The outdated 2nd amendment.
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are wrong. They have to protect themselves from the mentally ill. The only problem is they don't know when a mentally ill person is going to commit those crimes. It's like testing to see if a match lights. It's after the fact. So the NRA wants more guns for everybody. Let's have a stand'em up shoot'em down bury them in gone smoke kind of country, where it is gunfight at the O.K. Corral. How do you feel about it?
To think that removing guns from our society will reduce the homicide rate is ludicrous. There isn't a place on earth where that has shown to be true, and in fact those localities in the US that have done so have the highest murder rate in the country.
The problem isn't guns - why then do we insist in putting our efforts into a known failure (taking guns) instead of looking for and solving the real problem? A sop to those that fear guns? A political ploy for votes? Simple ignorance from people that refuse to educate themselves? We have one of the most violent societies on earth - why can't we put an honest effort into correcting that instead of blaming the tool most often used and pretending that if it weren't for the tool the action wouldn't happen?I was watching a crime show recently where a woman was killed with a large rock. Perhaps we should outlaw rocks, and hammers, and knives, too, since deranged people use these as weapons. (not really)
Now and then, professional boxers get killed in the ring.... let's outlaw that, too! Basketball, football? Hell... eliminate all sports! After all, you never know when a ping-pong ball will send you to your maker!
And there you have it the wonderful retort about let's ban everything because anything including a feather can be used to kill people. You can tickle them to death with a feather.
Actually arizdude, of the 3 mentioned, BOXING Absolutely should be OUTLAWED ~ It's one of the ONLY Endeavors where the Explicit INTENT is to Brutally Beat and at times Kill an Opponent ~ How Barbaric, Inhumane, and Unlawful is That?
Football should be Regulated as well but not necessarily OUTLAWED primarily due to the INTENT FACTOR ~ Further Medical Studies pertaining to how much BRAIN Damage actually occurs during a career would be necessary to render a FINAL Determination ~That's just what boxers need is for you to determine the amount of punch is okay , what is it with the mommy mentality of the brainwashed liberal , no football too , wow you really do care about others ?
I recently wrote a hub about this, if you guys could check it out and leave some ways on which we can put an end to mass shootings without changing gun laws or revoking our rights and second amendment.
I am responding to Jackie's comment. This comment illustrates the same depth of brainwashing, insensitivity, and lack of understanding as the Archie Bunker logic presented here by gun proponents.
Automobiles and guns are not essential to human life. These are not basic necessities. Capitalists have addicted us to convenience and comfort, and now we are enslaved by it. We even make excuses for why the deaths of over 40,000 U.S. citizens annually are an unfortunate fact of life. Bull Hockey! Just like gun violence, it is only a fact because we allow it to be so. An outright ban on cars would not be practical, but we can de-escalate the manufacture and sale of automobiles, and invest in alternative forms of transportation. This would be moving in the direction of saving lives.
Perhaps old men do not care about saving lives because they are angry that their lives are almost over. But everybody must walk down that road. They need to get over the fact that young black guys are sleeping with their granddaughters, throw away their guns, and their viagra, and start thinking about God.
I personally want nothing to do with guns. That being said I would stand amongst true patriots to defend their second amendments against liberal hacks like yourself. The fathers of our republic were absolute geniuses and they carefully thought and debated about the future republic. The crafted a constitution that has values and virtues that are timeless. I cordially invite you to move into the southside slums of Chicago and you can tell us how your liberal utopia is faring.
Personally, I would never align myself with murderers, pedophiles,thieves, and slaveowners. And of course, that's what Washington, Jefferson, and the rest of their motley crew were all about. That's good for you! Stand right up front where we can see you better.So George Washington, the one who fought against all odds to bring forth a Nation where religious freedom could be exercised and a government for and by the people could take hold for the benefit of the people, knowingly and intentionally stole from others, molested children, broke The biblical Commandment, "Thou shat not Kill," and owned slaves counter to cultural custom.
Your view of the founding of this nation is very warped.
Your hatred of the natural fall of your ancestors has warped your sense of reality to the extent you narrowly focus on minor negativity compared to the overall and glorious positivity which could continue to flourish,
except for the likes of you ~
Thanks for nothin …
You comment:
"...you narrowly focus on minor negativity compared to the overall and glorious positivity which could continue to flourish,except for the likes of you ~..."
Anyone with an ounce of morality, being educated or uneducated, understands that the enslavement of the African and Indigenous for nearly 400 years, the genocide of over 100 million Indigenous, the theft of an entire continent, and the systemic racism that has crippled minorities, is not a matter of "minor negativity". And it is not a narrow focus, as it encompasses the evil deeds of the Colonialists on this continent for a period of over 500 years!
The overall death toll at the World Trade Center was 2,977 people. I do not need to explain the reaction of the American people to this tragic event. The Jewish Holocaust is estimated at around 6 million deaths. And the famous slogan of the Jews is "Never Forget!" But when we compare these numbers to the over 100 million Indigenous who died as a result of the European Invasion, there really is no comparison. When we also compare the fact that following 9/11, another race, or nation, did not invade this continent and enslave white people; did not place them on reservations; did not rape their women and take their daughters as concubines; did not steal all of the land and mineral resources, and did not kill over 100 million white people in the process, there is still no comparison.
When we look at America from the perspective that African and Indigenous people are actually human beings, with the same human rights as white European Americans, then we can only understand the obvious: The invasion and occupation of this continent exceeds any atrocity committed by any nation during the last 500 years, and perhaps for all time. The fact that many Americans actually celebrate, and honor this atrocity is not only an outrage, but it is an abomination before God. The Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev once remarked: " We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can".
Although he had the right idea, he could not have foreseen that the Americans would eventually start to self-destruct. This is increasingly evident when we consider the increase of white on white violence , and the many mass shootings that have occurred during the last 25 years. Organizations like the NRA only feed the violence, and continue to profit from the destruction of America. The Second Amendment has been exploited and perverted by the NRA in order to promote the false notion that the "Founding Fockers" actually intended for deranged hillbillies,and simple minded suburbanites, to have an unfettered right to bear firearms.
However, I am not the author of the plan I have presented to you in my previous post. I am only a humble messenger. And you can laugh and ridicule as much as you like. But I promise, if the Americans do not follow as I have so generously prescribed, which is to return all that has been stolen , then the Americans will continue to destroy themselves, and the world around them.… which could flourish except for the relentless narrow focus of liberals …
return all that has been stolen to who and what_____________________________ ,
land back to the indians?
Dear Kathryn,
First of all, you make many assumptions concerning my motivations. You seem to think that I am looking for followers, but I am not. If I wanted lots of followers I would post Hubs about cookie recipes,patriotism, and why the sunshine makes me feel so good. If I was concerned about popularity, I would never take a stand in an online forum that might offend both sides of a particular issue.
Yes, I am a professional entertainer, but when I entertain I get paid to do it. No one is paying me to post comments or pictures here. Consequently, I post what I like. I could care less what anyone else thinks about the images of women I post, my anarchist philosophy, my belief in God, or my sense of humor. A woman's body is a work of art. The body of a woman is truly a most pleasing image of God. I find fat women to be as beautiful and appealing as the classic stereotypes, and I do not subscribe to the puritanism that was imported here by a hypocritical Christian majority. The body of a woman: naked , clothed, or somewhere in between, can always make the sun rise. I make no apologies for being a man.
Finally, you suggest that the Indigenous should let go of the past, but you do not understand the potentialities of the past. You think the past is of no consequence for two fundamental reasons: First, your comments reveal that you believe time is linear, but it is not. Time consists of perpetual moments flowing in all directions; just as a pebble thrown into a pond. Secondly, you do not understand that karma is simply a metaphysical perspective of cause and effect.
We can see that many Americans are unwilling to let go of the past, but only because of power and greed. For if the Americans let go of the past, then they would necessarily have to relinquish all of the stolen land and riches they now possess, as that possession is only a mirror of the past; the past expanding in a circle. They would also have to let go of all their monuments, patriotic songs, and documents like the Constitution, as all of these things are of the past.
Some of you will read and learn, while many others will be leaving on the short bus. But that is only the way of the world.Could you please indicate any mention or criticism/analysis of your motivations on MY part?
Maybe it was Doug.
I commented on Doug's observation of your criticism of the founding father's romantic liaisons, which begins with attraction for the opposite sex. (And sixteen is hardly a child, despite legalities in any era.) I was saying you don't go to any lengths to downplay your attraction, what with the self-indulgent and opulent posting of (usually) scantily clad babes! So, its is a little hypocritical, wouldn't you agree ... in realistic self-analysis? (Which, counter to all appearances, I believe you are capable of, (realistic self-analysis.)
PS Bringing this back to topic:
You would rather we shoot bows and arrows for game, protection and sport or would you prefer to ban those too?
For whose lives are you most concerned:
Deer?
Thieves?
Murderers?
Tyrants?
Self-offers?
Gang members?
Domestic violence offenders?
The careless who accidentally shoot themselves?
?I saw an ad for a crossbow, Silent and more powerful than the average gun. If it caught on I suspect the libs would try to ban it to.
I like the idea of some of the tribes having women in charge. When they wanted a new man they put the cloths, those gay little skirt things, and stuff out at the entrance. Then the guy Indian would come back from ? and collect his stuff and move on. Also some tribes had communal arrangements. No marriage. Sounds like a hippie way of life from the 50's. 60's.
Women should be the initiator. She can do how many a night? A man? I like those pics Biscuits puts up. Even said so in me comments. The gun toting hotties specially.
I guess you can say I am a guy with weakness too!Dear Doug,
You seem delirious. I hope you are getting enough sleep.
Carry on with your dreams
I get plenty of sleep. 8 to 10 hours. Too much of anything ruins it after a while. Moderation
I agree, eight is plenty. So, carry on with your day-dreams ...
where women are in charge ...
and when an Oai male gets tired of his long time companion all he has to do is make a fuss about how she can't do anything right,
such as complain about how the baskets she has been weaving lately are ever so slightly lopsided …
or she is not preparing the elk in a tasty enough fashion, or she is spacing out during acorn gathering, etc.
And before he knows it, his stuff is thankfully in neat piles outside the tent, with her fringed mini leathers fluttering in the breeze.
I agree, it would make for harmony for all.
No marriage contracts.
Yep, yep. I can see it all, now… along the Sacramento River, blue skies. She sees her new beau: bow and arrow in hand, shooting a buck in the morning light …
And all she has to do to lure him is whistle an Oai love song from her perch on the rock in the valley … (After he shoots the deer. )
Here is her love song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hce74cEAAaENo! in the real world she does the cooking, planting. harvesting, weaving, food, and takes care of the kids etc. The man does the hunting and house building, auto repairs, if any and sits around the camp fire. Some chores are shared. Ask Biscuits to fill in what I left out. There is no more fighting to be done
… no wait, what?
< "There is no more fighting to be done…">
happily ever after?
even better.
So bright boy, what do you suggest? We all deport? What about your raggity German half.
Lead the charge and take the first fight to Germany! My ass is part Indian. Dutch, Irish etc.
Where are you going to send the likes of me? How do you know if I weren't an Indian in past lives and more so than you? The laws are what they are today. Land ownership and such.
Go live on the reservation and see if the Indians there will let you live in their home. If so than that is what you preach than why not stay? I am assuming you live in a house or apartment owned by someone now. and not a community owned structure like the Indians of old.
I would love to live the way they did in the best scenarios of the past. And not have some rival tribe come to kill and torture. That will come again some time in the new system.
I cordially invite you to go into the future 100 years from now and see if the 2nd amendment still holds up the values and virtues that are timeless. Timeless means timeless. Do you think the framers of the constitution and the 2nd amendment could see timelessly into the future?
Yes! I do think they had some access via the Akashic Record or told in a similar way the prophets were informed. There is a better constitution coming. Wont know what it will say about keeping and bearing. Until that time we will user the one with the minor changes as of early 1800's.
Doug: Here is what wikipedia says about the akashic record:
The akashic record is like an immense photographic film, registering all the desires and earth experiences of our planet. Those who perceive it will see pictured thereon: The life experiences of every human being since time began, the reactions to experience of the entire animal kingdom, the aggregation of the thought-forms of a karmic nature (based on desire) of every human unit throughout time. Herein lies the great deception of the records. Only a trained occultist can distinguish between actual experience and those astral pictures created by imagination and keen desire.
May the force be with you Doug...and make sure you watch the latest movie of star wars. If you believe that, I have a Brooklyn Bridge, I'll sell you.
and I know Star Wars is made up by man. The Akashic Record is Gods'.
Me and The Creator will forgive you for awhile. It goes a lot deeper. It records a spirits' journey from its creation as a separate entity through all the experiences and incarnations of said spirit.
As wikipedia says, only a few have the ability to interpret it and in varying degrees. Sort of like dream or vision interpreting in the old testament.
PegCole17 ~
Very POOR examples which have been used by the Gun Lobby since the Dinosaurs Wandered the Earth ~
Try killing someone with a Heavy Rock, or Hammer, or Knife from 30 or 40 feet away ~ Unless you're Daniel Boone or Jeronimo's Grand-Daughter, it probably ain't gonna work out so well ~
In CONTRAST, Guns are one of the only Tools Specifically Designed to Kill and are much MORE Efficient at doing so ~ NOT too sure how a MASS Murder would work out on a Train or Bus using a ROCK or Cappuccino Maker, or Toothpick ~
Which device would you rather have aimed at YOU, and be HONEST with YOURSELF ~ A Gun, Knife, Ping Pong Ball, Tire Iron, Rock, Cappuccino Maker, Car, or Jeb Bush's Personality?? ~ BE HONEST ~Or those bullets the U.S. gave out free to ordinary people to use to kill buffalo! Did they throw them at the buffalo? Or did they have them eat them and they died from lead poisoning? Or could it have been, as determined, that God /nature killed them through diseases?
This guy (and i use that term loosely) would have you to believe that a mass murderer would use a gun in every criminal act, yet we see in today's world of mass extremest personalities this is not the case. so wake up to reality and that until such time as my Lord and savior Jesus Christ returns in the second coming to cleanse our earth, mankind must take the fight for the weak and oppressed, the widows, orphans, And our wounded veterans of war!
And the firearms we have allow us to do this against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Yes I am a Natural born American and try to live a Christian life, I'm a gun owner and have taught all my children and some of my grandsons the proper handling of firearms.
To you folks that believe removing guns from the law abiding will reduce crime , well just keep on texting and driving who will it hurt?
And by the way you can be killed with anything!!!Just today there were two different attacks, the killers using knives. I don't want them to get that close. So, a gun is my choice of self defense device. No mace or such. Do away with them so they don't harm another day. Same with a strapped on bomb. The further away the better. Kill before they can kill.
The perversion of Christianity began in earnest with Constantine the Great, and can be observed today in the secular materialism, and the violent methods that have been embraced by many so-called Christians.
You may be a "Natural born American", but that's where it ends. Jesus was a pacifist. If you follow Jesus , you must be willing to give up everything, including your life. The only weapon a Christian needs is a weapon of prayer. If you take up arms against anyone, even to save your own life, then you are demonstrating a lack of faith in the will of God. Jesus did not use violence to save himself from the crucifixion. That is the path that a Christian must follow.
Yet, your very words suggest that your life , the life of a mere mortal, is worth more than the life of Jesus. You are also suggesting that Jesus requires us to violently protect the weak and the downtrodden until he returns. Anyone who has ever studied scripture knows that such concepts have nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Violence doesn't work. Violence has not, cannot, and will never bring peace to the world. This is why the world hates Jesus. Because in order to follow Jesus, a man must step away from the world, and be willing to give up all of his possessions. And of course, a man's greatest possessions are his life, and the life of his family. Today's Christians cannot reconcile with the beauty and perfection of this teaching. Instead, they worship vanity and materialism with their heart, while giving lip-service to Jesus. Read and learn.Read and learn what? That Jesus wants us to not protect ourselves, our loved ones and our nation?
You do not love the nation. Do you love yourself?
Jesus did not say what you said he said.
Our missions and our roles are not the same as Jesus. He came with a specific mission.
We all come with different missions based on our self-guided WILLS and self-chosen paths.
You, of all of us, are on the highest of horses.
In My Opinion
Yes, I am on a high horse, that is why I can see so clearly; why I am not as confused as those who spend their days crawling around on their hands and knees; groping in the dark. I have only highlighted the hypocrisy of those who swear by Jesus, but who in reality fear death, and who worship materialism. Jesus wants us to protect ourselves from eternal damnation. Jesus has come to harvest the wheat, and not the chaff.
Who among you will keep a rotten pear, and throw out all of the good ones? Committing an act of murder will not save a man's soul. At best it may prolong his mortal life, but only for a moment. What kind of a fool would forfeit an eternity for one moment, one day, or even one hundred years? According to Jesus, there is no justification for violence and murder. Here are the words of Jesus. If they offend you, then perhaps you should shop around for a new God, and a new religion.
Matthew 26:52-54
Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”
Psalm 11:5
The Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.
Isaiah 60:18
Violence shall no more be heard in your land, devastation or destruction within your borders; you shall call your walls Salvation, and your gates Praise.
Matthew 5:38-39
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Proverbs 3:31
Do not envy a man of violence and do not choose any of his ways.
Romans 12:19
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Galatians 6:1
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.Religion can be used for good or bad. Ten of thousands of people have been killed throughout the ages in the name of Christ. How about the Crusades? How about the Medici's and Borgia popes in Rome, who had many wives and were ruthless to the people?
For all you people out there who think you can protect yourself while you are under attack. Please watch this video. It is quite revealing about what really happens to your mind and body when under real pressure from a real threat
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540Peoplepower , You've got to be kidding me . That's the most ridiculous video I've ever seen posed as a documentary ! You really HAVE gone over the edge on that one . talk about a fairy tale of staged proportions . And you really want everyone here to believe that the media is a neutral party to gun studies ? To begin with .---media IS the problem for almost ALL of the gun debate issue And , college aged kids carrying ? Wearing gloves ? In a prepared setting ?
I though you were once in the military , please tell me that you didn't buy into that video that easily .ahoreseback: Have you every been under a surprise attack? I was in the Air Force on remote radar sites. I was never under attack. Once, we were on alert and I was given a 45 cal. grease gun and three clips with 15 rounds in each clip. I never fired it, but they told me, if I have to, just pull back the slide. Hold it sideways and spray it, because with the recoil , it is too hard to control.
You know as well as I do, when an untrained person is in a surprise attack, high pressure, threatening situation, their adrenal takes over and they go into the survival mode. As the video shows, the adrenal goes into the legs, so that their first response is to get out of there.
It was not a prepared setting. It was a surprise attack. So you want to discredit a trained fire arms instructor, a firearms investigator, and the Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Department to invalidate the content of the video, that's your prerogative and your loss.Some people automatically get into the zone as they call it. Their skills all come together like they are in video game and they do the right moves automatically.
This has happened several times to me while driving. And I am thinking "This is the end of me" I had I friend say the same thing in a scary event in his life.
How about Columbus and the Spaniards who raped and pillaged in the name of Christianity? How about the millions of so-called Christians who helped to facilitate the institution of slavery for over 400 years on this continent? How about the Christians who have turned their backs on the Syrian refugees?
The validity of any teaching does not hinge on whether or not it is exploited by evil men to suit their evil purposes. Nor is a philosophy or religion responsible for the inhumanity and indifference of those who claim to follow it. All that you are saying is true, and further validates my point. A majority of Christians are, and have always been hypocrites. Not according to me, but according to Jesus. Anyone who claims solidarity with Jesus while supporting the sale, and the proliferation of firearms is quite remarkable ... and quite confused.
Of course , the ominous, and prophetic words in the image are from the diary of the :"great" Christian explorer Columbus.Don't know that Jesus ever sold weapons (there is no record either way) but he DID instruct his disciples to buy them. He is also on record as saying he was not there to bring peace, but a sword (presumably a figurative one)
That doesn't sound like the "turn-the-other-cheek" Jesus I was taught as a kid. Which version of the New Testament are you reading? There are a lot of the to choose from, after all.
You constantly rave on about Columbus. Show where he pillaged and raped. He never set foot on U.S. soil. The Spaniards now were a different matter. Similar to ISIS today.
Have you sold all you have and given to the poor? What about your computer and your musical instruments? Jesus did advocate violence and did violence himself. Fashioned a whip and drove out the money changers and upset their tables. Also condemned Peter to a violent by allowing him to buy a sword and using it. I don't know what Peter had to sell because he was supposed to sell everything and follow Jesus. “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
This sure does not apply to you Just go back and reread the vile and vindictive things you said. So much for "Turning the other cheek" The pen is mightier than the sword.
You are very good at spouting scripture that you don't follow. I have been banned for calling someone the "H" word. The same word you use to describe so called Christians.
So for those o9f us that are not as advanced as you. (joke) We will continue to keep and carry.
If you want to learn history, then all you have to do is read a book. There is also a wealth of information online. I agree that American history is vile, but we cannot improve our condition by listening to Lee Greenwood songs and believing in a lie. As far as Jesus is concerned, you obviously have misinterpreted much of what you have read. Running money changers out of a temple with a little whip, or even with a big whip, is a far cry from blowing someone's brains out with an AR-15 or any other assault rifle. No, Jesus was not a violent person. He was a pacifist.
Whether or not I help the poor, or live the life of a gigolo is irrelevant, and nobody's business .What's more important is the fact that a nation full of hypocrites continues to commiserate about the violent world around them, while ignoring the fact that the very evil they claim to stand against was seeded by their forefathers, and has been cultivated and tended by every generation since the first.King James Bible
Jesus: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."
In those days they didn't have guns.
Maybe he would say today, "I came not to send peace, but a gun…"
haha no no ... just being trollish! I know what you are saying wB. We all know. Don't think we are such bad guys. You are so full of hatred for ignorance.
Do you love the man but hate his faults ... or hate the man?
Just wondering.He appears only to hate the whites. It is divine intervention that the founders won the revolutionary war.
It was time to tame the wild west. It is with divine intervention that the people will again triumph during after the tribulation. Only if they side with the Jews and Israel. Those that bless Israel will be blessed those that don't... Read the scriptures. Matters not what the color.
I do believe it was a Syrian terrorist that left his passport or such behind in the Paris killings.
Don't tell the rest of us how to live and think when you think you are above all those verses and do as you damn well please. Talk about hypocrites. If I get banned than you should be banned too!
And that remark about white mass murders is as racist as it gets. It is the fault of you libs by drugging up the youth and others. As brought out in the facts in earlier posts. Mass murders are such a tiny part of the murders that the congress and such have dismissed it as a source not even worth considering. It is the leftist lib regime that jumps on that bandwagon. And if that pic. of Mr O is real he should be punished as those school students are for doing similar.
That's funny Doug. Does that mean that Martin Luther King was a racist for leading the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1955? Who do you think he was boycotting? And what color do you think they were? If a man is going after a weasel, then what do you suggest? That he call it a rabbit instead, so as not to offend the weasel? It is simply a fact that the greatest, the latest, and the majority of mass murderers here in the United States have been white. A majority of the school shootings have also been committed by whites.
But the deadliest mass killing of school children in American history; the mother of all school massacres, happened in 1927, at an elementary school in Bath, Mich. A school board member named Andrew Kehoe, upset over a burdensome property tax, wired the building with dynamite and set it off in the morning of May 18. Kehoe’s actions killed 45 people, 38 of whom were children. Guess what Doug? Andy was also white. Just another fact. Last but not least, the greatest acts of domestic terrorism in the United States have been perpetrated by people of European ancestry. Let us not forget Waco Texas, and the Oklahoma City Bombing.
It's funny, and quite ironic, that Ozzie and Harriet are so worried about the Syrians, when the people who are doing most of the killing over here look just like them. That's not racist Doug. I'm just reading the news.
Finally, it is remarkable how cavalier you are about mass murders that are committed by whites. Yet, when it comes to another race or nationality, you are the first to cry foul and circle the wagons. I despise all mass murderers, no matter what color they are. I despise the arms merchants who profit from all of this misery. And I have the greatest contempt for "big" men who speak loudly about their "right" to own a gun, and their willingness to use it, when in truth they would be the first to start running if confronted by a superior force; a superior force going door to door lopping off the heads of their neighbors; skinning the headless torsos, and making fashionable leggings and boot tops from the macabre human remnants; just like George Washington did to the honorable Haudenosuanee.Wall you have already harped on the whites and we are well educated by now. Besides that was all in the past. I am talking about what is going on now and the future and am trying to save innocent lives. Just as you claim you are. There is so much black on black deaths that there could be a serial murderer in there or more??
Martin Luther was for all colors. Read his stuff! He was with the blacks then because that was where the most need was then. So quit your cherry picking B.S. Where do you expect a larger percent of crime to come from? White that is 70% of the population or black that is only 14%? Perhaps a bunch of Indians on the warpath?? I see you lack math skills. Playing that music too load scrambled you brains? That is a weapon of the gov. you know. Low frequency high power sound waves. Look it up.
the Syrian passport was fake. none of the terrorists were refugees.
The passport being fake is worst. If he is a Syrian or not isn't the issue. It shows that terrorist are in among the so called refugees. Of which most are of military age. Only 14% being women and children.
Just does not sound right.
no terrorists were among the refugees. and only 2% of the refugees are single males of military age. you are getting your info from an unreliable source.
You have cherry picked a situation. It is all over the news. Where did that phony passport originate and is there more? How did those terrorist inter country? With a phony passport in among the refugees???
A State Department spokesman says that so-called “military-age males” unattached to families make up just two percent of Syrian refugees admitted to date to the United States.
Geez, Doug just how more authoritative informative do you need? Is the State Department invovled in the great 'left wing' conspiracy, are not their numbers good enough for you/I don't trust one thing Mr O and company says. Who in the state department, Kerry, Clinton? They are all in co-hoots. And all known to be liars.
That is just more misinterpreted scripture, by rightwingers slinging just that much more BS
Then your statement is rendered illogical and unsubstantiated as you take issue with the most credible source. What is the source and basis of your rebuttal FOX News? What do I care about your opinion if you cannot substantiate it?
What statement in particular? You posted a reply to a post of mine that has several statements.
I dunno WrenchBuscuit, by the way you laid it out here it seems pretty clear to me....
Doug, it is beneath my post in reply to WB.
Number 1 this idea that Israel is the chosen people and everyone has to kiss her arse is just fool fodder for evangelicals.
Number 2 If you dispute the statistics of the State Department, what is your so much more credible source for your position in this matter?Then I guess you don't believe in the Old Testament. And ISIS is only about a year old. The stuff I read goes back 14 years. Things have changed since then. ISIS even said they have
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/555 … e-RefugeesThe New Testament (Greek Scriptures) is the new covenent that says that God's chosen people are the ones that follow and obey the Christ, whereever they may live
I read the article about the Syrian operative, where is this story corroborated? I have not heard of this publicationIt is your choice to believe the lies that the regime puts out! "Obama care will save the average person money." Even the left's precious unions are bailing! "It was a video that caused the deaths in Benghazi."
Said lying Clinton.
While denying the most accurately transcribed scriptures and believing those bastardized by corrupt bishops to please a Roman ruler and his power hungry wife, Nicene Council 325 and others.
Nothing wrong with following Jesus. He also quoted the the old testament. Even said that the religion originated with the Jews.
Ah, but what about the Blackmarket? Just because Gun's are outlawed DOESN'T mean that they won't exist on the blackmarket where ALL the criminals can get access. Then what? What happens when the GOOD people can't access the weaponry to save there lives. But all the bad people have access to destroy lives?
Sorry to say that they do use these primative weapons. An intruder broke into a house in my hometown and killed a woman with a hammer a few years ago. It is a small town, and he was caught and prosecuted.
July 18, 2009, North Epping, New South Wales, Australia.
After government grabbed all the semi-automatic weapons from it's citizens in 1996, the mass murderer here killed 5 members of the Lin family with a "blunt instrument" - a hammer like tool purchased from a $2 store. 15 year old Brenda Lin was the only survivor as she was on a school trip at the time.
Arson has also been popular since the gun grab; 171 dead in 4 mass murders. 135 of them in one case; fire is much more effective than guns and matches are cheap...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m … _Australia
the rock incident from the crime show is just plain silly
Hahahahahahahahaha. Please stop using your brain. You are making sense. Stop that! You're not allowed to do that.....
You are very wrong there. Every place on earth that effectively limits gun ownership has a much lower rate of deaths from guns, either by suicide or homicide; they also generally have a lower homicide rates overall. Why is America's homicide rate (from all causes) 5 times higher than Europe's? Why is America the "killing fields" of all developed nations?
One reason is the fact that Europe did not necessarily send her best and brightest to America. Criminals were released from prisons and sent here by the thousands. Thus, the foundation of America not only rests upon slavery, genocide, and the theft of an entire continent, but we also see a criminal element that has been here from the very beginning.
Below are excerpts from this site: http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/convi … e/epilogue
" ... Jefferson should have known better. The British were sending nearly 1,000 convicts to America each year around the time he wrote the Declaration of Independence, and about half of them ended up in his own home state of Virginia...,"
"..When the numbers arriving in America from Great Britain are examined in isolation, the percentage of immigrants who were convicts is of course much higher. From 1718 to 1775, when the Transportation Act was in full force, convicts accounted for one-quarter of all immigrants arriving in the American colonies from the British Isles..."A lot of the people who were transported from Britain were convicted of minor crimes such as stealing a loaf of bread, not of violent crimes. Having said that. the U.S.A. has a huge prison population and prison breeds violence and a violence mentality.
Only one problem with that is that one question , why are they in prison to begin with ! And yet prison breeds violent mentality ? No , perhaps some cultures breed a prison mentality .Where and when I grew up the last thing we wanted was a reason to be criminalized by our behavior .
If someone's behavior brings them to prison , there's something else wrong . Not the system itselfWould you rather have those in jails running around your town?
I would suggest more work out of them like the old chain gangs working on projects.
Homeless people do something to get themselves locked up for the winter. If they had to earn their keep they may not want to be there. Maybe more solitary confinement would cure some of this.have you ever visited a prison? i believe if you did there would be an enormous change in what your view is. societies which invest in these things will fail. history shows it.
being homeless is not a choice for the majority of people. do we lock up the homeless children as well?There are prisons then there are real prisons. Depends on which you are sent to.
From what I see in the documentaries it is like going to a resort. The guards are complaining that the prisoners have life better than they. If this is just a few, then it is a few too many!
Here in Mich. and Ohio there are those that get themselves in trouble so they can winter over.
Perhaps you where in some third world crap hole prisons? Lets strike an unhappy medium twixt the two extremes. Moderation!
Your logic makes no sense whatsoever. In effect, you are whining that people in jail and prison are being coddled, and actually have an easier life than you do. If that were true, then there would necessarily be a reason why.
Murderers, rapists, and thieves did not primarily come to our continent from Europa simply to explore, or to share their sadistic pleasures with a new, captive audience.They came for gold, land, and great riches. The fact that there were 9 year old girls and young women that they could violate, and young men they could also violate and enslave with impunity, was simply a bonus from their evil reptilian perspective.
And so, if you and the Sons of the Pioneers are being discriminated against by the system, while criminals are living high on the hog in prisons around the United States, then there must also be a reason why. We cannot accept that it is solely for the sadistic pleasure of government officials. To believe in such nonsense is to surrender completely to paranoia. But the truth is, the government is not just picking on you, onhorseback, or wildebeast.
If so, give us a reason. Tell the world why the common criminal is afforded a better life than washed up factory workers, day laborers, clock punchers, and small business owners who have been given their walking papers in one hand, a bottle of viagra in the other, and then turned out to pasture. But it is only a rhetorical question that you cannot answer, as it would require fact instead of hyperbole.Didn't cherry pick and say all prisons where like that! Did say there should be a medium between the extremes. Like in Cool Hand Luke, ,maybe a little extreme or perhaps Bird Man or Alcatraz. Not the lap of luxury like the documentary showed. Seen plenty of those old movies. It is more how they were treated than creature comforts. I do think they should be worked some to help pay their way. Do you not know what moderation means?
Most people came here to get a better life. Not that one trick pony, cherry picked crap you keep ruminating.
The reason there are such prisons is because the namby pamby lib boy types like you want to have a lazy life when you are locked up. It is mostly pushed by libs. Reason enough? Tough!
Can I get a free sex change without being in one of these prisons? No! It comes out of the wages of us that pay into the gov. The fault is lib actions forcing such on us.
The criminal has a much better deal than a lot of those you numerated. They get free heat food recreation, etc. And don't have to go to a job 4 days a week. Or listen to a bitchy wife or spoiled brat kids. I don't need viagra, gets up on its 69 year on its own! Anything else I can enlighten you on?
"they also generally have a lower homicide rates overall."
Your evidence for this? The study I did, over some 30 countries, plainly showed zero correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.
"Every place on earth that effectively limits gun ownership has a much lower rate of deaths from guns,"
So what? Does it matter to the dead if they were killed by a gun vs a knife, bludgeoning, bomb or anything else? This is a common reason to limit gun ownership, but I really don't think the dead will care which tool was used.wilderness ~ The DEAD might not care now, but when they reach Heaven and tell God what happened there will indeed be a reckoning ~
Here's the Facts in brevity ~ If an individual is interested in committing a Mass Murder the weapon of choice due to non-complexity and ease of procurement would be a gun ~ Far fewer deaths would occur if that individual used a knife or heavy tool with the same intent in the same venue ~
Bombs? I'm not proclaiming they can't be used but they are an inherent deterent in and of themselves ~ Procuring the wisdom to build, procuring the components to build, then planning the attack and hoping it was constructed correcly ~ Too much of a complex situation that's why the majority of these crimes are performed by professionals ~
Just because an individual can kill with other utensils or apparatus does not justify IGNORING the outrageous Gun Problem we have in this country ~The worst school killing in the U.S,1927, was by a bomb that blew up the school.
How many deaths were prevented by someone having a gun to stop the bad guy/girl?
Plenty, perhaps more than was killed by the gun. And, how many would have been saved if some would have had a concealed carry in those so called "safe zones" that the shooter picks because they are labeled as such?Although attempting to CONFUSE the two, which republicans desperately try to do, Gun Control & Bomb Control are Distinct Subjects/Issues which should be addressed SEPARATELY ~
I am showing that if someone wants to kill they will do it by some other means.
Take their guns and they will find another way. The mentally unstable or known
criminals should have their guns taken. Leave the rest of us alone.Incorrect Again Doug ~ GUNS are the MOST efficient manufactured weapon which is Specifically Designed for Single, Mass, or Multiple Murders ~
Once you start substituting Guns for Knives, Tire Irons, OTHER Untensils etc., the odds of a successful Mass Killing DECREASE ~
We need to start with Guns then address any other issues at a later date if and when they arise ~"Once you start substituting Guns for Knives, Tire Irons, OTHER Untensils etc., the odds of a successful Mass Killing DECREASE"
Proof, please - something beyond your flawed reasoning? Even for the tiny subset of "mass" killings? (Actual real life experience would be nice)
"We need to start with Guns then address any other issues at a later date if and when they arise"
Which we have done for decades, and with absolutely nothing to show for it. One has to wonder if you like seeing the carnage on the big screen.It seems to me that in Iraq, Iran and other 72 virgin nut case countries they prefer the strap on bomb. Only one of their nuts die. In the case of car or pressure cooker bomb they can get away untouched. When they use guns, a lot of times they get whacked before long. If you are talking about the more civilized countries more may be by the gun. How many die because they are the perf. in relation to the person just protecting their self.
Good point. And a lot of mass murderers, anyway, also suicide. I would also point out that instructions for making a bomb are all over the 'net.
The CIA and other government spooks use Google,Facebook, and numerous internet sources to spy on the public. Sites like Hubpages are also monitored. In fact, many Forum posts across the internet are started by government spooks in order to gauge the publics reaction to certain events: domestic and foreign. Anyone thinking about getting those types of instructions via internet is an idiot. They may as well call up the spooks and have them come over and pick them up!
However, the public can fight this gross invasion of privacy by posting disinformation about themselves,their habits, who they like, their politics etc.. By doing so all of the governments high tech methods of oppression become useless. Yes, there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and the "Uncle Toms" who work for the government and spy on the same working class that they were born into, are in the top 10%!. In fact , I have already exposed some of these people on Hubpages. The last one I exposed has been conspicuously absent since then, or at least he has changed his screen name. What really blows my mind is the American people are paying these low life's to spy on themselves and their children!Somehow I don't see a mentally ill person, intent on a mass murder followed by suicide, being bothered at the notion the CIA is watching them.
Are you serious? Sure, the nut job may not be bothered by it. But do you suppose that if the spooks intercepted such an online search that they would just sit back and wait for the guy to blow something up?
And how many school bombings have there been in the US ... one. How many school shootings have there been since 1927 ,,, the high hundreds. What is your point again?
That taking away the guns may well result in bombings in the high hundreds. With a much higher death/injury toll.
Can't speak for the small subset of mass murders, or the even smaller subset of mass school murders, but for homicides in general that's what happens. Take the guns and the homicide continues on it's merry path with no change.There My Esoteric. That is the point! Wilderness said it for me. Do you think they will stop just because you took their guns? Worse yet if the gov. takes our guns and the perfs still have theirs'! Then what?
How about the hunters and recreational shooters? Want their guns too?Of course they do. Say goodbye to the Olympic Biathalon - those fearful assault guns have to go.
Just an example I found on numbers US vs Australia. Haven't delved deeper yet. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf … ates/Crime
Most crimes are more or less similar in rates. But if you look at violent crimes (without rape) and murder you see the incidents are 4 to 5-times lower in Australia (which is not even the safest country in the world by far).
But I'm not an advocate for controlling people overal so it's a difficult issue for me. Something has to be done no?Yes, the US has a high violent crime and homicide rate. But your point is...?
That rate is so high in the U.S. because we let anyone in it seems. And the high rate is in certain areas where the gov. lets it happen. Plus we like to drug up people with problems.
Stop the drugs and clamp down on the worst areas and I suspect the U.S.would have low rates too.Prohibiting the mentally ill from drugs necessary to maintain "normal" operation doesn't seem conducive to preventing trouble. And the worst areas (of the US) also have the most stringent gun laws, more police, etc. I'm not sure much more can be done except raze the inner cities to the ground.
Razing the inner cities has begun. Look at Detroit. Hopefully they wake up and don't just move to another location and do the same all over again.
You're right in both cases. And they WILL move on - they know no other way of surviving.
"Something has to be done no?"
Get help more easily for the mentally ill.Easier said than done. Most, I think, will resist help - it will have to be forced on them. And THAT is a real problem in a country advertising freedom for all!
countless communities have no help or assistance for mentally ill persons wanting assistance. My state recently closed 3 facilities housing mentally ill persons in budget cuts. These were people "inpatient". imagine where they will go and what will happen. investing more help is the answer. instances of people asking for help and being told there is a waiting period of 7 months to get it is ludicrous, but it happens where i live.
the police have asked for help because they wind up in jail instead of hospitals. there is no easy answer. there is no black and white to the issue. we must always remember as well whatever we put in place for laws will not only effect us, but also future generations.
You have to look at the increase/decrease in overall murder rates (not just gun-related murders) when determining the effectiveness of gun control.
Something which seems to escape the attention, but which is very true. One must wonder why that is so - because it is a no brainer that if guns are confiscated there were be no gun murders (ignoring the obvious that we can't confiscate the gun of someone we don't know has it). But as you point out that does NOT mean that murder rates will drop at all, and the figures show that to be all too true.
Guns and firearms sale need to be under control.
Why? Whether I agree or not, why do they need to be controlled, and what does "control" actually mean in this sentence?
We let almost anyone one in. Just South of the U.S. are some of the highest murder rate countries.
It is not the average person that is the murderer. It is certain groups that live in the U.S. that have high rates that make the average people look bad. A lot of this is the fault of our leaders. One group is looking for cheap labor and the opposite group is looking for future voters.The average person does not want this
influx. I suspect the murder rate in Europe will go up a lot from all the influx it is getting now.Absolutely Incorrect Marcos ~
Gun Violence is a UNIQUE Situation and needs to be Addressed & Mitigated as such without CONVOLUTION of irrelevant data inserted primarily by republicans ~
A MILLION different utensils and or apparatus can be used to commit murder, but a Gun is Distinct in that it is Specifically Designed to Kill ~
Just because an individual could manage to kill someone with a toothpick or can-opener, dosen't mean you IGNORE Prudent Gun Control Measures ~
Mathematical Certainty ~ REDUCE the Number of Guns in Circulation and there will be a REDUCTION in Gun Violence ~i agree with the need to review overall murder rates. There is no easy answer for gun control and questions surrounding it. it has been debated for years and still seems to stay stagnate an unanswered.
thank you for pointing this fact out. before making sweeping statements about stats (guns do kill people and America is a killing field of guns).
America has nothing to be proud of when it comes to guns. We build more prisons than schools and as a "civilized" society this says a lot about morality and where we are headed. no one needs an assault rifle-there is no justified answer for having one. no one needs i.e. 80 different guns. if there is a collector then display them in a museum. i understand the need for protection.....but guns are not always the answer. the amendment stood for defense against the British invasion of our country. now we use it to justify mass killings in schools, accidental killings in the hands of children and domestic cases gone crazy. get a hunting license and hunt with one or two. if a person is not hunter- you do not need one.
people speak of mentally ill people getting guns. isnt a person with 40 or 50 guns mentally ill?
Well Damn! That was well stated Wilderness.
I agree with you, and have heard the gist of that response stated by you and others a ton of different ways, but you were really spot-on this time.
GAThank you. Comes from researching and understand actual facts instead of fear-mongering political hacks.
Wilderness: If we have one of the most violent societies on earth, what makes it that violent and how do you propose we correct it?
Human nature makes it violent.
Correct it with the private right to carry Guns … since no one wants to listen to Jesus or Krishna or Buddha or Gandhi or Confucius or Plato or Aristotle or Socrates or Hume or John Locke or the saints of any religion etc., etc., etc. or God Himself.Great point, logic, sense, advice, sage wit, knowledge, feedback and comment, Kathryn!
Just for this kindness, I am going to follow you!
"To think that removing guns from our society will reduce the homicide rate is ludicrous. There isn't a place on earth where that has shown to be true, and in fact those localities in the US that have done so have the highest murder rate in the country"
Australia is an example. Read about it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk … australia/The homocide and suicide rates did fall, however they had been falling for years before the gun ban. Almost every other form of violent crime against people and property including felonious assault, rape, robbery, etc... went up after the gun ban. Robberies went up 69% following the gun ban. Home invasions increased 21%.k The gun ban had no noticeable effect on overall crime rates. The criminals are just using different weapons and the citizens are completely defenseless against them.
So, are you saying...
assault = death
rape = death
robbery = death
home invasion = death
I would trade in deaths for robberies and other forms of violent crimes any day. You can survive a violent crime or theft. Death is permanent.
This topic has been covered so much here, I won't get into all the details again.
Will banning guns drastically lower the murder rate? Probably not.
Is owning a gun dangerous? For the most part, no.
Will you be using your gun someday to defend yourself, your family, or another? Most likely never.
Could you use your guns to fight against a modern tyrannical government? Don't make me laugh.
Does placing a gun in a volatile situation increase the likelihood that someone will die? Yes. Research US suicides and accidental deaths.
Does that mean suicide and accidental death rates will go down if we ban guns? Probably not by much.
Is there evidence that mass shootings will decrease if we ban guns? YES. Australia is a perfect example, as well as other advanced societies who have banned guns. Almost all the mass shootings in the US were committed by people who had easy access to a firearm and who would pass a background check. Making guns readily available does increase the possibility of an unstable person using that gun to do harm. Given that owning or not owning guns will do little to save lives either way, we could at least consider that we could prevent this type of tragedy.
Guns are for cowards and cowards use them to act out their own twisted vengeance on the world.This is basically everything I could ever want to say on this subject.
Is your wanting easy access to all sorts of guns more important than the 20 kids who died at Sandy Hook? That should have been enough. But instead the body count from mass shootings gets higher and higher. When's it going to be enough? How many people have to die that way to give up a little bit of freedom when it comes to buying and owning guns? Even if all other homicide numbers stayed the same, even if ALL it did was eliminate mass shootings, is that not still worth it???
Oh, and I also had a little chuckle over "sure, less people died, but like, robberies and stuff!" Hmm, getting shot to death orrrr having my TV stolen... there's a head scratcher!You look young. No insult intended, but merely pointing out that people have died for centuries over all sorts of things. Even if you want to stick closer to modern history, there have been mass killers over the past 50 years who have murdered many people and done so without benefit of using a gun.
Do yourself a favor and if you arent familiar with these names, look them up: Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, David Berkowitz. Oh and for good measure...Lizzie Borden.
There will always be people who need to kill. So as horrible as the shootings of modern day are, they are really no different from other eras.
They have become the "cause du jour" for the left and while Im as sorry as anyone else that innocent people have died, the fact remains that there will always be a way for unstable people to carry out violence.
Fix society and then you might have a fighting chance at fixing mass murders.The the fallacy of absolutism. You think we shouldn't change our laws and ways of thinking because there has always been killing and will always be killing? Why even have laws regarding murder and death?
You think that society has to be fixed as a condition to start changing things on a legal level? Tell that to the people who died fighting in our revolution when many people were fine under British rule. To the women who fought for the right to vote even though most were not treated equally by society or in the workplace afterward (and that continues today). Tell that to the people who fought for civil rights in 60s/70s and whose children and grandchildren still struggle against racism. You think they would say the freedoms and laws they fought for did not matter or made a difference? Of course it mattered.
The laws helped force some change, it moved us in the right direction. We don't need the fix to be a fixall. We just need something better.
Wilderness said, "is there any reason at all to think that continuing the same thing will suddenly produce results?" No, of course not. People are suggesting we ban guns entirely, that is something we've never done. Will it work? It's worked elsewhere. Will it solve everything? Of course not. Will society still need to change? Yes, but this will help push it closer to changing. Closer to moving our culture away from a gun possession mindset.
There will always been crazy people and even if we ban guns, some of them will get them and use them against innocents. But if we can save more people in the process, isn't that worth it? Especially when most of the data out there suggests owning guns doesn't really do a damn thing for us other than make use feel better about ourselves? Make us feel safer even though virtually no one uses a gun to defend themselves (other than criminals)?
No one said this was exclusively a modern day issue. Whether it has been going on the past 15 years or past 150 years, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something. You're also a bit young to talk about what's been going on for centuries as if you have more authority to do so"Wilderness said, "is there any reason at all to think that continuing the same thing will suddenly produce results?" No, of course not."
Then why continue on a failed path? Because it's PC to do so? Because some people fear guns? Because it quiets the electorate for a time? Because it buys political votes?
"Will it work? It's worked elsewhere."
Hard facts and figures, please, not just am unsupported claim that it has worked. When and where, with homicide figures before and after gun laws. Show, please, with hard numbers that reducing guns has resulted in fewer homicides. Facts not only do not support such a claim, they very clearly point to gun ownership is not a cause of high homicide rates.
"Yes, but this will help push it closer to changing. Closer to moving our culture away from a gun possession mindset."
Again, please support that anything will change (particularly death rates from violence) except that people will not have guns. While that may be a worthy goal to some, it is very definitely a loss of freedom for others and ANY such act must absolutely be accompanied by a greater good for the whole.
"But if we can save more people in the process, isn't that worth it?"
Please indicate where in the entire world this has been successful - where banning guns has saved lives by reducing the homicide rate. Include the reasoning behind the claim as well as the data showing it to be true, not merely a very rough correlation in timing.
"Whether it has been going on the past 15 years or past 150 years, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something."
Absolutely agree. We need to do something. Just not repeat a failed action that further reduces the basis of our country (freedom) while producing nothing of value.hi, wilderness,
here's an article that says other murders don't rise enough to balance lower rates of gun murders when guns are controlled. gun control seems to save lives.
http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/ … harts.html
Of course, I followed the link. It is very well written, and clearly exposes the myths and distortions being offered by the death merchants. There are many on this thread who will say "stop" simply because someone else said "go". Some would define them as trolls, but I simply define them as evil. I have previously offered the proposition that one life saved out of 300 million, is worth the inconvenience of stricter gun control measures, or even a total ban. A human being can understand such logic, but the gun advocates are more reptilian in nature, and they do not have the capacity for a deeper emotion. The reptile is more simple minded, and bases it's world view on percentages and practicalities.
Definition:
rep·tile
ˈreptəl,ˈrepˌtīl / noun
1.
a cold-blooded vertebrate of a class that includes snakes, lizards, crocodiles, turtles, tortoises,NRA members, and gun advocates. They are distinguished by having a dry scaly skin, and typically laying soft-shelled eggs on land.
synonyms:reptilian, snake, serpent; NRA, gun advocate, gun lover, killer, Archie Bunker, Ted Nugent, Darth Cheney, George BushYour reptile drivel is way off. Consider those that lived in a neighborhood for years and now is taken over by a thug group that thinks those that lived there owes them. That thug group robs, molests, beats, breaks in etc. So the old arm up for protection. So get over yourself and your twisted one trick pony crap.
Are you referring to the thugs who came here with Columbus and on the Mayflower,or are you speaking of the thugs that were created through their legacy? It should be no great surprise when the chickens come home to roost.I have to admit to the fact the settlers "F" d up by bringing in slaves. Who rounded them up? It was there own people from a different tribe. Instead of killing and eating them they found they could make a buck. A lot was also done by that religion of love. I don't mean Christians!
Why the blacks flock to it is beyond me? Lack of education perhaps.
Columbus didn't set foot on U.S. soil. One of your one trick pony rants.
I don't know if the Indians ate each other but they sure did like to torture captives in the most brutal ways. Why do you think some killed others and mutilated the bodies to make it look like Indians did it?
The pilgrims and others came here via divine intervention. Why are you against what God has ordained?Doug, the degree of your prejudice and bigotry is so huge, it almost seems you are being SNL-like satirical. The sad truth is that you aren't being tongue-in-cheek but instead that is really you.
No one is perfect. I don't do those things that where done unto me like others think they have a right to do. Where is their restraint?
I am fed up with all this politically correct crap!
I have come to realize the conservative mind set is all about property. ahorseback said it best. "Don't Tread on Me" resonates very well with them. They are paranoid about all of their property. If any event real or imagined event comes close to suggesting that it will encroach on their property, it sets off alarms in their minds.
It manifest itself by saying " I'm a law abiding citizen. Why should I be burdened with all the gun control nonsense? I have done nothing wrong and now you are coming for my guns. Stay off on my property or you will see a fight like you have never seen before."
I have also come to realize, the 2nd amendment being written in 1791 and given state rights also creates part of the problem.
The federal government has recognized that drones can be a safety hazard. Therefore, a law has been passed to have all drone purchases of drones over a certain weight be registered with the FAA. Just imagine if guns were done that way. But it can't happen because it is now 224 years after the fact. The toothpaste can't be put back in the tube. Here are FAQ's for the registration of drones. Just replace the words Drones with Guns.
Who has to register?
If you’re a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident and own a drone that weighs between .55 pounds (250 grams) and 55 pounds, you’ll have to head on over to the FAA’s new webpage and take care of business. If you happen to have a drone that weighs more than 55 pounds, don’t think you’re getting off scot-free. Rather, you’ll have to use an alternative registration process that you can check out via the FAA’s Aircraft Registry page.
Age wise, drone owners younger than 13 will need to have a guardian or representative register the drone in their place.
What’s so special about the .55 pound threshold?
Hardly an arbitrary figure, the FAA determined that most toy drones available for purchase in the $100 or less range tend to weigh less than 250 grams. In other words, the threshold is a presumably straightforward way not to make the new guidelines particularly burdensome.
How much does it cost to register?
Thankfully, registering your drone online is pretty cheap. Put simply, if you can afford a drone, you can afford to register. The registration fee is $5, but you can get that amount refunded in full if you register before midnight EST on January 20, 2016.
What info do I need to hand over?
You’ll need to provide a valid email address, a credit or debit card for payment, and a physical or mailing address.
What if I have multiple drones, do I need to register all of them?
Thankfully, no. If you have a room filled with drones, you’ll only need to register once.
What if I use a drone for commercial purposes?
If you’re not a hobbyist or recreational user and use an eligible drone for business purposes, say, for taking aerial shots at weddings, you’ll have to register via the FAA’s paper-based registration process.
Do I need to do anything after completing the online registration process?
Yes indeed. Once you register, you’ll receive a unique registration number that you’ll have to affix to all of your devices in some fashion or another. The FAA rules dictate that the registration number must be visible and can be attached via engraving, a permanent label, or a permanent marker. If you’re not excited about the idea of attaching a registration number to your beloved drone, the FAA does note that you can put the number inside the device’s battery compartment provided that special tools aren’t needed to open it up.
Is that it?
Sadly, no. All registered owners will be issued an FAA certificate (via email) that they must have on their person anytime their drone is in-flight. The certificate will house a person’s name, registration number, and also the associated dates of issue and expiration. Not to worry, if you don’t want to walk around with your drone registration papers at all times, having a copy of your FAA certificate on your phone is sufficient to meet the agency’s requirement.
What if I let a friend borrow my drone for the weekend?
You’ll have to either give them a copy of your FAA certificate or email it to them. The FAA notes: ” Anyone who operates your drone must have the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in their possession.”
How long does the registration stay valid?
Once you’re registered, you’re good to go for a period of three years.
Do I have to pay $5 every three years?
Yep.
Do I still have to register even if I just fly my drone in my backyard for fun?
Yes, so long as your drone weighs 250 grams or more.
When does this registration hoopla begin?
It already has. It went into effect on Monday, December 21.
Can I just register in a few weeks? This process sounds annoying.
We feel ya. Still, the FAA isn’t playing around. As of this week, you’re not allowed to take your drone for a spin unless you’ve already registered.
Why the heck is the FAA making my life so inconvenient?
Safety is the name of the game here and the new registration process is a way to “build a culture of accountability and responsibility.” Additionally, if there’s a safety or security incident involving an improperly behaving drone, authorities will want to be able to trace it back to its true owner. The FAA adds: “Much like registering a motor vehicle, registering a drone ties a specific person to a specific aircraft. Greater accountability will help protect innovation, which is in danger of being undermined by reckless behavior.”
What happens if I don’t register?
The FAA is dead serious about drone registration. As such, the penalties for not registering are more severe than you might imagine. A civil fine might cost you as much as $27,500. If you’re unregistered drone gets involved in some criminal related mishap, the fine can be as high as $250,00.
Will the FAA be on the hunt for unregistered drones?
No. Doing so would be a logistical nightmare and practical impossibility. But again, if you’re unregistered drone ends up in some sort of safety or security incident, you’ll be in bad shape. Moral of the story? Play it safe and register your drone ASAP.
I decided to sell my drone, now what?
Congrats on the sale! You’ll now have to head back to the FAA’s website and update your registration information. The FAA also advises that you remove the printed registration number from your drone before giving it away or selling it.You started off slamming me and then went way off coarse. What kind of a pampered life did you live? I lived what I speak! I don't mean just property. Been beat up, robbed, assaulted, discriminated against via affirmative action, threatened etc.
Must I repeat where 54% of gun homicides come from? Add to that all the deaths due to other methods of murder or attempted murder.
Don't even try to lecture me! Unless you have lived a similar life.
.
cathylynn99: Thank you so much for your link. It slices and dices the whole gun issue into its component parts by states. ahorseback and wilderness wanted statistics and they got them. I have come to realize one of the major problems is there are no uniform laws because each state has its own laws that either trump the federal laws or they are just simply ignored by state governors.
Come on, PP; there isn't a single statistic in that article about gun ownership vs homicide rate. It may just as well be statistics about how many black birds are in a state, or what the water pollution is.
Nowhere is there any information at all showing that reducing gun ownership will reduce the murder rate. The transparent attempt to insinuate that it's true is worth the same as your own; nothing at all.
Your article says nothing of the sort. It never even looks at general homicide rates, just gun murders and other gun violence; there is absolutely nothing in there that addresses total violence.
In addition, it is chock full of such niceties as: "stopped talking claptrap", "Stupid and bigoted opinions", "old geaser’s who...", "grow a spine! Grow some balls". Is this type of "reporting" really what you want to debate with?
I'm 27, is that old enough to have an opinion or should I try again in 10 years? I also have a minor in Criminology with a focus in forensic psychology, so thanks, but I'm more than familiar with the names of some of the most famous serial killers (and Berkowitz was kind of notorious for shooting people...).
But okay, if you want to talk about people using other weapons, let's imagine that instead of someone walking into a school with a gun that can kill a dozen people in a matter of minutes, a guy walks in with a knife. Or an axe. With a classroom full of people, it's far more likely that someone's going to be able to stop him before 9+ people get killed. Other weapons require time and proximity that guns don't.
The difference between the people you named and the mass shooters you see today is that all it takes is a few minutes for the shooters to do a ton of damage. Someone could decide on a whim to shoot 20 children to death and there it is. It's done, all in a day's work. It takes most serial killers years to do that. I like the chances of a serial killer getting caught before that happens again more than I like the chances of the police showing up and being able to stop a guy with a gun in the 5 minutes it takes him to kill multiple people. Guns are much more quick and efficient at dropping bodies than other weapons commonly used for homicide, which is why unless there's a bomb or someone capable of hijacking a plane, guns are the weapon of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.
Yes, there will always be bad people and ways for them to hurt and kill others. That is an unfortunate reality. But why does that mean we shouldn't try to limit them as best as we can?
And this is sort of in response to wilderness as well - both Australia and Canada got strict with gun control after major mass shootings. Canada has had 3 mass shootings in the past 15 years and only 3 people have died. Australia's had 2 mass shootings with 2 deaths since 1996. You guys have had almost 300 mass shootings this year. Do you really think in all of those cases the shooters would have managed to kill/wound as many people with another weapon?I'm actually amazed at the list of this education you note and yet , our assuming that the Writing of a Law , is followed through by the Obeying of that law ---By the lawless !
I would suggest that you suggest a new class in your next course , Just how insane it is to expect criminals to come about and begin obeying existing law !Have you ever heard of crime opportunity theory? It states that certain opportunities promote certain crimes where other opportunities don't. So, where one unstable kid may look at his guns and say "yep, I can easily walk into a school/theatre/church/whatever and kill multiple people quickly with a low chance of being stopped," another unstable kid could look at his sword collection and think "well, I could walk into a *insert public forum here* and probably kill a couple of people, but I'll have to get a lot closer to them and it will take me longer and it's easier for someone to stop me before I do what I want to do." Even gas and a match isn't as exciting as shooting people, is it? It's impersonal, and that's part of what makes walking into a room and shooting at people so horrifying. The more horrifying, the more attention, the more appealing a crime for those looking to make a name for themselves.
As I pointed out in my last post, guns afford people a lot of opportunity and advantages that other weapons don't. And when it comes to weapons that can do a lot of damage AND can get you a lot of attention (like bombs or airplanes), guns are much, much easier... and that's a big selling point, I'd bet.
It's also not necessarily about obeying the law, it's about simply making it harder for people to get their hands on guns. What's so bad about implementing a 28 day waiting period that may discourage someone from shooting people during a particularly dark episode? What's so bad about notifying a spouse/next of kin when someone wants to buy a gun so that they can take appropriate action if the person closest to them doubts their motives for buying a gun? What's so bad about thorough, mandatory background checks including mental health history? What's so bad about having to take a class and pass a test and renew your licence every few years? What's so bad about restricting some types of guns and requiring additional testing and screening to own those guns? If you're a law-abiding citizen and responsible gun owner then all of those things should be fine for you. If all of those things could decrease opportunity and thus decrease the frequency of mass shootings as noted in Australia and Canada, why is all of that stuff not worth trying?"Have you ever heard of crime opportunity theory?"
Unfortunately all the opinions and theories in the world aren't worth a single line of hard data. Can you show where any country or location has experienced a lowering of murder rates as a result of banning guns (whether a total ban or partial)? It's been done over and over and over - is there a single country where it has worked and the death toll has fallen as a result?Quote from a methodological study I was reading:
"...rarely do these time-series studies take into account other societal factors that may influence the homicide rate, factors such as poverty, unemployment, and the age structure of the population. [This is a] neglected area of study and multivariate models that examine the relationship between rates of lethal violence and gun legislation, taking into account other demographic, social, and economic factors, are critical in studies of the impact of gun control legislation."
Interestingly gun control seems to have a different effect depending on the age and gender of victims. Some age groups see homicide go way down after gun control legislation (mostly the over 24s) and same story for female victims. So essentially homicide rates decreased among the most vulnerable (statistically speaking) populations: older people and women, while it stayed the same for young male victims.
From a study that attempted multivariate methodology (looking at Canadian statistics):
"In order to see whether other social changes might have had an impact on homicide rates, time-series regressions were run for the period 1969–1985. The social indicators used were birth, marriage, and divorce rates as measures of domestic integration, the unemployment rate, the median family income, and the percentage of the males aged fifteen to twenty-four years as a percentage of the total male population (the group with the highest crime rates). The year was coded as 0 for those years prior to the Bill C-51 and 1 for those years after its implementation. The data were purchased from Statistics Canada.
It can be seen that the passage of Bill C-51 was associated with a decline in the overall homicide rate (which reached statistical significance), a nonsignificant decline in the firearms homicide rate, no increase in the homicide rate by all other methods."
By the way , without much thought , in my imagination I came up with this , , one man could do more damage in a mass killing by using a can of gasoline and a match !
So all your argument about how the amount of damage a gun can do COMPARED to another weapon is Naïve .So how often do mass muders by arson happen at schools or campuses? It seems like guns are the means of choice for the disturbed people who comit these acts.
Apparently you are just catching up , we need to outlaw .....outlaws ! Criminals and psycho's don't give damned about either law or normalcy , you don't believe that these people won't use ANYTHING to accomplish their manifests', why don't we focus on fixing the revolving doors of the justice system , and perhaps Obama's health care should have included a comprehensive mental health care program . Hell , even for free !
Aime F ~ You are absolutely correct, not Naive ~ The ONLY plausible way to Reduce or Eliminate GUN VIOLENCE is to Reduce or Eliminate GUNS Period ~ Common Sense dictates that it is virtually impossible to perpetrate a MASS SHOOTING or Murder WITHOUT the use of a Gun and that's a fact ~ Nobody seems to understand the Obvious ~
"Common Sense dictates that it is virtually impossible to perpetrate a MASS SHOOTING or Murder WITHOUT the use of a Gun and that's a fact"
Can't perpetrate a mass murder without the use of a gun? And it's a fact and common sense? Your recall of historic events is a little sloppy - either that or your "common sense" isn't working very well. Think back to the twin towers. Think of the Oklahoma bombing. Think back to the multiple instances of the use of biological weapons and consider how easy it was to introduce it into the public space.
Your "common sense" needs a tune up.I'm "Sloppy"?? ~ Check your glasses wilderness ~
My FACT Still Remains In-tact ~ "An individual Cannot Commit a MASS SHOOTING WITHOUT the Use of a GUN" ~ Unless of course he/she is an Extr-Terrestrial Magician who can miraculously shape-Shift his/her greenish-gray FINGER into a FIREARM ~
We've already established the FACT that Guns are used in most incidents primarily due to the fact that making a Bomb & Planning the event is much more difficult than it may appear ~ Unlike the ease of Gun Purchase ~
Moreover, just because other methods might be used to perpetrate unconscionable Activity, Does NOT mean we should do absolutely NOTHING about Restricting, Regulating, or even Banning Guns as the Constitution calls for ~No, no - misquoting yourself does not add to your credibility. Here - I'll copy/paste again it for you: "Common Sense dictates that it is virtually impossible to perpetrate a MASS SHOOTING or Murder WITHOUT the use of a Gun and that's a fact" (bolding added). Now, look carefully at the bolded words; there is no mention of mass "gun" murder, just mass murder in general. Unless you meant that your vaunted common sense gives proof it is impossible to murder a single person without a gun?
Yes, we already established that most murders are via gun (discounting the "murder" of fetal tissue), but not that it is "primarily due to the fact that making a Bomb & Planning the event is much more difficult than it may appear". That is unproven and is only "true" in your overactive imagination.
You're right that other methods being available does not mean we should not ban all guns. What DOES mean that, though, is that we already know (through world wide experience, not the unsupported meanderings of AP) that it won't do anything BUT ban guns; there will be no reduction in the murder rate. A complete lack of correlation between the number of guns in a society and the homicide rate is pretty good proof (not evidence, but proof) of that.You my friend couldn't be further from reality , much like your peer Peoplepower , you've dissolved yourself into the politically correct leftist mentality without using your head ! So the next time you are accosted in the middle of the night by an intruder , I suggest you use a broom ! Yes a broom , perhaps you can Shoooo away the criminal element from your daughters bedroom !
Violent home invasions are actually incredibly rare and a good portion of them are related to drugs or other related crimes (ie. People the resident knows/is familiar with). Most of the time breaking and entering is just to take stuff and GTFO and happens when no one is home. If you fear that someone is out to specifically break into your home and attack you while you're sleeping, you need to know better people. Random breaking and entering for the purpose of harming the strangers inside is so, so rare and unlikely to happen to you ever. You're much more likely to kill yourself with your own gun.
Alternative Prime. Even if there are Actual Statistics that show removing guns from communities reduces homicides, there are still negative consequences. For example, the Police, Military still have guns. This is the biggest problem of all. Even if they aren't killing people with the guns they have they are creating a society of slavery, as the people have no means to defend themselves from the government. This could lead to a lower killing rate in exchange for complete loss of freedom. It's naive to think you can get all the guns out of civilian hands anyway. You can easily take them from the people least likely to use them, but you'll never be able to get them out of the hands of criminals, including the criminals in the police and military. Taking guns from civilians makes things easy for the criminals that won't give them up.
So simple that even A primate should see that: The first thing that occurred in several of the large size kill offs by Hitler, Stalin, and Moe was to un-arm the masses that led to the 10's of millions of deaths in each case. Why don't the likes of you just go live in one of those gun free countries and leave the rest of alone? It still is a free country to some extent!
For when they might say, "Peace and security," then suddenly destruction comes upon them.
yeah and lets say he can't get a gun and decides to build a bomb and level an entire school instead? if your going to look at the severity of the weapon consider both sides
First of all Amanda, your trying to Convolute two completely different, distinct issues which is pointless if you are truly interested in REDUCING Gun Violence ~ The Underlying FACT still remains, if we REDUCE the Number of Guns in Circulation a direct result will be a REDUCTION in Gun Violence ~
But not reduce the number of deaths. So who cares what tool is used - the man underground? Or just the gun haters that use it as a tool to scare others into eroding our rights?
More Intentional CONVOLUTION ~ This is just Fox Snooze Ridiculousness
wilderness, it's completely LUDICROUS to compare a GUN to any other Tool, Utensil, Appliance or Apparatus ~Yep. Ludicrous. And yet, given the lifespan of humanity, there have been more people killed with other "utensils" than guns. Ludicrous.
But you still haven't the question. I begin to think you don't intend to; that you don't care about rights, freedom or what anyone but you wants in their life - that you don't want guns and therefore will do or say whatever it takes to get them removed whether it is for a good reason or not. Yes?
Your right, go tell that to the thousands of middle easterns who get bound, tortured and shot in the head execution style every single day. I'm sure they agree that them not having a gun reduces gun violence.
but wait those numbers aren't reported by your beloved media,and chances are you have never had the opportunity to load your hmmv up with countless bodies. Your argument works with the delusional masses that have never left the comfort of suburbia but for anyone who has actually seen what happens when "gun control" is imposed knows for a fact that bad guys will always find a way to produce or buy guns.
Amanda, when was the last time you were BOUND,TORTURED,and SHOT IN THE HEAD? As wilderness is fond of saying: Could you provide us with proof? Can you provide us a link to an article that will verify there is a bullet hole in your head?
I never was...because I had a gun. But I watched it happen to countless innocent unarmed Iraqis every single day of a 13 month deployment. And if I showed you pictures 1) I would probably get kicked off of hubpages 2) you would have nightmares everyday for the rest of your life and probably cry for you mom.
A dramatic story. I am a Vietnam Era veteran, but I am not impressed with the picture you are trying to paint. Many of those "innocent Iraqis" were killed by Americans. Of course it is called "Collateral Damage". Others have been raped ,tortured, and killed by Americans., such as the gang rape and murder in Mahmudiyah of a 14 year old girl and her entire family. Now, after the United States has destabilized Iraq, we see even more killing. You were used by the government to help create this destabilizatiion, and what you have participated in is a crime against humanity. After all the evil that has been done, you now suggest that if the Iraqi citizens all had guns they could protect themselves from the horror that the United States has unleashed upon them.
Do not kid yourself. You speak of the horrors you have seen, but there are many horrors yet to come. An allegiance to violence can only lead to more violence. This is a very old teaching that many have yet to learn. Americans need to grab a chair, sit down, and have a serious talk with Jesus.
Now why would you think she should provide proof of something she never claimed?
"thousands of middle easterns who get bound, tortured and shot in the head execution style" simply cannot be interpreted to say that she was shot in the head. Unless, of course, one is attempting to draw attention away from the truth of what was actually said...My point is even with a total outright gun ban, evil doesn't play by the rules. Prohibition created crime syndicates as did the war on drugs. What makes anyone think guns will be different. Unless you have a plan to eradicate evil along with your gun control plan it just won't work. There are countless laws on the books, including background checks in every single state (which for some reason people don't understand). More gun control will just create a larger black market and more risk for good people.
Oh boy wrench biscuit..1).if you are in fact a Nam vet thank you for your service.
2) At least we can agree on the Jesus part
Let me clarify that my criticisms are primarily toward the system. Having been there myself, I realize that most servicemen and women do not themselves have evil intention's. But I also understand how young people can so easily be deceived by war mongers.
Thank you for the appreciation, but like many other servicemen, I joined near the end of the war to travel, get an education, and for Veterans Benefits. In other words, it was all about helping myself. This is one reason why I am now a giant among men. I have walked with evil. I have laid down with evil. I have worked for evil men, taken their money, and used it to enrich my life. All the while, people around the world were dying because of selfish, apathetic, Americans like me. But we are not bound to live in ignorance, unless we so choose. Yes, I have rebuked my past, and so now I tower above the world. But there are many others much greater than I who tower far above me. Jesus said it, John Lennon said it, Rodney King even said it:" All You Need Is Love":.I was drafted in 67 and did not run off to Canada or anything like that to avoid service. I went where I was sent and when my obligation was over I left. Did not see any action. They tried to get me to re-enlist couple times. Military life was not for me.
I did not see any of those evil Americans that are talked about here. In fact the worse that happened to me was by a couple civilian blacks that jumped the fence around a small Army training base and tried to rob me. Spent a week in the hospital. That I attribuit to cultural upbringing, or lack of!
This is precious commentary you have delivered, and it helps to reveal the root of many of our problems concerning violence. You say you were drafted but did not see any evil Americans. Let it be known, and shout it out loud with a gospel choir in unison, that when we lay down with evil, we,ourselves, cannot escape the definition. You say you did not see an evil American when they were all around you! A man can perpetrate evil, and "be" evil without necessarily wanting it to be so. A man filled with cancer does not wish for the cancer inside of his body. But it is there, and it will continue to grow on it's own accord.
You did not see evil Americans, but of course, you did not miss the "blacks" who tried to rob you! . Your words are familiar, as well as your intention. I am amused by how people on the internet will try to sugar coat their racist views. I also wonder about the cultural upbringing of a society that celebrates a rapist and murderer on Columbus Day, as well as dead presidents who were tyrants and slave owners. But a true patriot like Edward Snowden is forced to seek asylum in Russia!The two blacks were evil. One hit me over the head with something while I was lighting a cig for the other.
It was night in a dimly lit area and I saw their faces with me lighter. I could have been killed or disabled.
The reason they didn't get my wallet is because I ran before they could get me and a car was coming down the road by then. They jumped the near by fence and ran away.
If you don't think this is evil then the problem is with you. Chicago is also a good example. There is a huge problem with culture and upbringing. Do you think it is alright to do these things to me because of
who I am? This is only one example of the many times I have been victimized for being who I am.Racism is a lot like Christianity, which is not surprising since racism was literally invented by the Catholic Church in 1452. Many Christians and racists have a "selective morality". They will point out the evil of blacks,muslims, communists,anarchists,gays, etc.. But they are blind to the greater evils perpetrated by the Christian Church, or the U.S. government. Both of which were founded on the principle of white supremacy. It gets really gets interesting when we understand that both of these are controlled by Zionist Jews; a race of people who are considered to be non-white!
What is significant about your remark is your focus. You have focused on the lesser evil, which was the assault on your person, and totally missed the much greater evil. That greater evil being the over 1,5 million deaths that resulted from the Vietnam war: a staged event to satisfy the Imperialist ambitions of the United States, along with certain banking interests. The domestic gun violence you bemoan is a direct result of government corruption. The proletariat is right where the government wants us to be. Domestic violence is simply a clever and insidious tool of government oppression. We will never solve this problem by arming ourselves and focusing on the lesser evil. There is a corruption at the very top that must be dealt with first.Q. How do we deal with the corruption at the top?
A. Eliminating the top. (Well, No that would give us the bad karma of murder.)
Q. How ?
A. Eliminating the lack of morals at the top.
Q. How ?
A. By sending them this message telepathically:
<< G O T M O R A L S ? ? >>
So lets get on this, people!
Right?!
BTW Why do women insist on wearing swim suits that are too small for them? They are not in the least bit comfortable. She really needs a bigger size. and once she gets in the water,
all that makeup …You call what is in individuals hearts a lesser evil? All those hearts together is what allows and votes in the crooks at the top. It sounds like you are full hatred for whites and Jews and Christians. The pot calling the kettle black! I still maintain it is a cultural thing within the different groups.
It is the individuals that need to change before you can hope for a group change. I have friends from a lot of different groups and look at them individually.
First of all, nobody "votes in the crooks" at the top, except for a handful of bankers and families that rule the the world system. The existence of individual countries is only part and parcel of a grand illusion. The popular vote has no effect on national elections. It is this false belief, shared by millions of voters, that allows these miscreants to operate with impunity. And I see that you too have attempted to create a strawman. I challenge you to show anywhere in this thread where I have stated that I hate whites,Christians,or Jews. If I said that Ted Bundy was a man who was an evil mass murderer, would you also suggest that I hate all men?
But I can tell you without a doubt that there are a majority of whites in America who hate the Indigenous. If this were not true, at least the Christians would have long ago insisted that all stolen lands and resources be returned to the people. But even the Christian Church will not address this issue. Not in over 500 years! And so, the Church can only be seen for what it truly is. I am one of the few who even brings this issue up in online forums. And when I do, I am usually vilified for honoring the over 100 million victims of genocide; a genocide perpetrated by the European nobility, and carried out by Colonialist peasants looking for free land, and a free ride..
What I hate is evil itself. It does not matter what color or form. I have stated facts that anyone can verify with a modest amount of study. You do not like the facts. Oh well. I did not create the evil that exists here in America, and throughout the world. Furthermore,I specifically commented, "Zionist Jews". You need to do your homework. There are Orthodox Jews, and there are Zionist Jews. The Orthodox Jews do not agree with Zionism. So perhaps you would say that they hate Jews too! If we follow your logic then we must conclude that John Brown, who poured out the wrath of God upon Harpers Ferry, hated white people also.
Your tactic here is old,tired, and ineffective. You have attempted to paint the messenger of truth,hope, and liberation , as the oppressor. Guns have only lead to more guns and more death. The intelligent path is through prayer, and an outpouring of love upon humanity. A Weapon of Prayer is the only thing strong enough to destroy the ruling class, and to free ourselves from the cesspool of their evil empire.Here is what you said:
"Racism is a lot like Christianity, which is not surprising since racism was literally invented by the Catholic Church in 1452. Many Christians and racists have a "selective morality". They will point out the evil of blacks,muslims, communists,anarchists,gays, etc.. But they are blind to the greater evils perpetrated by the Christian Church, or the U.S. government. Both of which were founded on the principle of white supremacy. It gets really gets interesting when we understand that both of these are controlled by Zionist Jews; a race of people who are considered to be non-white!"
Sounds like a bunch of left wing B.S. to me.
Further more: I am 1/4 Indian. How can you steal land from those that don't believe in land ownership?
The Indians would go and kill off or enslave those in areas they conquered until some other stronger group conquered them.
Don't forget the esoteric Jews or the Christian Jews. There other Jewish groups too.
You just think you know me. I haven't voted since 1976 because things promised then did not happen and I saw then what a bunch of lying crooks they were/are.It's sounds that way to you because you haven't taken the time to study history. All of what I have said is a matter of historical record. It can be easily verified. No, I don't think I know you. I only know what you have posted here. And your assessment of "Indians" is only a generic fiction. These lies are told in an effort to mitigate an act of genocide, and to justify Manifest Destiny. It is interesting that you will admit the corruption of a political system, and the lying politicians, but still embrace the lies created by that same system that have been told about the Indigenous people for hundreds of years.
Finally, there is no great significance in the fact that you may have Indigenous blood. There have been full bloods who have turned traitor against the people, as well as white men who have fought beside the people against the European Invaders. What matters most is where your heart is.Dear wB:
It is interesting what Dave Cutler mentioned about not owning land. <"How can you steal land from those that don't believe in land ownership?">
The early Pilgrims and Puritans, who came looking for religious freedom, gave themselves permission to occupy the land.
No one can own the land on, below or above the surface. Ownership is only a concept. An illusion.
However, consider the true benefit to occupying a particular plot land. You are your own master. You have privacy and freedom. You build a house, you take care of yourself and your family. You are independent. You are not part of a human herd/tribe. You are your own unit of autonomy. In a way, taking care of a particular plot of land allows spiritual evolution. Perhaps, souls came to earth ready for more autonomy and here in this land, they were given it. Well, yeah, they took it.
In the same way, the descendants of the original Asian people travelled here as the ice age ended and the ice melted leaving green grass and new plant life which was great for animal consumption. The Bison, Wooly Mammoths and Saber Tooth Tigers followed each other along a trail of green shoots until they entered North America which was teaming with life. It was a paradise. The Oai People followed the herds and stayed where they ended up. They occupied. They did not indulge in a fantasy of "owning land." Well, they had to survive.
The Oai people eventually killed off the big game they had followed and became quite hungry. They decided it would be wise to learn how to cooperate with nature in this new land to avoid killing off the smaller mammals and to avoid polluting streams and killing off fish etc … And they were successful, but these tribes of people still had human struggles and injustices. It was not a paradise of peaceful happy people all getting along. There were warring tribes, slavery and tyranny. Human injustice occurred even here, all across the land and down into Mexico … Think of the feirce Apache Indians.
Furthermore: The Original people have been invited to participate in our society. We did not take their land. We occupied the land and used it for survival … just as they had occupied the land and used it for survival.
We established a way of life based on both English (Greek/Roman) and "Indian" governmental systems. We have infused government and laws into society to protect ourselves from ourselves.
The Oai people can now legally join in and benefit, and many have. Or they can choose to stay where they (very unfairly) ended up and may continue to maintain their cultural pride and outdated ways. But, consider, they have not had success. So, why not just join us?
The new way of a government for and by the people is good. Well, it was good. The oai people have probably missed the boat as this nation turns a dark corner. Hopefully it is temporary. Hopefully, a democratic republic such as ours can rebound and flourish in an even better way: with its citizenry respecting one another other within the boundaries of the Golden Rule. And if any of the Oai people have any words of wisdom going forth, I, for one, would love to hear them.
You always maintain how bad our system is. But I say, the problem is not the system.
The problem is this:
The love of money / selfish greed and the love of power / blind ambition. The real problem is is human nature. It was exactly the same for the Oai people.
And this issue is not resolvable as long as we are in human vehicles, I mean bodies.
Unless we, consciously, each one of us, follow the Golden Rule with compassion, empathy and as you have mentioned, love, for one another.
The American system is one of built in checks and balances. It is the best in the world. Even better than anarchy, if you ask me which no one did.We are put into human bodies to learn mainly. Another reason is karma. Each one of has a mission in life.
Even a baby being aborted may have learned enough for that particular spiritual entity? Who knows?
I believe you are born to a particular family at a particular time to interact with those around you.
Even at times a person will survive a serial killer attack or the killer will not pursue for some reason.
Divine intervention perhaps.
Bottom line here is, karma may have come around to some of those gun deaths. I believe my life has been spared several times for some reason unknown to me. 69 years old in Nov. When I die I expect to know then, maybe when I get the life review.Yes, there is a lot of traffic coming and going: from here and back into the astral world and vice versa.
I think you are right. Karma does come into play. BUT that does not give us an excuse to be jerks, to ignore the commandment: THOU SHALT NOT MURDER.
Killing in self-defense is in the interest of the highest good. My life/country is more important than an attacking bear or crummy deluded terrorist, or an attacking N. Korean, Chinese or Russian soldier, for example.
The Way I See ItI agree with what you are saying. Those in the military I do not consider murders unless they go beyond the normal accepted military actions. Nor do I consider self defense or protection of property as murder in most cases. The gray area is where a person shoots an intruder instead of a warning shoot to scare them away. You have no way of knowing if that person should die then or not.
great idea, unless, he then feels it is permission to shoot you. I would probably yell, " Take what you want ... except for my life!
I do NOT have a gun and I would not take YOUR life!"
And I would mean it! what do I care? The poor desperate soul! Take whatever your pitiful heart desires, as long as I get to live.I don't expect an intruder to know anything about karma. It is their actions that caused their death if one chooses to shoot them. If the shooter fears for their life or molestation then I feel it is acceptable. I do not think the perf. has any rights to shoot. And they get what they deserve in most cases.
I wouldn't assume he would not also want to also rape you. Best you leave your home or area if at all possible.
All that stuff in the past has nothing to do most of us today. Unless they are like those that hold grudges and try to live like those in the past. My experience is the crap happening in my lifetime.and the future.
Like those that think they are going to get 72 virgins and think women are a subclass. You aren't one of those are you? What do the women get when they blow themselves up?
If you believe it is what is in the heart why are you down on three groups of people? Do you believe all members of those groups are heartless? How close minded!
The average American is the most charitable person on earth. Look that up if you wish.
This post wasn't about the invasion of Iraq, and while I agree it was a poor decision and further destabilized the region, my comparison was solely based upon the fact that when a population is largely unarmed, it makes it harder for good people to defend themselves. While, America is far more stable than the middle east, we live in uncertain times and trying to limit guns getting in the hands of people who don't play by the rules is delusional in my opinion. Its a heart problem, a spirtitual problem manifesting itself in physical form, but not a gun problem. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places "
God Bless
So then let's do nothing, because as Jeb Bush says, "stuff happens."
Is there any indication that eliminating guns completely will stop mass murders? Or will it exacerbate the problem when killers switch to bombs, poison or some even worse method? Can you definitively show that gun controls ("giving up a little bit of freedom") do anything at all but continue the erosion of the basis of our country? We've chipped and chipped at it with zero results - is there any reason at all to think that continuing the same thing will suddenly produce results?
Chicago has arguably the worst record as far as gun violence in the entire country. Some would argue the entire world. Since 2012 there have been 6,000 shootings in Chicago. There have been 1,679 murders in Chicago.
Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country and right now, per the liberal mayor Rahm Emmanuel, guns are being confiscated against the 2nd amendment.
Gun laws are not enforced. Period. If they were, some of this violence would be curtailed.
Police cant be everywhere. Where gun violence has decreased, its because the police, working within communities, have developed programs to aid LEO's in keeping peace.
But...despite those efforts, every, single American citizen has a right to protect himself, his family and his property.
Enforce the laws which are already on the books and STOP! putting the drug dealers back on the streets because according to our esteemed president...they are non violent offenders.
Yeah right.Good points - gun laws don't solve anything if not enforced - but you appear to miss the major problem. It isn't gun violence; it's violence.
Data shows pretty plainly that taking guns from people doesn't stop the violence. Murder rates don't change, people still die just as often and the country is still outraged whenever it happens. So we make more laws and more people die as a result - as a result because we never even try to address the root problem of violence. Just chip away at the 2nd amendment in the hopes it will placate people for a while, until the next school shooting.To all of you that want hard data proof that strict gun laws actually lower crime rates perpetrated by shootings, take a look at what they have done in the U.K. You will notice that they were the original founders of bearing arms to prevent tyranny, But in the modern age they became smart and realized that it was no longer effective, so they enacted very strict gun laws...and they worked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit … ed_KingdomWhat, again with this? There is absolutely nothing in that article showing that the gun laws accomplished a single thing. No before/after figures, graphs or anything else.
Just a list of their gun laws limiting the rights of their citizens to own guns. There is zero indication (or even claim) that limiting guns has reduced murders.
So if you really want to show that gun laws reduce homicides you're going to have to do a lot more than point to a country with strong laws and say "See? So and so has strong gun laws!".
The problem is you can't just have tough gun laws in one city because it's so easy to go outside that city and get a gun. You have to have those tough laws nationwide. Until we have tough laws nationwide it's going to be too easy for anyone who wants to commit a mass killing to get a gun. We've had almost 300 mass shootings this year alone. We sadly haven't reached a point where everyone's saying enough is enough. Too many gun owners believe their right to gun ownership trumps other people's right to life. Until that attitude changes, we'll just have to get used to our homes, schools, malls, churches and movie theaters turning into death zones on a regular basis.
First, both Canada and Mexico have a problem with guns imported...from the US. So will we if we manage to take away all the guns in the country - they will be imported from somewhere else.
Second, what evidence can you provide showing that taking guns away will lower either homicides OR mass murders? Or does it not matter, because you don't want a gun anyway and therefore no one else should either?
Sallie Mullinger ~ If you actually read the 2cnd Amendment without "Pretending" certain words do NOT Exist, you'll surely Discover that it is a BAN on ARMS for ALL unless you are Affiliated with the Military ~
The Right to Bear Arms is the result of a Supreme Court Mis-interpretation, NOT a Constitutional Right ~I will repeat again: The words about a well maintained militia was permission given us to have a militia in addition to the already accepted gun uses. The blacks, after the Civil war,were allowed guns to protect themselves from the few bad whites. If the guns were only for militias and military they would have taken them long ago. The gov. even let the Indians have guns on the reservations.
Those who do not believe in gun rights/the right to bear arms should not own a gun, EVER!
You, ALTERNATIVE Prime, should NEVER own a gun!!!
So don't even THINK ABOUT IT!
~ ~ EV E R
! ~ ~
"To think that removing guns from our society will reduce the homicide rate is ludicrous. There isn't a place on earth where that has shown to be true."
Let me also offer the example of the United Kingdom. We made assault weapons and handguns illegal and there has never been a mass shooting since we did so. The number of "single" murders by firearm has also reduced dramatically. When you compare the murder rates as between the UK and the US the figures show a stark contrast.
Americans are scared stiff that the way would be left open to criminals if guns were taken out of society - this has not proved to be the case over here.
Americans need to lose their Wild West mentality and join the rest of the civilised world in the 21st century.America IS a nation that has grown SOFT on crime , I capitalize SOFT cause we are , each of us needs to take a look at the uselessness of the legal system that has all but installed revolving doors in the jail cells In the courts , in the prisons ! Don't believe it ? And yet it's still the most expensive system in the world .
The only effective , and that's half assed effective , part of our justice system is the constitutional defending of the violent crime perpetrators. Every possible lenient opportunity is brought forth FOR the accused . The victims graves speak for themselves , silence . Example , John Hinkley Jr. . is about to be let out of his punishment on parole , he will live with his sister . For those of you who cannot recall who he is , he shot President Reagan , his friend Jim Brady and others .
And yet , ask the average American ,uneducated , [in victimhood ] about crime and punishment and most will reply that the system is just fine ! That our system should be more lenient , that they "don't believe in capital punishment ", ..
The main problem in America is the ignorance of most of us as to how immovably slow and ineffective our justice system IS !.Yep - you took away "assault" guns (whatever that means) and the gun deaths went down. But the death rate didn't, now did it? Look around you at the other countries with either more guns and fewer homicides or fewer guns and more homicides.
So I guess that reducing the gun homicide rate will be a big relief to those that are dead from other means, yes?One thing that is certain, gun control people state hypothetical scenarios as fact to try to make their points. Here are some facts from a guy in this forum who lives in the U.K..
"Let me also offer the example of the United Kingdom. We made assault weapons and handguns illegal and there has never been a mass shooting since we did so. The number of "single" murders by firearm has also reduced dramatically. When you compare the murder rates as between the UK and the US the figures show a stark contrast.
Americans are scared stiff that the way would be left open to criminals if guns were taken out of society - this has not proved to be the case over here.
Americans need to lose their Wild West mentality and join the rest of the civilised world in the 21st century."
I know you are going to discredit this person, because he doesn't live here, but facts are facts. Just read this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit … ed_KingdomOK - the facts according to wikipedia (which needs checked for neutrality according to the article) is that the UK has enacted gun laws. Not a single fact or statistic about murder rates except that there has never been a problem with mass murders either before or after the laws.
So...your point here? That we can make claims without data to back them (the number of murders went down as a result)? That we can make unsupported insinuations (gun laws reduced mass murders) that are statistically untrue? That the UK has strong gun laws? That without guns people don't shoot each other (which we already knew)?
What are your "facts" supposed to be showing?
Yes, let's compare. Using figures from 2007 (the most recent year for which stats for a large number of countries was available), England and Wales has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 and a homicide rate of 1.5. While Romania has a gun rate of .7 and a homicide rate of 1.9 - far fewer guns but more murders.
Or Sweden, with a gun ownership rate of 34.6 and a homicide rate of 1.2 - 5 times the guns but considerably fewer homicides.
Or Switzerland, with a 45.7 ownership rate but a 0.7 homicide rate - again, 7 times the guns but half the homicides.
It would appear that more guns means a lower homicide rate, yes? Or is it just that there is no correlation at all in spite of a few comparisons?
Thank God I read your post. Its nice to know that some people use common sense. Seems to me that this poster has been nipping on the liberal Kool Aid too long. I am from a "no guns" country; Guess what? Obama lied again when he said only we have this problem. My country is a nightmare of violence and gun power that only bad people possess. I hope the U.S. does not turn into the toilet that I left. If there are enough people who are as smart as you are, we are safe:)
You would have us believe that if every qualified citizen could own a gun in this country you speak of, that the violence would either end, or at least be drastically reduced. That is a popular song often played by the NRA, but it is only a myth. The world is not so black and white, and I am sure there are many other factors contributing to the chaos in your country.
If guns were the solution mankind would have attained world peace by the 20th century. Instead, they keep making bigger and better guns and people keep killing each other with them. Armies are still going to war, just like they did 2000 years ago. Prophets and philosophers have been warning against using violence as a means of social and political change at least since the time of Jesus. Violence begets violence. Violence also begets money, and that's why violence and war still exist. Now, have a drink of my sweet,refreshing Kool-Aid!You never know who will get their grimy hands on a gun. Eliminate every single gun.
Stop production yesterday! Haven't we yet?
No, Thanks to the greedy.
So we really need to get rid of capitalism.
And I don't know why she swallowed the fly …
perhaps she'll die!!!
Agreed, for the most part. This article from CNN came across my desk today and it makes some really good points and even offers another suggestion that sounds pretty good to me - namely 'Interceptors'. I have never heard of them, before. Here's the link in anyone else wants to check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/05/health/gu … -violence/
I just finished reading the article. Yes, it sounds good. I will note that what it amounts to is a secular remix of the Christian idea of "loving thy neighbor", or the Beatles song "All You Need Is Love".. It also gives a secular interpretation of what some Christians and others familiar with the paranormal would consider demonic possession, or a manipulation by extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional entities such as the Reptilians.
According to David Icke, the Reptilians are a race of parasites who feed off of negative human energy. He claims that they vibrate at a frequency outside the normal range of our five senses, and so like radio waves,cell phone transmissions etc., even though they are all around us we cannot see them. This would explain many seemingly random acts of violence and mass shootings.The negative energy created by such events would be a feast for these creatures. They would simply use their natural abilities, or technology to manipulate and agitate a human host, inciting them to violence. This would also help to explain why many mass shooters seem puzzled by their own behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4apWOUNOx64"...what it amounts to is a secular remix of the Christian idea of "loving thy neighbor", or the Beatles song "All You Need Is Love"
Wow, I did not get that out of the article, at all. It sounded to me like someone was trying to think outside of the box and come up with a constructive semi-solution. As far as aliens go; I've heard those theories about them - and they may well be true. They may also NOT be true, in which case, the idea in the link above 'might' work every once in a while. Even if aliens are around us, that doesn't mean that we would have no control over 'intercepting' these people and stopping violence. If we live our lives thinking that aliens affect us to that extent; then we might as well stop trying to fix anything and give up - because obviously, they have already won.
The second amendement is over 200 years old and its is something ingrained in American psyche. I dont see it ever going away despite the use of the rifle for killing and shootings. The fact is the second amendment is not to blame as a man who has to kill, will kill anyway. The only thing that is required is to cleanse the moral fibre of America, the second amendment will I think remain in our life time.
I have read the stats stated here on gun related deaths and total murders. Even so, it seems worth considering that a gun enables someone to kill easily, and very soon after they decide to kill, from a safe distance.
DECIDE TO KILL -> POINT GUN -> PULL TRIGGER -> VICTIM DIES.
Compare this with use of a knife.
DECIDE TO KILL -> GET UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL -> STAB VICTIM PERHAPS SEVERAL TIMES TO DEATH.Consider all you wish: all the rationalization and logic in the world doesn't compare to real world facts. And the facts are that taking guns does not, and has never, been successful in reducing the homicide rate.
That this is contrary to "common sense" or "logic", that it doesn't agree with considerations such as you present is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that guns has no causal effect on the rate at which Americans kill each other (or any other country, for that matter).
Plus, of course, there haven't been any stats presented here at all; just opinions and numbers concerning "gun homicides". Absolutely zero as to how effective gun control really in reducing the killing. Those stats are available (I collected them from UN data worldwide and put them into a hub), but no one wants to see them as they pretty effectively remove any reason for stringent gun controls and that is not the desired result. Plus, of course, the obvious conclusion that killers will kill with or without guns and that, too, is something we don't want to hear.Your gun control and crime statistics hub is really worth sharing around the globe.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Gun-Control-and … duce-CrimeI read that link. The reason there is a rise in homicides may be: now more people have a means to protect themselves and the rate of increase may be because more of the bad guys/girls are shoot.
The stats do not say which side the deaths were on. It does make a big difference as far as I am concerned. Maybe they will get the message and find some worth while activity.I agree with your "may be".
There are 'many reported home invasions' that result in the invaders being shot to death that do not reach MSM.
We have social and mental problems. People are going to kill each other unless there is a change in the way we behave. As long as there are crazies out there we need guns to protect ourselves.
Way too many drugs and additives.But isn't part of that problem also that we are over medicating and not really treating these serious mental issues...Some things we are calling mentally ill are just kids being hyper and some serious issues are not being deal with and we are throwing these folks out often times with no true coping skills.....
We in the U.S. are not allowed to discipline badness like in the past. Now you get sued or jailed. Instead, as you mention, people are drugged. Many of these drugs are proven to cause problems. And it is now politically incorrect to hurt anyone's feelings.
Another factor is all the additives in our foods and environment.So true, we don't pay our teachers, and yet we expect them to do this unrewarding work for no pay and no incentive, and we wonder why in many of the schools, it seems like the kids are running it, and not the teachers and administration....
And yes, many in society have developed thin skin.......and that's a shame too....
^ EXACTLY, Wilderness. Well said.
If our logic (or lack thereof) as a society is directing us to ban guns (because, y'know, they make people kill people), then we might as well be banning spoons (because they make people fat), banning pencils (because they make today's kids have bad grades), and banning cars (because they cause reckless drivers).
Nevermind that you'd also have the problem of there being an illegal market for guns, should they be banned. Meth, heroin, cocaine, bath salts, steroids, and ecstasy are illegal, too, but that hasn't stopped junkies from getting their fix.
People will revert to killing each other with tire irons, rocks, and other blunt instruments if they have to. Just a couple weeks ago in my hometown there were two instances of people being bludgeoned to death with bats. Clearly gun control helped those poor people.
Oy vey.Wilderness, I don't understand. Where are you getting your info? There is no credible evidence anywhere that supports your statements.
Peoplepower never says he's for taking everyone's guns. I can't help but think there is a lot of paranoia going around.the writer is quite corrected . we do not like to used gun,but we all together sitting for discussion in honest way ,the crime is always easy to detected ,u do not used gun miss way do not killed men with out any simple matters
Actually, the U.K. and Australia both have banned guns in some form and both countries have far lower rate of mass killings than the U.S. The U.S. has the highest rate in the developed countries.
We have to get all group ideologies out of the question and problem. We need to talk about this like tackling the drunk driver problem. The left nor the right had specific "own agenda views" they all thought it was a problem for everyone to solve.You neglect to add that neither country saw any change in the rate of homicides, or that mass murders have continued in both countries.
The obvious conclusion is that gun control was responsible for a reduction in murders when compared to the US but it is not true - tighter gun controls in neither nation had any results at all.
On top of that, there are multiple countries with far lower gun ownership rates than either countries and higher murder rates. Or more guns and fewer rates. Comparisons between two cherry picked countries shows nothing.
Drunk driving comparisons may have validity, though. We didn't ban cars, we didn't ban hooch. Why then are we talking about banning guns to solve killings?One reason Madd worked is there is no ideology split like with guns. Most think over drinking is not good for anyone. Over saturation of guns is favored by many. By the start of the 19th century gun ownership was not a must with the common citizen. The devices were used for hunting, that was it. Mass killings were very much shocking, the Valentine's Day Massacre was one.
The Mob problem was not solved by the common citizen nor was the drunk driving, they were both solved by laws.
Every deterrent in the U.S. is measured by the laws that define what makes up the society. More regulations such as not being able to drive worked. Cars were not banned because behavior can be modified and cars are necessary in some settings. You are able to drive after you modified your ideology and behavior. Laws limiting behavior on owning guns does not jeopardize lively hoods."Over saturation of guns is favored by many."
An interesting statement, but of course it's untrue. Unless you define "over saturation" as the ability to exercise your constitutional rights. People with 50 guns will not say they are "over saturated" just as people in Montana said it was fine to drink and drive whatever MADD had to say.
I'd point out that the Mob problem was not solved by laws saying they couldn't have a gun; it was solved by putting criminals in jail.
Sorry, but laws limiting gun ownership (not sure what you mean by "limiting behavior on owning guns as there are already laws against shooting people) can and does limit lively hoods; I grew up eating wild meat and a great many still do today.
None of which has anything at all to do with the right to own and bear arms. We either do or we don't; putting ever more hurdles and obstacles in the path of gun ownership is nothing more than a back-door approach to making sure that fewer and fewer people can own a gun.
Well when I read this response I think of the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Yes that is so true, such a bit wisdom there. However, I think that it takes a person operating the gun to do the killing. Unfortunately, using a gun is too easy. When people go to war, they don't carry knives with them, they don't drive their cars into people in cities, pick up rocks etc (during a war time).
People may use these objects to commit murder, but most people use knives to eat, use cars to get somewhere and rocks usually are placed in a garden or by someone's pool.
The sole purpose of gun is to kill or maim. That is why it was invented. solely for the purpose of hitting a (usually human) target multiple times, or numerous human targets - that's why they came up with the six shooter. The gun was invented to destroy - either an inanimate object or a living being. Usually from a distance.I do not agree that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. If the nearly 50% of households that have a gun believed that, half the country would be killed.
The major purpose is to deter a corrupt gov. or force from trying to take over. The Ruskies squelched the plan to attack through Texas because of the guns and Texans. The Japs also feared the guns here.
Other uses are hunting, sports, and collecting. There is a large interest in re-enactments too.
Really Doug? They're using live ammo in re-enactments? And when you think about the purpose of re-enactments,which is to glorify war, you start to realize how sick these gun nuts really are. And although I can understand the purpose of killing animals for food, I hardly consider it a "sport". Furthermore, the believers in the Holy Quran haven't been over here with armies invading and occupying various parts of the United States. They haven't been initiating drone air strikes in Topeka Kansas and Houston Texas; all for the sake of gaining control of oil reserves. When you speak of violence and Holy War, you conveniently ignore the fact that the U.S. is the aggressor in the Middle East.
That's why many Muslims hate Americans. It doesn't have anything to do with the Holy Quran. It's the simple fact that the U.S. has been killing their people and invading their territories for over 20 years! And no, 911 was "not" an attack on the U.S. by Middle Eastern Muslims. It was a staged event perpetrated by the Bush administration and other entities for the sole purpose of gaining popular support for Imperialist aggression against Iraq, and throughout the Middle East.
It is the same reason my people hated the Americans, and killed as many as they could. They came upon us like a swarm of hungry locusts; raping, and pillaging, and stealing everything in sight. My Indigenous ancestors were not the aggressors, they were defending themselves from an invading horde of Europeans; the original authors of terrorism throughout this continent. It is no wonder that the progeny of evil would defend the NRA, and all other institutions of death and destruction.Everyone needs to LISTEN Up ~ There's ample TRUTH in wrenchBiscuit's Words ~
Depends on the re-enactment. When the civil war they face one another and no live ammo. Just powder and flame. Must I always being correcting you?
Visit Dearborn Mi. They sure took over that area. Got the church bells silenced because they claimed it offensive to their ears.
Will you come off that "sole purpose" one trick pony crap! I guess you never heard of the J.P.
Morgan and Brit bank involvement. There appears to be several players there.
Hate Americans?? Is that why they are killing all the Christians, Jews and peaceful Muslims in Africa and the east? I don't think so. You have been soaking up too much Obama regime crap.
Islam is a terrorist group. They worship it and live it. Obama refuses to say it.
Your Indigenous ancestors were a blood thirsty torture loving lot. Why not give your conquering German half some slack?
According to Columbus himself, in his own words, my ancestors were not blood thirsty at all. The image I have provided is an excerpt from his journal.
You have raised another good point Doug. The killing of Christians and Muslims in the Middle East by alleged terrorist organizations. Please, on this Christmas Day, let us reflect on the 1993 massacre at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas. 82 people were brutally murdered by elements within the U.S. government. 26 of that number were children. Many died from the poisoning effects of CS gas. Here are a few quotes concerning the matter:
"CS gas is one of the most cruel poisons that the government could have used against the small children. Pictures from the massacre showed small children, burned black, with their backs arched backward in what had to have been a most horrible death."
“CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on chemical warfare. The U.S. could not use it in war. It is illegal, but they would use it against their own citizens.” — The Washington Times, April 23,1993."
David Koresh was not a threat to National Security. He did not possess weapons of mass destruction; chemical or biological agents. The local sheriff and other nearby residents freely admitted that Koresh and his followers were friendly, and had not posed a threat to their community. Also keep in mind that Koresh and his followers were Christians.
Now Doug, once you wrap your head around the fact that for whatever the reason, if the government would brutally murder U.S. citizens, including 26 children, in such an horrific manner, it is not such a leap to imagine that much of the killing in the Middle East is being planned and directed from right here in the United States, and through various functionaries of the U.S. government. They are creating a New World Order, and this is how it is being done.Why do I have to keep telling You Columbus never set foot on U.S. soil. Those natives in the pic were on an island isolated from the others. Nice job of cherry picking to fit. Check what the Canadian Indians did when the Vikiings came there. Long before Columbus. Also, Columbus left 39 on an island and when he came back all had been killed.
How old are you. The average age of the Indian was 32 before settlers came. They where far more healther and in larger numbers. They where dying from their own dieseases and murders. So after Columbus they started living longer.
Why are you not saying anything about the Spainareds? They were the worse.
It was a brutle time for every group back then. Up untill the 1900's for most.
The U.S. gives back lands to those they have to fight for some reason. Could have kept Mexico and Cuba, Phillipines etc. The we keep giving through aid programs and charity.
We are in the now. So, end your leectures and what to nowis the question.
It is not my responsibility to educate you, so believe what you must.But I do find it remarkable that you accuse me of "cherry picking", when the historical record clearly reveals that you just used 180 words to comment on 8% of my post ;(27 out of 322 words) a small percentage that was included only as an aside.
To answer your question about my age: I do not know my exact age, but I do know I am older than the United States.Well, in that case I am older than Earth itself! I expect some
coming soon.
Maybe I don't think 92% of your post is worth commenting on.
And I can educate myself and you as well. After all we wouldn't be hear if not for the web.
It helps me to counter your inaccurate rants. You still haven't told me, with proofs, about those lies you slandered me with. It is I that has to correct you and others.
You know as well as I do that our Germanic, English, and French ancestors were no less a "blood thirsty, torture-loving lot" than the Native American people they committed genocide and ethnic cleaning against; neither of which atrocity is associated with Native Americans.
Doug: I don't know where you come up with this stuff. We and the Soviet Union were in the Cold War. The reason it was called the cold war was because, it was a war of ideology. The Russians didn't invade us or we invade them, because in the beginning we both had radar that protected both sides from being invaded by bombers carrying A bombs. If either side detected them, they would scramble interceptor aircraft. Not one shot has ever been fired from either side.
Later both sides got missiles as deterrents. Neither side fired a missile at the other side. We won the cold war because of Soviet Containment, not because they were thinking about invading Texas where civilians had pea shooters. We stopped them by containing their expansion and their from of communism did not fit with the rest of the world economics.
We and the Russians still have the missiles in the ground and in submarines and both sides still use them as a deterrent. We still use the radar, but now we have satellites and other means for detection of missile launches.The Ruskies invasion plans are recent disclosures. They did not want to invade through Texas. Too many guns and people willing to use them. Maybe included Military bases.
The major reason was we broke their bank. Containment helped.
There is no technology that can read the hearts of the scourge coming. Russia has had problems with this scourge too. Look at the school and opera incidents. A ruthless blood thirsty group from Islam. In those cases it was not Arabs. Don't forget Paris.
Sweden is being crushed by their generosity to Muslims. Rape capital of the world save some African country. Those Muslim countries need to emulate the U.S. or the successful countries in their part own of the world. Then there would be no need to invade us, save there world conquering savage ideology. The Saudis don't even want them. Their own type!
The NRA folks are for the all-might, All-Mighty-Dollar that is. If you have the dollars you can buy the guns, any kind and they should be held responsible for an of the shootings by mentally ill people.
I do not object to people owning guns for protection or hunting as long as the animals they are hunting are not humans, and some of the other animals should not be hunted. I personally do not like hunting for sport, to me that is slaughter, and it is just wrong.
But, I am just 1 person and what does the NRA care about someone like me who does not have a lot of money.
There were always guns in the house when I was little about 8 my first time shooting. and I have written several hubs, like when a gun for protection becomes a liability.
Thank you for writing this.
ShyronThe NRA only cares about the all mighty, the All-Mighty-Dollar that is. I thing the NRA should be held responsible for ANY assault weapons that are used and any mentally ill person who shoots anyone. I still believe in having a gun for protection. But it is scary when a gun for protection becomes a liability.
I learned to shoot at age 8.
I don't want all guns outlawed, because then only outlaws would have guns.
I don't believe in having guns for shooting animals for sport.
Lets not go back to the gun slinger days.
Thank you for this great topic, allowing us to voice our opinions."It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings."
The 2nd amendment is a bunch of words - it is not possible for such a thing to 'cause' mentally ill - or any other kind of person - to do anything, much less commit mass killings.
Gun control would do nothing to help mentally ill people resolve their scary issues. And that is where society needs to begin to diminish this danger.+1
The problem isn't the tool used whether it be guns, knives, bombs, cars, chemicals or anything else.
It is the person using that tool; "fix" the person and there won't be a problem. Fail to do so and there will, whether we remove one or all of the tools.The type of tool matters.
If someone attacks you with a knife, you have a chance to defend yourself. The wounds you incur might not be fatal. Same if someone attacked you with with their fists, or a bat, etc.
If someone wanted to blow people up, they would need to learn how to assemble a bomb. They would need to put one together without killing themselves. They would need to take the risk of planting it somewhere or killing themselves in the process. This is definitely not a route for everyone.
However, people in this country in many states can easily purchase a gun and bullets. With little training, they can instantly point and shoot someone from a distance. The victim would be defenseless. The wounds would most likely be fatal. It's such an accessible way to kill someone.
I'm not saying removing guns will stop people from attacking each other, just that I rather go up against a knife than a gun.And that's great, that you would rather fight a knife wielder than one with a gun. I'm not sure I agree, but that is certainly your choice.
But what does any of that have to do with thinking that removing guns will lower the homicide rate? It's a fine rationalization and all (that I can't really disagree with) but it doesn't match real world experience where the facts show that taking guns away from killers does not stop them from killing.I'm not arguing that removing guns will lower the overall homicide rate. I agree with you that it probably won't. I'm arguing that it will reduce the number of mass shootings. It has in other countries. There are plenty of studies that show that access to a gun helps escalate a scenario in which someone will use that gun to do harm. Whether that be suicide or something worse. Yes, they could kill in another way, but the ease and access to a gun allows them to follow through. Most of the shooters were able to get a gun without issue. Most of them could kill lots of people at once with little immediate resistance. Those two factors allowed those specific people to go ahead and commit the crime. It's because it's easy. It's because they can do it so quickly.
"I'm not arguing that removing guns will lower the overall homicide rate. I agree with you that it probably won't. I'm arguing that it will reduce the number of mass shootings."
I'm sorry, but what is the point of reducing the number of mass shootings by legislating gun control if that same legislation is going to cause non-mass shooting rates to skyrocket (as it has in most places in he U.S. where it has been implemented).
Why is there this bizarre fixation on multiple people being murdered at once? Isn't it just as terrible if twelve people are shot in completely separate homicides as it is if twelve are shot in one instance by one shooter (or group of shooters)? We could reduce the number of mass shootings to zero, but that doesn't mean bum-squat if the regular homicide rates go through the roof (as they are in big cities like Chicago). As far as I'm concerned, all life is precious. The victim who dies in a mass shooting shouldn't eclipse the victims of individual homicides just so some politician can feel important.
Misfit Chick ~
It would be extremely difficult if not impossible for a Mentally Unsound person, or even a sound person to commit a "Mass Killing" without a gun ~ Just look at the nuckle-head on that train recently, he did indeed have a firearm yet according to reports it jammed and he was left with a box-cutter, 3 Heros jumped on his body and subdued him ~ Minor injuries resulted however, if his gun did not malfunction it would have been a massacre ~
It would have been extremely difficult for the individual who recently killed 2 News-Persons and injured one, to commit this crime without a gun ~ Unfortunately, Mass Killings are much easier when the perpetrater uses a firearm and this is an undisputable fact ~
Sure, they could use a bomb or other explosive device but these weapons are much more difficult to either build or find already assembled ~OMG! Did you really say that?
"It would be extremely difficult if not impossible for a Mentally Unsound person, or even a sound person to commit a "Mass Killing" without a gun "
Does 9/11 ring a bell with you? Boston? London subway? etc. etc. etc.
Give it up Ap. Call the Talking Points director and tell them you need some new material.
ps. it is "Knucklehead," not "nuckle-head . Geesh, you can't even get your pejoratives right. "
GAGA Anderson: Do you deny that it is easier for a mentally ill person to easily obtain firearms than airplanes and other means of mass killings? Look at all the mass killing by mentally ill people. They used the tools that you and wilderness are talking about. What you have cited are politically motivated killings by terrorists. I know you probably think that if you had your AR-15, you could have stopped all the terrorists, attacks including 9/11. At the very least protect yourself from insurgents and tyranny by our government.
Do you deny that lack of a specific tool means it won't happen? Bombs, poison or even cars won't be used instead? If so can you present any supporting evidence for that opinion?
Wilderness: You are answering my question by asking another question. That's a ploy used by politicians and conservatives. I'm going to answer your question anyway. The primary purpose of a firearm is to kill. It can be used for target practice and as a collectors item as well. The primary purpose of a car is transportation. Your line of reasoning is if we have gun control then people are going to use other means to kill others, so why do anything at all. This is a ploy that conservative use to present the slippery slope. Gun control will lead to other types of killing, so it is an exercise in futility to try to do anything, so let's do nothing and just watch more mass killings by those who can obtain firearms effortlessly. As long as I can protect myself, I don't give a sh*t about anybody else.
Now you can answer my question.ABSOLUTELY Correct peoplepower ~
Conservatives could care less about Logic & Rational Thinking ~ Just take a look at their presidential candidates, or lack thereof ~
2011 murders by weapon:
8,583 - guns
1,694 - knives
12 - explosions
5 - poison
Source: FBINot bad for a population of 300 million. I will sleep easier for these stats. Thanks.
I wouldn't relax too much. That's just the murder rate. According to PolitiFact, the number of people shot last year was 104,852.
I think we need to get creative in this country and invent some NON lethal weapons. Like 3 day old 7-11 hot dogs propelled towards a perpetrators kneecaps. Then we can all enjoy being part of a police state, and not being the ones policed all the time. We also get to listen to 2 hours of phone conversation of the politician of our choice. NAUGHTY!!!!!!!
So wilderness, once arms are banned in the United States pursuant to the 2cnd Amendment , do you anticipate every criminal morphing into James Bond or Flint? Running around theatres in finely woven European Suits, or in Flint's case, a Turtleneck Sweater and excruciatingly painful TIGHT trowsers, sneaking up behind each individual innocent bystander and while their trying to cop a smooch, carefully placing a single drop of POISON in their Stale Popcorn, or Dangerously Preserved Cracker Jack, or 7 year old Moldy Mars Bar?
Come to think of it, Movie Theatres do a pretty good job of POISONING attendees without anyone elses help ~
Right GA Anderson, it’s very easy to take jet-liner flying lessons, hijack or simply purchase a massive airplane, gain access to the cockpit, overtake the cabin, then navigate your way to a target of choice ~ VERY SIMPLE and it happens ALL the time ~
Yeah GA, if we enforce the 2cnd Amendment by banning all arms except for those who are affiliated with a “Well Regulated Militia“, individuals without access to a gun and who would perpetrate unthinkable crimes could simply just go to the streets or local general store and buy a cheap 747 JETLINER or HELICOPTER or SPACE SHUTTLE or STARSHIP ENTERPRISE to commit these acts ~
NOW, who’s being ridiculous?
BTW ~ FYI ~ 9/11 occurred on REPUBLICAN George “Dumbya” Bush’s watch ~ You know, the party that keeps Americans SAFE ~ Apparently George was drinking with his little brother Jeb and was a little tipsy in his first few weeks and months after taking office and failed to read or respond to intelligence reports ~ Not bad for a guy who claimed he didn’t even gaze at newspapers or online publications ~The chance of being injured or harmed in a terrorist attack is roughly 1 in 20 million. You're more likely to be crushed by your television or struck by lightning.
OMG, my television is scarier than ISIS!- -----> Crushed by your Television ----> That's a new one
Or, POISONED at a Movie Theatre, not by a criminal but by the CONCESSION STAND ~ Whudda U want? It's Capitalism at its finest ~
Or, you're more likely to die from voluntarily jumping off the pinnacle of the GREAT PYRAMID of GIZA after discovering that the TV studio just signed the KARDASHIANS for another SEASON!! ~ I'm not sure, but this could actually be the most FRIGHTENING of em' all ~maybe the Kardashians are part of some Creator's greater Karma to unite the brownish peoples of the desert, whoever they may be, and whyever we hate them, (I don't know myself, I think it's oil? Or do they hate us? IDK) Well we will all unite and celebrate one love as Bob Marley sang because we love Kim and her big ol butt. (And Kanye. and East West)
I didn't realize that all these mass shooting in the US were committed by terrorists (sarcasm). The sad thing is, our government is taking away many of our rights to fight terrorists when we've had very few attacks or threats. We're seeing mass shootings every couple of months and no one is willing to take away any rights then.
I would say if you had a verifiable way to ensure that the criminals gave up their weapons you may be on to something. But for now even though I am not a criminal nor do I posses a firearm, I like the thought being in a criminals head that if he comes through my door he may get shot. You see détente is another factor you cannot discount.
Even Thomas Jefferson recognized that the Constitution should change to reflect current opinion. In a letter to James Madison, he said "It may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... Every constitution, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years."
Peeples, twice in my life as a woman alone, I'm afraid I may not be here if I had not had a gun to protect myself. At age 20, pregnant and at home alone while my husband was at work at night, I put a shotgun in the face of an intruder. He left without completing his breakin. Then as a single mom when my kids were visiting their father, I heard what sounded like a prowler outside. I had just come home from completing a night shift at a local radio network and was sitting down to eat supper. I got my chrome pistol and set it down on the table while I waited for the police to arrive. I turned it in my hands to make sure he caught the flash of the light on the chrome. The blinds weren't completely opaque, so I knew the prowler could see it. Three nights later I came home and my house had been ransacked. At least the prowler waited until I was absent from home before he or, in this case, I think "they" came back. I believe my life was in danger both times and that the prowlers left because they realized I was armed.
I do not believe in "open carry" laws like my state just passed because I don't like the idea of nuts running around carrying guns, but I do believe in the right to own a gun to protect my life. It is tragic that mentally ill persons are using them to commit their crimes. One lawman, however, said concerning one of these theater shootings, thank goodness all he had was a gun, meaning that if the shooter had not used a gun, he may have used a bomb and blown up a theater full of people. Either way, it was tragic.The 2nd Amendment was badly written. People should have a right to bear arms for their self protection. But convicted felons and mentally ill people shouldn't get easy access to them.
The NRA fights every attempt to put reasonable controls in place. I have been in many debates with NRA members who think it's OK for everyone to own a gun, even if they are mentally ill or a convicted felon.why?
the mentally ill
those with domestic violence
their rights need to be curbed.
Obviously.
"John Lott’s research was in my opinion very instrumental over decades in having more states pass laws to make it easier to get permits to carry concealed loaded guns, and to lessen the barriers for those permit holders to take guns in ever more places, whether it's bars, or places of worship, or schools," says Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. "It’s all based upon Lott’s scholarship that has been completely discredited."
I had reached out to Webster in search of data on the relationship between crime and concealed-carry laws. "There has been a lot of research," he told me, "much of it bad." And, in fact, the web is full of it. The idea that more guns lead to less crime appears on gun policy "fact sheets," as evidence debunking gun control "myths," in congressional committee reports. It's regularly stated as a causal fact proven by the twin trends that 1) the number of people with concealed-carry permits has been growing, and 2) crime has been on the decline.
A more recent paper ("the best study on the topic" by Webster's account), written by Stanford's Abhay Aneja and John J. Donohue and Hopkins' Alexandria Zhang, goes one step further. It methodically picks apart the existing literature — including Lott's — and reaches a dramatically different conclusion:
Overall, the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from both the state and the county panel data models conducted over the entire 1977–2006 period with and without state trends and using three different models is that aggravated assault rises when [right-to-carry] laws are adopted.
- Washington Post"It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings"
This is going on my list of Top Ten Wacky Posts of 2015. Perhaps even near the top. Maybe even #1... we'll have to see if anyone can better it. Only four months to go.How about this issue?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/ma … .html?_r=0 (… and don't say this is paranoid thinking.)
What if the terrorists do enter with all these refugees?Im from the U.k and find it insane that people can legally buy weapons with the power to kill mass amounts of people. If i lived in America id constanly be on edge of some nutcase pulling out a gun and shooting me for no reason, which seems to happen a lot in America
How about fertilizer? Diesel fuel? Ammonia? Cars? Shouldn't we ban anything that might be used to kill people?
fertilizer is for plants, diesel fuel is used for cars, cars are made for transporting people and GUNS ARE MADE FOR KILLING PEOPLE.....
I'm sorry, but fertilizer and fuel are for making bombs. Just as the insane that do just that. And cars make a fine weapon in a crowd of people as well, or for ramming through store fronts into the crowded interior. Again, just ask the insane that do that.
I repeat; should we not ban all tools that could be used for murder? I can't quite see the purpose in picking on only one tool just because some people are afraid of it. Or refuse to educate themselves on the real life results of such bans.all the other "tools" you have just mentioned have other purposes. Guns are created to kill things, of course other things kill people but how easy is it to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and then thats it, there dead. Guns make it extremely easy to kill things
sometimes some things (and people) just need killing, eh.
And what would a Brit know about what guns are for?
How odd that my guns that I have had for decades have never, ever, not once, "killed" anyone. And that is with tens of thousands of rounds thru them.
Is it too late to get my money back for such obviously;y defective guns that just won't do the job they are made for?
No, we should ban something because it is created and used to kill people. It's called a gun.
I have an elegant solution. Stay in Great Britain. We won't miss you.
you have all them guns to compensate for something else your lacking
So why do my wife and daughters have all ~their~ guns. Perhaps you can tell us what they are "lacking" eh?
Conservatives are a fearful crowd, always worried about the next threat around the corner. It makes them feel safe to have a gun in the house, even though, statistically speaking, it puts them in greater danger.
I have no problem letting people feel safe by owning a gun, regardless of how "rational" that is. I do, however, have a problem with those who believe assault rifles are needed for hunting, and those who oppose any new attempt to regulate guns on the grounds that it threatens their 2nd amendment right. That's a ridiculous argument. We have many "rights" that are also regulated, including free speech. Okay, we can argue about the "degree" of regulation needed, but stop claiming any regulation threatens your "right," because it's clearly an illogical and erroneous argument.Yeah... and YOU are the one who wants to "regulate" guns because you are fearful of them. And I didn't see YOU there when I had two social deviants deciding I was a likely target for them.
And I have already shown that anyone who dismisses modern sporting rifles as not good for hunting to be ignorant of the subject.
And you really don't understand the concept of "prior restraint" do you? Otherwise you would not be posting about "free speech" and its restrictions.
Taking the guns out of the peoples hands would be about as effective as taking drugs out of the hands of the people. The ones who are going to use the guns responsibly have no problem with them. And the ones using drugs in a responsible way also have no problem. Your thought of taking them or a certain type away from the people will do nothing to curb those that would misuse or abuse their rights to obtain and use one. If someone is motivated to buy, steal or borrow a gun to kill someone else whether they be sane or insane, they will find a way to get it done.
Now if you want to make the government more responsible about how they find and prosecute those who abuse their rights to have and use a firearm I am all ears.rhamson: That's the problem. What do you propose in your last paragraph?
There are purported to be around 20,000 gun laws in the books ranging from how to purchase to sentencing while misusing a gun. The lawyers have been able to get around many of them through plea agreements and loopholes that turn those that would commit these crimes loose with whatever punishment however little or great it may be. It used to be that if someone committed a crime while using a gun there was a mandatory sentence that was not negotiable. If a gun was sold to someone who misrepresented themselves they went to jail for a very long time. Were innocent gun owners caught up in these situations? Perhaps but at least it gave everybody pause when thinking about carrying a gun somewhere it was not wise too. I think if you are a felon and you get caught with a gun in your possession you should get five years. If you go to a domestic argument with a gun, you get five years. If you try to board a plane with a gun, five years. If you try to hide a gun from the police in a stop you should get five years. The gun should remain legally in your home unless you are going to a shooting range, having it repaired or hunting. PERIOD! If you possess the gun legally you should be able to explain one of those reasons competently. If you decide to stop by a bar on the way home from the hunt or have been drinking at the bar or restaurant after shooting at the range you should lose the gun for a period of time and if you do it again you should lose the right to have a gun permanently. If you have a gun stolen from your home it should be reported within 12 hours or you lose the right to have a gun. If your child takes the gun to school and you don't know about it you should lose the right to have a gun. Responsible ownership and use will make people know where what and how their weapon is being looked after.
I once had a Pitbull and I treated having the dog like it was a loaded gun that I put outside. I knew where the dog was, who it was around and where it went at all times. The dog was a guard dog who trusted no one but me. She protected my property, my family and me and never bit a person. I also had guns I sold when my sons became teenagers. They were a lot like the dog in that I treated them as if they were also a loaded gun. Responsibility and accountability are the key to this situation. One mistake can cost a life.
Nonsense. Disarm the honest person only arms the dishonest and fills our graveyards with victims. A militia is any group of like minded individuals gathered to insure the protection of a community. But the 2nd Amendment did not state that only militias shall be armed. It stated that since militias are necessary to secure a free State, the PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear ARMS. It is not outdated. The police or the militia are not omnipresent. My gun is. The local cops cannot protect me everywhere I go, from thugs who ignore all gun control laws. I have the right to protect my life with a handgun. Mass shootings should not be minimized. They are horrible. But to disarm everyone, make everyone a potential target for any would-be rapist, any two-bit thug, is not a highly intelligent course of action. Clearly you've never faced down a mentally deranged murderer in a dark parking lot. I have. My gun stopped him cold. I am not a statistic. You would have been. It's called natural selection.
You are completely wrong, and here's why;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
Have a nice day.An amendment causes people to commit crimes? Can we write another amendment to cause them to stop?
The first 10 amendments to the constitution are the Bill of Rights. If you don't use a right, you have not violated anything. Conversely, if you exercise it, you have not violated anything. Laws are a little bit different, if you drive through a red light, you have violated the law. The second amendment is the right to bear arms. That is subject to interpretation. Gun people believe it gives everybody the right to bear arms to protect themselves from tyranny and other threats. If everybody has the right to bear arms, that includes, criminals and the mentally ill. Gun control people believe it says only a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms. Therefore REDUCING the chances of criminals and mentally ill in committing crimes involving shootings. To answer your questions, I believe the 2nd amendment should be re-written so that it is not subject to interpretation and we can end this argument once and for all. The 2nd amendment gives the right to everybody to bear arms, even those who want to kill people. To answer your question, so yes the 2nd amendment as interpreted by gun people causes people to commit more crimes than if it was limited to a well regulated militia..
Absolutely wrong - you cannot change the law because it doesn't suit your narrative. Crime control would be a better topic for you to champion. Gun control is only a tool of the left in their never ending quest to subjugate the world
I wholeheartedly disagree...and here are my thoughts on the matter...
<link snipped>I agree that the 2nd Amendment was written for a earlier time, I have seen pieces that argue that Amendment was written to deal with slave rebellions.
BUT, the 1st Amendment did not predict the Internet either. So why can't the 2nd be intrepreted to deal with a more urban society, and the power of today's firearms.The "right to bear arms" was written in a different era altogether. However, the basic ethical principals were intact - the authors assumed people (even then) would not go barging into school, shopping areas, etc. and kill innocents. Legislation is way overdue (for the "greater good al all" - Ethics 101, anyone)? It's not 1787 and we are not the Wild, Wild West.
I think you're right - legislation is way overdue. But the question is, of course, what legislation?
Should we make violent movies and video games illegal? Remove violent sports (boxing, MMA, football) from our nation? Require a stay-at-home parent for all children? Require mental health testing for every individual every year and jail anyone found lacking?
Or should we continue down the road of violating the 2nd amendment - a failed program that has done nothing anywhere in the world to limiting the homicide rate?And there you go again, with Gun Zealots Logic 101. It goes like this, If we do a, then we should do b,c, d e..,z? No you do one thing at a time. You do A. and see what happens.
I have a question for you. Civilian drones can now carry firearms and shoot people. Do they fit into the 2nd amendment as well? I'm sure the framers of the 2nd amendment took that into consideration as well, as part of the right to bear arms!
Or how about lasers that are beamed from the ground to blind airline pilots. They can also be a used as a weapon. Did the 2nd amendment framers take that into consideration as part of the right to bear arms?
My point here, if you don't see it is, when times change and technology changes, laws have to be added and changed to continue to ensure the safety of the population. The 2nd amendment doesn't do that except for the PARANOID threat of a Black president and the tyranny he can wrought on the people.Uh oh, race card alert! Good idea, lets let that nice president shred the constitution to pieces, and if we object, it must because we don't like black people. Pathetic.
Did you have the same feelings about the constitution and tyranny when George Bush was president? I would like an honest answer. I don't have a racists bone in my body. You are the racist for calling me a racists because I honestly can say what I believe, but you can't. All of this bullsh*t about tyranny would go away as soon as we get a white conservative president. Then you would be able to relax again and not be so freeken paranoid.
Why would my feelings be any different for Bush's faults? Except of course to satisfy your desire to paint me up as a racist. By the way I can't be racist for calling you a racist because we're both white. You do believe you are white right? Or should I call you Rachel?
Perhaps its the racist view that lefties project into every debate that is part of the problem . ! Rather than truly trying to solve this or ANY problem , lets throw racism into the mix ! Shame on you Peoplepower !
But we've done A. Over and over and over, along with the rest of the world. And it hasn't worked anywhere, anytime. It's time to stop doing the same thing and hoping for a different result, isn't it? Time to stop blaming the weapon of choice and address the REAL cause of the violence in our society? Time to stop pretending the controlling ordinary guns (NOT "assault weapons" or "military grade guns") will limit the number of homicides?
Or will we keep on doing the same thing, with the same endless result, because...because...because some people are afraid of guns? There certainly isn't any OTHER reason to keep on refusing to face the simple fact that gun control doesn't control homicides!
As far as your question, do you suggest we now ban remote controlled model planes (drones) and any form of lasers? I would have to be against that. I have a model plane (although it's damaged now) and use a laser to play with my cat. Another laser to level pictures and such, too. And two more used in construction work.You should stop pretending that doing nothing is going to cure the problem. I can almost predict that Oregon is not the last mass shooting spree and I can also predict with certainty that the gun advocates are not going to do anything about it this time or next time or anytime. Why, because as Jeb Bush said, "stuff happens."
i'm not afraid of guns. I have two 12 gauge, model 12 Winchester pumps and a Winchester .270 rifle with a Weaver K.25 scope. I used to go duck hunting and deer hunting with my dad.
I'm not suggesting banning drones and lasers. I'm suggesting that we need weapon laws that are for modern times, not something that was ratified in 1791. The FAA is at loss right now as to how to create and enforce laws on civilian drones. They can fly as high as airliners and be used as weapons. Do you thinks a law that was enacted in 1791 will suffice for that type of weapon? I predict there will be some new laws enacted for those types of weapons. You see the constitution is a living document. That is why we have amendments.
"A" has worked in the U.K. Read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit … ed_Kingdom
Why not do 'something' about the mentally ill people??
More so than the second amendment being the problem, the issue to seriously focus on is mental illness. Only a mentally ill person would destroy lives as we have recently seen in cases of mass shootings.
I think they are both the problem, we need tighter gun control, that can be brought about by legislation and we need the mental health establishment fixed, but fixing mental health requires not only legislation, but funding.
No it's not and outdated admentment or thought.
Lets take a look at a few things.
If tough gun laws and even removal prevented crime then why does areas like Chicago and Washington DC places with tough gun laws have some of the highest crimes in the country. Simple the police can't be everywhere, in face nowhere in the constitution or anywhere else in our laws say you are entitle to police protection. You remove the guns from the common man and only the criminal will have them. Everywhere they have confiscated guns from the law abiding citizen only the criminal has them. Want another example the Auora theater shooter, choose is theater not because it was closet to him but because they check for guns at the front door and don't allow them in. He knew if he enter from the back door it would be easy pickings. Most people who do mass shootings usually pick areas where people are more likely to be disarmed, rather then armed.
Has far has government's goes take a look at some of Jeffersons quotes about guns and government tryany. A government is more likely to be afraid and a lot less corrupt if the populace is well armed. Also sometimes someone who is mentally ill can be in charge of the government. For more information on that fact look up Adolf Hitler.
People who make such a big to do about the second amendment are dealing with serious mental issues. They are suffering from so much confusion I am surprised they can even match their socks in the morning. You are right when you speak of the government. There is no grassroots militia that is going to rise up and seriously challenge the U.S. government. The American people are so used to their servitude that they still persist in defining it as freedom! Consequently,it is doubtful that any amount of government intrusion will ever bring about a confrontation. Give 'em beer , football, shopping malls, and strip bars, and they'll be satisfied. As far as the NRA is concerned, if they ever bring back the practice of tar and feathering, the leadership of this despicable organization should definitely get a taste of it.
However, I feel that banning guns, or even further restrictions, is not the answer. The only answer is what I have revealed in my latest essay: the proletariat must disconnect from the world. It is not an entirely new concept, but I given it a new coat of paint. Any of you who have read Ayn Rand's famous work "Atlas Shrugged" will understand that my solution is similar to hers, except from the opposite direction. Rand glorified the industrialist, and made the greedy capitalist the hero. In her book the protagonist stepped away from the world and allowed it to fall down,after which the capitalists began the world anew.
I suggest in my essay that the proletariat must step away, and disconnect from the world. This will cause the current evil system to collapse.This is the only thing that will stop the gun problem and a host of other miseries. My advice to the naysayers: Read,Listen,and Learn!by far and away, most shootings are done by folks who don't have mental illness. the vast majority of folks with mental illness wouldn't dream of hurting anyone. folks with mental illness are more likely than others to commit violent crime at a similar ratio to the difference between men and women. should we allow only women to have guns?
We care less about human life and more about worshiping a false God of Guns!
The God of Guns by Gregory Amour
Hail to the God of Guns...
Assault weapons are its priests and nuns
Sacrifice is what the Gun God needs
He needs to see how humanity bleeds.
Worship the NRA if you please,
Raise your weapons and fall on your knees
The soul of a nation must we seize
Raise your Gun and fall on your knees
It is the God of Guns whom we must please...
Fire your weapons and fall on your knees
Violence is the nation’s seed
Watch our children die and Bleed.
This is the Gun God’s call we heed
We are baptized in the Gun God's need
Sacrifice our children and let them bleed.
To the Gun God's thirst, the Gun God's Greed!The 2nd Amendment had a very specific purpose ... to make sure States had the ability to protect themselves, via their militia, from an oppressive federal gov't or external threats.
The individual right to own guns, despite the broaden of the reasons by a pro-gun court, is included in the "right to bear arms" clause necessary to maintaining a well-ordered militia.
The fact that Americans have no need to break away from British rule anymore is beside the point. The founders who wrote the Constitution had the future in mind in addition to the present.
While it is clear the rate of gun ownership between countries (not necessarily between states) is directly linked to overall homicide rates, the solution isn't doing away with the 2nd Amendment; the solution is a set of reasonable regulations whose purpose is to keep guns out of "irresponsible" hands without diminishing the right of "responsible" people to own them.In Reality, the "Specific Purpose" of the 2cnd Amendment was a "Ban" on Arms unless affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia", a military force assembled to protect the "United" States of America, which of course includes OUR Federal Government which republicans refuse to accept or acknowledge, from an EXTERNAL Threat ~
Despite what imbeciles like Sean Hammerhead, Bill O'reilly, Jed Bush, Dr. Ben Carson, and other irrationally dumb republicans aspouse, OUR Federal Government is not OUR enemy ~
This notion that the same forefathers who comprised our first Federal Government, gave out crates of ARMS to "We the Drunk People" via the Constitution, and then basically said "Come and use thy weapons and artillery AGAINST US whenever you FEEL we are OPPRESSIVE" is an absurd, invalid interpretation ~
Our forefathers were intoxicated and probably high a fair amount of the time during colonial days, but not inoperably inebriated ~
In Jamaica, we passed the Gun Court Act in 1974. Originally it was life imprisonment for possession of an illegal gun, now the sentence is no longer a mandatory life but a term of years set by a judge.
However, since passage, there has been more gun violence in Jamaica in the past 40 years than in 400 years of history. Every bad boy can get a gun, decent people can not.
Before touching the Law in America, check Jamaica, and see what happens when you outlaw guns.
Others have expressed the same viewpoint, and it is a myth. The escalation of violence you speak of is a combination of many factors. One factor many overlook is the role that the United States, and other major world governments could be playing in the violence. Certainly, the world economic system which is based on wage slavery has a lot to do with it. And guess who sits at the center of this economic system.No. The fact is, decent people can't get guns. Try to get a gun and unless an MP likes you, it will be very difficult. Of course, if you're a bad boy, you can actually 'rent' guns.
If you have friends in Tivoli, Jungle, Rockfort, who are somewhat connected to the 'underworld' ask them.
qeyler, I did a little research on what has happened in Jamaica since the gun ban went into place. It is horrible that good people cannot defend themselves from the violent drug gangs that can easily get guns. My heart goes out to you for the lose of many lives, and for your civilization and economy that is in ruin because of imposed laws by so called leaders.
It is grievous when laws promote lawlessness.
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/columns/ … 5_18189602+1
! ! !
Thank You Qeyler, Internet and HubPages Forums.
I wrote a hub called "Fighting for Gun Control in America," just recently. This is such a heated debate and I just don't get why. I make a point about the second amendment also in my talk about this. Also, if any would like to read it, there is a comedian that I just posted today on that same hub, that talk's about this subject in such an in your face way. Showing the lack of common sense in some people on this subject. I think the people who are for some better gun control laws would enjoy it.
Btw, congratulations on starting an uber-popular topic in here - of course, recent news happenings have also helped prick the conversation. But, this has become the most popular discussion on Hubpages. Well-timed and well-done. Important discussions like these probably cannot be had enough around the web.
Wow, what a sense of the ridiculous. I'm sure when the 2nd Amendment was written there were probably just as many crazy people as there are now as a percentage of the population. Let's just suppose that is 1/100th of 1% of the U.S. population rounded to 313 million. Roughly 3,000 total nutcases wandering our streets that are willing by hook or crook to kill a lot of people. Tim McVey didn't use a gun. No guns onboard the jets that slammed into the twin towers. So if some one of the 3,000 want to kill people, they WILL find a way. Wait, there are 3,000 by that calculation - and during Obama's tenure we have seen maybe 20 individuals taking action - oh yeah, pressure cookers, I forgot. So if it is only 20-30 people, we are now into the 1/10000 of 1% we have to watch out for - AND change the way the other 99.9999% of the people live their lives. Now that is brilliant. So let's do like Australia and ban guns...and then look at the uptick in crimes committed because now no one had guns! Or let's look at a good old closed society like Japan who doesn't report suicides and murders because it shines badly on families.
Going back to your original premise, pencils are responsible for all mistakes just like guns are responsible for all irresponsible acts. I guess if we made laws against them like heroine and meth then no one would have guns like no one has heroine or meth, right?
Going after the nutcases is simple too - right? I see Wrath below me, fine looking character, making a great point. Crazy people aren't necessarily stupid people, in fact some are genius. So if you start telling them that, "hey Bill, you seem like you are a little off your rocker, so I have to report to the FBI database you are a nutcase so you cannot buy a gun," how many of these folks will go to see their shrinks? NONE.
So it comes back to those old European White guys setting around thinking of how a tyrannical government had been terrible enough to run them off, and they were thinking of a word called Liberty. And they said some people should be free not to fear their government but the government should always recognize the people are in charge - so let's make a 2nd Amendment - and they did - so decent law abiding people could protect themselves - from bad guys, from attacking wolves, and from their government if the need arises. Liberty, my friend, is only for those who cherish it.Really? Then answer this one simple question. Why do most of the murders involving guns occur in so called "gun-free zones"? Is it maybe because those people committing the crimes know they'll be able to cause mass panic before they get 'put down'? Notice too that most take their own lives when they realize that the situation for them is hopeless? These people want to die, but they want notoriety before they go. I've owned guns for thirty years and, last I checked, I haven't murdered anyone. But god help the person who tries to come into my home and threaten my life. My door will be the last one they pass through in an upright position.
You want me to surrender my guns so you can feel a little bit safer? Move to a city where the gun laws are stricter. Chicago comes to mind. Meanwhile, I'll stay right where I am. And my guns are staying right where they are as well. Federal gun laws mean nothing to me. My safety means a lot more. A cop may take five minutes to arrive in an emergency situation. My gun can put an end to that situation in .5 seconds. I am a trained marksman so a bullet from my bedroom to the front door will hit a burgler right between the eyes. No life, no lawsuit. End of story.
I've reached a point where this debate has become an irritant to me. I'm a good person, but good people can be pushed to the breaking point. Law abiding gun owners are just that - law abiding. But gun control laws have no affect on the lawless in society. And as long as criminals can get their hands on guns, those of us that desire the right to protect ourselves will get our hands on guns and ammunition with or without government permission. You want to be a sheep? Be my guest. Better learn to pray to Allah, then, because that will be coming down the pike too. I will never surrender to the forces that desire to overrun our country in that manner.
Think I'm being paranoid? Crime statistices show that gun violence has actually decreased in areas where gun ownership has risen. The only places where that isn't the case? Gun free zones. I rest my case.This came up earlier, but I will address it again since you brought it up. Have you personally ever had to protect yourself or your family with a gun? As I said earlier, I have hung out in tough places like Compton and Tijuana in the past: unarmed with money in my pocket. Never needed a gun. In fact I left my wallet in a booth at a bar in Tijuana one night and didn't notice till about 30 minutes later. When I returned to the bar I was shocked to find out that someone had found my wallet and turned it in to the bar tender. I had over $100.00 in my wallet, and it was still there! Two reasons I never had any problems is I minded my own business and I showed no disrespect. Another is because I didn't walk around in fear. Evil people can smell fear, and they are attracted to it.
I think you and a lot of other people have been watching too much TV. Furthermore, if someone is going to shoot you they aren't going to give you a chance to respond. They can track your routine and take you out sniper style. Or they can have some hot tamale get your attention and then plant a bullet behind your ear. You'll never see it comin'. Nothing you can do about it. There isn't going to be another shoot out at the OK Corral.Very rarely would a criminal give up the advantage of surprise and allow you to use your weapon in a fair fight. Not in the real world Bernie.
I notice you are from Syracuse. I used to live there too, Two black guys tried to roll me one night when I was delivering pizza for Sabastino's to the projects near Erie Blvd East. One got my attention and the other tried to jump in my car. He would have succeeded but my passenger door was locked.If I would have had a gun, do you think approx $20.00 in change and a pizza was worth killing someone over?
No I don't think so. When I saw what was happening I hit the gas and took off. Problem solved.Nobody hurt.You haven't, and therefore no one else has ever used or needed a gun to defend themselves or their families.
Right!Here you come with the strawman again.Please wilderness, tell us your story of how you defended yourself and saved yourself, or your family with a gun.
YOU made the insinuation, YOU back it up.
Or do you wish to agree that guns can be useful in self-defense, that not everyone is lucky enough to never need one?The Fact is wilderness, the VAST Majority of Americans have never shot an individual in Self-Defense and if faced with this type of stressful situation, would probably do more harm than good to themselves if a gun were in his/her hands regardless of "Experience Level" ~
Moreover, the VAST majority of Americans have never even POINTED a Gun at another individual in Self-Defense ~ if you have said YES to either EXTREMELY Rare scenario, I would suggest you relocate instead of stockpiling even MORE guns ~Facts require citation. Have any sources? Or is this merely a personal opinion without factual basis. If is easy to blather on without reason. It happens every time a liberal talks about firearms.
Agreed wrenchBiscuit ~ Very Solid Points ~
I read the main deterrent to the Japanese from invading the U.S. WWII was because they thought every family had a gun and knew how to use it. Same reason the Germans didn't want to invade Switzerland.
And why the one world order folk are not running the U.S.A friend of mine who lives in some town in the US told me that the 'Hell's Angels' were coming down the road, coming into this pitiful town, and everyone had a gun, and the first person to shoot was a retired school teacher in her 80's ... she fired in front of the Bikers. They turned around and left.
You're gonna shoot someone in the head for breaking into your house when all they probably wanted was to take your electronics? This guns-in-America thing is starting to make more sense to me now. Because I would not be interested in killing someone for trying to take my stuff. Couldn't do it. That's not worthy of death, to me.
Isn't there a small problem with that "probably" you mention? Meaning that if you are the victim of a "hot robbery" (you are home when it happens, and thus could shoot the thief) there is a likelihood of personal harm as well.
My son and his wife were robbed recently, as they slept, including phones, wallet and purse taken from their bedside tables. They lost over $1,000 of electronics and both took two days off work to replace drivers licenses, close and open new bank accounts, change all passwords, work with the police etc. (think of how much information is on your phone). I had to meet them at the DMV with cash as they were penniless and their first step was to close all bank accounts. The thought of a thief bending over them as they slept at night also made them immediately buy (and pay for forever) a monitored security system for the home.
But to answer your question, no, I'm not going to politely ask a thief that broke into my home if he'd like my electronics and help him carry out thousands of dollars to the waiting car. I'm going to shoot him before he does the same to me, my wife or my children. I do not, after all, know what his intent is OR what it will become when presented with people instead of an empty house. And neither do you - your "probably" is absolutely worthless.My "probably" was more in reference to other stuff they want to take (and poorly placed, I admit) and not that they might be breaking into your house to kill you and your family for funsies - because people breaking into a stranger's house and killing them almost never happens. Really. There's probably as good a chance that the person breaking in is drunk and at the wrong house.
Is it worth your life or that of your child to find out it was only a drunk that broke the window or picked the lock? Because it isn't "almost never" - it happens all the time. Perhaps a robbery gone wrong when confronted with a homeowner, but does that matter if the homeowner is hurt as a result?
Interestingly, I see that "hot" robberies are on the increase in the UK - where homeowners don't have guns to protect themselves. Even the most liberal can recognize this result of gun control, and the inevitable results.Break-ins usually turn violent after the homeowner confronts the intruder. It's very, very rare that an intruder enters a random home for the purpose of harming the people inside.
The chances of my child getting accidentally injured or killed with a gun in the home far outweigh her chances of getting injured or killed by some random intruder who in all likelihood has no interest in hurting or killing her, in my opinion. But as this discussion goes on I'm realizing that I just don't understand gun culture in America and I never will. I should've quit when I said I was going to.You're right that it's very rare that an intruder breaks in for the purpose of harming the people inside.
But yes, break-ins often turn violent after being confronted. So what will you do - hide under the bed and hope your little girl doesn't get up in the middle of the night and stumble into the thief? Doesn't sound like a very good plan to me...
And no, your child isn't as likely to be injured by a gun in the home...that is owned by a trained, careful owner that also trains the children to never touch and locks it up anyway.
I don't think it's "gun culture" nearly as much as independence. Americans seem more willing to be responsible for themselves instead of letting government do it all, although that IS changing with the liberal entitlement philosophy going on. Perhaps that's even the ultimate goal in gun control - to force ever more dependence on politicians for our lives as well as our support.
Don't know and don't care - as far as I'm concerned the real problem is more laws giving less freedom in return for absolutely nothing.
From your own account, even if your son would have had an arsenal of guns in the house, it wouldn't have mattered since he didn't wake up; hard to pull the trigger when your asleep. Furthermore, if the burglar would have wanted to kill anybody he/she would have. Your whole argument is based on fear and hypothetical's. You are also assuming that if you have a gun you will have the upper hand. Not necessarily so. A person so bold as to rob someone when they are sleeping is going to have a contingency plan; usually in the form of a gun. Chances are, if your son would have awakened and tried to shoot the burglar, he would have been shot first and killed. In this case, a home security system, and/or a good dog, makes more sense than a gun.
No disagreement with anything you've said here. The thrust of the story was that taking a few electronics is NOT as simple as it sounds; that home thieves take far more than that, culminating in a lifetime of fear and continuing cost.
And, perhaps, if we were all armed and willing to shoot there wouldn't be so many home burglaries. Certainly communities known to have a high gun possession rate don't, but there are usually other reasons to consider as well.
But that has absolutely nothing to do with the premise that removing guns will make us all safer, or with the idea that burglars should be allowed to take whatever they want while the homeowner watches.
If someone enters my home with malicious intent, I don't intend to wait until they say, "I'm only here for your stuff. I'm going to leave you alone." You enter my home without permission, you just forfeited your right to leave alive.
That's a good point , Most people are going to be victims not wanting to defend themselves , but the guy taking your TV is probably the same guy who takes your life or your daughters life , NOW will you defend your self ? What about your children ? -Or isn't that just cowardice ? I know Dial 911 and wait an hour !
No, actually, the chances of the guy taking my TV also taking mine or my daughter's life are next to zero and go way up if I decide to jump out and challenge him. If doing what will statistically keep her safest and letting someone take all my crap is cowardice then so be it, at least I have a living child. Unless I'm a trained marksman who can shoot him between the eyes in one shot, I'm inviting an altercation that wouldn't have happened if I had locked us both in a room and waited for the police to show up, and I'm definitely not keeping my daughter safe by starting a gunfight with a stranger in the house.
As has already been pointed out, we have a security system and a large protective dog, both of which make me feel much safer than a gun because they both actively discourage someone from coming to intrude in the first place, rather than waiting until someone gets into my house before shooting at each other with a toddler nearby.But if you are NOT a trained marksman you have no business having a gun anyway.
But "locking" the bathroom isn't going to stop a thief that has already broken into your home, is it?
I will say, though, that the security system that calls the cops and a large dog is probably better protection for any but that trained marksman. Don't know that a hidden security system is going to discourage a thief, but a dog will. Of course not everyone likes dogs (that also bite people), and not everyone can afford not only the installation but the ongoing costs of a monitored security system...No, but it's going to keep me out of their way and show that I have no interest in being combative. Again, confronting them is where the violence starts a vast, vast majority of the time... so I'm gonna do the opposite of that to best protect myself and my kid.
Look, I get that people want to feel safe in their own ways. I just hate the implication that someone breaking into your house is there to kill you so you either shoot them dead or you're not taking responsibility for your safety. It's not accurate at all.
I agree, lots of people don't have any business owning a gun, hence...You're right - people feel safe in different ways.
They also have different ideas on what should be done with thieves. While very few would recommend the death penalty for someone stealing a TV or something, a great many have a very different idea when that thief is in their home with them. At that point it DOES change to the death penalty, but of course the "crime" has gone beyond theft as well. Frightening or angering an armed person is never a good idea.
Only one slight problem with your theory wilderness ~
"Trained Marksmen" are typically not your average thief ~ "Joe SCHLABB", the average Football Watchin' French Dip Eatin' guy who "Borrowed" his dad's revolver or hunting rifle from the house is usually the misfit who you'll encounter ~Read it over again. "Trained Markesman" refers to the homeowner with a gun. If they have not been trained they have no business with a gun. Not necessarily to the level of an army sniper, but trained in safety AND shooting. If you can't hit the broadside of a barn from 50', don't own a gun.
I agree. Responsible gun safety and training should be required of everyone who owns a gun. Its not a toy and children need to know it like they know their own name if there are guns around. Adults accidentally shoot themselves, for lack of common sense or safety training would be my guess.
So, you would support federal legislation requiring training, testing, and licensing of gun owners? That would be a new gun control regulation, of course.
Not colorfulone, but I would. Of course most states do that anyway for either a carry or hunting license.
And I would expect to see accidental gunshots go down. Not the homicide rate or even mass murder rate, though - training should actually increase both of those. As such it would be nothing but a sop to the anti-gun crowd - something to keep them quiet until the next school shooting.
There is another negative as well - licensing requirements means Uncle Sam knows you have (or had) a gun. When the time comes to confiscate it they already know where to go, and an awful lot of people have a problem with that.So, okay, something we can agree on to start. All gun owners should be trained and licensed in order to own a gun.
How about each gun is registered, just like a motor vehicle, with periodic renewal required? That way, all gun sales could be tracked. This would be no more onerous than registering and renewing your car.Pretty Panther , actually Just for your information , As an average gun owner and purchaser , Each Gun is registered - yes , just like your car, actually no - not all gun purchaces are okay'd. , unlike cars .... but ATF, registered at sale ! Virtually every gun owner I know has been an NRA member ,most shooting and regulated at indoor or outdoor courses that are NRA certified , many people I know have taken actual handgun training courses ., I would suggest that you ,get informed as to LAW ABIDING gun ownership . Perhaps if you stop combining criminals AND law abiding gun owners in your mind, I know that's not exactly politically correct, but it's the 99 percent accurate correctness that's important .
Guns are more regulated than cars at the sale , I have never had to clear an FBI check at the purchasing of a vehicle !This is not true. We own several guns and have never had to register them or renew registration on them. In fact, my husband bought one of them from my brother. Just cash for a gun and nothing illegal about it.
As for the rest of your post, perhaps you are talking about a concealed carry permit. I am talking about merely buying a gun. Private sales are allowed in many states and those certainly don't require a background check or registration.
Pretty Panther , EVERY new or used gun sale from a gun dealer , retail store , gun show , mail order retailer , gun auction sight , Gun manufacturer , is federally approved first and registered secondly , before it leaves the door of the seller . Private sales from seller to buyer WITHIN some states are the only sale unregistered for legal , law abiding sales . If , for instance , I sell you a gun within OUR same state of residence , I am not legally required to go through a dealer , IN SOME STATES only, of course the seller is assuming a big responsibility by NOT doing so , Other than that , each and every sale is all FBI registered before a carried away gun sale !
I will bet that includes 95=or - percent of all sales -minimum .
Just saying .
Why do you wish to track guns? In order to confiscate them? For that will be the response, of course. For myself, it won't happen in my lifetime, but that IS the goal of many, including some politicians, and to deny it is foolish.
I recognize that it might be easier to find who is supposed to own the gun, and thereby who used it, but the response will be fear of losing it. And it is a fear I sympathize with, so I would have to say no on that one even though all new guns purchased are already registered.
Trained marksman? That is what shot guns are for! If you are small get a 20 ga. Shoot it a few times so you know how to operate and use it. Also why a lot of people like the AR-15.
To the original poster- Do we not learn from history? It's your kind of thinking that served notice in Eastern Europe circa 1938. A free republic such as ours not only needs an armed populace of citizens, but should be encouraged. Besides the over-bloated bureaucracy creeping in every day and even being caught in untruth after untruth, you should have the absolute right to protect you and yours from any evil coming your way.. Be it tyranny, or your insane neighbor! Violence and decaying morals kill, not metal objects in the hands of said individual.
Mass killings are not done only by mentally ill persons. Most mass killings are done by terrorists. If the right to bear arms was revoked, people who want to kill will still be able to obtain guns - but, listen up: people who want guns to protect themselves and family would not be able to have them.
How many more people would be killed if citizens could not protect their family or teachers could not protect their students? How many fewer would be killed if teachers and other citizens had a right to carry?
Very few burglars will break in a house when people are home. If all the burglar wants is food or electronics they would not (unless they are downright stupid) break in when people are home. Most who break in when people are sleeping are ready to kill if they have to or because that is their intention.
To abolish the right to bear arms is a good way for governments to have more control over citizens. It is also a way for government to gradually work the way up to declaring martial law - and it sure seems like that could possibly happen. Have you read or heard about "Jade Helm"? Look it up.
What happens if martial law is declared? All elections are postponed indefinitely. The Constitution would become suspended and all rights of citizens would be gone. Military would be in control. Anyone could be arrested at anytime for any reason. Citizens would lose their right to vote. Do you think this could never happen in America? Have you read what the FBI had planned to do during the cold war in the 1950s? Have you read what Ben Carson thinks: "Can Obama use martial law to keep White House post 2016?" Put that in your search engine.
Think again and protect your freedom and rights.When I was in high school, around the time of the Columbine and Santana shootings (Santana High was in our school district), they placed a police officer on our campus. A fellow student who worked for the school paper made an excellent point in an article he wrote. I am paraphrasing, but he basically said:
"The school district wants to prevent another shooting and protect us, so they place an officer on our campus. Now, we have an old, overweight man with a gun walking around. What would it take for four healthy students to quickly jump him, take his gun, and go on a shooting spree? The district has done nothing but increased the likelihood of there being a shooting on our campus."
People keep pointing out that guns are just tools and ignore the fact that making a gun accessible is a trigger (no pun intended). People can have all kinds of terrible thoughts in their heads, but they are surrounded by immediate limitations to act them out. When they start thinking about what it would take to obtain a gun as a minor, the people they would need to get into contact with, the risks they would undergo, they back down. If their parents keep a gun up in the closet however, that they could take unnoticed, they might consider it.
Placing the gun in the situation escalates the likelihood that it will be used in these scenarios. There are numerous academic studies that support this, especially for suicides.
As for the people that keep referencing WWII and other historical references as a need for an armed citizenry. I agree, at those times, under those circumstances, we were better off. We don't live in that era anymore. If governments plan to kill mass amounts of people in another country, it won't be a gun fight. It will be with bombs, chemical weapons, drones. The individual will be defenseless. If they don't value the lives of civilians, there's no need to send in troops to keep the peace. They can just let everything burn to ashes.
As for our own government... if we reach a day where we have to fight our military, we've already lost. Other than stubborn resistance and the hope that our leaders retain some sense of morality, we have little to fight back with. Technology has surpassed our basic ability to defend ourselves with firearms. If you want to be protected from such a formidable force, you better start those militias and begin to buy nukes, tanks, drones, fighter planes. You better recruit super hackers and have billionaires backing your cause. That's what it will take.
But don't cling to your guns pretending one day you might be able to defend yourself against tyranny. In the 21st century, that's the biggest case of delusionment of them all.I am not talking about fighting tyranny and the militia. You did not address anything I mentioned. I am talking about defending ourselves from burglars who have the intent to kill and a terrorist or other person who goes into a school just to kill.
WhatI "cling to" is my right to bear arms and protect myself, my family, my home.
You are not impressing me.I did address you.
"How many more people would be killed if citizens could not protect their family or teachers could not protect their students?"
I commented on the danger of placing guns in schools.
"Most who break in when people are sleeping are ready to kill if they have to or because that is their intention."
Can you provide yearly statistics on the number of people who successfully defend their household with a gun from murderous intruders?
"To abolish the right to bear arms is a good way for governments to have more control over citizens."
And if the government did declare martial law against gun owning citizens, what could those citizens really do (I covered this)
"It is also a way for government to gradually work the way up to declaring martial law"
You think the government wants to abolish gun ownership to declare martial law?
1. The government does not want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Most politicians don't, most citizens don't.
2. Where is your proof that martial law is a goal of the government?
3. Martial law to what end? What country runs successfully in the long term under martial law? What free society that has banned guns is running under martial law? There's just way too much speculation in this hypothetical scenario.
"What happens if martial law is declared? All elections are postponed indefinitely. The Constitution would become suspended and all rights of citizens would be gone. Military would be in control. Anyone could be arrested at anytime for any reason. Citizens would lose their right to vote. Do you think this could never happen in America?"
Fear.
And that's what many gun owners who do not want real regulation on guns promote, fear. What if this happened, if this person tried to kill you and your family, if the government came after your liberty (which I addressed). I think it's reckless to say we abolish the right to bear guns without any substantial research suggesting it would be better along with a change in our culture. However, other than anecdotal stories, where is the evidence that the average person is under the possibility of so many fatal threats? Of any of these threats, how many have been prevented with guns?
We're living in one of the most peaceful times in our nation's history, with the lowest crime rates since the 60s. Much of it linked to technology and changes in social behavior (people have more to distract and entertain them). Yet, police brutality is at an all time high. People are buying more guns than ever and a large portion of the population, because or along with the media, are promoting this idea that we all need more guns to protect ourselves. That there are possible threats everywhere that only a gun can ward off.
The truth? If someone does come to kill you, it probably won't be a stranger. It will most likely be a family member or friend. Someone you know. You won't even see it coming. If your child dies by the end of the barrel, it will probably be an accident, or it will because that child took their own life. But not to worry, it's extremely unlikely you would die by firearm anyway.
The truth is, you're probably going to die of cancer, or heart disease, or diabetes, or in a car accident.
And you'll probably never get to use your gun for self-defense. Which should be a good thing, but it's not what many gun owners talk about.
substance abuse and rage are factors in violent crime. mental illness alone is NOT.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … der.2.html
The second amendment is not outdated. You have forgotten the history of this country and why we fight to maintain our freedoms. Just look around the world to see what happens when guns are not owned by the citizens or where freedom and speech is oppressed.
"Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings."
You didn't reply to my earlier question: if an amendment causes people to commit crimes can we pass another amendment to cause them to stop?Very arrogant to think that we are above the 2nd amendment. As though people are superior to what they were hundreds of years ago. This is why we need to read books that were written from other centuries, we need to know that we are not superior to past generations and learn from them, otherwise we get this air of superiority that we are better, smarter, and more sophisticated. Not true.
Common sense. guns don't kill people, people do. We need stronger, more deliberate laws against criminals, and good people should have the right to fire at criminals. That would take care of at least 50% of our problem. Its truly amazing that just because Obama says something, all his zombies go out repeating his words as though they make sense. The man is out for a power grab and its obvious. He has is political agenda for wanting to disarm us, and he knows it will not stop any killings. At least this time he didn't fake cry for the cameras.When my children and I have the same protection that the president and his children have then I will say OK you can have my gun. Until then he needs to start a plan for the crazies because the rest of us aren't.
I totally agree Jackie, if terrorists and bad guys can get away with guns we should be able to protect ourselves from them.
When is the last time a civilian, non-law enforcement or military person shot and or pointed a gun in defense against a terrorist? ~
Once again, Backward republicans "PRETEND" a threat exists when in REALITY, it dosen't ~ Just like they "PRETEND" the 2cnd Amendment affords CIVILIANS the right to arm themselves as a RAG TAG group against an internal friendly entity such as the Federal Government or other force when in REALITY they have NO such RIGHT ~
~ Terrorists usually hit when not expected, therefore, a gun is typically useless as a defense ~
That reminds me of all the talk about securing the Mexican border to keep terrorists out of the country. Holy Paranoia Batman! There are over 11 million ":illegals" in the country already. This didn't happen overnight. Even Archie Bunker might assume that it's a little too late to start building a wall. Any terrorist who has wanted to get closer to Allah here in the U.S. during the last 50 years is already here! Their kids have already graduated from Harvard!
Taking away guns or make them harder to get only give them more value on the outside of the law. Stricter gun control will only make the many gun onwing citizens criminals.
And it is definitely getting crazy when folks are using Guns for solutions to arguments in schools versus the old fashioned fists...I think the strongest thing I saw as a kid growing up in the late 70's at a fight in Warren County was a knife.....Not a daggone Gun....
The God of Guns by Gregory Amour
Hail to the God of Guns...
Assault weapons are its priests and nuns
Sacrifice is what the Gun God needs
He needs to see how humanity bleeds.
Worship the NRA if you please,
Raise your weapons and fall on your knees
The soul of a nation must we seize
Raise your Gun and fall on your knees
It is the God of Guns whom we must please...
Fire your weapons and fall on your knees
Violence is the nation’s seed
Watch our children die and Bleed.
This is the Gun God’s call we heed
We are baptized in the Gun God's need
Sacrifice our children and let them bleed.
To the Gun God's thirst, the Gun God's Greed!for gosh sakes! we have always had problems with mass shootings! with gun violence! always! since they were invented.
good grief.
we are at the lower end of the higher ages. things will improve as the human race continues to evolve. Meanwhile, we MUST have the right to bear arms.
Get over it.
The fact is that Assault weapons did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written, that does not make that amendment obsolete. There was a ban on assault weapons during President Clinton's term in office and GWB would not continue that ban. The NRA could make tons more money selling assault weapons and these powerful weapons make little men feel like big men to own the big guns. And their love of MONEY is the only reason the NRA does not want ANY kind of gun control.
Not once have I heard that ANYONE wants to ban ALL guns.
If someone broke into my house knowing I am home, they are not breaking in to steal anything, they would be breaking in to do me bodily harm and I would do whatever I need to do to protect myself.
Someone suggested that the reason for gun reform was so that President Obama could stay in office post 2016, is a ridiculous notion. Do not fear President Obama will not stay in office past January 2017.
ASSAULT weapons are made to kill people, NO FOR protection, sport or hunting or target practice, and those guns should be in the hands of our military ONLY.
My mother while protecting her family had her shotgun taken away from her and smashed across her face.
What I believe: Assault weapons should be in the hands of our Military only and should be banned for civilian population. PERIOD!Guns do not kill people, people kill people. I feel strongly that every state should have a waiting time to get a gun. Just like when you go for a job and you do not get hired till you pass a Criminal Background check. However, if someone is normal one day, that nice sweet person can just crack, go insane and well history as shown the rest. I myself would never get a gun for the home. It can accidently go off, a child or adult could accidently get killed. However, for some who feel they are being stalked or in danger, it is a comfort to them. For a small retail store that is constantly getting robbed it might be a necessity. I feel we already have strong gun laws, the problem is the people that use the gungs.
I am scared to death of guns. I really don't think I could never use one to kill any one ever for any reason. For the same reason, I could never get an abortion. I am very in awe of the power of LIFE.
lisavanvorst ~ That's a cute little republican mantra, but in Reality, in the Practical Lucid World, GUNS Kill People, People do NOT Kill People ~
and vacuums suck out forming humans, not abortion doctors.
ban those evil vacuums!A legal Abortion is NOT an involuntary choice as is being the victim of gun violence ~ Women have and deserve control over their bodies, their temples, NOT the intruding maniacal bible belt conservative republican ~
Your attempted comparison is Invalid & Void Kathryn ~
And yes, the instrument used actually performs the medical function ~The United States sounds like the wrong country for you. Maybe you should move to a place that supports your viewpoints. Your debate leaves much to be desired and brings nothing new to this conversation.
Why should he leave, Mr Grant Jolly? There are plenty of people here that support that viewpoint. Otherwise, all the GOP futile attempts to shut down Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood might have yield a more bountiful harvest?
There are real, actual people that think guns jump up and kill people? That think a fetus, if it shouts loud enough, will persuade the doctor not to abort it (a voluntary choice to die)?
Fortunately, you are wrong about the laws being strong enough - they aren't, not by a long shot. I say "fortunately" because that means there is room for improvement and therefore more lives saved.
There is no comparison between the gun control laws in Massachusetts (rank of 71) and Louisiana. (negative 8, meaning their regulations are more lax than the federal requirements). The death rate by gun in MA is 4.1 per 100,000, but is 19.1 per 100,000 in LA. Why is that?
Now I know you can find opposing numbers that show just the opposite, BUT, when you take all 50 states together it becomes very clear those with stronger gun regulations have a significantly lower death by gun rate than those with weak ones. Why is that?
It's hitting closer to home...these school shootings. We're up to 42 and counting this year. Over the weekend, three young men shot up my son's middle school. Fortunately, school was not in session. But, what do I say to my son when I send him off to school? Earlier this month, we had the killings at the college here in Oregon. I know there is not one solution; it's more complex than that. But, if we want to lo look our kids in the face before we send them off to school, we need to do something. We must improve care for the mentally ill. The media must stop identifying and glorifying these mass murderers and, yes, we need to stop the gun culture that's overtaking the country.
We must stop the pharmaceutical industry which has the most power of all the industries.
First one needs to understand what the 2nd Amendment is all about. NOT what the current government tells you it's about but what it is really about.
Owning weapons (guns, etc) for hunting is definitely a plus in regards to procuring food for the table but the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.
The 2nd Amendment is about controlling the government and the ability of "we the people" to take down a tyrannical government. Our founders knew EXACTLY what they were doing and what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect. Which is the entire U.S. Constitution.
Those who want to control YOU want you to believe that those 27 well selected words of the original 2nd Amendment were only for the militia which they now declare is the National Guard. In fact Congress added a comma where there was none so they could try to further this belief.
However ...
The original 2nd Amendment, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State reads in this manner:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Those well crafted 27 words say it all. Notice the ONE comma and the phrase " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Yet Congress and lawyers had to "interpret" and CHANGE the 2nd Amendment for their own agenda. It now reads, as passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice the EXTRA comma? That allows those who want to control YOU to say that only EIGHT (8) words are relevant. These eight words can be read as: "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed" giving way to the erronous belief that "we the people" are NOT the militia. What BUNK!
The government controls the National Guard, the police forces, the military etc ... so IF the government is tyrannical who is going to stop them if "we the people" are NOT the miltia?
Think! Use the brain God gave you! Those who want you to lay down your arms and turn you into slaves are those who promote gun control and the sheep who follow them.
Consider the words of Richard Henry Lee:
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
James Madison said:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
George Mason said:
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
Thomas Jefferson said:
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
And ...
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
And ...
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
And ...
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
Do your research. EVERY tyrant (Lennin, Stalin, Hitler, etc) disarmed the populace so there could be no possiblilty of an overthrow via the people.
The 2nd Amendment is definitely NOT outdated. You can thank the the "gun controllers" for the mass killings. Gun free zones, are a direct invitation to any crimminal to reek havoc at anytime.
IF you seriously think that disarming law abiding citizens is the answer you definitely need your head examined. A check up from the neck up is in order for crimminals will ALWAYS have guns. They will steal them (as they do now) from military installations and convoys. How do you think gunrunners get their weapons to sell? Do you really think the majority of illegal weapons, owned by crimminals, come from the houses of legal citizens? Do you really think that crimminals will give up THEIR guns? If so you are a special breed of ostrich.
New York and Chicago gun laws are some of the strictest in the USA and/or world yet their crime rate AND gun violence is the highest. Chew on that.
Guns are NOT the problem. Guns do NOT kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE and ...
Those who want to kill others will ALWAYS have guns. Gun control simply restricts the law abiding American, NOT the crimminal. If you think otherwise you really should consider evaluation. And ...
EVERY legal American who votes for gun control and/or allows it to happen without voicing their opposition or trying their best to inform other Americans about what the 2nd Amendment is really about is either a blind sheep or a traitor to the United States of America.
Those who have sworn an oath (military, gov't officials, etc) to protect, defend and support the U.S. Constitution yet promote gun control ARE liars and traitors.Pure insane conservative republican propaganda in reference to this "Misinterpretation" of the Amendment ~
P.S. ~ If PEOPLE Kill PEOPLE and NOT the GUN as you and so many other mis-informed individuals claim, primarily republicans, I'd like to see a spineless numbskull like Sean Hammerhead or Bill O'reilly get into the ring WITHOUT a gun and "Take Out" a professional Boxer, or Wrestler, or Judo Expert ~
The FACT Still remains ~ GUNS KIll, NOT People ~
Only in "Republican PRETEND Land" does a person actually do the Killing ~
The push back you see from organizations such as the NRA is in response to the trustworthiness of the US government. The amendment was made in response to a lack of trust in the government as it was expressed against King George III in his ability to tax or govern without colonists representation. Not much has changed and now it is getting worse as special interest rules the country. Until we trust the government again I don't see any change soon.
Well I'll give up my guns when you can figure out a way to keep all the criminals in our country from having theirs. Laws mean nothing to these people. Gun control only hurts those who abide by the law. And...if you want to change the 2nd amendment or do away with it, it's possible. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). Think that will happen? I think not.
The Israel gov. has asked all those that are legally allowed to carry to do so. There has been a rash of
stabbings by the Arabs in the Jewish communities. God knows what kind of drugs or mental indoctrination they are on??? The Israels have leaders that know who the baddies are and are willing to do something about it. Too bad we don't have the same here in the U.S. and some other countries.
Goes to show you that if not guns then some other weapon will be used by bad people. We need guns to protect ourselves from such and from tyrannical govs.Readmikenow ~ Apply Basic Mathematics, REDUCE the Number of Guns in Circulation and you will REDUCE the number of Gun Crimes ~ Even Criminals will have a more difficult time Finding and or Acquiring a Firearm ~
~ These are the Fundamental FACTS ~Still on the irrelevant? The Fundamental FACTS are that taking guns does not reduce the murder rate - why is that little FACT always left out of your rant somehow?
Because most people on the side of gun control live in a world of ideologies.I used to get frustrated with the ideologies vs facts debate but then I realized I'm actually envious of said gun control folks. They have never had the opportunity to experience the fact that evil doesn't play by the rules.
That and the indication that they don't have to put out the effort to study and think before rendering an opinion. Instead, the opinion is presented as factual simply because they want it to be and it doesn't matter whether it matches reality or not.
ot a Rant wilderness, just a Fundamental Certainty ~
I'm not sure where republicans are educated but the Basic Mathematical FACT Still remains ~
A REDUCTION in Circulated GUNS will result in a REDUCTION in Gun Violence ~ A REDUCTION in Vehicles on the road will result in a REDUCTION of Accidents ~ A REDUCTION in Planets wil result in Less Favorable Odds of the Existence of Extra-Terrestrial Life ~ A REDUCTION in Carbon Dioxide & Related Pollutants will result in a REDUCTION or Mitigation of Severe Climate Change, if of course we are not too late ~ Etc, etc, etc ~
Your EDUCATION for the Day ~A reduction in ninjas will result in a reduction of stealth.
A reduction in military goods will be a reduction in war
A reduction in cross bows will result in a reduction of deaths by cross bows.
A reduction in pharmaceuticals will result in a reduction in pharmaceutical users
A reduction in rocket ships will reduce traffic to outer space.
The reduction of people will result in less population on the planet.
ETC.
The question is: How do you reduce the number of any of these things!
By stopping production!
There is no stopping production.
For instance:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/inside-the … l-weapons/
If Afghanistan produces BAD A$$ arms, Americans by hook or crook are going to smuggle them in and sell them here on the black market.
Can you stop black markets and people who refuse to go by the rules?
well, can you??
can you???
ALTERNATIVE Prime????There is no stopping Production that is the ISSUE. I agree if there were no guns in the world there would be no gun related crime. But there is a serious problem with your ideology. ......It will never happen............
Just like stopping production of alcohol never stopped production of it.
Just like banning the manufacturing of drugs never stopped drug production.
Maybe you should make it your life mission to go back in time and un-invent the gun. Aside from the pesky fact that you will never be able to stop gun production you will also never be able to stop violence. Evil people are smart and will find ways to commit evil acts regardless of the tool.Worse, reducing guns (if it's possible) will reduce gun violence, but all stats show, from real world experience, it does nothing to reduce violence in terms of the homicide rate.
A simple fact that AP steadfastly refuses to discuss or even acknowledge - every time it is brought up he defaults to gun violence without responding to the topic of guns vs overall violence.
LOL! Where do all of you people live? You give the impression that if you laid your precious guns down for one minute, marauding rapists, crack dealers, and home invaders would surround and overpower you.In medical terms it's referred to as PARANOIA. But the icing on the cake is this business about the U.S. Constitution. Since when has the Constitution provided anything of value to the average American citizen? Two World Wars were instigated,staged, and bankrolled by greedy bankers. Every war since then has been a staged, money making event, at the expense of the poor and the working class.
How has the Constitution helped all of the U.S. soldiers who have been used as pawns to further the greedy ambitions of a ruling elite?
Today, the Patriot Act allows the goon squad to spy on U.S. citizens; to take us from our homes and throw us in a prison with no Habeas Corpus. Indefinitely! How can the Constitution protect any of us from the Patriot Act? How did the Constitution protect the children at the Branch Davidian Compound who were gassed to death by Janet Reno and her Death Squad? David Koresh had guns. A tyrannical government came calling. His guns were useless! The massacre at Mt.Carmel is only a microcosm of what can happen throughout the United States. All of your guns and Second Amendment rights aren't going to save you from the real Americans; the real criminals; the ones who branded you with a number and turned you into a commodity.
I find the growing idea that we need to ditch certain parts often constitution to be quite alarming, The only reason you have the freedom to even express this on a platform such as hubpages is because we are a country built on laws to ensure certain freedoms.
The only gun control that will work is when someone can go back in time and find a way to un-invent them. There's no way to un-invent a technology. With that being said we don't have a gun problem, we have a spiritual problem. Why do people want to hurt innocent people? Its the age old question of why is there evil in this world. Until we can go back in time and un- invent the gun or find a way to eradicate evil gun control is not a logical solution.
MOLON LAUBE,I'd like to ask a question. When someone applies for a gun license do they have to undergo psychological testing? Over here in NZ you can apply for the gun license but part of the process is you have to undergo a psychological test!
Maybe the way forward isn't to take the guns away but make it harder to get legal firearms and make the penalties for selling illegally much more draconian, that way you keep the second amendment and tighten the rules at the same time!Unfortunately, the amendment doesn't mention rules or outrageous requirements to fulfill (such as being subjected to a psyche evaluation) in order to have the right. Just that we have the right.
In any case, the number of cases of mentally ill people that legally own their guns and have committed a mass murder (or murder at all) is quite small. That means that onerous regulations are being required of innocent people in order to produce a very small reward for society. Again, the antithesis of a freedom loving people.Actually worldwide its pretty high! Hungerford England, early 1980s a mentally unstable guy bought a replica AK47, rebored barrel and killed 18 in a shooting spree. Numerous times since where mentally unstable people got guns and killed. That's why the rest of the world has that criteria!
All is relative. Let me rephrase: the percentage of homicides committed by mentally ill people that legally own the gun they used is quite small.
I might also point out that your single example was not of a legally purchased gun; it was of a homemade weapon. A psyche evaluation before buying a gun (not a toy or replica, but an actual functioning gun) would not have prevented anything at all.After that incident the UK changed the rule that because a 'replica' can easily be modified (all you need do is re-bore the barrel) they are to be classed as a firearm and must be kept in Police armouries (or gun club ones with alarms wired into the local Police station so that if there's a break in they can be there in seconds!)
You're right that the amount of crime commited by mentally unstable people is small, but usually horrific with multiple homicides (ten or more in a single incident!). Introducing such a thing won't impede the average gun owner (apart from a little extra paperwork) but it will help stop another tragedy!
By the way the weapon was a legally imported one from the Soviet unionHorror is not a reason to require anyone to submit to a mental evaluation. And the numbers of multiple murders using their legally owned weapons is nearly microscopic; certainly we have better things to put our efforts into.
Except, of course, that it a strong weapon in the arsenal of the gun haters. Terrorism - the creation of horror and fear - always is, which is why it is popular with people that having else to use.
Your "weapon" was only a "weapon" the same way as baseball bat is. A fancy looking club, nothing more, so it's no surprise that it could be imported at will. I wonder if the UK will be requiring an evaluation before buying a chunk of pipe now, because it can be turned into a weapon with just some work (a whole lot less than re-boring a gun barrel!), and requiring it to be kept at the cop shop.Actually I now live in New Zealand where if you're walking down the street with one you'll be arrested unless you have reason to have it! We do have gun deaths but they are almost all hunters who make mistakes! The gun laws here have almost eliminated the situation I put forward yet people can still own the gun, they just can't do it for self defence as here in NZ to kill in self defence is classed as manslaughter!
When I have the same 24 hour protection as Mr President and his family then he can have my gun. He will never win this battle. Not "all" of us are stupid.
I'd agree that most folks are good people but the fact of owning a weapon increases your chances of being killed by one sixfold! Three thousand Americans were killed by firearms last year, most by their own firearm! Actually I got the initial figure wrong as in 2011 (according to the guardian newspaper) it was 8,000!!!! COME ON!
But jackie Lynnley, there's one little problem with your comparison, to my knowledge, you're not the President of the United States ~
Another FICTITIOUS "Republican Pretend Land" Scenario ~Still putting people down with your narrow minded left wing dribble? You still haven't responded to why the U.S. gov. allowed the blacks and Indians to own guns and they are not militias or military. And why the gov. did not round up guns the last 240 some years. And why they do not make laws on all guns but just certain types of guns. And that the statement about a well maintained militia is permission to have them, in addition to accepted and implied gun uses and ownership?
It is just dribble, isn't it?
all capitalized and stuff, made to look like something more, MUCH MORE that just dribble.
drivel noun
nonsense, twaddle, claptrap, balderdash, gibberish, rubbish, mumbo jumbo, garbage; poppycock, piffle, tripe, bull, hogwash, baloney, codswallop, flapdoodle, jive, guff, bushwa; tommyrot, bunkum.
verb
talk nonsense, talk rubbish, babble, ramble, gibber, blather, prattle, gabble, waffle.
I may be banned for this.
but here goes,
submit:
We love ya, A .Prime, but just not that stuff you put in CAPITALS and everything in between!!"TWADDLE" is my personal FAV of the Bunch Dear Kathryn ~
But NOW, would you like to EXPLAIN to the RURALites" Exactly WHY the President of the United States of America is Afforded 24/7 Security & Protection ~
I think it's Clearly OBVIOUS to most, but sometimes Ultra-Rural Folks who live FAR away from Civilization and who may Lack a Reliable Connection to the Outside World usually need a little Special Attention & Help ~ Can U be that Helper Please? Forums like these can certainly be Educational ~Just because he is the "Fn" pres. Any one in the spot light needs protection over just you and me.
Doug Cutler ~ Along with many other things, Obviously Basic Reading & Comprehension are not Strong-Suits for Republicans ~ I see this Nonsense everywhere not just here ~
Keeping & Bearing ARMS is a Right Granted by the U.S. Supreme Court, NOT a RIGHT Granted nor Articulated within the 2cnd Amendment ~ If a Human can READ, a Human will Undertsand the TRUE Meaning of this Passage ~
Right Now, it is LEGAL to KEEP Certain ARMS in America and I NEVER said it was iIlegal ~
It is not necessary to change or ban the 2nd Amendment. In fact, it would be counter-productive to even try.
We can have both, the 2nd Amendment and reasonable gun control measures. The 2nd Amendment does not prohibit common-sense restrictions like limiting the capacity of a firearm, requiring a background check or limiting certain features of a gun that make it especially useful for killing large numbers of people with little effort.
We can exercise some restrictions that make it more difficult for felons and certain mentally ill people from getting a gun without repealing the right to bear arms.
The problem isn't the 2nd Amendment. it is the multi-billion dollar gun industry. They make millions of dollars every year from the illegal gun trade and they stand to lose a lot of money if criminals can no longer get access to guns.
The whole gun control debate isn't between people who want to take your guns away and people who want to protect your constitutional rights.
The debate is between people who want to protect the massive corporate profits of the multi-billion dollar gun industry and those who want to save thousands of lives every year from gun violence.The problem seems to be in the term "common sense". For instance, limiting the magazine capacity - "common sense" says it will save lives, but real life experience does not bear that out. Nor does it bear out that requiring onerous registration and waiting periods actually helps anything. Or forbidding semi-automatic weapons. Or folding gunstocks, barrel shrouds, hand grips or any of the other nonsense turning a gun into an "assault weapon". So your "common sense" just appears to mean "things I don't like".
Nor is it simply a fight between corporations and those wanting to save lives. Yes, the corporations are fighting hard, but no one has ever shown that strict gun laws, or even making guns illegal, actually saves any lives. It changes the tool used, yes, but doesn't save lives, which makes your statement that that's what the gun haters want very suspect. Either that or they simply use their "common sense", or intuition, to replace facts and real life experience.
The 2nd amendment is not the cause of mass shootings by mentally ill people as this post says. Also Nazi Germany banned guns and look what that government did. I'd rather take my chances with a mass murderer than a goverment an uncontrolled government.
Seriously, since you brought this up. I would like to know how you , and perhaps some of your friends, propose to "stand your ground" against drones, tanks, Navy Seals, Marines, Army, Air Force, armored personnel carriers, smart bombs , and various other military ordinances.???
For the same reason the Japs didn't. We are a well armed county. It has kept the Chinese and Russians out. In my opinion. The Muslim insurgents across the border are another problem. Now Obama is letting them in thru. legal channels.
The regime has already tried back a few years ago. There was an incident over missing nukes. A few
high officials and generals put a stop to it. Around the same time they had to take over some of the secret under ground and under water bases. Shortly after that a large number of generals were fired.Then there was the huge ammo buy by the gov. and the shortages to the public. The public is too strong for them.
As for those tanks and such. I am sure the public has methods to deal with them .Small hand held armor piercing rockets. Tanks are easy targets in urban situations. Signal jamming of drones and drones of our
own. Then there are those at the top that don't go along with the regimes desires. We are talking civil war here. Not just a gov. with all the power like in wwii or some of the middle east regimes.
The shotgun is the best overall weapon in urban combat.
Let those out there call me a conspiracy theories nut. I would rather error on the side of caution than be taken unaware.
"It is causing mentally ill people to commit crime". How naïve , How foolish a statement , it's so bland and boring to imply that the second amendment is "Causing "crime , shows a complete lack of knowledge of the human mind AND of the written constitution itself . How can a written document "Cause" anything?
What about personal accountability ?
"The second amendment is Outdated ", What IS outdated is this general lack of interpretable political intelligence , that no longer do people think for themselves , No longer is there the intelligence to interpret the constitution as a path to personal freedom guiding us through the privileges of political freedoms . Socialist's can't think for themselves either .
What is outdated is when a society needs a government to think for them , plan for them and pick up the pieces when a populace fails to maintain it's own freedoms . To the point at which we can no longer breathe from the incessant amount of written law .
"How do I feel about it ?" You , sir , don't have the faintest interest in, ...." How do I feel about it ", or anyone else's opinion , yours is the way towards socialism . Where a people want a nanny government , to nurture , protect , serve ,....... mostly though to simply serve you whatever your personal needs or frailties are , . Once again , The second amendment will go nowhere soon . It was designed , like the constitution itself , as a right of freedom .You seem to be confusing the effect of an issue with its cause. Mass shootings by the mentally ill are truly awful acts that should be viewed with the upmost amount of grief possible, and we as a moral and righteous society must give our best to figure out why this is happening and to do our best to reduce it.
You seem to agree with that, as I do feel you are attempting to be righteous in thought, though misguided you are. The cause of these shootings are not the guns or the availability of guns, but the mental illness within the committers. Trying to reduce the effect by not uprooting its cause will never change anything; removing the availability of guns wont cure the mentally ill. We then, as logic would demand, must do better in detecting and treating mental illness.
A final note not without merit, I believe, would be the overall consequence of your proposal. The reason we do have the 2nd Amendment is so we can not only fight possible government tyranny, but it is also so we can deter it! The ability to fight back makes an attacker naturally hesitant to do so. Removing our deterrence as well as our defense will leave us open and is contrary to what our founding fathers ideals were for our country. For shame on you for such a treasonous proposalALLONI LIONWARD:
I agree with you about the mentally ill. But how are we going to cure them when funding was cutoff by Reagan and never re-instated. How do you solve that and how do keep the mentally ill from getting guns and committing those crimes? Do you institutionalize them? How do you know who they are and when they are going to commit those crimes? Do we just institutionalize everybody that we think might be mentally ill. The toothpaste is out of the tube. How do you put it back?
Why would our government turn against its people? Our constitution prevents that from happening. What would be the reasons for doing it? My proposal is not treasonous. I trust my country and its constitution, obviously, you do not. What deterrence, how are your going to deter yourself from the might of the United States armed forces?If you squeeze the flattened sides of that tube. The created vacuum will suck it back in.
If a bear is smart and a bear knows how. Some things are a lot harder. Like being a virgin again.
Start by not drugging up people. Especially with drugs that cause severe withdrawal.
Next, go back to natural foods. Eliminating GMO;s excessive pesticides, growth hormones, etc.
People should be made aware of dangers of, example: aspartame, that was allowed in the 70's without proper testing or facts covered up just to make money. Get rid of that "Your special" and "Everyone gets a trophy" crap. Bring out the best in an individual. Not everyone being the same leftist crap.
A gov. will turn on its people to get complete control. Hitler, china, others. They are power freaks.
One of the first things is to disarm the public. This is the main reason they haven't got very far.DOUG CUTLER:
So you want all of these things to take place. How are you going to enforce them nationwide. I know through the government!
PeoplePower73:
I do not pretend to know the solution for the mentally ill. That is, as you have so correctly states, a difficult situation that we must put resources toward in order figure out the most pragmatic and moral solution.
Just to make things clear between you and I, I am not in anyway against government intervention. The federal government does have a large part to play in our countries well being, and though I am a republican, no one but an anarchist would think the government serves no role. I am okay with spending money on research, I think we need to do more of it in general, but that is another issue for another time.
As far as the government going against its people: It has happened in the past in other countries. It continues to happen today in places like China where they limit the amount of children you have, or North Korea. As for the reasons why the government would turn against us, one cannot truly know until it is happening.
You are also correct to say the US Constitution does limit the power of the government so it cannot do such things, however, if it breaks these rules, and tyranny does start to form, we are obligated as the citizens of these United States to take up arms against our government and return it to its constitutional limits. As a veteran of the United States, I love my country very much, and especially its constitution, however, I am not going to pretend that power hungry people do not seek to change things and to take control.
Further more, I am under the direct belief that since our founding fathers intended us to be able to take down a tyrannical government, we should have the legal ability to obtain weaponry capable to do so. I understand this is a radical point of view, but I maintain that the logic holds true.
You also make a good point that I agree with fully; how do we fight against the government even with guns. For starters, if you ever read the Oath of Enlistment, you will understand that the sailor, soldier, marine, and airmen does not swear allegiance to the government but to the constitution itself.
I hope in this that you understand that the military, if followed correctly, should turn against our government and to be on the side of the countries people, not on the side of her government.
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God."The biggest problem with this statement is:
"I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me," The lefties will stop hear and ignore "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
I must admit I haven't read the Code either. Perhaps I will. To see if it addresses out of line leaders.I was in the Air Force for four years. I know what the UCMJ is and I know the oath. Why would our government turn against us? What is it that they want from us, land, food, money? Where do they start, we have 50 states. Do they invade from the sea? Drop bombs on us from the air. Do they go house to house? Do you see how absurd this is in a republic with a democracy for the people and a constitution that protects us? We are not like the other countries that have dictators as their rulers and I don't believe we ever will. The right wing propaganda has caused many people to lose their trust in this country.
I'm more concerned about the super-rich and corporations running the country in their best interest and not ours. It's insidious, most people don't even know it is happening. The super PACs have the tea party voting against their own best interest and they don't even know it.Yes, Peoplepower, I served in the AF for 4 years and as a Executive Officer and got close and personal with the UCMJ.
I agree with you that the danger is from a government overrun by money interests and influence peddling toward that end rather than the principle of Government itself. I also say that the extralegal, undemocratic approaches are going come from the overwhelmingly influencial business interests that infiltrate our Government from the inside and from the outside. That sir, is where the real tyranny lies. Anything that Obama has done or even contemplate pales in comparison.Why would any group want be in control? Power, greed, family, etc.
Problem is those super-rich and corporations are paying lobbyist to convince government officials to vote for things they want and to hell with what the people want.
Your points fundamentally make sense, but this solemn obligation of the people is not to be taken lightly merely due to Rightwing rants that are not of a substantive nature. The rightwing rant about confiscation of the right of the people to bear arms has not materialized in any serious way during Obama term which is almost over. So what is the hubbub all about?
Respectfully, when have I ever said any of that? I never said there was, I am not one who goes on about fear-mongering or the like. I simply stated the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and what our founding fathers considered to be an important concept for the people of this country.
I in no way expect within the reasonably foreseeable future, some sort of government take over. I do not consider myself in constant fear of the government, but I also understand that while nothing is to be feared as of this moment, we should not let that blind us to the possibility of something to fear in the future. It is the same reasoning for when I learned how to fight; I don't expect to have to fight, but I want to be ready in case it happens.
The only problem with your theory is that without guns what's to stop government from becoming tyrants and ruling us all. Hitler disarmed the public right before he began exterminating 8 million jews. The fact is that do guns do exist, they are part of our culture and heritage. The founding father were visionaries who knew this day would come. Just read som of the quotes from Jefferson or Ben Franklin. They saw this coming and warned us. The problem is that liberal think they are so smart and have all the answers about the way things should be. I bet you voted for Obama to didn't you. Figures.
Tyrannical rule has existed in this country since 1776.The government has no need to confront you, the citizen, with military force; they already own you! Might as well sell your guns, and buy a new set of golf clubs. You are about 250 years too late.
• The first tax imposed on a domestic product by the federal government led to the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791. Many of the resisters were war veterans who believed that they were fighting for the principles of the American Revolution, in particular against taxation without local representation.
• The black slaves were elevated to a slave status closer to the white proletariat after the Civil War, but tyranny still reigned.
• The Federal Reserve act of 1913 sealed the fate of Americans, and guaranteed a life of perpetual servitude for U.S. citizens.
• The Social Security Act of 1935 gave the federal government the right to brand each citizen at birth; effectively turning the citizen into a living commodity that can be labeled, categorized, and monitored; all for the "security" of the state.
• The Patriot Act of 2001 suspended Habeas Corpus for alleged enemies of the state, of foreign origin. It also infringed on our 4th amendment rights. Section 215 permits the FBI to secretly compile personal information about phone calls, video rentals, medical charts, and financial records-as long as such information will protect the country against "international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." This personal information may include a list of books checked out by a citizen from a local library. Any citizen can now be legally spied upon by the government.
• The National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama on the 31st December 2011 authorizes the indefinite detention, without trial or indictment, of any US citizens designated as an enemy of the state. That could be you, your spouse, or your children.Rather be owned by this corrupt gov. than by any other.
At least the regime hasn't started taking guns away.
In my opinion they are scared it will start a revolution.
Them being on the loosing end.
I would rather have arms and not need them.
The past is the past. We have not been killing each other
like before 1900. Be thankful.
In other words, you are content to be oppressed as long as you can have a gun, and as long as you can make someone else rich with the fruits of your labor. OK, I get it.Certainly not content with a lot of things. Not much I can do about a lot of things.
Not that I don't try at times.
Will not give up on the few rights left.
I don't own a fire arm. But don't want the right to be
taken away. I am 69 today and am trying to enjoy the
time I have left a little. Don't need Viagra yet either.
Agree, it was meant for a different set of principles and circumstances
Should we just throw away the bible too? Maybe just get rid of any morals/ideals that use to define our great nation. BTW, another hit and run killing an innocent bystander just happened down the street, I have an idea, lets get rid of automobiles since they kill many more people than guns do...
FISHMOUNTTROY: So your logic is get rid of automobiles because you can cite a hit and run. The primary purpose of cars is not to kill people. The majority of people killed by cars is because of accidents, not murders. The primary purpose of guns is to kill someone or something. Your inane logic has been used ad nauseum in this forum. It is a false equivalence comparing apples to oranges, but it is a favorite of the NRA.
take guns away and then the crazies will just stop hurting people.. is that your logic sir know-it-all?
because we all know that making a law about something will make it stop.... just like how illegal heroin fixes the junkie problem. The countries with the lowest crime rates and murder rates in the world include places like Switzerland where it is REQUIRED for all citizens to possess a fire arm, it is their civic duty,
Most of the shooting we see that happen in America are not due to mental illness in my opinion its due to social isolation and low wages. Many men are becoming totally sick due to not making enough to find suitable partners and rnjoy life.The U.S constitution was given to us to protect us and create equality once we disarm ourselves the system has total control and then the elite have total control to pursue issues like Agenda 21 etc.
The right to bear arms should be a fundamental right for all people especially since we may end up in a war with China and Russia over issues in the Ukarine and China Sea . When disaster strikes Uncle Sam can not take care of everyone. Louisiana went through hell after Katrina
When disaster falls upon us every person in a city will want a gun to protect their kids ,wives and to be empowered to hunt and get food. Of course I'd love to live in a world with no guns but as long as division , inequality and the threat exist it is good to have one if not many. I have my gun rights in New Mexico but really don't like guns I hate them but after seeing what our government did to Iraq soilders in Iraq prisons and the world cop game we play I can't trust good people our bad because when disaster strikes people will do anything to feed their familiesGood post! I agree with much of your assessment. I have had a small business for many years and when I hire someone I pay them as much as I possibly can afford. The reason being that someone who is not worrying and thinking how he is going clothe, feed and shelter himself is much more involved with the job. A lot of employers look at labor as a loser for their business rather than an expense much like materials and rent. I have often talked myself out of a job I cannot "AFFORD" to do no matter the situation. If I were to sell that bottom dollar job at a loss I would not be in business for very long. The race to the bottom is paved with many failures.
I also have a product that is being manufactured in China. That sounds pretty hypocritical you might say being I am against jobs being shipped overseas. The industry demands it due to the competitive nature of the product I have. I can't even get an OEM to consider it without it being made in China. That is our mindset here and it is the new normal.FREEHELPFORFELONS: Can you tell me what is bad about Agenda 21? Here is what I found on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
I can't fathom the disaster that you are talking about. No need to prove it to me, because it hasn't occurred yet and hopefully never will.
In your own words, THIS sentence explains why eliminating this amendment would have no affect whatsoever... 'It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings.'
Mentally ill people would simply find ANOTHER way to commit murders. This is FACT. Do we ban automobiles when they begin running people down? Do we ban ALL products that could even remotely be considered dangerous? Do we ban ALL knves? Do we ban ALL aerosols, etc?
If society would assign more emphasis and attention to dealing with mental illness, these crimes would miraculously decline!except it's angry people, not people with mental illness who are shooters. 95% of shootings are done by folks with no mental illness and 95% of folks with mental illness have never committed a violent crime.
the problem with arguing that there are other lethal methods than guns is that it ignores two things: the ease of using guns on impulse and the great efficiency of guns in killing.And the problem with arguing that we need to take guns from people is that it doesn't make any difference in the murder rate. Not a single country on the globe can show that it does; not even the ones that had massive gun confiscations. All the logic, all the common sense, all the convoluted reasoning that guns are easy to use and thus to blame, isn't worth one piece of real world experience.
australia had a gun buyback. their overall murder rate went down and their overall suicide rate went WAY down.
Yes, their murder rate went down - at the exact same slide it had been on for years. The much touted gun buyback did absolutely nothing but continue the same rate of decline.
"What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002)."
"While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. "
"Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 … 0446855466
Take a hard at the second graph here, of Australian homicides from 1989 to 2006, and then think about what the gun buyback in 1996 accomplished: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.htmloverall suicides went down and it was statistically significant.
Can you show that? I haven't looked at suicides, feeling that protecting people from themselves is not a reason to violate the second amendment. But perhaps it is - can you show that Australian suicide rate went down in 1996, stayed down, and is significant enough to deny the right to own guns to millions of people?
they didn't ban guns. they bought them back. link to follow.
Don't quibble. If the population can't keep their guns, they are banned. Whether paid for or not, they remained unavailable to the people and are banned.
Not from my understanding. Any semi-automatic weapon (I think - it has been several years since I studied it) was taken. I could be mistaken about the semi-automatic part, but not the involuntary nature.
The site listed in your link gave some details.
You link contains no data at all, just conclusions from politicians with a vested interest in showing guns cause deaths.
However, the paper cited is a little better: "Specifically, we ask the question: did firearms death rates decrease more substantially in states where more guns were bought back?"
And the answer (with no data to show it) was yes. Which is a no-brainer - without guns killers will not use guns to kill - but doesn't say anything at all about the overall homicide rate. The article goes on to say that "Estimates of the effect on firearm homicides are less precise, but point estimates suggest that the firearm homicide rate also dropped by a substantial proportion", again with zero indication of what the overall rate did.
Suicides: the graphs show that firearm suicides fell by about -3.5/100,000 while non-firearm suicides rose by about 4/100,000. An increase then, in suicides (although gun suicides fell) after the buyback.
Moral - do not simply swallow the claims of politicians: insist on seeing the data yourself and drawing your own conclusion.
Oh my Gawd! I can't believe I am commenting on this thread, but...
Wilderness, I salute your research on this topic. Kinda throws a wet blanket on those who depend on rhetoric to make a point. As you frequently state, (with validation), apparent common sense logic does not hold water when actual facts are considered.
How ironic it is that the common sense perception that if there were less guns there would be less deaths. I refuse to buy into the ban this ban that argument, (cars, butter knives, etc.), because all of those arguments ignore the fact of who it is that are causing the gun deaths.
Criminals - non-legal gun owners!
A Columbine or Sandy Hook get all the publicity and public outcry for action, (and now it is the mentally ill), when in fact if you take a statistical approach, they are the exception rather than the norm.
ps. I will note, that the "mentally ill" is a sound bite that too many folks have latched onto. They are NOT the gun control 'Boogie man` and all this "mentally ill" rhetoric is just more regurgitation of a talking point from the left.
But the public demands pablum, and too many legislators are too happy to jump on the public band wagon with this or that legislation that will pacify them.
But comon' this thread is begging for a legitimate burial. How long can these "yes, but..." back and forths continue?
GAfolks who say fewer guns won't mean fewer deaths wrongly discount the high efficiency of guns in killing and the ease of use of a gun on impulse.
How do you reconcile that with the statistics that show a+b does not equal c?
GAmaybe a + b does = c, but we just don't have enough evidence to prove it. the NRA lobbied and won getting a law that prohibits the CDC from studying gun violence. i'm linking a long read that sheds some light on the area from the limited data we have.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rh … gun-facts/Sorry Cathylynn99, but I don't follow your logic.
Wilderness, (bless his heart), has done much more research on this topic than I have. And, putting aside any NRA criticisms and `Conservatives are nuts' vitriol, the facts he presents deflate the leftist balloons that it is extremists right wingnuts that cling to their 2nd Amendment rights that ignore the facts. I think it is the gun control advocates that are ignoring the facts.
If we get rid of the Left or Right rhetoric and look at the stats - then gun control is a non-issue, except for the benefits of political pandering.
How do you feel about the pablum served up by representatives begging for your vote?
Is your vote so cheap that it can be bought by anyone that claims to hold your values as their own?
GAAlthough all evidence I've found shows the opposite, but maybe you're right. Maybe a+b=c. Then show it, not just make the claim, or say we should take the rights of people away because maybe it is so in spite of reams of evidence to the contrary.
Sorry, but common sense tells us that it would be quite difficult to stab 33 people to death before being subdued. I know that's hard to understand in the Land of Oz, but it's just not realistic that this could be effectively done with any other weapon than a gun. No not a baseball bat either!
WrenchBiscuit, while discussions with those of the same mindset as Wilderness is useful for readers who still are honestly wondering about the issue, it is fruitless for us to argue with Wilderness et all because their frame of reference they firmly believe in is totally wrong; and that is that their opposition is hell-bent on taking guns away from all people, not just those who shouldn't have them. As a consequence, they will allow (not necessarily want) dangerous people to possess guns, thereby increasing the death toll from guns, in the mistaken belief that by preventing those who shouldn't have guns means that those who would be safe with guns in their hands can't get them.
Yes, some of the opposition IS hell-bent on taking all guns. A straight up fact which you are well aware of even as your words say that no one does that.
But so far I haven't seen a single (useful) suggestion on how to keep guns away from those that should not have them...except to take them from everyone. And no, a psych exam every year for anyone with a gun is not a useful suggestion. Unless throwing out large, objectionable, nasty requirements is useful in keeping guns away from all people?
Bombs. Cars. Planes. Poison. Biological elements.
There's 5 that are more effective than guns, and only two are difficult at all to accomplish. But go on - explain how your "common sense" is a better indicator of the results of gun laws than history is. Show how "common sense" and "logic" can reasonably be used to predict different results from the same old actions. Describe, in detail, why a handful of shootings shows that if there were no guns the killers could not have killed, and don't forget to include historical records to back up your reasoning with experience.
And so you paint yourself into a corner once again. This is really too easy. You commented:
" All the logic, all the common sense, all the convoluted reasoning that guns are easy to use and thus to blame, isn't worth one piece of real world experience."
Au contraire! But there is plenty of real world experience! You were responding to cathlynn99 who commented:
"...the problem with arguing that there are other lethal methods than guns is that it ignores two things: the ease of using guns on impulse and the great efficiency of guns in killing."
Reading & Writing & Mass Killing at School Since 2005
Just the facts:
April 16, 2007 Blacksburg, Virginia: 33 dead
Dec. 14, 2012 Newtown, Connecticut 28 dead
April 20, 1999 Littleton, Colorado: 15 dead
March 21, 2005 Red Lake, Minnesota: 10 dead
October 1, 2015 Roseburg, Oregon 10 dead
April 2, 2012 Oakland, California 7 dead
October 2, 2006 Nickel Mines, Penn. 6 dead
February 14, 2008 DeKalb, Illinois 6 dead
The list above provides 115 pieces of "real world experiences".!
But when considering school shootings, these are only a hand-full of the total victims during the last 36 years. Obviously, when it comes to killing en masse, the weapon of choice is a gun, preferably an assault rifle. These are facts, not opinions. Ease of use,impulse,efficiency: these are the factors that make guns appealing to American killers. Lame right-wing arguments in favor of guns may play well on Fox News, but we don't tolerate them on this channel. Goodbye."Obviously, when it comes to killing en masse, the weapon of choice is a gun, preferably an assault rifle."
You're right - the gun is the weapon of choice. Now, try hard and go beyond that to showing that it is the only weapon that could be used; show that if there were no guns there would be no homicides. That's the claim, after all; that if we take guns killers won't use something else. Sadly, your beautiful logic doesn't even address that matter - just assumes it to be true, and when experience shows it is not, you stick to it anyway.Saying "...Now, try hard and go beyond that to showing that it is the only weapon that could be used..." totally side-steps reality. Reality is, of ALL the weapons that COULD be used, it is the firearm that is chosen because 1) it is so easy to get in most states and 2) it is so easy to use because of the impersonality of it (most other possible weapons requires the killer to get up close and personal with the victim leaving the chance of failure much higher and worse for the perpetrator, he might end up dead or wounded.)
And therefore if there were no guns there would be no killings, right? Taking guns means that killers will no longer kill.
The only problem with that impeccable logic is that it doesn't work. It is flawed, and deeply so, as we know, from real life experience, that the conclusion is not warranted - that it is false to fact. Sadly, drawing a conclusion from the premise (correct in this case) that guns are common, easy and useful from a distance does not have anything to do with killers wanting to kill. It happens with or without guns, and we see that in real life experience regardless of all the wonderful statements insinuating that because guns are easy it must mean that without guns we won't have murders.Why do you keep trying to make your point with an all-or-nothing approach, Wilderness? All-or-nothing doesn't exist in the real world, the real world is somewhere in between.
"... if there were no guns, there would be no killings, right?" Is an absolutely all-or-nothing pointless premise for at least two reasons, 1) there will always be killings since human beings are built that way and 2) in America, the 2A guarantees the right to own a gun, so at least some people will have guns.
The goal of my side is to reduce the rate of needless death due to the use of guns, while your side wants to increase that rate, intentionally or not.
Yes, it is the only weapon available to the average person that can be used to kill the most amount of people in the least amount of time. I can't imagine your average high school sociopath having the means to procure a tank, drone aircraft, anthrax, or a nuclear bomb! Let's keep it real, and use a little common sense.
Of course you can bludgeon someone to death with a toaster, and you can also suffocate a man with a blow up doll. (They should have included that in an episode of "Fargo") But who in their right mind actually believes that anyone would actually attempt to commit mass murder with these implements? Why would people go to the trouble to procure an assault rifle when they could simply beat 20 people to death with a pink dildo?
But here is the best part. If guns have little to do with the homicide rate, as many of you claim, and if there are other weapons and implements at our disposal that can get the killing done just as well as a firearm, then why are all of you crying about the Second Amendment? What do you need a gun for?Good Factual Common Sense Point ~
I don't think it would be that difficult to walk around with a Microwave Oven strapped to your rearend, or a bulky Grandfather Clock over the shoulder ~ Or Drag around a statue replica of George "Shut Up & Leave me alone while I give ALL these DRUNK Pilgrims Arms to use AGAINST me & Congress" Washington ~
I could realistically imagine these items being used to perpetrate mal-Intent ~ -------->
I don't know of any law that can be written to satisfy all with regards to who can get a gun. I don't mean one you have to get a license for but one anybody can get by hook or crook. Taking the right from the law biding citizen to own one does not negate the criminal or mentally ill person from getting one and vice versa.
With the conversation turning towards nobody can get a gun also is negated by the criminal who will have a shot at the massive amount of guns already out there. They just won't disappear because of their legality. I know living in a rural area where county and State Police have the responsibility to respond it may take up to twenty minutes for help to arrive if you can even get a call in time. Self preservation is of great concern there. Remember "In Cold Blood"? I don't own a firearm by the way.
Instead of identifying who can legally get a firearm maybe we should just concentrate on those who are not allowed to own one rather than the ones who can. If a legal gun owner commits a crime with his or her weapon then the court system will have to deal with that. In that case it cannot be helped by any gun law that adheres to the Constitution.Concentrating on the worst offenders is what I am saying. Leave the law biding people alone.
It is not the 2nd's job to vet who individualy gets to own and who doesn't. Not yet at least. Cry to the individual states.
The Fed has jurstriction over across state line sales. Like internet sales out of state perhaps. And other countries. Good job they done in letting rifles getting into the hands of Mexican drug thugs.Talk about irony!
Thirty one state governors have refused to allow Syrian refugees into their states, because their gun laws are too lax. They are afraid it is too easy for the Syrians to get guns. Twenty one of those states do not require background checks at gun shows.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/five-major-s … n-refugeesPerhaps now there will be some sensible gun regulation. Concentrating on problem areas and leaving the law abiding people alone!
There it is again profiling people without evidence of their intent or history of committing a crime. That is too bad about Texas, if every law abiding citizen should be able to get a gun, that means ALL not just those that you think should have the right.
So, You are for anyone getting/keeptng a gun? Except maybe 5 year olds. Allowing mentally incompetent, drug dealers, those murders that got off on some politically correct technicality, those that threatened another with a weapon, etc. These are part of the "all" you want to allow to own.
Lets shake down 80 year olds just to keep some dumb politically correct B.S. ratio alive.Did you hear me, Man? I said law abiding citizens without criminal records, what about that? Can we all have a gun now under those conditions.?
You are the people that are for unversal accessibility to a gun, but again these people want to qualify what it means to be 'universal'.......Your statement "that means ALL not just those that you think should have the right." sounded like what I posted. A mentally incompetent that is law abiding according to what you say can keep and own?
Also there should be an age limit. say 18. And under certain circumstances younger. Similar to farm permits pertaining to drivers licenses. A case by case would be the way.OK So, you would have no problem with Syrians that decide to settle in Texas being able to buy a gun if they want to, after all they have no criminal record nor have been determined mentally incompetent?
That is a special case. Are they citizens or fresh out of Syria or wherever.? This sounds like both Fed and state law territory. I think they need to be vetted before just giving them the same rights as a citizen.
The 2nd applies only to citizens I believe. Whatever a particular state says. Maybe you think otherwise?Yes, what you say is true but accepting them in an asylum situation would imply granting citizenship not soon after. After that, otherwise you say no problem?
Special case, special vetting. Until you know for sure, then No! If you can't determine, then No!
And only after they become citizens.
This should not be an excuse to start taking arms from the rest of us.
Sounds more like a fine excuse to pander to the fears of the people and demonstrate how "concerned" the governor is than anything else. Anyone in this country that wants a gun can get one, laws or no laws.
That is why the average person needs a weapon to protect them selves. And for expected terrorist, etc.
Thank you. That's what I have been saying the whole time!
I think that's pretty well understood. Which raises the question of just why we want to continually take guns from law-abiding citizens; given that guns are so readily available to criminals, why disarm those that will neither buy an illegal gun OR use one to murder with? What is the purpose of such an action?
To placate a fearful population? To get re-elected? Why do we take those steps?
Since you are so big on your facts and figures. Please wilderness, show us the facts, figures, and graphs that explain how every teenage school shooter would have still gotten their weapons on the black market; in spite of a complete ban on assault rifles. You can pick up a Bushmaster AR-15 at Walmart for around $1,000.00. A complete ban on assault weapons would raise that figure considerably on the black market.
It is one of Archie Bunkers favorite bed time stories: that if you ban guns , only the criminals will have them. Not true. Only the people with lot's of money would have them, which would eliminate a majority of petty criminals, as well as "heat of the moment" shootings. Furthermore, people with that kind of disposable income are not likely to invade the average consumers home, since they wouldn't be interested in cheap stereo equipment, or velvet Elvis posters.
Neither are people with money as likely to engage in mass shootings, since they would rather enjoy spending their money. When such weapons do get into the wrong hands, it is the responsibility of law enforcement to neutralize the threat. Isn't that part of what they are getting paid to do? Or does their job description only cover eating donuts, giving speeding tickets to senior citizens, killing black children playing with toy guns, and shooting black men in the back who are running in the opposite direction?A ban on assault weapons would not have any affect on Bushmaster AR-15 sales. Unless they don't even know what an assault weapon is. Like you apparently don't.
If a person with a thing that looks like a real gun points it at someone, how in hell does the other know that it isn't real? And the intent of the person pointing it? Nice job of cherry picking again!
Have you ever had a real loaded gun pointed at you? I have. So close I was debating should I grab it perhaps the safety was on. I just walked away."Assault weapon": any gun painted black and scary looking. Terminology used to increase the fear factor of gun control advocates, but without meaningful details. Eventually expected to include any weapon capable of launching objects, to include but not limited to; BB guns, bows, slingshots and the trebuchet or any other catapult. Possibly even the human arm."
That may be your interpretation. The official is a military like version. Most of which are fully automatics. Unless it was a military type that was never made in an automatic version. A gray area. The AR-15 looks like the M-16. But is not an assault weapon because it is a semi-automatic. The M-16 can be selected to be semi or fully auto. This is my understanding of an assault weapon. Until proven otherwise I will stick to it. Bet I am a lot closer to the real definition. If you don't know the difference between a semi vs fully than do the research!
Yes, that is the real definition - an automatic gun used by military to assault fortified positions.
But I didn't speak of any real definition; I refer to the definition used by gun control advocates, who don't care about accuracy or truth. Just about raising fear and hatred of guns. Sorry you missed the sarcasm.I gave the interpretation as an education to those that may not know the difference. And not just go along with what some anti gun advocate that has no idea of what they speak says it is. Particularly to educate the one that originally wrote about the $1,000 AR-15.
I see. But I fear that is a lost cause; "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink", and that one doesn't even sip at the well of truth.
Please, Mr. Wrench, show that the kids that did the school shootings had legally purchased and owned the guns they used. What's that? You can't? Then quit making up scenarios that nothing to do with anything; try as I might I can't find anything in my post indicating that all guns used illegally came from the black market - that is an assumption on your part, not mine.
Then explain what a $1,000 AR-15 from WalMart has to do with "assault weapons". It obviously isn't anything of the kind, so why would you try to insinuate it is? To raise the fear factor or is there some other agenda?
When you have done those things, explain to us all how the gang members of inner cities legally got their guns, and why they aren't interested in your TV or stereo. Perhaps some photos of mob looters with guns will help as they are all rich.
And after all that is accomplished, show us all how taking guns will stop mass killings (killings, not shootings, as the dead don't care what tool was used). Show us that taking those evil things would have stopped the biggest mass murder in US history on 9-11. Show us how it would have stopped the OK bombing or the anthrax packages. Show us, in clear historical evidence, why it isn't possible to make a car bomb without a gun in hand. Prove that not having a gun will prevent a suicide bomber from wrapping himself in explosives.
Do these things and maybe, just maybe, your posts will have some validity in today's world of extreme violence with whatever weapon is at hand.
You suggested in your post: "...given that guns are so readily available to criminals, why disarm those that will neither buy an illegal gun or use one to murder with? ..." If guns are readily available to criminals, but not law abiding citizen's, then it follows that the criminal is obtaining firearms illegally; this commonly implies "the black market".
Most people who rob and loot aren't rich, but they can get their weaponry at Walmart, or on the black market. The legal availability of weaponry naturally affects the prices on the black market. Consequently, black market prices for guns are currently competitive with the legal variety. With more restrictions, or a complete ban on guns, the black market prices would be driven upward astronomically; making it even harder for a person of limited means to obtain a weapon. Apparently you have failed to grasp this concept.
Whether a weapon is semi-automatic or fully automatic, when we are talking about life and death, splitting hairs is hardly appropriate. The fact that several of you have jumped on my reference to the AR-15 as an assault rifle simply reveals a lack of creativity. In order to save the world, we must be able to think outside the box. I have read several essays written during the antebellum by apologists for the institution of slavery. What is most remarkable, is that a majority of white Americans during that time actually subscribed to the notion that the African was better off being a slave; all the better for having the opportunity to be "civilized" by European culture. In your responses to my comment, we see the same blind allegiance to the status quo.
The ruling authority has made a distinction between the automatic, and the semi-automatic weapons, with the former category being classified as assault weapons. The general consensus is that an assault weapon, by it's very nature, is more dangerous than a semi-automatic weapon, and as such, is deserving of stricter regulations. But the superior mind recognizes that a "thing" will often define itself over time. We saw this happen with asbestos, which was freely used in homes and businesses until it's lethal properties were discovered. Yes, the status quo does not currently define the AR-15 as an "assault weapon", but I am ahead of the curve. I can see that in practice, such weapons are as deadly as fully automatic weapons, and should be banned completely. You asked for proof that mass killers had purchased their guns legally. Here it is:
• Robyn Anderson, a friend of the two students responsible for the killings at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, assisted them in buying three of the four weapons used in the massacre from different sellers at the Tanner gun show outside of Denver. Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.
• Movie theater, Aurora, Colorado Date: July 20, 2012
James E. Holmes used a semiautomatic Smith & Wesson M&P15, a 12-gauge Remington 870 shotgun,
and a semiautomatic .40-caliber Glock 22, killing 12 and injuring 70. All three guns were purchased
legally in 2012 between May 22 and July 6 at three different Colorado gun stores.
• Dec. 14, 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut: Adam Lanza
Lanza shot and killed his mother with a .22-caliber Savage MK II-F bolt action rifle. At the school, Lanza used an AR-15 semiautomatics. Lanza killed 26 people in total and injured two before killing himself. Both guns belonged to Lanza’s mother who purchasaed them legally.
• JUNE 17, 2015, Dylann Roof, 21, killed nine people with a .45-caliber Glock pistol at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C.. He legally purchased the gun from a store in West Columbia, S.C.
• Oct 1, 2015, Christopher Harper-Mercer, 26, killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where he was a student. He was armed with six guns, including a Glock pistol, a Smith & Wesson pistol, a Taurus pistol and a Del-Ton assault rifle, according to The Associated Press. In all, Mr. Harper-Mercer owned 14 firearms, all of which were bought legally through a federally licensed firearms dealer, according to a federal official. Some were bought by Mr. Harper-Mercer, and some by members of his family.
Of these 5 examples, only in one was a gun purchased illegally.
Your last paragraph reads like a script from "All In The Family". According to you, there is no reason to cure cancer, since we can just as easily die of heart disease. And of course, there is no need to cure heart disease, since we can just as easily die from cancer. According to you, we should just give up and wait for the reaper. Gee, that's a real positive outlook!" If guns are readily available to criminals, but not law abiding citizen's, then it follows that the criminal is obtaining firearms illegally; this commonly implies "the black market"
Or stolen. Or obtained with false ID. Or bought legally in another state/country and brought in.
And apparently you think high prices means unavailable. It isn't so.
You think "outside the box", in La La Land; I prefer to stick to reality. Where a semi-automatic 22 pistol is not considered an "assault weapon" for the purposes of scaring people.
Robyn Anderson: guns were purchased illegally, just as you say.
Jesse E Holmes was neither a teenager nor a school shooter; your question was to show that teens shooting up a school bought their weapons legally.
Lanza did not buy his guns; his use of them was illegal.
Dalton Tyler was 21 - not a teenager nor a school shooter.
Not much reason to continue as you failed to even read the question, let alone answer it. Please try not to drift off onto another subject; stick to the one you started. Even if you can't prove your own claims.
As far as crap about not wanting an answer; it seems that it is the gun control nuts that don't want one. They insist that continuing down a failed road will yield different results this time - either a sign of low intelligence or a hidden agenda not connected with any solution. You pick.
I clearly stated:
" If guns are readily available to criminals, but not law abiding citizen's, then it follows that the criminal is obtaining firearms illegally; this commonly implies "the black market".
Do I need to draw a road map? You responded with:
"...Or stolen. Or obtained with false ID. Or bought legally in another state/country and brought in. ...".
How common, and how uninformed. Let me take you by the hand:
If something is stolen, then it is obtained "illegally".
If sonething is purchased with a false ID then it is obtained "illegally".
If something is purchased legally in another state or country, and you bring that someth.ing into a state or country that has banned that particular something, then you are in possession of something illegal.
Now, what did I say in my comment? I said "illegally." Consequently, there is no basis for your argument, which amounts to pure nonsense. I don't mean to tax your processes, but anytime an individual manipulates a legal channel for illicit purposes, they are essentially creating, and participating in a "black market", whether the seller knows it or not. For instance, when alcohol is purchased legally, and then sold illegally, it is considered to be a "black market".
The proof I offered is irrefutable.The age of the shooters is irrelevant. 3 out of the 4 guns that the Columbine shooters (teenagers) used were purchased legally, as I stated. Furthermore you clearly don't understand the question I originally asked. My question was as follows:
"Please wilderness, show us the facts, figures, and graphs that explain how every teenage school shooter would have still gotten their weapons on the black market; in spite of a complete ban on assault rifles."
Instead of giving an answer, you predictably followed with a question:
" Please, Mr. Wrench, show that the kids that did the school shootings had legally purchased and owned the guns they used. What's that? You can't?"
In your last response you stated: " ... your question was to show that teens shooting up a school bought their weapons legally."
Oh contrare! That was "your" question, not mine, as the record reveals. You have just demonstrated that you clearly don't know who said what!
You are the one who consistently evades a direct question. In fact, you have still not answered my original question. And I am confident that you won't. Anyone who has even a small amount of common sense knows that the more hurdles, and the more obstacles you place in someone's path, the more difficult it becomes for them to achieve a particular goal.To be an apologist for greedy and heartless gun merchants, is remarkable indeedHow odd! There seems to be a real reading comprehension problem here (plus one for typing as well).
" If guns are readily available to criminals, but not law abiding citizen's, then it follows that the criminal is obtaining firearms illegally; this commonly implies "the black market".
While I do see the term "black market", there is nowhere in that quote where the term "illegal" is used. Just "black market", which while it is illegal, it is only a small part of illegal transactions. Try again?
"The age of the shooters is irrelevant." You're right - it is irrefutable (if the source is accepted, anyway). But as your memory seems strangely porous, allow me to quote you: "Please wilderness, show us the facts, figures, and graphs that explain how every teenage school shooter would have still gotten their weapons on the black market;" You completely failed to address your own statement, now didn't you? As a matter of fact, NONE of those "teenage school shooters" legally purchased and owned the weapon they used: it seems obvious that to pass laws to keep guns from someone else in the hopes of preventing such murders is doomed to failure.
Yes, I get that you wish to pretend that if guns aren't easily available then the murders will stop or at least be reduced. It isn't true (and if you cared to educate yourself on the matter you would know that), but you DO seem to require the pretense for some reason. It's remarkable, and I am at a loss to understand why - perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the insinuations and outright lies that taking guns (or making them hard to get) will reduce the murder rate?
Sure, wait right there while I finish explaining the difference between consonance and dissonance in triadic harmony to the armadillo in my front yard. I'll be right back.Wilderness: Please prove that in America, that a reduction in guns does not cause a reduction in crimes committed using guns You can give statistics from other countries, but you can't give them here, because it has never been done. The reason it has never been done here, is because the gun advocate's mentally: is unless it is 100% reduction, It is useless to even try. It's an all or nothing mentality.
I know you are going to say the 1994 to 2004 ban on assault weapons was not effective. Here is what Fact check says about it. It was a mixed bag on both sides, because both sides cherry picked their data points.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-th … -ban-work/Sorry, that's not true either. From you own link, "Conversely, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced a bill to institute a new ban on assault weapons, claimed the 1994 ban “was effective at reducing crime.” That’s not correct either. The study concluded that “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.”
Also from your link: "Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.” But the studies cited by LaPierre concluded that effects of the ban were “still unfolding” when it expired in 2004 and that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence.”
Calling a law "still unfolding" for 10 years while ignoring all other efforts to curb violence is unconscionable. Half that period is plenty of time to see if a law is effective. LaPierre's statement is quite true, that the “ban had no impact on lowering crime.”
But then your link "proving" that taking guns reduces the homicide rate concludes that "Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined.", which of course has nothing whatsoever to do with the overall homicide rate - it is nothing more than another effort by control advocates to hide the truth beneath a blanket of irrelevant claims.
Indeed, Koper, in a definitive study of the results (still from your link) says "Therefore, we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence." (notice that again he still fails to address murder rates in general, sticking to "gun homicides" as if the dead care what weapon was used.
Bottom line for your "proof": Only Feinstein claimed that violence decreased. Everyone else concluded that even gun violence decreases (if any) could not be tied to the ban. So much for proving that taking guns reduces the murder rate. Try again.
But beyond that, assault guns have been banned in the US for far longer than 1994. Buying or owning an automatic "assault weapon" has been extremely difficult in this country for a long time.
As far as US studies: our own MyEsoteric has done a study of just that, and found that there is no statistical correlation between the number of guns in the country and murder rates. His estimate is that some 211 lives per year could be saved with a total ban on guns - all suicides by gun.
So the work has been done - you just don't want to see it. Don't want to hear about it, preferring your own flawed logic to actual historical evidence.Re-reading your post, I caught that you are still harping on gun crimes. I have consistently stated that reducing guns will reduce gun homicides, but that the overall homicide rate from all causes will not go down at all.
Can we quit with the transparent effort to claim that reducing guns will save lives because killers will have to use something besides a gun, please?Just heard a guy with a knife killed two, injured one. If someone had a gun in the beginning maybe only one life would have be taken. So, from this example: a gun saved two lives. I don't care about the attackers' life. See A Primate, math, I can use math and science too!
Your key word here is "maybe." Your math is based on your supposition, not fact.
And all the other so called facts here aren't cherry picked, changed and passed as facts??
The first part of my post is fact. The last part, I even said was en example.It was the gov. that caused all the confusion about true assault vs. semiautomatics.
The ban defined the term "semiautomatic assault weapon," which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round (cartridge or bullet) with each trigger pull.
Actual assault weapons are controlled by other laws. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde … 642AA1yRuX
Contrary to popular belief, fully automatic weapons are NOT illegal. They are however HIGHLY regulated. Full auto weapons have been regulated with three different pieces of legislation. The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the federal government (BATFE). Add now the current additional restrictions A M-16 costs ~$10,000 to $13,000
In order to legally own one, you must first find one that you wish to buy. For it to be legal, it must have been made and registered with the BATFE prior to 19 May 1986. These are what are known as transferrable NFA or Class III items.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A … eapons_Ban
The ten-year ban was passed by the U.S. Congress on September 13, 1994, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, per its sunset provision.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), formally titled the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."
There is much more listed on the site.
"Please wilderness, show us the facts, figures, and graphs that explain how every teenage school shooter would have still gotten their weapons on the black market; in spite of a complete ban on assault rifles."
The weapons used where not assault rifles. If they were indeed mostly from the black market some could have been easily converted to assault rifles and sold that way. If they were bought legally then they still wouldn't be assault rifles unless someone converted them to such. Since most were bought legally then I would say there was no assault rifles used. Correct me if I am wrong about this. I doubt if any of the pistols where assault weapons either. Bottom line is a ban on assault rifles seems to not apply.
Disarming the populace is always the goal of tyrants e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Obama, etc.
We must always have available to us firearms comparable to what is the sidearm of local law enforcement and Army Infantrymen as those are who we will have to defend ourselves against. Not only them but jackbooted BATF-thugs, Homeland Security and other obamanite storm-troopers.
FYI - Kenyan-born Obama is using the stolen Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425obama has confiscated zero guns. you are more of a tyrant than he is.
Let's face facts everyone, sane rational people know that you CAN NOT outlaw the act of self defense by gun or by pen. If the PC police don't like that well just hit the delete key and move on to other fantasy dreams.
While I personally dislike guns and cannot see myself spending the grossly excessive amount it would take to purchase one...the right of self-defense is a valid human right under constitutional and international law. We have the right to arm ourselves in order to exercise this right, in whatever way is most convenient for us--"arms" does not necessarily mean just guns or rifles after all. So yes, the Second Amendment is still relevant.
Mathew, your opening sentence, upon which the rest of your Hub is false. Asking for sensible gun control supplements and not attacks the 2nd Amendment. Do you honestly believe that stopping people an terrorist watchlists is "attacking the 2nd Amendment". What has happened is your side has cried "the sky is falling" so often, no one but yourselves believe you. And if there was the extremely low probability event that the 2A actually did come under serious attack by far-Left idiots who have political clout, then when you claim an actual truth; everybody will keep on thinking you are simply crying wolf again.
I also disagree with Peoplepower's implication when he writes "The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place." In other conversations buried deep in the on-going rhetoric, he explains what is outdated is the idea that the militia has any real meaning any more; with that I agree, but not the implied meaning that the entire 2A is passee; it isn't.OK, I looked and left a message and also found out you are not a statistician. The only three assertions you made that were unique was 1) about the SB shooting which was wrong as to number and nationality, 2) about CA's relatively strict gun controls not leading to lower homicide by firearm rates; it actual does help for California, and 3) your statistics trying to show Democratic states have the most mass shootings; I pointed out your numbers have no meaning because they weren't presented as a rate of mass shootings per some standard number of population. Until you that, you can't compare diddly; statistics 101.
this gives rates, and shows that there are relatively more gun deaths in states with lax laws. i hope it adds to your conversation.
http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/t … ws-images/If the goal is to force those who would kill to change their weapon of choice (without reducing the number of dead) this could be valuable.
If it is to save lives by stopping/limiting the killing from all means it is yet another red herring. Another "reason" (excuse) to limit gun ownership in return for...nothing at all. Or maybe to quieten the masses until the next mass murder, whereupon it can start all over again.if they have to find a weapon and that weapon is less efficient at killing, maybe they won't succeed or won't act in the heat of the moment.
What you are suggesting is too deep for gun proponents to grasp. Just like Archie Bunker, they live in a black and white world. Are such men ignorant, evil, or simply misguided? And can we truly separate one from the other? These are profund questions that have yet to be answered.Oh, it can be grasped all right. It's just not true - something the gun haters don't seem able to grasp even when it is proven with hard numbers. And no, they're not ignorant (not after being shown), they aren't evil and they aren't misguided (after being shown). They just don't care enough to actually examine the proof, preferring to believe what they want to be true.
But you don't seem to fit that category - did you ever look at the history of gun ownership vs homicide rates? Did you ever do the research? Did you ever actually try to find out if it is a lie?
Or are you still one of the ignorant, refusing to look because you won't like the inevitable conclusion?
Oh! yes indeed. I have looked, and I have studied, and I have pondered. There is both good data and bad data. There are statistics available to suit every perspective. Consequently, an individual must ultimately rely on common sense and morality in order to sort through this minefield of fact, opinion, and half-truths
And that is where the disconnect for many gun proponents occurs. With hairy knuckles and hairy backs, they go plodding along with their "statistics" and "proofs". Like raging Neanderthal they champion facts and figures that are supposed to somehow blind us to the reality that the bodies of dead men, women, and children are strewn about us, behind us, and on the front pages of tomorrows breaking news.
They have demonstrated very little common sense, but only a feeble sense of morality that can be likened to a pack of ravenous wolves , or a pride of hungry lions. And if need be, they will even devour their own in order to suit their evil intention. For over 500 years evil has reigned supreme upon this continent, but those days are coming to a frightful end. And the progeny of vipers will soon slither away upon their bloated bellies into a bottomless pit, never to be seen again. And that is well with me.Jees' wrench ,are you slipping ,don't forget to blame Columbus . That "syphilis spreading "...........blah blah blah
Give him time! His Dr. Jekyll side has to be overcome by his evil Mr. Hyde personality.
Then, out come the fists.
For sure! The "common sense" that says the "morality" of removing rights and freedoms from some for no more reason than you can is right and proper. It works pretty well for those with an ego bigger than the world, not so well for those on the receiving end of that "common sense". Whether the gun owner or the murder victim, it just doesn't seem quite the same to them.
And maybe they will. Few people just happen to carry an "assault gun" around town with them - acts such as we are seeing are not "spur of the moment".
In any case, studies show that the number of guns in a society has nothing to do with the homicide rate in that society. Just the number of homicides carried out by guns. In other words, experience through the world (and in the US) shows that if we take the guns away killers will simply use different weapons - the number of dead does not change.
Which is why your link above is worthless in trying to save lives.ask and you will receive.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ … -homicidesThere very first thing in your link, the headline:
More guns mean more gun murders. Here's how we know.
See that little bolded word? No one there is talking about homicide rates, just a subset of them. No one wants to talk about what happens when we take guns from killers, just that killers can no longer use guns to kill with.
Valuable information, no doubt, if you think the dead care what tool was used to kill them with, but other than that of no real value.
From my post: "In any case, studies show that the number of guns in a society has nothing to do with the homicide rate in that society." Notice there is no mention of gun homicide rates, just the overall homicide rate.
So...try again? Using total homicides rather than a small subset? A subset that is (as I've often said) a no brainer as to the conclusion but which tells us nothing about actually saving lives?read the WHOLE article. it talks about a decrease in overall homicides in areas of the US with stricter gun laws when things like socioeconomic status are accounted for.
I did. It produces a graph showing that the homicide rate does not change with the number of guns; that there is no correlation between the two. It goes on a bit and then suddenly produces another headline:
"When you control for other factors, more guns really do mean more gun homicides"
Quotes from the rest of the article:
"So with studies on gun ownership and gun violence, researchers go through great efforts to control for all sorts of variables"
"This is why, for example, Vox's charts look at the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence..."
"Here's one chart, from a 2007 study by Harvard School of Public Health researchers, showing the correlation between statewide firearm homicide victimization rates and household gun ownership..."
"After controlling for multiple variables, the study found that a 1 percent increase in gun ownership correlated with a roughly 0.9 percent rise in the firearm homicide rate at the state level."
"Multiple reviews of the research, including the Harvard Injury Control Research Center's aggregation of the evidence, have consistently found a correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths "
"This is why so many lawmakers, including President Barack Obama in recent remarks, have gone out of their way to say that gun control would make gun violence more rare, but not totally end it"
"And in fact, no single policy could stop all gun crime"
The final conclusion: "So it might not stop every incident like the San Bernardino shooting, but the research is fairly unequivocal in demonstrating that reducing access to guns — and reducing the number of guns — would reduce gun violence in America."
And the headline for card2 (unread): "Gun crime is more prevalent in the US than in other rich countries"
Indeed, only one small section dealt with the homicide rate in general: a blurb from David Hemenway (who also goes on and on about gun violence). This is what one reviewer had to say about Hemenway's book:
"The Freeman published a negative review by Timothy J. Wheeler, stating that the book "embodies the institutional prejudices of a cohort of academics notable for their abiding predisposition for state control over individuals". Wheeler wrote that "a mounting body of criminology research" contradicted the book's arguments. He also argued that the author has "blinding bias" that "colors his science, his reading of history, and ultimately his credibility as a scientist."[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_G … lic_Health
It should also be noted that suicides are central to Hemenway's comments, and that suicide by gun rates are actually higher than gun homicide rates. This will, of course, change the entire picture, but I'm not sure we want to go there. It is a whole different discussion as to whether the rights and freedoms of millions of citizens could or should be curtailed to protect a small handful from themselves.
So I still have to ask; just how critical were you when you read the article? Did you catch that it is almost completely about gun violence, or did you gloss over that little fact? This is an extremely common technique used by gun detractors: to start out talking about homicide and murder but then suddenly switch to gun homicides in the hope that the listener did not catch the switch in topic. It appears that you fell into that trap.
Your political view is not as popular as the news may be desperately try to make it. Making victims is never the answer. History has shown, when you ban anything it just creates a black market. Guns and weapons will never leave as long as we can make them, if you think otherwise you are delusional.
You just exposed a major faux pax of the proponents of death, destruction, and cheesy Lee Greenwood songs. I quote, "...Guns and weapons will never leave as long as we can make them ..." An intelligent person can easily see the way out of that dilemma. It took over 4,000 years for the simian to realize that asbestos was killing people, thus a major ban on the material in 1989. It can only be used today if it accounts for less than 1% of a product, and regulations are very strict. It doesn't take a genius to realize that guns need to be dealt with in the same fashion.
And as far as all of the would-be revolutionaries are concerned; those who plan on standing their ground against a rogue police force, and the most well equipped army in the world with their Cracker Jack Billy Bob arsenals; the same ":elite" force that offers lame apologies for the senseless murder of 6 and 7 year old school children, I can only say that God made a woman.
Any man who would find a killing machine more interesting, more appealing , and more worthy of defending than the honor , the dignity, and the life of a woman, is most definitely mentally ill. The rape and sexual violence against women has been epidemic in America since the miscreant Columbus contaminated these shores. I have yet to see a thread this long on Hubpages concerned about the protection of women. For many here, the protection of the Second Amendment is more important than the honor of a woman. And so behold, the true heart of America is once again revealed, not by my words, but through the apologies of the American Patriot. Osiyo!"It doesn't take a genius to realize that guns need to be dealt with in the same fashion. "
It also doesn't take a genius to know that asbestos actually causes death to people, while guns do not. Asbestos fibers, innocently floating through the air, will cause asbestosis and cancer in people; guns, innocently walking down the street, have never killed or even harmed a single person. Nor has one ever raped a woman, for that matter, although what rape and gun control have in common is beyond the imagination. Yet another irrelevant ploy to raise emotions, I presume?Oh how wrong your analogy is. The analogous statement is "asbestos fibers don't hurt/kill people, it is the people who put asbestos fibers into the air that hurt/kill people". So, using your same logic, asbestos fibers should not be controlled; which of course is nonsense. It is the people who are likely to misuse asbestos who should be barred from possessing it. But if the gov't attempts to do that, then it is a slippery slope, according to your logic, until the gov't takes away asbestos from everybody, including those you use it safely.
Now, substitute the word gun (or use guns) everywhere I used asbestos and asbestos fibers and you get the same ridiculous argument made by the paranoid part of the gun lobby.What?? I don't breath in guns or accidentally ingest guns. But can with asbestos in certain jobs and locations. What a ridicules comparison. Any gun I have is safe as long as it is used right and is made right. The libs have tried this tactic already. As long as the gun works in a safe manner and is not shabbily built there is little Mrs Clinton and regime can do about it.
And yet...asbestos, properly applied, can remain in place for decades. Until disturbed, perhaps by mice, wind, earthquake or other natural events. Whereupon asbestos, all by itself, floats through the air and causes harm.
Haven't ever heard of a gun doing that. Properly stored (or improperly stored) a gun will never kill anyone by itself. It takes a human hand to do that; an intelligence to use the gun as a tool to kill with.
We limit asbestos use because it does come free of it's intended use and then causes harm. Plus during manufacture, or course. Guns do neither. Asbestos does not need an intelligence to use it to cause harm; guns do. I trust you now see the difference.
good working for you i like it your working
i am a liar you’re HD song”
http://fronzilla.com/i-am-a-liar-youre-hd-song/I think they are big coward that why they scare from other. This is cheapest act of them
I think you're a fool if you truly think the common man should not be armed.
Amen, Glory hallelujah, I agree. There should be a place where guns are not allowed to test his theory. Wait! I think there is a place! Chicago. How is that working?
Ask Paris how they feel about banning guns. What an insensitive post.
Did you bother to check and see when this hub posted? 2 months before the Paris event!
What is your position? For or against the 2nd? Change or eliminate the 2nd. Leave alone?
The biggest flaw in your argument is when you state that guns "cause" the mentally ill to commit violence. That is a correlative argument, not a causal one.
That's like saying that worms grow carrots. Worms are in the ground, carrots are in the ground. Therefore worms grow carrots. Of course we know that is simply not the case. Worms may contribute to the growth of carrots, but they themselves do not cause them to grow.
Furthermore, you specifically state two things. One is that mentally ill perpetrate mass shootings. Why aren't we having a conversation about mental health then? That's a causal argument. Not all mentally ill commit mass shootings, but all mass shootings were caused by mentally ill in one way or another.
And second, you also say that you never know when a mentally ill person will kill. That's the whole point of being able to protect yourself. The government can pass whatever laws it wants, but there's always going to be things and people that slip through the cracks and the police can't be everywhere at once. When it comes down to it, no one else is responsible for your protection other than yourself and you never know when you may need to.
On a very fundamental level your argument is weak and irrelevant."Why aren't we having a conversation about mental health then?"
Because the goal, as clearly stated by the OP, is to prevent gun violence. Not violence, but specifically gun violence. As the only method of accomplishing this is to remove guns from society, that is what is addressed. Mental illness becomes irrelevant, as does the violence it might cause; only gun violence matters. Even the accepted fact that killers will simply change their weapon if a specific one is denied them becomes irrelevant in the urge to reduce gun deaths - that mental illness is one cause behind violence is set aside in the race to get guns out of the hands of the citizenry.
"My goal is to reduce deaths caused by guns, not the whole universe of discourse."
http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1328 … ost2785590Hmm fair enough. Let me try looking at things from that point of view.
What about with the issue of heterosexual rape on college campuses? That's more specific than just rape in general. So I propose the restriction that men and women do not attend the same colleges anymore. That will end rape on college campus, not rape in general but that doesn't matter as long as college campus rape is reduced.
Almost 11,000 people die every year in drunk driving. If we remove alcohol from the equation entirely, then we will never have drunk driving crashes. Even the accepted fact that people will simply change their method of intoxication (happened during Prohibition right?) becomes irrelevant in the urge to reduce drunk driving deaths.
See how those solutions make zero sense and restrict civil liberties unnecessarily? Those types of narrow solutions don't make sense with those social issues, so why does it make sense when you swap rape, or drunk driving with guns?
You admit that people will still kill each other without guns. So why does it make more sense to reduce gun deaths and increase other methods of death?
Do you mean to imply that other forms of violence don't matter as much as gun deaths do as long as gun deaths are reduced?
Wouldn't there be a chance that we would see better results in the long term if people learned not to not act on violent impulses? You know, like how we teach people that rape is bad, no means no etc. We don't keep men and women separate to prevent rape, we teach men (and women) that acting on those impulses is wrong and we punish those who actually commit the crimes with their penises.
So why is removing guns from society the answer to making society less violent?
It isn't.
Your solution would prevent gun deaths if—and only if—every single gun in the country was gone. It would do nothing to address the cause of gun violence which is the desire to cause violence.
Without the desire to cause violence, then there is no gun violence.You are correct in everything you say here.
So why such a silly goal? The only reason I can think of is because the actual goal - to disarm the population - is not popular enough at this time and an excuse to do it must be fabricated. As long as no one looks very hard at that goal, as you did, it sounds quite reasonable and does indeed give an excuse for disarmament.
Paranoia is considered a mental illness.Why on Earth do you think the government would want to disarm the people. Apparently you and your buddies out in Idaho feel that you are a real threat to Uncle Sam. Ever hear of Don Quixote? Gomer Pyle? This is the year 2015; not 1776.
Where is your proof that the government wants to disarm the populace? Where is the proof that the U.S. government considers the Sons of the Pioneers, a bunch of pot bellied old men with antiquated weaponry, and the "New Idaho Insurgents" a threat to the status quo? Neither is the government worried about the drug gangs. The drug merchants care about money, not political ideology. They aren't going to invade the suburbs and kill off their primary consumer base. Nor are they going to challenge the government and draw unnecessary heat that would most certainly affect their bottom line. That's called suicide, and it ain't going to happen.
And so, the governments not worried about organized crime at any level. As long as everybody's getting paid, everybody's gonna play close to the rules. Last but not least, the governments not worried about able bodied young men between the ages of 18 and 25. Many of them are more concerned about paying for college, buying a new house, feeding babies, and retirement, than biting the hand that feeds them. All of this is elementary. So what are you so afraid of? We all have to get old.I'm afraid of the slow (or not so slow) chipping away at the freedoms we have left. As you should be - an over-controlling government is not a pretty sight.
While I recognize that many people want and even need a daddy to care for them and watch over them, that road leads inevitably to stagnation, failure and slavery. Not my desired future.You speak of the future as if you are going to be here to see it. How long do you plan on living? The average life expectancy in the U.S. is 78.74 years. Based on that figure, anyone over the age of 65 doesn't have much to worry about as far as the future is concerned. Furthermore, you still maintain that you can preserve your freedom with the guns you bought at Walmart. Good luck! I would pick out a headstone first.
Again unlike some, I like to think I will leave behind a more pleasant world for my children and grandchildren. They matter to me.
@wilderness, I thought you were arguing against me, i see now that you were just pointing out the ridiculousness of the notion of a gun ban. My bad! But thank you! Needed to get that out of my system.
LOL I kind of got that, but figured you would sort it out. You did.
As for, "where is my proof that they want to take our guns away" here it is:
Diane Feinstein (D-CA) saying that if she could have gotten the votes for an outright ban on all guns...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY
Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) saying that banning "assault" weapons is just the beginning, wants a handgun ban to pass...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVz2lHODQvs
Rep Donald Payne Jr (D-NJ) proposed a federal buyback for guns with 22 co-sponsors...
http://thehill.com/regulation/263632-de … your-guns#
Hilary Clinton said that an "Australia-like buyback program is worth considering."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hil … 6a900c5d67
I can go on if you want more proof of course.That's not the proof I was looking for. What you have listed is clearly in the public domain. My question was directed at the notion that the government needs to disarm the populace in order to enforce tyrannical rule. wilderness lives in Idaho where there are many paranoid white supremacist and survivalist groups who have been building arsenals and preparing for over 30 years for a showdown with the U.S. government.
They actually believe they can defend themselves against the most well equipped and well trained military in the world. At the very least it is pathetic, and at the very worst, such violent groups are a greater threat to the American people than Muslim extremists. No, they cannot overthrow the U.S. government, but they have the potential to kill a lot of innocent people in the process.Do you think all the weapons the Krouts used in WWII where made by them? Dunkirk left a huge amount of Brit weaponary. The African Kasserine Pass boondoggle gave them another huge cache.
You think all those in the military are going to let the regime slaughter their countrymen without revolting and bring a large part of armament with them?
Who do you think is going to came forward and tell all about the regimes plans? They will end up like so many others have. This is all conspiracy talk at this point. Bengazie ring a bell?Krauts? You
know, I did not think that people in this day and age would refer to the German people in just this way. Are you a time traveler from the
1940's?
Where did you say you were from?
Maybe the sixties, I remember the ABC program 'Combat", where that derisive term was in every other sentence of dialogue.I like history and War movies. I am from the 60's! Graduated high school 65 drafted 67.
Common words in the movies. Nips or Japs .Gooks during Korea. Dinks in Vietnam.
Ruskies for Russians.
I am from Obama flyover country those that cling to their God, constitution and guns.
Just out side of Toledo Ohio. Of Joe the Plumber fame.I like history and war movies too, While I am just a few years younger, maybe its just me, but I think that using the terms in Jap, Krauts and Gooks and such in polite public discourse is not cool, and constitutes a slur, but again, that is just me. I only can imagine what terms you use when not in the public scrutiny of hub pages. Coarse manners is not something that you want to associated with your point of origin.
Has any of those whacko groups ever gone on a rampage, indiscriminately killing people?
No? Then what's the problem? Just that there is a potential there? If we take rights from anyone with a potential to harm others every single person in the country would be behind bars.
But beyond that, and far more important, is the justice concept we operate under; that of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Neither suspicion nor potential is sufficient reason to act against anyone at all, or to remove any of their rights.Son-of-a-gun, Wilderness, I agree with most of what you say on this one.
Granted, so long as any individual wacko isn't on a terrorist watch list, is not a criminal, not mentally ill, doesn't beat his wife, doesn't have any record of irresponsibility or reclaness with a gun, passes a background check, and takes a gun safety class then there is no reason that person shouldn't be denied the right to own a firearm.
Should the group be watched by authorities? Of course they should simply based on their anti-American, violent rhetoric. Because they are armed to the teeth and they openly threaten violence, they are by definition dangerous, however, which requires gov't surveillance of their activities.Not only watch them, but sue the crap out of them in civil court. That's how one clan way up north was cleared out - they got sued for something or other that they did to a private party and ended up losing the enclave they were living in. You could hear the cheers all over the state - those nut jobs give the whole state a bad name.
But I would point that apparently your "terrorist watch list" is the same thing - somebody, somewhere thinks there is a potential for harm, so can't fly, can't have a gun, etc. Not cool. Not cool at all that a single individual can take away constitutional rights without a trial and with almost zero possibility of any defense or recourse.
Here I have provided proof of one group in Idaho that has made itself visible. We can only imagine the number of those that have chosen to remain as invisible terrorist cells.
Here is what the "About" says on their website:
The Citadel will be a small planned community of 3,500 - 7,000 families of patriotic Americans who voluntarily choose to live together in accordance with Thomas Jefferson's ideal of Rightful Liberty: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
Here is the agreement or contract that must be agreed to in order to become a member of the community:
Citadel Patriot Agreement
Patriots: The following represents a voluntary set of conditions to which every single Patriot who accepts a residence in the Citadel must agree, in writing. This is a voluntary Agreement. The Citadel is a martial endeavor designed to protect Residents in times of peril (natural or man-made). The Citadel will be built as a fortified bastion of Liberty. The Citadel is not the best housing solution for everyone. Read carefully.
The purpose of this agreement is two-fold. Firstly, it informs all Residents of their obligations to their fellow Patriots. Secondly, this Agreement will assist individuals/families in making an informed decision to opt-out of residency in the Citadel Community in the event our lifestyle is incompatible with you and/or your family.
Preamble: We the People come together in this covenant of our free will and do pledge our Lives, our Fortunes and our Sacred Honor to defend one another and Jefferson's Rightful Liberty, defined as unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. We further affirm our intent to abide all Constitutional laws of the United States of America and our State of residence.
One: Once ratified, this list of conditions may only be altered by unanimous consent of all parties governed by this Agreement, i.e. full-time Residents. Full-time residency will be defined by a select panel of full-time Residents who will also establish guidelines for acceptable exceptions for absences.
Two: Every able-bodied Patriot aged 13 and older governed by this Agreement shall annually demonstrate proficiency with the rifle of his/her choice by hitting a man-sized steel target at 100 yards with open sights at the Citadel range. Each Resident shall have 10 shots and must hit the target at least 7 times.
Three: Every able-bodied Patriot aged 13 and older governed by this Agreement shall annually demonstrate proficiency with a handgun of choice by hitting a man-sized steel target at 25 yards with open sights at the Citadel range. Each Resident shall have 10 shots and must hit the target at least 7 times.
Four: Every able-bodied Patriot of age within the Citadel will maintain one AR15 variant in 5.56mm NATO, at least 5 magazines and 1,000 rounds of ammunition. The responsibility for maintaining functional arms and ammunition levels for every member of the household shall fall to the head of household. Every able-bodied Patriot will be responsible for maintaining a Tactical Go Bag or Muster Kit to satisfy the Minuteman concept. Details TBD and posted elsewhere.
Five: Every household within the Citadel will remain stocked with sufficient food, water, and other preparedness essentials (to be detailed elsewhere) to sustain the needs for every member of the household for a duration of one year.
Six: Every able-bodied Patriot aged 13 and older shall pass a class every three years sponsored by the Citadel on basic emergency medical care; the courses shall focus on battlefield and wilderness environments.
Seven: Every child attending Citadel schools — with parental discretion for maturity — shall have as part of every semester's class curriculum basic marksmanship and firearms safety training leading to the proficiency test on the child's 13th birthday as a "Coming of Age" rite of passage (a parent may attend the classes or personally train the child if so desired). Children attending schools beyond the Citadel, or home-schooled, are required to meet the same proficiency standards at age 13.
Eight: All Patriots, who are of age and are not legally restricted from bearing firearms, shall agree to remain armed with a loaded sidearm whenever visiting the Citadel Town Center. Firearm shall be on-the-person and under the control of the Resident, not merely stored in a vehicle.
Nine: Each household will provide ONE able-bodied Patriot (aged 13 or older) who shall muster one Saturday per month for Martial/Support Training for neighborhood-level training & musters, as set forth by the Militia Commanders of the Community. No single Patriot shall be required to muster more than once per quarter. In the course of every calendar year every able-bodied Patriot and every full-time resident in each household must participate in at least three musters (one neighborhood-level and two full-scale). Part-time residents must participate, in good faith, to the best of their ability.
Ten: Twice annually a full-scale Town Defense Drill will be held for all households and all residents (once in winter weather & once in summer weather).
Eleven: The Town Militia will hold an award/recognition ceremony on April 19th each year to celebrate Patriot's Day.
Twelve: Violations of this Agreement will result in review by an arbitration panel consisting of Citadel Residents with appropriate and proportional disciplinary action taken. The most severe disciplinary action may include the loss of Lease and expulsion from the community.
Thirteen: All Citadel Citizens agree to accept dispute resolution by an arbitration panel in the event a problem that cannot be resolved between residents.
Here we see a lot about guns and "patriots", but nothing about Jesus, Peace, or Love. We also see admiration for Thomas Jefferson: a slave-owner and a known pedophile. Got Milk?
Got Common Sense?We also don't see anything about killing other people, which WAS the topic, after all. Why did you bring this up again? Just didn't want to talk about actual reasons for taking guns and this makes a great diversion?
But I guess there has to be some good in everybody - as you say there wasn't anything about forcing belief in a make believe god or even trying to force the tenets onto the surrounding population.Just yell abadaba bakard or some similar crap that is supposed to mean God and you can kill anyone you please. Same with crashing airplanes into buildings or the sides of mountains
I am not a citizen of the U S A. But the right to bear arms is a right to protect oneself in a primitive society. If one wants to go back to the days of the old wild west then by all means have no gun control measure. However there is also an argument for the other side as well and both points of view should and must be taken in to consideration when drafting legislation. Most Gun crimes are committed using illegal weapons. There are all kinds of weapons being used to commit violent crimes. Some legal some not so legal. Draft legislation by all means but legislation that covers the use of all weapons to commit violent crimes.
Let's face facts people. The 1st amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to offend sensitive college students. The crybaby college student activists who think they are going to protect themselves from politically incorrect speech are wrong. They have to protect themselves from the mentally ill. The only problem is they don't know when a mentally ill person is going to say something really offensive. It's like testing to see if a match lights. It's after the fact. So the American public wants more free speech for everybody. Let's have a "shout fire in a crowded movie theater" kind of country, where it is say to say mean things that hurt people's feelings. How do you feel about it?
The second amendment was corrupted when specific categories of people were prohibited from owning guns. It doesn't make sense that someone who committed a crime which did not involve a gun is not allowed to own a gun. But that's the way it is. Muslim extremist groups are now a real threat to US citizens and gun laws need to be modified.
The 2nd amandment is 250 years in the making and it protects me from people like you. If you see somebody shooting at you get a gun!
Well said "People Power" bullets do not respect people and have the potential to hurt innocent bystanders whether legal or not. In a country where one can carry a gun in the open one can expect a lot of innocent people to be hurt and the gunfight at the OK Corral was back in the so called Wild west days. The QUESTION is does the majority of the American people want to live in a society where there is always a strong potential for violence and maybe an untimely end. Gun legislation should be a balanced one and not Dogmatic.
It is almost balanced. Evil has guns and the rest have a means to protect themselves. Except in those gun free zones. The balance you seem to imply results in the people have none and the crooks will get from someplace if theirs are taken.
I suggest we try stopping the abuse of the mentally ill instead of depriving ourselves of our rights.
http://www.freshquotes.org/im-feeling-t … es-images/I do not own a gun, probably never will - I am an x-convict. But I am for freedom to own and hold guns as a person wishes. It isn't the gun that is the problem - it is the people behind the gun. It isn't the car, that kills innocent people daily - it is the driver behind the wheel. Mass shootings don't happen everyday - but fatal accidents do - drunk drivers don't care. So what is your suggestion that we exert more control over everyone's car and make them install a breathalyzer? No this nation has abandon the mentally ill - legalize marijuana to free up billions of dollars that can be used (in addition to tax and licensing revenues used) to regain control over the mentally ill in this country. Gun owners have a right - drivers are only privileged - so let's pass a law that puts a breathalyzer in your car (you have no right to refute it) and it will stop the (daily) mass homicide of hundreds of innocent people in this country.
Nick ~ You are doing exactly what many republicans try to do which is "Conflate" two completely different issues to create confusion ~ I don't believe you are doing it on purpose as others do but nevertheless, it happens ~
One of the MAJOR differences is the FACT that Automobile Accidents are typically just that, an Accident, while Mass Shootings are Intentional Murder ~ BIG Significant Difference Right?
Computer Chips to alleviate or mitigate accidents are on the way thanks to our Unmatched Silicon Valley Geniuses, so have no fear, Automobile Accidents will indeed be a thing of the past very soon ~
So Now, how do we solve a completely seperate issue, the Severe Gun Violence Problem in America? ~ Do you agree with conservative republicans and the NRA position that we simply FLOOD the streets with even more GUNz, or do you agree with the Science of "Mathematical Certainties" which dictates a Reduction in Gunz will indeed result in a REDUCTION in Gun Violence and or Deaths ?? ~ Just Askin' ~Let me expand on "One of the MAJOR differences is the FACT that Automobile Accidents are typically just that, an Accident, while Mass Shootings are Intentional Murder ~ BIG Significant Difference Right?" a little bit by saying virtually EVERY death, where a firearm was the method, was Intentional; not just mass shootings. While, on the other hand, virtually EVERY death, where an automobile was the method, was NOT Intentional.
By making guns more available to those who will misuse them directly corresponds to more deaths where the gun is the method.Are you Muslim? Yes! Bang! in the leg. No! Bang! in the head. BLM about the same ideology!
One reason we need a weapon is to protect ourselves against such.
Hitler, Moe, Stalin, took 10's of millions of lives each just after taking their guns. Now, regime and other groups want to do same. One trigger is when they allow a foreign force in to control the populace or some scam about protecting us. Out came the weapons!
To protect from a rouge gov. or other force.
As stated many times on this hub: The first clause is permission given to the state to have militias. The second clause says said state can not infringe the right of the citizen to keep and bear. I don't give a rats that the militia is not as it used to be. The second clause still holds. No matter if there is a militia or similar or not. Get that into your thinking. And don't even try to twist it to a lib way of unthinking.
Computer chips are susceptible to solar flares and above ground electromagnetic pulse (EMP)s. I sure don't want to be on the road or in a plane when one of those bad boys hit!
Back to points and condenser for me. You can sit on your hands as the saying goes.
Final point is: if gun victim is a bad boy/girl trying to do an innocent person harm, then the more the merrier! Don't like this country, leave.
If you think the law is outdated.
Then get 2/3 of the Congress to agree with you. Then you will need 3/4 of the States to approve.
That is how it is done.First lets Outlaw Man.
Then Abortion
Then Cigarettes
Automobiles, planes, trains and planes.
Curious why you start with guns. There are bigger targets !My take on the second amendment is that it belongs to me and can not be taken away and that I have my guns (literally speaking) to ensure that does not change. The End
This is a subject that will rage on for many years to come and like most things in life, there are no easy answer. To an extent I see the reasoning in your side of the argument and it is true, criminals and some mentally ill people can and do use guns to commit horrendous acts and kill many innocent people and the easy answer would be to ban guns. The problem is, banning something and making it illegal does not make it disappear completely, it simply shifts who controls the market. The drug laws have had no effect on drug use or drug violence. The US spends upwards of $54 billion per year in the war against drugs and has not managed to eliminate drugs from the face of the earth. Alcohol prohibition back in the 30's did nothing to make alcohol go away. If the second amendment is as you say outdated and guns are banned from citizens in the US, do you believe the criminal element of the country will comply and the world will be safe? If there were more evidence supporting the belief that an all out ban could be effective, I would be more open to the idea. As for now, I am not comfortable with constitutional rights and freedoms being taken away from American citizens. I am a gun owner and as an American citizen have the right to own them. I am not a gun enthusiast nor a doomsayer keeping a stockpile to defend myself from an oppressive government. A few of the guns I own were originally purchased by my grandfather so I am a 3rd generation owner and they are a keepsake and reminder of some of the good times spent growing up in rural Minnesota and going hunting with my dad.
Very few issues in the world are simply black or white. Very few problems are ever solved with an all or nothing solution. Even fewer problems are solved by taking away the rights and freedoms of the people. Where does it stop? What if it were decided that freedom of speech is outdated? Depending on which party is in control at the time, the NRA that you seem to be against could very easily have your side of the argument censored. Maybe the right to a fair trial and due process is outdated as well and you could be arrested and imprisoned simply for voicing your opinion. If we start chipping away at the constitution with the belief that it is outdated we could very easily end up where we started.
Why is it that we need a background check to own a gun , But not to run for president ?
Because the People elect them. So, if the People want a crook to be their representative, that is the People's choice. If it is later found that they are a crook, then they can be recalled or even expelled by the Congress.
As it pertains to security clearances:
"Through the process of election and selection to a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate comes with it a certain public seal of access to information of a sensitive nature. (Few voters likely think about this when they vote, but it’s a key reason trustworthiness often plays a major role in politicking).
House members, beginning with the 104th Congress, do have to take a secrecy oath. Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence – the committee with oversight over intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA – have a separate oath, commensurate with their unique access to sensitive information. Again, these oaths take the way of a public pledge, vice the arduous security-clearance process, complete with SF86, undertaken by the average security-cleared professional."
Guns are not elected. Guns are dangerous by their very nature (because they are intended and built to kill). All, except the anti-gun safety crowd, think people who shouldn't have guns (you know the list already) shouldn't get them.
from https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/ … learances/The people elect a president, with some in opposition.
The people buy a gun with some in opposition.
Tell us again why the second needs a background check but not the first? Because the president swears an oath to be nice, but neither the gun nor the owner do? Would it help if each new owner swore on the bible not to shoot anyone? If the gun took an oath (include a certificate from the manufacturer that an oath was taken, perhaps)?It is just too bad Kenyan-born Bathhouse Barry didn't get a background check.
Let us begin our reformation in an orderly fashion and start with the First Amendment. Let us outlaw words, opinions, and all other manners of speaking which do not please leftists. That would be progress just the way misnamed progressive already love.
That has already started. Lerner said she is prepared to throw all her might behind those that speak the truth about Islam and other things.
The 1st is under attack as is the 2nd! What is next? They are already making it illegal to collect water from your property and no gardens. Lest you are labeled a terrorist. Then they can use that as an excuse to take your guns or jail you.The natural tendency of leftists is toward tyranny. How long before you will be called a bigot for turning down a homosexual advance?
What do you mean the natural tendency of leftists is toward tyranny? You are a bigot, but not for turning down homosexual advances. You are setting up these hypothetical situations and statements and making them sound like facts.
That dog don't hunt. It's called a false equivalence in propaganda terms. You are comparing amendments to things that you think please the left. That is not logical.
So , I thought , I'm going to find a picture of Obama holding a gun up , I mean , every president supports the gun owners rights , every president supports an outdoor sportsman .....right ?
I mean , EVERY president upholds the integrity of the constitution of the great United States ......................right ?
Ummmm, ......... right ?This is all I could find .
That is , until I found this .
ahorseback: Again, a false equivalence. You are comparing guns to nuclear weapons. They are not equivalent. If they were equivalent, the 2nd amendment would cover nuclear weapons as well as guns.
I totally, agree. If people want to stand on the 2nd Amendment, they should have to carry the guns that were used with the Amendment was written. Can you say musket?!
How ridicules. You haven't read what the states said have you? You know it was up to each individual state to come up with its own gun laws. And the second part of that amendment says the state shall not infringe on the citizen's right to keep and bear.
The states say the people are allowed the same weapons a rouge gov. or invading force would use.
I may have said this earlier in this huge thread, so forgive me. But the Founding Fathers did consider updating the Constitution every 25 years just for that reason...they knew the country would change, and it's needs and laws would have to change with it.
And the 2nd is still holding as per 2008. Why? Because it is what we the people from both parties want regardless of who is in power.
You libs want otherwise than get enough people to change their mind. Like, you aren't already trying that!The "other Party" who you say, Doug, support the 2A (not sure what 2008 has to do with it) ARE LIBs. So why do you contradict yourself in the space of two sentences?
Is it because you "cons" (pun intended) don't have a clue?http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right.
Your reading and comprehending skills have apparently failed you again. Libs are in both parties. Some libs evidently want the right to keep and bear. No "other" party was mentioned. You are apparently confusing otherwise with other party somehow. You are apparently stating it is libs that are for the 2nd. Maybe some are and certainly some are not.
I said people in both parties. Not all Dems are libs either. It is libs in the Dem party that want to take guns. Not all. There may be some in the Reps too that want to take guns??
Out of the few that are on this hub, 2 for sure want to take guns and maybe more??
They are both hard left libs. If this is a cross of what is out there than it appears that it is libs that are out for taking guns. The regime wants to take them too. They can't just do it until they brainwash enough of you. When is a politician lying? We know!
Jean: Thank you. That is one of the most sensible things I have read on this forum. All it takes is a little common sense to realize, the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the changes brought about by the technology of modern times. Our technology is changing and improving at such a rapid rate, it will have a profound effect on our laws, even into the future.
I feel you are correct 100%. It is the irresponsible, uncaring, unruly, and selfish people who are privileged to have money, good upbringing, but are socially deprived, bullied, and put down by parents or peers.
If we stick to the WORD....Love thy neighbor as you Love thyself...we must learn to LOVE again...
...show our kids Love
...show our neighbors
Love
...show ourselves.
LoveTed Cruz worked on matters applying to the NRA as a lawyer till 1998. Also helped with proceedings against Bill Clinton. No wonder the left hates him so much!
Take that gun haters! Go Cruz.Let's be honest and tell the ENTIRE Truth Doug ~ The Right Wing Nut Cases Despise Cruz as well, he's an "Equal Opportunity" CONservative, all denominations can't stand the guy ~
Moreover, Ted Cruz was Foreign Born in Canada which drives Republicans INSANE & Raises Legitimate "Eligibility" Questions ~ His father was also a Refugee from a Foreign Land called Cuba which drives Republicans even "INSANER" ~ Unlike Republicans, Progressive Democrats EMBRACE a Diverse Culture, it's Cruz's Radically Unlawful & Nut Case Ideas which drives Progressive Democrats AWAY from him ~His mom, like Obamas' mom, were U.S. citizens. Makes no diff. who daddy is.
At least Cruz Knows who his daddy is! Obama may??? DNA his ass and show and tell.
You are correct for a change. Both the evil Reps and the eviler Dems hate him as he is a constitutionalist. Power belongs to the people telling the gov what it can and cannot do. Not the other way around like today! Time we took back the country from the parties. Go Cruz and 2nd!Makes NO Difference WHO his "Daddy is", "Carpet BOMBER" Cruz was Foreign BORN in Canada while President Obama was BORN in Hawaii ~ BIG Difference ~
~ WHY do U think Ted looks the way he does, hangs out with Dirt-Pile Phil Robertson, and Hunts Geese wearin' his little dopey Hunting COSTUME lookin' like a cross between Elmer Fudd & DICK Nixon ?? ~ Believe me, YOU're gonna' LOVE Ted's Canadian "GUN Values" if a miracle happens and he wins ~
Who's Ur DADDY NOW Doug ?? ~
Of course we don't have any IDEA "Who's Obama's DADDY", cuz he's African American and that's just the way it GOES RIGHT Doug ?? ~ Is that what you're Insinuating ?? ~ That's just WRONG all the way around ~
It doesn't make any diff. because if it was the Kenyan, like all the lies said he wouldn't qualify.
That is, if the dad had to be a citizen.
What about Obama with that dorky kids bike helmet and bike? Throws a baseball like wimp!
Gotta be better than Hilary's or Sanders' gun grabbing values!
My daddy was a redneck from the hills of W. Verginny. And yours'. Gramps was a coal miner.
So she wouldn't blab the truth about his mommy and daddy being pinko commies just before election day.
It really isn't a matter of who his daddy was more than all the lies surrounding the issue. You do know Obama killed/had killed his white granny? poisoned her with mercury they did.
And I do have a good idea who his daddy was. That be Franklin Davis, Was planking her before she was 18. DNA will tell. The regime probably knows but went with the Kenyan lie to make things look good. Then the cover up was blown. There is suspicion of an earlier pregnancy. That being back when mom was back in the U.S. and still in high school.
MaCarthy-ism , hey I know , lets round up all the law abiding gun owners , put them on yet another list , and deport them .
Outdated huh , Social media , hence public opinions in such immature forms of naiveté are what is at stake in America . Think about this , once a concerned populace might write a letter to or make the call to the proper legislative office in government . today however , we have forums . Face book , Twitter , and ten thousand other points of opinionating dialogs , all of them pointing to one thing . Mass social medias allowing the perpetual "passing of notes in class " .
"We've come a long way baby " when it comes to voicing opinions of the average person . But one thing opinions can't do ; Thank God . Is affect the three branches of government required to change or adapt anything constitutional . You cannot do that nor I , nor all the voters in America obviously . Good luck however with the attempt. !ahorseback: I hate to come back to this, but here we go. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. The guns used then were flintlock muskets. Knowing that you are a gun collector, you probably have one. There was no way in god's green earth that the writers of that amendment could have looked 400 years into the future to say this is an evergreen document. It is one of the 10 rights of the bill of rights. However the other nine rights do not involve an ever changing technology and an evolving form of a militia.
If you read the other nine rights, they do not include anything of a form that is ever changing as a result of technology or military might. Therefore they will still be applicable into the future. The second amendment, not so much. That is what I mean by being outdated and being written for another time and another place. Some people want to treat it is as scripture from the bible. But it is subject to interpretation, just like scripture is. That is why it requires a Supreme Court ruling to interpret it. There is every form of interpretation out there. That in itself speaks to what a poorly written document it is for modern times. Here are all 10 rights. I challenge you to find anything in the other nine rights that includes an evolving technology and and an evolving military force.
First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition
Second Amendment [Right to Bear Arms]
Third Amendment [Quartering of Troops]
Fourth Amendment [Search and Seizure]
Fifth Amendment [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process]
Sixth Amendment [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel]
Seventh Amendment [Common Law Suits]
Eighth Amendment [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment]
Ninth Amendment [Non-Enumerated Rights]
Tenth Amendment [Rights Reserved to States or People]
Yes, we do have social media networking and it is as form of communications. The problem is the internet is both a blessing and a curse. It is in forums like this where anybody can find anything that want to support their side of the argument. It may be based on facts or it may be based on conspiracy theory, or aliens from outer space. It may be the truth and it may be lies, some will care; and some not so much.
The reality is we are living in the 21st century. I have found that conservatives by their very nature hate change. However, change is the only constant in the universe. The more technology advances, the more rapid the rate of change will be. Survival is based on how well a species or system can adapt to change. If you can't adapt, the system will reject you.
By the way, just because someone doesn't agree with your viewpoints, does not make them naive. I'm not trying to change any branch of government and never will. I'm just using common sense about the 2nd amendment. If you can't see that, so be it.What about Lois Lerner and Clinton threatening us about saying anything negative about Islam? The truth!!
There is also the effort to make news media equal time for the various views. Leftist and right.Wait. Let me see if I understand this.
The 2A was written when flintlocks were high tech. It does not limit arms to anything less that the latest, strongest weapon available at the time; it simply refers to "arms".
But now you want to limit that 2A to centuries old technology. Self protection is to be limited to technology when the amendment was penned into existence, under the guise that the writers did not forsee any improvements in weaponry and meant that the right to keep and bear arms applied only to centuries old technology even though it plainly refers to the highest technology of the time.
Is that your argument? Is that how you you come in the back door to limiting the 2A - by claiming that it is reasonable to require people to defend themselves with old, old technology as their attackers have the most modern thing they can lay their hands on? I would submit that if that were the case the 2A would have limited "arms" to clubs and, maybe, fire hardened spears.Wilderness: That's right, it applied to the highest technology of the time. A flintlock musket was a state of the art weapon not clubs and spears. How could it apply to anything else? They could only see up to a few years ahead. How far ahead can you see into the future about technology? By your argument, if they could see into the future, they could not only see modern firearms, but modern weapons, like airplanes, missiles, bombs and weapons of mass destruction that we have today. Why limit it to just what they called arms? What do you think arms were in 1791?
After the Constitution was ratified, there was a group of Anti-federalist that were concerned that the federal government would have too much power over the states and individuals. They were concerned about the following:
Deterring a tyrannical government;
Repelling invasion;
Suppressing insurrection;
Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
Participating in law enforcement;
Enabling the people to organize a militia system
They did not have the military that we have today, nor could they foresee it. That's why they needed a well regulated militia that fired flintlock muskets. How far into the future, do you think they were able to see? Just because they called firearms the generic term arms, does not mean they could see into the future as to what we call arms today for our military. What do you think arms were in 1791?
Therefore, if you want to abide by the 2nd amendment today, you are going to have to break out your muzzle loading flintlock musket..and make sure you keep your powder dry...just kidding. But it does make a point. Just because they used the word arms does not mean that they intended to apply to what we have today.
Here is some food for thought.
Arms in 1791
Let's look at arms – specifically, guns – as they existed at the time of the ratification.
Guns in 1791 WOULD
...be made by a gunsmith.
...have rudimentary rifling.
...be single-shot weapons.
...be loaded through the muzzle.
...fire by means of a flintlock.
Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)We agree - the 2A was intended to apply to the highest technology available and not that of hundreds of years in the past.
Why then do you wish to change it to technology 200 years old? That is neither indicated nor implied in the document; why would you assume that was the intent? Do you have a reason to think that everyone of the time thought things would never change, never improve? Did they think that the tech of the time would never become more deadly? Or did they believe that tech should be met with tech; that defense required similar tools (or better) of the attacker? Given that the arms of the day were used against native populations, it would seem the latter.
I'm sorry, but I can find nothing that would give credence to the idea that the writers of the 2A meant for future generations to be limited to the guns those writers were familiar with. Rather, it would seem that those people knew quite well guns would advance in deadliness and intentionally did not limit the right to ancient arms virtually useless in future times.
And truthfully, I don't think truly find any such indication, either. You just want to limit gun ownership as much as possible and this is one way to make it sound far, far better than it is. It's that "back door" to circumvent the intent and meaning of the 2A when a frontal assault is impossible; when the desired outcome does not agree with the constitutional rights guaranteed to all of us.I don't think peoplepower means that gun users should go back to using muskets. He's saying that the people of that time never imagined how sophisticated weapons would get in the future, or how violent the culture would become.
Look at Robert Oppenheimer, one of the scientists who made the first atomic bomb. When he saw the destruction it caused, he regretted the nuclear arms race. At the end of his life, he was very concerned about the danger to humanity arising from scientific discoveries. He banded together with Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and other scientists and academics to establish The World Academy of Arts and Science. He was afraid that it was getting harder to manage both the power of knowledge and scientific discovery when they were getting so politicized.
We don't have to go back to muskets, but no civilian person needs rounds and rounds of ammunition at their personal disposal. If you want to hunt, or need to have gun to make you feel safe (and that's understandable, in an increasingly unsafe world), you don't need an AK47 or any other gun made for warfare.By that reasoning, no civilian person needs a gun at all. Police will protect them and meat is available at the grocery store. It's a fine argument for taking all the guns but for one thing...the constitution has no mention of need (outside of what the government needs). Need is not a prerequisite for owning a gun.
There is also the matter of just what the writers knew. If they were concerned about limiting future weapons, finding them too fearful for the common citizen, it seems a little odd that they didn't do the same for the high tech of the day and limit "arms" to only those weapons from 200 years prior. Like PP and you wish to do, except it would be bows and arrows with a few spears thrown in. They did not do so, instead allowing the most advanced weaponry available at the time. Cannon, loaded with grapeshot or chain, maybe. Burning oil. We tend to look down on such weapons, but they were much worse than anything the common man can own today yet quite legal according to the constitution.
As far as the AK47; this is a civilian gun, most definitely NOT made for warfare. It falls under the new "assault weapon" definition, whereby anything that looks scary needs to be banned, but nothing more. And SCOTUS has already addressed that specific weapon, properly declaring it to be a common civilian weapon with none of the features common only to military weapons. The most common long gun in the country, for that matter.Wilderness: Two hundred years before the constitution, there was no 2nd amendment. That's not even an argument that they should have banned weapons from 200 years prior. I hate to tell you this my fellow gun lover, but the AK47 is a highly prized assault weapon designed and developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov. It is still used by many of the military's of the world. The AK stands for Automat Kalashnikov. It is also know be highly reliable and jam proof under many adverse battle field conditions. It is not intended for civilian use.
The" need" in the bill of right is implied. The reason you would exercise that right is because you have the "need" to do so.
I'm going to say this one more time. You and your fellow gun lovers are guaranteed to keep and bear arms. by virtue of the 2nd amendment. It would be a violation of the 2nd amendment to confiscate your guns. However, the future sale of high capacity assault type weapons could be banned. I and others understand and accept this more than you and your fellow gun loving people who live in fear of your guns being confiscated. I think you people are in denial, because once you accept that fact, your whole argument about gun confiscation comes crashing down like a house of cards.The founding fathers were doing the best they could to plan a way forward in a new country who just barely got out and away from England. I think they did a good job.
Civilians have AK47s, but they have no logical reason to have them. Mikhail Kalashnikov also came to regret his invention, he didn't mean for it to be used to kill innocent people, he made it for the military.
People can call the police if they are in fear of their lives. Although if the call is from someone in the "inner cities" they will probably be shot to death from the cops "in fear of their lives" by teenagers..I have a real issue with the amount of police brutality seen lately, and a personal story about it that I can't write about online, it's in court and involves someone I love.
I don't want to take away guns from everyone. But I don't want every nut on the street to be able to have access to weapons that can kill so many people so fast. That's the issue. 1st graders being mowed down in a minute, a whole class. My son is a 1st grade teacher, and would have been killed trying to protect his class, just like that brave woman did. People going out to a movie, and some crazed person is able to kill so many of them, so quickly, because the weapon he has access to is a military style weapon. Those kinds of weapons shouldn't be in the hands of civilians.
We all know how powerful the NRA is, and it's unlikely that anyone is going to have their guns taken away.I will argue that civilians have logical reason to have them.
The U.S. and Iraq and Afghanistan govs have all allowed the citizens to own an AK-47 or similar weapon for self defense from thugs in those countries.
The police are way too slow to come to your aid. In fact: Detroit and other law enforcement people have come out and said recently for concealed carry people to do so because of the slow times for them to show up. Same with a home protection weapon.
The states in this country in the 1800's said that the citizens are allowed have what a foreign invading force or rouge gov. would use. That being automatics, drones, shoulder fired weapons radio jamming equip. etc. PP and others are way off on this one.
Obama is hell bent on appointing a liberal judge. There is rumor that Antonin Scalia had a pillow over his head and no autopsy! Mr O's grandma died a couple weeks before his election in 2008 from what looked like mercury poisoning.I'm sure they will drag out the proceedings until after the Presidential election. Although I was not a fan of Scalia, I think it was tacky the news media was discussing who would replace him, not even 24 hours after he died. Couldn't they have kept that talk in a back room until the family had some time to handle his last affairs?
You commented:
"... As far as the AK47; this is a civilian gun, most definitely NOT made for warfare. It falls under the new "assault weapon" definition, whereby anything that looks scary needs to be banned, but nothing more..."
That's funny! The AK-47 has been the standard issue assault rifle of the Soviet Army since 1949. My advice: Read and Learn.And blunderbusses are likely used in parts of Africa and South America, too. Your point?
But my advice? Read and learn: the version used by the Russian military is a selective fire (that means full automatic or not, for those that don't read) weapon. NOT the AK47 widely available and used in America for sport.As the man in the video says: "I hope you enjoy the video and have a nice day." This is how you take an AR15 or AK47 from semiautomatic to fully automatic and with accuracy, not like a bump stock and it is fully legal.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … -easy-stepOne would have to doubt the accuracy OR the reliability of "bump shooting " . However as in All things regulatory , there are laws ! AND , The problem with law today is the amount of enforcement , prosecution , AND keeping up with technologies , language terminology and actual reality of alterations and the relationship between all of it and making them enforceable and prosecute able . Federal law says you can't own a fully "automatic ]"weapon , yet , how is that weapon Made "automatic " and is it , technically speaking,....... automatic ?
Bottom line , you have to be a lawyer to understand and prosecute law ,and most are not !
This has the same inherent problems as regulating illegal drugs ! All one has to do is alter one of the main ingredients of an illegal drug to render it un- prosecutable by the law . That's happening every day here "on the streets ". How and why should that be any different with guns?
What liberals have to do in America is determine the delicate political lines between the civil liberties that you ALWAYS so profess to love , and the regulatory aspect of laws and regulations that you are so determined to hate ! There cannot be a ONE pre-determined set of laws for ONE ideology and not the OTHER in America ! The left's problem is that they see only one edge of the sword that they so freely swing in ideological battle. As is so often the case with liberal ideology , they see only the immediate foreground and are blind to that which lies " down the road" . Perhaps a throw blanket of "double sided coin" laws and regulations for ONLY conservative gun owners ?You can own and operate fully auto's under very strict Fed guide lines. Depends also on your state's laws.
The M14 rifles that the Army trained with in basic training 1968 were semi-auto's. The only difference was that the part inside was changed so it only worked in the semi mode.
Our instructor stated that all you had to do was exchange this one part or file it down in one spot to convert it to full.
I don't know about converting the other brands. The AK-47 has many different versions.
Example: Chevy Nova. You could bolt a 4 cyl engine in or a six or an eight to the same bell housing.ahorseback: Excuse me. I am for regulations. I want the Glass Stegal act reinstated. Its removal caused our financial meltdown. You and your cohorts are the ones who keep complaining of big government and less regulation. You can't have it both ways. Talk about one edge of the sword! And you are swinging yours in one direction only.
That is confiscation of your guns. Which is never going to happen as long as the 2nd amendment is in place. But you and your gun loving buddies are in denial and will not accept that as fact. You always play the what if game that it could happen in the future. But on the one hand you believe in the steadfastness of the constitution, but in the other hand, you believe that any liberal administration is capable of violating the 2nd amendment and taking your guns away. Again, you can't have it both ways. I understand this and accept it totally, but you people are in denial because that is what keeps the game going. If you and yours accepted it, the whole idea behind gun confiscation comes crashing down like a house of cards.
Oh I know there are conspiracies a plenty out there and the fact of tyranny doesn't allow you to sleep at night, but rest easy my friend, I believe in our constitution and its ability to prevent any of that from happening.
In your first paragraph, it obviously is legal because it is a semi-automatic machine, It just shoots like an automatic one. According to the ATF, you have to shear the pin that prevents it from going into auto mode. Then it becomes illegal. So there is your law.
Peoplepower BUT , even in the unintended brilliance , the constitution allowed for an unfettered , untimed and unmitigated timelessness in its design . In THAT alone lies the beauty of it all . You don't either have to lay out the amendments of it nor "clarify " them or the meaning of them for me . I know enough to know that their is a party affiliation to the left that cloud self enlightenment , I'm sorry , but I also realize that you have to march in lockstep to keep your liberal credentials .
The flintlock musket WAS the offensive weapon "at the time " but , so was also the defensive weaponry . Today both are as advanced as possible to do either , offend or defend , there is the beauty of design of the second amendment . See where I'm going with this ; You cannot create a new vision of an old design as you may wish to .
Its simply not okay to throw out YOUR opinion based on a personal wish , yes we all wish there were no mass murders , we can all wish there was no identifying population of those who either neglect or outright ignore the common and all encompassing ,laws of the land . But there are and will always be those who ignore social law , justice , rules and regulations . JUST HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO CONTROL THEM ?.......answer that for me please .ahorseback: You are the one who criticized my interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I have given you and wilderness the rational behind my thinking. I can find as many people who believe my interpretation of it, that you can find that don't believe it. There in lies the problem. It is subject to interpretation even by Supreme Court Justices. None of the other amendments are subject to that much interpretation. Why, because it is about a tool and military that does not exist today. All the other amendments still apply today because none of the factors have changed.
The only way one can tell what the real intent was is to go back in time and interview the writers of that amendment. Since we can't do that I'm going to stick to my beliefs and you can stick to yours.About a tool you say? I say it is about an idea! No item was mentioned. Arms is a very broad area. It could mean a club, axe, sword or whatever one could carry and use as a weapon. It was left to the states to decide.
Are you denying that Lerner and Clinton did not try to limit our speech with threats?
Go back and listen to them right after the San B. murders when it was disclosed the shooters where Islamics. They found out they don't have that power, yet!
Glen Beck and others talk about their evil all the time. I bet Lerner and Clinton would have shut them down long time ago if they did have the power. Empty threats for now. There are other sleazy tactics they can try and have done. Like sic the IRS on them.
"It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. " LOL What? I promise you if there was no second amendment at all... Mentally ill people would still commit mass killings, because they are..... MENTALLY ILL. Not because they take time to read the second amendment, and go, well that makes sense, lets shoot some people.
JRAVITY1 : They don't take time to read the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment gives equal rights access to guns for everybody, including the mentally. If they didn't have that easy access, there wouldn't be as many mass killings by the mentally ill. The 2nd amendment gives everybody the right to bear arms including the mentally ill. You don't have to read a right in order to have it. The only time that a right has to be read is when it is violated. You don't even have to talk to have freedom of speech, but if you wanted to, that right is yours.
Ahh ! .....The usual uninformed opinion . Question # ATF , background check for firearm purchase . ............Have you ever been committed ........deemed mentally incompetent ...........or otherwise mentally deficient ......... And then the FBI call while you are waiting for approval for purchase .
Peoplepower why do you abuse the freedom of speech by implying that there are no restrictions ALREADY in place ? Doesn't lying bother you at all . This all really just takes away from any credibility of anti- gun , anti- constitution proponents . I expect this from younger inexperienced or more inexperienced citified people . but not from one who should know better than "pulling the wool over someone's eye's".ahorseback:
Here is the first amendment: Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Where in that text does it say anything about restrictions? In your zeal to bad mouth me, you missed the point entirely. If you don't exercise your bill of rights, you don't lose them. That's red neck logic. The good ole boys that open carry their AR15's think that if they don't show them in public, they will lose their rights to bear arms.
When in fact a person who never owned a gun and then decides to do so, does not lose their rights to own that gun. All 10 of the amendments work that way. If you never exercise any of the amendments, you don't lose your rights to exercise them at any time you wish to do so.
I'm not lying, but you are making it sound like I am. Talk about naivete!"When in fact a person who never owned a gun and then decides to do so, does not lose their rights to own that gun."
You're right; they haven't lost the right to own a gun (as of yet - total confiscation will happen). But to do so they must jump through interminable hoops, pay considerable more solely to placate irrational fears of gun haters, and limit themselves to the currently popular genre of "acceptable" guns. At least if they have not been placed by some faceless bureaucrat onto the "no fly list" (that, too, is coming and soon) or have had a cop or family member decide that they might, just maybe, possibly, have a mental problem of any kind (and live in California). Or have, say, a felony DUI on your record (which has nothing to do with gun violence or safety). Whereupon the right is lost and without the due process also guaranteed us.
As far as using a right - I read just yesterday that the US has sailed a warship, again, right up next to an island China claims. This has been a common occurrence for a long time (big in the news a while back) and has been explained as an exercise of maritime rights - fail to use them and we will lose them.
I am happy to see that Facebook and Instagram are banning sales of guns on their website for 'unlicensed' sellers in order to reduce the number of guns bought without background checks.
if the 2nd amendment is so outdated and irrelevant then why do people like you become so fixated with it?
I have an idea! Drugs like cocaine, heroin, and meth are all bad for your health lets ban them too! Because let face it, once it becomes illegal no one is going to do it and then it will all go away! Oh, wait.....that's not how it works at all.
I suggest we try stopping the abuse of the mentally ill instead of depriving ourselves of our rights. After all, we are sensible people.
In my experience, too many people are not sensible. That's why we need effective laws and not laws that have been stripped of any power by the NRA.
Protection from those who think us not sensible is what the Constitution Of The United States is designed to guarantee.
Protection from the non-sensible is what the Constitution is designed to guarantee.
Letting mentally ill people get access to guns is not sensible. No right is unlimited.
Balance is a core principle of the Constitution."Non sensible" in the Constitution is defined as those who usurp the rights of others, mentally ill or otherwise.. Hence the right to bare firearms.
My right to live supercedes your right to a gun.
What other rights does your right to live supersede? Cars kill more than guns daily. How many are killed by social disease?
Thank God it is the "Bill of Rights" in the Constitution and not the "Bill of What SpartaDigital Thinks People Need."
But let us ask this young lady what her answer to the question would be...
"Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them"
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/201 … -them.html
Make no mistake here... Sparta would much prefer to see this young lady be violated, and perhaps even killed, than to see her standing over the bodies of her would-be rapists with a smoking gun in her hand.what happened if she had a bat and he had a gun ? you can say all you want but you will see that in our life time guns will be have serious regulations in America or possibly banned
you can change the story to reflect your fantasy all you want but you really cannot deal with the reality of the situation, can you.
There is no doubt that you would rather see this young woman violated and dead on that path instead of defending herself with a firearm.
oh look Jack, another School shooting....
Actually way to go would be to take the baseball bat off them in the first place! Some European countries (like Norway) have gone that way!
Does it matter why he either needs or wants a gun? If so, why?
This is a good question. It really does not matter why someone wants a gun, as it is their right to own one. A better question is, why do you oppose, say, requiring testing and licensing to use a gun? Or, registration of all guns that is periodically renewed? Or, banning of guns that are clearly created for the sole purpose of gunning down people in mass numbers?
Because not a single one of those will accomplish a bit of good in your quest to keep innocent people from being harmed. It is akin to raising the price of gasoline to $10 a gallon in an effort to keep drunk drivers off the road. Or requiring every man to wear a pink star on his shirt to prevent women from being raped. Or forcing people to fly naked to avoid terrorists from smuggling weapons onto a plane.
That's why we keep trying to make safer cars. That's why we're trying to take driver error out of the equation. We're doing something about car deaths. What are we doing about mass shooting deaths?
Why do you say we.
All those who don't like living in a society they feel is so unsafe can relocate to a country (like France Australia) that has a no gun policy. They seem to have more problems with guns.
If you want no guns, then you must eliminate all methods to kill. No guns, then big Knives, then big rocks etc. Man will find a way to kill another.
Does anyone truly believe banning something eliminates it? Drugs are banned yet plentiful. Banning only shifts market control to the criminal element.
Such logic leads us to a bottomless pit. It follows that there is no need to ban rape and murder,or to make these crimes illegal, since we can clearly see that such crimes have continued for centuries.
The bottomless pit is comparing actions to objects. Nobody in this country has ever been given the right to rape and murder. We have been given the right to own guns and the government has the right to regulate how we use them. You can own an object without using it to violate someone or take away a life. My argument is not against protecting innocent victims. I simply believe we need to find solutions that don't snowball into a much worse problem. Prohibition may have seemed like a good solution at the time but it spawned more problems than it solved. Organized crime as we know it today came to power due to the good intentions of banning what was seen as a bad thing. Regulating the use of something rather than banning it keeps the government in a much better position to monitor and control it.
Don't be ridicules! All those other things would be a lot harder to use. Do you think a bunch of low life drugged out lazy thugs would use anything but the best, and easiest?
Teaching the populace is what we need as you said. How to use and be accountable for guns in their proper use. Mainly to protect from a rouge gov. or foreign force. Second, for personal defense against other bad people or animals.
What do you know about my personal history? Not that group pinko commie crap. I am an individual. I don't sheeple.I watched Obama's town hall meeting last night. The issue here is one of trust. Gun advocates don't trust Obama. The reasons are many. They include: Brainwashing by right wing propaganda being the biggest culprit. The idea of clarification and enforcement of existing laws will lead to complete gun confiscation is another one. The idea of him being the Antichrist and the leader of a New World Order is another one. The idea of tyranny is another one. I'm sure prejudice and racism also play a part. The irony here is they said his proposals do nothing that hasn't already been done. if that is the case, then what are they worried about? Nothing has changed.
However, when the man says, he is not going to touch the 2nd amendment and has no plans to confiscate your guns, the gun people still do not believe or trust him. When he says it's better to do something instead of nothing, the gun people believe that is code for gun confiscation. Even if he were to sign an affidavit, that says, if I confiscate your guns, I would go to jail, they still would not trust him.
The game they and the NRA play is to do nothing, then they win. In fact, the NRA was invited to this town hall meeting and never showed up. Again they did nothing. It's like saying let's not go outside ever again because, the sky may fall. So if we do nothing, we are protected from the eventual event of the sky falling.
The other game they play is that if we don't eliminate gun violence 100%, then why even try? That's like saying to the Wright brothers, if your airplane doesn't fly on the first attempt, don't even continue.
Bottom Line: Obama is evil and not to be trusted. Thank you NRA and right wing propaganda for screwing up this country all in the name of big business. That's right, every time Obama opens his mouth, gun sales go up. That's big business...and it's all based on not trusting him. How sad is that?Boy, you've really descended into the typical liberal propaganda, haven't you? Lets put some truth into this, shall we?
Yes, gun advocates distrust Obama. But brainwashing by the right isn't a part of it, although brainwashing is - your post shows how this happens. Nor is he considered the antichrist by any but a tiny handful - hardly indicative of the typical person. Tyranny probably plays a part - that's what happens when rights and freedoms are curtailed for no good reason, isn't it?
Doing something is only useful when the result is useful, but Obama has proposed nothing that stands any chance of that. Perhaps we should ban soft drinks and baseball caps, too - it would probably be at least as useful in preventing deaths as what Obama wants. And of course you conveniently leave out that severely limiting ownership is but the first step - While Obama and the rest of the fearful crowd wants (and aims) for far more, it is true enough that he has never proposed confiscation of all guns. Let's be real here, and not just talk about the immediate actions, but the long term goal and aims.
There is no game that freedom advocates play, requiring 100% elimination of gun violence...because they don't particularly care about gun violence - just violence in general and all of the gun limitations put together won't change that at all. Something we all know and understand, but the gun haters won't talk about. Bottom line here - find something that will actually save lives rather than just limiting the number of dead with bullet holes.
Why is it that the discussion never mentions actually saving lives, but only stopping people from being killed with a specific tool? Because it's only a red herring, designed and used to convince the ignorant that limiting gun ownership is a good thing while leaving unsaid that just as many will die from violence.
Is there no honesty in the gun haters at all? Why is that topic never broached, except to exclaim loudly and long that it WILL save lives even as all the experience and history points to the opposite? The only answer seems to be that reducing the death toll isn't the goal - reducing the number of guns is.Widerness: "Tyranny probably plays a part - that's what happens when rights and freedoms are curtailed for no good reason, isn't it?' - - What of your rights and freedoms have been curtailed for no good reason?
"Doing something is only useful when the result is useful, but Obama has proposed nothing that stands any chance of that." - - You are right, he can only propose, it's up to congress to pass laws, but if they have been bought off by the NRA, it is nothing more than a proposal. Since the outcome is nothing, what are you worried about?
"And of course you conveniently leave out that severely limiting ownership is but the first step - While Obama and the rest of the fearful crowd wants (and aims) for far more, it is true enough that he has never proposed confiscation of all guns. Let's be real here, and not just talk about the immediate actions, but the long term goal and aims." - - Thanks for making my point about gun advocates paranoia. The reality is there are no long term goals when you can't even get to first base. And that's the way and your kind like it.
"There is no game that freedom advocates play, requiring 100% elimination of gun violence...because they don't particularly care about gun violence - just violence in general and all of the gun limitations put together won't change that at all. Something we all know and understand, but the gun haters won't talk about. Bottom line here - find something that will actually save lives rather than just limiting the number of dead with bullet holes. - - Thanks again for making my point. In other words, unless all violence is eliminated, there is no sense in doing anything.
"Why is it that the discussion never mentions actually saving lives, but only stopping people from being killed with a specific tool? Because it's only a red herring, designed and used to convince the ignorant that limiting gun ownership is a good thing while leaving unsaid that just as many will die from violence." - - So what you are saying is reducing gun violence does not save lives?
"Is there no honesty in the gun haters at all? Why is that topic never broached, except to exclaim loudly and long that it WILL save lives even as all the experience and history points to the opposite? The only answer seems to be that reducing the death toll isn't the goal - reducing the number of guns is" - - If reducing gun violence saves one first graders life, isn't that worth it? If it saves twenty lives, isn't it worth it. How many lives does it have to save in order to be worth it? This forum is about reducing gun violence. You are talking about reducing all homicides. Again, it is all or nothing syndrome. Talk about a red herring!
Thanks again for making my points.Reading through your rants we can surmise from your many comments that you would never defend a human life, or promote love as adamantly as you defend an inanimate killing machine. It is also interesting that you don't believe in God, but instead you believe in the salvation of a bullet. But what is most disturbing is that you indicated earlier in this thread that saving the life of your own son was not worth the inconvenience of stricter gun control.
Sorry, Wilderness, this is meant for PeoplePower73
After over 3000 posts, It is easy to see that you wont make much more headway.
I have heard it all:
1. All or nothing reasoning
2. The imminent threat of a tyrannical government wanting control over firearms so that they can take 360 million guns from law abiding citizens, and, I thought that it was only 300 million. I just as well be asked to count every blade of grass in Florida, quite ludicrous in my opinion.
3. The arguments from the 'gun people' were unreasonably fearful and alarmist.
4. The last straw was that the "king" of the gun people, its heart and soul representative, Mr. Big Shot of the NRA, pulls this divine right of Kings and says to the American Public, 'screw you'. It tells me that these guys are not interested in dialogue or a solution. They are content to loiter among the filthy rightwing blogs and seek consensus from the people that are as absolutist and narrow minded as they are...
You get the chance to make your case before a national audience and you run? If I knew nothing of the issue, I would think pretty poorly of the one side that did not show up, the other has to win by default.
I have learned a great and I think that you have done all that you could have done here.
That is the good question, why did the NRA do a no show when they were invited to participate in the discourse on this contentious issue? If they are so correct, what did they have to hide that they could not allow the glaring light of the television camera to force them to engage in more than sensationist rhetoric?
I look upon this as an indictment of the conservatives and their positions as lacking the courage of their convictions. I otherwords, I don't like chickens***.
Either put up or shut up!
You are on the right track. Why is mental illness and such on the rise? I believe it is the drugs, GMO foods, hormones given to animals we eat, etc. All not natural. Go back to a time before all this started.
You mean... like the Wild West? Much of the "rise" in mental illness can be attributed to not being able to properly diagnose people with mental illness in the past. The general public still lives longer, healthier lives than in almost any time in our history.
Thank God "Keep & Bear" means own and CARRY for such a time as this with militant gays, Moslems and a Kenyan-born usurper in our White House. Molon labe!
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
0From the original poster on here , there lies an underlying naiveté about not only guns , but the second amendment as well as the constitution itself ! Normally I expect that from naïve people , however , to change the constitution ? That's simply an angry cry of the usual socio- cultural anti- gun advocacy Your kind have been around since the actual beginning of America ! The same crowd that runs away in time of war , the same that cry out "I'm a 'conscientious objector ' and run for their deferment cards , the liberal college attendee who enjoys ,always , the greatest benefits of a free country and yet never commits an ounce of contributing sacrifice .
The second amendment is outdated ? No my friends , that which is outdated is those who suffer ignorance of our constitution itself , our rights and Privileges AND obligations of a socially mature voting populace .ahorseback: What do you think an amendment is? It is a change to the constitution. I don't consider myself naive, but I do consider myself a critical thinker who can adapt to change. I didn't run away from war. I served four years in the Air Force during the cold war protecting our country from Soviet invasion. Conservatives don't like change, that's why they are called conservatives, so they can maintain the status quo. It's easier that way because they don't have to do any thinking or adjusting to change. That's why they quote scripture and think of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment as scripture. They are afraid to admit that 2nd amendment is a poorly written piece of law that is subject to too much interpretation, just like scripture. This forum is a great example of that because people here can't even agree to what is says.
horseback add the letter (T) to your comment naive was 7 weeks ago and see how it reads. ie native. i think you unconsiously told the truth about what guns do. 1 letter can change the world and you may have found it it in this hub, congratulations. pulitzer from me. big up
I agree. And the wealthier ones, hide behind security with guns. They love promoting their films and tv shows full of big guns and gross violence. Then preach to the rest of us about how violent the world is.
They are the mental ill. Lets put all liberals into a mental ward.
I will make this deal with liberals, I'll give up my 2nd Amendment if they will give up their 15th Amendment!Better still President Trump could issue an Executive Order nullifying every Constitutional Amendment after the first ten(our Bill of Rights). The Supreme Court could throwout ALL of their decisions and all case history of lower courts. Then we can make a fresh-start with just our founding documents.
A. People Don't KILL People, GUNS Kill People ~
B. The 2cnd Amendment Does NOT Give Individuals the Unconditional Right to own a Firearm ~STUPID COMMENT
When was the last time you saw a gun walk down the street and kill someone??
Again, outlaw man, man kills with his bare hands. What about strangling??
I have been shot point blank and survived. The gun did not aim itself at me. The man behind the gun did so. Had I been a gun owner at that time, I could have defended myself instead on standing there helplessly as he pulled the trigger. I know own several guns and I will be damned if I am the only one on the receiving side.
As another writer said, Naive. I don't think you will ever get it. But I tell you one thing, you try living in rough neighborhoods and your orientation will change.
Perhaps where you live, the worst thing that happens is a missing cat and good for you.
But please don't come out of your safety cacoon to preach guns kill and people don't. That is just stupidYou don't have to tell me this Nonsense, tell it to the "Bullet" which does the ACTUAL Killing, and if you don't believe the Bullet does indeed do the ACTUAL Killing, WHY do some people feel they need a GUN for Protection ? ~
Twice in my life I have defended my property and person from thieves. Once a couple of Hispanic-hoodlums were driving my truck away from a parking lot and I stood centered in front of them with a .357 magnum. They jumped out both doors and ran away with their hands in the air while I fired five-warning-shots over their heads. The second time I was working third-shift on a Saturday night and three young Hispanic teenagers with table-legs jumped me as I went out to my car for lunch. I immediately pulled out a pistol and aimed it at them when they were a yard away. I pulled the trigger as hard as I could but the hammer did not fall. They quickly ran away and I became very shook-up. In the heat of the moment I forgot to release the safety. I can only imagine how my life would have changed had I shot one or two of those punks(think Bernard Goetz!) or if I was unarmed.
I did not report these incidents to the police back in the 1980s.Doye says "I have been shot point blank and survived. The gun did not aim itself at me. The man behind the gun did so." Wouldn't have been nice that a background check had prevented this guy who shot you from getting a gun. The beginning of that missive is simply words strung together that tries to divert attention away from the fact that gun-safety regulations purpose is to try to keep as many people as possible who shouldn't have guns (like the guy that shot you) from getting them.
The purpose is NOT TO BAN GUNS but to KEEP THEM AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T THEM.
You are not interested in making things better. What you are looking for is revenge. After nearly 250 years as a nation it seems that you people would have figured out that violence doesn't stop violence. At least not in the long run. If the generations that preceded you had focused on the problem instead of "defending themselves" with guns and violence, you would have never been shot. Simply because you would have grown up in a different world. Your approach is just setting up future generations to experience even more violence. Read. Learn. Comprehend.
The 2nd Amendment is suited for the present, past and future.
My .02.To all: Here is a link that explains everything you wanted to know about gun issues in America, the good, the bad, and the ugly. It is up to date and contains citings of all of its sources. It has all types of statistics and analysis for and against these issues...enjoy!
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gu … es-americaI want to know that if we take guns away, whether killers will not kill or will simply choose a different weapon.
I want to know if there is a significant correlation between the number of guns owned in a society and their homicide rate. If so, do specific types "cause" more murders.
I want to know how many lives we could reasonably expect to save by taking guns, regardless of type, from people. Or simply making them harder for law abiding citizens to get.
I want to know the effect that tough gun controls has on gun ownership by criminals and murderers. Do they not have guns, or was the legislation only effective in preventing legal ownership?
Unfortunately, your great link addresses none of these. Not even the overwhelmingly important question of what the homicide rate does when strict gun controls are introduced. Can you find somewhere (outside of HP - we know the subject has been addressed here, with hard figures and analysis) that addresses the question of murder rates when gun controls are implemented?So Wilderness, as the most eloquent of those that stand for gun possession rights, why are there still restrictions?
You can't obtain a fully automatic machine gun, or hand granades without a lot of hassle from authorities. If you truly want to contain an overbearing government, how is that done when the man on the street will never be given legal access to the kind of military ordinance that the Government has in its arsenal?There are still tough restrictions for several reasons:
1. Fear. Much of the populace is afraid of guns. The current tactic of naming anything black as an "assault weapon" has done nothing to calm that irrational fear, either. It is a smart move though; an emotional attack (true or not) will always be more effective than a fact based one.
2. It is PC to restrict gun ownership, mostly because of #1
3. The police wish every tool they can get in their arsenal; thus ever increasing registration requirements.
4. Ignorance. Far too many people, unwilling to research the question, simply assume that if we take guns people won't be killed any more. Pretty obviously false, but then add in #1 and #2 and it doesn't much matter.
But beyond that, the man on the street does not need military ordinance to contain an overbearing government. Check your history; it is nearly impossible to tightly control an armed populace. It's why we failed so badly in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Too many weapons for the military to handle without total destruction of the country - something no government wants.And you may get enough of the heavy stuff when most of those in the military will abandon those weapons instead of firing on citizens. Do not let the UN or any foreign force in to do the regimes bidding! Germany in WWII would send the Latvians to to, like, Hungry because they had no calms about killing those from another country. Then a foreign force would be sent Latvia to do the same killing there.
Mr O and regime wants his/her own force of jail birds and the estimated 10% of the population that will kill who ever they order to be killed. My personal view! Do you really think they are going to make this public? Read between the lines.
A populace is basically controlled through it's belly. What good is an armed populace against economic sanctions? Are you suggesting that people can literally eat bullets? The central government controls the entire infrastructure: highways, trains, air travel, freight and commerce. And if even more muscle was needed, biological and chemical agents could be used to top it off. Such a tactic has already been successfully employed. Does anybody remember Waco Texas.
The Big Rock Candy Mountain is a wonderful place wilderness, but it just ain't real.What is real is the average out doors man, farmer, rancher, home owner or even renter needs a self defense method in light of San B. The best so far is a gun. Now, if someone intelligent like yourself can come up with a different solution? One that even the baddies will follow. Plus, we need those guns as the best method to control the buffalo. And to gather the wild pig infestation in Texas to grind up and spay it all around like they are doing now with whatever it is that those chem trails are. God has supplied a solution to some of our problems. All we have to is do it. Right?
Wilderness: Sorry, my link is not good enough for you. Why don't you do the research and analysis for all the questions you are asking? I'm sure you can find anything you want to support your agenda.
And then please post it here.I did. You will find it on the carousel on my profile; it is far too large to post here. At the same time, though, I have told you and others that many times and very few can be bothered to read it. They don't care any more than you do whether gun controls effectively save lives or not.
But tell me, PP; do you care if your proposals have any chance of success? What is your agenda; to save lives or to take guns? Where do you stand, and if it is on the side of saving lives, why aren't you asking the same questions I did?
1. Since "taking away guns" is not desirable or possible, your question is meaningless. In theory, however, yes 'killers will continue to kill" but at a MUCH LOWERED RATE because only SOME will "choose another type of weapon"
2. Given the article cited, the answer is yes, across nations, higher gun ownership rates to lead to higher homicides by guns. In my research, across states, the correlation is weak, but still positive.
3. Since "taking away guns" is not desirable or possible, your question is meaningless, but in theory "more than lives saved by making it harder for to obtain" . But to the "making them harder for law abiding citizens to get." - probably more than 1000 per year, based on my research. "Making them [gums] harder for law abiding citizens to get." is a very small price to pay for the number of lives it would save.
4. Stricter sensible gun laws reduce the number of guns in the general criminal population but it won't reduce the number of guns owned by "law abiding" citizens. You forgot a class. The laws most noticeable impact is reducing the number of guns owned by non-criminals who nevertheless do not have the maturity, responsibility, mental capacity but do have proven intent to harm relatives and friends as well as those on gov't watch lists.
5. Statistics show that there is a weak correlation between 1) more guns, more homicides, 2) more guns, less robberies, and a very strong correlation with 3) suicides.
Perfect, thanks; I will use this in my gun series.
Liberals linking to Vox is like Conservatives linking to Fox. LOL!
We pay a price for all of our rights.
In the twentieth century, about one million people per year died in holocausts, genocides, civil wars and other wars because they did not have the ability to protect themselves. That is many more than are killed in the US by nuts today. Please look at the big picture: all our freedoms are interconnected. Take one freedom away, and the others are jeopardized.
The second amendment permits regulation of guns, and we need to figure out how to keep them out of the hands of crazy people.Hello John,
I don't think we have spoken before, but...
"... We pay full price for all our rights.
...Please look at the big picture: all our freedoms are interconnected. Take one freedom away, and the others are jeopardized. "
I like how you think. (at least in this instance)
ps. forum members that know me know that whenever I am nice... it must be Stolis time.
GAJohn ~
The Second Amendment does NOT grant a constitutional "Right" of gun ownership to any individual ~
Don't take my word for it, everyone needs to read the text verbatim to discover the truth ~"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"Shall not be infringed". How do YOU interpret that simple phrase? That because you don't like guns no one else should like, or have, one either?"Shall not be infringed" if you or I are affiliated with "A Well Regulated Militia" ~
the "Right" is CLEARLY Conditional ~ The Condition Precedent is attached to an individual's affiliation with "A Well Regulated Militia" ~
I actually LOVE GUNS, in the hands of Well Trained Military Personnel Protecting the United States of America ~
Although humans running around other countries with weapons is certainly an antiquated way of engaging in a conflict ~ This will soon be entirely replaced by "Drones" and other "Robotics" ~Oh? I missed the part about the condition (probably because it isn't there). Now you can say that the person must be affiliated with that militia, but the amendment does not make that distinction. It does insinuate that private weapons would be used in the militia, should one be needed, but that's all. No distinction whatsoever that only the militia could own weapons.
Given the nature of the time, and that private weapons were used for the "military", it seem obvious that private weapons were desirable for everyone - that way the militia suddenly formed from citizens would already have weapons.
A right must be conditional...as in the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? I don't think so.wilderness ~
No matter how you try to slice n' dice it, the language is crystal clear ~ You must be affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" to "Keep" & "Bear" Arms ~
No Affiliation, No Arms ~
Even if your flimsey interpretation were correct, we no longer live WAY WAY back in the 1700's when at a moments notice, a man would have to throw on his torn & mended trowsers, pack a quick bag of stale blueberry scones & a barbequed turkey wing, kiss his maid, I mean wife goodbye then go assemble with fellow patriots under the crooked oak tree ~ So don't you think the amendment would be OBSOLETE anyway? ~Well, someone is trying to "slice'n dice" it, but it isn't me. I read it for what it says, not what I want it to say.
I also disagree with the interpretation that because we no longer have militia's we no longer should have the amendment. Because the original stated purpose is no longer very valid doesn't mean there aren't others, and the writers of that document were smart enough to realize that an armed populace is nearly synonymous with a free one. I realize that that is not necessarily a plus to proponents of ever bigger government, but I agree with the writers.
But in any case there is no known reason to disarm a population. Fear, maybe, as an excuse but never a reason.Well wilderness, Maybe someday you'll ADD the other 23 critically important words to the phrase "Shall not be infringed" to discover the true meaning of the 2cnd Amendment ~ It's not uncommon for conservatives to simply quote "Shall not be infringed", so I'm not surprised ~
Our fore-fathers weren't brilliant nor were they completely inept, but one thing is for sure, they included "A Well Regulated Militia" as precurser for very good reason ~ Probably because they didn't wanna' see a bunch of half stewed hillbillies runnin' all over the country side shootin' and a yellin' at INVISIBLE MOONSHINE GHOSTS, or Bigfoot, or THEM ~
The true meaning is right there in black and white, or whatever color those turkey quill pens were at that time ~Yes. All it takes is a little twisting, a little spin and Voila! We can include requirements never intended, never meant and never considered at all. Not unusual with the constitution - like the bible much can be read into it that never was there with just a little effort. And a gullible listener - the problem is that the gun owners you want to remove rights from aren't noted for being particularly gullible about the issue.
I might add that a well armed population is also necessary for a free state. Perhaps that was the reasoning all along and the writers just prettied it up to be PC.Sorry wildernes ~ but the only way your interpretation would possibly be valid in any way is if you conveniently CHOP off "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" ~
If our founder's explicit intend was "Unconditional" as you assert, the Amendment would read as follows in its entirety~
"The right of the people to own and keep arms for personal protection, hunting, recreational use, or any other applicable reason, shall not be infringed" ~
But unfortunately for the NRA & Your Side, it does not say that ~
The 2cnd Amendment as our fore-fathers authored, is about as Clear & Concise as it gets, no interpretation needed ~ Simply read the text within the sentence as it is structured and conjoined ~ Pretty simple ~ No DECODER FORMULA needed, after all, its English, not Egyptian Hieroglyphics ~
P.S. ~ Nobody knows for certain if privately owned firearms were used in conflict ~ Many facts or assertions surrounding this time period are very ambiguous at best ~Well, let me paraphrase that for you:
As the state needs a militia for protection, the rights of all people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed on.
Nowhere does it indicate that only militia members shall have guns; it is very plain that all citizens may have them if they wish. That you don't like that doesn't mean that it says something different; your wishes are not germane to a discussion of what it says or means.Isn't that what the national guard is for? Isn't it a well regulated militia on a state by state basis. And it is called upon in times of emergencies. It is even deployed to other countries when needed.
I find t interesting that many people have an opinion about the constitution and gun control. I have my opinions as much as anyone. First let me say that reading, knowing, and understanding the constitution seems to be a bit amiss. its like arguing to get rid of soap while standing on a soap box. The constitution is applicable to our time as it will be to the future Americans. That's why the founding fathers made options for amendments, all we need to do is find congressmen that will put the needs of this country ahead of their own.
The government has done a good job of making our children ignorant to the constitution. If the don't understand it they will believe what ever is said on the television and the internet as fact. Guns were outlawed in other countries and the crime went amok, increasing by as much as 60% in some areas. Crime is on the upward trend in the united states, killing, rape, theft, assault. if we carried guns who would be stupid enough to attack. many people know little about the old west...there were not as many killings as the westerns made it out to be. everyone had guns, so most people were smart enough to respect them. Gun control means using two hands. If some mentally ill individual (and that could mean most of us) starts shooting his or her gun, and there is someone there with their own gun...issue settled.
If you want a safer America, bring back education and teach our kids to use and respect guns, not fear them. we have enough problems outside our country trying to take our freedom, and inalienable rights. The passivism trending in this country, has the right to be that way because of others who fought and died to provide that freedom. freedom was not God given, it was paid for with a price, paid for by lives of people standing up with a gun to defend us. if you don't like guns, then don't carry one, but don't hide behind me when someone starts shooting, asking me to protect you from them, after you asked to have my guns removed.You said "The government has done a good job of making our children ignorant to the constitution. " That is incorrect, our local school boards did that for they, and their States, determine more than 90% of what is taught in school. The federal gov't is trying to bring that kind of knowledge back into the curriculum.
You say "Guns were outlawed in other countries and the crime went amok, increasing by as much as 60% in some areas." - Sources and Statistics please; that doesn't jive with all that I have studied.
You say "Crime is on the upward trend in the united states, killing, rape, theft, assault...." - Sources and Statistics please (which is impossible because you are absolutely, 100% incorrect)
You say "If you want a safer America, bring back education ..." to which I absolutely agree, but then you go on to say "... and teach our kids to use and respect guns, not fear them. " Why should they teach anything at all about guns beyond the standard "guns, poisons, razors, etc are dangerous objects and need to be handled carefully". Intense education (or proof of previous knowledge) on guns and gun safety ought to come just prior to and be a condition of actually buying one.
The 2000s is NOT the 18th century when guns (mainly rifles, I suspect) were needed for basic survival and they were much more ubiquitous than they are today. Then, people learned about and respected guns from an early age because they needed to, not because they simply want to. And that goes to the real education point on guns; it should be the parents, not the schools who teach their kids about gun and gun safety.
You really need to do some research on what the founders had in mind.
They did not want what they had at the beginning. An undisciplined rag tag minuteman force that almost lost the war.
So, the founders wanted a more disciplined and regulated force determined by the individual states.
The state was not to infringe our right to keep and bear. This has been brought to your attention from the beginning of this hub! I will refute your wrong reasoning every time you use it!
Wilderness, may I point out that "militia" and "military" are not necessarily synonymous? Back then the militia was civilian, so the 2nd Amendment was specifically giving civilians the right to own guns. That hasn't changed. AP must be an ESL person or he would know that.
Yes, of course. That is one of the major points - that the amendment specifically targeted civilians to give the right to. That our military/police are no longer civilians is irrelevant - although AP disagrees, it never targeted only people with an affiliation to any militia but the everyday citizen in the street.
MizBejabbers ~
The "Military" way back in the 1700's was indeed comprised of civilians as it is today ~ A civilian affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" as the 2cnd Amendment clearly articulates, is afforded the "Right" to "KEEP & BEAR" arms for defensive purposes, however, no such right is granted to the General Public despite EXTREMELY LIBERAL mis-informed or mistaken interpretations ~
If "Keeping and Bearing" arms were not Conditional, the phrase "A Well Regulated Militia" which is clearly inserted within the 2cnd Amendment, would have been omitted, or placed seperately within another paragraph, but it's not, it reads as one connected sentance ~
Our forefathers were not geniuses but neither were they Grammatically Challenged, "A Well Regulated Militia" was inserted for very good reason ~Show, please, where only militia members get guns according to the amendment. Or is that just a rationalization because you want it to be so whether the amendment lines it out or not? No one else sees any such limitation (militia members only can own weapons) - where do you see the words?
wilderness ~
If an individual CANNOT identify nor comprehend the phrase "A Well Regulated Militia" within the 2cnd Amendment, he or she would require much more help than I have the time to give ~
Furthermore, according to the Amendment verbatim, not only is an individual required to be affiliated with a "Militia" prior to keeping a gun, but it must be a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" ~ OOooh "Regulations" aaaahhhh, a dirty little word for conservatives ~ So I guess our founders must have been PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS which would explain the intended Gun Control ~
Clearly, our fore-fathers were trying to avoid a scenario where slightly intoxicated or flyin' high private citizens with nothing better to do in between conflicts but bake punkin' n' rasberry, and turkey pies, would frolic endlessly about the country side "POPPIN'" each other in the rear with pea-shooters ~
AP look up the word "comprises" and see it's an antonym of what you meant. Then we can talk about misuse of language.
The Supreme Court determined that the "wellregulated militia" regulated militia" clause was basically, because the militia is part of the armed forces. I do not seek a ban on guns.
I do think a person should be 17 or older before he has a hunting rifle or shotgun. A person should be 21 before owning a hand gun.
College students should not be allowed to bring guns on campus.
Everyone who buys a gun should have proof of passing a gun safety course before receiving the gun.
People should learn that if an intruder is fleeing your house or property, you should not shoot at him. It could be somebody just taking a short cut (an improper action) that does not merit being shot.
We should put some limits on some of the advance weapons that are sold.
Traveling gun shows should either be eliminated or required to have a federal interstate permit.
Everyone why buys a gun should have documentation showing that he has received proper instructions on the use of that gun.
People with physical impairments that could affect the use of the gun should not own guns.
I do not oppose hunting--thinning of some herds is necessary.
I do not oppose you keeping a gun in your car, as long as you your car os locked when you are not in it and the gun is out-of-sight.
I do not think convicted felons, people with mental impairments and those with limited vision should own guns.
The interstate mail order sale of guns should be prohibited by individuals. Let the gun store order the gun for you.
Ownership should be registered at the state and national level and if a gun is stolen, lost or damaged beyond repair, the owner should be required to report that to the proper agency.
These rules would not infringe any rights. They would allow the tracking of stolen guns. They would prevent inexperienced people from using them and would still allow the freedoms provided by the Second Amendment.
I know many will oppose. This is my only comment. Everyone is entitle to express their opinions, as provided in the First Amendment--however they are rules against libel, slander and intimidation..
When the Second Amendment was written the weapons were muskets and flintlocks. No one envisioned the weapons we have today.State militias generally stated that the weapons need to be equal to what a invader or tyrannical gov. would use. So it is self updating.
Good job, Larry, you should run for president.
JohnDGleissner: So you are saying if all the Japanese had guns, they could have protected themselves from dropping the A bomb at Hiroshima, or the Jews from the Holocaust. People died in the civil war, because they had guns.
I agree with your last statement. We have to do something about the mentally ill.here is another word for you:
P O W E R L E S SThis is a great point. When people argue that we need guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical or oppressive force, whether that be our own government or another, they assume that the force in question will fight on equal footing. They also assume the oppressive force will place a value on human life. That's a very naive view. It's just as likely that an invading force, or if our government became tyrannical, would not value the lives of our citizens. There's not much to stop them from simply bombing everyone into submission.
mental illness without anger or substance abuse is not associated with violent crime. please don't demonize this innocent quarter of the population.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … der.2.html
The second amendment prohibits the federal government from any action that would infringe upon the right of the individual to own and bear arms.
Gun control can take place at the state level, but then you have a maze of laws and rules. Amending the second amendment and limiting the types of guns individuals could own would be one approach, but the second amendment is not going to be amended anytime soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nAfWfF4TjM
I think the NRA and ISIL make a good team. Perhaps they could join forces, go live on an island of their own and live happily ever after.- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
I believe there will always be those who tunnel away at the constitution , why not , after all they don't love the origins of the country they live in nor the country that it has become . So why protect the priceless origins of it's political foundation , they believe Utopia can be had , problem with that is that they want to sacrifice America do gain that dream .
People who want an end to gun massacres aren't trying to destroy the Constitution. They just want an end to the rampages.
The Constitution is a perpetual work in progress. We are allowed to change it, and should, if it makes our country better.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Jewels ,Alternative Prime , Please take a look at [ google it ] all that the NRA has done for the sporting youth of America's past and present . regimental safety training , target competitions , school scholarships etc. , One with common sense might connect all of these things with the pre- training of America's military ! See where I'm going with this ?
One with common sense might understand just how the NRA and so the young men and women of the armed forces of American military have protected you , your constitution and the very past , present and future of America . Of course , those who are at war with the US constitution to begin with cannot see beyond connecting ISIL and the NRA to begin with , perhaps I ask too much ?
I believe any one person in the US military or the NRA for that matter truly do more for America's future , than any ten activist's trying to undermine the very umbrella of freedom's of our constitution , country and protected freedom's that you love living beneath .
Perhaps to connect NRA and ISIL is the best argument you have ?ahorseback ~
NRA aside, I'm pretty much in agreement with your sentiment regarding firearms and the military considering the 2cnd Amendment does indeed grant the "Right" of firearm "Keeping & Bearing" to those who are affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" which is a necessity ~ But that's where the "Rights" END according to said document, individuals do NOT have the same right ~
I'm certainly not at "WAR" with the constitution but let's face the facts, it's Outdated, Mis-Interpreted, Antiquated, and in some instances, simply does not apply to the present day ~ It was written Centuries AGO ~ Furthermore, our founders were reasonably intelligent, articulate, courageous, brave, etc but certainly not Geniuses nor Prognosticators ~
A more realistic depiction of the founders would probably be "Very Intoxicated Womanizer Maid Chasers" in between spending gruelling hours trying to get a fresh new country off the ground ~ Drug addiction might have also been prevalent amongst the villagers ~ Births out of wedlock, spousal abuse, tomfoolery, shenanigans, and other less than flattering behavior ~
Our Founders Were Exceptional Human Beings, or perhaps Extra-Terrestrials Visiting from another Star System,,,,,, But Certainly Not GODS ~You say "individuals do NOT have the same right" yet the 2nd Amendment clearly says "the right of the People." Who, then, would these "people' be if not individuals?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The response of Washington to the Whiskey Rebellion that began in 1791 is further proof that the government never intended for the average Joe to have carte blanche concerning gun ownership. The key words in the Second Amendment are : Militia,State, and People. In the context of the amendment, these elements cannot be considered apart. A militia is made up of people and formed for the protection of the state. This is elementary and pretty straightforward. Thus, any citizen owning a firearm who is not an active member of a state militia is not covered under the Second Amendment. If so, the language would not include the connected terms "militia" and "state", and would simply read:
" The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The NRA has exploited and perverted the Second Amendment for the sake of American Greed. In effect, the NRA itself is a terrorist organization, as they support the supply side of the equation. The three killers in the photo were enabled by the NRA, the gun lobby, and Billy Bob who can't go to bed without a warm glass of milk and his assault rifle.
P.S. Just to remind some of you who have demonstrated that you are "color blind", the three mass killers in the photo are white: meaning Euro-American. The Rambo-like character at the bottom killed 20 elementary school children ages 6-7. This clearly illustrates that gun violence is not solely a "black" issue as racists would have us believe, especially when 64% of all mass killings are committed by whites. But certain "scholars" on this thread maintain that if guns had not been available, these three would have bludgeoned their victims to death with jars of Jiffy Peanut Butter if necessary! It is scary that these people can marry their sisters, and even vote.Unfortunately wrenchBiscuit, I don't think you can read "Thus, any citizen owning a firearm who is not an active member of a state militia is not covered under the Second Amendment. " into the 2A.
The logic is this; in those days, I suspect the great majority carried around pistols and rifles. Also, in those days it was believed states could, when threatened, protect themselves by calling up their citizen cum soldiers and forming a militia; nobody needed a trained military force because ethical citizens would be on the ready. Oh yes, they had to furnish their own weapons, which is the foundation of the 2A, the raison d'etre for the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If those rights could be infringed (by the federal gov't), then the state could not call up a militia, well organized or not, to protect themselves for their militia would be unarmed.
The "well-ordered" derived from the realization from the Revolutionary War, that disorganized militias, the ones that started the fight with the British, were terrible soldiers. In fact, their independent nature about cost the war, at least in Thomas Jefferson's opinion. His close friend James Madison knew this as well when he penned the 2A.
Bottom line is that implied in the 2A is the right for any person to possess the normal personal arms used in the wars of those days (60 more years to the invention of the machine gun). That said, every founder knew that there is no Right that is without limitation; they knew that with Rights, comes responsibilities and obligations. And if someone does not, cannot, or will not to live up to those responsibilities and obligations, then they give up that Right as well.
I strongly disagree. You are correct in your understanding of history. But to take a familiar page from "The Book of "wilderness and Cutler", we are not living in that time. Consequently, the Second Amendment must be either fitted to our modern era, or it must be abolished.
Furthermore, to my knowledge state militias don't even exist as they did in those days. Of course, there is the National Guard, and they are well armed and regulated. For instance, The New York National Guard has been formed "by the people". The people, who in this case, are well armed. Considering this, why does the Second Amendment need to apply to hillbillies in rusty pick-ups? Or psychopaths like Adam Lanza? The answer is: It doesn't. I have no problem of depriving someone of the right to kill innocent people. And if protection is the issue, then could someone please tell me the purpose of an armed police force? Isn't that their job? To protect and serve?
P.S. And to paraphrase your own comment, "a disorganized militia is of little or no use". A bunch of untrained, unorganized citizens are of no more use today than they were in 1776. In fact, they are a danger to themselves.
The 2nd has been changed several times since 1791. Or do you think it was a one trick pony deal? The first part gave the states the power to form militias. The second part protected the peoples' rights from being infringed upon by a state. You libs like to twist the facts.
Fact: Mass killings is such a tiny part of over all killings it isn't even considered.
Can I say cherry picked? yes! How many black mass murders slipped through the cracks?
54% of homicides is committed by 14% of the population. That equals about 5,500 of the
homicides a year. You are the one who brought out the race card.
The evil NRA. "The devil made me do it" You probably don't even know what an assault rifle is!
At least someone is looking out for the average guy/girl. Terrorist group?? Prove it. I don't think congress would let another such group in the houses. Oh wait their is one. The biggest terror group is in the Whitehouse. Leader of Islam U,S.A. Proof: Fort hood, San B. etc.Doug, you get your facts straight.
1) not a word has been changed in the 2A since it was ratified. I don't even need to ask you prove your assertion since I do know what the answer is.
2) the Bill of Rights DID NOT apply to the states at the outset, they ONLY applied to the federal gov't. It wasn't until the passage of the 14th Amendment did the Bill of Rights begin to be applied to the states. It wasn't until the 1940s did the Supreme Court begin applying the 14th to its decisions. Prior to that, the conservative Supreme Court gutted the 14th in ruling after ruling.
3) It is you Cons who twist the facts or, when needed, make up you own.
When you say "Mass killings is such a tiny part of over all killings it isn't even considered." it proves the point my side makes about conservatives, you don't give a damn about human life!\\
"How many black mass murders slipped through the cracks? " None to my knowledge. We know that 64% of all mass killings since 1982 were committed by whites (mostly males), 16% by blacks, 9% by Asians, 11% by other. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/27/us/mass-shootings/)
Yes, blacks do commit disproportionately more homicides; BUT they also are disproportionately the victims of homicide, and they are disproportionately the most impoverished; which is strongly correlated with crime in general and homicides in particular,You commented: "Mass killings is such a tiny part of over all killings it isn't even considered". There is a fundamental difference between a reptile and a human being. I am classified as a human being. I walk upright, I don't crawl on my belly, I don't feed on negative energy, and I don't take the killing of children in stride. I do not see them as percentages.
If you libs were not so inclined to drug up everyone that has a problem.
A common link to all those you racial profiled. Only libs are allowed that race card option in
your world. We still have free speech. I know Lerner and Obama are trying to take that too!
And allowed CC or desk carry Lanza would have been stopped before he got very far.
Same with the others. Your precious gun free zones. It is your groups fault!
Take everyones guns then see how many kids get killed. What about all those kids in Chicago? And all the live babies Obama signed to let die.
Biscuits My Esoteric and any others with same mindset
http://www.theroot.com/photos/2013/09/b … unmen.html
A site that dis-spells your belief that blacks don't commit mass or serial murders.
Others found by doing a web search
Alton Coleman and Debra Brown Children among their victims
9 year old targeted by gang member Chicago
How many others are swept under the rug or not publicized?
You and Obama are just a couple of racist hate mongers. Both of you cherry pick the F out of anything to suit your hateful agendas.
And law enforcement knows about a lot of these types. But you and your drug pushing political correct B.S. created and let fester these thugs. Your fault! White, black whatever!
What is most fascinating about your posts is that they leave us to wonder about the disconnect between two realities: The inner man and the outer world. You are one of several here that consistently misinterpret what you are reading. At least you present yourself in that manner. I am 100% certain that I have never commented here, or anywhere else that blacks don't commit mass, or serial murders. Nor have I even implied such a thing.
Furthermore, any intelligent person knows that speaking out against racism, or identifying the source of racism, does not by default make the opponent of racism a racist. That is absurd!
According to Doug Cutler:
• A rape victim must necessarily hate all men because she identified ten men who gang raped her. According to Doug Cutler It is further proven that she hates all men because she goes on to report that many of her friends have also been raped and molested by men in the past.
• I must hate all dogs because when I was a teenager I was bitten by a dog while walking down a country road. For years I have told the story; I just told it again, and each time I name the perpetrator as being : A Dog!
Yes Doug, what you are suggesting is absolutely ridiculous. John Brown was a white man. He didn't hate white people. He was simply smart enough to know the difference between good and evil. John Brown hated white racists, the evil of white racism, and slavery. Ed Snowden is a white American, but he does not hate all white Americans simply because a majority of corrupt government officials happen to be white. Ed Snowden hates an evil and corrupt government primarily run by white men that illegally and immorally spies on the American people. I am thankful for John Brown. I am thankful for Ed Snowden.
I should also note that there are many who would consider death by heart attack or stroke to be the result of natural causes.
P.S. The only people who get angry and defensive when someone speaks against white racists are ... white racists!You don't just speak out against racism, you spew hateful racism! Your posts are proof. Columbus bla bla bla. whites bla bla bla Europeans bla bla bla. Yo latest racially profiling of three whites and the NRA. You say you identify with Christ and you fall way short of that! Not even close! Try “I forgive you,” Nadine Collier, the daughter of 70-year-old Ethel Lance at the trial of Dylann Roof. And others there.
These are the people I want to be with. No matter what color! No free passes like Obama and likes got. The "good" people stuck in Islam are not true Muslims. Get out when you can!
Your ridiculous rant about being dog bit! Have been several and don't hate dogs!
Damn near killed by two blacks, don't hate all blacks. You are just plain wrong per usual!
Contrary to your and others' here thinking, I don't hate all blacks and other races. I am not perfect and do hate some out of all races. Not like you nut cases that hate all gun owners or NRA members, for example. And ignore the facts I and others bring here because it doesn't fit your biassed leftist ideology.
Why don't you lead the way and forgive. Start by not spewing your hateful rhetoric.As of December 25th there had been 2,937 shootings in Chicago in 2015.
The strictest gun laws in the land.
Will Chicago shootings reach 3,000 before the end of the year?
I think so! http://armored-column.com/east-side-chi … c-25-2015/
Add two more shootings today that I know of. 2,939?
Sorry Doug, Unlike you I have studied history for many years.I have also been a part of the Civil Rights struggle here in the United States.What's got your "club" all up in arms is that we have been making a difference, and continue to do so. Uneducated people only show their ignorance when they attempt to prove the "smoking gun" by posting stats on gun violence in cities like Chicago. The turmoil in many black communities is a direct result of institutionalized racism.
The progeny of the evil that brought the biological weapon of smallpox to this continent are the architects of inner city violence. They are also the authors of the conflict in the Middle East that has cost the lives of thousands of young Americans. What we see around the United States in major cities like Chicago is a sophisticated form of lynching. Many with an IQ under 90 are not able to pick up on what's happening.
But the purpose is the same as it was immediately following the Civil War.It is an effort to demonize and contain the ever growing black minority that threatens white privilege in the United States. The black vote not only affects the white power base, but it has the potential to reveal the machinations of a rigged voting system.Can't stop your racist rant can you? What does your German half think of you?
How can you say I don't follow history. Just because it isn't the same history as you follow.
Chery picked about smallpox. I follow the things that made this God ordained country great.
Edison, even if he was an A hole, Tesla, my hero! Westinghouse, bell, Carver. a black guy if you didn't know, Many others and their inventions Don't forget Franklin, one of the founders.
All you can do is negative. How pitiful!
Edison, Carver, Tesla, or my German half have done very little to reduce the body count. It is no use singing about the good while the battle still rages; when people are dropping like flies. The NRA and all of those who promote guns are by default, promoting and perpetuating violence. Gun advocates are apologist's for evil. No Doug, I do not lay down with dogs. I don't eat with them, nor do I share their bloodthirsty canine fantasies. In the end, we will take all of their guns, and we will replace them with a pacifier in the lower region that is more befitting their station.That end wont come until the 2nd coming .Then there will be no need for guns anymore.
Some Muk-Muk ISISist just said since the Jews returned to Israel they are all in one place and makes it easier to find and kill them. Don't tell them that there are as many hear.
When the 200million attack Israel Jesus will come back and take them out after a big battle.
Same coming here from the west coast.
Who says, "God Ordained', Why do conservatives always say that when it is substantiated with nothing.
Just because a bunch of guys in powdered wigs and knee breeches says the country is God ordained does not make it so.
So, God ordained people justified enslaving millions and 'appropriated' land from Native people. These God ordained people took the land and moved the original residents from it.
It is sort of simplistic reasoning to think that WB part german ancestery would be in conflict with other strains in his lineage. Why not take the man and what he says in whole measure, instead of dicing his dialogue based on what position you think he should take based on his racial background and portions, thereof.
Even when you try, you still come
off like Archie Bunker, you need to work on that.
So, I don't want to hear it....
It's the "one drop rule" with the Indigenous as well as the African. Of course there are many like me who look white, and pass for white, but whenever someone of mixed race takes a stand against racism, they are automatically assigned the role of a minority who hates the majority. Yes, it is very base, and very Archie Bunkerish. Doug wants the reader to believe that I hate the whole world. But I have made it clear who, and what I hate, and I offer no apologies. Love and Hate are two interesting emotions, because Love and Hate are ambiguous.
It has been shown that a man can Love the wrong thing, and that a man can also Hate the right thing. It is right to hate the institution of racism. Contrary to popular belief, I am not consumed by hate, but instead, I am invigorated. It feels good to express my hate toward an evil system; a system of racism that forced my Mother and Father to live their entire lives as second class citizens, when they were the ones who provided for me; when they are the ones who sacrificed for my future, and who always put me first. For such a crime, there is no forgiveness.And did your mother and father teach you to hate for an entire life ? No , I didn't think so , nor would they be very proud of that hatred .
You speak without knowledge. Both my parents were Christians, and Civil Rights activists.They are the ones who taught me about Love and Hate. It is foolish of you to suggest that I would honor their memory by loving their racist oppressors!
How do you reconcile admonishing me to "love my enemies", when the United States has been killing their enemies for nearly 250 years! Obviously, you do not know the definition of "love thy enemy" from a biblical perspective, as it can only be properly understood through the Holy Spirit. It only means that a man should refrain from "killing" his enemy. By not killing my enemy, I am demonstrating love through tolerance. The fact that I have killed no one, although my parents were sorely abused by a system of white supremacy, is a testament to the great love that dwells within me; not for mankind, but for God.You cannot pick and chose from that bible Wrench , and I know so little of the bible too . Can you love that God and not thy fellow man ?
We are not bound as Christians to love evil. Martin Luther King agreed, and he was the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize. Do you love Charlie Manson, John Wayne Gacy, Muslim terrorists, Domestic terrorists, or Ted Bundy? I only love them to the extent that I would not take their life. Nor do I agree that the state has the right to murder a murderer. But that is the extent of my love for evil men. I am not required by God to go any further. This is a great misconception among Christians, as well as the secular community,
Furthermore, hate is an essential ingredient for any social revolution. No one is going to get beat up, shot to death, thrown in jail, blasted with a fire hose, or mauled by attack dogs if they don't have a certain degree of hate."Shiny Happy People" who like the world they're living in, simply don't take those kind of risks.wrench I have 'almost ' decided to not respond to your senseless slippery drivel any longer , its just that you don't make sense , Bud . You aren't even hiding the fact that your simply full of hate for your fellow man anymore . Otherwise you're quite entertaining .
You sound like Hitler. Invigorated by power of the master race and hated his Jewish links so much. See, I do know some history.
Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
You need to work on the 2nd part. Not your twisted interpretation of it. Otherwise I may have to use that "H" word that I have been banned for using.
You can't call me a hypocrite because I admit to not being perfect. Like your White Supremacy remark! Just can't give it up can you.
It is the individual that is important. Libs like all that group crap.
Tell Lerner and Obama you don't want to hear to me. Maybe they will do something about it like they threatened. What other amendments are they after? We know the 1st and 2nd.
How about the 14? That would take care of where most homicides reside! Not that I am for it. Just need to clean up some. Start at the worst first. not the average owner first.
Just what is it you don't want to hear? It is OK if Biscuits goes on and on with his hateful anti white stuff. I don't want to hear that. So I combat it with truth. Just like Dearborn silenced the bells because it was offensive to their delicate Islam ears. Well, that call prayer that Oabama calls “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset." is offensive to mine.
Not the sound itself as much as the evil it represents. We have to hear that. And that mandatory prayer room in our colleges while he is forbidding anything Christian. And allowing teachers to force Islam into our children while forbidding anything else.
And here is one I particularly don't want to hear. Obama
Full Quote: Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers
We still are a free country, Maybe. It is not the gov's business to dictate religion. What Obama is doing is unconstitutional. The houses are too if they allow it.
This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles with love and tolerance in mind.
Islam the opposite. I don't hear Mr O telling a sharia country that they should become tolerant. While they are eliminating Christians, Jews others.
As you see, there is a lot we don't want to hear also. Not very tolerant of you, is it?
ahorseback: Our military doesn't need pre-school. They get all the training they need from the military. The NRA, gun manufacturers, ammunition suppliers, gun dealers and all the other ancillary markets are all connected for one thing only and that is money. The NRA is one of the biggest lobbyist group in Washington that funds congresses campaigns through super PACs. They have bought congress for their selfish motivations. Wayne Lapierre's Salary last year was $970 million.
And?
In this quote who would you say "you" refers to?
"Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
~ extracted from:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick HenrySo why did so many, if not most, of the sharpshooters of the Vietnam War come from the hills like the Ozarks and Appalachian Mountains where the young cut their teeth on guns? The military didn't have to wait for them to develop their skills.
AMEN peoplepower ~ The NRA is a MONEY MAKING MACHINE at the expense of Strict Common Sense Gun Control and or BAN ~
Even our forefathers required Comprehensive and Strict Firearm Regulation for those affiliated with a Militia, and of course they had implemented a Firearm BAN for all other individuals ~
What is the issue really? Your need of a gun or the violence of the mentally ill. I suggest you support research into how to successfully treat the mentally ill rather than subject yourself to the dangers of not having the ability to protect yourselves. Very little of such research is done because people feel it dues not affect them at all f they are not mentally ill themselves. It does matter how you treat others.
Protect ourselves from who? From what? Where are all these cases each year of people protecting themselves with a gun?
You have brought up a very good point. I have heard the same nonsense over and over, but I can't recall one story of a gunman pulling a gun on a citizen and being shot by said citizen or a bystander. I'm sure it must have happened. But since the late 1970's I have gone all over the United States as a musician and a sailor. I have walked alone through Compton Calif.: unarmed. I have walked alone through Tijuana Mexico: unarmed and with money in my pocket.I have played music at festivals for biker gangs. I have never felt the need to own a a gun.
How can we form militias without owning guns?
militia: "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."
~ observe carefully and contemplate:
E M E R G E N C Y
Gosh
Kathryn ~
The 2cnd Amendment DOES NOT grant anyone the "Right" to "OWN" a gun ~
According to the 2cnd Amendment, YES, you may keep a firearm ONLY if you have been designated as an affiliate of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" ~We already have a militia. It's the National Guard.
NO! Militia is not a gov't sponsored group! it is a volunteer group made up of concerned citizens! They act spontaneously in the event of an emergency.
Every neighborhood needs one. (maybe sooner than we know!)
For gosh sakes!!!!!!!!!Your definition was true 250 years ago. It is not true today.
That said, the national guard IS a volunteer group. People join it out of choice and train outside of their jobs. It acts spontaneously in the event of an emergency.I disagree. plain and simple.
Human nature is human nature. It has never changed and never ever will. Neighborhood militias will always be vital.
We will never be civilized and we will always need guns to protect ourselves from the desperate, the evil, the blindly ambitious, the disgruntled, the mentally ill, etc ... Sad but True.
I stand this ground until proven wrong.
LAM
Leonardo Da Vinci wrote, "When besieged by ambitious tyrants I find a means of offense and defense in order to preserve the chief gift of nature, which is liberty."
He also said:
"I can noiselessly construct to any prescribed point subterranean passages either straight or winding, passing if necessary underneath trenches or a river."
( yeah, maybe HE could,
BUT, I wouldn't trust anyone!!)Who would want to take away the power of the people in a case such as this:
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens." Alexander Hamilton,1788.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am … nstitutionWho is Patrick Henry addressing? The gov't or the people?
Patrick Henry "believed that a citizenry trained in arms was the only sure guarantor of libert:y"
Citizenry means the people. But the key words here are Trained in Arms. When a shooter who has never been trained commits a mass killing, he was able to do that because of the ease of obtaining that weapon. The 2nd amendment is the right that causes the proliferation of weapons whether for good or evil.who does the training?
In those days … proly the fathers.
Today we have not only fathers but gun ranges and experts to train us civilians.
http://www.colonialshooting.com/rva/
http://www.civiliandefenseacademy.com/l … shoot.html
http://www.civilianarmstraining.com
http://westsidepistolrange.com
The modern day Crazy A Shooters are hopped on pharmaceuticals.
If we are going to give our children to the drug companies, yeah, we better give up the right to bear arms.
Just put the kids in play pens and don't let them out. EVER!!!!!
And now a-days you can just give 'em a screen and let 'em live a virtual reality.
Totally do-able.Yes and the military trains our national guard. They are a well regulated militia. Don't you get it? The more guns we make available whether legally or illiegally, Without out gun control, these weapons are available for anyone to use, including the mentally ill. At Sandy Hook, that guy had an arsenal of weapons with high capacity magazines. If we had gun control, he wouldn't have been able to obtain those weapons.
We are arguing about whether the second amendment should be abolished. Of course we need boundaries regarding the type of guns available. I also think his mother should have been held partially accountable for the fact that he even had such an "arsenal of weapons with high capacity magazines."
what was SHE thinking?????If the teachers had guns they could have saved some lives.
That's pure conjecture. You have no way of proving that. The Denver theater shooting, the guy entered through the exit. The police officer that was executed by three guys was shot from behind in the head and then they fired 15 shots into his body. The guy in the church that killed nine people would they have been able to bring him down if they had guns? See, this is gunfight at the O.K. Corral. The mentally ill go for soft targets, not nice neat places where others are armed. Do we all get armed the next time we go to a theater? If the high capacity assault weapons were taken off of the street, the mentally ill would not have access to them.
"The gun enthusiast who thinks he is going to protect himself from government tyranny is wrong."
Why?
"They have to protect themselves from the mentally ill."
Like I said, if it has come to this, you are right.
How does it feel to be right?If we are protecting ourselves from the "Mentally ill", forget the 2cnd Amendment, why on Earth would anyone VOTE conservative? ~
Martian Ron and his spaced out son Rand Paul, Jeb "I'm having difficulty thinking of a phrase to replace ANCHOR BABY" Bush, George "Speaks for HIMSELF" W Bush, Rick " Texas NEEDs to SECEDE from the Union" Perry, Chris " Compulsive Truth Fabricator" Christie, Mitch McConnell etc ~
Most conservatives exhibit signs of mental incapacitation and or delusional behavior ~ Even Kim Davis who was recently jailed for refusing to follow a clear and concise law appears to be deprived of a fully functional brain ~
please STOP demonizing people with mental illness. we are not axe muderers. mental illness without rage or substance abuse does not lead to violent crime. this is a red herring to take the focus off guns.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … der.2.html
I posted a couple of comments above saying the same thing about the National Guard and then saw your comment. Obviously we are in complete agreement.
There you go. Pharmaceuticals own the government. Therefore, the government should forego the right for us to bear arms. Thank you Ms. Hill
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Never before have so few simple words been argued so much as in the second amendment ! People power is wrong about the military trains well enough and doesn't need pre-training . This is the perfect example of not using common sense . America probably won two fronts of the second world war , at the same time , BECAUSE so many young men already new how to shoot ! Now if you have common sense , you know that , if you don't , you ignore it -just like the ignoring of the wording of the second amendment ..." OF THE PEOPLE"
ahorseback: Sure carbines won the war, not tanks, airplanes, ships artillery, intelligence, like breaking the enigma code. Obviously, you weren't in the military. All military personnel get the same basic training regardless of whether they were sharp shooters as civilians. If they are really good when they go through shooting range training, they may be singled out and trained as snipers. How about all the guys that were trained by the military that didn't have any shooting experience before? I guess you think they didn't help win the war?
"Of the people" can be interpreted to mean, it takes people to have a well regulated militia. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791, they wanted people to have the right to bear arms if those people were part of a well regulated militia. Today, a well regulated militia is our military.
See that's my interpretation of the 2nd amendment, Your's is different which proves my point. It is a poorly written piece of law, if it can be subject to interpretation, even by scholars. It served its purpose in 1791, but unfortunately, those people are not alive today to tell us what it really meant...See that's called common sense. By the way, the Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. Did you know if you don't exercise those rights, they are still available to you, even if you never used them. People think they have to open carry to exercise those rights. If they did nothing those rights would still be available to them.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Why don't those against guns fight just as hard to RE- establish tax dollars for mental health hospitals and care by individual states . Since the seventies - eighties every state in America has essentially closed the doors of mental hospitals , those who were treated there are now walking the streets of your neighborhood , while the individual citizen pays the price of higher crimes committed by far less than normal , prescription drug, burned out , mental wrecks.
Too close to the truth perhaps ? And given the above included in TODAYS higher illegal drug use and increased crimes associated with the acquisition of these drugs create even an ever growing socially stressed mental patient AND it all happens with a lax system of arrests , prosecution , incarceration by the legal system .
If the anti- gun crowd put half as much attention on these two issues , politically speaking , three things would happen , more money would be available to keep these unfortunate's off the streets and in proper care , criminals would actually be incarcerated , and violent crime associated with drugs , guns , money , would drop rapidly -EVEN more than it has recently .
But No , we seek the easy , the naïve answer - eliminate guns -change the constitution !
Here's mine - Its ten o'clock do you know where your prescription Oxy is ?ahorseback: Do you know who closed the doors on the mentally ill in the 80's ? It was Ronald Reagan as part of his program to reduce big government spending. He put mentally ill people on the street. You are right, those programs have never been reinstated since then. HIPPA laws will not allow disclosure of mentally disturbed patient's records.
How about if the gun crowd paid attention to those issues as well and petitioned congress, but no you are supporting the NRA to lobby for more guns because that's how you protect yourself against tyranny, the mentally ill, and criminals in general. In the mean time the mentally ill are carrying out their mass killings, using high capacity assault weapons that were meant for combat and law enforcement only.So my friend the BIG question is - And this IS about the mentally ill , what and when will Americans demand action -less than the nothing that it is now - from congress . Reagan's fault or not ?
That's a great question and I don't know if there is an answer. That's why we have to have some type of gun control that keeps those weapons out of the hands of those people. It would require additional responsibility and compromise on everyone's part. I have to think about it more. I'll get back to you. It's been great debating with you.
Just because there are other huge problems in our country, drug abuse and the care for the mentally ill, does not mean we should not try to prevent mass shootings.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
People power , You shouldn't say that gun access by law abiding citizens is NOT a deterrent to crime ! One of the reasons I began reading "outdoor life " as a kid was that there was always a column about crime deterrence by the legal gun owning public ,
I really wish that truth in statistics was as interesting for anti- gun people as the fallacies of false rhetoric , Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens IS a deterrent to crime . Always has been too . its also a deterrent to government tyranny , That is . it was , until the introduction of political apathy by the American voting public !ahorseback: I read outdoor life as well. I was an avid hunter with my dad. The problem with guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, is that non law abiding citizens can have those guns as well. Now you have the situation where everybody including the mentally ill can get high capacity assault weapons and you have to protect yourself form them. Recently in Phoenix, four cars were shot at multiple times on the interstate, They never found out who did it. How do you protect yourself from that? You want to protect yourself from tyranny. Even if there was a remote possibility of that ever happening, your ass would be droned in a microsecond, even with your high-capacity assault rifle.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
And no peoplepower , it wasn't Reagan's fault that instilled a dislike of anything mentally challenged in America , it was your state legislatures and mine that began to strip away the state funded and federally mandated care of mentally ill. They could have chosen instead , to defund the welfare programs of corporate subsidies , they could have not invested so much in owning university systems across America . In Vermont where I live most universities are now state funded .
Just as in Today's federal highway funds coming back from the feds and being bled dry by spending on the state levels on anything besides highways ! Look to your legislative voters for blame , and there is no partisan blame for the incompetence of the American voter's apathy to project real blame where real blame lies . In our total lack of compassion for our mentally challenged neighbors . In our lack of local and state political knowledge of who REALLY is to blame for all our social ills .
You sir ARE grabbing the wild dogs tail to control him by attacking the second amendment - instead of the utter incompetence of the voting - or non-voting American public ,
End - the de-funding of mental health care and you will end most crimes with guns especially serial killings .
End -the apathy of an entirely liberally idealized judicial system , incarceration , enforcement AND punishment system for the lax enforcement of drug and gang violence in America .
End the negative attacks of partisan ideals and you can at least -face up to the real problems and solutions in our culture today .
End the entire Obama-care joke , stop allowing a free ride for insurance companies who deny coverage and treatment of most mental issues .
Shall I go on ?ahorseback: I hate to tell you this but here it is. Over 30 years ago, when Reagan was elected President in 1980, he discarded a law proposed by his predecessor that would have continued funding federal community mental health centers. This basically eliminated services for people struggling with mental illness.
He made similar decisions while he was the governor of California, releasing more than half of the state’s mental hospital patients and passing a law that abolished involuntary hospitalization of people struggling with mental illness. This started a national trend of de-institutionalization. In other words, if you are struggling with mental illness, we can only help you if you ask for it. But, wait. Isn’t one of the characteristics of severe mental illness not having an accurate sense of reality? Doesn’t that mean a person may not even realize he or she is mentally ill?
"End - the de-funding of mental health care and you will end most crimes with guns especially serial killings" How do you propose getting those people who require being institutionalized getting them into the institutions. How do you propose identifying those who are capable of mass killings?
"End -the apathy of an entirely liberally idealized judicial system , incarceration , enforcement AND punishment system for the lax enforcement of drug and gang violence in America ." Here is what really happened with the ATF. Former Republican Representative Tom Tiahart of Kansas said on Fox News:: "We have an organization that goes after the bad guys 24/7, it's called the ATF." The irony of this is that same senator passed a law called the Tiahart Amendments that was attached to a federal spending bill. Here is a list of what the amendments do:
Restrict cities, states and even the police from fully accessing and using ATF gun trace data, which can show where illegal guns are coming from, who buys them and how they get trafficked across state lines and into our communities
Requires the FBI to destroy certain background check records within 24 hours, making it nearly impossible to use those records to help solve crimes or to identify gun buyers with criminal histories who were mistakenly approved
Blocks ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft, which law enforcement says is a dangerous back channel source for criminals who are in the market for illegal guns.
The ATF is allowed to inspect dealers licenses once every 12 months. They actually have inspected only once in 17 years, according to a Washington Post article.
In 1994 there was a ban placed on assault weapons, but because of "sunset laws", it expired in 2004, it was never renewed. Question: If something was ruled as being bad in 1994, why isn't it bad today. Why would they allow a law to expire?
I said it would require responsibility and compromise. The responsibility is on the part of all people. Since there is no way of putting the toothpaste back into the tube for the mentally ill. The next best thing is to ban high capacity assault weapons from everybody. Sure, they will revert to other ways and methods of killing, but it won't be massacres the way it is now.
As far as a do nothing government, what you are describing is the republican controlled congress. They have vowed to make Obama a one term president, but he did get elected for a 2nd term. As far as Obama care goes, it was supposed to be a single payer system, but your buddies blocked that as well.
Shall I go on?Excellent explanation of what Saint Ronnie did to the mentally ill in the 80s. I saw it personally with a friend of mine, who for many years alternated between homelessness and jail due to his untreated mental illness. He died on the streets of Portland at the age of 46, of untreated pneumonia.
Hooray for freedom.
"Since there is no way of putting the toothpaste back into the tube for the mentally ill. The next best thing is to ban high capacity assault weapons from everybody. "
high capacity assault weapons
Of course. Who the heck would argue this?
Where can I get a hold of a tank?
In the movie, "Straight Outta Compton," (true story) there were some gang guys that used a tank to bust up a house.No to keep it out of the hands of he mentally ill. It is the price we all have to pay to promote the general welfare of the country, not just the gun people.
I disagree. We have regulations and proceedures in place. It just takes the common sense that I believe WE the MAJORITY do (still) have.
I agree with what Reagan did. It makes sure that individuals take care of themselves and families take care of their own.
And the burden is not placed on those who did nothing to contribute to the mental illnesses of others.
Mental ilness is a preventable problem. (Most homeless, mentally ill people are on substances from alcohol to street drugs to pharmaceuticals.)
I believe, It should be seen as a act of patriotism to be proactive in maintaining one's own mental health and the mental health of one's offspring.
Don't mess with the BRAIN / MIND!Perhaps you are confused about how this works.
John developed paranoid schizophrenia when he was 16. His parents obtained appropriate medical care for him and forced him to take his meds. When he turned 18, John thought he didn't need meds any more, so he stopped taking them. He became increasingly paranoid until he thought his parents were poisoning his food, water, and even the air that he breathed. His parents, recognizing the problem, made an appointment with John's psychiatrist. John refused to go. They could not force him to get treatment. They could not force him to take meds, as he was an adult. They tried to get him committed, but were told he was not a threat to himself or others, which is the criteria needed for involuntary commitment. John, thinking his parents were trying to kill him, left home and lived on the streets, where his condition worsened due to inadequate nutrition. He was arrested a few times and his parents bailed him out and brought him home. A few times, they convinced him to go back on meds, and he would get better, though never completely "normal." Always, he would eventually stop taking the meds, leave home, and the cycle would begin again.
He died on the streets.
See how that works?No, I do not.
He died.
He reaped his own karma.
Maybe his parents and doctors should have found a better way to treat him when he was young.
Evolution does not require drugs to evolve. It never has.I'm sorry your knowledge of mental illness is so limited. I don't have all the answers, but I am aware enough to understand that an individual with a diseased brain cannot make rational choices.
I am sorry yours is too. I do not advocate for the mentally ill to have guns. Why would anyone?
In fact, possession of a firearm by the mentally ill is regulated by both state and federal laws:
"Federal Law
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and- … y-ill.aspxGreat! You were, however, praising Saint Ronnie for his disastrous policies that harm the mentally. You also think families can simply take care of their mentally ill adult family members. Doesn't work that way in real life. In real life, too many of them end up homeless, in prison, or dead.
Edited to add: Wish you would stop adding to your posts after the fact.<" There are no laws that keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. The only law we have is the 2nd amendment that says it's O.K. for everybody to have guns, including the mentally ill.">
REALLY?
Repeating:
FEDERAL LAW:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and- … y-ill.aspx
NO. NOT REALLY
john didn't hurt anyone, as people with mental illness don't, unless they have rage (and many folks without mental illness have rage and commit 95% of violent crime) or substance abuse. it sickens me to see the demonization of an already marginalized group.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an … der.2.html
As of March 2014, Washington, D.C. and eight U.S. states have high-capacity magazine restrictions or bans
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii (on handguns only)
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
In Virginia, high-capacity magazines are not banned, but a semi-automatic, centerfire rifle or pistol with a magazine able to hold more than 20 rounds is considered an "assault firearm" and may only be purchased by citizens or permanent residents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capa … gazine_ban
"Firearm related matters that are often regulated by state or local laws include the following:
Some states and localities require that a person obtain a license or permit in order to purchase or possess firearms.
Some states and localities require that individual firearms be registered with the police or with another law enforcement agency.
All states allow some form of concealed carry, the carrying of a concealed firearm in public.
Many states allow some form of open carry, the carrying of an unconcealed firearm in public on one's person or in a vehicle.
Some states have state preemption for some or all gun laws, which means that only the state can legally regulate firearms. In other states, local governments can pass their own gun laws more restrictive than those of the state.
Some states and localities place additional restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms that they have defined as assault weapons, or on magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition."
NFA weapons are weapons that are heavily restricted at a federal level by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. These include automatic firearms (such as machine guns), short-barreled shotguns, and short-barreled rifles. Some states and localities place additional restrictions on such weapons.
Some states have enacted castle doctrine or stand-your-ground laws, which provide a legal basis for individuals to use deadly force in self-defense in certain situations, without a duty to flee or retreat if possible.
In some states, peaceable journey laws give additional leeway for the possession of firearms by travelers who are passing through to another destination."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_ … s_by_stateI hate to see these two on the phone calling for the National Guard when in-country or out-of-country invaders show up in their yards or bust through their front doors.
See "No escape." I liked it.
… its about an "American family in the middle of a sudden uprising in an Asian country, where the locals congregate en masse to slaughter any foreigners they can. In his role as the father, Wilson provides a credible 'everyman', playing it deadly seriously and instilling a genuine sense of jeopardy during early scenes set in a hotel complex. Brosnan is also likeable (but sorely underused) as a lounge lizard who has a few tricks up his Hawaiian shirt sleeves." http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/review … IO5FGztYDU (Bad review though.)
Not for kids.We own guns and I know how to shoot. I'm not advocating getting rid of all guns.
Well good!
Is anyone here in this thread advocating getting rid of the second amendment altogether ...
or what??Not me, but I don't see why we can't regulate guns as much as we regulate cars. What's the big deal?
Oh, the NRA lobby. That's the big deal. Oh, yeah, and Billy Bob SixPack needs an arsenal in his basement to defend against the government."The National Rifle Association goes to great lengths (and spends a huge sum of money) to defend the right to bear arms. It is opposed to virtually every form of gun regulation, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, retention of databases of gun purchases, background checks on purchasers at gun shows and changes in the registration of firearms."
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summar … D000000082
Oh, I see!
and yet:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and- … y-ill.aspx+1!
" The majority of states (42) do not ban or regulate any magazines on the basis of capacity." (!)
Now the topic is this: should we regulate these types of weapons? (high capacity magazines.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capa … gazine_ban
I say yes.
TWISIIt is more than just a matter of regulation. It's also about having the resources and commitment to enforce those regulations.
Kathryn ~
I'm advocating Strict Enforcement of the 2cnd Amendment EXACTLY as it reads ~ This means "Well Regulated Militias" such as the Army, Marines, Law Enforcement etc who have an explicit purpose to protect in a defensive posture or offensive if warranted, would "Keep & Bear" arms ~ Guns would be banned for ALL others ~
This is the VERBATIM Interpretation of the 2cnd Amendment ~ If you believe individuals who are Non-Affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" should have this right, then a change to the Amendment would be necessary ~regulate
supervise, police, monitor, check, check up on, be responsible for; control, manage, direct, guide, govern.
Q. Who will regulate the militias? The government or themselves?
A. If you understand the basis for this country, it is for the people to rule themselves, NOT the GOVERNMENT!
SO DUH!Kathryn ~ You're corroborating my point ~
ALL the actions you've mentioned are indeed performed by Generals & Individuals in Leadership Positions within the "Well Regulated Militia" ~
If PEOPLE were to RULE themselves then why did George "I'll Kick Your Rear With Guerrilla Tactics" Washington become our FIRST PRESIDENT of our EVIL GOVERNMENT?? ----> I'm sure ole' Grumpy George had better things to do like go chase some English Maids around the plantation, or go hang out at the local tavern with Benji n' Paul, get intoxicated, then go tar n' feather Bendict !! (Actually, I think he did that last one anyway, and probably the first one too ----> <----) ~ But NO, he had to do EVIL GOVERNMENT stuff ~Who the heck are you? You now do not seem like a US citizen ...
at all.
no change is necessary to the Amendment... just a change to your knowledge base. You really don't know the actual ~complete~ definition of a militia so you just make something up from thin air and use it as your base argument.
Maybe this will help...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
- PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago0
The conservative's rich fantasy life includes the delusion that an armed citizenry would be able to defend against the largest military in the world. You know, the one with:
1,400,00 active front line military personnel
8800 tanks
41,000 armored fighting vehicles
13,500 aircraft
1,300 multiple launch rocket systems
and a bunch of other stuff
;-)PrettyPanther: Very good point. I think it's in the conservative's DNA that they don't trust anybody to protect them and they have to protect themselves from the perceived threats of tyranny.
Their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the perfect document for them to justify it in their minds. Therefore, they have to be armed at all times, because god only knows when the government is going to turn on you or law enforcement is not going to be able to help you.so you trust the gov't? Why?
Forum topic:
In Government We Trust
You would get a lot of disagreement. Shall I prove it?Are you asking to start a forum on that topic?
Kathryn ~
I absolutely TRUST & LOVE my Government, if not for it, I would not receive all the benefits of a modernized lifestyle, nor would we have a "Well Regulated Militia" to bear arms in protection of myself and all conservatives even though they despise it ~
If conservatives DISTRUST & DETEST their own government to the point of Paranoia, which is the sentiment of just about every high profile GOPer I've ever seen, maybe a change of living venue might be the cure ~ There are plenty of countries which allow gun, bazooka, tank, and grenade ownership and with ZERO Rules & Regulations ~
If I were so FRIGHTENED to think my own government at any time might invade my "Space" I'd leave the country, plain and simple ~ It has not happened yet and I don't anticipate it happening any time soon ~ After all, we live on dirt, sand, concrete, n' grass and I can find that just about anywhere on this beautiful, kinda polluted planet ~ YES I understand many have sacrificed for this country but that does not solve nor cure "PARANOIA" tendencies ~
AND
"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.[12]:1–2
In November 1993, the ban passed the U.S. Senate, although its author, Dianne Feinstein, and other advocates said that it was a weakened version of the original proposal.[13]
The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994.
The ban, including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset provision.
Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level."
\ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capa … gazine_ban
I agree, Not good. We need boundaries to freedom.… won't you be like a deer caught in the headlights!
you will be an alternative prime deer.
In the middle of the road ...
The lights of an on coming car, truck or tank approaching rapidly!
What then?Kathryn ~ I'm not too concerned about a TANK waving the stars n' stripes encroaching upon my property, I am however extremely concerned that a WHACKED OUT NUTCASE conservative such as Jeb Bush might miraculoualy manage to infiltrate our White House then proceed to re-ignite the stagnant WAR in Iraq like his numbskull brother George W did, or invade some other nation just to keep the price of oil steady or rising so his buddies in the industry can remain comfortably solvent ~
I'm very comfortable with my Federal, State, and Local Governments, if not, I'd relocate, I am however very UNCOMFORTABLE with the thought of an un-stable, psychotic, "LIVING in the PAST" conservative populace gaining control of my government via elected agents ~If JB pisses off or joins China, Russia and Iran (or is already part of such an alliance) …
YIKES!
( BTW Jeb Bush is not a conservative.)
What do you think about Mrs. Clinton?Kathryn ~
Jeb "Jed" Bush maintains an EXTREME conservative AGENDA ~
An agenda which is not friendly to the Majority of Americans ~
- PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago0
Here are just some of the regulations we endure in order to drive a vehicle:
You must register your vehicle with the state and renew it on a regular basis
You must have a license with your picture on it to drive your vehicle; you obtain this license by taking two tests: written and driving. You must produce this license when asked by a police officer to do so.
You must renew your driver's license on a regular basis
You must be a certain age to drive a vehicle
You must purchase insurance for your vehicle
You must obey the posted speed limit or risk getting a ticket
You must wear a seat belt
Your children under a certain size must be in a car seat or infant carrier when riding with you
Your vehicle must meet minimum safety requirements
Your vehicle must meet minimum emissions requirements It's never the odds... it is what you are willing to risk, eh.
Pro, perhaps you can explain to us just ~how~ my owning a gun as a law abiding citizen takes away in any sense your "right to live". Give detail. Be specific.
Should be entertaining to read.Jack, if by Pro you are talking to me, I have to say that you don't understand my post.
I'm saying that the right to life is the most important right. Your gun is not more important than anyone's life.
You might explain why you think everyone with a gun is a law abiding citizen.
I hope that's entertaining enough for you.pro... you must have confused me with another poster. I never posted, said, or hinted that I think every person is a law abiding person.
I'm simply misinterpreting your statement on purpose as you did mine.
That said, what gives you the right to claim that you are a law-abiding citizen?
Seung-Hui Cho was a law-abiding citizen until he slaughtered 32 people at Virginia Tech.
Then, as always, NRA members shrieked that nobody better pass any gun laws. They cared more about their guns than they did about the dead.Again... you really cannot justify your statement, can you. So you have to pretend that you were "misinterpreted." Weak sauce.
Hmmmm.... I think most people would agree that here in the US the presumption is that most people are "law abiding citizens" until proven otherwise. Perhaps you are paranoid enough to have an opposite opinion.
And Julio González was a law abiding citizen also, until he purposefully started the Happy Land nightclub fire with a gallon of gasoline that killed 87 people. Don't recall you shrieking that we need more controls on who can buy gasoline and why do we sell it in gallon cans. Just don't care about those poor, burned to death people, eh?
As to gun control, John Hinderacker has the answer for you...
"WHY MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS WON’T HELP"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 … t-help.phpIt's hard to tell which statement bothers you because your attacks are vague.
The odd thing about extremists is that they always quote NRA propaganda or Web sites run by other extremists. They never seem to look up research by respected institutions, such as the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which I quoted in an attempt to be fair and objective.
Likewise, I quoted facts from the FBI on two other postings. But no doubt the FBI is run by commies because their stats show 100,000 people getting shot every year.
Just out of curiosity, I clicked on the link to your profile. The top headline? "Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles (or perhaps not)"
You wouldn't agree with a fact, a reasonable statement or an attempt to meet you halfway (such as my comment that I don't have a problem with people who own guns) if your life depended on it.
You fit the profile very well.And you can't really answer anything that I post, eh... so it's easier for you just to wave your hands and call them "vague."
Okay... people shoot other people a lot. And....?
And you are going to guarantee us that any and all "research" out of Johns Hopkins is done bias free and factually accurate? How odd that within days of anything they publish it is shown to be in error and grossly mistaken.
And there ya go, Dear Readers. If it is from the NRA it MUST be "propaganda". Can we say "closed mind" together?
Should have read the article... would have done you a lot of good.
It is good to know that you have no problems with people owing ARs and AKs, and little, ultra concealable handguns, and .50 caliber BMGs that shoot a bullet as big as a can of Coke (not really, but it is what some folk like to believe.) I am glad I can count you as a friend who was on the NRAs side in their lawsuits against Chicago and Washington DC which did not let their residents own guns at all.
And I thought all you guys disliked the concept of "profiling" eh.You claim I don't stick to the facts. Yet I quote a respected research center on gun violence and the FBI. You quote the NRA.
Classic denial tactics.
How long have you been a member of the NRA?How long have you been a member of the NRA?
And you are the type who loves confirmation bias. JH has been busted a dozen times passing off fraudulent "research" about firearms and firearm owners. And I didn't see anyone here disputing any FBI stats although I could have missed it.
And what makes you think I am a member of the NRA? Do you always play to your biases so openly and broadly?I suspect you are a member because you use all of the same talking points as other members I know. It's like you all are reading from the same manual.
I don't need a confirmation bias. You confirmed my suspicions a long time ago.
Right, Johns Hopkins has been "busted" by Fox News and the NRA. Somehow all of the credible media outlets haven't done the same thing. They have poured over the research and found it credible. Strange."I suspect..."
Yeah, that's about all you have, eh.
"Fox News"? How did ~they~ get into the thread. They really are living rent free in your head. :-)
"Credible media" = media that agrees with him on gun control.
You didn't answer my question... instead you tried to change your statement retroactively. Answer the question based upon your original statement, not something you had to suddenly make up in order to save face.
Of course I answered your question. You just don't want to accept the answer. Or maybe you are so fixated on guns that don't understand my answer, which is based on a simple principle of law.
I don't have a problem with people owning guns. I have a problem with extremists who think their guns are more important than people's lives.We have the scroll back that al gore invented... lie all you want but the Dear Readers can clearly see that you didn't answer the question.
Funny how I say that I don't have a problem with people owning guns, just extremists who think guns are more important than someone's life.
When I say it, the extremists always get upset but never dispute the point. They are basically bullies with weapons. If they don't get their way, they freak out. It must be some kind of power trip.You still have not managed to actually ~find~ any of those "extremists" and quote a real live one, eh.
You smear other people as "extremists" yet it is YOU who are labeling others as bullies, and people on power trips. If the gun owning community was even 1/1000th as much of bullies as you claim then there would not be a anti-freedom gun controller alive today.Actually, I did. Read my other post.
I don't smear "other people" as extremists. I only condemn people who are in love with assault rifles -- the weapons used in many mass killings -- and oppose any laws to keep them out of the hands of children, mentally ill people and convicted felons.
Yes, I think a bully is anyone with a gun who berates and insults other people who think differently than them and who has no tolerance for freedom of speech.
These same people claim to be patriots, but they love only the 2nd Amendment. They hate the rest of the Constitution. It's the same type that ends up taking over a country and setting up a totalitarian state.Really... you sure seem awful fond that "extremist" word and are pretty quick to use it for anyone who disagrees with you.
And again.. you really have no idea what an "assault rifle" is, do you.
Ohhh... you mean by berating and insulting others by calling them "extremists"? Pot... meet kettle.
And again... let's see some actual proof that those who support the 2nd Amendment "hate" the Constitution. Be specific. Give detail.Read my posts to Kathryn and Ahorseback. We don't agree on some points, but we try to debate the issues rather than attack. I didn't call them extremists. And I certainly didn't call them ignorant three times in one sentence.
I didn't even call you an extremist. I did describe extremists as people who oppose laws keeping guns out of the hands of young children, convicted felons and mentally ill people.
Where do you stand on that point? It's a simple question.and hunting magazines that know that the AR platform is a fine, exceptional rifle for use for hunting... don't forget about that one.
Why don't you actually find one of those "extremists" and quote them accurately on this very subject. Otherwise we know that... again... you have to lie to attempt to make a case.
"We have the scroll back that al gore invented"
That's a quote. It doesn't make any sense, but it's a quote.You were not aware that AG invented that along with the Internet. Well, people say you can learn something new every day on the 'net. That was your chance. Don't let it slip by you.
I have a better idea. It's a simple question.
Do you think your assault rifle is more important than my life?That rifle could protect your life. It all depends on who is holding it.
That's not what I'm saying. If you could choose between owning an assault rifle or saving a life, which would you choose?
What I'm saying is that I have met too many people who think of their guns above everything else. The same people who think that mentally ill people, children, etc., should be able to get their hands on guns whenever they want.assault rifles may be necessary in the future. one never knows.
I would rather say we do not need guns of any type and that we are living in wonderful times and in a civilized society.
I wish I could but...
do you think that those people should be able to get a gallon can of gasoline whenever they want?
Depends.
But let's get one thing straight, first. You have no idea what you actually mean when you type the words "assault rifle."
If you are a thuggish social deviant who is menacing my family then I can and will shoot you down with my firearm and not blink an eye. You (generically) made a choice at that point that your own life was worth little to nothing.
If you were drowning in a river would I use my "assault rifle" to hold out to you so you could grab onto it so that you can pull yourself to safety even though there was a great chance I would lose the rifle into the river. In a heartbeat.
Since you mentioned my hubs I would recommend that you read the one about "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?" I promise it will clear up any questions that you or anyone else can have about my philosophy on freedom.Oh, please. I don't know what I mean when I use the term assault rifle? You really are trying too hard. Let's try one more time:
"If you could choose between OWNING an assault rifle or SAVING a life, which would you choose?"
How much more clear can the question be? You are simply refusing to answer an incredibly simple question.Nope... you don't know. It's obvious from your writing.
I would suggest you scroll back again about 20 minutes and there is my answer as plain as day. Unlike you, I didn't duck the question that I was asked."Depends" is not an answer to a question with a simple choice of A or B.
The truth is you are afraid to answer.
And you seem to keep denying that I answered your question. Once again:
"I'm saying that the right to life is the most important right. Your gun is not more important than anyone's life. "
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
As an "extremist " I believe I will answer to all of you why we gun owners will always fight for our second amendment privileges , Because their is a war of attrition against guns , against the second amendment , and on the legal , well regulated hunting and sporting heritage in America .
This war of attrition is a well thought out , extremely well planned and executed , where hunters are even regularly harassed in the woods by groups of anti's , mostly college age anti- activist's .
I watched a video of a proud group of activists walking into the woods and harassing an aged hunter who was so flustered that he didn't know which way to turn , where they surrounded and harassed him , I felt immediately ashamed and angered of anyone who speaks against hunters .
The war on guns and the second amendment is such that those who wage it are happy with one thing at a time . One law , one piece of land closed to sportsmen , one more fishing regulation , one more type of gun made illegal . AND , the real sportsman knows that - so is perfectly unwilling to give an inch when a mile will be taken ! Period . And it's the same with the rest of the constitutional revisionist attitudes . One change at a time until we are all saluting like little Eichmann's.
Alternative Prime , you seem to hate America so much that it seems that you might actually seek residency elsewhere ! Your Verbatim " interpretation of the second amendment is tilted by your lack of understanding of the very purpose of this constitutional and the bill of rights ! I would suggest you actually study the constitution a little better than you have . Your interpretation of it is so twisted .Ahorseback, I would not describe you as an extremist for wanting to protect the 2nd Amendment.
I would describe you that way if you said convicted felons and mentally ill people should be able to get access to guns like anyone else.I'm simply offering a definition of a gun extremist and looking for common ground.
The common ground involves the goldilocks principle.
The right to self protection: the right size weaponry: Not too big/powerful, not to small/powerless. Just right.
… according to the appropriate regulations which are already in place.They are not appropriate when Seung-Hui Cho, who was known to authorities to be mentally ill with a fixation on killing, was able to get the guns he used to murder 32 students at Virginia Tech.
The state of Virginia responded by forming a commission and then forgetting about it.and the recent killing of the two journalists was done with an ordinary handgun and less than ten rounds. It is not the firearm... it is the broken, evil brain of the person who is harming others.
I agree with you that he had an evil and broken brain. But he again was known to be mentally ill and once again was able to get a gun.
Do you think that's right?And you know he was "known" to be mentally ill how?
There are hundreds of thousands of people who have anger management issues. How many of them become shooters of innocent people?
There are many grievance collectors such as him. How many of them become shooters of innocent people?
There are many African American homosexual men. How many of them become shooters of innocent people?
I am fine with someone who is actually adjudicated as a danger to society being put in a place where he can harm no one. I am not fine with someone pointing to a person and saying "I don't like what he said so we are going to take away his rights." I am not fine with rights being taken away thru a casual approach to determining in advance if someone is a "danger." We are not living in "Minority Report" and you are not Tom Cruise.
Are YOU comfortable with someone who YOU think is mentally insane being able to go into Walmart and buy a dozen butcher knives?
Kathryn, I am revising my answer. At least one person is saying it by refusing to state they favor such a ban, despite being asked their position repeatedly.
And there is the problem Promisem my friend , Our great legal system cannot keep mentally ill or drug crazed gang members off the streets to begin with . Illegally acquired firearms are easy to get - steal one ! All one has to do is steal it from a family member , a burglary or a cop car as has recently happened here and it was from a border patrol vehicle ! The best deterrent to crime however is to own a gun . As the revolving doors of our legal system cannot prevent crime from occurring or re- occurring . It is after all the same perpetrators generally revolving in gun crimes , Even anti- gun people cannot deny the system IS broken .
I'm glad we can find some common ground.
That said, I do quite a bit of volunteer work with people who are mentally ill, and trying to prevent the most seriously ill from harming themselves or others is very hard to do.
I think we need multiple tactics to bring the problem under control.ahorseback: "It is after all the same perpetrators generally revolving in gun crimes , Even anti- gun people cannot deny the system IS broken."
It's not about your average criminal or gang shootings. It's about the mentally ill massacring people because it's so easy for them to obtain assault weapons. Why is it easy for them to obtain assault weapons? Because it's easy for everybody to obtain assault weapons. The 2nd amendment makes no distinction. Why do civilians need assault weapons? I have no problem with registered hunters, but I hope they don't use an AR15 to shoot a deer. So because we have no solution for stopping the mentally ill from mass killings, we need to have everybody armed? You are right the system is broken, but arming everybody is not going to help in my book.
We have the right to bear arms. Is an RPG an arm we can bear or a stinger missile? One person can bring down an aircraft with a stinger missile, that would be great for your war on tyranny. Do you think the framers of the 2nd amendment were able to see that far down stream. How about green lasers that they use to blind airline pilots. Is that allowed by the 2nd amendment. What the right to bear arms meant in 1791 and today are two different things. If you believe we should all be armed to protect ourselves, then the system is truly broken."I have no problem with registered hunters, but I hope they don't use an AR15 to shoot a deer. "
Classic example of an ignorant person making an ignorant statement about a subject that he is totally ignorant about. Let's look at what some educated people have to say on the subject.
The October 2009 issue of Outdoor Life, the premier magazine of hunting and fishing, prominently featured an AR style rifle on it's front cover, and declared it one of the top ten hunting rifles of the year.
The North American Whitetail association considers the AR platform ideal as shown in "11 Best ARs for Deer Hunting in 2014"
Field and Stream magazine, the acknowledged dean of hunting information wrote..."Finally, 4 AR-Style Rifles Chambered for Big Game Hunting"
And Peterson's Hunting published..."How to Choose the Perfect Hunting AR"
And the National Shooting Sports Foundation has launched a national media campaign designed to correct widespread mis-perceptions among gun owners and non-gun owners about AR-15-style rifles, also known as modern sporting rifles, by enlisting the help of widely respected outdoors writer/author Doug Painter to do a video explaining how this type of rifle is perfect for certain types of hunting.
With that out of the way I can state with certainty that this is indicative of how much in error his whole post is.Three uses of the word ignorant in one sentence directed at a guy who is trying to treat other posters with respect...
The fact that an AR-15 is used to shoot deer doesn't change the fact that it's an assault rifle. These so-called hunters are just extremists who get off on using them any way they can.Are you denying that he is ignorant about modern sporting rifles?
Was his statement a correct statement or one grossly in error? Did he give factually good info that the other posters can count upon or did he mislead others who don't know the difference?
Good intentions don't really mean a lot when you want deny others their freedom based upon ignorance.
And there ya go, Dear Readers... as classic example as he can give us. He claims over and over again that he only uses "extremists" in very limited sense... and yet when the most mainstream hunting magazines available state for a fact that the AR is a fine hunting rifle what does he do?... why... he calls THEM "extremists."
That's why I love poking these anti freedom people... give them enough time and they'll eventually reveal themselves for what they are.You apparently didn't read my response. I pointed out that you are getting personal once again by calling him ignorant three times on one sentence. Everyone can see that's what you wrote.
Are you denying that the AR-15 is an assault rifle? Maybe you don't know what you mean when you use the term "modern sporting rifles."
If you have been trying to poke fun at me, you really need to try harder.What else would you call an ignorant person who broadcasts his ignorance across the world but "ignorant." My task is not to sugarcoat the facts for other people to feel good about their ignorance.
By your mere asking about the AR being an "assault rifle" you show that you know little to nothing about them. The correct answer is "yes" and "no".
And you are very pokeable.
Why do you need an assault rifle for hunting? Assault rifles are for combat and killing people and for the mentally ill to commit mass killings. Listing all that BS about how your magazines praise the AR15 for hunting, is like listing sex magazines that praise the three prong dildo. I'm not ignorant. I'm a critical thinker. Selfish people don't change their life style for the greater good of the country. Ignorant people have to protect themselves against the tyranny of the whole department of defense. Ignorant people can't handle change. I used to hunt deer with my father with a Winchester model 270 with a Weaver K.25 scope. It worked just fine. My question again. Why does any civilian need an automatic or semi-automatic , high capacity assault weapon? The reason I'm asking this question is if it is easy for you to obtain this weapon, then it's easy for the mentally ill to obtain them as well. Gun people say why should they ban my weapon, let the mass killings continue. I have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment. We need more guns and arm more people. That's ignorance.
There ya go, Dear Readers. Millions of law abiding people have AR and AK style rifles at home and according to him it is all because of "blood lust." And he doesn't think he insults people.
There ya go, Dear Readers.
Some folk just revel in their ignorance and absolutely refuse to accept reality even when it is put in front of them in easy to digest form. Many of these folk run off and join the flat earth society... many others become wanna-be gun controllers. No difference.
Errrr. .. it is against the federal law for those who are convicted of crimes and those adjudicated mentally ill to even be in the same room with a gun (or even just a bullet without a gun present.)
But if these people are so dangerous... why do you think it is okay for them to drive cars that can kill a dozen people at once? Or to go into any store and buy as many kitchen butcher knives, axes, hacksaws, and baseball bats as they want.Guns are designed to kill. Cars are designed to be driven. That should be obvious.
but it is okay with you that these people can get the cars and kill others?
Of course not. Is it OK with you that they get guns and kill others?
"One change at a time until we are all saluting like little Eichmann's."
Just wanted to take a moment here and say this caused me to crackup! I'm not saying I agree with your views on guns, but this is a great line! We definitely don't want to be cliche touting drones like Eichmann xD
Thank you for making me smile ahorseback!
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Another point worth clarifying is that conservatives don't fear their government ! They, we , all realize fully that WE are the government . There is no one to fear except the tyranny that is created by the constant amending , altering and additions to the constitution . The constant leftists threat and outcry for petty and unstudied change is the most dangerous threat to our heritage .
".........the rights of the people shall not be infringed........."+1
But the government leaders could become less and less responsive to US, as the central gov't becomes more and more powerful.
That is the biggest fear.
It could happen if WE let it.
"(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
CornellThanks for that important link Kathryn why IS that so hard for some to understand !
Kathryn ~
The 2cnd Amendment cleary states a "Well Regulated Militia", one which has Structure, Leadership, Control, Oversight, Training etc. as in the Army, Navy, Law Enforcement etc.
Not affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia"? No Gun Rights ~Unfortunately, it does not state that only the militia can have guns. That part is a figment of your own imagination and desire.
wilderness ~
YOU'RE IMAGINING the phrase "Well Regulated Militia" does NOT exist in the 2cnd Amendment as part of a continuous sentence, but unfortunately for your extremely weak opinion, it does ~ SORRY ~ I'm reading it right now, if anyone would care to confirm the FACT that the phrase does indeed appear and it is NOT invisible like Casper or Patrick Swayze, Search It ~Of course it's visible. But it does not indicate that only the militia can have weapons - that's pretty plain in the words and all your desire that the writers meant that it did doesn't mean much.
wilderness ~
You're free to interpret the 2cnd Amendment any way you wish, I'll continue to interpret it the CORRECT verbatim way as it was intended without "REMOVING" or "Disregarding" or "Ignoring" any of the text ~
According to the United States Constitution, to keep arms, you must be affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" ~ It's about as crystal clear as it can possibly be ~Sure it is. Because they are in the same amendment...and because you don't like guns. Got it.
Let's see what a real expert has to say on the subject...
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three
decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching
journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column
dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for _Editor and
Publisher_, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the _American Heritage Dictionary_, and
_Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary_ frequently cites him as an expert.
Copperud's fifth book on usage, _American Usage and Style: The
Consensus_, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold
since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's
Humanities Award.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.txt
no one has said the phrase doesn't appear. But we are saying that you have no clue at to what it actually means.
There is a difference, you know.
and you really don't know what "well regulated" meant in the late 1700s, do you. But you comment anyway?
Jack Burton ~
If you wanna go there, you don't really know what the word "Constitution" meant in the 1700's do YOU? How do you know it wasn't written as a script for a PLAY? Or Comedy Routine? Or a HOAX like Leonardo Da Vinci was famous for ~ I'm sure George Washington and the gang must have had a hearty sense of humor right?
Moreover, how do you know we were in conflict with the BRITISH? Were you there? How do you know we didn't win this country from Australia? How do you even know there was a WAR?
Using your logic we might as well just throw out the entire document because clearly there would be NO Accurate Interpretation ~
P.S. ~ you made my point even stronger ~ Not only does the 2cnd Amendment say "Regulated Militia", but the founders added the word "WELL" as a prefix ~ Clearly they wanted strict control over arms ~And ~this~ is really the best that he can do, eh.
I understand why you are driving this point, but I think it has been clear for a long time that we've interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean all people have the right to bear arms, despite what might have been intended when it was written.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
No people , as is very well documented and shown in statistics all across the country , It Is Not the second amendment that is terribly outdated today ! What IS the most outdated issue of all is the opinion of the anti- gun ,-- anti- second amendment crowds total ignorance of the very real and most important issues and gun terminology itself .
I have seen and heard it argued over and over , Most anti's simply know very little about guns , fine , however the average terminology of the anti's is to assume that all weapons are "Assault Weapons ", Assuming of course that the average hunter is running around the woods behind your house with a fully loaded RPG , [rocket propelled grenade ] , Or that hovering over your nephews backyard playground is a helicopter with fully loaded rocket launchers all ready to kill anything that moves .
For those of you in this category :
"Assault Rifle "or a fully auto- matic , black gun , one pull of the trigger without let -off empties an entire clip of dozens or more bullets . Yes your police have these - AND THAT bothers the average anti- gun activist very little .
Here's , my point , much to your surprise , hunters or recreational shooters cannot own these !
" Automatic weapon " , wow now there 's a verbally loose term . One who understands weaponry realizes that can be anything from a to a bobby- pin to an Panzer tank , but hey let's throw that term in for good measure . The only auto-matic gun allowed to the sportsman is actually a semi- automatic firing gun , meaning for each pull of the trigger , ONE bullet is fired .
Combine the two "assault rifle and automatic rifle ", That which is Legally own-able by the civilian population and you have a military" looking" semi-automatic rifle , A black plastic gripped M-16 style of gun that will -ONLY- fire a single [one ] bullet with each pull of the trigger .....much like your great - grandfathers "auto-matic " shotgun that he used for pheasant hunting in nine-teen thirty eight !
They only thing outdated is the ignorance of the average Anti- gun activist !ahorseback: Your are right. I don't know squat about firearms. I guess you have never heard of a bump stock or high capacity magazines, or a Glock with a high capacity magazines that was used in Arizona to kill several people and turn Gabby Gifford from a thriving senator into a handicapped individual that can barely say her name. Take a look at these two videos and then please get back to me. I was in the service and I fired a grease gun with 45 cal 15 round clips. It had so much firepower, i had to hold it sideways and spray it. I was also part of a 50 cal machine gun emplacement.
My point is if this is available to fun loving, people, it's also available to those who commit mass killings. So what do you propose...So yes, I'm really ignorant about guns. I just happen to have two Winchester model 12, full choke. My dad had a Browning Automatic, Winchester 270, a Browning over/under, and a 340 Krag. You gun people shouldn't call people ignorant if you don't know their background. I think gun people who stand behind the 2nd amendment are selfish and paranoid and only give a damn about their world, not the greater good of the country. Here are the two videos. I'm sure you will really enjoy them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvLt8-Wf7r0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI-y7kgpFU4IF you were in the military then you know that the firearms sold at the local gun store are not the same as what you carried or fired in the military.
Did you even look at the videos? I was in the military from 1956 to 1960. Weapons were a lot different then. The civilian on the street didn't possess AR15s. Why is the weapon of choice for the mentally ill to commit mass killings the high capacity assault weapons that anybody can obtain? Because they are designed for assaulting the enemy as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Mentally ill people who are going to commit these crimes, see soft targets as the enemy. You guys see them as recreational and sports objects, but they are designed to kill people in combat. As the video shows, it is very easy to convert an AR15 to a high capacity automatic weapon. Let's get one thing straight. If the mentally ill didn't have access to them and did not commit those crimes, I could care less what kind or how many weapons you had, as long as you are not killing people senselessly. I could care less how the 2nd amendment is interpreted by you or anybody else.
The AR was developed as a rifle for the citizenry before it was adopted by the military.
At the risk of appearing vain let me quote myself...
Many people complain that the semi-autos sold today are easily converted to full automatic weapons. They have no understanding of either the mechanics of firearms or the laws prohibiting even the whiff of an full auto.
Federal law declares that any gun that is easily converted to an automatic weapon IS an automatic weapon for the purposes of the law, even if not actually converted -- (National Firearms Act as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986). That NON-automatic pistols or carbines that fire from an open bolt are Title 2/Class III restricted under Federal law, because they can be converted by filing the sear.
It is a crime to even ATTEMPT to convert a legal semi-auto to fully automatic fire even in the absence of a conversion kit. The attempt is the same thing as possessing an illegal, unregistered machine gun. If you possess even a single PART from a full auto gun and attempt to fit it to a semi-auto, you've just tried to assemble an illegal machine gun. That is a 10 year prison sentence and/or a $250,000 dollar fine.
The semi-auto versions of any military-type rifle have to be specifically designed so that CANNOT accept parts from their full auto cousins without requiring major alteration to the gun itself. As a result, the presence of the alteration is prima facie evidence that you were, in fact, intending to manufacture an illegal machine gun.
This is difficult to explain to someone who isn't familiar with the internals of firearms. I can tell you it is not easy to convert any semi-auto rifle to full-auto. It requires a machine shop in many cases and a machinist used to working to very precise specs. And manufacture of a conversion kit would be considered manufacture of a machine gun under the law. Hence why you don't see the kits.
Books do exist on how to build machine guns or make the necessary conversions. That's legal. It's protected under the 1st Amendment. You can even buy the book and own the corresponding gun. Questionable judgement but still legal. You become a criminal the moment you attempt to go from the abstract words on a page and turn them into steel reality. Then you're breaking the law. Not until.
And I'll be even more vain my quoting myself again...
Freedom is freedom. It is not to be balanced against the evils that people do either purposefully or willfully. There is no tipping point, no level of unacceptable behavior by those who choose to live outside society's rules that counterbalance the concept of freedom. Once we begin to quantify freedom and parcel it out in part based upon some kind of social formula where the most fearful, the social deviants, the least apt among us have controlling interest in what we are allowed to do or not do then it is far from freedom and becomes instead merely privilege.Let me ask the same question I asked as horseback.Did you even look at those videos. Do you know what a bump stock is? How many people were killed by mentally ill, using high capacity weapons, whether legally or illegally obtained How many of those mass killings would have taken place if they could not have obtained those weapons?
So what you are saying in your last paragraph is as long as I have my freedom, I don't care about those people being killed in those mass killings. Because infringing on my freedom is more important to me than preventing those mass killings, by everybody's right to bear arms.yes I looked at those videos. Doesn't change a thing in what I posted. And bump firing is not full automatic.
300,000,000 people in the US. Less than a handful each year harm multiple people with an AR style weapon. Because some very few people, less than 0.00001 percent of the population, you choose to restrict the freedom for all, the 99.99999 percent who hurt no one with their ARs and similar weapons. And ~that~ is your "common sense" solution.
And I'll be more than willing to discuss the Happy Land mass murder where almost 100 people were killed by a social deviant with a gallon can of gas he just purchased. somehow the lack of a firearm was fairly meaningless to him, eh.
And here is the typical anti-freedom ploy and posting. Suddenly I "don't care" about other people just because I have a high regard for freedom.
Read my hub on the damage to society from the misuse of guns and then get back to me about what I (and the American public) do and don't care about.That's a ploy used by statisticians. Why don't you compare it to the world's population? You would get an even lower percentage. To those families at Sandy Hook and the Colorado theater, those numbers mean nothing. What are the number of rounds per minute that can be fired using a bump stock? Gasoline is already available to everybody, just like firearms are. The people that commit mass shootings use firearms because they are convenient and readily available, thanks to the NRA and your interpretation of 2nd amendment.
so in other words... you have nothing new to offer.
Peoplepower, you are debating with someone who thinks it's OK for young children, convicted felons and mentally ill people to have guns.
No matter how hard you try, you won't get anywhere.
You really don't know anything about the AR-15, do you?
It was not developed for civilian use. Eugene Stoner developed it at ArmaLite for military use. The Army rejected the initial version and accepted the later M16 version.
Feel free to challenge me on this fact that is posted on numerous gun Web sites.
Under the modern "definition", my grandson's 22 rifle is classified as an "assault weapon". I guess he could "assault" a squirrel with it...
wilderness ~
I simply ADORE arms, I'm infatuated with artillery, almost to the point of W*O*R*S*H*I*P, when in a defensive posture in the ARMS and tender loving care, supervision of, and control of a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" as our founders intended ~Sorry, but our founders did not indicate weapons were to be in the control of a well regulated militia. Only that because a militia was necessary it was advantageous to allow ordinary citizens to have weapons. Can't be read any other way, and certainly can't be read to indicate only the militia can have weapons.
wilderness ~
If you were correct, which you are absolutely not, it would have been very easy for our founders to have written the following in its entirety if indeed their intent was for ALL citizens to bear arms ~
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed "
If it read as above in a completed form, you might have a point, but it does not ~ They could have saved a few drops of ink as well with this version ~But they didn't, did they. They included a reason as well, which you promptly distort into a command that only those people in the reason shall have weapons. Something the founders did not put into the wording.
There are many sides to this issue:
(1) Nobody can agree on what the 2nd amendment really says. That makes it a very poorly written piece of legislation in today's world.
(2) Mass killings are taking place everyday because of mentally ill having the same rights to those weapons as everybody else. That's because the NRA and the gun people interpret the 2nd amendment to mean everybody can bear arms, including the mentally ill.
(3) Gun people are typically conservatives. Conservatives have a fear of big government take over by liberals and need to protect themselves from tyranny. They also do not trust law enforcement to protect them. Therefore, their interpretation of the 2nd amendment is everybody has the right to bear arms because I don't trust the government and law enforcement to do their jobs and you are imposing on my freedom.
(4) If the mentally ill didn't have access to those weapons, I could care less about how the 2nd amendment is interpreted; how many guns; and what types. But the facts are the 2nd amendment as interpreted by the NRA and gun people gives those rights to everybody, regardless if they are of sound mind or not. Therefore there is little to no gun control and these weapons can be obtained legally or illegally by any means possible by anybody and used to commit heinous crimes. Thanks to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment."That's because the NRA and the gun people interpret the 2nd amendment to mean everybody can bear arms, including the mentally ill."
When someone has to outright lie about a position then you can be pretty well assured that much else of what he writes is also a lie.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn introduced legislation last month that would spur states to send more information about people adjudicated with serious mental illnesses to the federal system that runs background checks on gun buyers.
Further, and most significantly, Cornyn’s bill, known as the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act of 2015, has the blessing of the National Rifle Association. Yes, the NRA has endorsed the bill, as have the National Alliance on Mental Illness, which advocates for mentally ill people, and groups representing police organizations, correctional workers and social workers.
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/op … ion/nnYcn/Jack Burton:
Your are really good at propaganda. You do know that right? Tell me where I lied. You never did answer my question about how many rounds per minute are fired using a bump stock? Between you and ahorseback, you accuse people of lying and ignorance and then further propagandize it by saying if that was a lie then everything they write from that point forward is also a lie and not to be trusted. I read the Cornyn article and below is the parts you left out that are very significant. I won't call you a liar, but you are a propagandist.
"but it does represent a Republican attempt to strengthen background checks and limit gun purchases, however narrowly and applicable to however few."
"The bill has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. A hearing has not yet been scheduled."
"Any attempt to restrict guns, however tepid, faces uncertain prospects in "Congress — even one with the authority of the Senate’s No. 2 Republican and the backing of the NRA behind it. Most Republicans in the House might greet Cornyn’s legislation the same as the National Association of Gun Rights greeted it, as an imminent betrayal by Congress’ Republican leaders and “the establishment gun lobby.”
"Meanwhile, groups that favor broader gun control legislation said Cornyn’s proposal would make it easier — not harder — for some people with mental illness to buy guns because it would allow some people discharged from involuntary psychiatric treatment to buy a gun without first needing court approval. Some of their opposition perhaps is rooted in an understandable skepticism that should greet any gun control legislation backed by the NRA and proposed by a lawmaker with an A-plus rating from the NRA for his support for gun rights — and it serves as a reminder that the devil in Cornyn’s proposal almost certainly is its details. Thus the importance of a Senate hearing."
"Critics also say Cornyn’s bill would make it easier for veterans with severe mental illness to buy a gun because contrary to current practice, Cornyn’s bill would require Veterans Affairs to obtain a court order before it could send the names of veterans it considers to be “mentally incompetent” to the FBI’s database. Not to be lost in the debate on this issue: The suicide rate among veterans is 50 percent higher than the rate among civilians. Access to firearms not only greatly increases the risk of suicide but also practically assures that any suicide attempt will succeed."
"Mass killings are taking place everyday because of mentally ill having the same rights to those weapons as everybody else. "
I would surely like to see your proof of this ridiculous statement. You claim a causal relationship when there is zero data to produce such a thing. There IS evidence, however, that the homicide rate does not change with the removal of one tool (guns). Are you using "common sense" to tell you that without guns, killers will no longer kill? Or that a gun is the easiest and quickest method of killing large numbers of people? Does it indicate that the mentally ill are too stupid to do anything but pull a trigger?Sorry, it was next to the last sentence.
Wilderness , The most misunderstood twenty seven words in the world !
The second amendment !Oh, I think it's actually understood pretty well. That understanding isn't popular or liked though, so it has to be changed into something else.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Peoplepower , Okay I watched your videos of FULLY automatic assault weapons being fired ! To me , an avid shooter , that is the most boring kind of shooting . And I stress , ----FULLY automatic machine guns .
THAT however , is not the same as that , that is LEGALLY available to the average sportsman ! The average sportsman can have a SEMI- AUTOMATIC weapon . And hears the kicker YOU know fully well the difference don't you my friend - between the two ?
In order for ANY American citizen to have a FULLY automatic weapon , one MUST acquire a FFI license, a class I federal firearms license ONLY allowed to those who are federally approved, pretty rare in fact ! I suspect you know that as well my friend but would .
THAT weapon is not the weapon most used by any criminal on the streets of America however , and you probably know that too. However you , I assume , would rather join in with the anti- gun crowd that includes ALL assault guns and weaponry whenever you discuss guns, The usual rhetoric perhaps ?
By the way , you served in the military , and deserve that honor bestowed you by a thankful nation , so thank you !Some time ago, when I wrote a hub on gun control, I tried to find out how many murders were committed with automatic weapons. I forget the exact date, but the last homicide using a legally owned automatic gun was many decades ago. Interesting, isn't it?
ahorseback and Jack Burton; Count the number of rounds coming out of the muzzle per minute of the AR15 equipped with a completely legal Slide Fire Stock. Then please let me know what you find. I don't care what weapons the criminal on the street use. I care about the weapons that mentally ill people use to commit mass murders that are easily obtainable, because of the 2nd amendment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=bD213VW6WjY
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/0 … inute.html
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Also , There ARE probably thousands of gun laws on the books already and yet , WE propose even more ??? Does anyone Here understand the ignorance of a congress or it's people who pile on law upon law upon law expecting different results from the same insanity .
A moron will understand that doing the same thing over and over to stop crimes like mass killings from happening , ISN"T likely to change anything at all , I'm not calling anyone a moron except trying to show the futility of NOT regulating the diagnosis and the treatment of mental illness'
IN FACT by ignoring the most important part of health care , ever our wondrous President Obama's Health care system so ignores this mental health epidemic , that some great amount of blame lies there too !
That combined with the revolving Merry- go- Round of the justice system ; Is the REAL reason these killings keep happening over and over and over .................. - ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Peoplepower, Also In eighty years in the US .Exactly Two murders were committed by men with FULL auto rifles . Imagine that and " Bumping " a semi- auto also CANNOT have any inherent accuracy to the intended target .
And so , eliminate all the "assault rifles" in the US and the average mass murderer will use a two gallon can of gasoline and a match or some other means of hurting someone . So show us the beef as to where eliminating one more gun does anything BUT INCREASE crime , look at Chicago , Detroit , Baltimore , count up the numbers and explain to us how it will work !
While you are at that , Look up the most violent place cites in the US., check out the racial make up of these cities for instance , the street gang numbers , AND look at the gun regulations within these cities , see any connections ?ahorseback: I am not going to argue with you. Please go to these three links and read all three of them completely. And then please get back to me.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … -full-data
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … -full-data
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … otings-map
As you said: "See any connections?"Sorry one of those is a duplicate. On the full data, be sure to click on the Weapons Category tab. Thanks
Nowhere in the links was I able to see any indication that the guns used were responsible for the shootings. Nor that if guns were not available, the killings would not have happened. If that was your point (removing guns will save lives) they are pretty much a failure.
Nor was there any indication that "assault weapons" were ever used - where such is indicated it turns out that they are but semi automatic weapons like all the others. So banning anything black, with a folding stock or other silly reason for applying the term "assault" is nothing but a scare tactic.wilderness: As they say, you can bring a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. I don't know what else to tell you.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Peoplepower , So I have watched your videos and read your posts , are you open to reason ?
Now what ? Now do we create one more gun law on top of thousands already on the books AND wait for the unchanging of results? OR , do we take a harder look at real change ?
1-The most failing era of our legal system ever, in America ?
2-Possibly the very result of loosening death penalty status of almost all states in America , as a deterrent ?
,
3-The almost total lack of serious mental health care in our time as well as insurance companies who fail to cover it ?
I know there is no arguing with the anti- gun crowd BUT please explain how you would change the mind of the deranged mass killer .ahorseback: You can't change the mind of a deranged killer. You don't even know who the deranged killer is until after they have committed the mass shootings. There are no laws that keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. The only law we have is the 2nd amendment that says it's O.K. for everybody to have guns, including the mentally ill. You can't institutionalize them because you don't know who they are, so they can't even be treated. Background checks don't even work, because there are so many loop holes. So the only thing I see is gun control. I know that raises the hackles on your neck, but that's what everything points to.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
You make a few , more than a few generalities there my friend that are quite loose ,
" You don't know who the deranged killer...... In truth we do , or we should with all the checks in place , how about the mother of the shooter in Sandy Hook Conn . who was happy to keep her son in his basement apartment with all of HER assault rifles ?
"There are no laws that keep the guns out of the hands .."..........well wrong again , there are questions to that very problem addressed on a firearms ATF sheet application at the purchase of any gun , then checked by the FBI .
"The only law that we have is the second amendment ........" wrong again , the mentally ill are not even mentioned [ and certainly not included } in the second amendment !
"You can't institutionalize...." Well we could if people who know and treat them would step up !
"Background checks don't even work " wrong again , they work every day , every single day many applications are refused by the ATF
"So the only thing I see is gun control ! "..........How's that working out for Baltimore , ? Chicago ? New York City ? San Francisco ? The Mexican Border - Obama's fast and furious ?
Anything else ?ahorseback: "You don't know who the deranged killer...... In truth we do , or we should with all the checks in place , how about the mother of the shooter in Sandy Hook Conn . who was happy to keep her son in his basement apartment with all of HER assault rifles ?"
We do or we should? Which is it? Did you know about the mother, Did the authority know about all her "Assault Rifles" before he committed Sandy Hook?
"There are no laws that keep the guns out of the hands .."..........well wrong again , there are questions to that very problem addressed on a firearms ATF sheet application at the purchase of any gun , then checked by the FBI."
Then how do all the mass shooters, get their weapons?
"The only law that we have is the second amendment ........" wrong again , the mentally ill are not even mentioned [ and certainly not included } in the second amendment !"
You are correct and why is that, because of this statement: "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms." It is all inclusive. The mentally ill are people as well and they have the right to bear arms.
"You can't institutionalize...." Well we could if people who know and treat them would step up !
You are correct again, but we don't know who they are and how do you enforce people to step up so they can be treated?
"Background checks don't even work " wrong again , they work every day , every single day many applications are refused by the ATF
You are correct one more time. but many shooters obtain their weapons illegally over the internet or have other people buy them for them. The ATF can't do their job properly and maintain their databases because the gun lobby groups and republican congress has underfunded them.You know, it's called Big Government Spending. If you want my sources and proof, I will supply them.
"So the only thing I see is gun control ! "..........How's that working out for Baltimore , ? Chicago ? New York City ? San Francisco ? The Mexican Border - Obama's fast and furious ?"
There is no gun control right now. Please let me know if you find any.
See here is the game the gun people are playing. If nothing is done, you guys get to play bangety, bang, bang with all your firearms that are used for mass killings as well . In the meantime, the mass killings continue. You people are not willing to compromise, because you are afraid you will be giving up some of your freedoms and you need your guns for recreation, hunting, collection, and protection from tyranny. So nothing is going to change. You win, but the people who get gunned down in mass murders and their families lose, because of your selfish, paranoid motives. Do you get the picture now?
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
No , I do not get Your picture now , delusionary visions ,knee jerk reactions and entire false programs do not interest me at all . Listen carefully , if one wants to stop crime you must stop criminals ! Period , and that problem it seems we cannot even seem to get our heads around . America wants to be soft of crime and never punish , fine , suffer the consequences !
We conveniently turn our heads the other way in frustration ( in apathy } at expanding mental issues , then we suffer the consequences . Just keep looking away !
We don't deal with the returning soldiers who suffer PTSD , throw a pension at them an forget about them , fine Suffer the consequences. Just look the other way !
The most expensive legal system in the world can't do it's simple job of keeping criminals off the streets , so suffer the consequences . And look the other way !
"Nothing is done and we get to play banged bang bang ".........nothing is done and all the perpetrators get to do the same thing , over and over and over again , Have you ever in your life seen a mentally ill person taken into custody by a cop and truly dealt with , ?
Just turn the other way !
Gang activity , MS 13 crime , why don't you look at statistics for violent crime by these new street gangs in America ,- All across America and get back to me ?
But don't look the other way . - ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Here ! Is just what probably every gun Owner in America believes , at least in theory !
Not one of us minds reasonable gun control regulations , Reasonable regulations that is !, We who obey the written laws of the land , which are already overbearing to most law abiding citizens across the board , always , I repeat Always , obey every law , every requirement , every stumbling road block -- I know a man who simply shares the same name as a convicted felon in his home state who every time he has ever gone to a sport shop to acquire , even a primitive muzzle loading weapon , Has had to actually contact , through legal representation , the ATF to inquire just why HE , is listed as a convicted felon , therefore disqualifying him from a reasonable purchase of a firearm ! And this man is a decorated , -three tour Viet Nam , Marine Corp Veteran .
The pure stupidity of expecting the US government to regulate anything .........is asking for extreme incompetence or failure to begin with . How is it they cannot regulated crime to begin with ? How about illegal immigration ? Natural catastrophes ? Federal employees , the IRS , FBI , ATF atrocities or Homeland Security ? Just how does the average public expect anything to come of second amendment reform ? When even the very United States Government- ignores the US constitution ?
I would suggest that every American remain armed , simply to protect ourselves, for the very reason that the second amendment was written into our constitution to begin with , the impending tyranny of the federal government or any government over it's law abiding peoples .The boundary of Not Killing is already stipulated in the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not kill. (And in the universal precept of doing unto others as one would have others do unto oneself.) The law of justice gives us permission to kill in order to protect one's own life.
To attempt to get rid of all guns (and therefore all weapons of murder, knives, explosives / chemicals used in explosives, deadly mushrooms growing in yards / forests) is impossible!
It would seem to the civilized thinker that allowing weapons of mass murder is going too far. Unless it is NOT going too far!
What if you and your loved ones and/or neighbors are confronted with a whole team of enemies of some sort?
Is the thought of teams of enemies so unfathomable when the terrorists have threatened to destroy us, over-run us and take us over?
Obama says not all Iranians wish death to America…. but many do!
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Last word from me , No, the second amendment isn't outdated just like the first amendment or the fifth or any of them , They are there for our protection .
The only things outdated are our horribly failing legal system , our failing record of mental health care accountability and our almost entire population that has grown soft on capital punishment . There are probably thousands of laws restricting guns , as in any area of laws against any crime committed by mankind so what's next , a better accountability in our , legal , judicial , penal systems ? Why even have laws at all if their not enforced for one thing and utilized for another ? I believe the single most important flaw in our system is Plea Bargaining , even with crimes committed with a gun , I watch cases every day where a reduced plea is agreed to by all parties , except the victims that is , As far as I'm concerned ; when a murderer spends more than six or eight years behind bars , a child molester actually goes to jail , a gang member isn't allowed to walk on a trial technicality , when there are far less mental wrecks walking around the streets everywhere , then you can go after the second amendment .ahorseback: The rest of the amendments are well written. It's just the 2nd amendment that is subject to so much interpretation. You may want to look at this link and view not only the 2nd amendment, but all 10 of them.
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pages … eSupport=1
You say they are PROBABLY thousands of laws restricting guns. That tells me you really don't know and have not even done the research.
As I said before, if the gun people, do nothing, they win. Just like today a 11 people were fired a on the I10 highway in Phoenix. They don't even know who did it and why. So everyday, you do nothing, those that use guns for the wrong reason will continue to do what they do.
Here is the history of gun control laws from 1994 to 2008.
1994
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 produces a 10-year federal ban on the manufacture of new semi-automatic assault weapons. The law specifies 19 weapons that have the features of assault rifles, including the AR-15, certain versions of the AK-47, the TEC-9, the MAC-10 and the Uzi, several of which had become the preferred weapon of violent drug gangs. The act also bans large-capacity ammunition magazines, limiting them to 10 rounds. The law does not apply to weapons that were already in legal possession, and there are easy ways to adapt new weapons to avoid the prohibitions.
2003
In a victory for the NRA, Congress passes the Tiahrt Amendment to a federal spending bill. The amendment, proposed by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), prohibits law enforcement from publicly releasing data showing where criminals bought their firearms.
2004
The 10-year sunset provision of the assault weapons ban runs its course, and the law is not renewed by Congress. Repeated efforts to renew the ban fail.
2005
President George W. Bush signs the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which grants gun manufacturers immunity from civil lawsuits filed over crimes committed with firearms. The law killed a legal strategy being pursued by gun-control advocates to hold manufacturers responsible for the negative effects of their products. A similar strategy had proved effective against tobacco companies.
2008
The Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller holds that Americans have an individual right under the Second Amendment to possess firearms in federal enclaves “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” The ruling strikes down a local law banning handguns in the District.
You continue doing nothing while I advocate for gun control. I know this reply is an exercise in futility, so all we can do is agree to disagree. Hopefully, you can fix our "horribly failing legal system."And here are the sum total of human experiences showing that taking guns from citizens has resulted in fewer homicides:
But let's take them anyway, right? After all, it can't hurt. Except that a few gun nuts, that I don't like anyway, will lose their beloved toys. And except there are lots of examples where cultures with more guns have a lower homicide rate than those with fewer guns. And except it is yet another erosion of our freedom and rights. And except that is, still, another check on governmental abuse.
Come to think of it, any one of those reasons is enough to allow the citizenry to own guns as opposed to a feel good and very political but useless attempt to stem the carnage in America. Doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result this time is not particularly rational.
peoplepower ~
I appreciate your knowledge on this subject, however, this is where you and I have a rather profound difference of opinion ~
The 2cnd Amendment is written as one crystal clear, unambiguously concise sentence with ZERO periods inserted betwixed ~ Elementary level knowledge of the English Language is required to comprehend this brief passage ~ The meaning is simple and here it is ~ An individual, as pre-condition to keeping arms must be affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" as the text indicates ~ No Affiliation, No Arms ~
It's inconceivable and actually astonishing to me how these words could possibly be interpreted any other way unless an AGENDA stands between that individual and True Meaning ~- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Peoplepower It is a futile case to argue with those who cannot see the truth written on the wall of reality . And I don't hold that against you , Many people cannot see the forest for the trees , But answer me this one question , If plea bargaining alone lets more gun crimes fall through the cracks of real and fairly applied justice , What good will it do to create one more gun law ?
What good will it do to ban All guns for that matter , And you know as well as I do that the twisted mind will AND does find plenty of more ways to take another life . A can of gasoline , a car up on the sidewalk driven into a crowd , an airliner , a butcher knife , a rock on a train track ,A stone dropped from an over pass into a windshield ,
No , those just like you will never get the reality of the criminal mind ! And - That is exactly why crime never ends . Ban the second amendment , ban the entire constitution for that matter and crime will continue minus the guns ! But then you know that too , I suspect . So please tell us what the real reason that you are anti- gun ? Is it the political correctness and camaraderie of fellow believers that feeds your delusion ? I suggest that you might educate yourself as to just how horribly crime rates increase in a cities where stricter gun laws exist !ahorseback, wilderness:
Widlerness, you said "Nowhere in the links was I able to see any indication that the guns used were responsible for the shootings. Nor that if guns were not available, the killings would not have happened. If that was your point (removing guns will save lives) they are pretty much a failure."
I can't make it any clearer than this:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ … sp=sharing
Open your eyes and your minds. I have shown you the history of gun control laws. Why is it in 1994, the gun control law to ban assault weapons was put in place with a sunset provision that it would expire in 2004? I'll answer the question for you. The only way the law was able to pass is to make concession with the very powerful NRA lobby group that it expire in 10 years. Logic says if it was good enough in 1994, why isn't it good enough now? I have done the research and analysis. I have presented you with proof with why the 2nd amendment is a poorly written document that was for another time and another place.
I have shown you how the Tiahart Amendment has tied the hands of the FBI and the ATF. Here it is again for your dining and dancing pleasure.
Tiahart and the NRA
For years, the Tiahrt Amendments have been standing in the way of law enforcement efforts to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals.
In the final analysis, the ATF has been restricted from doing what the NRA wanted them to do in the first place, which is enforce existing gun laws. Here is a result of the Tiahart Amemdment:
It allows dealers to ignore police request for assistance
It denies congress access to formerly access public prime gun data
It ends the oversight of used firearms sales
It requires the destruction of background check records within 24 hours of sale. By the way, Tiahart is a republican congressman.
Here is the MS13 gang related statistics for you. Please read the last two paragraphs. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/j … s13_011408
You see unlike you two guys that just spout and spew rhetoric and call people ignorant, delusional, and stupid, I do my research and analysis. Just to reiterate the purpose of this forum. It has to do with the mentally ill and mass shootings, not gang related shootings. Here is what I wrote:
"Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun enthusiast who think they are going to protect themselves from government tyranny are wrong. They have to protect themselves from the mentally ill. The only problem is they don't know when a mentally ill person is going to commit those crimes. It's like testing to see if a match lights. It's after the fact. So the NRA wants more guns for everybody. Let's have a stand'em up shoot'em down bury them in gone smoke kind of country, where it is gunfight at the O.K. Corral. How do you feel about it?"
Just for the record, I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti-assault weapon, because it is the weapon of choice for mentally ill mass shooters. You may argue that if they don't have those weapons they will find other means of mass killings, but I will argue, if they don't have those weapons, they will not mass kill children in school yards and people in theaters and churches, and even in military installations. As I told you before, You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I'm through. You can both drink the NRA cool aid instead.There are more of us than them … more of us that may need to defend ourselves against troops of enemies than the mentally ill who want to go into public arenas and kill masses of people for their own bizarre and surreal reasons …
Your spread sheet listed seventy two incidents. Twenty five or so used semiautomatic guns.
( one female shooter.) Here is another list I came across supporting YOUR point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s … ted_States
But the technology is here thanks to war. Men made these guns. Men want these guns.
The mentally ill are not supposed to get ahold of guns, but we cannot legislate such a thing and they do get ahold of guns of any type very easily. I would hope no mentally healthy average citizen would ever need a high powered magazine.
However, to make high powered magazines illegal will make them that much more precious. Maybe thats why the NRA fights to keep them legal. (I don't don't think they should be legal either, but what are you gonna do?)
Q. How would you rewrite the second amendment?This would just be a start: A well regulated Militia is necessary, as defined in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, to protect the people from being infringed upon by the Federal government. The people have the right to use fire arms as long as they are not in violation of Article _Section__ of the constitution of the United States.
Note: Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution is used by the Supreme Court and lower courts to determine whether a person 2nd amendment rights have been violated.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Peoplepower :
Scenario : You have won , there are no more guns in the world , all the iron has been beaten into plow-shares , tin toys for the little ones , and we are once again driving the roads on iron tires , Just when you think you have won , some disgruntled postal worker blows up his home office and everyone in it with a can of gasoline and a match ? What to do now , Do we now ban matches , gas cans , postal workers , mail trucks ?
,
I believe here is about as much chance of abolishing the second amendment as there is abolishing the first AND , I for one am very thankful of that !
The reason most of the repealed laws you have studied are no longer - is because the supreme court has ruled them un constitutional , as many of the local anti- gun laws and handgun restrictions have been ruled .
Now , why ? Because studies have shown that generally speaking , gun restrictions - keeping Law Abiding citizens from holding guns for protection , are simply a motivation for higher crime rates . "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns ", All one has to do is look up crime statistics in places that gun restrictions have been issued , New York City , Chicago , Detroit , Washington D,C , Baltimore Md. .....
Why don't you focus your attention on the REAL problems of crime , like say .... the criminals maybe ?I am not concerned about them. Why should I change my focus? Let other people be concerned about crime on the streets. You are lumping mass shootings into crimes on the streets The gangs can shoot each other until they are blue in the face. I'm concerned about mass shootings by mentally ill people. Because the 2nd amendment is all inclusive to all people. It makes no distinction. It also mentions a well regulated militia. In my research, I have read several cases of alleged 2nd amendment violation, that the courts judged were not violations based on Article 1 Section 8 of what a militia really is.
peoplepower ~ Amendment #2 A# 8 also declares the following ~
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Peoplepower , Your immaturity or lack of analyzing reality and facts are obvious.
Your quote " The gangs can shoot each other until they are blue in the face "............Peoplepower , THEY ARE ! And in the mean time they are killing hundreds of innocent kids in drive by shootings . It seems to me when one cannot lump crimes together , one will never understand the crime of mass shootings to begin with .
Want to control the mass shootings of innocents by mentally ill , control the mentally ill . THAT is step one ., step two and three . Nothing is being done on the streets as to mentally ill .
Why is it for instance, That our Hollywood inspired society glamorizes Downs Syndrome and totally ignores Schizophrenia , Or Bi Polar Disease ?
If I were you I would let the professionals deal with the crimes at least THEY have a sense of reality .How do you propose controlling the mentally ill? I showed you how the NRA and congress with Tiahart amendment tied the hands of the FBI and ATF. I agree with you let the professionals deal with crimes at least they have a sense of reality, not the NRA arming everybody to the teeth. That's the NRA and the gun peoples solution, more guns for everybody. Did you every stop and think the more guns that are made available, the more crimes that can be committed? I have taken one section of the crimes and that is the mentally ill, but your argument is we have to solve the whole thing at once or we do nothing. I'm going to tell you this one more time. I'm not anti gun. I am anti combat types weapons being made available to civilians. Now you can argue what a combat type weapon is, but you know and I know and so do all the gun people and the NRA and the people who sell all the neat attachments and ammunition. You have to start someplace, but your are not willing to eat a slice of the pie, it's all or nothing...so don't tell me about research and analysis and immaturity, because I will tell you about selfishness, paranoia, and unwillingness to compromise.
"Did you every stop and think the more guns that are made available, the more crimes that can be committed?"
How do you figure that? Are you assuming that without a gun that a crime, even a murder, cannot happen?
"I am anti combat types weapons being made available to civilians."
What is a "combat type weapon"? Outside of sniper rifles, aren't nearly all hand carried guns (by military, intended for combat) fully automatic and already banned to very nearly everyone in the country? You say you know, and all gun people know, and the NRA knows, and manufacturers all know - is it something different than a fully automatic gun?
I mean, I've seen where anything with a folding stock is an "assault gun". Or that carries more than X shells (including my grandson's 22). Or that looks black and mean. The list is long of things that make it an "assault" weapon but that have zero to do with actual combat.I've should have said more crimes with guns can be committed. Don't play games. You know what kind of weapons I'm talking about. I'm not going to get a a nuance and semantics game with you over the definition of what weapons are used for mass killings.
Well of course more crimes can be committed with guns when there are more guns. But who cares if neither the crime rate nor injury rate has gone up? It is an unwarranted and unproven assumption that either will happen. It's like saying that the gun homicide rate goes down (with fewer guns) and so we should remove guns from the population although we already know the homicide rate (from all tools) will remain unchanged!
If you don't want to define unknown terms then you should not use them. Terms like "assault gun" or "combat weapon". They may (and do) add to the fear factor and emotional content but nothing else.In the 1994 Assault Weapons ban, they were defined. Because of the 10 year sunset provision the ban expired in 2004, thanks to the very powerful NRA lobby groups. They were defined in 1994 and were held good, until 2004. I know how they are defined. I'm just not gong to get into a Pi**ing contest with you. If the ban was good for 10 years, why did it expire? It's because of the concessions that had to be made to the NRA to even pass it.
Yes, I know they were defined (assault, not combat). With a different definition for every person talking about them - should you wish to use that silly definition that semi-automatic weapons designed for combat use (of which none are available to the general public), fine. Just say so, although you should probably add that an "assault weapon" designed for combat use is not the same as an "assault rifle" which is designed for combat use. Just for clarity sake, you know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
(That same article lists 7 different state definitions - would you prefer one of those legal definitions or just "anything designed for combat use"? I note that includes my old 22 pistol; it is semi-automatic, holds 10 cartridges in a removable clip and has a hand grip. Any one of which causes it to be classified as an "assault gun".)Whatever mentally ill mass shooters use to kill many people at one time.. It can fire many rounds at one time and can have high capacity clips. I don't care what you call it. The next time they are used for mass killings, you identify it and categorize it and then get back to me. I didn't want to use the term assault weapon because, then you would do your little dance about what is an assault weapon. Therefore I chose combat style weapon, but then you went into your dance anyway.
Mmm. Better ban fertilizer and fuel oil, then, too.
Not interested in semantics or definitions except to understand what you're trying to say. If it is to tightly control and basically remove from society anything that is ever used in mass killings (however big a number that might mean) then we have a problem. If it is to tightly control a specific brand or even type of weapon we can talk about that, but to do so we'll have to define the terminology you're using. Which you seem reluctant to do, choosing instead to use terminology far too broad and undefined for any reasonable discussion.What I said this: Whatever mentally ill mass shooters use to kill many people at one time.. It can fire many rounds at one time and can have high capacity clips. The key words here are MASS SHOOTERS. How many mass shooters have used fertilizer or fuel oil? Click on this link, scroll down and click on the Weapons Category tab and you tell me how you define those weapons that have already been used in mass shootings.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … -full-dataBetter yet, click on this link. Be sure you scroll to the right and also down.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ … edit#gid=0Scanning quickly down the list, I would classify the majority as handguns. Not "assault" weapons OR "combat" guns. Would you then ban all handguns? (I didn't spot a single weapon intended for military combat - no automatics at all.)
You know, the day after Sandy Hook I picked up my two little grandchildren from their elementary school and it really haunted me. I've built schools, I've helped design and install the lock down systems and the entrance "maze" to get into the school. I've installed the security cameras there. And the more I thought about Sandy Hook and my grandkids the more apparent it became, just parked there waiting for the kids to come out, that it would be incredibly easy to slaughter dozens of them. A car through the wall or into the crowd waiting for the bus. A propane tank carried it and detonated. Poison gas in the heating system (which I also worked on). Or in the water.
People, guns aren't the problem, and taking away every single gun from every single citizen (impossible as we both know) isn't going to stop the mass murderer that decides to kill. It will likely result in higher death counts as more effective ways than one death per trigger pull are found.
Nor is the answer to turn schools into fortified castles - it can't be done without rebuilding all of them into something we don't want our kids in. The answer is in the people themselves and our own reaction to crime. Something is wrong in our society to cause the extreme violence that Americans engage in all too often, and taking away their favorite tool isn't going to help anything at all. Except maybe get a few more idiot politicians elected and soothe a few conscience's...until the next one happens.
So why can't we leave the guns alone and put our efforts into something that might actually produce results? Because we like the violence? Because we refuse to address mental illness? Because we've become so enamored of the almighty dollar that our kids raise themselves?
I don't know the answer but I do know that removing guns isn't it. Not even for the handful killed each year in mass murders.
Hey there ahorseback, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. Maybe a brief 3rd party distraction might freshen things up.
The mentally ill seem to be popular villains for both sides of this discussion. Even to the point where you said this;
"...Want to control the mass shootings of innocents by mentally ill , control the mentally ill . THAT is step one ., step two and three ...."
And peoplepower73 says he is only concerned with making it impossible for the mentally ill to get their hands on an assault rifle. (or there abouts)
(easy guys, just illustrations, not criticisms)
So what degree of mentally ill would be considered the deal-breaker for gun ownership. I won't offer examples of the most nearly invisible illness or the most obvious. Even though our courts have somewhat established legal guidelines, I am betting mental illness is like porn to many folks. It is hard to define, but you know it when you see it.
So where would you two draw the line on what degree of mental incapacitation, or even more complicating, what type of mental illnes - would prohibit gun ownership?
GAGA , What baffles me is this , we ALL know exactly where our society is failing and do nothing , it's all about personal accountability , the most boring and often misused term in our language today , we all "read the paper " so to speak at the end of the day and simply shake our collective heads , Our borders are wide open - probably problem # one , our justice system suffers from apathetic delirium , our police are overworked and understaffed and jaded , our schools are a simple mess more concerned with organized labors monetary advances , parenting today is culturally free range child behavior , We ARE a nation in decline ,morally , ethically , behaviorally , . Not a very bright picture is it ? I also believe that those great older folks who once made small changes- one child at a time are simply going on to the next life while their aren't those in place , to replace them ! In the mean time other negative influences are growing , expanding and cheap illegal drugs, the popularity of alcohol ,we can blame Hollywood's major advances in projecting negative social behavior as well . Should I go on ?
If you must.
I'm sure a response to the mentally ill question is coming along anytime now.
GA
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
There real problem with the second amendment in America is truly THOSE WHO CANNOT OR WILL NOT FACE FACT, America has a gang problem , it has a revolving door crime policy problem , it has a mental health epidemic , it has an mass incarceration problem , AND there is a political and cultural blindness to ALL of the above .
As usual our media spouts forth statistics varying so much in ACTUAL fact that I cannot even Google on crime issue without multiple results , to the point at which statistics are so politically motivated , AS TO RENDER THEM TOTALLY USELESS ! However here's some stats for you . I have argued these points here and in other forum threads before .
Anti- second amendment people cannot face fact !
However , consider these numbers as you may :
Murder rates 2014
Chicago- 500
Philly - 324
Detroit - 400
New Orleans - 200
NYC. - 414
Baltimore - 200
L.A. - 500
St.Louis -113
12 major cities alone - 3,200 9/11 deaths at ground zero = what? 3,000 +
Chicago alone where 80% are gang related . According to Newsweek , Blacks are twice as likely to be involved in a gun death , That's not me saying this , it's Newsweek !
Debating people who are oblivious to reality is actually quite fun ! - ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Peoplepower , A little lesson in reality , The NRA arms no one ! Nor do they promote or defend the use of guns , any guns in any types of crimes ! Those of you who so loosely use the "assault weapon " term are surely aware that any weapon or tool or kitchen utensil , can actually be considered an "assault weapon ". So lets talk about just WHAT you are describing when you toss out that term "assault weapon " .
A semi- automatic rifle or pistol [handgun] , with a semi- auto action capable of firing one bullet with one pull of a trigger ! Wow , that was hard , Now ...... THIS is the weapon that you sir would willingly , not only ban , but ban the entire constitutional second amendment for !......Correct ?
And , my point in that a Crime actually being the act of a Criminal and not the gun owner seems to confuse you . calling for a ban on a gun is kind of like ......shooting the horse because he stepped on your foot ? But those of you who continue to turn your heads the other way when it comes to actually solving this problem of gun crimes or ANY crime for that matter will continue to confuse the real issues . Stop the criminal - stop the crime . It is that simple."Stop the criminal - stop the crime . It is that simple." We just had too shootings. One in Mississippi and one in Kentucky. Mississippi, A professor shot and killed unexpectedly by a student at Delta University, then takes him self out. No warning signs were given. Nobody knows why he did it. Kentucky, a state trooper stopping a car for speeding, a high speed chase ensues, trooper fired at suspect. Suspect shoots trooper and kills him, then kills himself. Tell me how do you stop the criminals when you have no idea that those people are going to commit the crime? If those people didn't have those guns, there would of been no crime. Don't give me this BS that they would have used gasoline or fertilizer bombs or crashed a car into the school. See a gun is a very convenient tool. You load it ,aim it and pull the trigger. It's that simple. And I'm sure there are going to be more of these stories as time goes on.
"If those people didn't have those guns, there would of been no crime."
Very nice sentiment, but completely without basis in reality. You have zero idea if there would have been a crime or not without a gun. Use the car as a weapon. Wait a few days and bomb the cop shop. Such statements do absolutely nothing for your credibility.
I understand that you don't like it when alternative methods of mayhem are pointed out, and that you don't like to think about the times they have been used. That you will use terms like "BS" because of that dislike and because you can't provide any information that it won't happen. But that dislike of reality does NOT make the statements that guns are responsible for crimes any more true or acceptable - if that were true we would find homicide rates declining as a result of declining gun ownership and that hasn't happened in a single country in the world.
I don't know how to spot/stop such a crime. Maybe, just maybe, if we put the effort into finding an answer to that, that we put into taking guns away, we might accomplish something? But no, we put our efforts into a program pre-destined for failure, that we know won't work because it has been tried hundreds of times in hundreds of locations and failed every time.Wilderness and ahorseback, you make a lot of claims about how the country is going to hell in a hand basket when it comes to crime rates but I have yet to see any statistic on crime and gun control from either one of you.. Here is an excerpt from the link below that I hope you will read the article, including the links in its entirety.
Secondly, based on the data mentioned above, there is no indication that communities with stricter gun controls have increased crime rates, either for violent crime or property crime. To the contrary, there is evidence that right-to-carry laws, for instance, are associated with an increase in violent crime.
In short, the public perception of crime rates soaring out of control is utterly mistaken, not only in the U.S., which has seen a dramatic drop in all categories of crime since the early 1990s, but also in most other first-world nations as well. There are few issues where public perception is so completely out of kilter with the facts. Politicians who use the public's fear of rising crime to promote their agendas are doing a disservice to their constituents, and quite possibly are being disingenuous as well.
Here is the link with information based on the 2013 FBI crime report. Please read the report in its entirety, including the embedded links.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-b … 17684.htmlLook in my carousel - there is a hub of nothing but gun crime statistics vs gun ownership rates and conclusions from those stats. Raw data, mind you, not just a statement that "guns kill people because I say so".
"there is no indication that communities with stricter gun controls have increased crime rates"
And there is no evidence to the contrary either, so why have stricter gun controls? Indeed all the evidence on gun ownership rates vs homicide rates plainly shows that there is no correlation at all, so once more, why keep trying to take guns away?
Peoplepower , My whole point all through this thread is simply that you are upended in the seeking of a solution to ANY illegal shootings because You say end or alter the gun rights , I say stop the criminal, you stop the crime ! Pretty simple my friend !
If it were that simple, then why hasn't it been done yet? You may not even know that someone is a 'criminal' or aspiring mass-murderer until it's too late. Everyone says attack the source (i.e. the person), but you don't offer the means of doing so!
We can't control the every action of every single individual, but we can change laws, security precautions, etc.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
As to , "What point of mental illness is enough"? The first signs of violence I say , domestic violence , is the first stage , bullying , public violence .
This first problem stage for our country is simply to deal with it. A child or teen out of hand is simply handed off -, to the teachers , to the other parent , to grandma , to the police finally , who will turn their heads away as well . The courts are useless . And lets face it , it's everywhere , not just the inner cities where gangs are waiting outside the door , but here in the rural parts of America
We have to recognize the real problem and stop throwing buckets of water on a mass inferno !
They are in detention every day , in the domestic courts every week . our culture is deteriorating before our very eye's ,children without manners , anarchy in public , lack of impulse control , personal behavior and accountability is all but non-existent even in the adult world ,. But we continue with stupidity ,stand back and blame the inanimate object , how stupid is this ? How far down the road of social behavioral deterioration do we go before we actually pave the highway .the NRA is fighting laws in states that try to keep guns out of the hand of domestic abusers. that is what i would call extremist.
In this state , Vermont , one full of drug abuse , domestic violence and equally soft on most crime , a movement is underfoot for private law abiding gun owners or commercial companies to take possession of guns from domestically accused violators .
In New Hampshire next door , the state labs are being inundated with a rush of testing for heroin messing up the entire state lab process , that ,state to state problem speaks volumes more about JUST what IS wrong in America today !
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
One of the most ridiculous statements ever made about the constitution is this " The second amendment is causing mass killings " , in the O.P. There is a perfect example of the lack of reality of all the rhetoric of constitutional debate about the second amendment ! How in the world this amendment "causes " crime to happen .
Instead of attempting a curing of a problem by directly attacking the causes of the very problem , ie . repeat offenders mental health issues , plea bargains , , we will blame the constitutional right itself for the perpetration of crime !AHORSEBACK WROTE:
One of the most ridiculous statements ever made about the constitution is this " The second amendment is causing mass killings " , in the O.P. There is a perfect example of the lack of reality of all the rhetoric of constitutional debate about the second amendment ! How in the world this amendment "causes " crime to happen .
Instead of attempting a curing of a problem by directly attacking the causes of the very problem , ie . repeat offenders mental health issues , plea bargains , , we will blame the constitutional right itself for the perpetration of crime !
+1
+2
Let me take a wild guess here. I bet ahorseback and wilderness live in rural areas, where they feel they need protection from everybody and everything, therefore their interpretation of the 2nd amendment, fits them just fine.
I submit the 2nd amendment is a poorly written document for the following reasons:
If you are a gun person, it says everybody has a right to bear arms to form a well regulated militia or not. The well regulated militia part is only necessary if the their is the possibility of tyranny, otherwise everybody can have guns. If there is tyranny, everybody comes together to form the well regulated militia. Because the national guard is part of the tyrantical government that can't be trusted.
If you are a critical thinker, it says, if you are a member of well regulated militia, you have the right to bear arms. Therefore, if you are a gun person, everybody has the right to bear arms If everybody has the right to bear arms, that includes criminals, mentally ill, and anybody else you can think of. Now you have a situation where you have to deal with criminals and the mentally ill.
If only a well regulated militia had the right to bear arms, You wouldn't have to deal with armed criminals. You wouldn't have to deal with mass shootings that take place without any advanced notice of said crimes.
Based on the FBI database of which I have provided the link below, there is no indication that communities with stricter gun controls have increased crime rates, either for violent crime or property crime. To the contrary, there is evidence that right-to-carry laws, for instance, are associated with an increase in violent crime.
In short, the public perception of crime rates soaring out of control is utterly mistaken, not only in the U.S., which has seen a dramatic drop in all categories of crime since the early 1990s, but also in most other first-world nations as well. There are few issues where public perception is so completely out of kilter with the facts. Politicians who use the public's fear of rising crime to promote their agendas are doing a disservice to their constituents, and quite possibly are being disingenuous as well.
Here is the link with information based on the 2013 FBI crime report. Please read the report in its entirety, including the embedded links.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-b … 17684.htmlSorry, but I live in a suburb of the biggest city in the state.
Sorry again, but the amendment does not specify that ONLY militia members may carry weapons - that is a fabrication of the gun-fearing crowd. Critical thinking does not include the adding of verbiage to satisfy personal viewpoints.
And yet again - while removal of guns will absolutely eliminate gun crimes, it does absolutely nothing to reduce crime. Other tools are used instead; take a look at the stats for knife and beating deaths in Canada, for example. Well above that of the U.S. I don't really think either the dead or the survivors care which tool is used.
And sorry again, but a drop in crime over a 25 year span does not indicate a causality relationship with gun controls. There ARE a great many other things being done as well, you know. This is also apparent in the great gun debacle in Australia, where guns were removed from citizen ownership and nothing happened to the homicide rate for over 10 years - 10 years of other actions glossed over by the anti-gun crowd that thinks a 10 year time span shows causality.
I do agree that politicians (and citizens) that use fear of crime to further an agenda (particularly an agenda known to fail every time it is tried) is a disservice to their constituents. It will gather votes, while removing rights, but that's all.
And a final sorry - the link gives a 404 message. Is it supposed to show data or simply conclusions from cherry picked data without giving all information necessary to give readers an opportunity to draw their own conclusions?First, rights are never "outdated." The right to self defense, and the means to acquire it, has always existed and will always exist. The 2nd amendment does not grant that right, it recognizes it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
While rights don't change, language does. The phrase "well-regulated", at the time, meant well organized. A well organized militia was the preeminent reason put forward for that amendment, and the declaration was the second part of that sentence. To infringe means to restrict.
You are incorrect in your assessment that strict gun control produces reduced crime. Gun crime in the U.S. has been DROPPING since the 1980s. During that time, the number of shall issue states went from only a handful to over 40 today.
Washington DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country. Guns were essentially banned there for 31 years. The others, Chicago, NYC, Los Angeles, also have very strict gun laws.
When is the last time you heard of a mass shooting happen at a gun show, or an NRA convention? Never. They aren't going to get very far trying that. There are also no mass shootings on college campuses where carrying is allowed. Almost every mass shooting happens in gun free zones.Wasn't there a mass shooting on a college campus in Dallas, and haven't there been shootings in Colleges in D.C. too.....If my memory is not serving me correctly, correct me..
(Alison by http://matmoon.deviantart.com)
This is for Cerebral Aspect: Most of this pro-gun rhetoric is based on conjecture. The gun lobby and all those riding the gravy train have convinced Archie Bunker and all of his pals at the barbershop that the Second Amendment is synonymous with freedom. Some have cited comments made by Thomas Jefferson concerning the Second Amendment issue. It is quite pathetic that anyone would be so misguided as to consider the opinion of a slave-owner and a pedophile.And Hamilton had his issues too.
… but within these evil men ...We've been down this road before Kathyrn. The people of Germany were starving to death before the Nazis came into power. By 1937 German unemployment had fallen from six million to one million. Using your logic, their good public works should also wash away their sins. After all, they were European too, just like Jefferson and Hamilton.
Maybe I should feel guilty for enjoying driving around in my '64 VW beetle.
Related Discussions
- 51
Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?
by Tara Carbery 12 years ago
Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?This tragedy wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed guns. Why the hell do people need gun's anyway?
- 35
What are your thoughts on gun control?
by Josh Ratzburg 8 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
- 26
How Do We Solve These Mass Killings??
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
We've had three mass killings (that we've heard about) in the last month. Here they are:1. Las Vegas - Oct. 1 - a man using various guns kills 58 people and injures another 546.2. New York - Oct. 31 - a man uses a truck and kills 8 people and injures 11 others.3. Sutherland Springs, Texas - Nov. 5...
- 29
Gun Violence in America Year, to Date, as of April 22, 2023
by Mike Russo 24 months ago
I watched Fareed Zakaria's show yesterday and saw these shocking statistics that I thought were worthy of sharing.According to the Gun Violence Archive (The link to the site is at the end of this post)19,942 Americans have died in gun-related incidents this year.541 Children and Teenagers (0-17)...
- 57
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of v
by flacoinohio 12 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
- 264
Evidence of Satan
by Claire Evans 10 years ago
I went to a cat lover's site on Facebook page. Somebody posted a picture of a man holding up the head of a decapitated cat. Can someone explain why somebody would do something like this? Is it necessary for the evolutionary process? Was evolution responsible for that? If you...