 people were killed as a result of one particular fire that we believe was laid by arsonists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … _Australia
Scroll down a ways and you will find a chart of "massacres" over the years. It shows 11 since taking the people's guns in 1996, using 3 dead as the number to make it a mass murder (the more commonly used number today - if 5 dead is the number desired, there are still 6 incidents of mass murder). 3 shootings, 4 arsons, 1 blunt instrument, 1 stabbing and the rest unknown.
Now here is where it gets a little tricky. Your link carefully leaves out all of these as either too small (3 dead as opposed to 5) or, more importantly, leaves out anything not gun related. Yet the important thing is the number of dead in mass killings, not mass shootings! As an indication of gun control saving lives, then, it is totally worthless - both the number of dead and the number of incidents from mass murders has gone up, not down, since the gun grab and will skyrocket if the second link here finds large numbers of dead from arson set wildfires. When the murderers went from guns to fire the numbers of dead rose as fire is much more deadly than any single gun.
Bottom line: gun control in Australia has done nothing to curb homicide rates. It has changed the murder tool from guns to other things (notably arson) but the homicide rate has shown no change whatsoever. With such hard evidence and experience in hand, can there be a real reason to repeat the experiment in another country, depriving millions of their rights and freedoms for zero return?
(I'll also point out that the guns taken were exactly the type being bandied about in the US as "assault rifles". Taking them away did no good in Australia, why would we think it will be different in the US?)
The lead author says it is a good example of where evidence is going to take longer to prevail over fear and ideology - this seems patently true as we still have people convinced that taking guns will save lives because...well because they think it will and refuse to look at real life experience. Is it too time consuming or difficult for ideologues to actually look at and consider data...data that they don't want to see because it destroys their carefully made up insinuations that guns cause murders or that confiscating preferred tools will reduce deaths?
Good stuff but I reckon I will take the analysis of the peer reviewed article in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
By the way, one of the outcomes of the Australian gun law changes was the sudden appearance of Australian cities at the top of popular tourist destination and reputational polls indices.
Nothing is more depressing for visitors than walking through a city and seeing a gun shop. The angst just bleeds out of them.
It doesn't really need "peer review" although it would help. The key statement is right in your link, that no correlation even between mass gun murders and the number of guns can be established. There is also other wee problem that the stated purpose was to find if taking guns resulted in fewer gun mass murders - something that isn't germane to the question of "Does taking guns save lives?". That the answer to their question was "no" says something; the actual question they asked themselves says a lot more. So if you want to take their analysis, it is that there is no link at all between the number of guns and deaths - not even deaths attributable to guns.
Same thing with your statement that we see so often: one event following another is taken as causal when there is zero reason to think it is. That tourism went up in the immediately following years does not mean that the gun grab was the cause; there are ALWAYS efforts going on to increase tourism and it's a lot more reasonable to think that they were the cause. And it wasn't even tourism - it was the placement on tourism destinations that travel companies would like to sell you!
That you find gun shops depressing does NOT mean that everyone does; if that were the case there would be no gun shops.
"I know that by simply stating the British viewpoint I will mostly likely get lots of abusive replies."
Love that statement. Not in the beginning, but you will get abuse if you try too hard to disagree with the gun fanatics. They love the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and hate the 1st.
Otherwise, thank you for posting an intelligent and thoughtful comment.
Thanks Promisern, sound advice which I will take as it’s obvious from all these postings that American gun lovers are not going to see sense, and just seem intent on making America even more violent.
I’m just glad I don’t live in America with all the gun violence, homicides and police shootings there. At least in Britain we have strict gun laws that help to make us safe (and our police don’t carry guns); so that I and my wife can go out for the evening in safety, and feel safe e.g. just 573 homicides in Britain last year, which is small compared to the size of the UK population (65 million) and which pales into insignificances compared to homicides in the USA.
In the UK, 573 homicides in 2015 (of which only a small percentage was from gun violence), as a percentage of the UK population, is incredibly small (573 is 0.00088153846153846% of 65 million). So the odds of being killed in the UK in any one year is such a small percentage that it’s not worth worrying about, and to me that seems good enough reason to feel perfectly safe living in a the UK where we don’t have, and don’t want, a gun culture.
Thank you for not visiting America with that attitude , America is as safe a country to live in as any modern first world nation , actually more so , what the statistics of the anti- gun- ideology don't tell you is that almost all guns death of increasing numerical importance are inner city high crime , high violence and directly related to liberal city political leadership , most times for decades ! The soft on crime , revolving door policies of liberal leadership and hyper liberal justice systems , combined with modern anti- police , anti- authority attitudes of our activist youth , such as the BLM ,fueled by a sensationalizing media , IS DIRECTLY AT FAULT .
Fuel a forest fire and it explodes , Hence , The Obama administration has supported much of the violence going on in inner cities today , by inviting a media criticism of police procedures ,by maximizing the explosion of forced social restructuring towards an entitlement driven economy .
His fight against the second amendment , against the rigid constitutional law , which he believes is fluid in it's interpretation is causing a melt down of our society in many ways , conservatives despise him , liberals have canonized him .
At this point most of America just wants him gone !
Guns however -are here to stay !
It's nice to feel safe, isn't it? And if that feeling (not reality, but only feeling) requires that others be controlled in what they own it doesn't matter, does it? Your feelings are SO much more important than freedoms or rights, after all!
Yes wilderness, it is good to be safe (and hence feel safe); that’s where British and American attitudes are so different. We British don’t see gun ownership as a right nor do we consider our freedoms infringed by gun ownership being illegal; we only see guns as an evil killing machine.
More than 8,000 people are killed by guns in America each year, less than 50 a year in Britain. Over 1,000 Americans are shot dead by the police in the USA each year; in Britain it’s been just 2 fatal shooting in the past 12 months.
*sigh* If it were only that easy. We could just disarm our population and no one would die from violence ever again. We could transfer the feeling (of safety) to reality.
But it isn't, and those that bother to try and understand come to know that. The old saying, so hated by the anti gun crew, that guns don't kill, people do is all too true and there isn't a country in the world that can say that disarming their own people has cut their murder rate one bit.
I can only wish that our leaders would do something beyond the same old thing of disarm that has been tried so many times and with so little result. It doesn't work but we keep right on trying it, thinking that this time there will be different results.
The 2nd Amendment only came into play because of our fight for independance from Britain..... However, if our mindsets were the same as the Brits, our gun issues would be easy to change.... Thanks for the update on British law...
God Bless You
"There You Go Again ", hey everybody , one more anti-gunner in the midst . Every argument here has already been destroyed by truths , Social reformists have used every lie , every slanted statistic to try to convince America of its own demise by the evil of guns.
Look back through all the anti-gun rhetoric from these forum histories and try to learn something ---the simple truth ! It isn't an inanimate object that kills ,it's the evil of human nature , its out of control liberally run inner city gang and minority crime rates . Its the broken legal system , and soft touch justice system . It's people not guns -----that's the real problem.
The US will not die. It will simply continue to be unnecessarily fear filled.
Cops will continue shooting people without good reason because they are scared for their lives.
Householders will be buying military grade weapons because they are afraid their neighbors have them.
Childish fantasies about needing guns to beat back evil government troops will be fostered by all those who profit from gun sales.
And your point ?
While you ignore what's going on because of direct liberal ownership of almost every single crime issue in America today ! The inner city liberal leadership shuffle away from the direct responsibility of major increases in crime ! The liberal shuffle away from any personal accountability in adult responsibility or in adolescent criminal behavior . The liberal supreme court shuffle away from criminal accountability and towards "soft on crime" .findings.
Cops should shoot more people who have no respect whatsoever for the order of a law abiding community , who have records longer than their arms , who have a gun in their hand pointing at the thin blue line dividing us from those who don't care one iota about ANY law ! Thuggery, rape ,, rioting ,mayhem ,murder and uncivil jungle mentality is not an acceptable form of human behavior , get used to police shootings and armed troops in the streets .
Who kills more innocent people than governments?
One of the greatest falsehoods , or general fallacy # 1 , of the left and anti- gun people is that "Statistics around the rest of the world state that ..........blah ,blah , blah.............." Just where in our media today does it even begin to guarantee or indicate that rates of statistical gathering is One , uniform around the world from country to country ,Two , accurate in the same standards as in the American media and polling- marketing system ? And three , that you can even begin to prove legal statistics from language to language , country to country and political system to political system are politically balanced and remotely comparable ?
Please , enough with the lying !
Although 74% of American think it's right to own to a gun.Think about the trouble being caused with this gun. In America many shootings and stabbings has arrised due to the fact Americans are allowed to carry guns. Look at England for instance we have a low crime rate and a non gun law. This has had an impact and not that much crimes are arriving
When I was in my twenties, I decided that what the world needed most was an America that felt secure and at peace with itself. It might stop doing harm (supporting vile military dictatorships, the endless wars etc etc) and start doing good.
Naively, I believed that this was just a matter of time.
Now, I realize just how many feedback mechanisms are in place to ensure Americans never feel safe, optimistic or at peace with themselves, their neighbors or the rest of the world.
Gun stuff is just part of the whole picture. Patchy healthcare, poor employment protection, racial fears, wage decline, student debt and a hundred other things all burden US citizens with unnecessary fears.
With such an opinion I must ask , You are on earth , right ?
Sure he is. Just in another country. You know how that goes. They all complain about us because, I don't know, they have too much time on their hands? You don't see Americans sitting on the internet whining and complaining about other countries. I wonder why that is.
Because , in essence , everyone wants to be an American , that's why foreigners are so hyper critical of America , Take a look at education visa's for one , anyone with money sends their kids to America for an education , their military troops here for officer training , their money to our stock market for security , their critiques here because their own governments are so corrupted , they but=y whatever is the latest in style in America to be just like an American .
Yet , our media would have us believe we are the most hated .
I'm obliged to listen to the woes of almost as many Americans as people from the UK these days...
The sad thing is that the woes of people from the UK and US are starting to coincide.
I wonder why that it is...
"No wonder you're so terrified of everything! You think that 32,000 Americans are murdered in home invasions each year! I'd never leave my closet if I believed that. The real number is less than a thousand. Stop living in fear; you'll be more productive and happier if you aren't constantly afraid of being murdered in your home when you are almost as likely to die to die from falling out of bed and much more likely to die by being hit by someone texting and driving."
I don't live in fear, I am never terrified, and am not "constantly afraid of being murdered" in my own home. You assume too much m'dear. God has not given me a spirit of fear. EDITED: I live in a rural area that is very safe, and crimes are pretty much unheard of here.
"What percent of Americans choose to die?" - promisem, .. asked me that question and the only stats I could find were those I posted. There are no stats for his question otherwise that I saw.
If you have stats on how many people are murdered in home invasions in the US, please share them.
The hypocrisy of anti- gun advocates is astounding ! I thought I might inform you of other real leading causes death in America and the reasons for them ; All of them more than gun deaths !
- Heart disease
-Guns come in here somewhere .
Liveability Ranking Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit
“Melbourne in Australia remains the most liveable of the 140 cities surveyed, very closely followed by the Austrian capital, Vienna,” the report said.
It also found that US cities had seen massive score declines in recent months.
“This partly stems from unrest related to a number of deaths of black people either in police custody or shot on the street despite being unarmed in the past couple of years,” the report said.
Interesting. Vienna is a country with a very high gun ownership rate compared to the rest of the developed world, but it doesn't seem to bother visitors. But do those that are afraid because of the publicized black deaths figure on visiting the ghetto's and committing crimes? Other than that there have been vanishingly few shootings by cops - I can only think of one in recent months, and it was accidental.
Wrong , what's happening in American inner cities is the melt down of the liberal designed and entitled population centered structural society . It is inner city gun crimes mostly by felons or those who SHOULD have been tried as such with mostly stolen weapons killing each other and their offspring off .
The idiocy of blaming a law abiding community part and parcel for the acts of a few is lunacy !
Liberal plea bargaining
We can't give term limits to the congress - but expect it for felony criminals ?
Just giving you a glimpse of how others see the situation in the US. Frankly, when a publication like the 'The Economist' is so condemnatory, the US has, at the very least, an image problem.
"Common Sense" Gun Control Debunked!
Louder With Crowder is such a comedian!
Started off laughing at the video. Ended up crying - the complete ignorance was astounding. How some of these people manage to tie their own shoes is beyond comprehension. Maybe Clinton does it for them.
On following all the arguments here I’m so utterly amazed on how gung-ho Americans are; as if they relish a desire of living in the ‘Wild West’.
Arguments such as by having a gun puts little old ladies on the same footing (equal) to six foot muggers is so alien to the British way of thinking. The ideology (and law) in Britain is that you don’t take the law into your own hands; if you do you are just as likely to be prosecuted as the Criminal, especially as the minimum prison sentence in the UK for just being in possession of a gun is five years, and if you kill someone with a gun (even in self-defence) the minimum prison sentence is 30 years.
I appreciate that a defenceless little old lady is no match for a six foot mugger, but interestingly, the vast majority of mugging victims in Britain are young adults and teenagers, not little old ladies. Even so (although not common) little old ladies in Britain have been known to beat off would be attackers with their handbags; which consequently has become the butt of jokes in British comedy films. Also, if someone tries to mug a little old lady then onlookers are legally entitled to make a ‘citizen arrest’ provided they only use ‘reasonable force’ and provided there are no police in the vicinity to make the arrest. Also, in Britain onlookers are more likely to tackle a mugger in the knowledge that British criminals don’t generally carry guns.
I have read arguments on this page that knives and fists are more lethal than a gun; which is absurd. With a gun you can kill someone at 50 paces; with a gun you can kill dozens of kids in a mass school shooting, which happens all too frequently in America. Without a gun you have to be in physical contact with a person in order to kill them and then you can only kill one person at a time. Although I’m neither big nor strong (and I’ve never been in a fight) I’d much rather face someone with a knife, a cricket bat or a fist than face someone with a gun. With the other person having a gun I would stand no chance; whereas if they just had a knife, cricket bat or fist they need to be within my reach in order to hit me, which would then give me a far better chance to fend them off than looking down a barrel of a gun.
With 5.9 million CCTV surveillance cameras (one CCTV camera for every 11 people in the UK) Britain has more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country in the world; consequently, if you commit a serious crime in pubic you are highly likely to be caught on CCTV, greatly increasing the chances of being identified, captured and convicted.
As regards stats with regards to violent crime and homicide, dependant on which figures you look at, Britain ranks between 34th and 74th worldwide; whereas the USA ranks between the 7th and 9th worst country worldwide. As regards just homicides per head of population, the USA ranks the 39th worst country in the world, with predominantly countries where lawlessness is much higher as being worse than the USA; and Britain is 112th out of 218 countries e.g. the 27th least violent country in the world.
Your comments reinforce the idea that Britain has moved much further towards the nanny state than the US. They have no responsibility for their own welfare, leaving it to govt. They are watched constantly, just like children are, to be sure they don't hurt themselves. They are not responsible enough to be allowed around dangerous things, etc.
Would you agree, and if so do you think it is the reason for less violence? Are bureaucrats somewhere really more competent to control the lives of citizens than the citizens are?
Yep (wilderness), Britain is very much a nanny state and Brits have been moaning about it for years; but not complaining, because in our hearts of hearts we know it’s for our own good and it does save lives; and for Brits that’s important.
Although when we go on our annual holiday to France it’s refreshing because the French Health and Safety Laws aren’t quite as stringent as British laws e.g. in France we can get close to most zoo animals such as elephants and giraffes, to stroke them, and feed them with animal food sold by the zoo; all things that we can’t do in British zoos on health and safety grounds. Also, Public ‘Events’ and ‘Displays’ in France aren’t generally roped or fenced off like they are in Britain; so we can get closer to the action for a better view, and enjoy a greater experience.
There are however areas where British law is more relaxed, such as ‘drinking’ alcohol (provided you don’t ‘drink and drive’ where the laws are then very tight and the penalties high). In Britain the legal minimum age you can buy alcohol is 18; the legal minimum age you can drink beer, wine or cider in public is 16 provided it is served with a meal at a table and provided an adult buys the drink for you. The legal minimum age you can drink alcohol at home is five years old, provided it is with parental supervision; a similar practice to France and other European countries where its traditional to allow young children to sip some wine from a wine glass at the dining table during special occasions e.g. on Christmas day etc.
As well as guns and knives being banned In the UK and the heavy CCTV surveillance, many of the motorway cameras have number plate recognition which can be used to track known criminals across the motorway network, and GCHQ has access to all landline telecommunication, including emails and telephone lines. Therefore these areas of the nanny state, along with the associated hefty penalties for transgressing the law, do contribute to there being less violence in Britain. Although relaxation on drinking laws (provided you don’t drink and drive) is believed to be linked to higher levels of violence and disorderly behaviour. So there are always ‘pressure groups’ lobbying the government to tighten up on drink laws e.g. the campaign to stop supermarkets from selling beer cheaply through legislation to set a minimum legal price for beer; but British governments aren’t responsive to such campaigns so they tend to be in vain.
Yes, many (although not all) Brits do believe that bureaucrats are more competent to control the lives of citizens than the citizens themselves; and for the very good reason that ‘left to our own devices’ most people can’t be trusted to make wise decision all the time. Even the best of us make bad choices at some time or another that could put us and or other people at risk; often out of ignorance or thoughtlessness, or a moment’s lapse of common sense.
Well there's your first problem , England tried already to control the American gun culture , once upon a time ! That didn't go well for you then , and the "facts " you use don't work now either !
It has already been stated here that if you take away the crime of inner cities , Chicago, Detroit , etc. then our national stats change amazingly fast . That tells me the issue isn't guns it's crime !
There is as huge a difference between the law abiding gun owner and the criminal Gun user as there is between a butcher with a knife and Jack the Ripper .
Get real - get used to guns being around !
I don't need to get used to guns being around; I don't live in America; I live in a gun free society.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reported in 2011, that there were 13.7 million hunters in the United States over age 16 -- 12.7 million of whom used rifles, shotguns or handguns for hunting. Hunters constituted only 15.9 to 18.1 percent of the estimated 70-80 million gun owners.
According to this interesting article.
Martial LAW is LOGISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?
* https://www.facebook.com/notes/john-gau … 852382984/
Basically, it says that the only way the government could control large areas on the US is if the population was unarmed. From what I hear and read our police force and military are totally awake and would stand against martial law.
I thought the US was a democracy? And yet the government are a menace to the citizens that vote them in, lol. Something wrong somewhere.
In the past week there have been 99 shooting in Chicago alone, because the laws on the books are not being enforced. The government doesn't seem to care if thugs are wounding or killing each other, the snitches, witnesses, and even innocent children.
As of Thursday the shootings for this year so far are reported to be 2,514 in the Chicago Crime Capitol. Local law enforcement get their authorizes and permissions from the government, just so you know who is dropping the ball.
* http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca … story.html
Every government is a menace to it's people, whether voted in or not. The primary (only?) task of government is to control others, both inside and outside it's borders, and history shows vanishingly few that have not overstepped what is necessary to maintain the country. It is the price for allowing a group to have power.
I watched this educational video today by PragerU, and was shocked by the statistics. It debunks the common narrative we hear that blacks are being unfairly shot by police, when the numbers say the complete opposite.
"A recent deadly force study by Washington State University researcher Lois James found that police officers were less likely to shoot unarmed black suspects than unarmed white or Hispanic ones… Harvard economics professor, Roland Fryer… found that blacks were 24% less likely than whites to be shot by officers even though the suspects were armed or violent [in Houston]."
Are The Police Racist?
(They seem to have a video for everything, and get right down to the real facts.)
Do you think its likely BLM believes a myth because that's what they have been told?
Great video - This evidence reflects what I've been saying all along in forums about our crime culture . Blacks are killing blacks more than any other situational breakdown in fact , blacks are creating this race war as well , which then tells us the saddest truth of all . That blacks are the greatest perpetrators AND victims of their own culture.
And yet , given that -THAT is fact , we will be called racists for pointing out the truths . one of the simplest things to do is to "Google- up " crime stats , expanding on the search to include , racial breakdown , political make up of the inner cities, population demographics , EVEN using dependable sources like the FBI as a search engine , YOU and I will still be called racists .
Why ? Because these facts point out the simple truths , as in all facts and statistics , there are patterns ! When examined these patterns begin to form a picture that makes liberals uncomfortable everywhere ! And that is, That it is the very fault of Democratic "leadership" in these inner cities ! Take the top ten most violent inner cities to the black race in America and MAKE NO MISTAKE , they have been led for decades and sometimes a century , by Democratic led " social reformists ".
Everyone loves to say , it's always the leadership that matters and so , If Democrats have caused the worst crime wave in history of the United States , They Will Not Take Responsibility for it . Lets blame the right , you know the ones , the "racists " , the bigots ," the right wing-nut jobs" , But whatever you do , do not blame the real cause for this modern day genocide . Liberal leadership !
"That blacks are the greatest perpetrators AND victims of their own culture."
I am looking into epigenetics, because I lean toward the current environment occurring over time by design through social engineering and a sinister altering of DNA. Targets the youth / young adults.
domestication vs wild
nice and loving vs primitive and violent
"And yet , given that -THAT is fact , we will be called racists for pointing out the truths"
Then, call me racist!
"When examined these patterns begin to form a picture that makes liberals uncomfortable everywhere!"
It makes me uncomfortable, that must be the true Liberal in me. I think your talking about the progressive socialist Liberals.
"That it is the very fault of Democratic "leadership" in these inner cities! Take the top ten most violent inner cities to the black race in America and MAKE NO MISTAKE , they have been led for decades and sometimes a century , by Democratic led " social reformists "."
While I would tend to agree with you, I believe there is plenty of corrupt Republican involvement too.
"If Democrats have caused the worst crime wave in history of the United States , They Will Not Take Responsibility for it . Lets blame the right , you know the ones , the "racists " , the bigots ," the right wing-nut jobs"
The Democratic Party has been the strongest party in power, but the Republican establishment elites have been in collusion.
For what its worth, I do not see you as a "racist", "bigot" or a "right wing-nut job"
Well thank you for that ! Liberals are sooo uncomfortable with anything that shakes the truth tree too hard . Why ? Because of political correctness. If for instance , they had to admit that I am right about inner cities like Chicago , Baltimore , Philly , Washington D.C. , Detroit , Cincinnati , Ferguson , St. Louis , San Francisco , L.A. being under democratic leadership , control and social engineering for up to a century in time , AND that they have failed minorities incredibly so ; They would ALL , collectively , right down to the last one , accuse me of racism , bigotry , nationalism , .....you name it .............
There is however , a movement even by many of these same minorities that have SEEN THIS , that know this for the truth to the point that Trump is their collective solution , Here's the kicker though !
The media IS in the pockets of the left - AND almost universally so !
Are we then going to hear that admission from them that they have failed ? No. Of course not .
Much like the Hillary Media Mafia , will they admit that the left is a failure at social restructuring of these inner city minority cultures in the last hundred years ? No. of course not . I love to search out fact , statistics , charts and graphs , there are many - in and outside of government studies - that show definite patterns of failed policy , that show many inner city crimes on the rise , including these above ,in spite of "national trend " ,statistics lent to us by a completely biased administration , presidential candidate and super slanted media of which is very friendly to them !
The truth , Seek it and you shall find ............:-}
From the research I have done, those cities are under a twisted leadership (its demonic), a process of subjugating. The government has experimented on its own people for centuries. Beta tests! What do we have to look forward to more of if Crooked Hillary Clinton becomes the queen? OMG, everything will be a lie!
I believe mainstream media has been taken over and controlled by the Globalist Technocracy (global oligarchy), and Hillary is their choice. Soros admitted about five years ago (in a leaked Politico document) that his group run by the White House, to this day, Media Matters was going to infiltrate the independent press from within, hire people, and have them basically claim false reports. That's called espionage in French.
Remember, Satan is the god of this world.
Trump is the guy!... who is up against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. But, God Almighty will have the last word. Peace be still!
I was just watching an alternative news video on YouTube that got removed (in real time), trust me that news site doesn't remove their own videos, they get hacked. We will see a lot more of that, they only want the public to hear the propaganda (Obama repealed Smith–Mundt) and keep people in the dark.
The evil villain, George Soros said, "The Marxist theory is that you can accelerate the course of history by anticipating it correctly. The theory (Marxist) assumes that people know what their self-interest is and how best to pursue it. In reality, there is a significant gap in-between what people think and what the facts are." He thinks its fun bringing down entire nations and brags about it.
We all see in part, and what you see is important. We are here for such a time as this, as maddening as it may be at times, but these are very exciting times to be alive. IMHO
I didn't like it. Right from the start I had the uncomfortable feeling that the speaker had an axe to grind - went into the whole thing with the intention of proving a pre-decided conclusion. It seemed that very pertinent information was being left out, that the conclusions might have been widely different if the study was done properly with all variables accounted for.
It's always much better to have the actual work in hand, if not the raw data, rather than a talking face simply giving conclusions and claiming their research supports what is being said.
As usual , part and parcel a message has to be broken down scientifically for the truth to come out of it . However , " I didn't like it " ......none of us do , the truth -should make us all feel uncomfortable , especially in issues of race. but charts that show inner cities ,local leadership ,, ethnic breakdown are not THAT hard to find or to believe when we do find them . Cross checking all stats , charts and even videos will give us the truth ! I'll tell you this though , main-steam media absolutely sucks when it comes to the honesty and truths of this issue in particular .
It wasn't the truth that made me uncomfortable - it was that I didn't feel the truth was a part of the video. I repeat that it seemed to me to be an effort to convince me that the conclusions drawn were true without ever allowing the data OR reasoning behind those conclusions to become evident.
As you say, the media absolutely sucks (whether main stream or not makes no difference) and I simply refuse to accept statements without evidence, which was sadly lacking in this video. Only part of the picture was presented, and all of it pointed to the conclusions - as nothing is as black and white as that it is obvious that a good deal was left out.
There is little as damaging as a dishonest statistician, and I did not find this one to be honest.
I didn't like it, because of the facts they laid out. Truth is like that, we don't always like it.
"It's always much better to have the actual work in hand, if not the raw data, rather than a talking face simply giving conclusions and claiming their research supports what is being said."
I agree, I like to see the data for myself. PragerU, doesn't seem like an outfit that is there is tickle our ears, and certainly not mine, if you get my drift. It is interesting though.
ADDED: I do not like that the thugs are working against themselves, and law abiding citizens at the same time...because this is where I see this is going...Gun Control.
There is a fight about to convert America to a nanny state as well ! It will not happen anytime soon however . This election will be a bell-weather for our very future . If Hillary wins , though doubtful , we come closer to that , Trump is polling very well and you can expect his success in November !
America is very much a nation" of the people " politicians fear the masses , especially this year .
Trump beat out 16 other candidates in the primaries for the place he holds now , The second amendment is a heated and yet simple part of out constitutional rights and from the very beginning , each state also mirrors the second amendment in their constitutions .
Nothing is going to change in regards to guns in America , not today or in the next couple of decades . Except for how gun crimes are punished , prosecuted and incarcerated . The scales of balance tip back and forth on THAT alone, depending on the political climate . THAT is the problem today , a political and court system soft on crime ! Soft on inner city policing. When that changes , much else will too.
This debate is not my business as I am British, I so apologies in advance for getting involved. From the perspective of one who lives in a country where it is illegal to own a firearm it beggars belief that anybody would want to own one and that there are countries where guns are readily available. Here it is not usual for even a police officer to be armed. I would not want to live in a society where I felt it was necessary/desirable to own a weapon. It's a self-perpetuating problem that feeds on fear. Learn a martial art instead!
I am an American and a proud gun owner and for the life of me I don't understand a country of people who give up their civil liberties like apparently the British do ! I love my guns . I love my freedoms , except for out of control inner cities , America has no worse a crime culture than ANY first world nation . In fact , America has a vibrant and effective family of the best police in the world ! Holding up the British , Australians and Japanese as examples is sad , hypocritical and blandly boring , America has already saved the British more than once and , by the way , it was done with guns !
My message to you is that DO NOT BELIEVE America's media ranting's and rags , The leftists in America are for the socialization of this country a willingly using Nazi tactics to accomplish that end .
-First the guns .
-Indoctrinate the children
-take over the media
You would do well to Ignore the stupidity of the American media .
Americans , as a people , will never be disarmed . The only towards confiscation is by voluntary participation .The indoctrination by a slanted media , a government with an agenda and a political left with a false cause . A forced confiscation ?
Watch what happens when they try .
by phion4 years ago
Thanks to the NRA and many other Americans, the second amendment has been able to stand up to this same kind of onslaught before. This same attempted correlation of individual’s rights to have firearms, and the acts...
by leeberttea6 years ago
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is...
by Michele Travis4 years ago
Some people already have a lot of guns. So if gun laws are passed, how will the government actually get guns away from people. Some guns are registered and some are not, how could the government find out,...
by RodneyBlaec Rainey4 years ago
I am aware of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” And “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of...
by egiv6 years ago
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have...
by WTucker7 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.