Printable View
[QUOTE=Black Shirt;430491]With the SS costs of living cuts down the road, I am going to have to abandon my penis enlargement surgery and also my dream of buying a harem.[/QUOTE]You're just upset about those 19 Uzbek chickies that got popped over on Soi 3 the other night. Don't worry, I'm sure there's more where they came from.:)
[QUOTE=Doggboy;430496]You're just upset about those 19 Uzbek chickies that got popped over on Soi 3 the other night. Don't worry, I'm sure there's more where they came from.:)[/QUOTE]I can't hide anything from you. By the way, congrats on winning the AP Pulitzer prize for 2012.
Traveling overseas, I often get asked: 'What's wrong with you people over there killing each other with guns all the time? '
What's there to say other than saying: 'We have that right to bear arms? It is written in our Constitution? '
With the typical Republican TEA Party members reacting like Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas "wishing" that the now deceased Principal of the Newtown Elementary School in Connecticut "had a M-1 Assault Rifle in her office to use" or the delusional GOP Governor of Texas, Rick Perry stating: "let teachers carry concealed weapons" one really has to wonder. What's this fixation with guns?
Maybe I should carry a gun when visiting my dentist, my mechanic, or GOD forbid - the DMV? Or, how about the Post Office? Yes, let all those Postal workers walk around with guns as well!
When approximately 40% of the gun sales in the US do not require a criminal background check, that is wrong and idiotic. (i.e., gun auctions, private sales, etc)
When there are laws that allow a citizen to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus, church, bar, etc – that is ludicrous.
When there are laws allowing citizens to use and have armor-piercing ammunition, well, let's just say that is absurd.
With RED states like Wyoming that are actually considering the legal use of silencers?
I say: "God Bless America."
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28615[/ATTACH]
Los Angeles Times, "Wyoming Lawmakers to Decide on Silencers" 12/1/12
[QUOTE=Moveon; 430508]Traveling overseas, I often get asked: 'What's wrong with you people over there killing each other with guns all the time? '
What's there to say other than saying: 'We have that right to bear arms? It is written in our Constitution? '
With the typical Republican TEA Party members reacting like Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas "wishing" that the now deceased Principal of the Newtown Elementary School in Connecticut "had a M-1 Assault Rifle in her office to use" or the delusional GOP Governor of Texas, Rick Perry stating: "let teachers carry concealed weapons" one really has to wonder. What's this fixation with guns?
Maybe I should carry a gun when visiting my dentist, my mechanic, or GOD forbid. The DMV? Or, how about the Post Office? Yes, let all those Postal workers walk around with guns as well!
When approximately 40% of the gun sales in the US do not require a criminal background check, that is wrong and idiotic. (I. E, gun auctions, private sales, etc)
When there are laws that allow a citizen to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus, church, bar, etc – that is ludicrous.
When there are laws allowing citizens to use and have armor-piercing ammunition, well, let's just say that is absurd.
With RED states like Wyoming that are actually considering the legal use of silencers?
I say: "God Bless America."
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28615[/ATTACH]
Los Angeles Times,"Wyoming Lawmakers to Decide on Silencers" 12/1/12[/QUOTE]Think about it
[QUOTE=Rocky2;430514]You want only the bad guys armed[/QUOTE]Yeah, current laws allow citizens to carry guns so they can take out people who go on shooting rampages, that's really working well isn't it.
[QUOTE=Esten;430518]Yeah, current laws allow citizens to carry guns so they can take out people who go on shooting rampages, that's really working well isn't it.[/QUOTE]Right to own in your home vs right to carry / concealed carry so you can be armed at the right time (or all the time) to try and interdict the rampager are two totally separate issues. Many recent rampage events including latest one in CT occurred on grounds where state or local institutional regs (eg school board employment rules) prevented adult residents from being armed in the first place.
You're trying to imply that rampages have happened in concealed carry states with significant portion of state residents freely able to carry and not blocked by local employment regs whether the state allows it but yet was unable to and hence carrying firearms don't help.
Can you name an example please where a rampage occurred in an unrestricted gun control state and where the local institution didn't restrict armed carry and therefore where these hapless armed adult residents did nothing to prevent the crime?
(As opposed to aforementioned Texas where you hear about citizens shooting a gun toting criminal in the act of committing a crime all the time)
[QUOTE=Dickhead;430528]Are you drunk? I can barely understand you. You need see Vanna White and buy some commas. But Columbine qualifies. CO is pretty unrestricted and Englewood has no further restrictions beyond CO. And anyway, what difference does it make what the state law is if your mother is a fucking gun nut and has 20 guns for you to choose from? Why would it matter? And unless we enact customs-like borders between the states, what does it matter if it is unrestricted in one state vs. Restricted in another? Does the name Virginia have any significance to you? Like now pot is legal in WA; good luck keeping it out of Idaho. Guns, same thing.[/QUOTE]
Why open with such a provocation when I have directed none at you?
Esten made the allegation that citizens toting guns has made no difference in the outcome of rampage shootings. Implying that there were situations where rampages occurred in locations where people actually were or at least had unrestricted rights to be armed yet failed to prevent or deter.
Quote. "Yeah, current laws allow citizens to carry guns so they can take out people who go on shooting rampages, that's really working well isn't it."
My sole point was that in my opinion Esten's statement saying armed residents have made no difference is not valid unless there is sufficient examples where rampages occurred at a location with armed residents.
Columbine does not qualify because regardless of CO state carry laws, the school had a no firearms on premise regs and hence no teachers had the unrestricted choice to be armed. May still not have made a difference but that wasn't my point. If someone is going to say having X present failed to prevent Y occurring, then it's reasonable to ask show us sufficient examples where X indeed was there.
You're right Mpexy, it's a more complicated argument and it depends on local gun laws.
I'm just talking to this general argument that gun ownership is a good thing because it deters or stops crime. Some may argue we need more freedom to own and carry guns, but I have no interest in that debate. I am tired of the almost daily news stories of people getting injured or killed by guns, let alone the massacres. I do not see how more guns will have a significant benefit. I think we need very, very strict gun laws and they need to be enforced.
And once again, as I've said before, this is another area where Americans suffer at the hands of the GOP.
A game of one upmanship of the latest idiot from both sides of the political aisle that gets caught red handed against their stated principles is one neither side can win.
There has always been politicians from both sides proclaiming themselves as family values icons, then falling spectacularly from grace, unless you are conveniently ignoring the suck ass democrat family values politicos along with the suck ass conservatives.
Example. Couple months ago, self proclaimed family values senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) put out a campaign commercial touting his family values over his repub opponent. Five days later the story broke re: his mongering in the Dominican Repub because the idiot clashed with couple of hookers over not paying their fee.
That doesn't make democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives, any worse or better than the other in my opinion. Seems there are just as many suck ass hypocrites on both sides.
Do you ever have any original thoughts?
No Posts since then.
Let the New Year Begin.
Down with Ruling Class, AKA the Republicans.
Check This:
WAR + Bush's debt.
On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'the like to know.
[url]http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/san-antonio-theater-shooting/[/url]
[url]http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX[/url]
Since the Sandy Hook shootings, there have been over 400 people killed with guns in the USA.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 430895]On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!
Now aren't you wondering why this isn't a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?
There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.
Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you'the like to know.
[url]http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/san-antonio-theater-shooting/[/url]
[url]http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php#ixzz2GOP72zBX[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;430897]Since the Sandy Hook shootings, there have been over 400 people killed with guns in the USA.[/QUOTE]Such hypocrisy.
In the same period of time, more than 4,200 people were killed in car accidents, but I don't hear you suggesting that we take away everyone's cars.
Oh wait, I forgot. You're from San Francisco, so you probably do believe that we should all be riding bicycles everywhere.
Jackson
[QUOTE=Jackson; 430899]Such hypocrisy.
In the same period of time, more than 4, 200 people were killed in car accidents, but I don't hear you suggesting that we take away everyone's cars.
Oh wait, I forgot. You're from San Francisco, so you probably do believe that we should all be riding bicycles.
Jackson[/QUOTE]During my residency years at a major metro hospital trauma unit, for every one gsw there were a hell of a lot more stabbings.
You'd have to add kitchen and utility knives to the banned cars following WT69's logic.
And sure, knives are less efficient than guns. But same time period as Sandy Hook, crazed Chinese guy in China stabbed 22 kids in a school, with a knife. My point is crazy idiots need to be stopped, preferably by an armed on-site citizen who can at least have option to defend themselves rather than constantly ban what only law aiding citizens are going to follow as ban rules
[QUOTE=Mpexy; 430901]During my residency years at a major metro hospital trauma unit, for every one gsw there were a hell of a lot more stabbings.
You'd have to add kitchen and utility knives to the banned cars following WT69's logic.
And sure, knives are less efficient than guns. But same time period as Sandy Hook, crazed Chinese guy in China stabbed 22 kids in a school, with a knife. My point is crazy idiots need to be stopped, preferably by an armed on-site citizen who can at least have option to defend themselves rather than constantly ban what only law aiding citizens are going to follow as ban rules[/QUOTE]Ever notice that there are no rampage shootings at gun shows? Hmmm, wonder why
A gun analogy with cars seems ridiculous. Cars have a clear and practical utility for most people and in some cases are a necessity. Whereas, the vast majority of people do not need a gun in their daily lives.
There's a perceived function of protection, that sometimes is demonstrated like in the San Antonio story below (though that involved an off-duty police officer, who nobody is disputing would be qualified to carry a gun). The main question is, how many lives are saved vs. killed from gun ownership by the general population (not including law enforcement) ? I'll bet for every story like San Antonio, there are 10 or 100 stories of someone getting killed. That alone would be enough to make the case for a broad ban on guns.
Yes the pro-gun San Antonio story only got local media coverage. But there are thousands of stories of gun deaths that also only get local coverage. What about the 17-year-old who was shot to death in Queens on December 29 ? Bet you never heard that one either.
Some facts:
- Someone with a gun in their home is twice as likely to be murdered in their home as someone without.
- A young man is 10 times as likely to kill himself if there is a gun in the home.
- A woman is only five times as likely to kill herself when a gun is present, but women are three times as likely to be murdered by a family member if there is a gun in the home.
It's a simple question: [b][i]Does the harm outweigh the good? [/i][/b] I bet it's by a mile.
[QUOTE=Esten; 430919]A gun analogy with cars seems ridiculous. Cars have a clear and practical utility for most people and in some cases are a necessity. Whereas, the vast majority of people do not need a gun in their daily lives.[/quote]Esten's points are well taken however they have nothing to do with an individual and you can't say that an individual with a gun at his house is 5 times more likely etc. You can't apply a population statistic to an individual. I'll give you an example:
A researcher studied Brad Pitt and his crew at a bar and found they were 95% likely to pick up the chick of their choice. My fat butt went to the same bar expecting to have 95% likelihood as well but struck out again and again. The point is you have to know the population studied. You have to know that the population studied is statistically similar to the population you are talking about before you can even claim to know the population's risk but even then you can't predict an individuals risk with certainty at all.
Frankly the vast majority of gun murders in the US are committed by prior felons who are already breaking the law in many ways including by possessing a weapon. Many of the others are committed by insane people with history of mental health issues meaning they also are breaking the law if they possess a weapon.
If you want to stop gun violence keep all violent criminals in jail after their first offense and take dangerous mentally unstable people off the streets. Consider all gang members as enemies of the state and remove them and you will drop the murder rate by 75. Over 500 murders a year in Chicago with the strictist gun laws in the country and people pretend all we need is a few more restrictions on law abiding citizens and no one will ever be killed.
By the way the Constitution guarantees personal / individual freedoms and no one should try to take away an individual's personal freedom based upon a population statistical argument that just doesn't hold any water at all. If you want to start this the slippery slope will take away your other freedoms as well. For example, freedom of speech would be gone long before the second amendment is touched as most GSWs occur after someone opens their mouth and free speech regularly puts individuals and groups at risk. Although US leaders all swear to uphold the Constitution, many openly hate the fact it "gets in their way."
Pete
Come On Jackson. How many killed in Cars, were intentional?
I don't mind people owning guns, so long as they are sane.
How did that nut at the school get an assault rife?
Did his mother buy it to protect herself from him?
If she did, it looks like that didn't go well.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 430899]Such hypocrisy.
In the same period of time, more than 4, 200 people were killed in car accidents, but I don't hear you suggesting that we take away everyone's cars.
Oh wait, I forgot. You're from San Francisco, so you probably do believe that we should all be riding bicycles everywhere.
Jackson[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Esten;430919]Cars have a clear and practical utility for most people and in some cases are a necessity.[/QUOTE]Lots of people feel exactly that way about guns.
Anyway, let's get it out on the table: Exactly what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?
Personally, I think we have enough gun laws. What we need to do is enforce the laws we have now.
What say you?
Thanks,
Jackson
Here is what a person wrote in the S. F. Chronicle. I tend to agree.
"Fix the 2nd Amendment.
Since our Supreme Court failed in upholding the true meaning of the Militia Amendment (the Second) , the time has come for states to vote to repeal this grossly misinterpreted and antiquated provision and replace it with an updated and better-defined constitutional provision that anticipates the killing technologies of the future and one that the majority of citizens and responsible licensed gun owners agree upon: Individuals who are not enlisted in a public or government protection agency may not possess arms or any type of weapon designed for mass killing and destruction."
[QUOTE=Jackson; 430924]Lots of people feel exactly that way about guns.
Anyway, let's get it out on the table: Exactly what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?
Personally, I think we have enough gun laws. What we need to do is enforce the laws we have now.
What say you?
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 430929]Here is what a person wrote in the S. F. Chronicle. I tend to agree.
"Fix the 2nd Amendment.
Since our Supreme Court failed in upholding the true meaning of the Militia Amendment (the Second) , the time has come for states to vote to repeal this grossly misinterpreted and antiquated provision and replace it with an updated and better-defined constitutional provision that anticipates the killing technologies of the future and one that the majority of citizens and responsible licensed gun owners agree upon: Individuals who are not enlisted in a public or government protection agency may not possess arms or any type of weapon designed for mass killing and destruction."[/QUOTE]The second amendment is [b]Not Broken[/b], it protects the [b][u]Individual Right[/b][/u] to keep and bear arms just as the framers intended, the Supreme court got it right.
Your S. F. Chronicle quote is just more Left-Wing BS, leave the Constitution alone!
Fix the society that creates these nutjobs.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 430929]Here is what a person wrote in the S. F. Chronicle. I tend to agree.
"Fix the 2nd Amendment.
Since our Supreme Court failed in upholding the true meaning of the Militia Amendment (the Second) , the time has come for states to vote to repeal this grossly misinterpreted and antiquated provision and replace it with an updated and better-defined constitutional provision that anticipates the killing technologies of the future and one that the majority of citizens and responsible licensed gun owners agree upon: Individuals who are not enlisted in a public or government protection agency may not possess arms or any type of weapon designed for mass killing and destruction."[/QUOTE]I'm glad George Washington and crew had access to firearms, firearms come in handly when a revolution is needed against a tyrannical government. That is why the 2nd ammendment is there in the 1st place.
[QUOTE=Silver Star;430934]I'm glad George Washington and crew had access to firearms, firearms come in handly when a revolution is needed against a tyrannical government. That is why the 2nd ammendment is there in the 1st place.[/QUOTE]I just wonder how we "citizens" can stop a government's army with our guns at home. Just curious!
Article printed in the New York Times.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0[/url]
[i]'Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion. '
'In 2010, 10, 228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
Of the 1, 210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.
In 2010, over 1. 4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among USA adults each year.
Drugs other than alcohol (e. G, marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol. '[/i]
Should we make alcohol illegal and have stronger punishment for drug use?
[QUOTE=Punter 127; 430939][i]'Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 48 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion. '
'In 2010, 10, 228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
Of the 1, 210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.
Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.
In 2010, over 1. 4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among USA adults each year.
Drugs other than alcohol (e. G, marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol. '[/i]
Should we make alcohol illegal and have stronger punishment for drug use?[/QUOTE]Just wonder why all these people get drunk, drugged, crazy, etc.
If we believed that guns, cars, or others things don't kill people, maybe either education or 'extremely strong laws' may do the job.
If we ask one of the parents who had a kid that had been killed by these criminals, may give us a clue of what to do. It depends on who you ask and when. One thing is for sure something has to be done.
[QUOTE=Caricoso;430935]I just wonder how we "citizens" can stop a government's army with our guns at home. Just curious![/QUOTE]If a country tried to invade the US East Coast do you think it is likely they would receive more resistance from an armed or an unarmed population? Look at history and the answer should be pretty clear. If we were being invaded groups otherwise known as militias would form and would coordinate attacks on any invading force. This can be quite effective actually especially when they then blend back into the citizenry. If this weren't important then why does our and every other country's state department track the number of armed citizens in countries around the World? Wake up, the fact that 100 million armed citizens would greet any invading force certainly helps restrain counties with many soldiers but relatively little supply and air capability.
Similarly, look at World history. Armed citizenry tends to keep leaders in check because they can't exert their illegal will on the people as a dictator as easily. There is no guarantee that the military would come to their aid as the code of conduct makes it clear that military members must follow legal orders. A tyrant giving orders that do not conform to the Constitution which gives the tyrant power in the first place would not be lawful and therefore, should not be followed. You can't beat the tanks, but you can defeat the desire to fire on one's citizenry and exact important and meaningful change back to the foundation of the country. The formers never wanted another omnipotent King to be in place because the US Government is of the people and for the people. At some point, we got to PC and stopped having citizens dedicated to service get in office (in many cases) and instead created a new profession, largely of inept lawyers (no offence to the good ones) , called politicians.
It is only a matter of time until the "king" tries to get rid of Presidential term limits. WE should enact term limits for all of Congress so politics as a profession and the need to be in the back pocket of "sponsors" would be lessened.
Pete
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
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 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.
------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
[QUOTE=Jackson; 430947]A LITTLE GUN HISTORY.
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 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.[/QUOTE]So are you claiming that the the thing that prevents the USA Government from detaining anyone whom it deems a threat is that they may be armed with say, a Bushmaster AR15 maybe a Glock, maybe an Uzi, and maybe a Sig Sauer, and several large magazines with each? If so, you cannot be serious. The USA has much bigger, much badder weapons that it can use on anyone whom it deems to be a criminal. For example, occassionally, bad drug operations have been taken down with armored tanks and RPGs. I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 430947]A LITTLE GUN HISTORY.
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 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.
-
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
-
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED![/QUOTE]Nobody invades the Swiss, they are armed too, and they also mind their own business internationally.
[QUOTE=Jackson; 430947]A LITTLE GUN HISTORY.
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 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.
-
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
-
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WW II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED![/QUOTE]So if all these people were armed with guns and rifles?
Now I realize I am a 'coward' because when I was in a conflict, all I had in my mind was to run home to make sure that my family was ok.
I that time the more frightening experience I had was when a soldier points at me with his rifle and said. MOVE! (I moved!)
What would you do in a situation like that?
Wasn't General Patton that said something like. I don't want my soldiers to die for their country! I want the enemy to die for his?
[QUOTE=Silver Star;430949]Nobody invades the Swiss, they are armed too, and they also mind their own business internationally.[/QUOTE]Nobody invades the swiss because the "nobodies" (not even during WW2) have all the money in that country! They are really smart!
[QUOTE=Member #2041;430948]So are you claiming that the the thing that prevents the USA Government from detaining anyone whom it deems a threat is that they may be armed with say, a Bushmaster AR15 maybe a Glock, maybe an Uzi, and maybe a Sig Sauer, and several large magazines with each? If so, you cannot be serious. The USA has much bigger, much badder weapons that it can use on anyone whom it deems to be a criminal. For example, occassionally, bad drug operations have been taken down with armored tanks and RPGs. I would suggest that the thing that ACTUALLY prevents the U.S. from detaining/exterminating anyone whom it wishes to is the silly little requirement that they have probable cause to arrest you, and then you as a citizen have a Constitutional right of a fair trial.[/QUOTE]Hi,
Some of you guys are so tactically inexperienced that you're embarrassing yourselves, especially when you trout out that tired, worn out "[i]Hey man, your hunting rifles and pistols are no match against the army's superior firepower[/i]" argument.
Let me explain if to you as if you were a child.
First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.
Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Finally, to answer Caricoso comments.
[QUOTE=Caricoso;430952]Now I realize I am a 'coward' because when I was in a conflict, all I had in my mind was to run home to make sure that my family was ok.[/quote]Given that in your world you wouldn't have any weapons, what exactly would you do if they weren't "ok"?
And...
[QUOTE=Caricoso; 430952]I that time the more frightening experience I had was when a soldier points at me with his rifle and said. MOVE! (I moved!)
What would you do in a situation like that?[/QUOTE]The answer: Move on, go home, get your rifle, get on a roof top, and take the fucker out.
Get it?
Thanks,
Jackson
Some Guns are Okay, but not Assault rifles or heavy duty Weapons.
Last week in a Gun turn drive, besides Assault Rifles they received two Rocket Launchers.
[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/29/local/la-me-1230-rocket-launcher-20121230[/url]
Jackson we are talking about Gun Control in the USA not in some foreign country.
[quote]"First, any tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, will seek to subjugate the citizenry in order to continue to feed off of their productivity. There would be no point in completely annihilating the citizenry because then they'd would have reduced themselves to having conquered a rock.
Second, the way an armed citizenry fights a tyrannical government, either foreign or domestic, is by using guerrilla strategies, not by a direct confrontation which they would surely lose. History is replete with examples of citizens successfully thwarting tyrannical government forces in this manner, but you need look no further than the accounts of our own military's difficulties in dealing with "lightly armed" citizens in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq."[/quote]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;430955]Some Guns are Okay, but not Assault rifles or heavy duty Weapons.[/QUOTE]"Assault rifles" refers to a physical style of rifle, generally mimicking an AR-15. However, the term "assault rifle", while intimating to pusses and providing fodder to liberal pundits, does not denote if a so-called "assault rifle" is a single shot, bolt action, semi-automatic (one trigger per shot), or fully automatic.
In any event, fully automatic weapons are already illegal, so I'll ask the same question I posed earlier in the thread:
Histrionics aside, EXACTLY what new gun laws do you wish to see enacted?
Thanks,
Jackson