Those Damn Guns Again
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
You mean one would have exposure to Texas's laws, right
I'm talking about gun laws in general.
Yes, stop being a child. You wouldn't be denied a firearm in anyway but you couldn't get it as fast as you like. Adults understand delayed gratification, children don't.
Honestly, I don't care either way. There are plenty of advocates for gun ownership. I think if you want a handgun and aren't an inherent danger to yourself and/or others, you should be able to buy one, just like any other legal product.
There is no "Take All the Guns" side to the debate (not in any significant, legitimate way) so the constant appearance of this strawman is baffling to me.
Switzerland has universal health care too.
They also don't have a standing army and most of the men are conscripted into the militia and given weapons training. If that were the case here, I'd be okay with that.
Didn't ask Lamarr? You're just going to leave him out?
And Lord's knows that's the only dispensary of information on gun laws around the country.
America does not have a gun control problem, it has a crime control problem.
At no point in this discussion have I made reference to 'how fast I can get a firearm'. You've completely missed my point & as a result, you've resorted to namecalling
its all good. I asked an honest question; What is the purpose of "new" legislation? Gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. What is it about this question that is "childish", seeing that we have waiting periods, background checks etc?Why don't more Dems, in particular the black caucus, advocate gun ownership, knowing the first gun control laws of this nation were designed by the KKK, with the purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of black folk?
Yes, stop being a child. You wouldn't be denied a firearm in anyway but you couldn't get it as fast as you like. Adults understand delayed gratification, children don't.
Honestly, I don't care either way. There are plenty of advocates for gun ownership. I think if you want a handgun and aren't an inherent danger to yourself and/or others, you should be able to buy one, just like any other legal product.
There is no "Take All the Guns" side to the debate (not in any significant, legitimate way) so the constant appearance of this strawman is baffling to me.
Switzerland has universal health care too.
They also don't have a standing army and most of the men are conscripted into the militia and given weapons training. If that were the case here, I'd be okay with that.
Didn't ask Lamarr? You're just going to leave him out?
And Lord's knows that's the only dispensary of information on gun laws around the country.
It's the only accurate one.
At no point in this discussion have I made reference to 'how fast I can get a firearm'. You've completely missed my point & as a result, you've resorted to namecalling
Why don't more Dems, in particular the black caucus, advocate gun ownership, knowing the first gun control laws of this nation were designed by the KKK, with the purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of black folk?
Because if the black caucus does that, they will have to address why crime in our neighborhoods are so bad without blaming an object.
It's very easy to blame an object instead of the underlying issue. It's easy to blame a whole race for our troubles instead of our own actions. This is why you got that type of response.
Accurate as to what ???
for explaining current gun laws in your state *if your state has a CHL*.
Think about it, if they are advocating for conceal and carry, it would only make sense for them to accurately talk about current gun laws that changes nearly every session in some sort of way. The media will not report on EVERY law change in the books unless it affects a large group of the population.
source: Washington PostAmerica does not have a gun control problem, it has a crime control problem.
Mythbusting: Israel and Switzerland are not gun-toting utopias
My post “12 facts about guns and mass shootings” included a mention of Israel and Switzerland, societies where guns are reputed to be widely available, but where gun violence is rare. Janet Rosenbaum, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center School, has actually researched this question, and she wrote to tell me I had it wrong. We spoke shortly thereafter on the phone. A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Ezra Klein: Israel and Switzerland are often mentioned as countries that prove that high rates of gun ownership don’t necessarily lead to high rates of gun crime. In fact, I wrote that on Friday. But you say your research shows that’s not true.
Janet Rosenbaum: First of all, because they don’t have high levels of gun ownership. The gun ownership in Israel and Switzerland has decreased.
For instance, in Israel, they’re very limited in who is able to own a gun. There are only a few tens of thousands of legal guns in Israel, and the only people allowed to own them legally live in the settlements, do business in the settlements, or are in professions at risk of violence.
Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.
The second thing is that there’s this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don’t. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.
EK: As I understand it, there’s a stronger link between guns and suicide than between guns and homicide. And one of the really interesting parts of your paper is your recounting of the Israeli military’s effort to cut suicides among soldiers by restricting access to guns.
JR: Yes, it’s very striking. In Israel, it used to be that all soldiers would take the guns home with them. Now they have to leave them on base. Over the years they’ve done this — it began, I think, in 2006 — there’s been a 60 percent decrease in suicide on weekends among IDS soldiers. And it did not correspond to an increase in weekday suicide. People think suicide is an impulse that exists and builds. This shows that doesn’t happen. The impulse to suicide is transitory. Someone with access to a gun at that moment may commit suicide, but if not, they may not.
EK: I was surprised by one statistic in your article: You said that Israel rejects 40 percent of its applications for a gun, the highest rate of rejection of any country in the world. And even when you get approved, you say that “all guns must have an Interior Ministry permit and identifying mark for tracing.” That seems like it might make people think twice before they shoot from a gun they know the government can track.
JR: That’s a requirement. I don’t know a great deal about the ballistics issue there. But that is in the regulations.
EK: Israel and Switzerland are both small, highly cohesive countries. So some say that the difference in gun crime shows that there’s something about American culture that’s leading to these atrocities. Do you buy that?
JR: Israel is not a peaceful society. If there were a lot of guns, it may be even more violent. Israeli schools are well known for having a lot of the kicking and punching type of violence. I don’t know that Switzerland has that reputation. But Israel does, and it seems that the lack of guns promotes the lack of firearm violence rather than there being some nascent tendency toward peacefulness and cohesion. That cohesion may or may not exist, but not having guns prevents guns from being used in violence. People do still commit homicide and suicide but they do it with less lethal means. The most common form of suicide in Israel is strangulation, which is striking, because it’s not that common elsewhere.
EK: Not to derail the conversation, but given that most industrialized countries have quite strict gun laws, if they don’t use strangulation, what do they use?
JR: I don’t know what other countries have, but I’ve read about suicide in Israel, and it’s striking there, because there’s an age discrepancy. Between ages 18 and 21, when people are in the army and have access to guns, firearm suicide is very common. At other ages, strangulation is very common. So it does seem to suggest that people commit suicide with what they have access to even in the same society.
So where is this guy since the gun murders of Sandy Hook? His mouth was all over the media about guns a couple of months ago.
source:NBC News
Defiant NRA leader rejects gun controls, asks to put police in schools
National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre defiantly blamed violent video games and movies, the media, gun-free zones in schools and other factors during the organization's first public statement following the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn. last week.
LaPierre, who was interrupted by Code Pink protesters twice during a statement (during which he refused to answer questions), said that the students in Newtown might have been better protected had officials at Sandy Hook Elementary been armed. He said that putting a police officer in every single school in America might make schools safer.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said, asking Congress to immediately appropriate the money to put a police officer in every single school in the country.
The NRA executive's statement was nothing short of defiant in the face of mounting discussion of the need for tighter restrictions on guns — including renewing a ban on assault weapons — in the wake of last week's shooting.
Protesters twice interrupted LaPierre, who will appear this Sunday exclusively on NBC's "Meet the Press," holding signs reading "NRA KILLING OUR KIDS," and screaming that the gun rights group has "blood on its hands."
I think We Just Witnessed The Rollout Of The Plan To Put DHS & TSA In Our Schools!!!
We'll see
“The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
q From bondage to spiritual faith;
q From spiritual faith to great courage;
q From courage to liberty;
q From liberty to abundance;
q From abundance to complacency;
q From complacency to apathy;
q From apathy to dependence;
q From dependency back into bondage.”
One more step toward totalitarianism and the great dictator.
Both Republicans and Liberals are pushing the same agenda of a return to slavery, serfdom, and ownership by the State.
Is there any way for it to be stopped?
q From bondage to spiritual faith;
q From spiritual faith to great courage;
q From courage to liberty;
q From liberty to abundance;
q From abundance to complacency;
q From complacency to apathy;
q From apathy to dependence;
q From dependency back into bondage.”
One more step toward totalitarianism and the great dictator.
Both Republicans and Liberals are pushing the same agenda of a return to slavery, serfdom, and ownership by the State.
Is there any way for it to be stopped?
Legal In The U.S. .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle
This high-powered sniper rifle—available for sale on the civilian market—has an effective range of over a mile and can pierce armor and shoot down helicopters and aircraft.
They will rejoice in the return to serfdom....
Some on this board will still be in denial though
Forward
If you're still with USPS as I've read, you need to be more concerned about the GOP shuttering your employer but if you insist on jumping in here...
To my knowledge, every state has a website where you can find out about any law on the state's books so why do I need "the media" to tell me about my state.
At no point in this discussion have I made reference to 'how fast I can get a firearm'. You've completely missed my point & as a result, you've resorted to namecalling
It's quite childish to complain when the only thing different will be you will be slightly more inconvenienced than before.
It's not just a matter of quantity of laws but quality. The pro gun manufacturer lobby (they're not really a gun rights lobby) has worked hard on both sides of the political aisle to water down any legislation with loopholes that make the laws useless in practice.
I don't know or care. You're asking me why someone else doesn't do something. Who cares? I would hope, considering some of the districts they represent, they focus more on job creation than wanting everyone to have firearms (which would only serve to make those districts more dangerous, not less).
Or they could just hire private armed security not connected to either.
These last two posts from you are just weird. I expect Cruise to be loony, that's his schtick (to date he is almost always wrong in his predictions) but I'm used to you being more intelligent and subdued than him.
I have no idea how you see this UD. He has been off the deep end since he claimed he got run off of Hannity's board.
Bruh, Cruise made a post, I simply agreed with his logic regarding history and totalitarianism. These are historical facts, If you don't agree with how he applies this knowledge, say so! But you can't just ostracize someone because you disagree with them. C'mon UD. If you can tell me how my opinions are "loony", At least let me defend my viewpoint.
FACTS:
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 right wing always uses these type of countries for their example for everything. They never use countries with similar social and political structures like European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan. Gun deaths in those countries are minuscule compared to the country with guns in their Constitution. Like UD said, loony!
Last edited:
source: Atlantic
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, Japan has as few as two gun-related homicides a year.
A Tokyo "gun" shop owner, who mostly sells air rifles, displays one of Japan's relatively few licensed rifles. (Reuters)
I've heard it said that, if you take a walk around Waikiki, it's only a matter of time until someone hands you a flyer of scantily clad women clutching handguns, overlaid with English and maybe Japanese text advertising one of the many local shooting ranges. The city's largest, the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club, advertises instructors fluent in Japanese, which is also the default language of its website. For years, this peculiar Hawaiian industry has explicitly targeted Japanese tourists, drawing them away from beaches and resorts into shopping malls, to do things that are forbidden in their own country.
Waikiki's Japanese-filled ranges are the sort of quirk you might find in any major tourist town, but they're also an intersection of two societies with wildly different approaches to guns and their role in society. Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.
But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan -- one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it's not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel's landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan's approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America's. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that "No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords," later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Of course, Japan and the U.S. are separated by a number of cultural and historical difference much wider than their gun policies. Kopel explains that, for whatever reason, Japanese tend to be more tolerant of the broad search and seizure police powers necessary to enforce the ban. "Japanese, both criminals and ordinary citizens, are much more willing than their American counterparts to consent to searches and to answer questions from the police," he writes. But even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts in part because they "are expected to use [firearms] in only the rarest of circumstances," according to Kopel.
The Japanese and American ways of thinking about crime, privacy, and police powers are so different -- and Japan is such a generally peaceful country -- that it's functionally impossible to fully isolate and compare the two gun control regiments. It's not much easier to balance the costs and benefits of Japan's unusual approach, which helps keep its murder rate at the second-lowest in the world, though at the cost of restrictions that Kopel calls a "police state," a worrying suggestion that it hands the government too much power over its citizens. After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.
A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths
In part by forbidding almost all forms of firearm ownership, Japan has as few as two gun-related homicides a year.
A Tokyo "gun" shop owner, who mostly sells air rifles, displays one of Japan's relatively few licensed rifles. (Reuters)
I've heard it said that, if you take a walk around Waikiki, it's only a matter of time until someone hands you a flyer of scantily clad women clutching handguns, overlaid with English and maybe Japanese text advertising one of the many local shooting ranges. The city's largest, the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club, advertises instructors fluent in Japanese, which is also the default language of its website. For years, this peculiar Hawaiian industry has explicitly targeted Japanese tourists, drawing them away from beaches and resorts into shopping malls, to do things that are forbidden in their own country.
Waikiki's Japanese-filled ranges are the sort of quirk you might find in any major tourist town, but they're also an intersection of two societies with wildly different approaches to guns and their role in society. Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.
But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.
Almost no one in Japan owns a gun. Most kinds are illegal, with onerous restrictions on buying and maintaining the few that are allowed. Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories.
Japanese tourists who fire off a few rounds at the Royal Hawaiian Shooting Club would be breaking three separate laws back in Japan -- one for holding a handgun, one for possessing unlicensed bullets, and another violation for firing them -- the first of which alone is punishable by one to ten years in jail. Handguns are forbidden absolutely. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.
The only guns that Japanese citizens can legally buy and use are shotguns and air rifles, and it's not easy to do. The process is detailed in David Kopel's landmark study on Japanese gun control, published in the 1993 Asia Pacific Law Review, still cited as current. (Kopel, no left-wing loony, is a member of the National Rifle Association and once wrote in National Review that looser gun control laws could have stopped Adolf Hitler.)
To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
Even the most basic framework of Japan's approach to gun ownership is almost the polar opposite of America's. U.S. gun law begins with the second amendment's affirmation of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and narrows it down from there. Japanese law, however, starts with the 1958 act stating that "No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords," later adding a few exceptions. In other words, American law is designed to enshrine access to guns, while Japan starts with the premise of forbidding it. The history of that is complicated, but it's worth noting that U.S. gun law has its roots in resistance to British gun restrictions, whereas some academic literature links the Japanese law to the national campaign to forcibly disarm the samurai, which may partially explain why the 1958 mentions firearms and swords side-by-side.
Of course, Japan and the U.S. are separated by a number of cultural and historical difference much wider than their gun policies. Kopel explains that, for whatever reason, Japanese tend to be more tolerant of the broad search and seizure police powers necessary to enforce the ban. "Japanese, both criminals and ordinary citizens, are much more willing than their American counterparts to consent to searches and to answer questions from the police," he writes. But even the police did not carry firearms themselves until, in 1946, the American occupation authority ordered them to. Now, Japanese police receive more hours of training than their American counterparts, are forbidden from carrying off-duty, and invest hours in studying martial arts in part because they "are expected to use [firearms] in only the rarest of circumstances," according to Kopel.
The Japanese and American ways of thinking about crime, privacy, and police powers are so different -- and Japan is such a generally peaceful country -- that it's functionally impossible to fully isolate and compare the two gun control regiments. It's not much easier to balance the costs and benefits of Japan's unusual approach, which helps keep its murder rate at the second-lowest in the world, though at the cost of restrictions that Kopel calls a "police state," a worrying suggestion that it hands the government too much power over its citizens. After all, the U.S. constitution's second amendment is intended in part to maintain "the security of a free State" by ensuring that the government doesn't have a monopoly on force. Though it's worth considering another police state here: Tunisia, which had the lowest firearm ownership rate in the world (one gun per thousand citizens, compared to America's 890) when its people toppled a brutal, 24-year dictatorship and sparked the Arab Spring.
Hannity has a board? And there is a way to get "run off" it?
Okay
First, I don't declare anyone "loony" just for disagreeing with me and having debated you and AAA and Greed and any number of cats here, you should know that.
When a person jumps out there and makes outlandish claim and prediction one after another, I write them off. I know you don't because you cite some pretty incredible sources to make your arguments but I do.
As for those "examples", don't you find it easy for one side or another to find extreme displays to bolster whatever arguement you want to make? You cite Uganda and China but does that disqualify modern day Japan?
The right wing always uses these type of countries for their example for everything. They never use countries with similar social and political structures like European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan. Gun deaths in those countries are minuscule compared to the country with guns in their Constitution. Like UD said, loony!
The right wing always uses these type of countries for their example for everything. They never use countries with similar social and political structures like European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan. Gun deaths in those countries are minuscule compared to the country with guns in their Constitution. Like UD said, loony!
In other words, you pick countries with steady supplies of energy and food, employment, and material abundance.
Take those things away, and those places (Canada, Australia, and Japan) are no different than anywhere else.
For instance, Japan lives in an effective police state. The power of the police is almost total... no 4th Amendment, little Due Process, limited Right to Counsel. In fact, it is difficult to own any kind of edged weapon (sword or knife). Is that how you want to live?
Canada and Australia could easily turn violent if the food or energy becomes unstable... like Spain or Greece.
Without the right to bear arms, the people become the property of the State.
Last edited:
Exactly!
Hannity has a board? And there is a way to get "run off" it?
Yea, that's like saying "you're too crazy to be in the insane asylum." That's a special kind of nut cake.
Okay
First, I don't declare anyone "loony" just for disagreeing with me and having debated you and AAA and Greed and any number of cats here, you should know that.
When a person jumps out there and makes outlandish claim and prediction one after another, I write them off. I know you don't because you cite some pretty incredible sources to make your arguments but I do.
As for those "examples", don't you find it easy for one side or another to find extreme displays to bolster whatever arguement you want to make? You cite Uganda and China but does that disqualify modern day Japan?
I understand that. But you have been engaged on this board long enough to realize the absurd logic some are working with. Now you are forming solid opinions. You can only observe what you are given.
So what does the right to bear arms have to do with the safety of those countries?
How about looking at the way the United States criminalizes black people... or the poor... or the mentally unstable?
There was a time in the United States where people could leave their doors unlocked, and I am talking in my parents lifetime.
The State (the Federal government, the courts, the police, and the local governments getting Federal dollars) have basically been waging a non-stop war against the public for decades (War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Crime, War on Poverty).
The United States government creates an unsafe and violent environment, not the people and their right to defend themselves.
Are the governments in Canada or Australia or Japan currently criminalizing and imprisoning their populations the way the United States is? That's a more likely cause for violent crime than anything else.
Defiant NRA leader rejects gun controls, asks to put police in schools
Rolled out by the NRA.
Says a lot about the NRA, doesn't it.
We'll see who remain among its supporters . . .
Clearly, those who remain will be among those who should be denied arms:
- Idiots
- The mentally distrubed
- The brainless
- Criminals
- Soon-to-be criminals
- Wannabe criminals
- Children (of all ages, 1 to 100) having not yet reached mental maturity
Nothing like a good 'ol gun debate.
What's the problem with comparing modern countries with our own as opposed to radically different countries from generations ago?
Loony.
Good Morning Citizens, I have a solution! in President Obama's good words, "to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."
Put "Gun Free Zone" Signs In Front of Your Homes
How bout it Thought?
That looks like something out of the Onion.
It just can't be real.
Rolled out by the NRA.
Says a lot about the NRA, doesn't it.
We'll see who remain among its supporters . . .
Clearly, those who remain will be among those who should be denied arms:
- Idiots
- The mentally distrubed
- The brainless
- Criminals
- Soon-to-be criminals
- Wannabe criminals
- Children (of all ages, 1 to 100) having not yet reached mental maturity
What would it say about our leadership (Pres. Obama) if it is implemented?
I don't support the NRA because they are a 'compromise' organization, for lack of a better term. But I was wondering why the NRA was silent immediately following the incident at Sandy Hook, so I did some research after their press conference. "The National School Shield"? The NRA already has a program designed and ready to implement? What is up with that? Were they waiting for the right moment to pitch their latest product? I just can't come outright & say it but damn, what a coincidence
http://www.nraschoolshield.com/
Good Morning Citizens, I have a solution! in President Obama's good words, "to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics."
Put "Gun Free Zone" Signs In Front of Your Homes
How bout it Thought?
How about repealing the 2nd Amendment. It's as antiquated as slavery.
Rolled out by the NRA.
Says a lot about the NRA, doesn't it.
We'll see who remain among its supporters . . .
Clearly, those who remain will be among those who should be denied arms:
- Idiots
- The mentally distrubed
- The brainless
- Criminals
- Soon-to-be criminals
- Wannabe criminals
- Children (of all ages, 1 to 100) having not yet reached mental maturity
Similar threads
