Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,074,757 checks in August 2009, a 12.3 percent increase from the 956,872 reported in August 2008.
The violent crime rate declined by 41% and the property crime rate fell by 32% over the 10-year period.
The violent crime rate in 2008—19.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older —was statistically unchanged from the previous year’s estimate of 20.7 per 1,000 persons.
The property crime rate of 135 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2008 was lower than the rate of 147 per 1,000 households in 2007.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Victimization, 2008 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cv08.htm - broken link)
I'm not against guns, I'm against stupid, immature, irresponsible people from having them.
When I was 12 I had a drunk man point his gun at me and just start laughing when I just came by to collect the money he owed ($12.00) for that month. I'm sorry that was only one experience, but one stupid drunk man could have killed me and I believe people like him do not deserve that right, because their right endangers other people.
I'm fine with the second ammendment, and responsible people protecting themselves, here's some thoughts on some gun laws I'd like.
If you're intoxicated (any level, not below .08 or whatever the legal limit is) and have posession of a gun on your person in public. If you've had alchohol your judgement is impaired and so is your coordination, you should not have control of anything that can kill people so easily.
Accidental shooting of any individual with your gun involves loss of all second ammendment rights for 5 years. With 1 year of probation. If you can't be responsible you lose your rights.
Any thoughts from the other side of the aisle?
If being stupid and irresponsible is a reason to take away ones rights, then alot of republicans and democrats would have already lost the right to vote a long time ago.
The gun in your home- the one that makes you feel "safe"- is 22 times MORE likely to kill/injure a family member than it is to repel an intruder.
Thank you for making me safe.
We use our guns to hunt and target shoot, not kill family members. Accidents occur in situations in which there has not been proper gun safety training. I grew up with guns and there was once a time when I was a kid in which we brought guns to second grade show and tell in school. As I recall, no one was shot and no school rampages occurred.
The reason that gun rampages occur is due to the breakdown of the family and the lack of respect for life that has been fostered by the left. If you take away guns, people will find other ways to kill people as long as they lack the concept of respect for life. Lack of firearms secures an easy path for tyrants like Obama, who would love nothing more than to have a defenseless population over which he can rule.
The 2nd amendment should only apply to the arms available as of 1791.
I am for guns, like Simpleman, but I also think this particular statement requires attention. Our founding fathers have created the Amendment to serve us in a positive, and equal way, as well as a safe way. However, at the time we we're expecting further attacks form the British, and at that time, the public, WAS the millitary.
To me, I interpret this as meaning that law abiding citizens shoudl be allowed to carry firearms. A "well armed millitia" was refering to the people of the 1780-1790's, which at the time, was a PERFECT description.
If the Amendment reffers to the public, in which it did by meaning "millitia", it states that we are allowed the right to bear arms. Wheather we are a millitia anymore, or not, we are still the public. We are still what the amendment was describing.
Everything changes, I'm sure the Amendment will one day as well. But until that day, we shall follow it to the full extent of it's meaning.
Lack of firearms secures an easy path for tyrants like Obama, who would love nothing more than to have a defenseless population over which he can rule.
I also believe that Obama does not want us to be defenseless, I believe he just has a different vision of the situation than us. Prove that he has done something majorly wrong to you, your friends, your family, or anyone you may know, to which he would be unjustly branded as a "tyrant"...
To all those opposed to guns, and all for abolishing our 2nd amendment rights, I have a few questions:
- Do you honestly think it's a good idea for citizens not to be allowed the right to bear arms?
- Do you think that criminals who have no regard for the law to begin with are going to follow any gun restriction law?
- Don't you think that once criminals are the only people with guns that the rest of society aren't sitting ducks for home invasion, robbery and a number of other crimes by gunpoint, because the criminal will know you have absolutely no way to defend yourself?
- Do you honestly think that if guns had been outlawed that incidents like Columbine would have never happened, that they wouldn't have gone to a black market arms dealer to carry out their horrifying act?
I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people, but I think extreme gun control policies would do much more harm than good. I personally think one should have the right to bear arms for protection of one's self and one's family. Your thoughts?
As an owner of the country (citizen), I'll be damned if I am going to let the hired help (Congress) tell me I can't have guns on my own property (USA).
I am for guns, like Simpleman, but I also think this particular statement requires attention. Our founding fathers have created the Amendment to serve us in a positive, and equal way, as well as a safe way. However, at the time we we're expecting further attacks form the British, and at that time, the public, WAS the millitary.
To me, I interpret this as meaning that law abiding citizens shoudl be allowed to carry firearms. A "well armed millitia" was refering to the people of the 1780-1790's, which at the time, was a PERFECT description.
If the Amendment reffers to the public, in which it did by meaning "millitia", it states that we are allowed the right to bear arms. Wheather we are a millitia anymore, or not, we are still the public. We are still what the amendment was describing.
Everything changes, I'm sure the Amendment will one day as well. But until that day, we shall follow it to the full extent of it's meaning.
----
Soybeen,
Jefferson opined that the biggest reason to keep and bear arms was to "...deter tyranny in government".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.