....but one giant leap for cultural change.

Thank you President Obama. History will vindicate you.

Never mind

It's ironic that the Constitution of the United States did not allow its chief executive so much as a standing army, because the founders feared what he might do with it, but protected the rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their fledgling Republic. Arms, used in the military sense, not fowling pieces, or pistols for personal defense, or rifles for hunting, arms. I don't trust a government that thinks it needs to restrict the rights of its citizens without due process based on what the government thinks they MIGHT do, based on what the government thinks of them. That is very close to the definition of totalitarianism.

This might surprise you Ronnie, but my time in the sandbox got me on Janet Napolitano's (United States Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013, under President Obama) potential terror threat list. She even defended those inclusions of returning vets once it became public knowledge. If the current action before Congress passes, restricting those on no-fly or other terror lists, I may no longer be able to purchase, own, or hold firearms. That's nearly how thin the line has become between retaining the rights of a citizen, or not, inclusion on some bureaucrat's list.

Gun Control is a TIGHT SHOT GROUP

Yes!!

Putting the second bullet thru the first bullets hole, now THAT's gun control...

Longrifle wrote: It's ironic that the Constitution of the United States did not allow its chief executive so much as a standing army, because the founders feared what he might do with it, but protected the rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their fledgling Republic. Arms, used in the military sense, not fowling pieces, or pistols for personal defense, or rifles for hunting, arms. I don't trust a government that thinks it needs to restrict the rights of its citizens without due process based on what the government thinks they MIGHT do, based on what the government thinks of them. That is very close to the definition of totalitarianism.

This might surprise you Ronnie, but my time in the sandbox got me on Janet Napolitano's (United States Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013, under President Obama) potential terror threat list. She even defended those inclusions of returning vets once it became public knowledge. If the current action before Congress passes, restricting those on no-fly or other terror lists, I may no longer be able to purchase, own, or hold firearms. That's nearly how thin the line has become between retaining the rights of a citizen, or not, inclusion on some bureaucrat's list.

I agree with you. The right to bear arms was put in the constitution to keep the Federal and State governments in check. It was meant so that people could defend them selfs from the government if it tries to over step its self, and it allows people to defend them selfs in the event an invading force tries to take over the country. People now days though have gotten enough of a feeling of safety now though that they do not carry firearms on them selves as much as they used to.

If it were up to me I would get rid of all the no guns allowed signs that people put on their buildings and I would carry around the biggest meanest gun I have just to intimidate anyone who would like to try any funny business. In most of the shootings I have heard of or read about the badies that like to go shoot up places tend to commit suicide as soon as the authorities arrive with their guns or as soon as some one engages them. I personally have assault rifles in my home and I regularly carry them around in my truck with loads of ammo. I also keep my Vz 24 8mm mouser around close just because a 8mm is a very quick way to take some one out with out having to use more than one shot to get their body to register that they have been hit. But hear is the deal. I bought all these guns legally through the current gun laws and I don’t go around doing mass shootings to entertain my self. I would love to see some one try a mass shooting when I am near. Would love to see the nut cases face when the lead comes flying back at him. Unfortunately criminals are cowards and will only attack soft targets. In other words if your unarmed your a soft target. A building that does not allow fire arms in side it is a really soft target and a perfect place for a successful mass shooting.

So really if you want to be safe carry some type of fire arm with you, and you have secured for your self a form of security that no laws no matter how drastic can offer. Criminals are human to and and can also be taken down by a gun.

lol

Skydavis1 wrote: just because a 8mm is a very quick way to take some one out with out having to use more than one shot to get their body to register that they have been hit.

reminds me of an old favorite bumper sticker

.45acp because shooting twice is just silly

Now this is what seems like good guncontrol to me:

read this and see why gun control worked in the uk
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom
and here is the reason it came about
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

Here's your English homicide rate. Homicides were falling before the 2006 gun act, but falling from a peak that had been climbing for some time.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime...recorded-as-homicide

Here's the US homicide rate, which has been falling since the 80's, after a spike, but following the long term trend.

thepublicintellectual.org/2011/05/02/a-crime-puzzle/

and here is the US gun homicide rate, which is about half of what is was ten years ago

www.nationalreview.com/corner/427758/car...ng-charles-c-w-cooke

The point being, that if fewer people are being killed, it is likely that fewer people are being killed with guns. In the absence of guns, people are still being killed. Guns themselves do not correlate to the killings, as the US has nearly twice as amount of guns in 2015 as it did in 2010, but the gun homicide rate is half of what it was. If there was corrlation, Switzerland, awash in guns by UK standards, would have a higher homicide rate than the UK, but it does not; in fact it is one of the safest countries in the world, despite the guns.

Our problem in the US centers on illegal handguns in the hand of urban gangs fighting over drugs. The guns they have are illegally purchased, with drug money. Any restrictions imposed do little to change that fact. Alll the most restictive gun laws in NY, Chicago and DC have done is to demonstarte supply and demand, and drive up the price of guns, wwhich makes it lucrative to smuggle them in, and forces crimianls to steal more to pay for them, unintentionally driving up property crime and robberies. The unlawful criminals will not "turn them in" in a UK or Australian style program, and the average US gunowner is more likely to react to such a program by forming militias, Lexington and Concord style. I note the low participation arte in Connecticut over their assault weapon and high capacity magazine ban. Apparenlty all the gun owners in that state lost theirs before the turn in period, all at once.

There are things we should do to lower the homicide rate, but they cost money, and I mean dump truck loads of it. Reduce poverty by enforcing education. Tie entitlement programs to educational progress and work. Rehab habitutal felons (note that in the US, that studies show 90% of murder victims have criminal records themselves). Force gun stores to increase security, as most gusn sold in cities with restrictive gun laws are stolen from rural gun shops by smash and grab gangs that specialize in the illegal gun trade. Bulldoze ghettos in St Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Camden, LA and Chicago and replace the blight with modern subsidized housing that instills pride and increases safety, where the dwelling are monitored and any excesive damage forces an eviction notice. None of this is popular for politicians who depend on votes to keep a job, but it's what we need.

As to gun ownership and gun crimes, I would point out that governments, including many of the ones poeple compare the current US homicide rate to, have killed more people in the last 100 years than criminals have, by a factor of thousands. Porgroms, holocausts, invasions, genocides, colonialization, death camps, these are things governments have done, and are still doing, to those they find that can't resist. My one rifle may not be able to prevent tyranny on its own, but my 100 million neighbors aremed with their rifles collectively guarantees that no government, foreign or domestic, will take my rights without due process.

Longrifle, I like the way you think. The only problem I have with your post is comparing Switzerland ownership of guns with the US.

Joining the military is compulsory in Switzerland. Once you've done your service, you keep your gun and are required to train with it yearly. Ammunition is highly regulated and checked thoroughly.

I've even been told by a few Swiss that if you see a barn out in the middle of nowhere, it more than likely has a howitzer in it. That might just be stories they were telling me though.

I think Obama is secretly in with gun manufacturers. Think about it every time he talks gun control all the available guns fly off the shelves leading to big profits for the makers and lots of ot for the workers trying to catch up on demand. Kind of a small stimulus package for manufacturing.




Before you jump my shit this is just a bad joke by me.

My idea of gun control is using both hands

[*M]BOAZ wrote: I think Obama is secretly in with gun manufacturers. Think about it every time he talks gun control all the available guns fly off the shelves leading to big profits for the makers and lots of ot for the workers trying to catch up on demand. Kind of a small stimulus package for manufacturing.




Before you jump my shit this is just a bad joke by me.

My idea of gun control is using both hands

Was in a shop a few years ago that had a poster hanging behind the counter that was a picture of Obama with the words "Salesman of the Year!"

i agree that if one person has a gun all should have one or two or three but if no one has one no one needs one

Dognamitt wrote: i agree that if one person has a gun all should have one or two or three but if no one has one no one needs one

Thats like trying to unring the bell. Criminals and dictators prefer an unarmed population.

Physical altercations will always happen. The little shrimpy guy can never hope to successfully defend himself against a larger, stronger opponent. If the big guy thinks he might get shot, he may hesitate to pick on the little guy.

"God made all men, Sam Colt made all men equal."

On the lighter side, guy walks into a gun store wants to buy a gun. Clerk says sure but because of gun violence, you have to pass a background check first.
Guy says, never mind ill just take this baseball bat instead.

There are a lot of problems in America. Like most, they are complex. Violent crime is certainly complex. It is a problem that cannot be solved by one approach. America is not the only country with pervasive gun ownership. However, we are quite violent as a people. The idea that a limiting guns will reduce violence is as simplistic and wrong as the idea that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. A gun is a tool. It is a burdensome one at that. I have carried a gun nearly everyday for 20 years. It is a tiresome burden to maintain the mindset to use it. No doubt that the wrong people have lawfully acquired a gun in America. The gun still is only the tool used. My first murder was a stabbing. My second was a bludgeoning with a toilet tank lid. Less than half involved a firearm. The real cultural change would be moving away from glorified violence (as I eagerly await shooting you all down and killing you in your parachute). I'd like to think my community is a better place because of the gun on my hip. That gun is only as good as the brain in my head.

Longrifle wrote: It's ironic that the Constitution of the United States did not allow its chief executive so much as a standing army, because the founders feared what he might do with it, but protected the rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves, their neighbors, and their fledgling Republic. Arms, used in the military sense, not fowling pieces, or pistols for personal defense, or rifles for hunting, arms. I don't trust a government that thinks it needs to restrict the rights of its citizens without due process based on what the government thinks they MIGHT do, based on what the government thinks of them. That is very close to the definition of totalitarianism.

This might surprise you Ronnie, but my time in the sandbox got me on Janet Napolitano's (United States Secretary of Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013, under President Obama) potential terror threat list. She even defended those inclusions of returning vets once it became public knowledge. If the current action before Congress passes, restricting those on no-fly or other terror lists, I may no longer be able to purchase, own, or hold firearms. That's nearly how thin the line has become between retaining the rights of a citizen, or not, inclusion on some bureaucrat's list.

Amen to that brother. Lame duck president. Actually makes for 16 straight yrs of lame presidents between him and little bush.

I really hope Trump wins. At this pnt i dont care what anyone has to say negitively against him. Hes a tough businessman who doesnt take shit and wont accept hand outs for his campaigne

Bill Clinton was the last gd president we had in decades. Our economy was never better by the end of his run.

So i guess i should start buying illegal guns now. Just so i can rightfully protect my family. Lets face it i have no issue w the police but how many times have they been called and not shown up for an hr or 2. Even if they did respond immediately an intruder would have time to hurt your family and leave before they got there. Screw Obama and hi outlook on everything.

Governments can't follow through their plans for progroms and holocausts and such if there are not enough useful idiots to execute them. Politicians point a minority out as a scapegoat for all they can not fix or use an agressive sentiment that's already there and institutionalise violence against them.
The outsiders, the different and "weird" are ganged up on by the armed masses that feel free to do so, because there is not immediate punishment to be feared from the government.
Saying that the persecued or the victims of a gun violence should have armed themselves is not really a good argument in my idea.

The smaller the hated minority, or the more defenceless a victim is, the better armed they should have been, by this kind of reasoning.

Sure, fear of violence makes us want to defend us from it. If we find no way to disarm, an armsrace will follow.
If this is the way forward, we might end up somewhere where we never wanted to go.

I could not get this to link from my phone. This is a great video.

www.ted.com/talks/peter_van_uhm_why_i_chose_a_gun?language=en

another great opinion and some hard to find stats to back it up...

Iam with you the right to protect your self n others who are a soft target and blow there head off.because they are nothing but cowards brothers in arms onekill

I've had my guns for several years. ..just finished cleaning them and they never shot anyone. I will not trust a government that will restrict rights in the midst of potential terrorists. Especially as they are coming into the US. I don't trust this idiot n chief.

Political overtones aside, I've always enjoyed that song

Im all for right to keep guns but all u dont need automatic weapons for hunting trips. Its not really a sport at that point. As far as fereral govt overstepping its boundaries i think state militias were supposed to protect u from federal but they have overtime lost significance. If ur worried about federal govt, its your state militia that u should strengthen. Mind u the us fed govt has done alotta good in the past to protect citizens rights from being violated by rogue states, the entire civil rights movt for ex.

Now if i could talk like that in hs i woulda aced my remedial history class.

Simply put, disarming innocent citizens is not protecting them. Besides, when there is a major shooting, and the shooter is apprehended, how did the police stop him? Surely it wasn't by the use of a gun...

Nebular wrote: another great opinion and some hard to find stats to back it up...

I wasn't going to hit back at the pro gun posts, as we've all heard each others arguments loud and clear, but this video does need a response. Stefan Molyneux, the presenter here, is not a particularly reliable commentator. He is a well known racist and right wing libertarian. "The statistics speak for themselves", he says, but all the time he sub-texts them with anti-black rhetoric and trivial insults. "Well done to the Asians for not killing each other so much!" or words to that effect, of course with a cheeky smile and a thumbs up. His analysis is selective. I wonder what he might have said about violent crime and mental health, or juvenile gun crime. What about spree killings? Why were school massacres excluded from his repertoire of gun truths?

To give you an idea of his credibility, check out his 'truth about Nelson Mandela' video blog. Fifteen minutes of it is an ill disguised ode to the benefits of colonialism and apartheid. If that's not enough, Google 'Stefan Molyneux on why women are evil'. Need I say more.

I hope he doesn't have too many disciples!

Husky Dog wrote: Longrifle, I like the way you think. The only problem I have with your post is comparing Switzerland ownership of guns with the US.

Joining the military is compulsory in Switzerland. Once you've done your service, you keep your gun and are required to train with it yearly. Ammunition is highly regulated and checked thoroughly.

I've even been told by a few Swiss that if you see a barn out in the middle of nowhere, it more than likely has a howitzer in it. That might just be stories they were telling me though.

That is true about the militia weapons, but the number of weapons I'm using for Swiss gun ownership is from the UN small arms report, which only counts those personally owned, not issued or militia weapons. It's also true that many of the older militia weapons become part of private ownership over time, but that is similar to the US CMP program that sells surplus rifles to the public. I have my sight set on (pardon the pun) a Garand and a 03A3 Springfield, not because I think I'm going to defend the Republic with one, or hunt with one, but because they are unique to our heritage and there are a lot of shooting events with them. I'm Swiss by heritage, and my family were gunmakers by trade when they immigrated to Lancast PA in the early 1700's, so guns are literally in my blood. There is a pronounced gun culture in Switzerland, but their homicide rate is comparatively low because they have little poverty, a homogenous population and high respect for their fellow citizens.

[Thugz] KappaSpam wrote: Make an 8th-grade spelling test the mandatory qualifications for gun ownership, and we'll probably see it decrease by about 90%.

Make an 8th-grade spelling test the mandatory qualification

There, I fixed that for you

|111th|KptnSINGH wrote: Im all for right to keep guns but all u dont need automatic weapons for hunting trips. Its not really a sport at that point. As far as fereral govt overstepping its boundaries i think state militias were supposed to protect u from federal but they have overtime lost significance. If ur worried about federal govt, its your state militia that u should strengthen. Mind u the us fed govt has done alotta good in the past to protect citizens rights from being violated by rogue states, the entire civil rights movt for ex.

Now if i could talk like that in hs i woulda aced my remedial history class.

It is illegal in all US states to hunt game animals with automatic weapons. Most states limit the capacity of any rifle as well when using semi-auto, or manually loaded rifles such as bolt, lever or pump actions. A few feral animals do not have this protection, but those instances are rare.

As to militias, under US law there are two forms of militia, organized (such as serving in a reserve capacity) and the unorganized, which includes all of age who retain the right of citizens. State militias were Federalized under the Dick Act and other like laws in 1903, which was considered a vast Federal overreach at the time. The reason was that several US Presidents, including Lincoln in the Civil War, had called the militia and met resistance from Governors. Initially, in exchange for training funds, the Federal Government could call the militia to Federal service, but was not allowed to deploy the troops outside of the US. Over the years, as usual, the Feds expanded their authority, as shown in the Iraq war where at most times Nationa Guard units in Fedderal service made up 50% of combat forces on the ground. My state has Guardsmen serving currently in the Sinai in the UN peacekeeping force, Kosovo, and at several installations in the GUlf, in addition to Afghanistan.

Importanly, all citizens are subject to call up as part of the unorganized militia. You can report as a trained rifleman, or you can report without any firearms skills. Those without skills still serve a purpose in combat; they draw fire from those who can shoot.