Gun Control Topic

[MarkyMark]

Are you for or against gun control?

I personally am against gun control. Just because there are 6 to 7 thousand gun-related deaths a year does not mean the government has the right to disarm the nation. People forget that the majority of gun owners are sane people who need physical protection from other people who could easily kill or beat them up. People for gun control need to realize that there always will be crazy people who commit horrible crimes including murder, and I have no doubt that a grown man could've easily killed all those children with a knife. People need to take horrible situations like the Conneticut shooting as a lesson not to manipulate and take your liberties for granted.

Discuss.

[Graus]

Mandatory personality and crime register checks, as well as some sort of exam on gun handling. Apart from that I dont see, why a responsible person shouldnt own guns.

[Sikeliot]

Outlaw guns for law-abiding citizens and the only people who will have guns are outlaws, i.e. fucked up, sick people who will get them regardless of whether they are legal or not.

[Damião de Góis]

Only policemen should carry firearms. It should be illegal for everyone else, although criminals would still get them in the black market.

Even for hunting. Want to hunt? Use spears or a longbow...

[EagleAtHeart]

Good topic! Thanks for branching it out of the other thread.

I expect a few women to come in here claiming guns should be banned because "they're dangerous" or some other illogical justification, but I hope most people on this site are more logical than that. Otherwise, I lose hope.

Anywho, here's a few facts


1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1
2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2
* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3
* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4
* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5
3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8
4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"910 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"
* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16

6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.
* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18
* Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19
1Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.
2Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., "Gun laws don't reduce crime," USA Today (May 9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, "Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur," The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002).
3 Gary A. Mauser, "The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales," Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at http://www.fraserinstitute.org/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=604.
4"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
5"Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police," AFP News (August 3, 2001); "A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free," The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.
6"Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says," Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
7See BJS study, supra note 6 at iii.
8John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, "Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Courtries: Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey," (2000). This study can be read at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/index_pub.htm. The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.
9Ian Henry and Tim Reid, "Crime figures a sham, say police," The Electronic Telegraph (April 1, 1996).
10Tim Reid, "Police are accused of fiddling crime data," The Electronic Telegraph (May 4, 1997).
11John Steele, "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent," The Electronic Telegraph (July 13, 2000).
12See supra note (Crime figures a sham...)
13Ibid.
14Ibid.
15See supra note (fiddling).
16Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," NewsMax.com (March 22, 2001).
17The number of people killed by their own government in Europe averages about 400,000 for the last 70 years. This includes Hitler's extermination of Jews, gypsies and other peoples (20,946,000); Stalin's genocide against the Ukrainian kulaks (6,500,000); and more. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government (2000), pp. 8 and 80.
18At our historic worst, murders in the United States approached 25,000 in 1993 -- or 23,180 to be exact. So even applying our highest single-year tally over the past 70 years would mean that Europeans have experienced 16 times as many murders as we have in the United States.



Also, important to mention:
Between 2000 to 2010 blacks have killed 65,000 white Americans
Sources listed: (Link (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t910911-2/))

How can any Euro-Nationalist aware of the threat the 3rd world possess freely support dis-arming themselves?

[Sikeliot]

Only policemen should carry firearms. It should be illegal for everyone else, although criminals would still get them in the black market. .


This is why I am against gun control. If criminals wouldn't access them, I'd support it. But if sick fucks will be able to access them and break into my house and harm me, I NEED to be able to protect myself.

[MarkyMark]

Only policemen should carry firearms. It should be illegal for everyone else, although criminals would still get them in the black market.

Even for hunting. Want to hunt? Use spears or a longbow...

Like a spear or longbow could protect you from a wild bear, and it would be extremely hard to get the close to a deer with a spear, they have an acute sense of hearing.

[arcticwolf]

Second amendment is there to protect freedom. Unarmed citizenry is an easy prey for tyrants and tyrants wannabe's.

It's a great equalizer when it comes to innocent and weak. I always cheer when an 80 something granny blows away a scumbag with her .357 Magnum, hopefully loaded with hollow point bullets! :thumb001:

I own quite a few guns and I hope I'll never have to use them.

Here is the simple, cold and undeniable truth:

It's better to have a gun and never need it than to need a gun and not have it.

[EagleAtHeart]

Outlaw guns for law-abiding citizens and the only people who will have guns are outlaws, i.e. fucked up, sick people who will get them regardless of whether they are legal or not.

This.

Do you think all the gang-bangers in America will turn their guns in?

No chance.

In fact, if you made guns illegal, the manufacturers will just move to Mexico. You think there's lots of guns in America now, just give some Mexican cartel a profit motive and then see the problem you will have on your hands. They will be bringing them into America by the truckload every hour.

Then what happens? You have a society where the only people that have guns are police and criminals. Every citizen is a lamb for the slaughter.

And why bother? As I've posted, and as anyone could find with a cursory Google search; all studies show legal gun permits REDUCE crime!

The right to bear arms is the most fundamental right of any free society. Even more important than our freedom of speech... because when our freedom of speech is taken away, the only way we will get it back is through force!

[Methmatician]

Some guns should be not allowed for civilians. I can understand a hand gun to protect yourself, but no one needs a machine gun.

[Sikeliot]

Some guns should be not allowed for civilians. I can understand a hand gun to protect yourself, but no one needs a machine gun.

This I agree with. No one who isn't in the military or law enforcement needs automatic weapons.

[Útrám]

Some confusing poll options there. The right to bear arms and gun control is not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For example, the Americans have their second amendment, but their government has passed various laws meant to regulate gun ownership, such as preventing felons and the mentally-ill form owning guns.

[Damião de Góis]

Like a spear or longbow could protect you from a wild bear, and it would be extremely hard to get the close to a deer with a spear, they have an acute sense of hearing.

Don't they call it a sport? Where is the fun in shooting wild animals from distance?

[arcticwolf]

Don't they call it a sport? Where is the fun in shooting wild animals from distance?

I agree with you on hunting, if you are really hungry and that's the only option you have to obtain food I'm ok with it. Hunting because you like the thrill of the kill to me is an unmistakable sign of a troubled mind.

I don't agree with you on gun ownership though!

One out of two is not too bad! ;)

[Blackout]

I agree with you on hunting, if you are really hungry and that's the only option you have to obtain food I'm ok with it. Hunting because you like the thrill of the kill to me is an unmistakable sign of a troubled mind.

I don't agree with you on gun ownership though!

One out of two is not too bad! ;)

Good doggy! Have a bone :

http://www.petco.com/assets/product_images/7/742583472071C.jpg

[rashka]

Get rid of all the guns NOW. Pass the damn law!! People must hand in their guns. This is the only way to stop any more of these these blood thirsty psychopathic acts. Shooting sprees in America are always going to happen, at the shopping mall, cinema, high school, etc. There is not a month that passes when I don't hear about a breaking news story of another shooting spree.After each massacre, we say never again, but it always comes back in one way or another. Put a control on the guns now.

[Svipdag]

Concerning the black market: The weapon of choice of the organized crime gangs of the 1920's and 1930's was the Thompson sub-machine gun.
It has NEVER been legal for civilians to own this firearm. However, most of the gangland killings of the Prohibition era were committed with it. Obviously, criminals had no difficulty in obtaining it illegally.

My father owned a Colt Model 1911 .45 ACP automatic which ultimately descended through the family to me. I prefer revolvers, so I traded it to a friend of mine who quickly discovered that it was a "patchwork quilt" of
parts bearing different, ,or no, serial numbers belonging to different versions of that pistol, one made for the US Army and the other made for the British.

Clearly, assembling this hodge-podge from stolen parts was a spare-time project for some Colt employee. I have been assured that this sort of thing was not and probably still is not uncommon.

Laws have no effect on the black market in firearms. Any criminal who wants a firearm to commit a crime can get one on the street the same day.
Laws deter only the law-abiding citizen ! More and stricter gun-conrol laws do not deter criminals from acquiring firearms. they only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Then what is the answer ? AN answer is to make the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime a crime in itself carrying severe penalties. I said SEVERE, not a slap on the wrist.


"BONIS NOCET QVI PEPERCERIT MALIS" - PVBLILIVS SYRVS

[Graus]

Get rid of all the guns NOW. Pass the damn law!! People must hand in their guns. This is the only way to stop any more of these these blood thirsty psychopathic acts. Shooting sprees in America are always going to happen, at the shopping mall, cinema, high school, etc. There is not a month that passes when I don't hear about a breaking news story of another shooting spree.After each massacre, we say never again, but it always comes back in one way or another. Put a control on the guns now.

From my cold, dead hands...

[rashka]

From my cold, dead hands...

Are you trying to tell us something?

[Loki]

Fact of the matter is that all of these mass shootings seem to come from people with legal firearms.

[Graus]

Are you trying to tell us something?

What do you think?

[Sarmatian]

In ancient world carrying a weapon was a sign of a free man. When state monopolizing the right to violence it's on the way to tyranny.


Get rid of all the guns NOW. Pass the damn law!! People must hand in their guns. This is the only way to stop any more of these these blood thirsty psychopathic acts. Shooting sprees in America are always going to happen, at the shopping mall, cinema, high school, etc. There is not a month that passes when I don't hear about a breaking news story of another shooting spree.After each massacre, we say never again, but it always comes back in one way or another. Put a control on the guns now.

You missing the point. If in that US school some adult person would've had a gun he/she might have had a chance to stop the massacre before it even started.

[Mary]

Only policemen should carry firearms. It should be illegal for everyone else, although criminals would still get them in the black market.

Even for hunting. Want to hunt? Use spears or a longbow...

You serious?

There's a reason why most countries don't allow this.

[Mary]

xr8PQDoZXSo

[Lux Aeterna]

I think people have the right to own guns if they wish, whether it's for protection, a hobby, collecting, blowing your head off, hunting... Like others allready said, those who wants to use a gun badly will get one either way, and it's fairly easy to even make a homemade gun;

w66SWujTJa8

And it's not even that hard to make one, pretty much all you need are pipes, metal pieces, screws and some technical skills :shrug: You can learn how to make one just by getting instructions off the internet. These homemade guns are pretty damn effective and are common in Central America's gangs, like the MS13 and so on, since they simply can't afford proper guns... These guys are a good example of high murder rate without the access of legal guns.

[Lux Aeterna]

Lol if this guy can make a gun, everyone can :D :picard1:

odoXAVAuaLY

[Loki]

Fact of the matter is that all of these mass shootings seem to come from people with legal firearms.

Watch this CNN interview with Piers Morgan:

China attack illustrates U.S. gun law divide (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/china-us-school-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Hong Kong (CNN) -- On Friday morning, a man walked through the entrance of an elementary school and, without warning, began ruthlessly cutting down children at the school. Before he was subdued, nearly two dozen were hit.

While it sounds like the horrific massacre in Connecticut, this attack took place about 8,000 miles away in central China. And while several of the victims were reported in critical condition, none of the 22 children were killed.

The 36-year-old suspect in China -- which has strict gun control laws -- attacked the children with a knife, according to local reports.

"The huge difference between this case and the U.S. is not the suspect, nor the situation, but the simple fact he did not have an effective weapon," said Dr. Ding Xueliang, a Harvard-educated sociologist at the University of Science and Technology in Hong Kong.

As the world shares in the horror of the attack that left at least 28 dead, including 20 school children, the attack has rekindled the gun-control debate in the U.S. and international wonder at the propensity of gun-related deaths in America.

"In terms of the U.S., there's much easier availability of killing instruments -- rifles, machine guns, explosives -- than in nearly every other developed country," Dr. Ding said.

"In the United States, we had 9,000 people killed with guns last year, in similar countries like Germany 170 (killed with guns), in Canada 150. There's a reason for that," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, told CNN's Piers Morgan.

"The proof in the pudding is that in every other industrialized nation except the United States, they have reasonable gun control laws, and they have hundreds of people killed each year -- not 9,000 or 10,000 a year -- killed by guns."

[Minesweeper]

Gun owning laws are one of the rare things that I like about USA.

If someone needs a gun in order to commit crime, he'll find one. At least here, finding an illegal weapon is not harder than finding drugs, you just ask the right person and order what you need, from pistol to rocket launcher.

[Damião de Góis]

You serious?

There's a reason why most countries don't allow this.

Yes, but that's because i think hunting for sport is stupid. What is the reason then?

[Blackout]

Are you trying to tell us something?

It's an infamous quote, in regards to Gun ownership...

O0B_UZNtEk4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_my_cold,_dead_hands

[Graham]

Can understand the argument " don't want a state monopoly on guns"

Saying having guns, makes us safer..fucking idiotic.

[Leadchucker]

....... Thompson sub-machine gun.
It has NEVER been legal for civilians to own this firearm.
Actually it is legal to own.

Machine guns are not illegal under federal law. You must be 21 to purchase a machine gun in the US. The following states allow private ownership of machine guns if registered with ATF: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI, WY. Some states have their own registration requirements, but most just say you have to have it registered with ATF.
Any machine gun that can be privately owned has to have been manufactured and registered prior to May, 1986.

The Thompson is prohibited in Canada however.

[noricum]

Yes, but that's because i think hunting for sport is stupid. What is the reason then?

Cause when you have to kill an animal you want to make it as fast and painless as possible. Therefore a modern firearm will be the first choice. In most tight populated areas there is a need for hunting to protect agriculture and forestry. You should better be happy that there are still people out there who invest lots of time and money for their hobby and enjoy a healthy rugged lifestyle. If things are going down the drain any further, their skills and knowledge might be also needed by us.

In my understanding, every individual has the right for self-defence. Again a modern firearm would be the first choice for those who have proven psychological ability. Once psychological ability and certain gun handling skills are proven, one should be allowed to own all kinds of guns. It basically makes no difference if you own a .22 single-shot or a machine gun capable of full-auto fire.
In certain states of the US it is possible for civilians to own full-auto weapons. But it will take lots of paperworks and ridiculous amounts of money to get that. A semi-auto AR-15 costs arround $800.- while a full-auto capable M-16 will cost arround $20.000.- for technically almost the same rifle! To make only rich people own this kind of guns and to keep numbers low. So much about the "land of free".
Even worse are bans of certain features like "high capacity" magazines, pistol grips on rifles like we have seen during the Clinton assault-weapons ban in the US or untill some years ago in Germany as well. The same goes for banning certain military calibers like we see in Italy or France. How on earth makes a pistol grip a rifle more dangerous/destructive?

Another reason tho own guns it the preservation of antique technology. Arms are a good indicator for the technological advance of mankind as humans always took special attention to this field.

[EagleAtHeart]

Can understand the argument " don't want a state monopoly on guns"

Saying having guns, makes us safer..fucking idiotic.

But guns do make a population safer! Do you have any stats proving otherwise?

[Loki]

I wanted to buy a machine pistol in South Africa around 13 years ago, but the licence was denied since I already owned 2 pistols and a shotgun :p

[Graham]

But guns do make a population safer! Do you have any stats proving otherwise?

They don't make them..safer..nor the most dangerous places.

It's down to the culture..The Swiss are far more responsible with guns than the Americans. Properly trained & have the correct discipline.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1961/screenhunter5pc9.jpg

[Smaland]

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.173628!/img/httpImage/image.jpg

The Happy Land was a social club in New York that was burned on 25 March 1990 by an arsonist who was angry with his former girlfriend for rejecting him. 87 people were killed, and the murder weapon was a container of gasoline, along with the matches to light it.

Wiki article on the Happy Land Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire)

[Útrám]

Switzerland is armed to the teeth, but the low rate of gun crime in Switzerland is more a reflection of a stable society.
Seldom is it mentioned how the non-white underclass accounts for a significant part in the ghastly American statistics. It's more of a cultural matter.

[Mary]

Yes, but that's because i think hunting for sport is stupid. What is the reason then?

It increases the risk that the animal will suffer. That's why you're usually required to hunt with firearms and you're also obliged to use a bigger caliber for bigger game.

It's a way to control the population of wild animals. People do it at their own expense. Otherwise the municipalities would have to hire people with taxpayer money.

[Loki]

It increases the risk that the animal will suffer. That's why you're usually required to hunt with firearms and you're also obliged to use a bigger caliber for bigger game.

It's a way to control the population of wild animals. People do it at their own expense. Otherwise the municipalities would have to hire people with taxpayer money.

Hunters usually pick out the best male animals to hunt for their trophies. In the long run, the best genes of the wild animal species are selectively taken out. That is what big game hunters in Africa have done for centuries, and now record-breaking specimens are hard to find.

[Γέλως]

Some of the guns you can buy in the US for "self-protection":

DIIw8ZTPJio
86BH8rd91eg
D9DkciMTsLI
XyoAP10uKTk

...well, apart from self protection you can also protect your town from alien invasions. Quite a fair deal.

[Kazimiera]

Before being able to purchase a weapon, the person needs a license. To gain that license he should be able to safely use the weapon he wants to purchase. Example: a person with a license for a handgun should not be allowed to purchase a shotgun.

Also, if someone lives in an apartment in an urban area, it should be questioned why they want want a rifle with a scope if they don't even possess a hunting license. Someone with a hunting license may be allowed to purchase weapons for hunting. Someone without a hunting license should be barred from making certain purchases.

People with a history of violent crime should be barred from purchasing firearms, especially if the criminal history reveals that guns were previously used during such assaults.

The person should be medically screened and the category of weapon he is allowed to purchase be based on that. You don't want an epileptic go into a seizure while his finger is on the trigger of an automatic weapon. Nor would you want someone who has persecutory delusions during psychosis to be able to wield a weapon to protect himself from all of "them" out there.

That said, culture does play an important part. I'd rather have no gun control in country like Germany or Austria that no gun control in America. America as a society is exactly why gun control SHOULD be enforced.

[Kazimiera]

Gun control in American may be a constitutional right, but the general public should also have a constitutional right to be protected from other Americans with guns.

[Mary]

Hunters usually pick out the best male animals to hunt for their trophies. In the long run, the best genes of the wild animal species are selectively taken out. That is what big game hunters in Africa have done for centuries, and now record-breaking specimens are hard to find.

That might apply to Africa but in Europe hunting is heavily regulated.

[Gaijin]

Guns were made for a purpose, only. To kill, not to defend, but to kill.
Nothing else needs to be said about the subject.
andN9CqgH80

[Mortimer]

not sure about this Topic. but i think i would like to have learned to shoot and maybe own a gun if someone threatens me. but i would also be afraid always if owning a gun, and everyone else owns a gun. but then again you can get killed with a knife or Baseball bat too

[Graham]

I think i would like to have learned to shoot and maybe own a gun if someone threatens me.

I'm no expert, but I'd like to think diagnosed schizophrenics, aren't allowed guns in any countries.

[Kazimiera]

I'm no expert, but I'd like to think diagnosed schizophrenics, aren't allowed guns in any countries.

Ring a bell?

http://media.mwcradio.com/mimesis/2012-08/09/2012-08-09T211221Z_1_CBRE8781MWN00_RTROPTP_3_USREPORT-US-USA-SHOOTING-DENVER-ILLNESS_JPG_475x310_q85.jpg

[Just90]

The problem is not the guns but the people and their way of thinking
Obviously the twisted guys who commit this sort of crazy things
Are lonely guys with no sort of life I would say
Who don't get attention and are very introverted with no social skills

In the USA you get media attention for whatever dumb reason which always go international in less than hours

This sort of mentally twisted people love it and they would do anything to get attention even if its in a negative way

Juts look at all the sociopaths and how the smile for the media

IT'S NOT THE GUNS AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE BANNED.

If the kid had a problem with his mother , why not do it at home ?

Why go to a school and shoot up innocent kids???

Cause he loved that attention , he knew that he would get and he is getting it !!

[Blackout]

Even if he had a problem with his mother, how could he contemplate killing her? Not to mention the Innocent children...

[noricum]

Before being able to purchase a weapon, the person needs a license. Example: a person with a license for a handgun should not be allowed to purchase a shotgun..

Why not? I don't think the state should tell the people what and what not to buy- within certain limits. Also your examle doesn't make much sence, since a relatively long and bulky shotgun is much easier to handle in a save manner than a handgun.


Also, if someone lives in an apartment in an urban area, it should be questioned why they want want a rifle with a scope if they don't even possess a hunting license...

Bench rest shooting, long range shooting, testing handloads, collecting... there are many reasons why someone in an urban area might want to buy a rifle with a scope on. Again, in my opinion it's not the governments business.


People with a history of violent crime should be barred from purchasing firearms...

Absolutely agree on that.


Gun control in American may be a constitutional right, but the general public should also have a constitutional right to be protected from other Americans with guns.

They are free to buy a gun as well, and train shooting!

[noricum]

Guns were made for a purpose, only. To kill, not to defend, but to kill.

It is true that initially guns where made to kill, what is in my opinion whether good nor bad.
However, as man's nature dictates, at one point people started to make a game out of it and the first sport guns occured. Over the time they became more and more specialised untill, at leastsome versions of them, where hardly usable as a "killing tool" animore. Or do you think biathletes train for killing sprees in snowy, rural areas?

In some undesireable situations it might be necessary to defend your life and/or of your loved ones by killing the attacker.

[Englisc]

In England there is almost no right to defend oneself. Responsible adults should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves.

[Leon_C]

Every man should have the right to bear arms

http://i.imgur.com/oUBpP.jpg

on a more serious note I actually wish guns hadn't been invented, I prefer melee combat because physical size/ strength and fighting skills actually count for something.

[xajapa]

I know yesterday's tragedy will cause some to think that gun control is the answer. As has been already mentioned, many of those who kill with guns are career criminals who were let out of prison, or mentally ill persons whose family members and friends turn a blind eye to all signals that these people may cause something bad to happen. Besides, in a nation like the US, with it porous borders, there is no way that the government could collect every gun and keep people from getting them. You would thus have guns available, despite any law. The law abiders would honor the prohibition. The criminals and insane would possess them and use them . Then there would nobody to protect the citizens but the few law enforcement personnel.

[noricum]

Then there would nobody to protect the citizens but the few law enforcement personnel.

Nope, sorry dude, they won't protect you. Chances are high that undermanned and over-worked LE arrives when everything is over already.
Bad news. I know.

[purple]

Outlaw guns for law-abiding citizens and the only people who will have guns are outlaws, i.e. fucked up, sick people who will get them regardless of whether they are legal or not.

And how exactly do you know how somebody is sick or not? Unless he's in mental institution. The US is full of ''normal'', ''law-abiding'' citizens yet if we had to estimate the real number of psychos we have to count half of the population

[xajapa]

Nope, sorry dude, they won't protect you. Chances are high that undermanned and over-worked LE arrives when everything is over already.
Bad news. I know.
Yes. You can't count on the police to get there before it is too late. All the more reason to be armed.

[Edelmann]

There is a middle position which I occupy. I do not believe in an absolute right to bear arms, but rather what may be called a privilege of bearing arms. A person has an absolute right only to attempt obtaining that privilege.

We may have been, at one time, worthy of an absolute right to bear arms. We are clearly no longer worthy.

[Just90]

Even if he had a problem with his mother, how could he contemplate killing her? Not to mention the Innocent children...

Obviously he wasn't right in his mind
The whole going to the school and shooting innocent kids . Was juts to get attention

[Fortis in Arduis]

I was thinking about getting a gun to defend my house with actually. That is now permissible in the UK, under 'using an object as a weapon', I believe.

This is perfectly reasonable, is it not? Should I not be able to defend my own home from potential intruders?

UK laws are tighter than those of the US, and one does not have a right to bear arms just anywhere, but one can own a gun.

UK laws have not prevented people from owning illegal firearms, but I could not imagine the UK with the gun-in-every-house culture, or how it could be phased in.

[Svipdag]

Can anyone explain to me why, when I was a boy in the 1930's and 1940's, although almost every boy over the age of about 11 had a firearm, usually a rifle, but some had pistols, legally purchased in any hardware or sporting goods store, as long as he was accompanied by an adult, without any paper work, there were none of these irresponsible shootings ?

Driveby shootings hadn't even been imagined. Workplace shootings, school shootings, and church shootings were not merely unheard-of; they were literally UNTHINKABLE. In my high school of 1700 students, during my high-school years (the late 1940's) NOT ONE girl got pregnant, NOT ONE boy was imprisoned. WHAT HAPPENED ?


"QVAE FVERVNT VITIA MORES SVNT" - LVCIVS ANNAEVS SENECA

[Graham]

^^^
Like has been said. Culturally different & less disciplined in todays Americans.

[Stefan]

The worst position I can see myself in the near-future with the coming riots due to the incompetence of a federal government who wanted power, but couldn't handle it, is in an intercity surrounding by the 1/3rd black population who are criminals and who have weapons, but I am without a weapon to protect myself. Good thing I don't have to be in that position, but for those who are, I say no thank you to gun control. The gun control that we have now is quite sufficient for deterring criminals who go through legal routes. For those who illegally own weapons, it doesn't even phase them. Maybe instead of this being a legislative problem it is an executive problem. Give harsher punishments to the criminals who own illegal weapons and you'll see a sharp drop in crime in these inter-cities.

As for the massacres, it has to do with a poor intervention system for those with corrosive mental health, as well as a lack of vigilance when it comes to security. Why did the office at the school let Adam Lanza into the building, for example? His mother was dead at home, and he had no place in the school.

[Svipdag]

In other words, we were better brought up. I'll buy that, though i'm not sure that it's the whole explanation.


"O TEMPORA O MORES" - MARCVS TVLLIVS CICERO

[Stefan]

Can understand the argument " don't want a state monopoly on guns"

Saying having guns, makes us safer..fucking idiotic.

It might not make everyone safer, but it makes the people who matter (the law-abiding citizens) safer. I don't care one bit whether or not a gang member kills another gang member. I do care if a gang member breaks into my mother's home and kills her though. So it makes me safer, makes my family safer, and makes the respectable members of society safer to be able to own weapons to defend themselves without so much impediment that it is virtually impossible for them to do that. Otherwise, we'd be totally dependent on the police, which in the country, take minutes to get to where we need them - plenty of time for us to die or become injured. I don't want a criminal monopoly on guns just as much as I don't want a state monopoly on guns.

[Stefan]

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/


A 12-year-old Oklahoma girl took extreme measures to protect herself when an unfamiliar man broke into her home last Wednesday. The girl, who was home alone during a day off from school, shot and wounded the home intruder, local NBC affiliate KTEN News reports.

Kendra St. Clair, was home by herself when a man rang the doorbell to her Bryan County, Okla., home. She didn’t answer, so the trespasser walked to the back of the house and kicked open a door. St. Clair called her mother, who advised her to grab the family’s gun and hide, according to an interview she gave to local broadcaster KFOR-TV. Authorities said that the girl found the gun and took shelter in a bathroom closet.


“I was sitting there in the closet, really scared, holding the gun, not knowing what was going to happen,” St. Clair told KFOR-TV.
Bryan County Under Sheriff Ken Golden told KTEN that the intruder worked his way through the house and to the bathroom, and he was turning the doorknob to St. Clair’s closet when she fired through the door.

The girl then called 911 for help.

“She was very brave, she stayed on the phone with the dispatcher the whole time—talked all the way through it and was still on the phone with dispatch when we got into the house,” Golden said to KTEN.

The intruder, who KTEN says has been identified as 32-year-old Stacy Jones of Texarkana, was flown to a hospital in Plano, Texas. Jones survived the shot to his shoulder, and he has been charged with first-degree burglary, according to KOCO TV.

St. Clair has been widely lauded as a hometown hero for her quick actions, KFOR reports.

“When I had the gun, I didn’t think I was actually going to have to shoot somebody,” St. Clair told ABC News. “I think it’s going to change me a whole lot, knowing that I can hold my head up high and nothing can hurt me anymore.”

According to a 2010 survey by the Daily Beast, Oklahoma ranks as the 12th “most armed” state in the nation. The University of Chicago’s General Social Survey found that 35 percent of Americans have lived with a gun in their house in the past decade. Telephone polls from Gallup and other sources have suggested this number may be closer to 42 percent.



Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/#ixzz2FAXryjt2

[ficuscarica]

I am against gun control. I am for freedom and against fascism like it is found in the "EU" (gun control, plant seed control, thought control, oxygen consumption control, tooth paste use control, shit consistence control, dirt under fingernails control, etc)...

[kabeiros]

My thoughts on the subject are this:

1. A sane, reasonable, law obedient citizen should have the right to own a gun for his protection
2. The person should bear psychiatrist's verification of his healthy mental state



If anyone:
1. Commits a crime which is violent
2. Uses his gun for no apparent reason
3. Carries his gun in a public place (hospital, school, park etc.)

should get punished and additionally restricted from the right of possessing guns for the rest of his life.

There are so many illegal guns out there, that it is impossible for peaceful citizens to protect themselves in any other way. Greece is full of illegal immigrants and kalashnikovs but Greek citizens are not allowed to possess guns, unless they are politicians, rich buisenessmen or their bodyguards :mad:

[Útrám]

I am against gun control. I am for freedom and against fascism like it is found in the "EU" (gun control, plant seed control, thought control, oxygen consumption control, tooth paste use control, shit consistence control, dirt under fingernails control, etc)...

Would that be all forms of gun control? I wonder about those who hold a purely libertarian view on the matter. What's this camp's view on gun ownership among the mentally disturbed, recidivists, teenagers and people on the terrorist suspect list?

Gun control is not to be confused gun prohibition.
It's unfortunate how the far left has turned the term 'gun control' into a codeword to support their prohibition agenda, so it's understandable why some would completely go against it.

[Svante]

.
I dont think police should be only with guns. every citizen should have guns to protect themselv and family from the criminals. the police can not protect citizens all the time so they should be able to have guns if they want them. I know it is very difficult to have them legally and if you do not obey gun laws the governement will take the guns.




.

[Hess]

In a free society, every person has a right to own whatever they want provided that their doing so in no way infringes on the autonomy of any other person.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[askra]

The era of the "Wild West" ended more than one century ago, and in the meantime were invented a lot of non-lethal weapons, so imo guns should be detained only by the police forces and the army.

[xajapa]

Gun control will end up just like the war on drugs: ineffective.

[Loki]

Democrats urge wider gun control (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20749167)

Two senior US Democrats have called for stricter gun control legislation following the elementary school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.

Twenty children and six women died in Friday's assault on Sandy Hook school by a lone gunman who then turned his weapon on himself.

Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy urged stronger national legislation.

And Senator Dianne Feinstein said she would introduce a bill to ban assault weapons as soon as Congress convened.

President Barack Obama - who shortly after the school attack urged "meaningful action" against gun crime in the US - is to visit Newtown on Sunday.

He will meet families and emergency service workers, and speak at an interfaith vigil at the town's high school.

The gunman behind Friday's shootings has been named in media reports as Adam Lanza, who is said to have killed his mother before driving to the school, opening fire and then killing himself.

The state's chief medical examiner said the gunman used a semi-automatic rifle as his main weapon, and all the victims appeared to have been shot several times, some of them at close range.

Speaking on Sunday, Governor Malloy said Connecticut had an existing ban on assault weapons, but the lack of a similar law at federal level made it difficult to keep them out of the state.

"These are assault weapons. You don't hunt deer with these things," he told CNN.

"One can only hope that we'll find a way to limit these weapons that really only have one purpose."

Governor Malloy had to break the news to most of the victim's families on Friday.

[Loki]

The weapon used in the shootings - the Bushmaster .223

Identified as the semi-automatic weapon used by the Newtown gunman

Allows rapid repetitive fire without the frequent need to reload

Lightweight bullets fired from it reportedly travel at 3,000ft (914m) per second

Rounds fired "in such a fashion that the energy is deposited in the tissue, so the bullet stays in" - Connecticut chief medical examiner H Wayne Carver

Suitable "for those who want the general feel of a military weapon" - retired US Army sergeant major Eric Haney

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Stag2wi_.jpg

[Mary]

I hope they ban those deadly heat seeking bullets,

BRQqieimwLQ

[Stefan]

I agree that individuals shouldn't have such devastating automatic weapons. For a registered non-government militia though, I think there should be special permissions as these weapons can be used during disasters in which riots occur and it is only constitutional that the people can be just as armed as their government, if not more.

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.

[arcticwolf]

Can anyone explain to me why, when I was a boy in the 1930's and 1940's, although almost every boy over the age of about 11 had a firearm, usually a rifle, but some had pistols, legally purchased in any hardware or sporting goods store, as long as he was accompanied by an adult, without any paper work, there were none of these irresponsible shootings ?

Driveby shootings hadn't even been imagined. Workplace shootings, school shootings, and church shootings were not merely unheard-of; they were literally UNTHINKABLE. In my high school of 1700 students, during my high-school years (the late 1940's) NOT ONE girl got pregnant, NOT ONE boy was imprisoned. WHAT HAPPENED ?


"QVAE FVERVNT VITIA MORES SVNT" - LVCIVS ANNAEVS SENECA

Absolutely right Sir!

It's the bleeding hearts who instead of eradicating the cause want to go after a tool, not the conditions that created the sick mind.

Solution is simple but you need guts and ethics to do it.

Nothing lasts forever, and neither will this shit.

Ban knives, pitchforks, cars, electricity, elevators, planes. Planes kill a lot of people when they crash! See how stupid this train of thought can get?

Right to bear arms is there for a reason, it makes tyrants think twice and act a bit nicer towards the citizens.

[Stefan]

This is another reason why we shouldn't give up our guns. Why does DHS need hollow point bullets against its own domestic peoples?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/17/who-does-the-government-intend-to-shoot/


The Social Security Administration (SSA) confirms that it is purchasing 174 thousand rounds of hollow point bullets to be delivered to 41 locations in major cities across the U.S. No one has yet said what the purpose of these purchases is, though we are led to believe that they will be used only in an emergency to counteract and control civil unrest. Those against whom the hollow point bullets are to be used — those causing the civil unrest — must be American citizens; since the SSA has never been used overseas to help foreign countries maintain control of their citizens.

What would be the target of these 174, 000 rounds of hollow point bullets? It can’t simply be to control demonstrators or rioters. Hollow point bullets are so lethal that the Geneva Convention does not allow their use on the battle field in time of war. Hollow point bullets don’t just stop or hurt people, they penetrate the body, spread out, fragment and cause maximum damage to the body’s organs. Death often follows.

Potentially each hollow nose bullet represents a dead American. If so, why would the U.S. government want the SSA to kill 174,000 of our citizens, even during a time of civil unrest? Or is the purpose to kill 174,000 of the nation’s military and replace them with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) special security forces, forces loyal to the Administration, not to the Constitution?

All my life I’ve handled firearms. When a young boy growing up on my father’s farm in Pennsylvania Dad’s first rule of firearms training was, “Never point a gun at someone, in fun or otherwise, unless you intend to shoot them. If you shoot someone, shoot to kill.” I’ve never forgotten his admonition. It stayed with me through my Boy Scout training, when I enlisted in the army as a Private to fight in the Korea
War, during my days as a Ranger and Paratrooper and throughout my thirty-four year military career.

If this were only a one time order of ammunition, it could easily be dismissed. But there is a pattern here. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has ordered 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition. Notice that all of these purchases are for the lethal hollow nose bullets. These bullets are not being purchased and stored for squirrel or coyote hunting. This is serious ammunition manufactured to be used for serious purposes.

In the war in Iraq, our military forces expended approximately 70 million rounds per year. In March DHS ordered 750 million rounds of hollow point ammunition. It then turned around and ordered an additional 750 million rounds of miscellaneous bullets including some that are capable of penetrating walls. This is enough ammunition to empty five rounds into the body of every living American citizen. Is this something we and the Congress should be concerned about? What’s the plan that requires so many dead Americans, even during times of civil unrest? Has Congress and the Administration vetted the plan in public.

I fear that Congress won’t take these ammunition purchases seriously until they are all led from Capitol Hill in handcuffs. Why buy all this ammunition unless you plan to use it. Unknown to Congress, Does DHS plan to declare war on some country? Shouldn’t Congress hold hearings on why the Administration is stockpiling this ammunition all across the nation? How will it be used; what are the Administration’s plans?

Obama is a deadly serious, persistent man. Once he focuses on an object, he pursues it to the end. What is his focus here? All of these rounds of ammunition can only be used to kill American citizens, though there is enough ammunition being ordered to kill, in addition to every American citizen, also every Iranian, Syrian or Mexican. There is simply too much of it. And this much ammunition can’t be just for training, there aren’t that many weapons and “shooters” in the U.S. to fire it. Perhaps it is to be used to arm illegal immigrants?

We have enough military forces to maintain law and order in the U.S. even during times of civil unrest.

We have local police, backed up by each state’s National Guard, backed up by the Department of Defense. So in addition to all these forces why does DHS need its own private army? Why do the SSA, NOAA and other government agencies need to create their own civilian security forces armed with hollow nose bullets?

Were I the JCS, and if I wasn’t already fully briefed on this matter, I’d stop the purchase of hollow point bullets, ask the secretary of Defense why all this ammunition is being purchased and spread around the country? If I got answers like the ones Congress got during the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious – I’d start tracking all ammunition deliveries nationwide to find out what organizations and units are using them, for what purpose and, if it is not constitutional, prepare to counteract whatever it is that they are doing.

This is a deadly serious business. I hope I’m wrong, but something smells rotten. And If the Congress isn’t going to do its duty and investigate this matter fully, the military will have to protect the Constitution, the nation, and our citizens.

[Loki]

I had hollow-point bullets in South Africa :)

[EagleAtHeart]

They don't make them..safer..nor the most dangerous places.

It's down to the culture..The Swiss are far more responsible with guns than the Americans. Properly trained & have the correct discipline.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1961/screenhunter5pc9.jpg

LOL you just Googled some some arbitrary stat to further your preconceived Liberal bias without even thinking critically about it

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/gun-sales-violent-crime-down-again

FBI stats shows gun sales go up --> crime goes down

Now find some stats on how many of those American homicides are committed with illegal guns, and what race is responsible for the majority of them.

[EagleAtHeart]

I had hollow-point bullets in South Africa :)

How can you live in South Africa and not support gun laws?

[Stefan]

I had hollow-point bullets in South Africa :)

The only information I can find on their legality here in the U.S is that New Jersey prohibits them, which I assume implies that other states do not.

Still, I'm quite baffled at why our federal government needs 500 million WITHIN the U.S by 2016 when the main purpose of such bullets is to kill people. Does the U.S government expect riots/civil unrest? If so, why? Should the people be worried about their safety from not only the the government, but also rioters? Are they planning on increasing their unconstitutional deconstruction of due-processes and habeas corpus in the name of "combating terrorism" so much that they expect riots on that end as well?

http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-americans-indefinite-detention2012-11


It is quite alarming to me, and I don't think any sane, informed person in the U.S would want their right to defend themselves taken away considering the future that is being foreshadowed. This country is becoming more and more a police state, and it's our second amendment that we must fall back on, otherwise what prevents the U.S from becoming something akin to China 20 years ago? In fact, the U.S, as the sole superpower, is in an easier position to become corruptible because very few internationally would oppose it.


Edit: That's without mentioning how Obama is arming illegals and at the same time disarming Americans.

[Piparskeggr]

In our home, my wife and I have "his n hers" gun safes. None of these firearms have ever been used to harm another human.

I have handled firearms for over half a century, both in civilian and military situations. I have killed a couple of hundred birds and beasts over the years for food (I do not trophy hunt). I killed a man in the line of duty (which is the most horrible feeling I have in memory). I have put hundred of thousands of rounds down range in various venues for practice and competition.

I believe that we do have an absolute right to obtain, keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including acting as a member of the militia of the whole.

I likewise believe that the "well regulated" language of the second amendment to the US Constitution puts a burden on the government, particularly the state governments, to provide ranges and instructors so that all citizens who are not disbarred the ownership of firearms by reason of mental defect, qualifying felony or religious scruple can learn safe, effective and lawful use of these tools.

Education is a key I believe, both about firearms, and about the mental and emotional illnesses, which seem to be a large factor in triggering these murders.

[xajapa]

They were debating gun control this morning on one of those news shows. They interviewed a well intentioned pastor who is in favor of gun control. He stated over the last decade or so he has been involved in these gun but back programs, and he personally oversaw 22,000 weapons taken off the street. Yet gun violence continues, not just with these insane shootings, but gang violence and other teen killings. To me, this proves my point that I made earlier: you cannot remove guns from the USA. With our porous borders, there will always be guns available on the streets. If made illegal, the law abiding citizens will honor the law. The criminals will not. They will have guns. Again, just like the war on drugs, you cannot stop the flow of products desired by people in a free (well, relatively free) society like the US. Contraband will always be available. And, by the way, they also mentioned on this news show that the type of weapon the killer used at the school in Connecticut was already banned within that state. So, there was already a law on the book. We see how effective that law is. Maybe if we pass another, the criminals and insane will listen to the 2nd one. Laws will not stop this type of behavior.

[Partiasn]

Gun control in American may be a constitutional right, but the general public should also have a constitutional right to be protected from other Americans with guns.

Well here is the the thing, If you are NOT an American then Don't Worry About It. If you are an American and cant follow constitutional Law [OBAMA] then find a country that agrees with you and Move There.

Problem Solved!

Stickily Speaking if the Leftist here want to give up the standing army which “We the Anglo Saxon People” created for them during the Cold War, and institute a local Militia then we will restrict gun sales form various liberal types and geto thugs.

So how about it Commies, lets do away with the money hole called Federal “Law Enforcement”!

Then We will not have to worry about the out of control Fed retailing Guns to criminals.


Qvk_WICNMLc

[Partiasn]

I believe that we do have an absolute right to obtain, keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including acting as a member of the militia of the whole.

I likewise believe that the "well regulated" language of the second amendment to the US Constitution puts a burden on the government, particularly the state governments, to provide ranges and instructors so that all citizens who are not disbarred the ownership of firearms by reason of mental defect, qualifying felony or religious scruple can learn safe, effective and lawful use of these tools.


Honestly I think acting as a member of a Militia is the number one reason for having a Fire Arm and as such it SHOULD BE a Military Class weapon.

But as we know guns are really good at killing one person or Assassination which seems to be the problem the government Elites have with this.

Killing of “Important People”.

[Svipdag]

Nope, sorry dude, they won't protect you. Chances are high that undermanned and over-worked LE arrives when everything is over already.
Bad news. I know.

In my country, police chiefs and the policemen's union have even said that it is NOT their responsibility to protect citizens from crime, but only to apprehend criminals after the crime has been committed.

If it be not THEIR responsibility, then WHOSE IS IT ? They seem to take a dim view of citizens' "taking the law into their own hands". IN WHOSE HANDS, then, does it belong ?


"QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES" - (auctor mihi incognitus)

[Piparskeggr]

Courts at many levels from local districts to the US Supreme Court have ruled many time since the first case in 1887 that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. The police duty is to act as agents of the Law and State, to protect their interests against trespass by the citizenry, as well as malefactors.

[Partiasn]

Courts at many levels from local districts to the US Supreme Court have ruled many time since the first case in 1887 that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. The police duty is to act as agents of the Law and State, to protect their interests against trespass by the citizenry, as well as malefactors.

Sounds like a pretty good reason to shit can, them and use Militias.

[Stefan]

Courts at many levels from local districts to the US Supreme Court have ruled many time since the first case in 1887 that the police have no duty to protect the individual citizen. The police duty is to act as agents of the Law and State, to protect their interests against trespass by the citizenry, as well as malefactors.

I had no idea! :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia


In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.
Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

[Leliana]

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1961/screenhunter5pc9.jpg

The Swiss people have the most guns per capita of all European countries...and the lowest homicide rate. :icon_ask:

Swiss soldiers who have done their military service are allowed to keep their automatic weapons at home, plus ammo. The Swiss doctrine is to keep the arms decentral and her population war- and defense-ready anytime. An attacker could destroy all depots and barracks but the Swiss were still operational.

http://v2.suedostschweiz.ch/var/upload/news/image/72839_640.jpg

http://www.blick.ch/img/aktuell/origs442044/5821944932-w644-h450-b2a2a2a/Sturmgewehr.jpg

http://fraulich.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/32967615.jpg

http://media3.news.ch/news/680/252792-MFO20080830_15.jpg

Are Swiss people more considerate or just more stable?

[Graham]

Direct Democracy & a superior political system, gives the Swiss more responsibility..

Bringing a more stable nation.

'Sensible nations' with 'sensible people', should have the right to bear arms.

Would have voted other, if the choice was giving.

[Humanophage]

US white homicide rate (http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj#view=all) for 2010 is 2.24. Excluding the killings of felons by police and private citizens, it is down to 1.76. White on white murder rate is 1.65, without felons it's 1.56. If we account for unsolved crimes or false accusations, these can be multiplied by about 1.5. White Americans are, on the whole, only slightly more murderous than West Europeans.

Murder rates are especially low in states that are whiter on the whole; whites in multiracial states are more violent.

White American states have low murder rates. For example, Iowa's rate for the recent years is about 1.4, similar to Belgium or the Netherlands.

Even in very white states like Iowa or Kansas, blacks account for about 25% of the murderers and victims. For example, from 2000 to 2010 there were 1053 murder victims in Kansas. 358 of the victims were black, of which only 39 or slightly more were killed by whites.

In states with high murder rates, like Louisiana or Arizona, it is the fault of ethnic minorities. For example, in Arizona non-Hispanic whites only account for 39% murder victims and an even smaller fraction of murderers.

[Stefan]

New Hampshire (.8), Vermont (1.1), Iowa (1.1), and Utah (1.3) have comparable homicide rates to Switzerland. I doubt it is political. It's purely cultural. In the other states we have Blacks and Hispanics at significant proportions and intercity warfare with them. Meanwhile Washington D.C has the strictest laws in the country and is number one in crime. It is cultural more than anything. Blacks and Hispanics have a HUGE impact on the numbers.

For example, Pennsylvania's homicide rate is about 5 overall, but Philadelphia has a homicide rate of about 20. Philadelphia has a weighing factor of about .12 (12 percent) of Pennsylvania's population. That's about 1.9 for the rest of the state. The highest demographic population is Black in Philadelphia at 44%.

[Graham]

^^^
Is gun control devolved. Think I read somewhere that the latest mass shooting, took place in a State with stricter control.

[ficuscarica]

I know it sounds racist, blabla.

But if only WASPs/real "old stock" Americans were allowed to own guns the homicide rate would drop significantly. Fact.

Edit: I just saw that others already mentioned that...

[Stefan]

^^^
Is gun control devolved. Think I read somewhere that the latest mass shooting, took place in a State with stricter control.

Americans were very much for gun control in the late 1980's, because they figured it would solve the huge crime spikes (caused by minorities.) So laws were placed. Pennsylvania, for example, used to have a law in which you were not allowed to shoot a person who has broken into your house if you have an available passageway to escape (such as a door.) If you do, you might face charges of manslaughter or something analogous. That law was recently repealed because of the ridiculousness of not being able to defend yourself in your own home and stand your ground. Even still, there are laws restricting law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. In places like Washington D.C, there were even bans or effective (indirect) bans on owning handguns, as well as other weapons. These have also been repealed, overall. The American people are looking at other options than gun control, because we've already tried it and it didn't work. I've noticed that most Americans on Facebook, and other mainstream discussion media aren't blaming guns but are blaming poor security measures, such as a lack of unbreakable windows and doors, as well as the poor intervention by mental health officials and the family of these mentally deranged individuals. Overall though, these massacres make-up the minority of gun crime and homicides, and as such, decisions should be on the broader topic and effects.

[Humanophage]

A simple diagram to illustrate the point:
http://i47.tinypic.com/1538ex0.gif

[Stefan]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/n9ggmdee1k60atawqdbprq.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ylqmvpzqn0muer-v0mqgkq.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6zs-amjn3ewpxcusqetbrg.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/kdzn2p5_skcslwiufg8aqq.gif

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/a7ugakdkdkwqbfo57b6_tg.gif

[Jon Snow]

Can anyone explain to me why, when I was a boy in the 1930's and 1940's, although almost every boy over the age of about 11 had a firearm, usually a rifle, but some had pistols, legally purchased in any hardware or sporting goods store, as long as he was accompanied by an adult, without any paper work, there were none of these irresponsible shootings ?

Driveby shootings hadn't even been imagined. Workplace shootings, school shootings, and church shootings were not merely unheard-of; they were literally UNTHINKABLE. In my high school of 1700 students, during my high-school years (the late 1940's) NOT ONE girl got pregnant, NOT ONE boy was imprisoned. WHAT HAPPENED ?


"QVAE FVERVNT VITIA MORES SVNT" - LVCIVS ANNAEVS SENECA

Svipdag, your post reminds me of an interaction with a man who was standing beside me in line at the store this morning. He was 92 years old, a veteran of the Second World War, and throughout the course of our five-minute conversation I was left deeply impressed by his genuine kindness.

Although our interaction was, from start to finish, completely positive, I couldn't help feeling inexpressibly sad in its aftermath. What got me down was the realization that our modern world is simply no longer capable of producing men of this particular gentleman's caliber. Compared with the likes of this veteran, the modern Westerner is crude, angry, slovenly, ignorant, inarticulate, fat, loud, selfish, aggressive, inconsiderate, base, and altogether unworthy of his genetic and cultural inheritance.

The sea change in the racial demographics of the West is quite clearly the most significant factor contributing to this decline, but there are other, less tangible factors at work as well, and I share your confusion as to what exactly they are.

I can't imagine what it must be like for someone who grew up in the 1940s to look upon what our world has become.


US white homicide rate (http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata/?mg=inert-wsj#view=all) for 2010 is 2.24. Excluding the killings of felons by police and private citizens, it is down to 1.76. White on white murder rate is 1.65, without felons it's 1.56. If we account for unsolved crimes or false accusations, these can be multiplied by about 1.5. White Americans are, on the whole, only slightly more murderous than West Europeans.

Murder rates are especially low in states that are whiter on the whole; whites in multiracial states are more violent.

White American states have low murder rates. For example, Iowa's rate for the recent years is about 1.4, similar to Belgium or the Netherlands.

Even in very white states like Iowa or Kansas, blacks account for about 25% of the murderers and victims. For example, from 2000 to 2010 there were 1053 murder victims in Kansas. 358 of the victims were black, of which only 39 or slightly more were killed by whites.

In states with high murder rates, like Louisiana or Arizona, it is the fault of ethnic minorities. For example, in Arizona non-Hispanic whites only account for 39% murder victims and an even smaller fraction of murderers.


New Hampshire (.8), Vermont (1.1), Iowa (1.1), and Utah (1.3) have comparable homicide rates to Switzerland. I doubt it is political. It's purely cultural. In the other states we have Blacks and Hispanics at significant proportions and intercity warfare with them. Meanwhile Washington D.C has the strictest laws in the country and is number one in crime. It is cultural more than anything. Blacks and Hispanics have a HUGE impact on the numbers.

For example, Pennsylvania's homicide rate is about 5 overall, but Philadelphia has a homicide rate of about 20. Philadelphia has a weighing factor of about .12 (12 percent) of Pennsylvania's population. That's about 1.9 for the rest of the state. The highest demographic population is Black in Philadelphia at 44%.

Very salient points made in the two posts above. As ever, race remains the most influential factor at work; and, as ever, our ruling class is determined to pretend as though that reality can be completely disregarded.

[noricum]

In my country, police chiefs and the policemen's union have even said that it is NOT their responsibility to protect citizens from crime, but only to apprehend criminals after the crime has been committed.

How could police ever possibly prevent crime? That would mean a police officer for every citizen or a total surveillance state. And who controlls the police then? One has to get rid off the idea that there was something like absolute safety.

Who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Benjamin Franklin


If it be not THEIR responsibility, then WHOSE IS IT ?

YOU ARE!

Get to know your neighbor and their habbits. If something strikes you as odd/unusual in their behavior- go ring the bell and ask if everything is ok. Try to live in and with community and your eyes open. These are little things everybody can do. Homogenous societies, relatively equal distribution of income and rural areas make it alot easier though.
Very mature and responsible characters may also live Dave Grossman's sheepdog concept.

Don't get fooled by the militaristic first scenes.

OW8BZ7pRt28

ei8OK4WdoW0

[Smaland]

Can anyone explain to me why, when I was a boy in the 1930's and 1940's, although almost every boy over the age of about 11 had a firearm, usually a rifle, but some had pistols, legally purchased in any hardware or sporting goods store, as long as he was accompanied by an adult, without any paper work, there were none of these irresponsible shootings ?

Driveby shootings hadn't even been imagined. Workplace shootings, school shootings, and church shootings were not merely unheard-of; they were literally UNTHINKABLE. In my high school of 1700 students, during my high-school years (the late 1940's) NOT ONE girl got pregnant, NOT ONE boy was imprisoned. WHAT HAPPENED ?


"QVAE FVERVNT VITIA MORES SVNT" - LVCIVS ANNAEVS SENECA

When he was 6 years old, my father had a .22 rifle. He strapped it to the outside of his suitcase, went on a trip to the North Carolina mountains, and no one thought anything of it.

[Salem]

The problem is that America's culture is rotten by neoliberalism and the result is social atomization and mass anxiety; so when you can buy guns like candy, what is expected to happen?

Those who cite the 2nd Amendment should remember that early America was composed of a majority rural population, and that today is much different since carrying guns in a vast metropolitan full of social tensions caused by cosmopolitanism and economic woes where the slightest provocation can lead to violence.

[Smaland]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01878/stalin_1878541c.jpg

This man, and others like him, is my bottom-line reason for preserving an unfettered 2nd Amendment.

[Hess]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01878/stalin_1878541c.jpg

This man, and others like him, is my bottom-line reason for preserving an unfettered 2nd Amendment.

To my knowledge, the main reason for the introduction of the second amendment was to keep the Political Class in perpetual fear of the people. In other words, the founders saw the threat of armed revolution as the only way of keeping the Government accountable.

Thomas Jefferson - "Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."

[Edelmann]

To my knowledge, the main reason for the introduction of the second amendment was to keep the Political Class in perpetual fear of the people. In other words, the founders saw the threat of armed revolution as the only way of keeping the Government accountable.

Thomas Jefferson - "Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants."

How much sense does this make in the modern world, though? To follow this to the point at which it would actually be useful to the people, we must allow the people to acquire tanks, fighter jets, and aircraft carriers. A few rednecks with assault weapons simply isn't going to cut the mustard.

The second amendment is more than justifiable by merely pointing out that a human being has a natural right to the means of self-defense, to a certain limit. No scaremongering about a tyrannical government is really necessary, or even rational under a modern lens.

[Hess]

How much sense does this make in the modern world, though? To follow this to the point at which it would actually be useful to the people, we must allow the people to acquire tanks, fighter jets, and aircraft carriers. A few rednecks with assault weapons simply isn't going to cut the mustard.

There's no empirical way of knowing, but my guess is that the founders never intended the gap in firepower between the military and the civilian populace to be what it is today.

That's probably why George Washington and others were proponents of local Civilian Militias as opposed to a professional standing army.

[Stefan]

For those interested in preserving our rights.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ensure-2nd-amendment-cant-be-infringed-anyway-limiting-citizens-ability-defend-against-tyrannical/GwD0ZZB9

[Loki]

Dunblane: How UK school massacre led to tighter gun control (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/17/world/europe/dunblane-lessons/index.html?hpt=hp_c1)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121217042135-dunblane1-story-top.jpg

London (CNN) -- The deaths of 16 children aged five and six together with their teacher in the Scottish town of Dunblane in 1996 was one of Britain's worst incidents of gun-related violence. The massacre stunned the country, but what did the UK do to try to prevent such a tragedy happening again?

....

In the wake of the 1987 Hungerford massacre, in which one lone gunman killed 16 people, Britain introduced new legislation -- the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 --- making registration mandatory for owning shotguns and banning semi-automatic and pump-action weapons.

Within a year and a half of the Dunblane massacre, UK lawmakers had passed a ban on the private ownership of all handguns in mainland Britain, giving the country some of the toughest anti-gun legislation in the world. After both shootings there were firearm amnesties across the UK, resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and rounds of ammunition.

Britain has never had a "gun culture" like that of the United States, but there were about 200,000 legally-registered handguns in Britain before the ban, most owned by sports shooters. All small-bore pistols, including the .22 caliber, were included in the ban, along with rifles used by target shooters. Penalties for anyone found in possession of illegal firearms range from heavy fines to prison terms of up to 10 years.

...

According to bare statistics, the ban initially appeared to have little impact as the number of crimes involving guns in England and Wales rose heavily during the late 1990s to peak at 24,094 offenses in 2003/04.

Since then the number has fallen in each year. In 2010/11 there were 11,227 offenses, 53% below the peak number, according to the official crime figures. Crimes involving handguns also fell 44% -- from 5,549 in 2002/03 to 3,105 -- in 2010/11.

[Smaland]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/907518/thumbs/r-HARROLD-SCHOOL-DISTRICT-GUNS-large570.jpg?6
David Thweatt, superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District (Wilbarger County, TX)


In August 2008, Harrold Independent School District Superintendent David Thweatt made waves announcing an unprecedented move: Teachers and staff would be allowed to carry guns in schools.

Now, just three days after the tragic mass shooting that shook Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., the small-town Texas school's story is resurfacing.

Full story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/harrold-texas-school-guns_n_2316729.html?ir=Education)

[Stefan]

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012121731564/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/americans-wont-give-up-their-guns-law-or-not.html


Ordinarily, I'd agree that THIS is no time to be arguing gun control. With the pain still intense in Connecticut, there should have been a truce declared, to allow for grieving. But the plain truth is, those who declare that a good crisis must not be wasted, jumped the gun (as they usually do) and began a nationwide PR war through the national Mainstream Media to bring as much pressure to bear as they possible could on our government for laws to ban certain guns, eventually ALL guns in the hands of US civilians.
To those on the political and those pushing gun control -- in the childish naivete -- You need to understand two things: One -- Americans are NOT going to give up their guns! That's one. Number two is this: If you really want to begin a civil war in this country, continue your efforts to take those guns and you will most certainly have one, and I do not think you have any idea, any inkling, of just how ferocious and brutal such a war can be.
If you thought for one moment that American gun owners would assume the fetal position and begin sucking their thumbs -- please allow me to disabuse you of that monstrously mistaken assumption!
For the past four years gun owners across America have been planning for just such a move by the gun control crowd. They have been purchasing weapons in record numbers and they have created secret caches of both weapons and ammunition that you simply will not believe. I'd go so far as to say some are even "leaning forward," eager for the chance to protect the US Constitution.
Look. Trying to confiscate Americans guns will erupt in pitched firefights, gun battles, between American civilians and government law officers.
The government will, as Charlton Heston famously stated, have to "pry the weapons from their cold dead hands." Heck, the government might actually get away with a couple of such encounters before the backlash begins.
But it will begin -- and when it does, there will be hell to pay. In the end, it will be the end of the United States as we know it.
Understand. There are some states that will move to secede rather than obey federal laws that force their citizens to disarm. Other states will arrest and incarcerate federal officers attempting to disarm that states citizens within the physical boundaries of that state.
I just don't think the gun control folks are thinking with their brains. They exude emotion -- PURE emotion, and a dangerous lack of common sense. What they are pushing for will bring nothing less than wreck and ruin to this country.
Do you realize that the number of armed American hunters, alone, surpasses the numbers of all the standing armies of the world -- combined? Deer hunters in just one state, alone, number more than the armies of Iran, France, and Germany combined! SOURCE
Do you realize that a HUGE proportion of them are veterans of the finest military on the planet?
And don't think you can just track gun hoarders down and arrest them. It took the US military TEN YEARS to find Osama Bin Laden -- and he was one man! Try rounding up millions. Can you see the nightmare?
A law that would try to confiscate guns in America would, like Prohibition, suddenly turn America into a nation of criminals. The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and the Volstead Act caused multiple deaths. "Effective enforcement of the alcohol ban during the Prohibition Era proved to be very difficult and led to widespread flouting of the law. The lack of a solid popular consensus for the ban resulted in the growth of vast criminal organizations, including the modern American Mafia, and various other criminal cliques. Widespread disregard of the law also generated rampant corruption among politicians and within police forces." SOURCE:
Banning so-called assault weapons (otherwise known as "scary looking" weapons) does next to nothing to reduce gun crime. "The Justice Department's interviews also showed so-called "assault weapons" are not a major cause of gun violence. Only about 8 percent of the inmates used one of the models covered in the now-expired assault weapons ban... ."
Read more...
Consider this: "Meanwhile, a study released by the Justice Department suggesting background checks at gun shows would do little to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases."
Read more
As I write this in my office, behind me on my desk are five containers of ammunition from 30 caliber to 12 gauge double-ought buckshot. Leaning against the wall is one of my guns -- well within arm's length. Visitors to my office think nothing of it. It is a way of life. I began shooting at the age of six. I am always armed -- either with an "edged weapon" or a firearm.
Let's be clear. ASKING gun owners to give up their guns is insulting. DEMANDING that we give them up is going to get someone hurt.
I realize the words above are strong. That is intentional. I am trying to convey to gun control advocates and the Mainstream Media the seriousness of what they are doing and the indelicate manner in which the are approaching the issue. DEMANDING that an American citizen give up a constitutional right is bad enough, but demanding that he give up a constitutional right upon which his freedom and his very life may depend is the ultimate insult and is nothing less than an assault on the constitution itself. This we cannot, we will not, abide.
A note to our national legislators. Those of you supporting gun control legislation should understand it will be a career-ending move on your part. We will brook no such unpleasant nonsense from you.
Gun owners did not seek this fight. We most certainly did not initiate it. Too, we are sick, ad nauseum, of your continuous attacks on our way of life, on our constitutional as well as God given rights as American citizens, and we are sick, beyond words, of your elitist attitude.
As red-blooded Americans have done throughout our history, we will avoid a fight for as long as it is practicable to do so. But when the fight is brought to us we WILL engage with our considerable resources with one goal in mind and that is the utter defeat of our adversary, and a guarantee that the conflict will never be resuscitated, EVER, again.
"Molṑn labéis" ( Molon Labe) is a classical expression of defiance reportedly spoken by King Leonidas I in response to the Persian army's demand that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae.
I am seeing more and more e-mails and commentaries on blogs, all over the Internet theses days, close with these two words of defiance. It has quickly become the signature phrase for gun control resistance.
So what does "molon labe" mean? Well, it is an invitation -- and a challenge -- all rolled into one. From the original Greek molon labe means: "Come and take 'em."
Since self-defense is a God-given right I would add a second phrase of recognition one which my Confederate ancestors affixed often to their missives: "Deo Vindici," which means: "God is with us."
This is a struggle gun owners of America did not seek, do not want, but -- intend to win decisively.
J. D. Longstreet is a conservative “Carolina Boy.” A Southern American (A native sandlapper (South Carolinian) and an adopted Tar Heel -- A North Carolinian) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in “America First.” J. D. Longstreet is a very proud direct descendent of several Confederate soldiers. He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an “in the field” and “on-air” news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator. Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to “old Lutheranism” to express and exercise his faith.

Longstreet’s Commentaries are posted at “INSIGHT on Freedom” at: and at “The Sentinel Factor” at: and “Target: Freedom” at: , and at: “Liberty2Express” at: and “Freedom Dossier” as well as many conservative sites across the World Wide Web.

Yeah, I just finished my finals, so all my free time is spent on searching opinions on the matter, haha.

[el22]

Outlaw guns for law-abiding citizens and the only people who will have guns are outlaws, i.e. fucked up, sick people who will get them regardless of whether they are legal or not.

+1

[mvbeleg]

Can anyone explain to me why, when I was a boy in the 1930's and 1940's, although almost every boy over the age of about 11 had a firearm, usually a rifle, but some had pistols, legally purchased in any hardware or sporting goods store, as long as he was accompanied by an adult, without any paper work, there were none of these irresponsible shootings ?

In this video, it is suggested that psychotropic drugs have been a major factor contributing to gun violence in schools.

8F7mixarLoo



The full film is below.

UDlH9sV0lHU

[Sarmatian]

How much sense does this make in the modern world, though? To follow this to the point at which it would actually be useful to the people, we must allow the people to acquire tanks, fighter jets, and aircraft carriers. A few rednecks with assault weapons simply isn't going to cut the mustard.

Considering American firearm owners as 'few rednecks' is very stupid and deadly dangerous underestimation. If a full scale civil war will broke up it will hinder all US infrastructure so badly that very soon tanks and jets will become useless as there will be no fuel to run them and no resources to maintain their functionality. Industrial facilities inside of US are extremely vulnerable and can be knocked out by semi-organized guerrilla groups with ease.

Recent wars in which US was involved clearly showed that there is no way all these superior military toys can have any significant impact when it comes to guerrilla warfare. US military had a hard time to tackle down rebels in an open desert, now imagine how ugly it will gets in US homeland where it is full of forests and mountains.

We also shouldn't overlook psychological factors. I've read a report which claimed that in a first few weeks of US invasion to Afghanistan majority of casualties sustained by US troops were from suicides. US soldiers were unable to cope with the hell given them by Taliban fighters. Now the question is: how they will feel when they'll get orders to go against their own citizen they ought to protect.

[Sarmatian]

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012121731564/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/americans-wont-give-up-their-guns-law-or-not.html



Yeah, I just finished my finals, so all my free time is spent on searching opinions on the matter, haha.

I'd suggest you to spend your free time on purchasing some firearms and practicing with them as much as you could. It seems like it may come handy very soon.

I've just got an idea: what if elites are intentionally seeking for an armed conflict inside of US? Could there be any reasons for such wicked plan of action?

[Smaland]

http://www.federalobserver.com/content_images/article_schumer.jpg11277758304483.jpg

[Arrow Cross]

Most "gun control" freaks are weaklings who don't have the guts, or even the minimal physical prowess required to use one, and wouldn't want others to have the possibility to thus defend themselves either.

The rest are politicians who fear the growing dissent of majority populations throughout the "democratic" world.

[Smaland]

http://cbsstlouis.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/img_4852.jpg?w=300
"St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch"


ST. LOUIS COUNTY (KMOX) - St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch says it is time to talk about arming civilian school personnel following Friday’s massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, comparing it to arming airline pilots after September 11, 2001.

“I see it no differently,” he said. “Pilots have been armed now for many many years, we’ve not had another hijacking and the issue is, for the bad guy, he doesn’t know which airplane he’s getting on, if the pilot is armed or not.”

Full story (http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/)

[Edelmann]

Recent wars in which US was involved clearly showed that there is no way all these superior military toys can have any significant impact when it comes to guerrilla warfare.

I don't know how you can conclude that. It was difficult in Iraq/Afghanistan, but we still crushed them. The insurgents didn't stand a chance, and in the case of the Afghans at least, they had the benefit of previous experience w/ the Soviets.

American insurgents would be brutally crushed against the US military.

[xajapa]

How much sense does this make in the modern world, though? To follow this to the point at which it would actually be useful to the people, we must allow the people to acquire tanks, fighter jets, and aircraft carriers. A few rednecks with assault weapons simply isn't going to cut the mustard.

The second amendment is more than justifiable by merely pointing out that a human being has a natural right to the means of self-defense, to a certain limit. No scaremongering about a tyrannical government is really necessary, or even rational under a modern lens.
You miss the point Edelmann. The 2nd amendment keeps those in authority in check because they fear their own, personal demise. If you are a tyrannical authority you would not want to risk the loss of your life. Not knowing who has guns and when somebody will come for you will deters tyrants. BTW, for all the gun control advocates, Chicago had a complete ban on all kinds of weapons from 1982 until a recent Supreme Court ruling overturned the law. The city is a war zone. Apparently those engaged in the gunfire don't care to follow the law. Another one isn't going to change their perspective.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/September-2012/Is-Chicagos-New-Gun-Law-Legal/

An excerpt:
As you may know, the city outlawed the sale and possession of handguns way back in 1982. (Not that the move was very successful in disarming Chicagoans: Police here confiscate an average of about 10,000 firearms each year.) In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the handgun ban, saying it was in violation of the Second Amendment.

[Edelmann]

You miss the point Edelmann. The 2nd amendment keeps those in authority in check because they fear their own, personal demise. If you are a tyrannical authority you would not want to risk the loss of your life. Not knowing who has guns and when somebody will come for you will deters tyrants. BTW, for all the gun control advocates, Chicago had a complete ban on all kinds of weapons from 1982 until a recent Supreme Court ruling overturned the law. The city is a war zone. Apparently those engaged in the gunfire don't care to follow the law. Another one isn't going to change their perspective.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/September-2012/Is-Chicagos-New-Gun-Law-Legal/

An excerpt:
As you may know, the city outlawed the sale and possession of handguns way back in 1982. (Not that the move was very successful in disarming Chicagoans: Police here confiscate an average of about 10,000 firearms each year.) In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the handgun ban, saying it was in violation of the Second Amendment.

So the second amendment is justified because it enables assassination? Somehow that just doesn't sit well with me.

[xajapa]

So the second amendment is justified because it enables assassination? Somehow that just doesn't sit well with me.
If a day comes where tyrants have us under their boot heel and you have one means to balance the scales, I say all is fair. Think of the movie Braveheart. The Scots stood up for themselves. There is a reason the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment. They came from a place where tyrants had all the power and used it. Without the 2nd amendment and the actual weapons to embody it, what other method do you have to keep government honest?

[Graham]

The thing with Dunblane about guns being limited & there being no repeat.

Before Dunblane there wasn't any problems either. It was a one off, guns aren't in our culture.

Scotland murder rate with guns. Pop. 5,254,800 (2011)
2007/08 - 4
2008/09 - 2
2009/10 - 3
2010/11 - 2
2011/12 - 5

[Loki]

American insurgents would be brutally crushed against the US military.

Yeah, but no foreign power would ever be able to invade the US, even if they got through the US military.

[Edelmann]

If a day comes where tyrants have us under their boot heel and you have one means to balance the scales, I say all is fair. Think of the movie Braveheart. The Scots stood up for themselves. There is a reason the founding fathers created the 2nd amendment. They came from a place where tyrants had all the power and used it. Without the 2nd amendment and the actual weapons to embody it, what other method do you have to keep government honest?

Can we follow from this reasoning that a person has a natural right to commit assassination? We would, of course, have to consider what constitutes a 'tyranny', and define under what circumstances a person would be justified in assassination. Such a precedent would, I believe, be very dangerous for society. It would not merely enable we, who have good intentions, to kill those we view as tyrants; a communist, or a black nationalist, or any of these people who we despise, would be thereby enabled to kill their own personal 'tyrants'.

Society would, I presume, decide in courts of law whether an assassin is justified; do you trust a jury, composed of individuals from our society, to make the correct decision regarding a black man who assassinates a pro-white politician? Personally, I do not.

[Hess]

If all Gun Owners in the US assembled before the white house and tried to stage a revolution, the Army would annihilate them in about half an hour without so much as breaking a sweat.

This unfortunate reality is, in my opinion, exactly what the founding fathers feared about having a full time professional army.

[Hess]

We would, of course, have to consider what constitutes a 'tyranny'

Locke, one of the foremost philosophic influences behind the founding of the US, defined "Tyranny" as a breach in the Social Contract between the Government and the Governed.

A US Government becomes illegitimate, therefore, the moment that it breaks any and all parts of the Constitution.

[Partiasn]

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1961/screenhunter5pc9.jpg

The Swiss people have the most guns per capita of all European countries...and the lowest homicide rate. :icon_ask:

Swiss soldiers who have done their military service are allowed to keep their automatic weapons at home, plus ammo. The Swiss doctrine is to keep the arms decentral and her population war- and defense-ready anytime. An attacker could destroy all depots and barracks but the Swiss were still operational.

http://v2.suedostschweiz.ch/var/upload/news/image/72839_640.jpg

http://www.blick.ch/img/aktuell/origs442044/5821944932-w644-h450-b2a2a2a/Sturmgewehr.jpg

http://fraulich.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/32967615.jpg

http://media3.news.ch/news/680/252792-MFO20080830_15.jpg

Are Swiss people more considerate or just more stable?

I'm glad you brought that up.

The Swiss were actually a model for the US Militia originally.

Not only does it remove the enemies ability to overtake and destroy a nation unilaterally, BUT it prevents a standing army form abusing the population and unilaterally overturning the will of the people through legal means that are backs up by that standing Army.

If the United States were to dump the Standing Army and Paid professionals then not only would we not be invading countries but we would have secure borders.

We can all thank WW2 for the arrival of the Unified State run Army, and the wars and killings and loss of rights that cam with it.

[Partiasn]

I don't know how you can conclude that. It was difficult in Iraq/Afghanistan, but we still crushed them. The insurgents didn't stand a chance, and in the case of the Afghans at least, they had the benefit of previous experience w/ the Soviets.

American insurgents would be brutally crushed against the US military.

Considering we are STILL THERE, I do not know how you conclude that we “Crushed Them”.

The same could be said about th USSR, who killed for more tali-ban than the Tali ban killed of Russians, it did not stop the Bolsheviks form being pushed out of power did it.

If the US Government starts a war it will likely spell the end of their military power if that is not already the case. And maybe even the end of a western hegemony on power. Can't say I would miss phony Liberal/Democratic rule to tell you the Truth though.

But in Any case only a Bolshevik/Democrat/Liberal would support such a war.

[Partiasn]

Can we follow from this reasoning that a person has a natural right to commit assassination? We would, of course, have to consider what constitutes a 'tyranny', and define under what circumstances a person would be justified in assassination. Such a precedent would, I believe, be very dangerous for society. It would not merely enable we, who have good intentions, to kill those we view as tyrants; a communist, or a black nationalist, or any of these people who we despise, would be thereby enabled to kill their own personal 'tyrants'.

Society would, I presume, decide in courts of law whether an assassin is justified; do you trust a jury, composed of individuals from our society, to make the correct decision regarding a black man who assassinates a pro-white politician? Personally, I do not.

Assassination is not a problem for the American system, because if you assassinate the President all that will happen is the Vice President will be elevated to power, and after him the speaker of the house. As such there is no political gain regarding assassination.

On the other hand it lowers public officials to the same level of the people and I think this is a positive aspect of potential assassination. It keeps these people in line personally but does not change the political aspect.

Of course if you are a believe in the “Divine Right to Rule” you need a King not a President.

[Edelmann]

Considering we are STILL THERE, I do not know how you conclude that we “Crushed Them”.


We accomplished our goals (in Iraq: the destruction and replacement of the Ba'athist regime; in Afghanistan: the destruction and replacement of the Taliban regime); they have yet to even come close. Therefore, for our purposes, they were crushed. We weathered their puny insurrection to the point at which it was no longer necessary to weather it, and then left.

Whether our goals are rational is up to you; but there is no doubt that we achieved them, militarily speaking. The same fate will await an American insurrection, which is so vastly less capable than the Iraqi and Afghan insurrections which preceded it.

[Partiasn]

We accomplished our goals (in Iraq: the destruction and replacement of the Ba'athist regime; in Afghanistan: the destruction and replacement of the Taliban regime); they have yet to even come close. Therefore, for our purposes, they were crushed. We weathered their puny insurrection to the point at which it was no longer necessary to weather it, and then left.

Whether our goals are rational is up to you; but there is no doubt that we achieved them, militarily speaking. The same fate will await an American insurrection, which is so vastly less capable than the Iraqi and Afghan insurrections which preceded it.


Well for Starters the “Tali-ban” and “Alkida” or the “The Camp” were American Trained Terrorist, and were created to fight the USSR. I think this is pretty much common knowledge.

What the US has and what the USSR had as a thinly veiled forced artificial state lead by crooked hand picked politicians and much sheathing anger at the US for all practical purposes.

“Order” will only be maintained at the constant cost of a mechanized force, which is getting more expensive by the Minute, and as the law of attrition mounts WILL FAIL when that is no longer maintained.

Actually the US would have been already beaten into the dust had they not been able to loot the treasures of the entire world to pay for this shit! A luxury the Soviet Union did not have.

Given that fact the Soviet did a better job, and we will not even get into “Contractors/Mercenary” under US command fighting it out in sometimes gun battles to maintain their little slice of this pie. This is less a real war and more a War Profiteering episode, with all parties fighting for their pace of the pie, and most of the Afghanistan, getting screwed in the process.

None of this is even maintainable in the long run not even the US technological edge, winch is diminishing fast. Because Obama and Liberal company are not capable of producing an educated society or even making rational decisions.

And in spite of having world resources they are still overwhelmed and hanging by the
US internal Petrolatum thread.

So this thing is set to last at least the next 50 years if not the next 100, in which the US will be fully depleted in 50 or less. And internal war would drive what little industry there is left into the dumpster.

[Stefan]

You are all assuming that the military (as a whole) would side with the Federal government to kill their own family members and friends, of whom oppose gun control. I highly doubt that would be the case, at least not the whole of the military. With the military segmented, the government would not be able to monopolize the "high-tech" or strategic advantages. The U.S is far too vast for that. Anyway, there are 1,299,372 licensed deer hunters in Pennsylvania alone. These are quite accurate shooters, so it's not a matter of inability to use weapons. It's more a matter of cohesion and strategy which gives the military an advantage over civilians; however, that's something which can be worked around in much the same way the continental army won the revolutionary war against the might of the British empire. The U.S government can't kill ALL of these gun owners, and hence will risk eternal conflict. And it doesn't need to be a military victory that accomplishes the goals of the people. Just having a conflict internally is enough to dissuade the politicians from corruption and oppression.

[Partiasn]

You are all assuming that the military (as a whole) would side with the Federal government to kill their own family members and friends, of whom oppose gun control. I highly doubt that would be the case, at least not the whole of the military. With the military segmented, the government would not be able to monopolize the "high-tech" or strategic advantages. The U.S is far too vast for that. Anyway, there are 1,299,372 licensed deer hunters in Pennsylvania alone. These are quite accurate shooters, so it's not a matter of inability to use weapons. It's more a matter of cohesion and strategy which gives the military an advantage over civilians; however, that's something which can be worked around in much the same way the continental army won the revolutionary war against the might of the British empire. The U.S government can't kill ALL of these gun owners, and hence will risk eternal conflict. And it doesn't need to be a military victory that accomplishes the goals of the people. Just having a conflict internally is enough to dissuade the politicians from corruption and oppression.


Yes Stefan we have already seen this episode once before in the 1989 in the USSR. Who for their day were comparable to the United States Military.

So yes I think the Homeland KGB has already seen that and have started whining about rouge American Service Men.

Pre Cold War end the US went from a second rate superpower in the 1980's to a overbuilt one in the 1990's and to what we are today. But I will remind the individuals that are contemplating a internal war in the US that Russia by 1989 far exceeded the US in Nuclear arsenal, by ruffly half.

It did not work there and these idiots will fail as well.

[Stefan]

I'd suggest you to spend your free time on purchasing some firearms and practicing with them as much as you could. It seems like it may come handy very soon.

The moment I leave my dorm (guns aren't allowed on campus) and get my own apartment I'll do just that. Hopefully that will happen this summer.

[SkyBurn]

http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/430948_10151317151005155_1188463327_n.png

Sure, It's the people behind the gun which commits the crime.
But the gun sure makes it a hell of a lot easier.

[Caismeachd]

The problem with outright banning guns in a country like US is you give the criminal element and police element too much control. US is too disorganized socially and politically for any sensible policies anymore.

[Graham]

Right To Bear Arms

RablPaIREkk

[Lobotomist]

http://images.4chan.org/pol/src/1355946296992.jpg

French cheeses.. Such a big threat to society..

[Graham]

Haggis is Illegal in America, so is Irn Bru I think.

[Hess]

http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/430948_10151317151005155_1188463327_n.png

Sure, It's the people behind the gun which commits the crime.
But the gun sure makes it a hell of a lot easier.

How many crimes are committed with Legally owned firearms?

According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), about 8%.

ATF Agent Jay Watchel- "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

[SkyBurn]

ATF Agent Jay Watchel- "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

But by simply legalising them, it becomes significantly easier to get a hold of them, as the firearms industry is encouraged. When the industry is encouraged, it similarly stimulates the illegal industry/black market.
Just look at other counties. I don't see how the benefits of guns can possibly be misconstrued as more beneficial than their detriments.

[Piparskeggr]

I had no idea! :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

This is one of the cases cited in the article I read about a decade ago in the "Wall Street Journal."

[Piparskeggr]

New Hampshire (.8), Vermont (1.1), Iowa (1.1), and Utah (1.3) have comparable homicide rates to Switzerland. I doubt it is political. It's purely cultural. In the other states we have Blacks and Hispanics at significant proportions and intercity warfare with them. Meanwhile Washington D.C has the strictest laws in the country and is number one in crime. It is cultural more than anything. Blacks and Hispanics have a HUGE impact on the numbers.

For example, Pennsylvania's homicide rate is about 5 overall, but Philadelphia has a homicide rate of about 20. Philadelphia has a weighing factor of about .12 (12 percent) of Pennsylvania's population. That's about 1.9 for the rest of the state. The highest demographic population is Black in Philadelphia at 44%.

Vermont's is about triple the rate as when my wife and I attended college there in the late 1970's - early 1980's...so many liberals have moved into the state since then.

In the time period of my memory, Vermont had a population of between 400 and 500 thousand (it is now over 620,000), with an estimated 6 - 7 guns per capita. The majority of gun related deaths at that time were lawful, defensive shootings or hunting accidents.

One year we were up there (1975 - 1981) the murder rate in Burlington (Vermont's largest city) doubled from 1 murder to 2.

Vermont is still over 97% Euro-descended.

[Stefan]

Some more additions:

http://www.theworld.org/wp-content/uploads/gun-map620.jpg

j_sf9wU62xw

[Partiasn]

Vermont is still over 97% Euro-descended.

The majority of Leftist Loons of the 1960's were white Europeans.

Marxism, Multiculturalism, Feminism and other nonsense came directly out of the White Euro community, as such you simply cannot draw a line in the sand, and say they have an inside tract on the right or logical direction.

In fact I would draw the opposite conclusion that the White North East were simply ideological fools, and supported F-ed up socialism and ditched their own society. I would say the same is true of loon countries like Sweden, who because they are white or have attractive women, that they have some kind of logic, or correct vision.

In fact once again the opposite conclusion is that they are ideological fools and Leftist Loons, who trash their own culture.

[Partiasn]

How many crimes are committed with Legally owned firearms?

According to the ATF (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html), about 8%.

ATF Agent Jay Watchel- "Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."




Hey man NP the ATF is busy trying to drive up the number of LEGAL MURDERS by retailing plenty of AK-47 and other weapons as in the case of 700 of them to ONE DRUG DEALER.

I8hdT5oY6jE

[Stefan]

ZRjxEAWwagc

[Stefan]

Even the Jews (some of em) disagree with gun control.

iDivHkQ2GSg

[Fortis in Arduis]

Ze'ev Jabotinsky told the Jews of Europe to arm themselves before WWII, but few listened.


"Every Jew a .22" was a slogan coined by HaRav (The Rabbi) Meir Kahane, zecher tzadik livracha (may the memory of this saint be immortalized). HaRav Kahane actually preferred other guns to the small-caliber .22, but used this slogan because it rhymes.

The concept that every Jew must possess firearms and know how to use them is not a new one.

"Jews, learn to shoot!" right-wing Zionist leader Zeev Jabotinsky exhorted the Jews of Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.

But many European Jews were horrified with the notion of Jews bearing arms. So European Jews remained unarmed and defenseless, and when the Germans and the many other European Jew-killers came to murder them in the Holocaust, the Jews were easy targets as usual.


Millions of Germans owned guns in the Weimar Republic, which preceded the Nazi rise to power - In the face of left-wing advocacy for gun confiscation - an advocacy in which left-wing Jews played a prominent role - the Nazis promised to keep gun ownership legal, a promise promptly broken by Hitler after he seized power

Because they had no guns, millions of European Jews were led to their deaths like sheep to the slaughter.

In pre-Hitler Weimar Germany, the Jews frantically pushed for strict gun control legislation.

Germans, especially in rural areas, were enraged over this attempt to take their weapons. Hitler and the Nazis campaigned on a promise to protect the "historic German right to bear arms."

Hitler promised that he would void all "Jew-inspired anti-gun laws" if elected Chancellor.


After the "broken glass" pogrom of November 1938, in which hundreds of Jews were beaten to death by Hitler's Nazi stormtroopers and ordinary German citizens, "all persons considered Jews under the Nuremberg laws" were forbidden to own guns.

Of course, Hitler and the Nazis broke their promise when they did actually seize power in 1933. One of the first things the Nazis did was to seize the vast majority of guns which law-abiding citizens had in their possession.

But the point here is that gun control efforts by the Jews were instrumental in giving Hitler crucial ammunition which helped him to take over Germany and implement the Holocaust.

Furthermore, if the Jews had listened to Jabotinsky and were all armed and fully trained, it would have been far more difficult to annihilate them.

When there were only 50,000 Jewish men, women and children left in the Warsaw Ghetto, these heroic Jews who finally decided to resist held out longer against the German Wehrmacht than all of cowardly France, which had a larger standing army than Germany but surrendered almost immediately to the Nazis. Even though the Jews were divided and fighting among themselves until the end, with their home-made weapons they killed several thousand German soldiers and bogged down the German Army for weeks.

Imagine if millions of Jews, fully armed and trained, had put up this type of resistance.

We know from the resistance put up by other groups targeted for annihilation during World War II, such as the valiant Serbs, that ferocious
armed struggle frustrated German plans to wipe them out.


But the Jews always make the wrong decisions. The Jews always trust those who wish to destroy them and mistrust those like Jabotinsky who come to save them.

When Rabbi Kahane urged Jews in America to arm and train themselves, he was condemned in the same manner as Jabotinsky.

Imagine if during the Crown Heights pogrom, the Hassidic Jews had listened to Rabbi Kahane. Would the black Jew-haters have been able to rampage and murder in a Jewish community for four days and nights with no resistance? Would Yankel Rosenbaum have been murdered if he had drawn a .45 on the black Nazi mob that came to murder him?

Gun control laws accomplish a number of things, and all of them are terrible. They take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens so that it becomes impossible to defend one's home or business from murderous criminals. These fascistic laws also ensure that the only people in society who will be armed will be the violent criminals, since they will obtain their illegal firearms no matter what the law says.

These laws, which self-hating Jewish traitors like our new Judenrat Senator, Schmuck Schumer, play such a prominent role in passing, also cause tremendous anti-Semitic resentment.

Worst of all, these laws render Jews who wish to defend themselves helpless in the face of numerous mortal threats that very much endanger the American Jewish community.

Would criminal black mobs have rampaged in the peaceful Jewish neighborhood of Brooklyn's Crown Heights if every Jew there had been armed? - The New York Post featured a picture of an Orthodox boy squatting next to his father, beaten senseless by bestial black Jew-haters. (The "fair and balanced" headline reads: "Blacks, Jews and cops battle in the streets".)

The Kahanist Jews and righteous Gentiles of JTF oppose all laws that in any way limit the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Such laws are unconstitutional, un-American and immoral.

http://jtf.org/israel/israel.why.jews.must.oppose.gun.control.htm

[Smaland]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-50d67e4d/turbine/la-na-gun-states-20121222-g/950
According to the above map, Connecticut has some of the strongest gun control laws in the U.S.


Legislation has been proposed, however, to allow teachers or other school workers to carry firearms in schools in at least seven states: Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

"I want a last line of defense," said Jason Villalba, a Republican and newly elected Texas state representative who plans to introduce the Protection of Texas Children Act to allow schools to designate staff members as armed "marshals" provided they undergo special training.

Full story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gun-states-20121223,0,3574691.story)

[Stefan]

Look at this. Truly a disgusting invasion of privacy and a valuable piece of information for criminals. And people wonder why Americans are so anti-registration.

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1


The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.

[Smaland]

http://lanterloon.com/wp-content/uploads/la-riots.jpg
Looter runs past a burning store during the Los Angeles riots of 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots). 53 people were killed, over 2,000 were were injured, and rioters did over $1 billion in property damage.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_TsFXJA9YHlE/TTeIfFOIuVI/AAAAAAAAAQI/VqNzxdhlp5s/s1600/58852252.jpg
During the same disturbance, Korean men defend a building in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles.

[Piparskeggr]

Vermont is still over 97% Euro-descended.

My point with this statistic is simply that I believe that a homogeneous society is more likely to be less troubled than a heterogeneous one.

And I agree with the point that many liberals are whites who have, to put it gently, not thought through all the consequences of their position on things.

[Partiasn]

My point with this statistic is simply that I believe that a homogeneous society is more likely to be less troubled than a heterogeneous one.

And I agree with the point that many liberals are whites who have, to put it gently, not thought through all the consequences of their position on things.

Well fact is “Multiculturalism” is basically Bull Sh!t of the highest order.
America is no more of a Multiculturalism than ancient Rome and fact is we will get the same result.

People get along racially if you give them their space and you have a good economy. Once that collapses then people revert to the racial communities they came out of.

Time for Government, to back off, Shut Up, and leave the population to live and work in peace.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Well fact is “Multiculturalism” is basically Bull Sh!t of the highest order.
America is no more of a Multiculturalism than ancient Rome and fact is we will get the same result.

People get along racially if you give them their space and you have a good economy. Once that collapses then people revert to the racial communities they came out of.

Time for Government, to back off, Shut Up, and leave the population to live and work in peace.

Yes it is dependent upon materialism in order to function, which is why multiculturalism is the globalist capitalist / Fabian preference of the day. This does not make it ideal though, does it?

I simply means that when it falls, the options available to fix it are uglier and messier.

A less multicultural America would be a more peaceful more prosperous one, with a reduced demand for the socialist policies which create their own need.

[Stefan]

Why isn't there a positive correlation with more guns and more deaths?

http://i.imgur.com/VEmDx.png

[Smaland]

http://www.setyoufreenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Senator-Dianne-Feinstein.jpg
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a prominent proponent of gun control in the U.S. Senate

5bhhLn8vEAQ

This video contains a portion of the audio from the Mark Levin Show, a talk show hosted by WABC radio in New York. From the beginning to 4:19, Mr. Levin airs a recording of Dianne Feinstein explaining why she carried a gun in the past.

If Senator Feinstein carried firearms to protect herself, why does she now want to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights?

[Stefan]

Feinstein wants to discard all individual rights. There isn't a single amendment in the Bill of Rights she hasn't attacked. She's just a control freak and wants to bring the rest of the country to a ruined nanny state akin to California. There's no senator I dislike more than her. Just like the rest of the political class she's above the law though.

She was asked about the second amendment in regards to The Assault Weapon Ban and her answer was pretty much "The NRA didn't take us to court last time..... haha we only have to care about it if somebody takes us to court!"

I don't know though, with the boosted sales Obama gave the gun industry, maybe the $NRA$ will try this time to protect such weapons, as not even they truly care about the second amendment rights, but more-so the gun market. That's her failed assumption: the NRA cares about the second amendment.

[Smaland]

EJgMNe10W40
This YT video contains the same audio track as the Feinstein YT clip above, but it also contains the video. Feinstein was broadcast making her comments by C-SPAN back in 1995.

[Stefan]

Have you seen her proposed bill? I don't have any worries. The last Gallup poll showed that 54% of Americans don't want an Assault Weapon ban AND only 43% do. But her bill goes even further and includes common hand guns and shot guns. In order to grandfather a weapon you need to go through the horrible process that one would go through to get a machine gun, as if these weapons are anywhere near as specific and deadly as an actual assault weapon.

She's either going to take many years to get it passed, which she can't afford because more Americans are gun owners today than in 1994, or they're going to have to strip the whole bill to only include the magazine limit.

[Smaland]

Have you seen her proposed bill? I don't have any worries. The last Gallup poll showed that 54% of Americans don't want an Assault Weapon ban AND only 43% do. But her bill goes even further and includes common hand guns and shot guns. In order to grandfather a weapon you need to go through the horrible process that one would go through to get a machine gun, as if these weapons are anywhere near as specific and deadly as an actual assault weapon.

She's either going to take many years to get it passed, which she can't afford because more Americans are gun owners today than in 1994, or they're going to have to strip the whole bill to only include the magazine limit.

Good to know, although we still need to be vigilant.

[Stefan]

Good to know, although we still need to be vigilant.

Here's a nice summary of the damn thing. It's prohibition hidden under the appeal of "compromise." Disgusting!

JDglpt8hpyg

The best thing people can do is educate other gun owners and gun rights proponents on the matter.

[Smaland]

http://pravda-team.ru/eng/image/article/9/8/2/48982.jpeg


For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases.

Full article (http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/)

[Smaland]

cf0MO55kMsI
Mr. Swann makes the same arguments as do others who want to protect the 2nd Amendment; what makes this video stand out is that the arguments are made by a member of the mainstream U.S. media.

Website of Fox 19 (http://www.fox19.com/)

[Pontios]

The Soviet Union only allowed hunting guns and had very strict gun restrictions. But all of them still had AK-47s... bad idea to outlaw guns because the same will happen in America.

[Smaland]

FgrIsuO5PLc
Dr. Gratia-Hupp is testifying before the U.S. Senate.

[noricum]

...But all of them still had AK-47s...

Sorry, but that's not true. Most hunters had simple Baikal shotguns or Mosin Nagant rifles. In the later years Dragunov rifles became more common.

[Smaland]

http://mobile.wnd.com/files/2013/01/130101kaul.jpg
Donald Kaul, columnist for the Des Moines Register.


• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.

Full column (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312300033&nclick_check=1)

[Stefan]

Who's going to kill the gun-owners, those who don't own guns? lol How many federal agents are there? There's no way there'd be enough to deal with the hundreds of thousands/millions who won't give up their weapons. It would be the war on drugs or alcohol prohibition * 1000.

[Leadchucker]

‘No ma’am’:
Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral
The following letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.

Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

[Smaland]

h4KvZxxtYJw

[Teyrn]

It's nice to see that most of the people who've voted on this poll support the right to bear arms.

[Leadchucker]

Kaul always was a brain dead ass. Bloomberg is an ass too with a fetish or fixation on the evils of guns. Thought this was an good picture to address Bloomberg's stupidity.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/150956_3863892330417_366028394_n.jpg

[Smaland]

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/sites/nationalenquirer.com/files/imagecache/node_page_image/article_images/obama_story_4.jpg
Photo displayed at theulstermanreport.com


Like me you were probably watching the president’s gun control speech today. Was told this morning the presentation today was a revised version that was completed just last night after a bunch of back and forth between the White House and Senate leaders. Guessing that would be Harry Reid mostly. Last week the president was ready to go all in on the executive order scenario. Confiscation was going to be in play. Then the backlash came and it forced Obama to back off.

Full column (http://theulstermanreport.com/2013/01/16/republican-insider-obama-livid-over-gun-rights-backlash/)

Hope things stay this way, and even get better. :)

[Stefan]

Rand Paul is especially hitting Obama's ego. I just love it!

HA3jwOFjHhw

His father raised him with good old constitutional values!

[Stefan]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny

Two-out-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 65% of American Adults think the purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure that people are able to protect themselves from tyranny. Only 17% disagree, while another 18% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view.

Many gun control advocates talk of the right to gun ownership as relating to hunting and recreational uses only.

While there are often wide partisan differences of opinion on gun-related issues, even 54% of Democrats agree with 75% of Republicans and 68% of those not affiliated with either major party that the right to own a gun is to ensure such freedom.

As Americans search for answers to the Newtown shooting, attitudes on gun ownership are “not likely to change in a nation where six out of 10 adults would rather live in a neighborhood where they can own a gun and most would feel safer if their children attended a school with an armed security guard.” Scott Rasmussen explains in his latest weekly newspaper column that if Congress is “not willing to go as far as the president wants on gun control, perhaps they… might take stronger action on mental health issues or increase the penalties for crimes committed with a gun.”

[Smaland]

http://columbian.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2013/01/17/Gun_Control_Pushback.JPEG-0_1_t640.jpg?a6ea3ebd4438a44b86d2e9c39ecf7613005fe 067
"Josephine County, Ore., Sheriff Gil Gilbertson is one of a growing number of rural sheriffs and lawmakers vowing to ignore any new gun control legislation, or even make it a crime for federal officials to enforce federal gun policy." Photo displayed at columbian.com.


GRANTS PASS, Ore. — From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama's proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.

"A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, 'Follow the Constitution,'" said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.

Full story (http://www.columbian.com/news/2013/jan/18/rural-sheriffs-push-back-on-gun-control-effort/)

[Sikeliot]

Gun control will be an example of excessive government control over our lives, to a place that once it is enacted, it will be increasingly easier and easier for the government to intrude into our lives and on our personal freedoms, because it sets a precedent that our rights can be taken and given at any time.

[Arrow Cross]

Simple enough.

http://img.lulz.net/src/Cartoon-Gun-Control-for-Dummies-600.jpg

[Stefan]

I wish I knew about this, I would've taken a bus to Harrisburg. Amazing speech these people gave, and they understand very well what's at stake. Makes me proud to be a Pennsylvanian, particularly because here in Pittsburgh it's overwhelmingly neo-liberal and I forget how conservative and libertarian oriented the rest of the state can be!

Make sure you watch the video in the link, I can't embed it!

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/01/guns_across_america_rally_come.html

[Smaland]

miEmIfhfxuc
This is a pro-Second Amendment speech given by a Tienanmen Square activist who was there. He later moved to the United States, became a naturalized citizen in 2007, and a gun owner in 2008.

At the very beginning of the video, the orator is quoting from Mao Zedong, I believe.

Wiki article on the 1989 Tienanmen Square Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tienanmen_Square_Massacre)

[Euramerican]

I did'nt vote because it is possible to be a pro-gun but also recognize something has to be done. It is not as simple as for or against. Although I do think it is true that once the govt strts whittling down the rights, any rights, it can lead to an outright ban.

In America I don't see an outright ban coming, but something definanely is going to happen.

I also don't believe the lame argument that the only differnace in assult rifles are cosmetic. If that were truly the case it would be simple enough to own the the rifles that don't look like assalt rifles bu have the same capabilities.

America has big problems with guns getting into the wrong hands.http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms
America had 9369 murders by firearms in the USA. We are #4 on the list of countries with the most murders by firearms. The only countries with more murders by firearms are South Africa, Colombia and Thailand.

So as far as the vote goes. I'm in favor of bearing arms. :) I'm also in favor of tougher regulating on the gun and ammo industry. :)

[Stefan]

@Euramerican You're part of the electorate who voted in Feinstein, certainly you haven't been properly educated on the matter. Especially when you ignore facts such as the deceptiveness of the terminologies "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" and that what constitutes an "assault rifle" or an "assault weapon" is not the same thing, because of some logical fallacies you've made.

Also, please look at the victimization rates, rape, and violent crime rates from that very same website. You'll notice that the U.S is below many comparable countries with strong gun control: including Australia and the United Kingdom.

[Euramerican]

@Euramerican You're part of the electorate who voted in Feinstein, certainly you haven't been properly educated on the matter. Especially when you ignore facts such as the deceptiveness of the terminologies "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" and that what constitutes an "assault rifle" or an "assault weapon" is not the same thing, because of some logical fallacies you've made.

Also, please look at the victimization rates, rape, and violent crime rates from that very same website. You'll notice that the U.S is below many comparable countries with strong gun control: including Australia and the United Kingdom.

The terminologies was part of my point. The NRA goes on TV and says the differances are merely cosmetic. If thats true? Why not own a gun with the same capabilities which isn't on the ban list?

I understand its about our rights and will we eeventually have any gun rights at all. But something has to be done because we are failing.

Yes I did vote for Feinstein, she represents a whole lot more that gun control and there is a reason why California is a blue state.

[Stefan]

The terminologies was part of my point. The NRA goes on TV and says the differances are merely cosmetic. If thats true? Why not own a gun with the same capabilities which isn't on the ban list?

Because 2 million people already own AR 15's for example. Not to mention that many semi-automatic pistols (the most common weapons in the country) are on that list. By this same logic though, there is no reason to ban people from owning property.



I understand its about our rights and will we eeventually have any gun rights at all. But something has to be done because we are failing.

Something has to be done yes, but randomly doing bs won't solve anything. It just makes us forget about the problems. Ban gun free zones and increase mental health resources. Also, end the war on drugs. But, of course that won't happen. It gives the states too much money.



Yes I did vote for Feinstein, she represents a whole lot more that gun control and there is a reason why California is a blue state.

She's not only targeted the second amendment, but also the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth. So the only excuse to vote for Feinstein is if one is also a statist. And yes, there is a reason why California is a blue-state; it is filled with third world socialists who want to mooch off the welfare state. It's also why California is one of the many socialist states in the union with enormous amounts of debt. And it's also why recently they decided they wanted to tax people for debts made in 2008. Californians serve their masters: the state of California and their voter base.

[Euramerican]

Because 2 million people already own AR 15's for example. Not to mention that many semi-automatic pistols (the most common weapons in the country) are on that list. By this same logic though, there is no reason to ban people from owning property.



Something has to be done yes, but randomly doing bs won't solve anything. It just makes us forget about the problems. Ban gun free zones and increase mental health resources. Also, end the war on drugs. But, of course that won't happen. It gives the states too much money.



She's not only targeted the second amendment, but also the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth. So the only excuse to vote for Feinstein is if one is also a statist. And yes, there is a reason why California is a blue-state; it is filled with third world socialists who want to mooch off the welfare state. It's also why California is one of the many socialist states in the union with enormous amounts of debt. And it's also why recently they decided they wanted to tax people for debts made in 2008. Californians serve their masters: the state of California and their voter base.
Your free to enlighten me to some specifics about Feinstein so that I can do my research. Please give links. You can PM so not to derail the thread.

CA is generous to its people but most of us do work. In fact there are many filthy rich people who know this and vote Democratic.

As far as our debt. Governer Jerry Brown balanced CA's budget in record time! It was on PBS last week where he addressed the nay-sayers accusations that said he cooked the books. He also balanced the budget for the next couple of years. He has done what nobody has been able to in CA for over a decade.

His formula was taxes, prop 30 which we voted for and approved and steep cuts. He cut $3 for every $1 coming in. It took both, taxes (revenue) and cuts.


"California lawmakers are responding with some relief to Governor Jerry Brown’s budget proposal and announcement that the state has no more budget deficit."

"Democratic lawmakers – who hold a supermajority in both chambers – said whatever differences they have with the budget are small."

On CBS evening news over the weekend they had a portion of their show about Californias real estate market is "leading the way". CA is unique in a lot of ways. It's not really fair to compare us with smaller states. You know what they say about "big boys fall down harder," it's true here. We are now starting to recover and Jerry is doing his part.

[Stefan]

Your free to enlighten me to some specifics about Feinstein so that I can do my research. Please give links. You can PM so not to derail the thread.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/this-weeks-senate-scandal-scorn-for-the-4th-amendment/266681/


Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley did their best to raise significant issues, but Senator Dianne Feinstein kept shutting them down with bogus or misleading arguments, almost always punctuated with scary claims about how we had "only four days!" to renew the FISA Amendment Acts or "important" tools for law enforcement would "expire." It turns out that's not actually true. While the law would expire, the provisions sweeping orders already issued would remain in place for a year -- allowing plenty of time for a real debate.


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/scandal-alert-congress-is-quietly-abandoning-the-5th-amendment/266498/



CA is generous to its people but most of us do work. In fact there are many filthy rich people who know this and vote Democratic.


Just as a pet owner is generous to his pets I suppose. It's a dangerous thing to give up your freedom for government mandates under the facade of "welfare." Anyway, it's not the role of a state to be "generous" to its people. The role of the state is to protect people's fundamental rights.




On CBS evening news over the weekend they had a portion of their show about Californias real estate market is "leading the way". CA is unique in a lot of ways. It's not really fair to compare us with smaller states. You know what they say about "big boys fall down harder," it's true here. We are now starting to recover and Jerry is doing his part.

California not only has the largest debt of any state, but is also well above-average in state debt per capita. So your argument of bigger vs. smaller does not work too well. Furthermore, it has the third highest unemployment rate, yet it is the largest economy, ranking eighth in the world.

[Smaland]

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/files/import/2242-waco.jpg
The home of the Branch Davidian religious sect at the end of the Waco Siege (19 April 1993).

In the thread below, please see my post of 28 January 2013, which is a repost of "Waco: The Rules of Engagement". This film is a documentary about the Waco Siege, which was an act of state terror by the federal government against the Branch Davidians.

Thread: "The truth behind America's 'civilian militias'" (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18274)

[Piparskeggr]

4 Federal agents and 82 Civilian men, women and children died in the botched ATF pursuit of what are believed to be specious reasons for the warrant they had.

The ATF's own records show that the Branch Davidian gun shop was properly licensed and no good evidence was obtained to prove that unlawful firearms were present.

[Žołnir]

Slovene gun control is pretty alright to me. Czech is also good. Btw you can own tank in czech rep however the path to get weapon in Europe is not like getting a piece of bread! :p xD

[Smaland]

http://images.sofrep.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Yarborough-And-Kennedy-Statue-660x320.jpg


We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “…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.…”
...
Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression.

Full text of letter (http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/#ixzz2JOc75eEI)

[Feral]

Funny OT:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/64934_528887730465754_497444848_n.jpg

[MissProvocateur]

The second amendment was written when the guns took 30 seconds to load, for one shot, and would sometimes kill a person. We're in 2013, the weapons now are FAR too powerful for a person to have at home, I don't see why some housewife would need an AK-47, or any sort of gun that is extremely destructive. I would say a revolver, max, even then, it's dangerous. There are far too many crazies out there to have guns just lying around. I think guns should be sold, but only to people who are mentally stable and who YOU KNOW won't give the guns to anyone else, though even then, guns would still be sold illegaly...

[Stefan]

The second amendment was written when the guns took 30 seconds to load, for one shot, and would sometimes kill a person. We're in 2013, the weapons now are FAR too powerful for a person to have at home, I don't see why some housewife would need an AK-47, or any sort of gun that is extremely destructive. I would say a revolver, max, even then, it's dangerous. There are far too many crazies out there to have guns just lying around. I think guns should be sold, but only to people who are mentally stable and who YOU KNOW won't give the guns to anyone else, though even then, guns would still be sold illegaly...

It was written for a reason, and since that reason is still valid, so is the ownership of guns for self-defense and as a means to prevent tyranny or invasion. And guns back then were almost 100% certain to kill somebody if they were shot. Just look at how many Americans died in the civil war, before the first semi-automatic weapons were in common use. Today it's along the lines of 15%, because of cleaner and safer ammunition and better health care as well as better trained individuals.

[Knoxwolf865]

In America guns are here to stay unless the government takes a massive measure to seize the copious amount of guns from its citizens. Even then this would lead to massive civil war. Best we learn to deal with it, or maybe another civil war is exactly what the U.S. needs...

Gun debate is a political tactic of the left. Its a distraction of the more real issues at hand.

[Stefan]

hY2JR92Scmk

[Smaland]

The second amendment was written when the guns took 30 seconds to load, for one shot, and would sometimes kill a person. We're in 2013, the weapons now are FAR too powerful for a person to have at home, I don't see why some housewife would need an AK-47, or any sort of gun that is extremely destructive. I would say a revolver, max, even then, it's dangerous. There are far too many crazies out there to have guns just lying around. I think guns should be sold, but only to people who are mentally stable and who YOU KNOW won't give the guns to anyone else, though even then, guns would still be sold illegaly...

Please see my post above entitled "Why Do Americans Want Assault Rifles?" (page 16, post #155). I call them "riot insurance".

[Smaland]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Battle-of-athens-tennessee-marker1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/M1_Garand_rifle_-_USA_-_30-06_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg/799px-M1_Garand_rifle_-_USA_-_30-06_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg
M1 Garand rifle.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/M1917_Enfield_-_USA_-_30-06_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg/800px-M1917_Enfield_-_USA_-_30-06_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg
M1917 Enfield rifle.

According to the Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29) on the uprising, the veterans had available 3 M1 Garand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand) rifles, and 24 M1917 Enfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield_rifle) rifles. The Garand was America's World War II assault rifle, and the Enfield was an assault rifle of the World War I era.

[Smaland]

-CGHQ-9q1dQ
The video that I originally posted in my post #162 on page 17 has been deleted from YT, so I am posting another copy of the 1995 C-SPAN broadcast.

When it counted, Senator Feinstein carried a handgun to protect herself, although she is a strong proponent of gun control today.

[Smaland]

http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/38143/FE_DA_121012BidenSmirk425x283.jpg
U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden


“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden said, according to a Politico report.

Rest of the column (http://washingtonexaminer.com/biden-on-guns-nothing-were-going-to-do-will-fundamentally-alter-chances-of-another-mass-shooting/article/2520257?custom_click=rss)

[Gospodine]

Some confusing poll options there. The right to bear arms and gun control is not necessarily mutually exclusive.
For example, the Americans have their second amendment, but their government has passed various laws meant to regulate gun ownership, such as preventing felons and the mentally-ill form owning guns.


The second amendment was written when the guns took 30 seconds to load, for one shot, and would sometimes kill a person.

There are no limitations in the 2nd Amendment. The Founding Fathers wanted the populace to be as well-armed as the standing army in case tyranny ever came to American shores.

Tell the people in Bahrain/Saudi Arabia/Egypt that they don't need selective-fire rifles, machine guns, etc...

And don't say it could never happen in America. Nobody thought Germany, the pinnacle of Western civilization for so long could produce a Hitler, nobody thought he would invade Czechoslovakia and Austria; ala Chamberlain and co.

It's not a question of want or need, it's a question of rights.

Does the state have the right to have a monopoly on the use of force?
No it doesn't.

You don't need need to do or have anything according to that logic, except pay taxes and die.

And if you people knew the legal hoops you have to jump through and the time and money you have to invest into owning a Class-3 weapon, you would know the only people that have them are those that fly straight and narrow and don't have any dirt on their records whatsoever.

There are over 20,000 laws on the books in the US regarding gun control; anyone who thinks gun control doesn't exist in the US is a moron.

[Útrám]

The argument that favours the legality of powerful weapons(assault rifles etc) so militias are allowed to flourish just simply doesn't have much relevance in this day and age.

The second amendment was adopted in 1791, in a time were a militia could possibly rival a national military. However, in modern times a rebelling militia could be completely annihilated within minutes. UAVs, missile guidance, artillery that has accuracy down a science, remotely-controlled tanks and suchlike infernal things-- they don't even have to have a single casualty.

I have yet to discern a valid point that's in favour of the availability of assault rifles to private citizens. The general idea is protection, how does the pistol not suffice for that?

[Stefan]

The argument that favours the legality of powerful weapons(assault rifles etc) so militias are allowed to flourish just simply doesn't have any relevance in this day and age.

The second amendment was adopted in 1791, in a time were a militia could possibly rival a national military. However, in modern times a rebelling militia could be completely annihilated within minutes. UAVs, missile guidance, artillery that has accuracy down a science, remotely-controlled tanks and suchlike infernal things-- they don't even have to have a single casualty.

I have yet to discern a valid point that's in favour of the availability of assault rifles to private citizens. The general idea is protection, how does the pistol not suffice for that?

If the U.S military was as powerful as people say, why are we still in the Middle East? The ownership of "assault weapons", as you call them, is the most widespread among Americans. The #1 rifle in the U.S today is the AR-15. Also, most semi-automatic pistols fall under Feinstein's "Assault weapons" ban.

A pistol would not suffice when faced with a mob of rioters, such as the Koreans were faced with during the LA riots. Property, Life, and Liberty are all protected with such weapons in these circumstances. I have yet to realize any good reason why the government should take away one's rights to these weapons.

[Stefan]

BTdhVxva5KU

Ol1SzjHPFGw

[Gospodine]

The argument that favours the legality of powerful weapons(assault rifles etc) so militias are allowed to flourish just simply doesn't have much relevance in this day and age.

As I said...

It is already prohibitively expensive, time-consuming and legally-challenging for all but the most intrepid gun enthusiasts to own a Class-3 weapon like a fully automatic (and usually these are people born into families who have grandfathered these weapons in); these have been restricted since the National Firearms Act of 1934 and further restricted by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Since the 1950's there has been ONE instance of a Class-3 weapon being used in the commission of a crime. (Rifles of any kind only account for around 10-15% of all gun-related deaths in the United States)

Semi-automatic rifles are not Class-3.


The second amendment was adopted in 1791, in a time were a militia could possibly rival a national military. However, in modern times a rebelling militia could be completely annihilated within minutes.

I've heard this argued a number of times by pro-gun control advocates and it tells me one of two things: either that people in the Western World think it's no longer worth physically fighting for fundamental human rights (which is sad) and that people think the men and women in uniform are mindless, sadistic zombies who will follow any order, regardless of how illegal, unethical and immoral it is.

Also Vietnam, Afghanistan, Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone, the Boer War, the American War of Independence (part two yet to be concluded :laugh:), and the Russo-Finnish War in WW2 are all very good examples of smaller, more motivated forces overcoming far larger odds.

The number of American military veterans who are die-hard constitutionalists and supporters of the 2nd Amendment and who would easily apply their military training in defense of the 2nd Amendment is something that makes gun confiscation in the US very dangerous to say the least.


UAVs, missile guidance, artillery that has accuracy down a science, remotely-controlled tanks and suchlike infernal things-- they don't even have to have a single casualty.

You think the Anglo-American Globalists could tyrannize America by stealth and muster up support internationally while they were carpet bombing L.A., New York, and Washington and dropping tactical nukes on populated areas?

Not even the most sycophantic American lapdogs would stand by for that.

That's not the point. The powers that be would rather things never got to that level, they would rather incrementally and slowly build a prison around the American people than simply fight them toe-to-toe; and deflect from their agenda with social engineering and bread and circuses for the masses.

They don't have the stomach nor the will to engage with an American insurgency of epic proportions.


I have yet to discern a valid point that's in favour of the availability of assault rifles to private citizens. The general idea is protection, how does the pistol not suffice for that?

There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".

That's just a term you've been conditioned to regard relevant thanks to the mainstream media.

Nor are "assault rifles" functionally similar to standard military ones, only cosmetically.

This is what gets the average layman all worked up about "assault rifles":
http://i49.tinypic.com/2119n6a.jpg

As you can see that Ruger .22 is no more deadly, accurate or magically more lethal after it has been dressed up and modified to resemble a military-issue rifle.

But it looks scary, in the same way that a group of guys with shaved heads and combat boots who just happen to be decent, law-abiding, pleasant people look scary to ignorant, prejudiced people who judge books by their covers.

Semi-automatic rifles are perfectly reasonable firearms for self-defence.

Nothing is more personal than self-defense; nobody has the right to tell people what they can and can't use in defense of their lives. When it's your life on the line who wouldn't want the greatest possible advantage?

Like Stefan said, go look at footage of the L.A. Riots. Go look at Korean-American store owners defending their properties from literally hundreds of looters, many of them armed themselves. (Some of these Korean store owners were actually disarmed by the police during the riots when they needed their guns the most).

Go read about what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina; thousands of displaced, angry, starving and needy black people running around raping/looting/destroying public property. Guess who they didn't fuck with? The people with guns.

Going all the way back to the Kent State Massacre when the National Guard opened fire on unarmed student protestors totally unprovoked. You think the US Federal Government is above killing it's own people in the streets like Assad? Think again.

Here's an image to help you out:
http://a4cgr.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/second-amendment.jpg

Dangerous Freedom > Peaceful Slavery. Period.

[Partiasn]

As I said...
You think the Anglo-American Globalists could tyrannize America by stealth and muster up support internationally while they were carpet bombing L.A., New York, and Washington and dropping tactical nukes on populated areas?

Not even the most sycophantic American lapdogs would stand by for that.

That's not the point. The powers that be would rather things never got to that level, they would rather incrementally and slowly build a prison around the American people than simply fight them toe-to-toe; and deflect from their agenda with social engineering and bread and circuses for the masses.

They don't have the stomach nor the will to engage with an American insurgency of epic proportions.


Verry Well Said
The Fact is the “Standing Army” as the exist today are really one of the major problems America has.

Because a decentralized and sustainable militia would under no circumstances be engaged in military conflicts for resource theft.

Nor would the United States be bankrupt at this point had we Shit Canned the US Armed Forces after the Cold War and created Swiss Type Gard Services along with Air Militias to guard the boarders and skies of the US.

But then again government and the US Democratic Party once again shows its roots to the worst form of Communism and resource idiocy. Organized Crime at its best.


As I said...
There is no such thing as an "assault rifle".

That's just a term you've been conditioned to regard relevant thanks to the mainstream media.

Nor are "assault rifles" functionally similar to standard military ones, only cosmetically.

This is what gets the average layman all worked up about "assault rifles":
http://i49.tinypic.com/2119n6a.jpg

As you can see that Ruger .22 is no more deadly, accurate or magically more lethal after it has been dressed up and modified to resemble a military-issue rifle.


Well the Term AR in the American version of the M-16 Rifle DOES NOT STAND FOR ASSULT RIFLE, which is a common misinterpretation. The term is actually in reference to ArmaLite which is the company that originally built the AR-15 and the Military Version the M-16.

And here is the Clincher!

The only real Reason the AR-15 exist in the first place was it is a half way point to get the first part of “Gun Control” enacted, and that is to have a “Civilian Version” of a Weapon to avoid violating the actual fact that the second amendment of the bill of rights grants civilians the right to full capable military class weaponry for creation and maintenance of a Militia.

So My response to the “FED” is something like this.

It is none of the governments business if it is Full Auto, Semi Auto, a grenade launcher, a Helicopter Gunship or what have you.

IF it is in the context of a private and decentralized, NON-United Nations controled Militia, then it is perfectly legal.

Realistically the UN has been a problem for America and the world since the end of WW2.

It is a corrupt and destructive oligarchy, that does the bidding for globalists, and internationalist, who are now calling themselves “International Democracy”.

I say this, If it was wrong for Russians to do it under the guise of “International Communism” then it is just as wrong for Amerika/UN/'EUSSR to do it under the guise of “International Democracy”.

[Smaland]

-tcv0wmpjJM
This YT video includes a video clip (from 1:43 to 11:35) from the made-for-TV movie An American Story (1992), which is based on the Battle of Athens (1946) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)); the movie is set in a Texas town in 1945.

[Stefan]

9bCA3yqkMUI

[Gospodine]

Not sure if the Americans here have seen this, but if you have an hour to spare, it's well worth your time:
1pKasF6l3y0

I'll also try and find some good videos for you regarding Australian's gun confiscation and buyback program of 1996; it'll boil your blood I'm sure.

[Gospodine]

Four other very good videos (short and sweet), if you've never seen them before, I highly recommend you watch them in their entirety:

7RgLEGibyXs

tO0k9SHljCc

PhyuJzjOcQE

77_BzTO7X0E

[Stefan]

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/20952144/do-guns-make-georgia-cities-safer


KENNESAW, GA (CBS ATLANTA) -
As the gun control debate rages on, a Georgia city, once again, finds itself in the crosshairs.

In Kennesaw, a city ordinance requires every head of household to own a gun, but does that make Kennesaw safer or more dangerous?

CBS Atlanta News compared Kennesaw to two other metro Atlanta cities, Newnan and Lawrenceville.

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, all three cities are similar in population, median household income and ethnic make-up. They are also approximately the same distance from Atlanta with about the same number of police officers patrolling the streets.

So which community is safer, and what role do guns play?

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2010, which displayed the newest complete set of numbers, Kennesaw reported 21 violent crimes in 2010.

In that same time period, Lawrenceville recorded 98 and Newnan had 131 violent crimes.

Kennesaw also reported a fraction of the number of robberies, aggravated assaults and burglaries.

Many Kennesaw residents attributed those low numbers to a 1982 gun ordinance requiring every head of household to have a gun.

While police don't enforce the ordinance, they estimated that about 60 percent of residents pack heat.

"I certainly would like to hope it contributes to the low crime rate," said Stephanie Frazier, who has lived in Kennesaw for nearly seven years and thinks the ordinance makes a difference in her community.

However, Dr. Joseph Corrado, an assistant professor of political science at Clayton State University, disagreed.

Corrado studied the topic extensively and said Kennesaw would have a low crime rate, regardless of the ordinance, because it was a fairly safe area to begin with. He said if a similar gun ordinance came to fruition in a city with high crime, such as Philadelphia, the story would read differently.

"If you passed a gun ordinance requiring everyone to have a gun there, I would guess the crime rates would tick up some," Corrado said. "In an area that's already safe, the impact may go any other direction, if you will."

But Kennesaw police spokesman Lt. Craig Graydon told CBS Atlanta News that he doesn't entirely agree.

"It has brought a lot of attention to crime prevention and issues along with crime, so there probably is some positive impact," Graydon said. "It's just hard to say how much."

But one Kennesaw resident, afraid to use her real name, said she knows the ordinance works. She told CBS Atlanta News that when a man cornered her in a secluded work storage area and kept inching closer, she felt her life was in danger. She said he finally left her alone when she revealed her Smith and Wesson revolver.

"That guy could have easily overpowered me; I know he had that intention," she said. "Had I not had that gun… I will use every tool necessary, not to hurt you, but to protect myself and to protect others."

[RussiaPrussia]

check out my thread

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1357925#post1357925

sweden gun control highest rape rate in the world

[MarkyMark]

I must confess, I made this thread and just left it alone. I was surprised to see 22 pages.

[Stefan]

I must confess, I made this thread and just left it alone. I was surprised to see 22 pages.

As of this post, 17.129% of the posts in this thread are mine. :)

[Smaland]

qTEmY_JwsNQ


Throughout the short discussion on (New York's new gun control law before it was passed), GOP legislators warned about the prospect of resistance — potentially resulting in violence. Indeed, even some lawmakers have already promised to defy the new unconstitutional statute. Republican state Assemblyman Steve Katz, for example, told his colleagues during the debate that the legislation’s attempt to re-define semi-automatic rifles as banned “assault weapons” creates “a new class of criminals overnight.” However, he also mentioned that he had no intention of complying with the arbitrary seven-bullet maximum demanded under the legislation.

“I leave my wife and three young daughters home alone for days at a time to represent my constituents here,” Katz said on the floor of the Assembly. “After what happened to the young mother in Loganville, Georgia who defended her two young children against an intruder, this bill will turn me into a criminal because you can bet that before I leave to do the people’s work, there will be more than seven bullets in the magazine of my wife’s firearm.”

Full column (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14322-gun-owners-refuse-to-register-under-new-york-law)

[Stefan]

It's funny, progressive New York (even up-state was more Obama than Romney) is taking this horribly. Imagine the rest of the country, which is always 20/30 years behind New York in terms of "progressiveness" and level of brainwashed. I know Feinstein's ban won't pass, and there won't be registration after this. I still think they'll try the magazine limit though.

[Stefan]

Jy26ZGmMh3E

[Gospodine]

I heard a really great argument today against this whole silly, jerk-off debate on magazine capacities.

Gun prohibitionists ramble on about how "you don't need X amount of rounds for Y purpose"; (i.e. hunting, target shooting, self-defence; which is all besides the point since the Constitution was written during a time where if you didn't hunt or know how to handle a gun, you didn't eat and you didn't live very long; it obviously doesn't defend the right to gun ownership for any reason other than the defense of liberty; every other purpose you can appropriate them for is simply a bonus you get as a result). Of course, like any one of them would know since they haven't so much as aimed a slingshot at a silhouette

The key test for any idea about how many rounds are "appropriate" to have at your disposal is what kinds of firearms/firearm specifications are in common usage for legitimate purposes as per the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia V. Heller, which defined that citizens do have the right to own guns for legitimate purposes, as opposed to what were termed "Dangerous and Unusual" firearms without legitimate purposes.

Today, magazines in the 11 to 19 round range are ubiquitous, especially for handguns (since 3/4's of handguns are semi-auto in the US). These are not "High-Capacity"/Unusual/Mil-Spec/Aftermarket accessories but factory standard magazines.

Now people often say, "Well when the Constitution was written AR-15's with 100-round Beta C Mags didn't exist so you can't have those." Yes but in the same way that when the Constitution was written a musket could only hold one projectile, because that was the standard of technology back in day, 226 years later we need a new rule of thumb to guide the citizen's right to have an appropriately-suited and competent tool to do the job they require of it, regardless of what it may be.

That rule of thumb? Today's average police officer.

The majority of cops in the US have a primary sidearm, almost always semi-automatic, with between 11 and 19 rounds in the magazine. Bingo.
Police don't carry guns to go hunting, skeet shooting or for collecting purposes. They carry them for only one purpose: the lawful defense of self and others.

That Police Departments all over the US have chosen semi-automatic handguns with magazine capacities of 11 to 19 rounds, tells you that it is a perfectly suitable and very appropriate combination to have for self-defense. At the end of the day, cops want to do their beats and go back home in one piece, if anyone is an authority on what is a good yard stick when it comes to self-defense it should be something that's proven through trial and error and constant re-evaluation of current firearm designs/specifications. That's exactly how Police Departments have come to the conclusion that people need Glocks with 19 rounds in them to be able to adequately protect themselves.

The exact same rule of thumb goes for Semi-Auto, centrefire rifles. 9 out of 10 squad cars/cruisers in the US carry a back-up long gun in the trunk, which is now increasingly becoming an AR-15, with nothing short of a factory-standard 30 round magazine (sometimes more). The AR-15 then, seems like an obvious choice for defense of more permanent property against a determined attacker.

Magazines which can hold more than 10 rounds in them are not some super-lethal, Geneva Convention-outlawed, military-style enhancement for firearms only used by baby killing psychopaths and super-duper Special Forces guys.

They are a run-of-the-mil attachment that is used so commonly these days, that 10 rounds is seen in the same way that 1 gigabyte of storage space is seen for a modern-day computer. Not. Good. Enough. Period.

[Stefan]

No need to worry at all.

xY16r6EkUNY

Prohibition doesn't mean anything at this point, other than its implementation will create crime. Technology has surpassed it, just as it did with Alcohol and Drug prohibitions.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I do not approve of restrictions to gun ownership. It's very rare for someone to snap and go around shooting people. In comparison it's much less rare for someone to use a gun to defend one's self.

I also approve of citizens owning assault weapons. One of the first actions an authoritarian government does is to take a citizen's gun rights. It's difficult to fight oppression when you're not armed.

[Smaland]

http://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Police-vs-Sheriff.jpg


If city politicians are against gun ownership (Chicago, Washington D.C, San Francisco, and New York for example) and the chief doesn’t agree he can (and probably will) be fired or demoted by the mayor or possibly by a simple majority of the City Council. In most towns over 50,000 population chiefs generally get paid between $70,000 and $140,000 a year plus benefits and retirement.
...
Sheriffs are by and large a different breed. They are elected by the people with a larger proportional number of citizens than city officials. The sheriff does not have to please a few city council members, a goofy mayor (or a governor). Sheriffs represent the beliefs and values of the majority of the area of his or her citizens who directly voted them into office.

Full column (http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/why-so-many-police-chiefs-favor-gun-control-when-most-sheriffs-dont/#axzz2KPnA5Gp2)

[Gospodine]

No need to worry at all.

3D printing still has a hell of a long way to go, but whatever gives the Feds another bone to chase after is always a great step.


I also approve of citizens owning modernized, semi-automatic sporting rifles.

Fixed.

[Stefan]

3D printing still has a hell of a long way to go, but whatever gives the Feds another bone to chase after is always a great step.

I think the biggest thing is to make 3D printers more available to the public and cheaper. I think they'll have a gun (that doesn't fall apart) printed in the next few months, so that's not a problem. Either way, it's a hell a lot better when we can print guns than worry about having manufacturers on our side, in the event that there is a violent revolution/civil war.

[RussiaPrussia]

YI2cYKTkLis

this dude pretty much sums it up why guns should be allowed

[Smaland]

YI2cYKTkLis

this dude pretty much sums it up why guns should be allowed

The narrator talked to some Russians who said, in effect: 'What more do I need to tell you? Stalin took our guns, and then killed half of us.'

[Smaland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVz2lHODQvs
Schakowsky (D-IL) talks frankly to Jason Mattera about gun control. Mattera introduced himself to Schakowsky by name, but evidently she did not recognize him as a conservative or as a video journalist.


... Schakowsky ..., a member of the Democratic Party’s leadership in the House of Representatives, suggested to Jason Mattera at a Feb. 13 women’s rights rally that plans for an assault weapons ban and private-sales background checks were only the beginning of a broader gun control agenda extending to handguns as well.

Print news story at breitbart.com (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/11/Schakowsky-Assault-Weapons-Ban-is-Just-the-Beginning)

[Smaland]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1ABw6IMKn0

[Loki]

What was so bad about Cuban communism? It's a peaceful country with happy people.

[xajapa]

None of the proposed gun control laws they are advocating for within the US would have changed anything about the Sandy Hook killings, as terrible as they were. The guns were legally owned by the killer's mother, and he had no known diagnosis or condition that would have explicitly prevented him from purchasing or owning guns (unless you want to ban odd or weird people).Of course the school had been designated a "no gun zone" by our law-makers. Perhaps one more more law (or two or three) would have convinced the killer to not go through with his vicious, evil act.

[Loki]

I think guns need more controlling. What do civilians want to do with them anyway? The police are there for our protection. The fewer hooligans out there with guns, the better. This isn't the Wild West anymore.

[xajapa]

I think guns need more controlling. What do civilians want to do with them anyway? The police are there for our protection. The fewer hooligans out there with guns, the better. This isn't the Wild West anymore.
Here in the US there are countless people who have protected themselves with firearms. If you are going to wait for the police to save you during some sort of assault, you are SOL.
http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/

[Loki]

Here in the US there are countless people who have protected themselves with firearms. If you are going to wait for the police to save you during some sort of assault, you are SOL.
http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/

Is the US such an unsafe place?

[xajapa]

Is the US such an unsafe place?
I would say yes. There was a new story in this morning's local newspaper regarding a city firefighter who entered a local convenience store armed with a (legally owned) gun. The store clerk grabbed the gun, shoved the assailant's face into the counter, then loaded a bullet into the chamber, forcing the assailant to flee. The police later found the assailant. Now, why would a firefighter, who probably makes good money, try to rob a store? My guess is a drug addiction (or maybe a gambling addiction).

[Gauthier]

Is the US such an unsafe place?

The only dangerous place you will find in the US are black cities/ghettos. Other than that, it is a very safe place.

[Loki]

The only dangerous place you will find in the US are black cities/ghettos. Other than that, it is a very safe place.

That's what I thought. Therefore unnecessary for people outside of such areas to carry loads of guns.

[Stefan]

That's what I thought. Therefore unnecessary for people outside of such areas to carry loads of guns.

Good luck telling the gun owners in these areas that. The countryside is where the HIGHEST gun ownership can be found. Also Barbaranegra is forgetting the rural south where crime is quite high. The reason why we have guns is to protect us from our governments, their tyrannies, and from invasions, to assist in times of defensive war when the militias need to be called upon. Self-defense, hunting, and sport are all modern and relatively trivial reasons for gun ownership. The burden of evidence is on those who propose gun control more than anything. In the United States, thus far, no gun control has worked. In fact, Chicago, a city with massive gun control has a higher crime rate than Afghanistan.

By the way, the role of the police is not to protect us, it's to enforce laws.

This is quite clear in D.C vs. Heller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Loki]

Good luck telling the gun owners in these areas that. The countryside is where the HIGHEST gun ownership can be found.

Indeed, and it is nonsensical. Americans treat guns like toys; hobbies.

[Stefan]

Indeed, and it is nonsensical. Americans treat guns like toys; hobbies.

Like anything else they can be a hobby. Gun owners who have many guns tend to be the most responsible though.

Just look at this girl.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo

[Loki]

Like anything else they can be a hobby. Gun owners who have many guns tend to be the most responsible though.

Just look at this girl.


Horrifying. I shudder at the thought.

[Stefan]

Horrifying. I shudder at the thought.

I don't understand. It's a very safe hobby (target shooting/hunting.) I have friends and family who do much more dangerous things (caving/mountain-climbing, camping outside in the winter, etc.) Hell my great-grandfather died when he was fishing (drowned) lol. When one is target shooting the gun isn't being used as a weapon, and because of the vast amount of safety instructions learned over the years, it provides good knowledge to people who might truly need to use a gun in the future for something other than recreational use. I think it is worse to make people afraid of tools that are necessary in this world than to enjoy practicing and perfecting one's safe usage of such a tool.

[Loki]

Michelle Obama in emotional gun control plea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22100411)

US First Lady Michelle Obama has made an emotional appeal for action on gun control, in a speech to community leaders in Chicago.

Mrs Obama cited the case of 15-year-old Hadiya Pendleton, who was mistaken for a gang member and shot and killed in a local park, days after performing at President Obama's second inauguration.

On Wednesday, two US senators brokered a bipartisan deal to expand background checks on gun buyers, boosting the White House's hopes for a firearms control law.

[Loki]

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65077000/gif/_65077559_us_gun_compared_624.gif

[Stefan]

Yesterday was a good day for gun rights defenders. Not a single piece of infringement passed through the feds and we got to see Biden and Obama's grumpy faces and feigned response. :) They'll be back though, and I'm afraid that if we don't push in the opposite direction, liberalizing gun rights and restricting gun legislation further they'll eventually find a way to succeed. But with the growing liberty-minded population this becomes less likely by the day.

[Loki]

Yesterday was a good day for gun rights defenders. Not a single piece of infringement passed through the feds and we got to see Biden and Obama's grumpy faces and feigned response. :) They'll be back though, and I'm afraid that if we don't push in the opposite direction, liberalizing gun rights and restricting gun legislation further they'll eventually find a way to succeed. But with the growing liberty-minded population this becomes less likely by the day.

Were their demands not reasonable enough? Surely it's more comforting knowing that we keep proper records of gun owners, and have them screened before they purchase something. More checks need to be done.

[Mary]

I like guns as much as the next guy, but if you let various clowns own guns they only end up wrecking the gun culture. Fpsrussia is the perfect example,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj3tYO9co44

Doing a mag dump with an AK on an alien doll behind cement blocks. This is why we can't have nice things.

[MarkyMark]

Oh god, the bitch is back.

[mvbeleg]

Yesterday was a good day for gun rights defenders. Not a single piece of infringement passed through the feds and we got to see Biden and Obama's grumpy faces and feigned response.

Hopefully, the ammo market here in the USA will slowly begin to return to normal. Fingers crossed.