The Right of the People to Own Weapons Cant be Expunged From The Debate.

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: SmilingROB
a reply to: ausername

Actually that is exactly what the ALt right wants you to believe. all or nothing.

Why not require permit FOR all guns. Allow every body who has a gun legal or not to register it and allow amnesty.
Require news gun owner to register. If you are stop carrying your gun and you have your permit off you go. If theirs a shooting in your area you would be asked to allow your gun to be inspected. if your clean no problem.

Or any other good suggestion would work BUT its not black and white there are lots of reasonable options which the right wing NRA rejects.

We do not need to change the second amendment. Simple laws to reasonable improve gun safety are what is needed

Won't fly... let me seriously explain why.

Registration has "always" led to "confiscation" and I mean always.

Once there is a registry, you are then given the option to turn them in or become an outlaw or get murdered in many cases.

rense.com...

* 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. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine.


* 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, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result.


* 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. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million


* Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 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 at a bare minimum.

* Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results:

Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns.

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too.

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady DECREASE in armed robbery with firearms, that changed drastically upward in the first year after gun confiscation...since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

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.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........We Are "Subjects".

I like the little Catch in there that adds 56 million dead with no reference. Its also great that identified every petty dictator from the past.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a link to the gun laws of the modern world. you might find it informative. None of these countries has imploded.

a reply to: SmilingROB

No, smith mundt was repealed under bush, and its been all media propaganda since.

Twitter is social media. How in the world you people take what Trump says in 160 characters or less seriously is beyond me. But Twitter is simply several million assholes with opinions.

a reply to: ausername

It doesn't have to be a total gun grab. Any restriction nullifies the purpose of the Second Amendment. Shall not be infringed.

There is a reason for that part of the amendment. The second amendment has one purpose and one purpose only to ensure the populace has a means of standing up against a tyrannical government. You can't do that with pistols alone.

Jaden

a reply to: SmilingROB

Do you believe that any of those fine men pictured would give a gun to man they knew was sick in the head?

So they should have included that exception in the 2nd Amendment. But what exactly does it mean to be sick in the head? Is depression being sick in the head?

a reply to: elysiumfire

Lol sources please? Do your own research and stop acting like you know what's best for the American public.

You are just spouting nonsense about people being paranoid and you don't even live here. You don't know the first thing about who what where in America but you obviously have a bone to pick.

You are easily the most uninformed, clueless blowhard I've come across on this subject.

Edit: looks like a new thread spammer has taken over, so take a break we got all we need from you.

a reply to: Phage

Not really. That pesky comma. The two seem to be part of the same thought.

The second speaks bout the state's RIGHT to have militia's.

The RIGHT of the people.

Both have the right to keep and bear arms.

Militias are useless without them.

The people are sitting ducks like Vegas showed without them.

The amount of emotion and misinformation in the gun debate is very tiresome.

Let's not all forget that guns are the reason for freedom... and before that, it was the power of the sword.

"You don't need automatic for hunting animals!" said the dumbsnip. "Black rifles are scary!" said the other. Well guess what? My right to own firearms isn't so I can feed myself by hunting, it's a balance. An armed populace is harder for the government to "own" than an unarmed populace.

Not saying it'll happen today, tomorrow, or 50 years from now. Hopefully we'll never need to actually use our firearms in such a manner. But I feel a lot better knowing that a potentially corrupt government looking to seize absolute power will have second thoughts knowing their citizens are armed.

And for all the idiots claiming we need "better gun control", take a look at Norway. You have to A) be authorized by police and B) be an active member of a gun club to even own a simple semi-automatic. Yet, Breivik had no problems shooting up an island with youths. I guess he didn't know about the gun laws!

SRPrime:

You can see this in England, where people with shotguns can just walk down the street laying pellets into anybody they want, wherein the police on the beat can't even come to help, they have to turn and run just like everybody else.

Just to put your fantasy in a perspective of reality. Since 1987 Britain has experienced just 3 mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 46 people, with 41 non-fatal injuries. There were no mass shootings in Britain prior to 1987. In America, since 1988, there have been 86 mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 643 people, with an additional 638 non-fatal injuries.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.motherjones.com...

So, it is rare for anyone in Britain to walk down a street brandishing a gun peppering people. It is more likely to happen in America than it is in Britain. Just based on the statistics I have given for the years between 1987 and 2017, the percentage ratios between Britain and America are as follows (Britain on the left, America on the right): deaths 7.1%/92.9%, and injuries 6.4%/ 93.6% . You should not only be disturbed by these statistics, but appalled as well.

Why do you think there was a 93% chance of being shot in America between the years 1987 and 2017, and only a 7.1% chance of being shot in Britain in the same period? The answer is clear and obvious, and supported by better statistics than I can supply. It is because guns are more easily available in America than they are in Britain. It is a simple fact, take guns off the street and you reduce gun crime. It also enables you to disarm the domestic cop of the gun, and have a specific branch of armed response units who only deal with illegal possession of a firearm.

So far in 2017, 6 people have been shot and killed in Britain, four of those were by our magnificent armed response units dealing with terrorist events. In America, get this, 11,700 people have been killed just by guns, none of which were due to a terrorist event.

Again, just in 2017, British armed response units have shot and killed 6, whereas American police have shot and killed 748. I would hazard a guess that not all of the 748 fatalities were armed, but that American police cannot afford to wait and see if a gun is produced, for sake of self-preservation the protocol for police in America is to assume that the person they are dealing with is armed, and try (if possible) to de-escalate from that assumption. Although I have yet to come across any evidence of this. They just tend to shoot first and sort the issue out later. For an American cop, every day is a potential life taker, either their own or someone else's. That is an incredible stress to be under, almost equalling that of a front line during war. Any day could be your last.

So, if Americans want their police to stop shooting people on assumption alone, take guns off the street, and implent gun control on a level similar to that of Britain. Gun control works.

www.gunviolencearchive.org...

www.inquest.org.uk...

www.washingtonpost.com...

www.sciencealert.com...

a reply to: elysiumfire

Why do you think there was a 93% chance of being shot in America between the years 1987 and 2017,

That makes no sense. 93 out of 100 people in America get shot? Please clarify.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

People are afraid.

They listen to and believe the horrors pushed by the MSM and certain segments of government.

The same government who is killing them also promises to protect them.

No wonder people are so screwed up.

It is a God thing...imagine a Universe with the Evil Thug Imperfect Fallen Creator removed.

Even God itself knows it would be for the best.

originally posted by: elysiumfire


Just to put your fantasy in a perspective of reality. Since 1987 Britain has experienced just 3 mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 46 people, with 41 non-fatal injuries. There were no mass shootings in Britain prior to 1987. In America, since 1988, there have been 86 mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 643 people, with an additional 638 non-fatal injuries.

You sound like a used car salesman spinning numbers until someone buys...lol

You also average 15 per mass shootings and we average 7...hmmm

You also haven't looked at the differences in population such as we are 5x yours.

Looking at 86 people that killed 643 across 30 YEARS out of 100s and 100s of millions I'm trying to see your point in all this?

originally posted by: Phage

That makes no sense. 93 out of 100 people in America get shot? Please clarify.

Phage we were two of the lucky ones..

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

People don't think anymore. All they do is feel and pretend they had a deep thought.

I am sorry..but people NEVER thought..for themselves.

I try to wait for a day when that will happen but realize now it will not.

It is not allowed, by a very sad and vengeful God.

Female to be precise.

This thread among others is why this issue will never be agreed. Here is what I want, gun owners to be held to a high degree of responsibility. Crime committed with a gun, committed by your kid with a gun, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

If my kids throw a party at my house, unbeknownst to me serve alcohol a kid leaves my house drunk and kills someone I go to jail. The juvenile shooters at school shootings never have their parents held responsible. Complete BS. You want to own guns, great. You have your right. The moment you violate someone else's right, because of the great risk a gun creates, the consequences should be you lose your freedom, permanently. If that is not acceptable, why should I trust you to own a gun? If you are a safe handler of a weapon, this should not be of any concern.

Second, the line for owning weapons is already there, cannot own fully automated weapons, tanks, rocket launders etc. So if we move that line just a bit, to make weapons such as those used in the Vegas shooting illegal and enforce a life sentence on anyone caught with one exceeding the limits, these types of crimes will drop in a hurry.

originally posted by: ausername
I've very recently discovered and concluded there is absolutely no middle ground in the gun debate in this country, it's either one extreme or the other. One way or the other, all or nothing, no compromise. Everything is a slippery slope leading to a total gun grab.

Like so many issues in government in this country, you have to be on one side or the other, otherwise you're irrelevant and insignificant noise no one will hear.

A truer word is seldom spoken

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes. Yes I am.

The government gain by under spending on all sorts of things. They save themselves billions of dollars on not properly dealing with Veterans Affairs, by under spending on roads and infrastructure, mental healthcare, dealing with homelessness and correcting drug policy. And I can see someone responding to this information with "But it costs more down the road! It saves nothing!". I entirely agree, but thats not the way that individual administrations think about these things. Half the time an administration or a congress or senate, spends in power, is basically spent in working out ways to kick cans down the road, for some other administration to deal with at a later date, or, if they can get away with it, entirely ignore it.

Simply put, the administration of the day does not consider these matters in a broad, nationally focused manner. They consider these things in terms of how their budget will look if they are the ones to solve these problems, how their administration will be seen by voters, and indeed, how it will be looked at by shallow examinations of their financial record.

Big government spending looks bad on paper, and terrifies the paper pushers, gets used by print media to beat administrations over the head with, looks bad for which ever party undertakes it, because the fact of having spent a great deal of money makes that administration look irresponsible, does nothing to reduce the debt level the nation is running at (which, in a nation whose currency cannot even EXIST without debt, is an utterly retarded thing to want to do anyway, but I digress), and when that money gets spent on something like mental healthcare, people complain bitterly about the price of everything, rather than considering the alternative.

The alternative to correctly dealing with mental healthcare provision, is that people WILL die, in circumstances most horrible, because someone who did not properly understand or grasp their position within reality, took it into their heads to act out their mental trauma on some poor, unfortunate individuals, with varying, but always catastrophic results. Whether its suicide or murder suicide, or a mass shooting, the horrors being inflicted on the mentally ill by a system that does not currently care for them worth a damn, are a very significant contributing factor.

The hospitals you are talking about, these state run facilities, were NOT well appointed, did NOT have the best medical and psychomedical doctors working in them, were NOT comfortable, restful places. They were, without exception, entirely unpleasant, spartan, harsh, cold and utterly unacceptable places to live, by any standard or measure worth applying to them, precisely because they were not correctly funded. Keeping them running at an acceptable level, with the correct provisions on site to ensure the comfort, physical upkeep, proper nutrition and so on, would have been EXPENSIVE, and continuing to do so therefore, would have been unpopular. So what did they do? They underfunded these places until the situation on the ground in these facilities, was such that you would not keep your dog in them, leave alone a human being. By this method, they could justify closing them.

Its the same thing as my nations government is doing to our NHS at the moment. It was, before the last thirty years of neo-liberal, centre right muck got hold of it, an optimal system, being correctly funded and well appointed, which did a damned good job of looking after the nations health. Thirty plus years of being buggered about by the Selfservatives and the Red Tory menace that was introduced by Blair, then the Selfservatives again, have seen it decline year on year, until now, where hospitals are being put in special measures, threatened with closure, despite their nurses, doctors and infrastructure being deliberately asset stripped and destroyed for decades, by governments which care nothing for their mission or indeed for the people who are supposed to benefit from the presence of the health services themselves.

This is HOW governments profiteer. They can now sell off parts of our health service, here in the UK, having deliberately underfunded it, to friends of theirs with more money than morals, who will then make every action three hundred times more expensive, and try and pay as little tax on those operations and actions and the money they charge for them, as they possibly can. This puts the new owners in hock to those who freed up the space in the market, which they will be paid back for in various ways, under the table.

This methodology is not designed to improve matters, nor is it designed to correct problems or solve them. It is about appearing to do the right thing, while doing absolutely nothing. The simple fact of the matter is, that the US government does next door to nothing positive about mental health care in the states. Its programs, such as exist, are underfunded and small, despite the fact that the problems being experienced by the mentally ill are large, and expensive to mitigate, requiring massive infrastructural spending, the training and employment of dedicated mental healthcare professionals from doctors, right through to nurses with the specialised training necessary to adequately provide on the spot care.

These things are not in evidence. And yet, if you want to live in a nation full of guns and where one has the right to bear arms, then you must also live in a nation where the mentally ill can be safely, and comfortably housed, treated away from mainstream society, and out of the reach of anything more dangerous than a spork, until or unless their condition changes for the better by some means.

Phage:

That makes no sense. 93 out of 100 people in America get shot? Please clarify.

The percentages are just based on the numbers of people killed or injured by mass shootings during the years 1987 and 2017 in Britain and America. Of course, it's a broad stroke. It's not based on one in every hundred people, but simply based on the percentage ratio of mass shooting victims in those years. Thus, percentage differences between 46 and 643, and 41 and 638.

Of course (and thankfully), the actual probability ratio just on these numbers is very small when using the population as a whole for both countries, but gives a false positive that there isn't much of a problem. I wanted to highlight the basic fact, using actual figures, the likelihood difference between a Brit and an American being shot in a mass shooting during 1987 and 2017.

The following provides sober reflection based on 2010 figures. It shows gun homicide rate for America to be 25.2% higher than any other high income country.

edition.cnn.com...

a reply to: Phage


Well they certainly didn't mean that the peoples weapons were to be kept in the armory in the center of town. Besides its all well explained by the author of 2nd, in the Federalist Papers. Really no ambiguity in the whole nor as to why.

originally posted by: dougie6665
This thread among others is why this issue will never be agreed. Here is what I want, gun owners to be held to a high degree of responsibility. Crime committed with a gun, committed by your kid with a gun, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Well so you are saying that all debate about this issue should focus on your points which it happens are already well covered in the laws local and beyond.

Never mind folks calling for a constitutional adjustment. Thats what will really keep and is keeping this issue alive.