The FBI and CDC Datasets Agree: Who Has Guns—Not Which Guns—Linked to Murder Rates

a reply to: muzzleflash

I'm pretty sure the weapons prior to that were not the same. Moreover, I support relatively few restrictions on law-abiding functional people.

a reply to: muzzleflash

restricting guns for murder by the few, is tantamount to restricting cars for dui by the few.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: muzzleflash

I'm pretty sure the weapons prior to that were not the same. Moreover, I support relatively few restrictions on law-abiding functional people.

In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress, a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds; unlike older repeaters using complex lever-action mechanisms, it used a simpler system of superposed loads, and was loaded with a single large paper cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high.[10][11]

1777!!!
That was 1 year after the Continental Congress and Declaration of Independence --- and the Constitution where the 2nd Amendment came was accepted in 1789 - 12 years AFTER this guy offered this weapon of mass destruction! It fired 4 shots a second!

The Founders clearly were aware of rapid fire weaponry and had no problem with anyone possessing it! They even knew about bombs and grenades too! Grenades are over 1200 years old, and modern variants are 100+ years old.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades.

Amazing huh?? People could actually possess grenades up until this recent tyranny took hold in our once great nation!

Look at how "crazy" I sound by today's anti-Freedom standards.

My declarations are the antithesis of what you've been conditioned to believe by the tyrants that want to eventually be rid of all Civil Rights that potentially threaten their stranglehold on power.

I must sound like a ranting lunatic to you folks! I actually proposed that everyone, yes everyone, has a right to bear arms. I even threw in grenades for good measure *pun intended*.

And then I showed you the history of when this "restriction mentality" started and got it's first foot in the door - 1934. It's less than 100 years old. That means we had 145 years of no restrictions on the 2nd Amendment!

a reply to: muzzleflash

The "Continental Rápido" Mein Gott !! 😎

a reply to: muzzleflash

I'm fully sympathetic to your perspective. Really, I am. But the slippery slope, while important to guard against, should not be used as an excuse to govern.

You can't yell fire in a theater and no right is plenary.

In the current environment, one thing I have consistently railed against about the left is their 'my way or the highway' and 'pedal to the metal' approach to governance.

Claiming no restriction on the Second is acceptable because it's an inalienable right makes little sense when one's liberty is perhaps one of the greatest rights we have, and almost no one disagrees that it is acceptable to incarcerate convicted criminals.

It's time people on the right demonstrate what rational governance looks like. If the left had been doing that over the last 10 years, Trump wouldn't be in the White House.

Food for thought.

I hear the FBI and DNI are now so bloated, there are more admin performing dataset analysis, than there are employees working to keep America as safe as possible.

a reply to: carewemust

It's disappointing you see data analysis as pointless.

I'm sure you know better than that.

a reply to: loam

There were no personal feelings or beliefs in my post.

a reply to: carewemust

Just an illogical statement.

I can assure you data analysis is very powerful. So much so, most of us fear its abuse and spend a lot of time talking about that.

Regardless, some of that power has kept us safer, so your comment isn't terribly helpful.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Ya know this Benjamin Franklin quote was in reference to the power of the state legislature to impose taxes in the interest of collective security. It wasn't said in reference to guns in any way.

originally posted by: okrian
a reply to: muzzleflash

Ya know this Benjamin Franklin quote was in reference to the power of the state legislature to impose taxes in the interest of collective security. It wasn't said in reference to guns in any way.

Although I do agree that the context of a quote matters to an extent, some quotes are so powerful that they can be applied hundreds of years later and make sense in a completely different context.

For example, I used that quote today to send a message of importance in relation to this topic. And I applied it pretty well too. "They who would give up an essential liberty for a temporary security" easily applies here as it would with any "essential liberty" being given up for "temporary security".

He didn't say "this specific liberty" did he? He just painted with a broad brush, "an essential liberty", and kept it vague. That's because he almost certainly believed any essential liberty would hold similar applications.

I'm confused how you'd dismiss the entire meaning and point of my post so easily with a rationalization like that.

If the FBI is a science organization now, maybe they can turn their attention to curing cancer instead of trying to justify stripping people of their rights.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
I wrestle with taking guns from felons too.

The a-holes in Washington are about to make all gun owners felons!!

I'm with you though. Some felons probably need a gun for self-defense more than most on this forum. Who am I to tell them they can't defend themselves?

If they're such a menace to society, why were they let out of prison in the first place?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
The mere fact that this nation allowed the tyrant's foot in the doorway with laws restricting certain types of individuals, like felons, permit requirements, etc - allowed this downhill erosion of rights. Give them an inch they'll take a mile.

-sarc- If you haven't noticed, they've already taken the mile (several even) -/sarc-
There are a bunch of people waiting to take back that ground. The elites know it. They feel it in their bones, just like the people who are going to punish them for trying to dictate the rights of their neighbors to them.

This isn't a fuse that's been lit. What's going to begin is inevitable. It's only the course of the final outcome that's yet to be decided.

The founding fathers.... and generations of Americans after... could never have imagined the word... Repeat offender.
Now we find ourselves saying things like.... He had a record as long as your arm.

Ya suppose there could be any connection between armed citizens and the same people getting arrested over and over??

I hear what they are saying.. And think its closer to the "truth." But, I cant really say I like this rhetoric any more than the old.

Also, good luck controlling black markets with legislation. That right there, the very, very naive notion itself, is at the core of so many problems we face as a society.

When we make laws in such circumstances, the only result is increased profits or proliferation. Or both. Pretty good strategy there, if one has their fingers in those particular pies and is pursuing the agenda to dismantle the founding of Murica. Lots of birds with one stone...

People should not have to pay money and jump through hoops to be able to carry a hand gun or other fire arm.

Some one gets control and someone get to make money.