Ban "Assault rifles!" Liberal Politicians Fear Violent Uprising by Americans.

Ban "Assault rifles!" Liberal Politicians Fear Violent Uprising by Americans Over Their Agenda.
Its no secret, nor surprise that many American Democrats/Liberals adore the Euporean Union's Weapon ban that they imposed years ago. In thinking that American leftist politicians could impose a similar ban. While trying not upset the constitution oath supporters.

Why do the American Liberal Politicians want a Assault rifle ban? gun ban? when knowing they do nothing to stop gang/criminal violence and black markets? there is a reason why so many American Liberal Politicians are desperate to try for a complete weapon's ban under the claims of protecting your children.
Violent Uprising by Americans

A Violent Uprising by Americans agaisnt the Liberalism new order is a huge worry for many of these rich, elitist Liberal Politicians because they know how Assault rifles can have advantages during a civil war and uprising.
The Liberal Politicians know that many of their polices wont be popular thus cant pass some of those radical ones without worrying over backlash or potential uprising on them by Americans who might reject them.

In Europe only Euporean people suffered as the result of EU's weapon ban, many criminal networks are still growing and rising in Europe and in some places the police arent doing anything to stop or arrest them in large numbers.

If only Euporean people had some form of means to defend themselves at night, Euporean streets today would have being very different. In some places in Europe the police listen to woke polticans and organizations. They let criminals, human traffickers without making the criminals think the second time.


It seems American Liberals now want a similar weapon ban in America as Europe has.

a reply to: ChefFox

A quick look at the statistics of deaths by firearm can pretty much debunk everything you wrote.

America is the gun death capital of the world.

a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.

a reply to: ChefFox
The likelihood for any "uprising" even resembling an American revolution or civil war in this country is slim to none. American's are too comfortable and passive for that to happen at this point.

As well, the likelihood of a full out weapons ban in America is also slim to none as long as the constitution is in place. Ratifying a change to the second amendment would be near impossible, especially right now.

On the other hand, there are cops and military that would end up on the side of the people rather than government. There WILL be blood. That's a given.

And third, as much as the inmates running this asylum would love to disarm the population, they are also quite aware that armed citizens are part of what has kept this country from being invaded. No country wants to invade another country with over a hundred million armed citizens who can actually hit what they are aiming at repeatedly.

Guns are not banned in Europe.

Each of the 44 countries have their own laws on guns.

Some require permit. Some allow concealed carry. Some have a limit on number of guns owned.

Granted, guns are mainly for hunting or sport BUT individual can still own a gun.

Europe is not a country. It is a continent of 44 completely different countries. Some laws are shared, these are Regulations. Some laws are allowed to be interpreted, these are Directives. Then each country has its own laws which are interpretations of 3 Directives. Which aims are traceability, not promoting firearm ownership and ‘making it difficult to buy a firearm’.

These are:

Directive 2017/853
Directive 91/477
Directive 2008/51

Europe has not banned guns.

Edit: upon rereading your post I see you have written “weapon ban” but I assume you refer to guns.

"Electronica" has made our citizenry complacent and decadent.

The fact that you can literally hold your life in your hands, ( cell phones, etc.) is falsely empowering, but empowering nonetheless as users are CONSTANTLY and CONSISTENTLY assured and encouraged to believe they are making a difference, one comment at a time.

Stars, likes, dislikes, emojis etc.. We are steered like steer to seek out approval from the world wide web, and then what happens when the whole world doesn't get you...???

I'm speaking of the weak minded, easily influenced, "daybots" just running the basic OS, so to speak.

No satisfaction on the homefront, prospects dwindle, life becomes jaded...and the highly promoted and candy coated CONNECTEDNESS is merely a sad confirmation of ones distorted thoughts...

They will always want the guns. Probability of complete disarmament? ZERO.

Probability of an actual armed action? IMO, 20% tops...if that...

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ChefFox

A quick look at the statistics of deaths by firearm can pretty much debunk everything you wrote.

America is the gun death capital of the world.

Can you please tell me the CDCs estimation of lives saved per year by the defensive use of firearms.

Put that number next to the estimated deaths by firearms per year, excluding suicides and accidental discharges.

Would you be willing to do that?

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ChefFox

A quick look at the statistics of deaths by firearm can pretty much debunk everything you wrote.

America is the gun death capital of the world.

Can you please tell me the CDCs estimation of lives saved per year by the defensive use of firearms.

Put that number next to the estimated deaths by firearms per year, excluding suicides and accidental discharges.

Would you be willing to do that?

In this context it would be important to include/exclude firearm defences against firearm attacks.

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
Can you please tell me the CDCs estimation of lives saved per year by the defensive use of firearms.

Pretty sure the CDC doesn't track such a statistic.

The true purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the citizens to overthrow the government, should the need arise. The Founding Fathers were, above all else, realists. They knew that any kind of government can go bad, and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence makes it clear they believed that the citizens have a God-given right to change the government, should the current system of government become intolerable.

That is the context for understanding the 2nd Amendment. And that's why fascists will seize on any opportunity to try to curb that right.

a reply to: chr0naut

America is the gun death capital of the world.

Not really unless you are counting out Brazil. But do again just please go ahead and ban weapon and see that banning has zero effects on the actual gun violence.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776
Can you please tell me the CDCs estimation of lives saved per year by the defensive use of firearms.

Pretty sure the CDC doesn't track such a statistic.

You should have searched google for 2 seconds. . .

www.google.com...

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: chr0naut

America is the gun death capital of the world.

Not really unless you are counting out Brazil. But do again just please go ahead and ban weapon and see that banning has zero effects on the actual gun violence.

Belize, El Salvador and Honduras per capita are the worst.

Stricter gun laws will inevitably reduce gun homicides but only if illegal gun control is enacted. IE all guns in circulation are removed. Which is impossible. Then once guns are gone people will use different weapons.

Gun ownership is freedom. But freedom allows good and bad people to own guns.

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

I said track, that was a one time study. You need more precise data and a much larger sample size to make a proper assessment.

Next time you feel like getting smarmy try reading what I write. It's pretty to the point.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

I said track, that was a one time study. You need more precise data and a much larger sample size to make a proper assessment.

Next time you feel like getting smarmy try reading what I write. It's pretty to the point.

You should have read my link. . .

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states. Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas. Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey

So study’s is 96, 97, 98 and 2013 are “one time”?

And that’s just the years I saw quickly skimming the article.

There are many other organizations that study defensive gun uses as well, so is your issue with the cdcs data or all the data? I feel like we’re splitting hairs here.

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck
a reply to: ChefFox
It would be a national blood bath if they tried to take our weapons.

As well it should. When your government wants to disarm you, it’s time to be suspicious.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ChefFox

A quick look at the statistics of deaths by firearm can pretty much debunk everything you wrote.

America is the gun death capital of the world.

Nope. Only if you are a simpleton and dont understand basic stats

a reply to: ChefFox

Saw an interesting thought online the other day.



"If the government is trying to take away your firearms, it's because they plan on doing something that would cause you to use them."

originally posted by: Quantumgamer1776

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: ChefFox

A quick look at the statistics of deaths by firearm can pretty much debunk everything you wrote.

America is the gun death capital of the world.

Can you please tell me the CDCs estimation of lives saved per year by the defensive use of firearms.

Put that number next to the estimated deaths by firearms per year, excluding suicides and accidental discharges.

Would you be willing to do that?

Well obviously defensive gun deaths are a subset of total gun deaths, so it will always be less, but no-one seems to be able to decide what the true figure is.

There's no argument if you just count the bodies with fatal bullet wounds, though. That's a no-brainer (headshot? nah, that's in bad taste).

And why would I exclude suicides and accidental discharges? They are a BIG part of the gun statistics. Their inclusion also makes the numbers of defensive gun death even less significant in the 'America, gun death capital' thing.

I would not like to be shot by someone claiming it was self defense. The false claim does not excuse the attempted killing, does it. And we all know defensive situations hardly ever occur, anyway, armed or otherwise.

And the other thing we all know is that the majority of those who claim that it was defensive, are lying. They just wanted to get their shots off. Just take a look at the numbers of police shootings of unarmed civilians (and their pets). These sorts of events look really bad for the "it was defensive" excusists.

Even if defensive use were a thing, America is still gun death capital of the world.