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.
Assigning sides? Open your eyes dude, look around, grow up, and realize which "side" automatically labels anyone who tries to talk about preventing these massacres from happening as "liberal gun grabbers". I own a number of guns, from shotguns to rifles to a handgun. And yet some fool just a few posts ago insists I am a liberal trying to slowly but completely disarm him because I think we should look harder at dealing with ONE specific type of gun. I don't need lectures on assigning sides,I get assigned a side by the nutters for simply not supporting their right to own a 100 AR15 clones.
If you allow prejudice to exist against one, you welcome it to all. It could be plausible you own what you claim. You also probably feel the same sentiment that gee... what's good for me is good for thee...
That's called an elitist. Mocking and Insulting those who own what you are fearful of or angry about is not conducive to your cause or argument.
But your own words were you realize the chances of these types of events are slim to none. Did you not? So you flip flop and move the goal posts because there are far more significant ways of having life extinguished at the hands of another be it by a gun be it by a car be it by a commercial air liner. So if you acknowledge the risk is still small, and not so widespread and massive, how can you support such a ban or restriction?
How?
Not only how can you, but why would you if you even admit to saying the chances and risk are negligible? Because it justifies your anger? That you get to take it out on someone? Because it feels good? That you may have your will or opinion legislated onto others.
The one "specific type of gun" your referring to is hardly ever used in gun violence, The rare occasion it is used is sensationalized by the media.
Handguns account for the vast majority of gun violence in this country.
One way to curb that violence would be to do away with Plea bargains and have harsh mandatory sentences for all gun crimes, No more bleeding heart liberal judges giving out time served sentences to gang bangers, or fat lazy DA's letting future murders walk away with with a misdemeanor for stealing a law abiding citizens gun.
So what do you say? do you really want to bring down gun violence? or do you only really want to do away with those scary black rifles.
RR
P.S. The fact that you refer to it as a AR15 clone shows that you have no knowledge of the weapon, The AR15 is an AR15, in fact the AR was first built as a civilian weapon and was adopted by the military with the addition of a full auto ability, So I guess technically the military is using an AR15 clone.
Technically, AR15 was Colt's actual name for it's rifle. All other manufacturers variants are just referred to that out of simplicity and habit.
some interesting stats and graphs regarding gun violence in America vs other places.
IMO we need stricter gun laws. What we have right now isn't working and the amount of gun deaths is staggering.
Are you comparing only to specific countries, or are you including groups that commit terrorist acts with guns (as well as machete's, bombs, and knives)? I think you're dealing with skewed information that does not take into consideration the fact that there are terrorist that enter a country and use guns.
America does not have "unique gun violence." What does that even mean? We are infested with gangs from outside our borders that use guns, and we have Chicago gangs that kill a lot of people that Demorats turn a blind eye too.
So, what point are you trying to make? Most (if not all) school shootings take place in schools designated "gun free zones." That should tell you something.
As for "stricter gun laws," the Constitution gives no authority to the Federal Government to regulate firearms. None!
Are you comparing only to specific countries, or are you including groups that commit terrorist acts with guns (as well as machete's, bombs, and knives)? I think you're dealing with skewed information that does not take into consideration the fact that there are terrorist that enter a country and use guns.
America does not have "unique gun violence." What does that even mean? We are infested with gangs from outside our borders that use guns, and we have Chicago gangs that kill a lot of people that Demorats turn a blind eye too.
So, what point are you trying to make? Most (if not all) school shootings take place in schools designated "gun free zones." That should tell you something.
As for "stricter gun laws," the Constitution gives no authority to the Federal Government to regulate firearms. None!
Laws do not prevent crime.
"Skewed information"? So by that, do you mean something you don't understand or refuse to?
Let me spell it out for you: each and every developed country in this world has a lower gun death rate and a lower overall homicide death rate than US, by a LOT. And many other countries too.
Gangs? Where do they get their guns from?
"Laws do not prevent crime". Ok, got it, so you prefer no laws. Well, I have quite a few countries you can move to. I hear in Afghanistan, you can have as many AK-47s as you want. Sounds good?
Are you comparing only to specific countries, or are you including groups that commit terrorist acts with guns (as well as machete's, bombs, and knives)? I think you're dealing with skewed information that does not take into consideration the fact that there are terrorist that enter a country and use guns.
America does not have "unique gun violence." What does that even mean? We are infested with gangs from outside our borders that use guns, and we have Chicago gangs that kill a lot of people that Demorats turn a blind eye too.
So, what point are you trying to make? Most (if not all) school shootings take place in schools designated "gun free zones." That should tell you something.
As for "stricter gun laws," the Constitution gives no authority to the Federal Government to regulate firearms. None!
Laws do not prevent crime.
Good article. The second chart actually makes me feel safe (good luck to any country that might be thinking about trying to invade the United States). But it all indicates what I would suggest. We need better controls.
The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't think so. After studying the history and philosophy of Governments for many years, they concluded that Americans would be much better off with no regulations on guns at all, than with a government that had the authority to restrict citizens' guns.
In 1789, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them.
Most of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and later added the Bill of Rights, were students of the history of government and the abuses it could inflict. And they knew that government after government had long records of disarming their own people, and then later inflicting serious abuse and oppression on them, sometimes even leading to mass murders of their own subjects.
Our own Revolutionary war started in 1775 at Concord and Lexington, Mass., when soldiers of the British government tried to confiscate privately-owned weapons of the colonists.
And even when we have an event where someone in our country grabs a gun and starts shooting, sometimes killing many innocent people, it remains a fact that there would be a lot MORE innocent people injured or dead if government had the power to take away or restrict our guns and other weapons. How many more potential muggers, rapists, and murderers would decide to commit their crimes if they were sure that nobody in the crowd could possibly have a gun of their own?
Today, far more such crimes are committed in so-called "gun free zone", where there are alws forbidding the carrying of guns in the area. Such laws protect the rapist or murderer from danger, of course, while disarming only the law-abiding.
And yet every time we have a shooting, whether it's in San Bernardino, Columbine High School, Georgia disco, Ft. Hood military base, or now Las Vegas, the same panic-stricken talking heads do their best to throw the baby out with the bath water. They demand we give our government the authority to restrict or ban some or all of our guns.
Now, as floods follow a hurricane, they are doing the same thing again. Don't these people ever learn? Have they ever even bothered examining the reasons why the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and BOR, decided unanimously to forbid all governments in the U.S. from infringing our right to own and carry guns? Despite their having just as much trouble with nutcases and guns then, as we do now?
If these shortsighted people get their way, we will see a lot more Americans oppressed, injured, and killed that we ever have outside of outright war. And if other governments' actions are anything to go by, our government could yet exceed even that total, if they get even a little authority. Because history also demonstrates that if you give them an inch they will eventually take a mile.
The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't think so. After studying the history and philosophy of Governments for many years, they concluded that Americans would be much better off with no regulations on guns at all, than with a government that had the authority to restrict citizens' guns.
In 1789, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them.
Most of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and later added the Bill of Rights, were students of the history of government and the abuses it could inflict. And they knew that government after government had long records of disarming their own people, and then later inflicting serious abuse and oppression on them, sometimes even leading to mass murders of their own subjects.
Our own Revolutionary war started in 1775 at Concord and Lexington, Mass., when soldiers of the British government tried to confiscate privately-owned weapons of the colonists.
And even when we have an event where someone in our country grabs a gun and starts shooting, sometimes killing many innocent people, it remains a fact that there would be a lot MORE innocent people injured or dead if government had the power to take away or restrict our guns and other weapons. How many more potential muggers, rapists, and murderers would decide to commit their crimes if they were sure that nobody in the crowd could possibly have a gun of their own?
Today, far more such crimes are committed in so-called "gun free zone", where there are alws forbidding the carrying of guns in the area. Such laws protect the rapist or murderer from danger, of course, while disarming only the law-abiding.
And yet every time we have a shooting, whether it's in San Bernardino, Columbine High School, Georgia disco, Ft. Hood military base, or now Las Vegas, the same panic-stricken talking heads do their best to throw the baby out with the bath water. They demand we give our government the authority to restrict or ban some or all of our guns.
Now, as floods follow a hurricane, they are doing the same thing again. Don't these people ever learn? Have they ever even bothered examining the reasons why the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and BOR, decided unanimously to forbid all governments in the U.S. from infringing our right to own and carry guns? Despite their having just as much trouble with nutcases and guns then, as we do now?
If these shortsighted people get their way, we will see a lot more Americans oppressed, injured, and killed that we ever have outside of outright war. And if other governments' actions are anything to go by, our government could yet exceed even that total, if they get even a little authority. Because history also demonstrates that if you give them an inch they will eventually take a mile.
Some people don't get it, or just hate freedom and liberty and think Uncle Sam should provide them with everything they see fit. Maybe there is some truth that schools are puppy mill indoctrination centers that soften kids up? Maybe there's some truth in schools not teaching history, but an adaptation of history. For if the dinks of my generation read anything of history and studied what truly fascist and evil regimes were all about... they'd be praying the government never had control over their weapons.
That should raise alot of flags, ring alot of bells, sound many alarms, that there is a problem with today's society. I wasn't around for the 40s 50s 60s 70s.
But if I had to guess... I wouldn't doubt the degenerate hippies from my parents era had a huge part in the decline of America.
Their use of dope
Their sleep around carelessness
Their commie sentiment...
The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't think so. After studying the history and philosophy of Governments for many years, they concluded that Americans would be much better off with no regulations on guns at all, than with a government that had the authority to restrict citizens' guns.
In 1789, the Framers decided more people would suffer and die if govt had ANY authority to restrict or take away guns, than if the govt were forbidden to restrict or ban any of them.
Most of the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and later added the Bill of Rights, were students of the history of government and the abuses it could inflict. And they knew that government after government had long records of disarming their own people, and then later inflicting serious abuse and oppression on them, sometimes even leading to mass murders of their own subjects.
Our own Revolutionary war started in 1775 at Concord and Lexington, Mass., when soldiers of the British government tried to confiscate privately-owned weapons of the colonists.
And even when we have an event where someone in our country grabs a gun and starts shooting, sometimes killing many innocent people, it remains a fact that there would be a lot MORE innocent people injured or dead if government had the power to take away or restrict our guns and other weapons. How many more potential muggers, rapists, and murderers would decide to commit their crimes if they were sure that nobody in the crowd could possibly have a gun of their own?
Today, far more such crimes are committed in so-called "gun free zone", where there are alws forbidding the carrying of guns in the area. Such laws protect the rapist or murderer from danger, of course, while disarming only the law-abiding.
And yet every time we have a shooting, whether it's in San Bernardino, Columbine High School, Georgia disco, Ft. Hood military base, or now Las Vegas, the same panic-stricken talking heads do their best to throw the baby out with the bath water. They demand we give our government the authority to restrict or ban some or all of our guns.
Now, as floods follow a hurricane, they are doing the same thing again. Don't these people ever learn? Have they ever even bothered examining the reasons why the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and BOR, decided unanimously to forbid all governments in the U.S. from infringing our right to own and carry guns? Despite their having just as much trouble with nutcases and guns then, as we do now?
If these shortsighted people get their way, we will see a lot more Americans oppressed, injured, and killed that we ever have outside of outright war. And if other governments' actions are anything to go by, our government could yet exceed even that total, if they get even a little authority. Because history also demonstrates that if you give them an inch they will eventually take a mile.
I don't believe that is actually true. At the time of the Constitution the regulation of firearms was common and was not expected to be changed by the Constitution. The intent was militias capable of overthrowing an oppressive government. Not a guarantee that any individual had a right to any arm they desired.
I don't believe that is actually true. At the time of the Constitution the regulation of firearms was common and was not expected to be changed by the Constitution. The intent was militias capable of overthrowing an oppressive government. Not a guarantee that any individual had a right to any arm they desired.
Maybe a reason why the homicide rate was nearly 5X what it is today back in 1787?
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,441 posts, read 8,675,200 times
Reputation: 16852
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
Assigning sides? Open your eyes dude, look around, grow up, and realize which "side" automatically labels anyone who tries to talk about preventing these massacres from happening as "liberal gun grabbers". I own a number of guns, from shotguns to rifles to a handgun. And yet some fool just a few posts ago insists I am a liberal trying to slowly but completely disarm him because I think we should look harder at dealing with ONE specific type of gun. I don't need lectures on assigning sides,I get assigned a side by the nutters for simply not supporting their right to own a 100 AR15 clones.
This doesn't make sense. You are okay with banning ar15s, but why? They are no more dangerous or capable than your shotguns and rifles you claim to own. I guess you're okay with it because you get to keep your types of guns and to hell with the rest of the gun owners.
Once the anti gun people realize that your rifles are every bit as dangerous they will look to ban them. Then you'll want support to keep your guns,don't be surprised when you don't get it from ar15 owners you threw under the bus.
Next they will come for your hanguns you claim to own since those have been proven to kill more than ar15s.
You see where this going?
It's not like they are trying to ban full auto rifles, just semi auto rifle like millions own. They just look scary to those that don't know better.
Based on what you've posted I doubt you even own guns. You just say it so it sounds like you're a gun owner who agrees with the anti gunners for the bans.
Sorry, do better next time.
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.
