quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military

Remember, according to the Constitution there is not supposed to be a U.S. Military beyond a navy. The U.S military as it currently exists is blatantly unconstitutional, it is based on the fiction of the biannual funding laws. The purpose of the militias was to defend the states against the federal government.

So how about you fix that blatant disregard for the Constitution before you start using one illegal entity to justify removing people's right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I believe this passage might help explain things....

quote:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Bold Mine

'parently, evils have yet to cross that line between sufferable and insufferable for enough people.

Right. We used modified turkey shooters to throw off the Brits, so now more modification of modern already 1,000-X more proficient arms as then is sufficient to worm our way around pertinent legislation and keep neighbors of nutjobs out of the discussion entirely is accomplished thereby.
Fantastic.

Context is important, Edwird.

Of course context is important.
That's why you and others quote 240 yr. old sources in speaking to modern issues, right?
And taking literally what was written eons ago and thereby contextually misappropriating it as pertinent to contemporary discussion, right?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

I don't think the NRA is racist, because they know that they are also causing guns to end up in the hands of criminal gangs in Central America.

https://newrepublic.com/article/119026/guns-fueling-immigration-central-america-come-us

There is racism on the right, but not from the NRA-- they're about selling as many guns as possible, not limiting their customer base. If the US were more like North Korea and put everyone in the military, they probably wouldn't have to do this.

They also block scientific studies into gun violence (through the GOP of course!):

https://www.livescience.com/26253-government-stifled-gun-research.html

quote:

In the 1980s and 1990s, research on gun violence in the United States was going strong. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) funded studies on gun violence, and research was bearing fruit, said Fred Rivara, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Hospital. In particular, Rivara said, agency-funded research had revealed that residents of homes with guns had a higher likelihood of violent death in the home. [The History of Human Aggression]
However, once those findings came to the attention of the National Rifle Association (NRA), a political firestorm ensued. Congress members who supported the NRA first attempted to remove all funding from the NCIPC. That failed, but Congress did manage to remove $2.6 million from the CDC's overall budget, the exact amount spent on firearm injury research in the past year, Rivara wrote Dec. 21 in a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
More chillingly, Congress added language to the budget appropriations bill forbidding any CDC funding that might "advocate or promote gun control."
"The net effect is that we don't have any research going on in the public health sector about ways to prevent gun violence," Rivara told LiveScience.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/245983-gop-panel-votes-to-keep-funding-ban-for-gun-violence-research

22 years of all research into gun violence blocked by the right... which is probably why everyone keeps wondering why this keeps happening, and nobody ever really comes up with any solid answers. Oh hey, it must be the drugs he was on. He was just a psycho. He hated Trump supporters.

Good thing there's no actual research being done that might prove it's something else!

But NRA-funded private (AKA corrupt) studies still take place, so long as they get the desired result I am sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

The article wasn't about anti-gun legislation.
The GOP killed scientific RESEARCH into gun violence.

The research was objective, they just didn't like what it was revealing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military

Remember, according to the Constitution there is not supposed to be a U.S. Military beyond a navy. The U.S military as it currently exists is blatantly unconstitutional, it is based on the fiction of the biannual funding laws. The purpose of the militias was to defend the states against the federal government.

So how about you fix that blatant disregard for the Constitution before you start using one illegal entity to justify removing people's right?

Yes but the congress in effect has the US constantly in a 'state of war' to justify what really is a peacetime army.

Just like when they pick some unfortunate rookie senator or congressman to remain in the halls as a proforma session so as to negate and any constitutional recess problems. This is to create a culture of the congress never being in recess.

Isn't that precious ? The US is always at war, so we need an army constantly.....

The congress is never in recess so the pres. can't keep fuck with them.

Like states that are constitutionally required to balance their budgets. So they create a 2nd budget they they can borrow against.

Politicians can create their own semantics and procedures to circumvent whatever they want.

Oh hey look, CS has me officially insane. Now I am one of the bunch here and should be right at home here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military

Remember, according to the Constitution there is not supposed to be a U.S. Military beyond a navy. The U.S military as it currently exists is blatantly unconstitutional, it is based on the fiction of the biannual funding laws. The purpose of the militias was to defend the states against the federal government.

So how about you fix that blatant disregard for the Constitution before you start using one illegal entity to justify removing people's right?

Yes but the congress in effect has the US constantly in a 'state of war' to justify what really is a peacetime army.

Just like when they pick some unfortunate rookie senator or congressman to remain in the halls as a proforma session so as to negate and any constitutional recess problems. This is to create a culture of the congress never being in recess.

Isn't that precious ? The US is always at war, so we need an army constantly.....

The congress is never in recess so the pres. can't keep fuck with them.

Like states that are constitutionally required to balance their budgets. So they create a 2nd budget they they can borrow against.

Politicians can create their own semantics and procedures to circumvent whatever they want.

Oh hey look, CS has me officially insane. Now I am one of the bunch here and should be right at home here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Wow, tin foil hat time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Obviously your Google skills lack and since you have no personal knowledge you often place your head up your ass. But, you seem comfortable with that so carry on.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

quote:

Most mainstream journalists argued the NRA’s opposition to CDC gun research demonstrated its fear of being contradicted by science; few—if any—cited why the NRA may have had legitimate concerns. The culture of the CDC at the time could hardly be described as lacking bias on firearms.

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Does Rosenberg sound like a man who should be trusted to conduct taxpayer-funded studies on guns?

Rosenberg’s statement coincided with a CDC study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, who argued guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The study had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed. It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually. However, the damage had been done—the “43 times” myth is perhaps gun-control advocates’ most commonly cited argument, and a lot of people still believe it to this day.

[now given those things blinker, if you were the NRA, would you trust them? or do you wanna stick by your unsubstantiated opinion that the NRA didn't like what the CDC was finding? which actually turned out to be this...]

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.

Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”

The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda.

quote:

Good thing there's no actual research being done that might prove it's something else!

quote:

But NRA-funded private (AKA corrupt) studies still take place, so long as they get the desired result I am sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

The article wasn't about anti-gun legislation.
The GOP killed scientific RESEARCH into gun violence.

The research was objective, they just didn't like what it was revealing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

WD, one thing: you should stop hassling the women here by private mail. It's really out of order.

Thanks...

<fist bump>

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

The article wasn't about anti-gun legislation.
The GOP killed scientific RESEARCH into gun violence.

The research was objective, they just didn't like what it was revealing.

quote:

Myth 1.
Gun violence in the United States is at an all-time high.

Indeed, data from the FBI indicates an alarming 32 percent increase in the number of homicides committed with firearms from 2014 to 2016. The number of robberies and aggravated assaults committed with firearms increased by 17 percent over that time. The number of people shot in mass shootings has also risen sharply in the past 12 years.

Yet the current rate of firearm violence is still far lower than in 1993, when the rate was 6.21 such deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 3.4 in 2016. The high rate in the early 1990s was linked to a variety of conditions, most notably the emergence of a large and violent market for crack cocaine. It’s too soon to determine the causes of recent increases in gun violence or whether the upward trend will continue.

quote:

Myth 2
Background checks save lives, research shows.

The concept of universal background checks enjoys rare broad support in the debate over gun violence: consistently at or near 90 percent . Large majorities of Republicans and Democrats favor the expansion of background checks to private sales and gun show sales, according to Pew. And there is solid research indicating that laws that keep guns out of the hands of high-risk individuals, such as domestic abusers and people convicted of violent crimes, reduce violence.

But there is no research indicating that background check laws as they currently exist save lives. Studies suggest that the federal Brady Law, which mandates background checks for firearm sales but exempts sales by private parties, has not been strong enough to reduce homicide rates. There is no compelling, peer-reviewed research on the effectiveness of extending background check requirements to private sales — unless those requirements are paired with a permitting or licensing system for purchasers.

quote:

Myth 3

Mental illness is behind most gun violence against others.

Research says otherwise. Only an estimated 4 percent of violence against others is caused by the symptoms of serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Impulsivity, anger, traumatic life events such as job loss or divorce, and problematic alcohol use are all stronger risk factors for gun violence . Research also shows that mental-health-care providers are poor predictors of which patients will go on to harm others. Further, most people with mental illness will never become violent, and most gun violence is not caused by mental illness.

But mental illness is a strong risk factor for firearm suicide, which accounts for the majority of gun deaths in the United States. While improving America’s mental-health system would benefit millions of people with mental illness, it would not substantially reduce gun violence against others.

quote:

Myth No. 4
Right-to-carry laws decrease crime.

Supporters of right-to-carry laws, which require the issuance of concealed-carry handgun permits to applicants who meet the criteria, often argue that carrying guns makes the public safer: The person with a gun will be able to prevent an attack or take down an active shooter. The economist John Lott wrote in his book “More Guns, Less Crime” that right-to-carry laws are correlated with decreases in violent crime.

Yet the most comprehensive study on the effects of these laws found that violent crime rates increased with each additional year such a statute was in place, presumably as more people were carrying guns. By 10 years after the adoption of a right-to-carry law, violent crime rates were 13 to 15 percent higher than predicted had such laws not been in place.

Additionally, armed civilians are rarely able to deter or interrupt various crimes or even mass shootings. In fact, in only four of the 111 mass shooting incidents analyzed by researcher Louis Klarevas did an armed civilian stop a mass shooting in progress. A separate FBI analysis revealed that unarmed civilians are more than 20 times as likely to end an active shooting than are armed civilians (excluding armed security guards).

quote:

Myth No. 5
Mass shootings are random.

High-profile tragedies like those in Las Vegas, where a motive has yet to emerge, and in Aurora, Colo., tend to support the popular notion that mass shootings are random — that there’s no connection between the killers and the targets. “Another day, another massacre, and once again it’s a gunman targeting strangers in a public place for no obvious reason,” read one Washington Post article on a mass shooting at a Louisiana movie theater in 2015.

But most mass shootings are directed at a specific person, group or institution against which the perpetrator has a grievance. A Huffington Post analysis of mass shootings — which the FBI defines as four or more people killed with a firearm, not including the perpetrator — between 2009 and July 2015 found that 57 percent of the incidents involved a perpetrator’s current or former intimate partner or a family member, and 70 percent occurred in private dwellings.

While mass shootings in public spaces that kill and wound dozens or even hundreds of people receive plenty of media attention, smaller-scale gun violence occurs with far too much regularity in the United States, claiming nearly 100 lives every day. Most killers, including those who perpetrate mass shootings, aren’t trying to murder strangers but are targeting people they know well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Obviously your Google skills lack and since you have no personal knowledge you often place your head up your ass. But, you seem comfortable with that so carry on.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/

nnanji, you might be wanting to give comrade blinker a gentle nudge in the right direction but id rather hit him square in the eyes with the proverbial baseball bat.

so here you go blinker:

quote:

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Does Rosenberg sound like a man who should be trusted to conduct taxpayer-funded studies on guns?

quote:


Rosenberg’s statement coincided with a CDC study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, who argued guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The study had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed. It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually. However, the damage had been done—the “43 times” myth is perhaps gun-control advocates’ most commonly cited argument, and a lot of people still believe it to this day.

quote:


[now given those things blinker, if you were the NRA, would you trust them? or do you wanna stick by your unsubstantiated opinion that the NRA didn't like what the CDC was finding? which actually turned out to be this...]

quote:


Why No One Has Heard This
Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.

Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”

The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda.

quote:

also, please demonstrate the direct causal link between guns ending up in central America and the NRA.

otherwise, well, we'll just continue to judge you have the academic skills of an elementary school dropout.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

While I have seen on these boards the arguments that the term militia as addressed in the 2nd amendment no longer applies because . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

FR
Here is a simple logic to why, guns technically don't make you safer.

So, if I was in a gun free country, this scenario could never possible. The scenario is, being law-abiding and stopping at a red light in your car. And having someone walk up to your side window and point a gun at you.

In this scenario, thanks to guns easy availability. The bad guy managed to get hold of a gun. And thanks to that, the good guys now need guns.

Because if I didn't have a gun, i couldn't shoot the fucker back for pointing a gun at me or maybe show him I have the bigger gun!

All this started because he got a gun!

Imagine if there is no guns. Then, if someone comes by your side window with a knife or a crowbar threatening you, you step on the pedal and drive away.

With the gun, there is more fear that, it could hit you before you could drive away.

So technically, it's like a crime problem started by guns, which can only be solved by guns.

And then you create more dangerous problems like, people start just driving through red lights if it's late and at night, because they are afraid of being robbed by gun point, if they stopped for red lights, even gun owners probably will do it to just avoid a gun confrontation.

I had a Indian friend. He was from India that went to work in the US before he moved to Singapore. He said he got robbed at gun point 5 times, in 4 years he lived there.

2 times was in his car, stopping at red lights in a deserted road.

And 3 times, was just at his door, while trying to open the door to his apartment, someone walked up to him and point a gun at his head.

It's like things like this don't happen in my country at all!

Maybe he was a targeted minority, I don't know. Easy to rob. He never got shot, he always co-operated and just gave the robber everything he had.

I find that very scary to live like that. Having to worry about these things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Where did he live?