More guns keeping us safe.......

[Brain357]

Anyone notice countries with strong gun control don’t have school shootings or cop killings or accidental shootings or mass shootings? And their homicide rate is a fraction of ours.

Britain had one every 10 years before they banned guns.....and had 4 attempted after...that is an increase....and their gun control laws didn't stop those attacks, dumb luck did.

Britain...another example of your theory not working......Britain has always had low gun murder even when they allowed guns....they banned guns....and their gun crime rate didn't change...after it spiked for 10 years.......so less guns did not equal less gun crime......it stayed the same..

In Science...when the opposite of your theory happens, and when nothing changes when your theory predicts change.....that means your theory is horse shit.

Attempted? You must be joking. What you are saying is they haven't had any. Britain police are not regularly gunned down either. Oh and their homicide rate is a fraction of ours.

British criminals don't commit murder....that is why they have had a low gun murder rate, and low murder rate even when they had guns.

Today....police are being physically assaulted in record numbers and their teenagers are knifing each other to death....and the country is being flooded with illegal guns...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I just can't take you seriously. Their criminals don't commit murder. That seems to be common among countries with strong gun control. Go figure.

Yeah, they don't. Remember 31% of the murders in the WORLD are done by Hispanics in Latin America with 8% of the worlds population. They are inherently more violent than the rest of the world. Those are the people we have had to deal with here that Europe has been protected from.

Interesting. The most Christians countries in the world are in Latin America. Are you saying Christians are the most violent? Won't hear that on Fox news.

 

[Ernie S.]

And since criminals use straw buyers, who can pass any background check, your lame attempt at ignoring the truth that normal people who own guns don't increase the gun crime rate is noted and expected.......

Your entire argument....more guns = more gun crime.....is wrong, and can't explain how the U.S. experienced a 49% decrease in gun murder and a 75% decrease in gun crime as more Americans over the last 26 years bought, owned and carried guns....

We have the most guns and the most gun crime. Seems pretty simple. And yes there are lots of loop holes you have created for criminals to get guns. We really need stronger laws.

Yeppers, we do. And the more guns we get into circulation the fewer crimes there are. Thanks for pointing that fact out to us!

Then why has crime increased in WI since they got concealed carry?

Probably because it hasn't.

It very much has. You aren't big on facts eh?

Wisconsin Crime Rates 1960 - 2016

Lower than in the 90s.

 

[westwall]

Britain had one every 10 years before they banned guns.....and had 4 attempted after...that is an increase....and their gun control laws didn't stop those attacks, dumb luck did.

Britain...another example of your theory not working......Britain has always had low gun murder even when they allowed guns....they banned guns....and their gun crime rate didn't change...after it spiked for 10 years.......so less guns did not equal less gun crime......it stayed the same..

In Science...when the opposite of your theory happens, and when nothing changes when your theory predicts change.....that means your theory is horse shit.

Attempted? You must be joking. What you are saying is they haven't had any. Britain police are not regularly gunned down either. Oh and their homicide rate is a fraction of ours.

British criminals don't commit murder....that is why they have had a low gun murder rate, and low murder rate even when they had guns.

Today....police are being physically assaulted in record numbers and their teenagers are knifing each other to death....and the country is being flooded with illegal guns...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I just can't take you seriously. Their criminals don't commit murder. That seems to be common among countries with strong gun control. Go figure.

Yeah, they don't. Remember 31% of the murders in the WORLD are done by Hispanics in Latin America with 8% of the worlds population. They are inherently more violent than the rest of the world. Those are the people we have had to deal with here that Europe has been protected from.

Interesting. The most Christians countries in the world are in Latin America. Are you saying Christians are the most violent? Won't hear that on Fox news.

Religion has nothing to do with it you bigoted jackass.

 

[westwall]

If guns made you safer the whole world would have them.
They don't make you safer, they make you more likely to get shot.

Only cretins would argue otherwise.

Gun lovers in the US are brainwashed, you wasting your time.
15 000 deaths, hundreds of thousands wounded, what better argument one can provide? Fauxnews and NRA tells them that's just the norm.

No, sweetcheeks, it is you who are the braindead one. 80% of all of those crimes are committed by 8% of the criminal population. Leave it to a complete imbecile to punish tens of millions of people for the crimes of under 500,000 violent criminals. You people are so stupid it beggars belief.

 

[Ernie S.]

Are you saying that the CDC has an imagination?

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

They actually did CDC level research to find that number.....isn't that what you asshats keep demanding....more CDC research? Until it proves the opposite of what you want to find...right?

You are still making that false claim? You love being dishonest.

You still claim your opinion is more valid than actual facts? Even facts collected by a government agency during the obama administration? I still appreciate the irony in your screen name. Don't ever change!

Unfortunately that never happened. The CDC has never done a study to see how many gun defenses there are. That is a fact!

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses

 

[MindWars]

When this comes to America you dumb asses trying to take the guns are going to WISH you never gave them up should the morons of society win the take down. Don't think that yah will lmfao...
READ THE SHEET TOOO!

OzGayPatriot on Twitter

and DUMB FK AMERICA just can't figure it out yet. NO GUNS NO WALLS NO BORDERS NO KKK TRUMP then to top it off NO USA at all !! YOUR FKNN IDIOTS!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Another thread full of arguments for taking guns away.

Liberals just love getting fucked in the ass. Whether it's by men, by corporations, or by their government. That's right, keep bending over and letting other take you. I'm sure it'll work out well in the end for you.

Another thread illustrating just how dishonest, ignorant, and reprehensible most conservatives are, of the right's propensity for lying, and conservatives' contempt for Second Amendment case law.

The contempt for case law is from you mr. pseudo intellectual. Specifically US V. MILLER where the Supreme Court ruled that ONLY military weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. How about you address that little fact.

Hmmmm...

Conservatives do nothing but lie in gun ‘debates’ – one of many reasons why they’re dishonest and reprehensible.

No one advocates for ‘taking away’ anyone’s guns; no one advocates for ‘confiscation’ – that’s a lie.

Indeed, liberals would oppose any measure authorizing the ‘confiscation’ of guns because such a measure would be un-Constitutional – in violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

And we know that conservatives have contempt for Second Amendment case law the consequence of their hostility toward the Heller decision, claiming that gunowners were ‘betrayed’ by Scalia, by adhering to the lie that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute,’ falsely stating that lawful measures such as background checks are ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Therefore, your fellow rightist was lying, as usual: there are no ‘arguments’ for taking guns away.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Considering you keep "Bringing Up" the bringing up without an substance, bring it up with me. Sorry, but my cherry got broken decades ago. So let's get the parade started. What case law are you trying to bring up.

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Wrong.

There’s nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence – including Miller – as to what constitutes a weapon ‘in common use.’

From Heller:

“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25”

Consequently, the ‘argument’ that an AR 15 is considered to be ‘in common use’ is devoid of legal merit, the Supreme Court having never ruled on the constitutionality of measures restricting the possession of an AR 15, and having never held that the possession of an AR 15 or similar carbines and rifles are entitled to Constitutional protections. Indeed, the High Court has consistently refused to hear such cases.

State and local lawmakers are therefore at liberty to place the AR 15 in the same category as that of a short-barreled shotgun, a weapon not within the scope of the Second Amendment right, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong, that's like saying everyone who eats carrots dies........

We have higher murder rates of all types because our welfare system destroyed our inner city families in the 70s and 80s...Europe fell behind because of the war...

How do I know....? Because in the 1990s, more Americans began to buy and own guns...and our gun murder rate went down 49%, the exact opposite of what you anti-gun extremists said would happen.

You mean it went down right when we got background checks. WI got concealed carry and crime has increased every year since...

And since criminals use straw buyers, who can pass any background check, your lame attempt at ignoring the truth that normal people who own guns don't increase the gun crime rate is noted and expected.......

Your entire argument....more guns = more gun crime.....is wrong, and can't explain how the U.S. experienced a 49% decrease in gun murder and a 75% decrease in gun crime as more Americans over the last 26 years bought, owned and carried guns....

We have the most guns and the most gun crime. Seems pretty simple. And yes there are lots of loop holes you have created for criminals to get guns. We really need stronger laws.

We had more destruction of our families from the 1960s......

Your theory, your basis for your argument...

More guns = more gun crime.

from 1990s to today, more Americans own and carry guns.....gun murder down 49%, gun crime down 75%, violent crime down 72%.....

More guns did not equal more gun crime, the opposite happened.

When that occurs in a scientific experiment it means your theory is wrong.

You are wrong.

Yes and all those went down after we passed some gun control. After years and years of increasing guns and crime we finally geo some gun control and crime went down!

And no.......criminals ignore all of your gun control laws and that isn't your theory....

Your theory, again....is more guns = more gun crime.....you leave no room for laws doing anything, you zealots believe that the mere ownership of guns = more gun crime.

As more Americans owned and carried guns over 26 years.....26 years.......our gun crime rate went down 75%......you can't explain that. Our gun murder rate went down 49%.....you can't explain that.....our violent crime rate on top of that.....down 72%....

Your theory... More Guns = More Gun Crime...

Actual outcome of 26 year experiment...

More Guns = 49% lower gun murder, 75% lower gun crime

In actual science speak....that means your theory is wrong.....it can't be substantiated by actual real world experience....

you have nothing....

 

[2aguy]

Wrong, that's like saying everyone who eats carrots dies........

We have higher murder rates of all types because our welfare system destroyed our inner city families in the 70s and 80s...Europe fell behind because of the war...

How do I know....? Because in the 1990s, more Americans began to buy and own guns...and our gun murder rate went down 49%, the exact opposite of what you anti-gun extremists said would happen.

You mean it went down right when we got background checks. WI got concealed carry and crime has increased every year since...

And you lied...you didn't even put any effort into that lie...you just pulled it out of your ass......

No homicides in Green Bay in 2017 contributes to 10 percent drop in crime

GREEN BAY, Wis. (WFRV) - The Green Bay Police Department reports crime in the city dropped significantly last year - compared to the year before. Local 5's Kris Schuller has more on the numbers and reaction from residents who feel very safe living in Northeast Wisconsin.

If there's trouble within the Wilder Park neighborhood - Neighborhood Association President Scott Vanidestine says he can contact police and they'll respond quickly.

“They know the neighborhoods, they know what's going on. They take care of

us out there,” said Vanidestine.

And based on just released uniform crime report numbers for the city of Green Bay for 2017 - the police department does a good job of taking care of the entire community.

“A 9.77 percent decrease in total crime in Green Bay is just fantastic, that's a number any chief across the country would be happy to have for crime numbers in their city,” said Police Chief Andrew Smith.

For violent crime robbery was down nearly 10 percent, rape nearly four and as for homicides, we'll there weren't any.

“We haven't done that since 1981 in Green Bay, so that's a terrific number for us as well,” said Smith.

Property crimes also saw significant reductions with burglary down 28 percent and theft down eight percent. Combined total crime in 2017 was down almost 10 percent when compared to 2016.
=========

MPD: Homicides down two years in a row

MILWAUKEE - The number of homicides in Milwaukee has decreased over the last two years, according to data from the Milwaukee Police Department.

According to the MPD, there were 119 homicides in 2017, down from 142 in 2016. In 2015 there were 147 homicides.
=================

Green bay...


http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Bucking-national-trend-violent-crime-down-in-the-Green-Bay-area-448715923.html


In Green Bay, those type of crimes are down in the last year. They're down 13 percent over the past six years.
Even property crimes are decreasing. Police credit the community for driving these numbers down.
===================

As another violent year ends, memories of homicide victims live on

Milwaukee's per capita homicide rate was 23.7 per 100,000 residents — a lower rate than the 26.27 per 100,000 residents in 1991.


“You’re seeing a rebirth:” Crime rates in Milwaukee’s Amani neighborhood down significantly

The data shows crime in 2016 compared with 2015 was down in the Amani neighborhood by 10.42%. For the city as a whole, the decline was 4.66%.

---

Over the past four years: crime in the Amani neighborhood declined 26.36% -- for the city: 10.86%.
5 years of concealed carry: Law obscures impact

And to prove me wrong you post a bunch of random stories? How about we look at the crime rates for the state?
Wisconsin Crime Rates 1960 - 2016
Concealed carry in 2011
Violent crime rates:
2011: 249.9
2016: 305.9

Murder:
2011: 2.4
2016: 4.0

What a success.

Yes...you stopped during the height of the Ferguson Effect where the democrat President and his support for the racist, Black Lives Matter forced police to stand down...and failed to show what happened after he left office...



No homicides in Green Bay in 2017 contributes to 10 percent drop in crime

GREEN BAY, Wis. (WFRV) - The Green Bay Police Department reports crime in the city dropped significantly last year - compared to the year before. Local 5's Kris Schuller has more on the numbers and reaction from residents who feel very safe living in Northeast Wisconsin.

If there's trouble within the Wilder Park neighborhood - Neighborhood Association President Scott Vanidestine says he can contact police and they'll respond quickly.

“They know the neighborhoods, they know what's going on. They take care of us out there,” said Vanidestine.

And based on just released uniform crime report numbers for the city of Green Bay for 2017 - the police department does a good job of taking care of the entire community.

“A 9.77 percent decrease in total crime in Green Bay is just fantastic, that's a number any chief across the country would be happy to have for crime numbers in their city,” said Police Chief Andrew Smith.

For violent crime robbery was down nearly 10 percent, rape nearly four and as for homicides, we'll there weren't any.

“We haven't done that since 1981 in Green Bay, so that's a terrific number for us as well,” said Smith.

Property crimes also saw significant reductions with burglary down 28 percent and theft down eight percent. Combined total crime in 2017 was down almost 10 percent when compared to 2016.
=========

MPD: Homicides down two years in a row

MILWAUKEE - The number of homicides in Milwaukee has decreased over the last two years, according to data from the Milwaukee Police Department.

According to the MPD, there were 119 homicides in 2017, down from 142 in 2016. In 2015 there were 147 homicides.
=================

Green bay...


http://www.wbay.com/content/news/Bucking-national-trend-violent-crime-down-in-the-Green-Bay-area-448715923.html


In Green Bay, those type of crimes are down in the last year. They're down 13 percent over the past six years.
Even property crimes are decreasing. Police credit the community for driving these numbers down.
===================

As another violent year ends, memories of homicide victims live on

Milwaukee's per capita homicide rate was 23.7 per 100,000 residents — a lower rate than the 26.27 per 100,000 residents in 1991.


“You’re seeing a rebirth:” Crime rates in Milwaukee’s Amani neighborhood down significantly

The data shows crime in 2016 compared with 2015 was down in the Amani neighborhood by 10.42%. For the city as a whole, the decline was 4.66%.

---

Over the past four years: crime in the Amani neighborhood declined 26.36% -- for the city: 10.86%.

And to prove me wrong you post a bunch of random stories? How about we look at the crime rates for the state?
Wisconsin Crime Rates 1960 - 2016
Concealed carry in 2011
Violent crime rates:
2011: 249.9
2016: 305.9

Murder:
2011: 2.4
2016: 4.0

What a success.

Yes......you are a Troll.......you see actual statistics and facts and pretend they don't exist......

You posted about Wisconsin....I posted the truth...that obama and the democrats attacked the police and they responded by only taking 911 calls and pulling back on active policing......then, I showed you actual statistics after obama left office and the police began to go back to their jobs.......and now you can't cover it up....

You are a Troll.

No homicides in Green Bay in 2017 contributes to 10 percent drop in crime

GREEN BAY, Wis. (WFRV) - The Green Bay Police Department reports crime in the city dropped significantly last year - compared to the year before. Local 5's Kris Schuller has more on the numbers and reaction from residents who feel very safe living in Northeast Wisconsin.

If there's trouble within the Wilder Park neighborhood - Neighborhood Association President Scott Vanidestine says he can contact police and they'll respond quickly.

“They know the neighborhoods, they know what's going on. They take care of us out there,” said Vanidestine.

And based on just released uniform crime report numbers for the city of Green Bay for 2017 - the police department does a good job of taking care of the entire community.

“A 9.77 percent decrease in total crime in Green Bay is just fantastic, that's a number any chief across the country would be happy to have for crime numbers in their city,” said Police Chief Andrew Smith.

For violent crime robbery was down nearly 10 percent, rape nearly four and as for homicides, we'll there weren't any.

“We haven't done that since 1981 in Green Bay, so that's a terrific number for us as well,” said Smith.

Property crimes also saw significant reductions with burglary down 28 percent and theft down eight percent. Combined total crime in 2017 was down almost 10 percent when compared to 2016.
=========

MPD: Homicides down two years in a row

MILWAUKEE - The number of homicides in Milwaukee has decreased over the last two years, according to data from the Milwaukee Police Department.

According to the MPD, there were 119 homicides in 2017, down from 142 in 2016. In 2015 there were 147 homicides.
=================

Green bay...


Bucking national trend, violent crime down in the Green Bay area


In Green Bay, those type of crimes are down in the last year. They're down 13 percent over the past six years.
Even property crimes are decreasing. Police credit the community for driving these numbers down.
===================

As another violent year ends, memories of homicide victims live on

Milwaukee's per capita homicide rate was 23.7 per 100,000 residents — a lower rate than the 26.27 per 100,000 residents in 1991.


“You’re seeing a rebirth:” Crime rates in Milwaukee’s Amani neighborhood down significantly

The data shows crime in 2016 compared with 2015 was down in the Amani neighborhood by 10.42%. For the city as a whole, the decline was 4.66%.

---

Over the past four years: crime in the Amani neighborhood declined 26.36% -- for the city: 10.86%

 

[2aguy]

If guns made you safer the whole world would have them.
They don't make you safer, they make you more likely to get shot.

Only cretins would argue otherwise.

Gun lovers in the US are brainwashed, you wasting your time.
15 000 deaths, hundreds of thousands wounded, what better argument one can provide? Fauxnews and NRA tells them that's just the norm.

Easy....I accept your challenge......

Gun murder 2017.... 10,982

Americans who use their legal guns to stop rape, robbery and murder to save lives....

1.1 million a year...according to the Centers for Disease Control, and 1.5 million according to the Department of Justice...

My argument...

1.1 million is higher than 10,982.

You lose....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Easy answer. When the 2nd amendment was written it referenced back to the original English Bill or Rights and the Magna Carta and a whole other bunch of articles. That is why it didn't talk about firearms. It talks about Arms. The problem is, we outgrew that definition when the Walker Colt was introduced in 1851 and what came after that was an explosion of weapons creations that exceeded the original intent of all the "Arms" definitions. The Weapons outgrew Man. Think of the weapons that grew out of the Civil war itself. The Hotckiss Artillery, the Gatilin Gun, the Remington Revolver and Walker Colt in huge numbers. And it spiraled from there. By 1934, it was completely out of control. Yes, the Thompson and the Sawed Off Shotgun was used in the Military (no matter what the court said) but neither had any real use in the civilian world except for wholesale slaughter. Yes, you could hunt with them but there were much better alternatives. Their use was killing on a battle field. So in 1934, the 1934 National Firearms Act was created that limited certain weapons but did not ban them.

The AR-15 was created as a weapon of war. Although it can be used for hunting, like the Thompson, there are better alternatives. The features of the AR-15 is what makes it a weapon of war, not the cosmetics. In fact, it doesn't have an cosmetics. Each and every feature is there to make it useful on the battlefield. Including it's color. The 2nd amendment was never intended to be used for the AR-15. Oh, it still applies to other rifles but those weapons made specifically for war don't really apply to it anymore like the M-2, Grenades, LAWs, Bazooka, and more. The AR-15 is marginal in that definition. That is why they can be heavily regulated (not banned) by specifically naming them in a gun regulation law.

Why aren't you up in "Arms" about the fact that you can't carry a sword of a certain length openly? I would think you would be going totally zonkers over that. After all, that "Right" goes all the way back to the English Bill of Rights. Why aren't you going totally insane over the M-2 50 Cal or the M-60? How about the M-249?

The reason that the sawed off shotgun was heavily regulated in 1934 and Miller was found guilty in 1938 was the fact that until 1934, it was one of the primary weapons of carnage of the many mobs of the late 20s and early 30s that slaughters not only mobsters but thousands of innocents. Had the AR-15 been around during that time, I am sure that the Mob would have adopted them as well and continued the slaughter and they would have been lumped in as well. But the AR wasn't introduced until 1958.

At some point, society needs to make choices. If something becomes contrary to public safety, or appears to be contrary to public safety, then the public will limit that something. In the case of the AR-15, the higher population centers can and will limit the AR-15 and have done so. Same goes for other weapons including handguns.

Again, the 2nd amendment only says "Arms". You want it to be specific, get it changed to read a more specific wording. Today, "Arms" is a very, very broad statement that includes guns, knives, clubs and even fists. Our Founding Fathers wrote it that way because that is exactly what "Arms" really is. It's up to Society to specify exactly what "Arms" really is.

The Founders were way smarter than you, or I, and they understood that technology changes things. That is why they chose the term "Arms". It is nebulous, it is specific only to a class of weapons. They knew that corrupt bureaucrats and politicians would try and gain control over the People so they wanted the People to be armed with the exact same weapons the corrupt politicians and bureaucrats would be attacking them with.

This is is quite easy to see if you ever bother to read the writings of the Founders.

Actually, the technology wasn't understood starting in 1859 when the new "Wonder Weapons" began making themselves felt in numbers. The South had a problem trying to fight a war against the North with old style rifles dating back to the Revolutionary war. Meanwhile, the North started introducing the new rolling block spencers and Hawkins. I firmly believe if the South was equally armed that the South would have kicked the North Butts until about 1867 when the North would have take just about any peace settlement that the south would have offered within reason.

What came out of the Civil was was the introduction of the Walker Colt, and the Remington version for the Civil war. During the Civil war many were converted to cartridge models. These were kept by the exiting troops of both sides and were carried enmass to the west. In just a few short years (1871) the first gun regulations had to be established in Western Cities like Dallas, Tombstone, Wichita, Dodge and more. Long Guns and Shotguns weren't causing the problems. It was the newly addition of the revolver that was causing all the problems and the towns just got sick and tired of having their town shot to pieces and their citizens mowed down by errant shots. Proving that we CAN have something called "Too many guns". In this case, too many of one type of gun.

Were they wrong starting in 1871? What other options were left to them? And don't bring up the Earps and Tombstone. Had the same situation happened in Dallas in the same time, the Dallas Marshal (Police) all would have just shot them on site in the back with no warning.

By the time the Spanish American War came about, Artillery and automatic weapons were introduced. And that was a prelude to WWI. The United States Government and Governors came to the realization that the 2nd amendment no longer could protect the United States from Foreign invaders. So changes had to be made with the States Organized Militias (Guards) and the Federal Military hence the National Guard Act of 1916 put into affect in 1917. In 1878, the Posse Comitatus Act was created to limit the President using Federal Forces in the confines of the United States. Then there were changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Doctrines (The Military Constitution) that limits the Federal Forces inside the US even further. All of this means the first half of the 2nd amendment is pretty much null and void.

So the only question is, the last half. Why was it written like that? It borrowed heavily from various English doctrines starting in 1266. The right to bear arms. In 1266, the only arms other than those attached to the shoulder were provided by rich lords, barons and kings to it's armies. It's not that the common man could not "Bear" them, they couldn't afford them. When a commoner became a Soldier, he was provided a sword. If he lived to the end of the war, he went home and took his sword with him. He didn't keep his sword as a sword. He recast it to something he could use as a farming tool. Hence the phrase "Swords to Plowshares". It's lost it's original meaning and means something else today. But it means resmelting the sword to something useful like a plow share. In 1266 steel wasn't common. Wars didn't happen over night. Sometimes it took generations to get a really good one going. Unless your name was Napoleon. Luckily, even with Napoleon, it took generations to get that far into anyone elses territory like England or Russia which enabled them time to counter it in time. Napoleon was a master of the Supply lines and could get further than any other medieval leader of his time. But even Napoleon failed and their has never been anywhere near as great a military leader as him nor probably never will be. There was one hell of a lot of swords to plowshares.

The meaning of The right to Bear Arms in 1266 and then in the 1600 and then in the 1700 has a completely different meaning that it has today. Unless the Soldier is allowed to take his weapons home and repurpose them to something useful in feeding the family like smelting that AR down then the meaning from the 1200 through the 1600s have no meaning.

In the 1700s, the meaning did change but the weapons of the individual soldier were the same weapons that were primarily used in putting meat on the table and protecting the home and family against intruders. Yes, Canons were legal but only the rich owned canons. You may have one at a large settlement paid for by a rich benefactor. When the Revolutionary Army went to war, they took charge of those canons. And, if possible, returned them to their lawful owners afterwards. So let's leave canons out of this discussion. If you had a piece of junk for a musket, Washington would issue you a brand new Rifle far better than the British were using. And you took it home when you went home. Many in the newly formed Congress went ape over that but Washington won out. The small number of Federal Troops allowed after the War, the civilian population was actually better armed than they were. This was done for fear of the US ever getting a Tyrant who militarily takes over the United States and makes it into a Kingdom. Those were the reasons for the 2nd amendment.

We are long past the need of the way the 2nd amendment is written today. Oh, we still need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated. The fact remains, even if a President were to completely take over the Federal Government (by neutralizing Congress, see Washington today and stacking the Supreme Court with his Followers that will support only his policies, scary ain't it) We have provisions built in to prevent the total takeover. We have the Constitution of the United States, House Oversight, Military UCMJ and Doctrines built in to prevent that from happening. Mussolini got in power doing exactly the same things but Italy didn't have those things built in.

But we have one other thing. We have enough people that would stand up and fight (even without firearms) that the Federal Government could never defeat them. Yah, I know, some of you rightwingnutjobs seem to think you could win a Revolution and kill all the left. You wouldn't accomplish it. Anymore than the Feds could defeat the civilian populance in an uprising if they attacked the masses. When you are dealing with over 300 million people, you can't use force to defeat them.

That being said, we do need a 2nd amendment but it needs to be updated.

Nice screed, the Walker Colt was 13 years before the Civil War. By the time of the Civil War the two main handguns were the 1851 Navy, and the 1860 Army model.

None of which matters a hill of beans.

The Founders wanted the PEOPLE to be able to overthrow the illigitimate government that the Founders knew would come.

That's why they wrote the 2nd in such a simple way.

In your subjective opinion, not as a fact of law.

And as a fact of law, the Second Amendment has never been held by the courts to ‘authorize’ the ‘overthrow’ of a lawfully elected government; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First, it doesn’t mitigate the political process, and it doesn’t abridge the will of the majority of the people.

Rightwing insurrectionist dogma is as inane as it is wrongheaded – it was never the intent of the Founding Generation to amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

 

[2aguy]

I already quoted it for you. US V. MILLER 1934.

What about it?

Read it.

I am very familiar to it. Now, get to the point before the Second Coming or the Sun goes Nova.

If you are familiar with it why do you ignore the fact that the supremes ruled the AR-15 is the specific weapon type the Founders were considering when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Wrong.

There’s nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence – including Miller – as to what constitutes a weapon ‘in common use.’

From Heller:

“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25”

Consequently, the ‘argument’ that an AR 15 is considered to be ‘in common use’ is devoid of legal merit, the Supreme Court having never ruled on the constitutionality of measures restricting the possession of an AR 15, and having never held that the possession of an AR 15 or similar carbines and rifles are entitled to Constitutional protections. Indeed, the High Court has consistently refused to hear such cases.

State and local lawmakers are therefore at liberty to place the AR 15 in the same category as that of a short-barreled shotgun, a weapon not within the scope of the Second Amendment right, until such time as the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Wrong......Scalia stated the AR-15 was a protected rifle as are all rifles in common use...in his writings in Friedman v Highland Park....

So you are just wrong....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Then you have the part of Heller that you left out....because you are a hack...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lol
Your forgetting, ARs and the like are used in an Insignificant amount violence... we have much bigger fish to fry...

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

I don't care.

Taking guns away from people who will never commit murder does nothing to lower the murder rate

That you don’t care is part of the problem.

And again, no one is advocating for ‘taking away’ guns; necessary, proper, Constitutional firearm regulatory measures have nothing to do with ‘taking away’ guns – there are measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

 

[2aguy]

But when they are used, the body count is high. No properly dressed mass shooter ever will leave the house dressed without one or two of them with more than a few 30 round mags.

Moron.....the primary choice for mass pubic shooters is the pistol, usually more than one. Virginia Tech.....32 killed, Luby's cafe, 24 killed.....two pistols in each attack...you moron.

And just from Japan...33 killed in an arson attack 33 injured....

Nice, France, 86 killed with a rental truck, over 435 injured....

You don't know what you are talking about.

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

I don't care.

Taking guns away from people who will never commit murder does nothing to lower the murder rate

That you don’t care is part of the problem.

And again, no one is advocating for ‘taking away’ guns; necessary, proper, Constitutional firearm regulatory measures have nothing to do with ‘taking away’ guns – there are measures that can be taken having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

You are lying. The democrats have stated over and over that they want to ban guns....and have done so in towns and cities across the country. Supreme Court Justices, the left wing social justice ones, have stated they will repeal Heller if they get the votes....

You guys act like we don't listen to the democrats, don't watch the laws they pass.....watch what they have done in Germany, Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, France, New York, California, Deerfield, Illinois, Washington State...

You are lying...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Even with the paranoid thoughts, they wrote into the government the way to have a complete revolution every 2 to 4 years and it's been that way ever since. The United States has had a few times the Government has bordered on an "Illegitimate" Government. But each time, it's moved away from it back to the center. It all depends on who is defining it. Some would say that we are dangerously close to one right now. But I wouldn't. But I do see the makings of one there. But I also see the relief valves put into place by those crafty old Gentlemen that prevents one group from ever seizing control for very long.

By the same token, in the 19th and 20th century, I have seen safety valves put into place that further keep the total takeover of any one group of our Federal Government while keeping the United States protected from outside military invasions. The Federal Republic at all levels work if we work to make it work. So you can sleep well tonight. No one is going to seize control of our Government and our Military and turn it into a Kingdom. While that makes a good fictional book, it's not real.

To those who care to look the USA is now very reminiscent of Russia under the control of the Bureaus in the 1600's.

Yes, the Czar was the king, but the power was the bureaucracies. What they wanted to happen did.

This coup attempt by the swamp is a perfect continuation of the Russian experience that eventually led to revolution.

I guess the"Swamp" as you call them, are getting tired of their children being murdered in the schools and assemblies. How dare they. Everyone should be willing to just take their chances getting a chicken fried steak at a choak and puke. Afterall, this is the America you want, right? We can do better without rounding up all the guns through a lot of methods you scoff at.

Besides, this isn't Russia in 1600 or even the British Colonies in 1773. This isn't any of those. Something strange happened in 1789 that made America different and it's been different ever since. And it's been even more different every day since that day as well. We have grown way past those fears and phobias that brought us the 2nd amendment and only need to keep it in mind when making today's laws, doctrines and policies. It's now a base, it's not the absolute.

Learn from the last 50 years. And stop blaming someone else for your stupid problems and fears. They are yours, you own them, claim them as your own like I do my own.

So is everyone else who has lost a child to these scumbags. How about eliminating gun free zones that place these poor kids in a barrel for any asshole to murder with impunity.

Our schools here are gun free zones. Just try and get a gun into those schools now. You won't make it even to the entrance gate anymore. The Community no longer tolerates it. You seem to believe that it's a safe thing to have everyone prancing down the street with AR-15s. I say it's going to be hard to tell the mass shooter from the ones that are not the mass shooters. It's better to prevent it in the first place. And it doesn't take more guns to prevent it. It takes community involvement. Even if it's your "Right" to walk down the street with an AR-15, expect 5 cops to circle you and make sure you are not up to no good. About the 3rd time this happens to you you will probably decide to leave your AR home. Those cops are going to be very serious and very intense during the episode. And exactly where the hell are you going with that AR-15 in the first place that you are going to need that kind of firepower? Put yourself in the communities shoes for once. And leave the AR home. Get a concealed weapons permit and carry that way if you want. But stay away from schools, government buildings, bars and such that ARE gun free zones by law in most states and counties. If you can't do that maybe you need to be spread eagle on the sidewalk.

Don't be stupid. Any gun free zone is an invitation to any mass murderer. They know that they will have free reign to commit their atrocity.

Actually, this is stupid.

It also fails as a post hoc fallacy.

There’s no evidence that mass shooters actively ‘seek out’ venues that are ‘gun free’; indeed, the notion of a ‘gun free’ zone is suspect.

That a private property owner might designate his property to be ‘gun free’ doesn’t make it so, considering patrons are carrying concealed firearms.

And venues where guns are prohibited are staffed with armed security, such as courthouses and police stations.

Rightwing sophistry is as idiotic as it is ridiculous.

 

[2aguy]

To those who care to look the USA is now very reminiscent of Russia under the control of the Bureaus in the 1600's.

Yes, the Czar was the king, but the power was the bureaucracies. What they wanted to happen did.

This coup attempt by the swamp is a perfect continuation of the Russian experience that eventually led to revolution.

I guess the"Swamp" as you call them, are getting tired of their children being murdered in the schools and assemblies. How dare they. Everyone should be willing to just take their chances getting a chicken fried steak at a choak and puke. Afterall, this is the America you want, right? We can do better without rounding up all the guns through a lot of methods you scoff at.

Besides, this isn't Russia in 1600 or even the British Colonies in 1773. This isn't any of those. Something strange happened in 1789 that made America different and it's been different ever since. And it's been even more different every day since that day as well. We have grown way past those fears and phobias that brought us the 2nd amendment and only need to keep it in mind when making today's laws, doctrines and policies. It's now a base, it's not the absolute.

Learn from the last 50 years. And stop blaming someone else for your stupid problems and fears. They are yours, you own them, claim them as your own like I do my own.

So is everyone else who has lost a child to these scumbags. How about eliminating gun free zones that place these poor kids in a barrel for any asshole to murder with impunity.

Our schools here are gun free zones. Just try and get a gun into those schools now. You won't make it even to the entrance gate anymore. The Community no longer tolerates it. You seem to believe that it's a safe thing to have everyone prancing down the street with AR-15s. I say it's going to be hard to tell the mass shooter from the ones that are not the mass shooters. It's better to prevent it in the first place. And it doesn't take more guns to prevent it. It takes community involvement. Even if it's your "Right" to walk down the street with an AR-15, expect 5 cops to circle you and make sure you are not up to no good. About the 3rd time this happens to you you will probably decide to leave your AR home. Those cops are going to be very serious and very intense during the episode. And exactly where the hell are you going with that AR-15 in the first place that you are going to need that kind of firepower? Put yourself in the communities shoes for once. And leave the AR home. Get a concealed weapons permit and carry that way if you want. But stay away from schools, government buildings, bars and such that ARE gun free zones by law in most states and counties. If you can't do that maybe you need to be spread eagle on the sidewalk.

Don't be stupid. Any gun free zone is an invitation to any mass murderer. They know that they will have free reign to commit their atrocity.

Actually, this is stupid.

It also fails as a post hoc fallacy.

There’s no evidence that mass shooters actively ‘seek out’ venues that are ‘gun free’; indeed, the notion of a ‘gun free’ zone is suspect.

That a private property owner might designate his property to be ‘gun free’ doesn’t make it so, considering patrons are carrying concealed firearms.

And venues where guns are prohibited are staffed with armed security, such as courthouses and police stations.

Rightwing sophistry is as idiotic as it is ridiculous.

And you lie again...we have the notes from dead shooters, and the confessions of living mass shooters that state exactly this.....

Court Houses and Police stations are not schools.....you are such a lying hack...

Orlando, Pulse Night club shooter wanted to attack Disney land

Pulse shooter’s initial target was Disney site, prosecutors say


Prosecutors say the Orlando nightclub shooter intended to attack Disney World’s shopping and entertainment complex by hiding a gun in a stroller but became spooked by police and chose the gay club as his target.



3/5/18
The Washington Post's School Shooter Profile: A Chilling Account | National Review

The second thing: The shooter reveals that he thought seriously about whether his target would be a “gun free zone.” I mention this not to endorse any particular policy, but to make it clear that it is by no means rare for those who would do harm to first scope out their destinations and to make sure that they won’t encounter much resistance. The shooter openly explains that he chose the local elementary school, rather than the school he was really angry with (his own), because it lacked an armed guard. He also admits to having researched how long it took cops to respond in the area (15 minutes), and how long it would be before SWAT was on site (45 minutes). This echoes comments made by the shooter at Isla Vista, who considered carrying out his attack on Halloween, but decided against it because there’d be “too many cops walking around during an event like Halloween, and cops are the only ones who can hinder my plans.”
The actual story linked above...

“I HAVE TO BEAT **** **** . .” he wrote nine days before the Sept. 28, 2016, shooting in a misspelled reference to the Sandy Hook killer,**** ****. “Atleast 40.”

Two days later, he debated whether he should attack his middle school, from which he’d been expelled, or his elementary school, just up the road.

He decided on Townville Elementary because it was closer and had no armed security.


“Itll be like shooting fish in a barrel,” he wrote his friends, whose identities remain unclear, along with whether the FBI has tracked any of them down. The agency declined to comment, citing Jesse’s open case.

In the chat, he said he had researched police response times for the area and found that it would take them 15 minutes to get there, maybe 45 for SWAT. He said he would throw pipe bombs into each classroom before he got in a shootout with police and killed himself with his shotgun. He said he had been planning a massacre for two years.

=========
The Colorado theater shooter evidence...

Did Colorado shooter single out Cinemark theater because it banned guns?

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks




FBI: Dearborn Heights ISIS supporter planned to attack Detroit church

In conversation's between Abu-Rayyan and the undercover agent, Abu-Rayyan described his desire to commit a martyrdom operation.

The complaint filed in federal court doesn’t specify which Detroit church he was allegedly planning to attack, only that it was close and could seat 6,000 members.

The complaint quotes Abu-Rayyan saying:

“It's easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would've heard. Honestly I regret not doing it. If I can't do jihad in the Middle East, I would do my jihad over here."

He had also told the undercover agent that a church would be an easy target because people are not allowed to carry guns there and that it would make the news.
----------------
Minnesota…...killing the safety officer to create a gun free zone...

Minnesota teen made bombs, stockpiled guns in prep for school massacre: police

The unhinged teen told cops, after being busted Tuesday, that he planned to shoot his sister, mom and dad with a .22-caliber rifle before he went to a rural field and set a fire to distract cops.

The 11th-grader then said he planned to go to Waseca Junior and Senior High School where he would toss Molotov cocktails and explode pressure-cooker bombs to try and kill “as many students as he could” in the cafeteria during lunchtime.

About 1,000 students, in 7th through 12th grade, attend the school.

LaDue, according to the notebook of his plan, would kill the school resource officer before continuing to kill other students. He was prepared to be gunned down by a SWAT Team, police said.



************************


Vince Vaughn is right about guns (and was brave to be so honest) | Fox News

Last June, Elliot Rodger, who killed six people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his own choice. In his 141-page “Manifesto,” Rodger turned down alternate targets because he worried that someone with a gun would cut short his killing spree.

That same month, Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. His Facebook page made fun of gun bans, with pictures of defenseless victims explaining to killers that they weren’t allowed to have guns.

The diary of the Aurora, Colorado, “Batman” movie theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released this past week. It was clear that he was considering both attacking an airport and a movie theater, but he turned down the airport option because he was concerned about their “substantial security.”

Of course, there are numerous other examples such as the Columbine killersopposing the concealed carry law that was then working its way through the state legislature. The bill would have allowed people to carry permitted concealed handguns on school property. The killers timed their attack for the very day that final passage of the law was planned for in the legislature.

If you go to the link for the Colorado theater shooter they have a photo of his journal where he has notes about airports…..he lists one of the items…."Substantial Security"

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/james-holmes-notebook-dragged.pdf
**************

Sandy hook, did not have police resource officer but the High School and Middle school did...so he went for the elementary school, the gun free zone.

Building a safer Sandy Hook | News21: Gun Wars

The high school and middle school, which already had armed resource officers, doubled down on security and restricted all visitors that didn’t have prior permission to enter.

Lupica: Morbid find suggests murder-obsessed gunman Adam Lanza plotted Newtown, Conn.'s Sandy Hook massacre for years

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I guess the"Swamp" as you call them, are getting tired of their children being murdered in the schools and assemblies. How dare they. Everyone should be willing to just take their chances getting a chicken fried steak at a choak and puke. Afterall, this is the America you want, right? We can do better without rounding up all the guns through a lot of methods you scoff at.

Besides, this isn't Russia in 1600 or even the British Colonies in 1773. This isn't any of those. Something strange happened in 1789 that made America different and it's been different ever since. And it's been even more different every day since that day as well. We have grown way past those fears and phobias that brought us the 2nd amendment and only need to keep it in mind when making today's laws, doctrines and policies. It's now a base, it's not the absolute.

Learn from the last 50 years. And stop blaming someone else for your stupid problems and fears. They are yours, you own them, claim them as your own like I do my own.

So is everyone else who has lost a child to these scumbags. How about eliminating gun free zones that place these poor kids in a barrel for any asshole to murder with impunity.

Our schools here are gun free zones. Just try and get a gun into those schools now. You won't make it even to the entrance gate anymore. The Community no longer tolerates it. You seem to believe that it's a safe thing to have everyone prancing down the street with AR-15s. I say it's going to be hard to tell the mass shooter from the ones that are not the mass shooters. It's better to prevent it in the first place. And it doesn't take more guns to prevent it. It takes community involvement. Even if it's your "Right" to walk down the street with an AR-15, expect 5 cops to circle you and make sure you are not up to no good. About the 3rd time this happens to you you will probably decide to leave your AR home. Those cops are going to be very serious and very intense during the episode. And exactly where the hell are you going with that AR-15 in the first place that you are going to need that kind of firepower? Put yourself in the communities shoes for once. And leave the AR home. Get a concealed weapons permit and carry that way if you want. But stay away from schools, government buildings, bars and such that ARE gun free zones by law in most states and counties. If you can't do that maybe you need to be spread eagle on the sidewalk.

Don't be stupid. Any gun free zone is an invitation to any mass murderer. They know that they will have free reign to commit their atrocity.

You still don't get it. Our schools are gun free. But to get them you have to go through a non gun free area. Some have tried and failed. And it isn't just the cops,it's the community involvement as well. Yes, it's your right to walk around with your AR-15 but don't be surprised if 5 very nervous cops surround you and politely ask you your intentions. I had a German Police very courteously discuss things with me. Of course, that Uzi was pointed at me at all times. he could afford to be polite. I could not afford to be otherwise. Around here, you have the right to walk around with that AR but I suggest you don't. You may end up being stupid and you don't get to be stupid even once.

No, daryl, it is YOU who don't get it. They find guns in PRISON. If bad people can get guns into prison what makes you think you can ever get them out of society. Your positions are infantile and asinine and ignore reality.

You keep changing the subject. What next, you going to bring up krispy cream and how it's killing us all?

You are just throwing crap at the wall and hoping something will stick.

Back to the original subject, In the high Crime areas, over 60% of the weapons used there are imported from locations where they were purchased without any background checks (legal), no ID of any kind (Legal) and then transported (Illegal) to the high crime areas (Illegal) and then distributed (Illegal). You can stop 60% of those guns from the streets with simple background checks with proper IDs and bust those people that won't comply with the background check. Pretty simple. Less guns in the hands of Criminals in high crime areas. No part of the 2nd amendment will be infringed. Only the Criminal will have his "Rights" infringed. But he never bothered with any rights anyway. Before you go off on this, I already displayed the Treasury Department's info supporting this and don't feel the need to dig it out again. I shouldn't have to do this every 3 weeks or so because your bunch hopes that we all will forget. We have already had this argument and you lost (or one of your gunnutz lost). Get over it and get on to something else by starting a new message line.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You think the cdc made up that 1.1 number? Now that is funny.

They actually did CDC level research to find that number.....isn't that what you asshats keep demanding....more CDC research? Until it proves the opposite of what you want to find...right?

You are still making that false claim? You love being dishonest.

You still claim your opinion is more valid than actual facts? Even facts collected by a government agency during the obama administration? I still appreciate the irony in your screen name. Don't ever change!

Unfortunately that never happened. The CDC has never done a study to see how many gun defenses there are. That is a fact!

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses

And lo and behold, it links directly and indirectly right back to Gary Klek. No wonder those figures are so high. If there were 1.3 million DGU (Defensive Gun Units) per year as it claims (Klek made that claim, not CDC although he claims CDC made that claim but it turned out to be a lie), that would be a total of over 3600 per day. That would be over 2.5 per minute. Hate to break it to you but we would have run out of criminals decades ago and would have welcomed importing illegal armed criminals to make up the difference so that our "Dirty Harry's" would have something to do. With that many DGUs as claimed, you know that the DGUs can't have meaningful employment. They are spending all their time mowing down criminals on the streets.

Klek claims that it's the CDC and others just pick up that it comes from the CDC when in reality it comes from Klek's furtile mind.

 

[Blues Man]

If any of thes epeople could magically stop mass shootings there would be no effect on the national murder rate whatsoever

Our homicide rate is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. Lots of lives to be saved.

Wrong, that's like saying everyone who eats carrots dies........

We have higher murder rates of all types because our welfare system destroyed our inner city families in the 70s and 80s...Europe fell behind because of the war...

How do I know....? Because in the 1990s, more Americans began to buy and own guns...and our gun murder rate went down 49%, the exact opposite of what you anti-gun extremists said would happen.

You mean it went down right when we got background checks. WI got concealed carry and crime has increased every year since...

And since criminals use straw buyers, who can pass any background check, your lame attempt at ignoring the truth that normal people who own guns don't increase the gun crime rate is noted and expected.......

Your entire argument....more guns = more gun crime.....is wrong, and can't explain how the U.S. experienced a 49% decrease in gun murder and a 75% decrease in gun crime as more Americans over the last 26 years bought, owned and carried guns....

We have the most guns and the most gun crime. Seems pretty simple. And yes there are lots of loop holes you have created for criminals to get guns. We really need stronger laws.

So what?
We have very good gun laws on the books now the problem is we do not enforce them