quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Where did he live?

It never occurred to me to ask him where did he live in the US. Does it matter? Guns are legal in any part of US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

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 . . .

This whole thread is just too funny.

So, we are to have it that all the rest of us are being 'protected' by the few who are well stocked with an abundance of full-auto rifles, as against "government oppression."

Here's the news, Rumpelstiltskin; Reagan instigated the 'government oppression' thing while your fat ass was asleep.

I used to listen to William Cooper's radio show on the short wave. That guy was well armed, no question. Look where that got him.

That's you. And if things go all to crap, I know who I am going to distance myself from very quickly, because I know who the first targets are.

But, really . . . after the economy being taken to dirt, and guys like you just stood by, and we survived anyway and are mostly back on our feet . . .

What fucking "government oppression" are you even talking about, anyway? as if you could even recognize it in the first place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

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.

there goes the more gun regulation argument...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

Myth 2
Background checks save lives, research shows.

I have been saying that for years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

Myth 3

Mental illness is behind most gun violence against others.

Kinda kills a big chunk of Obama's thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

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

I have seen studies for both sides of this argument, stating yes they do, and no they dont, but in the yes category, it seems the right to carry saves those who are the intended target, not that they can stop something like Las Vegas.

quote:

Myth No. 5
Mass shootings are random.

quote:

However, I must point out that the city of Chicago, the US city with some of the most strict gun controls in America had, for the month of September, 58 killed and 297 wounded with guns.

quote:


Then there are these exceptions to the rule that establishing total gun control is not a bad thing:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 (only for Jews and other unwanted inferior races and groups) and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:

quote:

background check laws as they currently exist

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

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:

LOL... why do you RWNJs always insist on rushing to declare victory, as if what you have to show me is just so soul-crushing and humiliating that I'll never be able to mount a response?
At the very least Nancy is using his search engine, presumably after his caregiver showed him how. I've blocked him because it seems every time I respond, he goes on frantic rants and I'm afraid that at his age, he'll have a heart attack... so I'm stuck responding to you.

But... Guns and Ammo?
Seriously?
So not only do you think you're going to find objectivity on a site called 'guns and ammo', but you're also going to find the ultimate solution to everything I could possibly say-- to the point where it will be like hitting me square in the eyes with the proverbial baseball bat?

It's not exactly a surprise, but still...

So yes, big surprise, gun advocates are going to bitch moan about how it's not fair to look into the role of guns in gun crime.
They do it every time there's a mass shooting-- 'look at his mental health', 'look at the drugs', 'look at his religious beliefs', 'look at his race' (unless he's white), etc.

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?

Italics means you? I refuse to believe that even guns and ammo could write a line so goofy.

I would imagine that a study on cigarettes shouldn't look into the actual cigarettes?
Hey... maybe all the cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc... is being caused by an allergic reaction to fire, or the stress of being socially ostracized by non-smokers!
Or maybe all of these bad things just happen and we all need to accept it as the price of freedom-- the freedom to smoke!
All we really need now is an amendment that gives everyone the right to smoke cigarettes.

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.

Wait... they have to consider injured intruders (not injured family members apparently) in a study about gun deaths?
How the fuck does this make sense?

Also, 2.5 million is bullshit:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/guns-self-defense-study_n_7608350.html

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...]

If I was the NRA, I would be doing whatever I could to make sure people bought guns, because that would be all I cared about.
If you seriously think that this mentality leads to objectivity, you're.... ahhh never mind, you don't even care about this shit.

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker.

Assuming they were actually even being attacked in the first place.
Notice how so many gun owners are always extremely paranoid?
I have.

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:

Like under 'stand your ground'?
Oh hey, wanna come over for a beer later?

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

Wow, it's like they're not even a problem.
Time for more prayer!

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:


Maybe because they are only on a state level and not federal, which means they're only as good as a state's border security.
Too bad they could build a wall between Illinois and Indiana-- it would solve a lot of Chicago's problems.

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:

Oh, I guess there's no solution then.

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

Yeah, they're usually bought legally or through straw purchases.

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

Pfff... makes you wonder why anyone even cares about those sad fuckers.
God bless the NRA for making their impulsive desperation so much more dangerous.

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.

This is just obvious bullshit. None of the research leads to the conclusions they think it leads to, they've merely twisted it around... and since they're effectively banning any REAL research, they can say whatever they want and RWNJ idiots will eat it up.

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.

Did I say there was a direct causal link? Are you so fucking simple that you need one?

The NRA promotes guns and the gun industry, fuelling a demand that increases the supply, and then the guns end up in central America.
Maybe to you this is like rocket science, but to normal people it's not hard.

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: 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:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

quote:

So blocking people with serious mental illnesses from buying guns worked ― but it didn't have a huge impact. Adding the mental health records only prevented an estimated 14 violent crimes a year, or less than one half of 1 percent of the state's overall violent crime. Why is that?
The people who were [actually disqualified from buying guns] were only 7 percent of the study population of people with serious mental illness ― and only a very, very small proportion of people at risk of engaging in violent crime.
It's like if you had a vaccine that was going to work against a particular public health epidemic, but only 7 percent of the people got the vaccine. It might work great for them, but it's not going to affect the epidemic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Just an interesting point for this discussion:
Here in Australia, where we have strict laws about guns, there is a push on for most classes of guns to be kept in gun clubs rather than at the owner's house. Obviously, exceptions such as farmers who need their weapons for pest control will be allowed. But apart from those cases where there is a practical need for weapons on site, the idea being pushed is that there is no place for guns in homes.

While this will no doubt cause some gun nuts apoplexy, there is a lot of public sympathy for this move and it may succeed. FWIW, I hope it comes to fruition. Australia is generally low crime, with a tiny murder rate compared to the US, and low stats generally on gun crimes. So the argument that householders need guns to protect themselves doesn't carry much weight here.

This illustrates perfectly the gap between the gun debates in the US and the discussion in saner places.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The main point is that everyone from every other country insists that their way is better. The United States is doing this wrong or that wrong.
Which is why even those that might agree with you people tell you all to fuck off.

• 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: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
The main point is that everyone from every other country insists that their way is better. The United States is doing this wrong or that wrong.
Which is why even those that might agree with you people tell you all to fuck off.

It's amazing when you consider all we do "wrong" in the US that we have an illegal immigration problem and have a waiting list for people who want to come here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


...
But that is beside the point.

The main point is that everyone from every other country insists that their way is better. The United States is doing this wrong or that wrong.

Which is why even those that might agree with you people tell you all to fuck off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


...
But that is beside the point.

The main point is that everyone from every other country insists that their way is better. The United States is doing this wrong or that wrong.

Which is why even those that might agree with you people tell you all to fuck off.

But of course it never happens that some US know-it-all blames whatever foreign entity (remember "Sweden" ...?) for being irresponsible retards who need some proper american-style bullying to follow the good example (the best way to win foreign sympathies for sure).

Which is why even those with sympathies for the USA feel it could be a good thing that you defend your absurd militia amendment as a justification for shooting each other wholesale. It certainly keeps the loonies occupied.

Any US historians might please answer, when your so indispensable militias saw military action after the 1860s? Fighting each other ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961


...
But that is beside the point.

The main point is that everyone from every other country insists that their way is better. The United States is doing this wrong or that wrong.

Which is why even those that might agree with you people tell you all to fuck off.

But of course it never happens that some US know-it-all blames whatever foreign entity (remember "Sweden" ...?) for being irresponsible retards who need some proper american-style bullying to follow the good example (the best way to win foreign sympathies for sure).

Which is why even those with sympathies for the USA feel it could be a good thing that you defend your absurd militia amendment as a justification for shooting each other wholesale. It certainly keeps the loonies occupied.

Any US historians might please answer, when your so indispensable militias saw military action after the 1860s? Fighting each other ...