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.
That is so peculiar. I'm not opposed to gun research or car research. But the CDC, I just don't get it. May as well have the DMV study brain cancer lol.
It wasn't hard to come to that conclusion, either.
Police should not be armed and by extension neither should the Secret Service. Not because armed protection has failed at times, but because armed protection fails all the time. When it hasn't failed, it hasn't been needed. That is about 99.9% of the time.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Even in England where guns are very restricted, they have moved to arm their police officers for a reason.
Quote:
What about them. It was very commonly thought that seat belts were dangerous because being thrown clear from a serious collision was better than being trapped in the wreckage. In the vast majority of situations that gun advocates claim are "self-defense" the attacker was armed with something other than a gun, or not even armed at all! That just should not be. Absolutely, having a gun in a country where a majority of everyone else including those predisposed to violent crime are unarmed, seems like a desirable state of affairs. If there was no collateral damage to innocents we would not be having this discussion. But that is not the case. The chances of doing something heroic with your gun are very, very small. There is a much greater (though still small) risk that your gun will end up doing something tragic, with or without you.
Let me quote what a Chicago detective had told me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Interesting conversation about guns with a 20 year veteran Chicago Detective yesterday at the gym.... I asked him if he believes that law abiding citizens should own guns (anywhere from pistols to AR15's). He said yes absolutely. He went on to say that criminals already have them and that there are no way you can take all of them off the streets. He also said that he "personally" interviewed murderers and armed home invaders, who get "happy" when they see their victim "armed only with a bat", because they know that they have no chance against a gun. He blames the court system for not throwing the book at violent armed offenders who get light to even no sentences, and then are back on the streets to repeat....
Btw, he's out of the Austin district which is basically hell on earth.
That is a smug, arrogant and insensitive POV, and sort of informs my opinion of why there is so much tragedy swirling around those who choose to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms. You're right. I don't like it. You are right again, there is presently nothing that is being done about it.
Sorry you are the one that is arrogant and insensitive to a right that I have specifically stated in the Constitution as you want to severely restrict my right or eliminate it all together (which one is it?).
Quote:
Have you not noticed, however, that that is changing? The very arrogance and insensitivity of gun owners and advocates, and their overly literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as some kind of mandate, is one of the factors motivating those who seek to revisit the Sacred Writ of the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution and drag it, kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.
please don't go there... Kennedy... Reagan...numerous local and state police officers... ... the number one fail of gun advocates is that guns are any defense...
There was a day, that if I offended you and you had no tolerance for it, you could legally challenge me to a due, with matched pistols(cap & ball) at an agreed upon distance from one another.
When your mortality can be challenged for what you say, you may not be so bold to tell lies.
I can't help but notice that while there is a phrase 'shall not be infringed' in the 2nd Amendment, there's also no word such as 'ammunition' in said amendment.
See how strict interpretation works?
It is not arms, without cap & ball.(see Militia Act)
It does not say the right to keep and bear a metal and wooden club.
That issue has been settle long ago. They have gotten a supreme court to say some ammo is illegal(shall not be infringed and all that)
The very government we told not to mess with our arms, made damn sure we didn't have the arms they soon acquired. The 2nd amendment doesn't say, the right of the government to keep & bear arms. No where, so it must have been left to the 10th amendment and states could have arms.... Wait?? Before the Civil War, it was just like that. The Federal Government power was all state militia.
The New York 51st Battalion Virgina 33rd Regiment. Maryland 12th Calvary. Alabama 3rd.......
Y'know what's strange? Gun homicides in the US have been decreasing since the peak in 1993.
Although I don't think it's as clear what factors are responsible for the decrease. If these factors were easily identified, I think most folks would be willing to consider.
Guess what happened February 28, 1994.... Just guess.
HINT: Leading up to this date above, is a comparison what happened when the word of limiting our choices again, always gets out. 1933 was a stellar year for fully automatic weapon sales.
When more guns are sold, the murder rate always goes down.
Guess what happened February 28, 1994.... Just guess.
HINT: Leading up to this date above, is a comparison what happened when the word of limiting our choices again, always gets out. 1933 was a stellar year for fully automatic weapon sales.
When more guns are sold, the murder rate always goes down.
Most everyone in this thread has. Fact is the whole premise of this thread is "Shall Not Be Infringed!!!!!" and stands for the concept that any restriction on any form of gun ownership and any current gun restriction on the books is unconstitutional. No restrictions of any kind, any where, for any reason, is really their agenda. You need to read the thread better and every pro gun thread ever started on CD.
They cloud the argument of mandatory background checks at gun shows proposed by Obama, by claiming it's against the meaning of the 2nd amendment and is really the federal government taking away everyone's firearms. Every law or reasonable restriction ever proposed is always twisted to "They are taking away everyone's guns."
Truth is, no law has ever been passed in America that proposed taking away everyone's guns.
There is a very good reason, it is the only amendment in the entire constitution, that has that little section. They knew the new government they were about to allow to exist, would get too powerful, like all governments do. This was a new thing. Free people. They were not about to throw themselves, as the servant of another tyrannical government.
Government has acted more and more like that little phrase does not exist at all. It doesn't mean what it actually says. They have convinced the ignorant, by making them more ignorant, that it says something totally different than it meant when it was drafted, after a bloody war with the very weapons used to oppress them with, to defeat tyranny.
The very weapons used to oppress them with.
The very weapons used to oppress them with.
The very weapons used to oppress them with.
The very weapons used to oppress them with.
The very weapons used to oppress them with.
The very weapons used to oppress them with.
The very weapons used to oppress them with.
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.
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.
