Gun control / Anti gun control

[Knightsman]

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were round
ed up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a t...otal of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~

 

[NYJimbo]

Sheesh, are you all still doing this thing ?

Here's a hint: NOBODY is going to change their opinion in this thread even if it goes to 1,000 posts.

I don't know why anyone even starts these things.

 

[TAPtech]

I liked this forum because everyone seemed to be very civil towards eachother...

Until I read this thread!

 

[JustInspired]

Until I read this thread!

There's been a couple others in the short time I've been here.
Seems like it happens every so often and then we all eventually become friends with common interests again.
Must be this stressful line of work.
Don't give up on them, they're all (mostly) useful friends to have around.

 

[TechLady]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/familiarity_breeds_contempt

http://digital-dharma.net/clear-thinking/open-and-closed-minds/

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

http://www.examiner.com/article/med...s-stopped-by-an-armed-citizen?cid=db_articles

Also taken from above link...

"Here are a few facts about armed Americans:

-In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance which required all heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than it was in 1981.

-Armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as the police do every year in this country (1,527 to 606).

-A 1996 University of Chicago study concluded that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rates by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent.

-According to the National Safety Council, with guns being used 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, firearms are actually used more than 80 times more often to protect lives, rather than to take lives.

-A 1979 Justice Department study entitled Rape Victimization in American Cities, concluded that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually committed.

-Another Justice Department study found that 57 percent of felons agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running the police."

 

[NETWizz]

This is a very, very sad attitude. You live in a society with other people and enjoy all the benefits of society, yet don't feel any obligation whatsoever to said society/community.

And actually, it is a democracy...which is why we are even having this discussion.

Anyway, here's why we are never going to agree: http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.61c886c438708471a9f4ea23070fa70c.3a1

And on that note, I am done also.

I used to have the same attitude you did. I guess you would say guns empowered me, and that power corrupts..., but I would say I am enlightened to know I can deal with any situation.

This country is NOT a democracy, and it is so very un-american of you not even know that you live in a Constitutional Republic, where even the rights of the unpopular minority are protected. We are having this discussion because this constitutional republic protects free speech among other things.

 

[NETWizz]

I used to have the same attitude you did. I guess you would say guns empowered me, and that power corrupts..., but I would say I am enlightened to know I can deal with any situation.

This country is NOT a democracy, and it is so very un-american of you not even know that you live in a Constitutional Republic, where even the rights of the unpopular minority are protected. We are having this discussion because this constitutional republic protects free speech among other things.

You may think you are better at processing complexity, but overall I say liberals are better at processing fantasy. You see, if we all lived in your perfectly safe world, we would be working for the good of humanity, everyone would eat right, nobody would get sick without funds for healthcare, nobody would go hungry, everyone would be taken care of... The problem is the liberal concepts don't necessarily work in practice.

For example... Bloomberg is a liberal... He banned food donation:
http://www.dailypaul.com/262488/bloomberg-bans-food-donations-to-homeless-shelters

... because the city can’t properly assess salt, fat and fiber in donated food and thereby ensure starving people are getting the optimal levels of nutrition.

Maybe people in his city will soon have to plan all their meals with the city for approval in what they serve at home in their own kitchen to their own family next!

 

[oldtech]

Anyway, here's why we are never going to agree: http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.61c886c438708471a9f4ea23070fa70c.3a1

And on that note, I am done also.

It never ceases to amaze me how liberal intellectuals will hang their hats on the thinnest of premises. The study in the linked article was based on a sampling of 90 individuals. With a world population over 7 Billion I'd say that sample was a bit teeny weeny small to be drawing a conclusion from.

 

[Rocco]

Sheesh, are you all still doing this thing ?

Here's a hint: NOBODY is going to change their opinion in this thread even if it goes to 1,000 posts.

I don't know why anyone even starts these things.

I started it because in the other thread, that was intended for the victims, people were discussing it. They were doing the same thing. I figured, if they are going to do that, then we may as well have another thread, just for that. Leave the other thread just for the victims...

 

[HFultzjr]

I agree with you 100%. The machine known as the media..here in the US...it's all about hype...hype..and over-hype. And yeah that 15 minutes of fame.
When someone like this mentally disturbed person wants to "Go out in fame..go out in a big blaze!"......do it in the US, you'll get your coverage!

Agreed.

The media in the US is pathetic.

ANYTHING to get a story and sensation....even more to be "first".

And showing pictures of hysteria in the people who had children invloved, is downright DISGUSTING!

I saw some very disturbing pictures over and over and over.

Disrepectful and distgusting!

 

[Martyn]

It's not just in the US the UK are pretty disgraceful as well. There are people in court(or will be) over phone hacking including a young girls who got murdered. I haven't bought a newspaper for years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/28/world/europe/milly-dowler-profile/index.html

 

[HFultzjr]

I apologize if I offended you or name-calling, but you have no idea how angry the anti-gun crowd makes us gun-rights activists... Please understand, we aren't the ones committing these crimes!

There is nothing wrong with hunting, true! However, what is wrong with us owning guns for other legal purposes such as target practice and most importantly self-defense?

It IS clear what the Second Amendment has to say about this: "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."



That is just it. I did read your post! What exactly gives you the right to decide what weapons we can and cannot have? Who exactly are you to tell me I cannot have my handguns or sporting rifle (i.e. AR-15)? What gives ANYONE the right to deny me the right to protect myself and my family and friends with weapons of my choosing?


Last week it was reported the shooter used an assault rifle then it was reported he used hand guns only and that the assault rifle was left in his car. Now the story is back to he used an assault rifle.

The term "assault" rifle itself is a misnomer.


The guns were NOT obtained legally. He stole them from his mother and shot her, too. You may think gun rights activists armed this guy, legally. We didn't! He was a criminal and illegally obtained arms.



The real threat is the fact that our own government is armed to the teeth. The 2nd Amendment does not only regard one’s personal self-defense, but it speaks to the broader ability of the people to keep a potentially oppressive, out-of-control government and its standing army in check. Simply put citizens need to have such weapons because as Thomas Jefferson said, "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." We don't even need to use the guns... There mere possession scares the crap out of our leaders who want to take them away because they know that deep down inside their corrupt sh*t stinks, and it makes them afraid to carry out things like Agenda 21 (One-World Government). There is no freedom where people are not allowed to keep posses arms.




True, but EVERY gun on the street would therefore be illegal. I wouldn't want to live in a world where only the police and criminals have guns. Guns would scare the cottage cheese and non-dairy creamer out of me in a world like that! the guns that criminals use come from crime; since, by very definition they are not legal guns.




Right, and exactly who do you think should do this physiological evaluation?
Right now to buy a gun you need (legally):
1. To go to a Federal Licensed Firearms Dealer.
2. Fill out a form 4473 and provide valid Identification
3. Have a background check that ensures you have NO crimes of domestic abuse, violence, or any felonies of any kind whatsoever. It also checks that you have never been admitted to any mental institutions (against your will i.e. court order).

Why should they check the other members of your household? It IS the gun owner's responsibility to secure his or her guns!


Think that's bad? Anti-Gun Activists are calling for the shooting of NRA members. That's right! Where is the irony in that?

Shooting NRA members or Headquarters, meetings, etc. would not be feasible.
THEY ARE ARMED. A person wouldn't get near as much mayheim, because they WOULD be stopped.

Better off to go to schools, universities, no gun zones, etc. There you are safe to do as you please, as it's very unlikley you will be stopped until you have made "The Headlines". Then more than likely you will take the suicide escape.

All "first responders" (teachers, fireman, instructors, managers, security guards, etc.), should be TRAINED and REQUIRED, to be able to respond to these threats BEFORE they become sensational media material.

Take a lesson from Israel....they have dealt with this issue on a much larger scale.....bombs, rockets, etc. They know they are the only ones they can depend on to defend themselves.

 

[HFultzjr]

Precisely. It's hilarious to think a civilian weapons collections would result in even a hiccup from a real government military action.



Yeah, um...we're not in Africa or the Middle East. We are in the United States, and we have the largest and highest funded military in the world...it's a truly laughable assertion that anything you have would do a damn thing. I mean, really.



Yes, and the fact that the people here with all the guns appear to have the greatest struggle with tempers...it's not exactly enhancing your cause.

Do you not think the "largest and highest funded military" is controlled by CITIZENS, many of whom would have a real problem with combating their fellow americans. I think our "largest and highest funded military" would be quite disfuntional when it's members are asked to destroy their own country and citizens. Then the playing field maybe just a bit more level. Plus, not having my guns "registered" or "inventoried", they have no idea what I or anybody else has capabilty wise. Can't take away what they don't know you have.

 

[mraikes]

Do you not think the "largest and highest funded military" is controlled by CITIZENS, many of whom would have a real problem with combating their fellow americans. I think our "largest and highest funded military" would be quite disfuntional when it's members are asked to destroy their own country and citizens. Then the playing field maybe just a bit more level. Plus, not having my guns "registered" or "inventoried", they have no idea what I or anybody else has capabilty wise. Can't take away what they don't know you have.

Not to mention that unlike some other nations, our troops are NOT taught or required to be unthinkingly loyal to their leaders. Ever since the My Lai massacre in '68 it's been made clear there is an obligation on the part of troops and officers to resist and if need be outright refuse illegal or immoral orders. I pray that turning weapons on our own citizens would be considered illegal or immoral by most of our troops.

Another aspect is that, according to the US Census, we have over 21 million military veterans in our civilian population. I'm one of them. There are roughly 2.4 million relatively young Iraq/Afghanistan veterans alone. 21 million citizens trained in military tactics, equipment, weapons, etc. That includes many people who know where large amounts of combat stores are kept stateside.

Virtually any weapon possessed by our military from rifle to fighter jet has more private citizens trained and familiar with its operation (and weaknesses!) than active duty troops. It wouldn't take long to refresh my own memory & skills learned during my time in the Infantry, Armor and Air Combat units in which I served.

The entire active military of the United States is approximately 1.5 million. China, the largest active military in the world, is about 2.3.

Even subtracting those too old/sick/unwilling etc - there remains a formidable base of militarily trained American citizens that could coalesce into a citizen militia such as has never been seen on earth.

Even if our active military were willing to turn their weapons on our own citizens, it would not be a one sided battle for long.

 

[dond]

How did we go right against the military? The first step is Police force; local, county, state and Federal.

 

[mraikes]

How did we go right against the military? The first step is Police force; local, county, state and Federal.

Not only is there not enough of them - they live right among us. And in a significant uprising, the "we know where you live" effect would be quite disheartening to your average local law enforcement officer. Not to mention they'd be asked to assault their friends, neighbors, etc. Certainly some would - but the rest?

Local law enforcement would be less likely to be a significant problem than military troops being moved around en masse and relatively anonymously.

 

[TechLady]

You guys certainly live in an interesting little world...

 

[mraikes]

You guys certainly live in an interesting little world...

Same world you live in. Just viewed from different perspectives and experience.

 

[HFultzjr]

Not to mention that unlike some other nations, our troops are NOT taught or required to be unthinkingly loyal to their leaders. Ever since the My Lai massacre in '68 it's been made clear there is an obligation on the part of troops and officers to resist and if need be outright refuse illegal or immoral orders. I pray that turning weapons on our own citizens would be considered illegal or immoral by most of our troops.

Another aspect is that, according to the US Census, we have over 21 million military veterans in our civilian population. I'm one of them. There are roughly 2.4 million relatively young Iraq/Afghanistan veterans alone. 21 million citizens trained in military tactics, equipment, weapons, etc. That includes many people who know where large amounts of combat stores are kept stateside.

Virtually any weapon possessed by our military from rifle to fighter jet has more private citizens trained and familiar with its operation (and weaknesses!) than active duty troops. It wouldn't take long to refresh my own memory & skills learned during my time in the Infantry, Armor and Air Combat units in which I served.

The entire active military of the United States is approximately 1.5 million. China, the largest active military in the world, is about 2.3.

Even subtracting those too old/sick/unwilling etc - there remains a formidable base of militarily trained American citizens that could coalesce into a citizen militia such as has never been seen on earth.

Even if our active military were willing to turn their weapons on our own citizens, it would not be a one sided battle for long.

Very correct on all accounts.

THAT is why we have a 2nd amendment.

Our fore fathers were VERY WISE MEN.