CDZ Gun Control

[Gdjjr]

You've witnessed me in countless spats over the fact that inalienable and unalienable have been interpreted differently. The high Court simply used a synonym for the word unalienable and built a whole body of law around the word inalienable and then the legal community REMOVED the word unalienable from recent editions of Blacks Law Dictionary.

Would you post your findings on that here- Confusion it's an excellent example.http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/confusion.799087/

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There are times I think I would have been a good lawyer- then I think of the pomp and circumstance involved and I wanna throw up. I believe in respect and professional courtesy but I don't, in fact I refuse to, bow to another under any circumstance. In todays environment judges are given way too much credence in their "opinions" and demand far too much compliance for my taste. As I've stated, often, lawyers (which judges started out as) pay others to teach them to lie legally- they offer opinions as truth and introduce ambiguity to intentionally confuse issues. That they've paid others to teach them to think doesn't speak well of them personally- IMO. It only shows they have a good memory- to remember doesn't require a lot of original thought.

But, in reference to your link, it's very informative- as for the quotes, it appears I'm in good company in my beliefs. It also increased my respect for Jefferson and the founders in general. They were "thinkers" vs the regurgitators of today.

You don't know how lucky you are not to ever having been a lawyer.

As you duly noted, judges were once lawyers, but lawyers don't get to be lawyers until they are trained and approved by the American Bar Association (ABA.) The ABA is the most left wing, liberal organization in the United States. They are left of Karl Marx.

Despite where I stand, you see where the right stands when you challenge their nonsensical views on the law - AND how little they really understand of it. You have to get used to seeing the side you want to lose because the left / liberals have control of both sides of the discussion.

See what happens to me and thank God you didn't waste your life learning the law.

 

[Gdjjr]

See what happens to me and thank God you didn't waste your life learning the law.

I don't think learning is a waste- knowledge can manifest itself in ways unimaginable. That said, practicing law may have proven wasteful and probably at times quite depressing, but, when I see your posts and the confidence with which you post them, I'm a tad envious. You are, at the very least, passing on knowledge, founded on a solid foundation, not an opinion, but you can cite opinion as proof that you know what you're talking about. You're sowing seeds, some will bear fruit, some won't and you're making an effort to leave your space a little better than you found it, which is all anyone can hope to do, and, it is enough.
Keep up the good work.

 

[jasonnfree]

Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default.

How does Socially Liberal have an effect on anti-gunners? You yourself just stated; over 40,000 laws *against* guns- how many laws are against drugs? How Socially Liberal is that? How is forcing a belief going to change anyone's mind? Mutual agreement is where the answer lies. Not more laws, which, (by coincidence?) restrict Liberal actions and punish non-criminals who have been made criminal by law, even though another wasn't harmed.
That's not to say I condone the use of drugs, but neither do I condone punishing non-criminals because of something someone else did- which is worse? Stopping drug use is impossible. Stopping the punishment of non-criminals is possible. If someone commits a crime (harms another or takes what isn't theirs) those, in and of themselves, is criminal *action*. No harm, no foul came about for a reason.

There is no stopping violence, or criminals. There is only punishment for either, which is the way it should be. But, more laws means more criminals by law, not through harming another. More laws is justification for more enFORCEment officers who have to be paid through, yeah, theft, which is criminal.

I'm not a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance being required in schools, but, if it is, and it's used ceremonially, it should be taken to heart, or not? - Liberty and Justice for all- of course it's contradictory to our systemic laws against liberty- it (the pledge) starts out being wrong, or is it? Note the words if you will; I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all- is there a caveat for all I'm unaware of? How can States (plural) be one (singular) with respect to sovereignty? The Flag represents with stars and stripes- plural-

My point; confusion reigns supreme in this Country (50 sovereign States) and some desire to seek clarity to clear the confusion with mind altering drugs- some choose alcohol- personally, I choose coffee, so don't go there. When people are confused and officials prey on the confusion some will seek an alternative. Why is that criminal?

Excuse me now, please, I'm gonna go outside with a cup of coffee to clear my mind.

You put way too much into one post to respond to, but I'll try to clarify my position rather than to take on each of your paragraphs and explain my opinion on each.

America could better control their drug problem if they would get the government out of the drug pushing business.

Today, society thinks most kids have anxiety, depression, or some other pretend emotional disorder. So either the parents take their child to the doctor and / or the government suggests it. Either way, after a five minute consultation and answering a few questions correctly, the doctor will prescribe Ritalin or Adderall. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these conditions are largely nonexistent.

In about middle school, children are introduced to opioids (whether legal or illegal.) Those who were diagnosed and given Ritalin or Adderall seem to gravitate toward even more drugs – and a lot of them end up on SSRIs that doctors and mental health officials like to write prescriptions for. Many children at this juncture in their lives find themselves smoking pot, using meth, and other illegal substances. Some do it for fun and to be one of the popular crowd; others self medicate.

While this is going on, the liberals have declared war on the churches of America. If you preach a doctrine contrary to the social gospel as accepted by secular humanists, the government will take away your tax status; somebody like the left wing SPLC can label you a "hate" group or whatever it takes to shut you down and you can find yourself locked out of social media.

The way we got into this quagmire is that the left declared a war against the posterity of the founders. They have attacked our culture and will settle for nothing less than total genocide. They need to take the firearms in order to implement their program, so the government pushes drugs that causes people to commit horrendous acts of violence.

By limiting peoples Freedom of Association, the government creates zombies. And, they are able to keep the Pavlovian conditioning going because the government can create statutory "crimes." In reality a crime used to require mens rea (a fancy Latin word for intent) to deprive another of their Rights. You drinking coffee or some guy smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home (unless either of you subjects minors to this "habit") in no way takes anything away from your neighbor. Where, exactly, is the crime? Then again, if the government were not shutting down the churches and the people have a choice, I think that enough people would choose the straight and narrow so that the "problem" would not really be a problem.

Get the government out of the drug business. Treating unruly children with drugs ought to be the LAST course of treatment, not the first (and many times ONLY course of treatment doctors pursue.)

Let schools have places where students can meet and pray; allow schools to say the Pledge of Allegiance - and if a child doesn't want to participate, don't participate. If a local school district wants to vote to teach creationism alongside of evolution - then let them. The locals pay the taxes and should have the say in what curriculum their children should be subjected to. Here is the problem in America as anticipated by author Ayn Rand:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Porter.... I'd like your explanation of why churches should be able to not pay taxes. Thanks.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default.

How does Socially Liberal have an effect on anti-gunners? You yourself just stated; over 40,000 laws *against* guns- how many laws are against drugs? How Socially Liberal is that? How is forcing a belief going to change anyone's mind? Mutual agreement is where the answer lies. Not more laws, which, (by coincidence?) restrict Liberal actions and punish non-criminals who have been made criminal by law, even though another wasn't harmed.
That's not to say I condone the use of drugs, but neither do I condone punishing non-criminals because of something someone else did- which is worse? Stopping drug use is impossible. Stopping the punishment of non-criminals is possible. If someone commits a crime (harms another or takes what isn't theirs) those, in and of themselves, is criminal *action*. No harm, no foul came about for a reason.

There is no stopping violence, or criminals. There is only punishment for either, which is the way it should be. But, more laws means more criminals by law, not through harming another. More laws is justification for more enFORCEment officers who have to be paid through, yeah, theft, which is criminal.

I'm not a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance being required in schools, but, if it is, and it's used ceremonially, it should be taken to heart, or not? - Liberty and Justice for all- of course it's contradictory to our systemic laws against liberty- it (the pledge) starts out being wrong, or is it? Note the words if you will; I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all- is there a caveat for all I'm unaware of? How can States (plural) be one (singular) with respect to sovereignty? The Flag represents with stars and stripes- plural-

My point; confusion reigns supreme in this Country (50 sovereign States) and some desire to seek clarity to clear the confusion with mind altering drugs- some choose alcohol- personally, I choose coffee, so don't go there. When people are confused and officials prey on the confusion some will seek an alternative. Why is that criminal?

Excuse me now, please, I'm gonna go outside with a cup of coffee to clear my mind.

You put way too much into one post to respond to, but I'll try to clarify my position rather than to take on each of your paragraphs and explain my opinion on each.

America could better control their drug problem if they would get the government out of the drug pushing business.

Today, society thinks most kids have anxiety, depression, or some other pretend emotional disorder. So either the parents take their child to the doctor and / or the government suggests it. Either way, after a five minute consultation and answering a few questions correctly, the doctor will prescribe Ritalin or Adderall. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these conditions are largely nonexistent.

In about middle school, children are introduced to opioids (whether legal or illegal.) Those who were diagnosed and given Ritalin or Adderall seem to gravitate toward even more drugs – and a lot of them end up on SSRIs that doctors and mental health officials like to write prescriptions for. Many children at this juncture in their lives find themselves smoking pot, using meth, and other illegal substances. Some do it for fun and to be one of the popular crowd; others self medicate.

While this is going on, the liberals have declared war on the churches of America. If you preach a doctrine contrary to the social gospel as accepted by secular humanists, the government will take away your tax status; somebody like the left wing SPLC can label you a "hate" group or whatever it takes to shut you down and you can find yourself locked out of social media.

The way we got into this quagmire is that the left declared a war against the posterity of the founders. They have attacked our culture and will settle for nothing less than total genocide. They need to take the firearms in order to implement their program, so the government pushes drugs that causes people to commit horrendous acts of violence.

By limiting peoples Freedom of Association, the government creates zombies. And, they are able to keep the Pavlovian conditioning going because the government can create statutory "crimes." In reality a crime used to require mens rea (a fancy Latin word for intent) to deprive another of their Rights. You drinking coffee or some guy smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home (unless either of you subjects minors to this "habit") in no way takes anything away from your neighbor. Where, exactly, is the crime? Then again, if the government were not shutting down the churches and the people have a choice, I think that enough people would choose the straight and narrow so that the "problem" would not really be a problem.

Get the government out of the drug business. Treating unruly children with drugs ought to be the LAST course of treatment, not the first (and many times ONLY course of treatment doctors pursue.)

Let schools have places where students can meet and pray; allow schools to say the Pledge of Allegiance - and if a child doesn't want to participate, don't participate. If a local school district wants to vote to teach creationism alongside of evolution - then let them. The locals pay the taxes and should have the say in what curriculum their children should be subjected to. Here is the problem in America as anticipated by author Ayn Rand:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Porter.... I'd like your explanation of why churches should be able to not pay taxes. Thanks.

The liberals keep yapping about a separation of church and state. So, if you cannot bring a Bible onto government property, why should they be able tax you if there is to be a separation of church and state?

There is this funny "wall" the liberals made wherein the church cannot influence the public, but that same wall gives the government the power to dictate to churches what their religious tenets ought to be, thereby allowing the government to influence what parishioners can and cannot believe.

They tell you we have a separation of church and state; however, the unofficial state religion is secular humanism. The United States Supreme Court has said that secular humanism has "the effect of a religion." Yet if you read the Humanist Manifesto and compare it to government policies, the citizenry is all but mandated to believe in those tenets. Otherwise their churches will have their non-profit status revoked (and I don't believe in registered churches either since we're supposed to be separate.) If you are an individual, these government policies will get you ostracized, discriminated against, and locked out of society. So, why should the government be able to tax the church?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Left benefits from law abiding citizens owning guns because it makes criminals think twice because they do not know who is armed. In effect they are being protected by the Right from crime.
What do you say?

The left wants the state to have a monopoly on force; this cannot happen so long as the citizenry remains armed.
So... No.

 

[Gdjjr]

I'd like your explanation of why churches should be able to not pay taxes. Thanks.

Simple answer: Non profit organization.

 

[Syriusly]

The Left benefits from law abiding citizens owning guns because it makes criminals think twice because they do not know who is armed. In effect they are being protected by the Right from crime.
What do you say?

Not sure what your debate is.

Does private ownership of gun deter criminals? I don't know.

I do know we have lots more guns than countries that have lower crime rates and fewer guns. But does that correlate either?

Show us the facts.

 

[jasonnfree]

Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default.

How does Socially Liberal have an effect on anti-gunners? You yourself just stated; over 40,000 laws *against* guns- how many laws are against drugs? How Socially Liberal is that? How is forcing a belief going to change anyone's mind? Mutual agreement is where the answer lies. Not more laws, which, (by coincidence?) restrict Liberal actions and punish non-criminals who have been made criminal by law, even though another wasn't harmed.
That's not to say I condone the use of drugs, but neither do I condone punishing non-criminals because of something someone else did- which is worse? Stopping drug use is impossible. Stopping the punishment of non-criminals is possible. If someone commits a crime (harms another or takes what isn't theirs) those, in and of themselves, is criminal *action*. No harm, no foul came about for a reason.

There is no stopping violence, or criminals. There is only punishment for either, which is the way it should be. But, more laws means more criminals by law, not through harming another. More laws is justification for more enFORCEment officers who have to be paid through, yeah, theft, which is criminal.

I'm not a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance being required in schools, but, if it is, and it's used ceremonially, it should be taken to heart, or not? - Liberty and Justice for all- of course it's contradictory to our systemic laws against liberty- it (the pledge) starts out being wrong, or is it? Note the words if you will; I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all- is there a caveat for all I'm unaware of? How can States (plural) be one (singular) with respect to sovereignty? The Flag represents with stars and stripes- plural-

My point; confusion reigns supreme in this Country (50 sovereign States) and some desire to seek clarity to clear the confusion with mind altering drugs- some choose alcohol- personally, I choose coffee, so don't go there. When people are confused and officials prey on the confusion some will seek an alternative. Why is that criminal?

Excuse me now, please, I'm gonna go outside with a cup of coffee to clear my mind.

You put way too much into one post to respond to, but I'll try to clarify my position rather than to take on each of your paragraphs and explain my opinion on each.

America could better control their drug problem if they would get the government out of the drug pushing business.

Today, society thinks most kids have anxiety, depression, or some other pretend emotional disorder. So either the parents take their child to the doctor and / or the government suggests it. Either way, after a five minute consultation and answering a few questions correctly, the doctor will prescribe Ritalin or Adderall. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these conditions are largely nonexistent.

In about middle school, children are introduced to opioids (whether legal or illegal.) Those who were diagnosed and given Ritalin or Adderall seem to gravitate toward even more drugs – and a lot of them end up on SSRIs that doctors and mental health officials like to write prescriptions for. Many children at this juncture in their lives find themselves smoking pot, using meth, and other illegal substances. Some do it for fun and to be one of the popular crowd; others self medicate.

While this is going on, the liberals have declared war on the churches of America. If you preach a doctrine contrary to the social gospel as accepted by secular humanists, the government will take away your tax status; somebody like the left wing SPLC can label you a "hate" group or whatever it takes to shut you down and you can find yourself locked out of social media.

The way we got into this quagmire is that the left declared a war against the posterity of the founders. They have attacked our culture and will settle for nothing less than total genocide. They need to take the firearms in order to implement their program, so the government pushes drugs that causes people to commit horrendous acts of violence.

By limiting peoples Freedom of Association, the government creates zombies. And, they are able to keep the Pavlovian conditioning going because the government can create statutory "crimes." In reality a crime used to require mens rea (a fancy Latin word for intent) to deprive another of their Rights. You drinking coffee or some guy smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home (unless either of you subjects minors to this "habit") in no way takes anything away from your neighbor. Where, exactly, is the crime? Then again, if the government were not shutting down the churches and the people have a choice, I think that enough people would choose the straight and narrow so that the "problem" would not really be a problem.

Get the government out of the drug business. Treating unruly children with drugs ought to be the LAST course of treatment, not the first (and many times ONLY course of treatment doctors pursue.)

Let schools have places where students can meet and pray; allow schools to say the Pledge of Allegiance - and if a child doesn't want to participate, don't participate. If a local school district wants to vote to teach creationism alongside of evolution - then let them. The locals pay the taxes and should have the say in what curriculum their children should be subjected to. Here is the problem in America as anticipated by author Ayn Rand:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Porter.... I'd like your explanation of why churches should be able to not pay taxes. Thanks.

The liberals keep yapping about a separation of church and state. So, if you cannot bring a Bible onto government property, why should they be able tax you if there is to be a separation of church and state?

There is this funny "wall" the liberals made wherein the church cannot influence the public, but that same wall gives the government the power to dictate to churches what their religious tenets ought to be, thereby allowing the government to influence what parishioners can and cannot believe.

They tell you we have a separation of church and state; however, the unofficial state religion is secular humanism. The United States Supreme Court has said that secular humanism has "the effect of a religion." Yet if you read the Humanist Manifesto and compare it to government policies, the citizenry is all but mandated to believe in those tenets. Otherwise their churches will have their non-profit status revoked (and I don't believe in registered churches either since we're supposed to be separate.) If you are an individual, these government policies will get you ostracized, discriminated against, and locked out of society. So, why should the government be able to tax the church?

Bringing 'the liberals' into the conversation right away was a clue that you knew little to nothing about the subject but thanks anyway.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Neither side wants to address that. So, if we don't become active and challenge the drug culture and have a serious discussion about America's commitment to a socially liberal policy, the anti-gunners will ultimately win by default.

How does Socially Liberal have an effect on anti-gunners? You yourself just stated; over 40,000 laws *against* guns- how many laws are against drugs? How Socially Liberal is that? How is forcing a belief going to change anyone's mind? Mutual agreement is where the answer lies. Not more laws, which, (by coincidence?) restrict Liberal actions and punish non-criminals who have been made criminal by law, even though another wasn't harmed.
That's not to say I condone the use of drugs, but neither do I condone punishing non-criminals because of something someone else did- which is worse? Stopping drug use is impossible. Stopping the punishment of non-criminals is possible. If someone commits a crime (harms another or takes what isn't theirs) those, in and of themselves, is criminal *action*. No harm, no foul came about for a reason.

There is no stopping violence, or criminals. There is only punishment for either, which is the way it should be. But, more laws means more criminals by law, not through harming another. More laws is justification for more enFORCEment officers who have to be paid through, yeah, theft, which is criminal.

I'm not a fan of the Pledge of Allegiance being required in schools, but, if it is, and it's used ceremonially, it should be taken to heart, or not? - Liberty and Justice for all- of course it's contradictory to our systemic laws against liberty- it (the pledge) starts out being wrong, or is it? Note the words if you will; I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all- is there a caveat for all I'm unaware of? How can States (plural) be one (singular) with respect to sovereignty? The Flag represents with stars and stripes- plural-

My point; confusion reigns supreme in this Country (50 sovereign States) and some desire to seek clarity to clear the confusion with mind altering drugs- some choose alcohol- personally, I choose coffee, so don't go there. When people are confused and officials prey on the confusion some will seek an alternative. Why is that criminal?

Excuse me now, please, I'm gonna go outside with a cup of coffee to clear my mind.

You put way too much into one post to respond to, but I'll try to clarify my position rather than to take on each of your paragraphs and explain my opinion on each.

America could better control their drug problem if they would get the government out of the drug pushing business.

Today, society thinks most kids have anxiety, depression, or some other pretend emotional disorder. So either the parents take their child to the doctor and / or the government suggests it. Either way, after a five minute consultation and answering a few questions correctly, the doctor will prescribe Ritalin or Adderall. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these conditions are largely nonexistent.

In about middle school, children are introduced to opioids (whether legal or illegal.) Those who were diagnosed and given Ritalin or Adderall seem to gravitate toward even more drugs – and a lot of them end up on SSRIs that doctors and mental health officials like to write prescriptions for. Many children at this juncture in their lives find themselves smoking pot, using meth, and other illegal substances. Some do it for fun and to be one of the popular crowd; others self medicate.

While this is going on, the liberals have declared war on the churches of America. If you preach a doctrine contrary to the social gospel as accepted by secular humanists, the government will take away your tax status; somebody like the left wing SPLC can label you a "hate" group or whatever it takes to shut you down and you can find yourself locked out of social media.

The way we got into this quagmire is that the left declared a war against the posterity of the founders. They have attacked our culture and will settle for nothing less than total genocide. They need to take the firearms in order to implement their program, so the government pushes drugs that causes people to commit horrendous acts of violence.

By limiting peoples Freedom of Association, the government creates zombies. And, they are able to keep the Pavlovian conditioning going because the government can create statutory "crimes." In reality a crime used to require mens rea (a fancy Latin word for intent) to deprive another of their Rights. You drinking coffee or some guy smoking a joint in the privacy of his own home (unless either of you subjects minors to this "habit") in no way takes anything away from your neighbor. Where, exactly, is the crime? Then again, if the government were not shutting down the churches and the people have a choice, I think that enough people would choose the straight and narrow so that the "problem" would not really be a problem.

Get the government out of the drug business. Treating unruly children with drugs ought to be the LAST course of treatment, not the first (and many times ONLY course of treatment doctors pursue.)

Let schools have places where students can meet and pray; allow schools to say the Pledge of Allegiance - and if a child doesn't want to participate, don't participate. If a local school district wants to vote to teach creationism alongside of evolution - then let them. The locals pay the taxes and should have the say in what curriculum their children should be subjected to. Here is the problem in America as anticipated by author Ayn Rand:

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Porter.... I'd like your explanation of why churches should be able to not pay taxes. Thanks.

The liberals keep yapping about a separation of church and state. So, if you cannot bring a Bible onto government property, why should they be able tax you if there is to be a separation of church and state?

There is this funny "wall" the liberals made wherein the church cannot influence the public, but that same wall gives the government the power to dictate to churches what their religious tenets ought to be, thereby allowing the government to influence what parishioners can and cannot believe.

They tell you we have a separation of church and state; however, the unofficial state religion is secular humanism. The United States Supreme Court has said that secular humanism has "the effect of a religion." Yet if you read the Humanist Manifesto and compare it to government policies, the citizenry is all but mandated to believe in those tenets. Otherwise their churches will have their non-profit status revoked (and I don't believe in registered churches either since we're supposed to be separate.) If you are an individual, these government policies will get you ostracized, discriminated against, and locked out of society. So, why should the government be able to tax the church?

Bringing 'the liberals' into the conversation right away was a clue that you knew little to nothing about the subject but thanks anyway.

What a crock of horsesh!+!!! So you're a liberal that got his tighty whiteys in a bunch. You sound just like the racists hiding out behind Donald Trump in order to hide their agenda.

Obviously, I DO know quite a bit more than you let on. Thank you for that kind of criticism. It helps build my credibility... exposing poseurs is becoming my specialty.

 

[Gdjjr]

I do know we have lots more guns than countries that have lower crime rates and fewer guns.

We also have a lot more people- however, I think Mexico tops the list in violent crimes- unless we look at the ME- of course that also depends on what's considered a crime- say Hong Kong for instance- the US has the top incarceration rate- most of those incarcerated are there for non-violent crimes, which really isn't a criminal action since another wasn't harmed- it could be argued that jailing somebody for a non-violent crime is in and of itself a criminal action- oh, and those other countries don't have our duly recognized and protected right to defend ourselves as a part of the rules for gov't-

 

[Syriusly]

I do know we have lots more guns than countries that have lower crime rates and fewer guns.

We also have a lot more people- however, I think Mexico tops the list in violent crimes- unless we look at the ME- of course that also depends on what's considered a crime- say Hong Kong for instance- the US has the top incarceration rate- most of those incarcerated are there for non-violent crimes, which really isn't a criminal action since another wasn't harmed- it could be argued that jailing somebody for a non-violent crime is in and of itself a criminal action- oh, and those other countries don't have our duly recognized and protected right to defend ourselves as a part of the rules for gov't-

'crime rate' would be the crime percentage for the population- so the number of population doesn't matter.

Using the intentional homicide rate as one example
United 5.3 per 100,000 population
France 1.3 per 100,000
UK 1.2 per 100,000
Germany 1 per 100,000

The U.S. has higher gun ownership rates, and higher homicide rates than those countries. Whether that means there is causality- I don't know. But the OP provided no facts for his assertion. But presuming it is true- why is a person in Germany 5 times less likely to be murdered than a person in the U.S.- if gun ownership deters criminals?

 

[Gdjjr]

The U.S. has higher gun ownership rates, and higher homicide rates than those countries. Whether that means there is causality- I don't know. But the OP provided no facts for his assertion. But presuming it is true- why is a person in Germany 5 times less likely to be murdered than a person in the U.S.- if gun ownership deters criminals?

I see you ignored Mexico- also you ignored our constitution- what protected liberties do they have that we don't?
Granted, ours are dwindling, thanks in no small part to authoritarians, still- the question remains.

Use the links below to browse our database of self defense stories either by state or type of firearm used in the incident.

 

[Syriusly]

The U.S. has higher gun ownership rates, and higher homicide rates than those countries. Whether that means there is causality- I don't know. But the OP provided no facts for his assertion. But presuming it is true- why is a person in Germany 5 times less likely to be murdered than a person in the U.S.- if gun ownership deters criminals?

I see you ignored Mexico- also you ignored our constitution- what protected liberties do they have that we don't?
Granted, ours are dwindling, thanks in no small part to authoritarians, still- the question remains.

Use the links below to browse our database of self defense stories either by state or type of firearm used in the incident.

Two points- I didn't compare United States or to Mexico or any other third world country- I compared the United States to countries that have similar socio-economic situations.

Secondly I didn't mention the Constitution because I was not discussing the right to own guns or any other constitutional issue- I was pointing out the flaw in the OP's statement that more gun ownership in the United States means less crime- and pointing out that he provided no facts to back up that assertion.

 

[Gdjjr]

Use the links below to browse our database of self defense stories either by state or type of firearm used in the incident.

 

[Zorro!]

The Left benefits from law abiding citizens owning guns because it makes criminals think twice because they do not know who is armed. In effect they are being protected by the Right from crime.
What do you say?

True, but they don't care.

FRESH FROM BEATING AND MURDERING HONG KONGERS, CHINA WEIGHS IN ON VIOLENCE: Communist China: ‘Private Ownership Of Guns’ In U.S. ‘Serious Problem,’ Must ‘Change,’

 

[Gdjjr]

China has no say-so for us. Same as us with them.

 

[Zorro!]

MEDICAL ERRORS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS: Woman diagnosed with tennis ball-sized brain tumor after being told she had mental illness.