ItsjustmeIthink
Social Capitalist
No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sorry... like in any free country, we don't need to prove to our government that we meet some subjecitve standard of worthiness before we can exercise one of our fundamental rights.A compulsory psyche evaluation and a compulsory firearm safety course would be a start.
:yawn:No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.
Obviously Saigon has never heard about Switzerland's gun laws. EVERY household is REQUIRED to own a weapon,they have the lowest crime rate in the world. Blows your little theory about more guns equals more crime out of the water.
Actually, no, it doesn't, not in the slightest.
Switzerland is a unique situation in that most of the guns there are not in active use. They are handed out to off-duty soldiers, most of whom safely lock them away and never use them. They are also owned by people well trained.
What you need to remember with Switzerland is:
- the guns were not purchased (i.e. it is not like people actually wanted them)
- the owners were all trained by the state
- the owners were all psyche tested as part of their army call-up.
And no, not all houses are required to own a weapon.
What you forget to add is that the only thing preventing a swiss citizen from opening up his sealed ammo pack and using his weapon is the law abiding nature of the person owning the firearm. The same dedication to obeying the law is what makes CCW holders and legal gun owners such a small percentage of actual criminal use of firearms.
So how, by banning the legal posession of these weapons, do we reduce the crime with them, when the majority of the crimes are committed by people who shouldnt have had them in the first place, under current law?
People having guns has resulted in a much lower total amount of murders.
But the bad side to that is that Gun Violence has risen to take the majority of the reduced amount of murders.
I see nothing wrong with the increased demand for AKs.
If a right is going to be taken away, then might as well make the most out of your current situation.
Translation:Actually, no, it doesn't, not in the slightest.
Switzerland is a unique situation in that most of the guns there are not in active use. They are handed out to off-duty soldiers, most of whom safely lock them away and never use them. They are also owned by people well trained.
What you need to remember with Switzerland is:
- the guns were not purchased (i.e. it is not like people actually wanted them)
- the owners were all trained by the state
- the owners were all psyche tested as part of their army call-up.
And no, not all houses are required to own a weapon.
What you forget to add is that the only thing preventing a swiss citizen from opening up his sealed ammo pack and using his weapon is the law abiding nature of the person owning the firearm. The same dedication to obeying the law is what makes CCW holders and legal gun owners such a small percentage of actual criminal use of firearms.
So how, by banning the legal posession of these weapons, do we reduce the crime with them, when the majority of the crimes are committed by people who shouldnt have had them in the first place, under current law?
what you forgot to add us that Switzerland has cradle to grave government support that makes life a hell of a lot less stressful for the average Joe...
:yawn:No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.
"Assault weapons" are the -very best- example of sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.
Yes. Entitlement-driven fiscal collapse is virtually unavoidable, with economic and then societal collapse right behind.It's going to be sink or swim REGARDLESS, there is NO MONEY for your entitlements. We're going BROKE!
Or hadn't you noticed??
The 2nd protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, regardless of that individual's association with any militia, and so your post is meaningless."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State":yawn:No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.
"Assault weapons" are the -very best- example of sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.
People having guns has resulted in a much lower total amount of murders.
But the bad side to that is that Gun Violence has risen to take the majority of the reduced amount of murders.
I see nothing wrong with the increased demand for AKs.
If a right is going to be taken away, then might as well make the most out of your current situation.
I find part of your comment troubling Who has the authority to take away any rights?
People having guns has resulted in a much lower total amount of murders.
But the bad side to that is that Gun Violence has risen to take the majority of the reduced amount of murders.
I see nothing wrong with the increased demand for AKs.
If a right is going to be taken away, then might as well make the most out of your current situation.
I find part of your comment troubling Who has the authority to take away any rights?
Nobody does.
But with political leaders breaking laws and infringing on rights, do you think we can do anything about it if we don't forcefully give them the boot and throw them in the slammer?
I mean we should just walk in ourselves and get the damn job done.
There are three tiems as many deaths related to negligent driving than fire arms. There are also many more vehicles than guns. Ban cars?
Possibly...but they still have homicide rates 90% lower than the US.
:yawn:No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.
"Assault weapons" are the -very best- example of sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Do a bunch of people running around with AKs contribute to our security, or take away from it? Considering that the National Guard is under oath from State governors I'd say the tidbit about having "a well regulated Milita" is pretty well covered.
-sigh
Therein lies the fundamental question.
Do we want people so easily scared to have a weapon of mass destruction in their custody and control?
The homicide rate in the US is currently around 10 times the rate on most civilised countries....I wonder how high it would have to get before Americans would start to worry.
There have been something like three major mass murders in the US in the past fortnight - I suspect there will be more to come.
From the last link: While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons
Translation:What you forget to add is that the only thing preventing a swiss citizen from opening up his sealed ammo pack and using his weapon is the law abiding nature of the person owning the firearm. The same dedication to obeying the law is what makes CCW holders and legal gun owners such a small percentage of actual criminal use of firearms.
So how, by banning the legal posession of these weapons, do we reduce the crime with them, when the majority of the crimes are committed by people who shouldnt have had them in the first place, under current law?
what you forgot to add us that Switzerland has cradle to grave government support that makes life a hell of a lot less stressful for the average Joe...
Violent crime rates are more affected by societal issues than the widespread availibility of guns.
Duh.