[FloridaPirate355]

Originally Posted by isles20

What part of "Well regulated militia" do they not understand?

The civilians were the militia at that time. Your post is wrong.

[miamihurricane555]

Originally Posted by FloridaPirate355

The civilians were the militia at that time. Your post is wrong.

I like the swiss citizens militia. it's the reason no one screws with the swiis and the reason they don't mess with anyone else.

[New Horizons]

Originally Posted by FSUMike

I agree. The fact that I have to have permission from the government to carry a pistol, and I am also restricted as far as HOW I can carry it is unjust and unconstitutional.

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they not understand?

Don't be so melodramatic Rambo, you're still allowed to carry a gun. So you can't carry it openly like a wannabe cowboy and freak people out. We have open carry here in AZ but you rarely see it, at least not in Phoenix. It's called having some decency, like not wearing your baseball cap indoors.

[EscAlaMike]

Originally Posted by isles20

What part of "Well regulated militia" do they not understand?

Do you know what a well-regulated militia is?

A militia is a non-subscripted citizen army (ie anybody with a gun). People nowadays tend to hear "well-regulated" and they immediately think "government regulation!". That's not what it means. It just means well-ordered and prepared. "Government regulation" as we think of it today was not a concept in 1700s America. The Founders understood that the best way to maintain liberty is to allow the people to protect their homes and families.

[EscAlaMike]

Originally Posted by New Horizons

Don't be so melodramatic Rambo, you're still allowed to carry a gun. So you can't carry it openly like a wannabe cowboy and freak people out. We have open carry here in AZ but you rarely see it, at least not in Phoenix. It's called having some decency, like not wearing your baseball cap indoors.

I don't want to go around everywhere with a gun on my hip 'freaking people out', as you say. You're making a lot of assumptions about my character that I don't appreciate. You've bought into the lies of the media. Everybody who believes in liberty when it comes to guns is portrayed as some kind of Rambo figure who just wants to scare old ladies with machine guns. How absurd.

My point is the principle of the law. The government has no authority to restrict guns, and yet they do it. And most people don't care and think that it's "common sense" or "reasonable". No, it's not.

[davidtsx]

Originally Posted by OptimusPrime69

Of course it would be good-- it's a no-brainer.
Look at countries like the UK and Australia-- they have very strict gun control laws and do not nearly have as much gun death per capita as the US.

The US is such a violent country and mass shooting after mass shooting keeps on repeating itself and will continue to do so until some serious gun control is put into place.

Facts are facts and statistics don't lie-- the US has more gun deaths than any developed country in the world. I mean, why wouldn't we want more gun control?
Honestly, if it were up to me-- I would have guns banned outright-- no one gets guns except law enforcement agencies.

How about that!!! Harvard just did a study proving you wrong. I guess your facts are not facts after all.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive | The American Civil Rights Union

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

[jsun556]

Well regulated does not mean government regulated. Nice to know northern schools are brainwashing their students into big government mindsets.

[New Horizons]

Originally Posted by FSUMike

I don't want to go around everywhere with a gun on my hip 'freaking people out', as you say. You're making a lot of assumptions about my character that I don't appreciate. You've bought into the lies of the media. Everybody who believes in liberty when it comes to guns is portrayed as some kind of Rambo figure who just wants to scare old ladies with machine guns. How absurd.

My point is the principle of the law. The government has no authority to restrict guns, and yet they do it. And most people don't care and think that it's "common sense" or "reasonable". No, it's not.

Fair enough, sorry about my assumptions about you. I just see these youtube videos of guys parading their rifles or pistols around town, and when the cops come to ask a few questions they act like complete jerks to the cops. They start spouting all that second amendment stuff and statute numbers.

[OptimusPrime69]

Here we go again---

Australian baseballer Chris Lane shot dead by 15 year old teen in Kansas. I'm sure there was no background check or registered gun with this one....

Another victim or our insane gun culture here in the US....only this time it's an international issue.
They just keep on coming. How many lives is it gonna take?

[FlyMIA]

Originally Posted by OptimusPrime69

Here we go again---

Australian baseballer Chris Lane shot dead by 15 year old teen in Kansas. I'm sure there was no background check or registered gun with this one....

Another victim or our insane gun culture here in the US....only this time it's an international issue.
They just keep on coming. How many lives is it gonna take?

If the parents did their freaking job and parented we would not have had this shooting. It was three teens, they posted on Facebook they were bored and wanted to kill someone. Who knows if they would have just gotten a bat and knife if they didnt have a gun. They should not have had a gun, they either stoled it from their parents or purchased it illegally. So either way gun control laws would have done NOTHING. If they stoled it from their parents and it was not locked up safely I believe the gun owner should be charged with a crime too.

But this case is not a good example of gun control because control would have done nothing.

As a side note its just the media world we live in. Gun Violence continues to decline in the U.S. almost every year is an all time low. We just hear about more cases in this 24hr social media world.