Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[freyasman]

So that's the only law you want passed?

Since when?

Here's my list of laws.

1) End the gun show loophole
2) End private sales loopholes
3) Hold gun manufacturers civilly responsible for gun violence.

That's all you need to do, really. Watch how fast the gun industry cleans up it's act after that.

Yeah.....

There is no gun show loophole......that you guys keep lying about this shows you can't be trusted.

There are no private loopholes.

After we hold car makers, pool makers, and everyone else responsible for 3rd, 4th, 5th party users of their products then we can look at gun makers.......

Punishing people for things they didn't do is just what fascists like you enjoy.......it doesn't solve any actual crime, but it does give you an adrenaline rush of power.....

Actually, we do hold pool makers responsible, right down to the companies that make the pool drain. You ever hear of Sta-Rite? General Motors has paid out billions, hell 4.8 billion dollars in punitive damage in one case involving one family. I mean even Johnson and Johnson had to take responsibility for their talcum powder. But gun manufacturers, they get immunity. For what freakin damn reason.

Sorry, not the same thing. We do NOT hold pool makers, or car makers, or any other manufacturer responsible in the same way that leftists want to hold gun manufacturers responsible. Your own examples prove it. Sta-Rite wasn't sued because their product worked exactly as it was supposed to and someone used it incorrectly and got hurt; they were sued because their product was badly made and inherently unsafe. Likewise, talcum powder is inherently unsafe; it's not like it was a perfectly safe product and someone decided to eat the whole bottle instead of sprinkling it on their tush and died. I don't know which General Motors case you're talking about, since you were very vague, but I'm guessing it also wasn't a case of a perfectly functional car that someone chose to drive into oncoming traffic.

Nope, wrong about Sta-Rite. They were sued, not for how the product was made, but because they did not put a warning label on the product concerning removing the drain cover. The product was made correctly. The drain was installed correctly by the installer. But some kids, being kids, took the drain cover off. And a girl had her insides sucked out.

Yeah, um, providing explanations as to how to use it properly is part of making the product. Moron.

Moron? Wow, stupid bitch. So, if a gun manufacturer doesn't clearly indicate within the packaging that it is imperative to keep that gun secure and unloaded and some little kid finds Daddy's loaded gun and accidently shoots his friend, which has happened TWICE IN THE LAST FREAKIN MONTH in my area, then the families can sue the gun manufacturer? Is that what you are saying? I mean pull your freakin head out of your ass.

You are the idiot.......the democrats want to be able to sue the gun maker when the gang banger steals your gun, sells it to another gang member who then uses it to murder a rival gang member....

They want the family of the murdered gang member to be able to sue the gun maker.....you twit.......that is what you don't understand...

He understands just fine.


These folks are liars who want to steal your property and leave you helpless. Don't talk to them..... treat them like the trash they are and throw them out into the street.

 

[2aguy]

H

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the fuck do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

You're going to claim those battles as evidence that, in the United States, which didn't yet exist, required guns to be kept in an armory? There was a freaking war fought over those rules. So you admit that you made it up about most cities in the United States having the armory rule. That explains your anger in the rest of your post; liars generally do react with anger when caught in a lie.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in effect, gun-related or otherwise. That they are in effect does not make them constitutional. Even a leftist must admit that, considering all the lawsuits the left files against existing law.

And I didn't say that sawed-off shotguns are used in the military; I said that short-barreled shotguns are used in the military. Here's just one article about them but you could spend 6 months reading about short-barreled shotguns in military use:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

The sawed-off shotgun was not banned because it was sawed off; it was banned if sawing it off made it a short-barreled shotgun. I can saw off my 30-inch Ithaca to 18.25 inches and be perfectly legal. Sawed-off shotguns are not banned; short-barreled shotguns are.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

I asked for quotes from the Founders because you said that they treated gun rights as a collective right. Now you admit that you can't support that statement. Yet another made-up lie and you're acting like a 12-year-old, trying to make sure that no one questions your lies because the cost of questioning is your anger. So the Founders actually did NOT view it as a collective right. You cannot provide a single quote to back up your lie.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

Justice Stevens was among the most liberal justices in modern times. If you recall, he dissented in Heller. That means that his opinion was in the minority. You argue that the ban on short-barreled shotguns is constitutional because no majority of Supreme Court Justices have declared it unconstitutional and then claim Stevens is right on a case that the Court did decide. You really like to have it both ways.

So, in reality, my opinion is the only one that matters to me, just as yours is to you. That the Supreme Court ruled something constitutional or did not rule it so is pretty meaningless. That Burger's Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right was overturned. Did the Constitution change? No; new Justices came with different opinions. That the Supreme Court overturns itself from time to time, that 9 brilliant legal scholars disagree on simple points of law, just proves that their opinions are, literally, nothing more than their opinions. Often, though, the left wing of the Court actually knows that they're lying so their expressed "opinion" is not actually their opinion; it's their agenda.

Generally, Supreme Court Justices are smart people. I'm always interested in their opinions and consider both sides, the decision and the dissent, in forming my own opinions but, in the end, the Constitution is not difficult to understand and I understand it quite well.

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

And yet you say nothing about the mass shootings every single day in Chicago. Like all leftists, you hate minorities and you only use them to further your socialist agenda.

Look asshole, I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Yes, damn skippy, the founders talked very little about owning a gun as a means of self defense. Unlike you, I have spent time wearing the white gloves and going through historical documents at major universities. Why is it that for two hundred damn years every judge, every court, saw the second amendment as a collective right? That alone ought to give you cause to think for a moment. And Stevens, he was appointed by a Republican. WTF, does that not mean anything?

Being straight up, I have forgotten more about American history, especially colonial history, than your ass will ever fucking know. I mean I am knee deep into the subject at the moment in a graduate level course at a top ten university. The second amendment is a collective right, period. Only fools, morons, and bought and paid assholes believe otherwise. Embrace the fact that you are a useful idiot in a topic that just might destroy this country. I mean it is absolutely comical, that you think your damn ass knows more about law, and the C
onstitution, than judges that have spent years, did you get that YEARS, studying law. Yep, your stupid ass just knows that it is wrong to ban sawed off shotguns. I mean what kind of self-absorbed asshole actually believes they know more than almost a hundred years of jurist prudence. I mean I doubt that dumbass SCOTUS justice Barret is even that self-consumed. Should you be the next SCOTUS appointment?

But the part that really shows your ignorance is that bit about mass shootings in Chicago. I mean you don't want to get me started on that shit. The fact that you bring it up reveals how damn freaking ignorant your ass really is. I would be happy to explain to you how all those gangbangers in Chicago get their "arms". Hell, I know a dude that made a fortune getting those arms to them. At least until he wound up in a federal pen. You are just one of many of the useful idiots that the gun manufacturers depend upon. You should be proud of yourself.

Hey....shit head......

The cities where they get the guns for Chicago are less violent than Chicago....even though they have access to the same fucking guns.........Houston and Miami are not anywhere near as dangerous as Chicago...

And.......Los Angeles, and New York.....with the same exact gun laws are not as deadly as chicago...and their gang members live close to Texas, Arizona, Vermont and Main....where guns are easier to get.....so you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


The problem in Chicago....is the fact that it has been controlled by democrats since 1932.....

It is the catch and release policies, and the war on police that have created the gun crime problem in Chicago.....not guns from Indiana....where they have less gun crime than in chicago..

The democrat party judges release violent repeat gun offenders on bail, and sentence them to short prison sentences for repeat gun offenses....

The democrat party prosecutors plea bargain away felony gun possession for these criminals........

The democrats in Springfield are passing laws that reduce the sentences for gun crimes....and attacking the police..

That is why Chicago has the gun crime it has...

Do not Blame normal Americans who own guns for self defense, sport and competition for the gun crimes created by the democrat party.

So sell that Bullshit to biden voters...they are dumb enough to buy it.

 

[2aguy]

Dealing with the easiest first. Historical evidence that cities required gun owners to store their guns in the armory. What the fuck do you think the battle of Lexington and Concord was all about? Just exactly where were the British marching? I mean shit, this is basic history, which of course they don't teach in elementary school anymore which is probably why you missed it.

You're going to claim those battles as evidence that, in the United States, which didn't yet exist, required guns to be kept in an armory? There was a freaking war fought over those rules. So you admit that you made it up about most cities in the United States having the armory rule. That explains your anger in the rest of your post; liars generally do react with anger when caught in a lie.

To the banning of sawed off shotguns. Last I checked, it is still in effect. Hell, has anyone filed a suit to protest it. Sorry, but your lame ass opinion means absolutely nothing. And no, dumbass, sawed off shotguns are not commonly used in the military. I mean WTF version of reality do you live in.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws in effect, gun-related or otherwise. That they are in effect does not make them constitutional. Even a leftist must admit that, considering all the lawsuits the left files against existing law.

And I didn't say that sawed-off shotguns are used in the military; I said that short-barreled shotguns are used in the military. Here's just one article about them but you could spend 6 months reading about short-barreled shotguns in military use:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Combat Shotguns Of The Vietnam War

Shotguns with familiar names—Ithaca, Remington, Winchester, Savage and Stevens—served American troops with distinction in the steaming jungles of Vietnam.

www.americanrifleman.org

The sawed-off shotgun was not banned because it was sawed off; it was banned if sawing it off made it a short-barreled shotgun. I can saw off my 30-inch Ithaca to 18.25 inches and be perfectly legal. Sawed-off shotguns are not banned; short-barreled shotguns are.

But you want quotes from the founders. Sorry, you can find the debates online if you look hard enough. Problem is if you google second amendment debate you get bombarded with five hundred damn lame ass nutcase gun proponent websites pushing single line quotes that are not in context. But I will give you a quote, from a Republican appointed Supreme Court Justice,

I asked for quotes from the Founders because you said that they treated gun rights as a collective right. Now you admit that you can't support that statement. Yet another made-up lie and you're acting like a 12-year-old, trying to make sure that no one questions your lies because the cost of questioning is your anger. So the Founders actually did NOT view it as a collective right. You cannot provide a single quote to back up your lie.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option

www.urbanreviewstl.com/2019/08/opinion-repeal-2nd-amendment-to-return-to-collective-rights-over-individual-rights/

Justice Stevens was among the most liberal justices in modern times. If you recall, he dissented in Heller. That means that his opinion was in the minority. You argue that the ban on short-barreled shotguns is constitutional because no majority of Supreme Court Justices have declared it unconstitutional and then claim Stevens is right on a case that the Court did decide. You really like to have it both ways.

So, in reality, my opinion is the only one that matters to me, just as yours is to you. That the Supreme Court ruled something constitutional or did not rule it so is pretty meaningless. That Burger's Court claimed that the 2nd Amendment protected a collective right was overturned. Did the Constitution change? No; new Justices came with different opinions. That the Supreme Court overturns itself from time to time, that 9 brilliant legal scholars disagree on simple points of law, just proves that their opinions are, literally, nothing more than their opinions. Often, though, the left wing of the Court actually knows that they're lying so their expressed "opinion" is not actually their opinion; it's their agenda.

Generally, Supreme Court Justices are smart people. I'm always interested in their opinions and consider both sides, the decision and the dissent, in forming my own opinions but, in the end, the Constitution is not difficult to understand and I understand it quite well.

There you have it. You dumbass shits done overplayed your hand. In the end, when enough people get killed in mass shootings which seem to be epidemic now, your precious second amendment is going to be eliminated. You got one hope, reinstitute the draft, eliminate the professional standing army, and then perhaps you might be able to preserve your precious second amendment. But who the hell am I kidding. You gun nuts are all hat and no cattle. To actually use your precious AR-15 to defend anything other than your own precious ass is the last thing you self-absorbed pieces of shit would do.

And yet you say nothing about the mass shootings every single day in Chicago. Like all leftists, you hate minorities and you only use them to further your socialist agenda.

Look asshole, I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Yes, damn skippy, the founders talked very little about owning a gun as a means of self defense. Unlike you, I have spent time wearing the white gloves and going through historical documents at major universities. Why is it that for two hundred damn years every judge, every court, saw the second amendment as a collective right? That alone ought to give you cause to think for a moment. And Stevens, he was appointed by a Republican. WTF, does that not mean anything?

Being straight up, I have forgotten more about American history, especially colonial history, than your ass will ever fucking know. I mean I am knee deep into the subject at the moment in a graduate level course at a top ten university. The second amendment is a collective right, period. Only fools, morons, and bought and paid assholes believe otherwise. Embrace the fact that you are a useful idiot in a topic that just might destroy this country. I mean it is absolutely comical, that you think your damn ass knows more about law, and the C
onstitution, than judges that have spent years, did you get that YEARS, studying law. Yep, your stupid ass just knows that it is wrong to ban sawed off shotguns. I mean what kind of self-absorbed asshole actually believes they know more than almost a hundred years of jurist prudence. I mean I doubt that dumbass SCOTUS justice Barret is even that self-consumed. Should you be the next SCOTUS appointment?

But the part that really shows your ignorance is that bit about mass shootings in Chicago. I mean you don't want to get me started on that shit. The fact that you bring it up reveals how damn freaking ignorant your ass really is. I would be happy to explain to you how all those gangbangers in Chicago get their "arms". Hell, I know a dude that made a fortune getting those arms to them. At least until he wound up in a federal pen. You are just one of many of the useful idiots that the gun manufacturers depend upon. You should be proud of yourself.

than judges that have spent years, did you get that YEARS, studying law. Yep, your stupid ass just knows that it is wrong to ban sawed off shotguns. I mean what kind of self-absorbed asshole actually believes they know more than almost a hundred years of jurist prudence.


So...shitbird...you know nothing about Miller, do you?

In that case, the other side didn't show to contest the case at the Supreme Court...

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:

1. The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and so is within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2. The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas and so used it in interstate commerce.
3. The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4. The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230," was never used in any militia organization.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling.[4]

Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision had been rendered.[5]

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So this case was never really argued before the Supreme Court...

And tell us, oh wise one.....what makes a Sawed off shotgun different from any other short barreled shotgun.......

You know....like this

Gun Review: The Mossberg Shockwave 12-Gauge Firearm

Two Athlon Editors Review the Mossberg Shockwave 12-Gauge Shotgun If someone asks for firearms advice for home defense, what comes to

www.tactical-life.com

 

[2aguy]

The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has. Period.

Not at all. The rest of the industrial world has nowhere near out crime rates.

Why?

They treat addiction as a medical problem.
They have extensive social programs to fight poverty.
They don't let every citizen have a gun who wants one.

So while the US has to lock up 2 million people, the Japanese only lock up 69,000. The Germans only lock up 78,000.

They have never had our criminal violence...until now....now they have imported violent 3rd world killers to run their illegal drug businesses and they aren't afraid to use guns to enforce their territories...


And.....Europeans have left it to their governments to murder innocent men, women and children...

American criminals kill other criminals....European governments murder innocent men, women and children.....after they disarmed their citizens, they murdered 12 million people who never committed any crime...

You prefer government murder...of innocents....


The Japanese are also far more law abiding and they submit to authority as a reflex....their police have massive powers over them and have a 95% conviction rate ....that is how they keep all crime low in Japan...you know this, and you lie about it...

Japan: Gun Control and People Control

Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.



Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.

All that, and, yet, you use the Japanese as the standard of the success of the gun control you like. You still don't see what's wrong with your pro-gun-control arguments?

They are not pro-gun control arguments, they show that you control criminals, not guns......

 

[woodwork201]

The underlying cause of crime is that the criminal wants something someone else has. Period.

Not at all. The rest of the industrial world has nowhere near out crime rates.

Why?

They treat addiction as a medical problem.
They have extensive social programs to fight poverty.
They don't let every citizen have a gun who wants one.

So while the US has to lock up 2 million people, the Japanese only lock up 69,000. The Germans only lock up 78,000.

They have never had our criminal violence...until now....now they have imported violent 3rd world killers to run their illegal drug businesses and they aren't afraid to use guns to enforce their territories...


And.....Europeans have left it to their governments to murder innocent men, women and children...

American criminals kill other criminals....European governments murder innocent men, women and children.....after they disarmed their citizens, they murdered 12 million people who never committed any crime...

You prefer government murder...of innocents....


The Japanese are also far more law abiding and they submit to authority as a reflex....their police have massive powers over them and have a 95% conviction rate ....that is how they keep all crime low in Japan...you know this, and you lie about it...

Japan: Gun Control and People Control

Japan's low crime rate has almost nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with people control. Americans, used to their own traditions of freedom, would not accept Japan's system of people controls and gun controls.



Robbery in Japan is about as rare as murder. Japan's annual robbery rate is 1.8 per 100,000 inhabitants; America's is 205.4. Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? No, they don't. A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."

The police box system contrasts sharply with the practice in America. Here, most departments adopt a policy of "stranger policing." To prevent corruption, police are frequently rotated from one neighborhood to another. But as federal judge Charles Silberman writes, "the cure is worse than the disease, for officers develop no sense of identification with their beats, hence no emotional stake in improving the quality of life there."

Thus, the U.S. citizenry does not develop a supportive relationship with the police. One poll showed that 60% of police officers believe "it is difficult to persuade people to give patrolmen the information they need."

The Japanese police do not spend all their time in the koban boxes. As the Japanese government puts it: "Home visit is one of the most important duties of officers assigned to police boxes." Making annual visits to each home in their beat, officers keep track of who lives where, and which family member to contact in case of emergency. The police also check on all gun licensees, to make sure no gun has been stolen or misused, that the gun is securely stored, and that the licensees are emotionally stable.

Gun banners might rejoice at a society where the police keep such a sharp eye on citizens' guns. But the price is that the police keep an eye on everything.

Policemen are apt to tell people reading sexually-oriented magazines to read something more worthwhile. Japan's major official year-end police report includes statistics like "Background and Motives for Girls' Sexual Misconduct." In 1985, the police determined that 37.4% of the girls had been seduced, and the rest had had sex "voluntarily." For the volunteers, 19.6% acted "out of curiosity", while for 18.1%, the motive was "liked particular boy." The year-end police report also includes sections on labor demands, and on anti-nuclear or anti-military demonstrations.

All that, and, yet, you use the Japanese as the standard of the success of the gun control you like. You still don't see what's wrong with your pro-gun-control arguments?

They are not pro-gun control arguments, they show that you control criminals, not guns......

Restricting who can have a gun is gun control. It's gun control that you're proposing. You support existing gun control. That's why the ban on felons owning guns was part of "The Gun Control Act" of 1968. You're falling into the anti-gun trap if you think otherwise.

Enhanced background checks is criminal control and is crazy person control. Banning guns for those who have a protective order filed is domestic abuser control. No matter who they ban from having guns, it can be phrased as controlling the group of people instead of gun control but it's all just gun control. Every bit of it is an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

Don't claim to support the 2nd Amendment when you support infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. It's OK to disagree on gun control but you need to be more honest. You support gun control. You support infringements on the right to keep and bear arms so you don't support the 2nd Amendment.

You and others here support the right to keep and bear arms, you like guns, but you like the infringements, the gun control, that you like. To allow that the government has the power to enact such infringements when the Constitution clearly forbids it means that, even though you like guns, you do not support the Constitution and you do not support the 2nd Amendment. Just understand that, accept that it is your view, and quit pretending you support the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Notice that in your example here the robber can get the death penalty without the addition of a gun crime. If the law is broken and doesn't allow the death penalty for murder without special circumstances then change the law. Don't create new laws just to create the special circumstances. For one thing, it let's anyone who didn't break the special circumstance to get off lighter.

And, in spite of your argument and that of 2aguy, you're not doing gun rights any favor by letting the anti-gunners control the debate and allowing them to define the gun as part of the evil. The gun did nothing wrong; a person did. Whether they used a knife, a gun, or a pencil, it's all the same. When you give special circumstance to the gun you allow the left to say the gun, itself, is part of the evil. You've fallen into their trap.

No, the robber does not get the death penalty without using a firearm to kill the clerk. If the robber kills somebody in the commission of another crime, then the death penalty is on. If the attacker used a firearm to kill the clerk and that is his only infraction, he only faces life in prison at the max. Personally, I think anybody that murders another person should get the death penalty with or without a gun.

It's like the leftists position that we have people in prison for possession of a recreational narcotic. Only very few cases of that. Most people serving time for possession were in the act of committing another crime. The drug charge was just icing on the cake. It's two separate charges: One for stealing a car out of somebody's garage, and an additional charge for having a half oz of meth when the police busted him. The crook will get more time in prison because he has two criminal charges against him than one.

So it's the exact same thing with guns. A convicted felon is not allowed to be in possession of a firearm. He robbed the store with a firearm he was not legally allowed to have. He faces the charge of robbery and the charge of being in a possession of a firearm. Yes, he will get more time than somebody who was legally allowed to own a firearm and used it to rob a store.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You get to keep some of them? When you get to keep some of them that makes them privileges and not rights. And, once again, you don't really address the question. If they can lose their right to keep and bear arms simply because Congress wanted it that way, could Congress strip felons of all those other rights?

And, please do, cite a court decision supporting denying a convicted felon the right to a trial or to an attorney or any other right other than to vote or to own guns - and let me remind you that the 14th Amendment allows for removing the right to vote for crimes. No such allowance is made for the right to keep and bear arms; that right is explicitly protected from any infringement.

Losing your right to bear arms was not a congressional act, it's a state act. Furthermore when you do commit a crime and become a felon, you surrendered your rights because you knew well ahead of time that if caught, you would lose those rights. They weren't taken from you, you offered to give them up.

 

[woodwork201]

Notice that in your example here the robber can get the death penalty without the addition of a gun crime. If the law is broken and doesn't allow the death penalty for murder without special circumstances then change the law. Don't create new laws just to create the special circumstances. For one thing, it let's anyone who didn't break the special circumstance to get off lighter.

And, in spite of your argument and that of 2aguy, you're not doing gun rights any favor by letting the anti-gunners control the debate and allowing them to define the gun as part of the evil. The gun did nothing wrong; a person did. Whether they used a knife, a gun, or a pencil, it's all the same. When you give special circumstance to the gun you allow the left to say the gun, itself, is part of the evil. You've fallen into their trap.

No, the robber does not get the death penalty without using a firearm to kill the clerk. If the robber kills somebody in the commission of another crime, then the death penalty is on. If the attacker used a firearm to kill the clerk and that is his only infraction, he only faces life in prison at the max. Personally, I think anybody that murders another person should get the death penalty with or without a gun.

It's like the leftists position that we have people in prison for possession of a recreational narcotic. Only very few cases of that. Most people serving time for possession were in the act of committing another crime. The drug charge was just icing on the cake. It's two separate charges: One for stealing a car out of somebody's garage, and an additional charge for having a half oz of meth when the police busted him. The crook will get more time in prison because he has two criminal charges against him than one.

So it's the exact same thing with guns. A convicted felon is not allowed to be in possession of a firearm. He robbed the store with a firearm he was not legally allowed to have. He faces the charge of robbery and the charge of being in a possession of a firearm. Yes, he will get more time than somebody who was legally allowed to own a firearm and used it to rob a store.

Your example didn't mention any weapon. What if the armed robber killed the clerk with a baseball bat?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your example didn't mention any weapon. What if the armed robber killed the clerk with a baseball bat?

Then you have two charges: Murder and robbery. But the suspect will not be charged with being in possession of a firearm under disability. The death penalty either way.

 

[woodwork201]

You get to keep some of them? When you get to keep some of them that makes them privileges and not rights. And, once again, you don't really address the question. If they can lose their right to keep and bear arms simply because Congress wanted it that way, could Congress strip felons of all those other rights?

And, please do, cite a court decision supporting denying a convicted felon the right to a trial or to an attorney or any other right other than to vote or to own guns - and let me remind you that the 14th Amendment allows for removing the right to vote for crimes. No such allowance is made for the right to keep and bear arms; that right is explicitly protected from any infringement.

Losing your right to bear arms was not a congressional act, it's a state act. Furthermore when you do commit a crime and become a felon, you surrendered your rights because you knew well ahead of time that if caught, you would lose those rights. They weren't taken from you, you offered to give them up.

How can you argue or defend that which you know nothing about? No wonder we're losing the battle to keep the right to keep and bear arms from being infringed. From the middle of the page, middle column, page 177 of the ATF's Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/atf-p-5300-4pdf/download

Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms.

The history of felon bans is that the Federal Firearms Act, 1938, enacted a ban against violent felons owning or possessing guns. That was changed with the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include all felons. Which was changed in 1997 by the Lautenberg Amendment to include misdemeanor domestic violence.. which will be changed again in 2021 if Biden gets his way to include even more crimes into the prohibited persons list. For instance, for several years, and including this year, the left has been pushing "no-fly, no-buy". Schumer has promised, in 2016, that they will not give up until it's passed. Now he controls the Senate.

No, "No Fly, No Buy" Is Not Something We Can Agree On

bearingarms.com

Gun-control Advocates Push for Using No-fly List to Ban Gun Sales

Gun-control advocates have now zeroed in on using the notoriously inaccurate "no-fly" list, constructed with no constitutional safeguards, as the latest tool to restrict our rights to keep and bear arms. by Steve Byas

thenewamerican.com

Because people like you enable Congress to violate the Constitution and strip rights without any constitutional authority to do so, they have been expanding the infringements to include more and more people. Do you think that right-wing-wacko-gun-forum members (by their definition) won't be on that list soon enough?

republicans are all terrorists at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

And, no, there are no provisions in the Constitution for surrendering your rights. One unrelated act, even if criminal, cannot be used as an explicit surrendering your rights. That's ludicrous. For instance, in Medina v. Barr, Mr. Medina was convicted in 1990 of lying on a mortgage application, a felony.

If, as you say, Mr. Medina voluntarily surrendered his right to keep and bear arms when he signed that application then didn't he also voluntarily surrender his right to trial by jury? To an attorney? To not have to house soldiers in his house? To go to church or speak freely and openly against the government?

 

[woodwork201]

Then you have two charges: Murder and robbery. But the suspect will not be charged with being in possession of a firearm under disability. The death penalty either way.

Then your gun add-on wasn't needed anyway, was it?

 

[2aguy]

Notice that in your example here the robber can get the death penalty without the addition of a gun crime. If the law is broken and doesn't allow the death penalty for murder without special circumstances then change the law. Don't create new laws just to create the special circumstances. For one thing, it let's anyone who didn't break the special circumstance to get off lighter.

And, in spite of your argument and that of 2aguy, you're not doing gun rights any favor by letting the anti-gunners control the debate and allowing them to define the gun as part of the evil. The gun did nothing wrong; a person did. Whether they used a knife, a gun, or a pencil, it's all the same. When you give special circumstance to the gun you allow the left to say the gun, itself, is part of the evil. You've fallen into their trap.

No, the robber does not get the death penalty without using a firearm to kill the clerk. If the robber kills somebody in the commission of another crime, then the death penalty is on. If the attacker used a firearm to kill the clerk and that is his only infraction, he only faces life in prison at the max. Personally, I think anybody that murders another person should get the death penalty with or without a gun.

It's like the leftists position that we have people in prison for possession of a recreational narcotic. Only very few cases of that. Most people serving time for possession were in the act of committing another crime. The drug charge was just icing on the cake. It's two separate charges: One for stealing a car out of somebody's garage, and an additional charge for having a half oz of meth when the police busted him. The crook will get more time in prison because he has two criminal charges against him than one.

So it's the exact same thing with guns. A convicted felon is not allowed to be in possession of a firearm. He robbed the store with a firearm he was not legally allowed to have. He faces the charge of robbery and the charge of being in a possession of a firearm. Yes, he will get more time than somebody who was legally allowed to own a firearm and used it to rob a store.

Your example didn't mention any weapon. What if the armed robber killed the clerk with a baseball bat?

Death penalty....that was easy...

 

[2aguy]

Then you have two charges: Murder and robbery. But the suspect will not be charged with being in possession of a firearm under disability. The death penalty either way.

Then your gun add-on wasn't needed anyway, was it?

This is my plan....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a gun in a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background chec

 

[woodwork201]

Death penalty....that was easy...

That's right. If the law doesn't allow the death penalty, or other desired punishment, then get the law changed to do the right thing. Don't fall for the left's tricks and word games of gun crimes. Punish criminals for what they do, regardless of the tools they use to do it.

To be transparent, I almost never support a death penalty sentence; there have been too many (one is too many) cases where someone on death row, or even someone executed, was later proven to be innocent.

But for this discussion, the death penalty argument is as good as any when we talk about crime and punishment. If it's the desired outcome in a person's community or state, then get the law changed to support that outcome without tricks of secondary crimes or special circumstances.

 

[woodwork201]

Then you have two charges: Murder and robbery. But the suspect will not be charged with being in possession of a firearm under disability. The death penalty either way.

Then your gun add-on wasn't needed anyway, was it?

This is my plan....

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.

This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a gun in a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

Mass shooters


1) end gun free zones

2) get the media to stop covering mass shootings like it is the Oscars.....

3) We are already seeing this...get people who know these nuts to report these nuts....

4) Make sure the police who know these nuts arrest these nuts when they have the chance so they will pop on background checks....

What does each do to stop mass shooters....

1) keeps shooters from targeting people, since they target gun free zones.

2) The media not covering it like they are the criminal oscars deters copycats...just like they stopped covering teen suicides to stop the copycat effect

3) The only way to stop mass shooters, since they commit no other crime, is for family, coworkers and neighbors to report their violent behavior....the Odessa shooter should have felonies for the crimes he was committing but they didn't report his shooting his weapon from his front porch....

4) The Parkland shooter had 33 contacts with police and numerous contacts with police at his school.....due to Obama's "Promise Program" the police never arrested him for the felonies he committed....so he didn't pop on the background chec

You support gun control.

 

[Blues Man]

4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...

No, we have 39,000 gun deaths a year. Most of those people did not deserve to die. THe only difference is when someone drowns, we don't say, "Well, that guy got convicted of smoking pot when he was 19, that makes him a criminal", because that would be, you know, retarded.

A lot of drowning deaths are proceeded by the words, "Hold my beer". But we don't make moral judgements about people who showed bad judgement before they discovered they weren't as good of swimmers as they though they were.

Most of those people took their own lives and that is their choice

 

[Blues Man]

4,000 people.......that is more than the number of innocent people murdered by guns each year...

No, we have 39,000 gun deaths a year. Most of those people did not deserve to die. THe only difference is when someone drowns, we don't say, "Well, that guy got convicted of smoking pot when he was 19, that makes him a criminal", because that would be, you know, retarded.

A lot of drowning deaths are proceeded by the words, "Hold my beer". But we don't make moral judgements about people who showed bad judgement before they discovered they weren't as good of swimmers as they though they were.

Most of those people took their own lives and that is their choice

And you also don't hold Budweiser responsible for the idiot who drowns after he says hold my beer do you?

 

[Blues Man]

So, we have the right to nuclear weapons now.

Even if you could find a way to get nuclear arms, you'd never be able to afford them. You don't need nuclear arms to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

Well I got news for you. You don't need an AR-15 to defend yourself, hunt, or target practice.

I mean I am not really understanding where this whole belief about no limits on "arms" ownership even came from. Sawed off shotguns are banned. Is that unconstitutional now? And maybe I couldn't afford a nuclear weapon. But there are a couple military fighter jets based at the local airport. They are required to have all their offensive systems removed, they call it demilitarization. But fighter jets are certainly "arms".

Here is the thing. The second amendment was always interpreted as a collective right, not an individual right. Almost every legitimate scholar of the time period agrees with that interpretation. Even the NRA supported limitations on gun ownership, lobbying for the Gun Control Act of 1968, which vastly expanded gun regulations in response to the killings of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy.

While you can go to dozens of pro-gun websites and find small quotes from Thomas Jefferson or George Mason concerning individual gun ownership, the truth of the matter is that during the debates, both during the Second Continental Congress and the debates in the State houses, there was very little mention of hunting, almost nothing was said about personal defense. Nope, gun ownership was a collective right born of the necessity of a Militia. That was what the debate was about. Honestly, at the time individual ownership of guns was dangerous. That was why most cities required guns to be stored at the armory. It was to prevent Native Americans from raiding a home and stealing the guns. Which is precisely what happened right here where I am sitting more than three hundred years ago. In 1700 there were over a hundred white settlers living in this part of Western North Carolina. By 1720 you could count them on your hands. To the east, Native Americans had killed hundreds of settlers, women impaled on stakes, infanticide, it was absolutely brutal. All that was fresh on the memory of the founding fathers, they knew vividly the dangers of "arms" falling into enemy hands. Today, no one even knows about the "Indian Wars" like the Tuscarora War, the most brutal of them all.

Nope, you, and other gun proponents adamantly claiming an individual second amendment right, and especially this ordeal about assault weapons, are mere pawns in a game about MONEY and PROFITS. I mean, for the love of morality, we have a professional army, there is no draft, and militias are little more than another professional fighting force. The founders would be appalled. A professional army violates everything that they stood for, that they fought for. A professional army and an individual right to bear arms that has no relationship whatsoever to a militia. Damn skippy, the founders are turning in their graves. I mean there is a whole lot of things wrong with America right now, it don't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But this shit is not about right and about left. There is no right and left to ETHICS. This nation was founded during a time of great ethical awareness. Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Burke, Smith, Hegal, Bentham. I mean it was the golden age. But a divided society, constructed that way on purpose I might add, with competing camps siloed in their own echo chambers, has absolutely destroyed this nation. There is no better place to break out, to find real freedom from our slave masters, than the topic of gun control, the second amendment. Time we returned to our roots and re-establish a nation dedicated to a more perfect Union, establishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

And who made you the arbiter of what other people need?

I can come up with a long list of shit I don't think you need but unlike you I mind my own fucking business.

And FYI I don't own an AR 15 but IDGAF if another law abiding person does.

 

[JoeB131]

In NYC they had a Stop and Frisk policy. Violent crime and gun crime reduced significantly and saved a lot of lives, particularly black lives. Why? Because anybody illegally carrying a gun could get busted for just the gun if searched. They got rid of Stop and Frisk, and gun crime and murders went back up. Guess what? It had nothing to do with the NRA.

Except no one in NYC has a good opinion of Guiliani or Bloomberg today because of this racist policy.

Stop and Frisk is some poor fool getting shot 54 times because he reached for a cell phone.

While some murders are planned, most are just reactionary out of anger. I see it here all the time. Two guys get into a verbal argument at a bar, they both go outside to fight, and one of them pulls a gun and shoots the other one. I'm sure it goes on in Chicago ten-fold. Now, if these people didn't have a gun, they would have fought, one man wins and the other man loses, and that's the extent of the violence.

Wow, Ray. This is exactly my point. Most people shouldn't own guns.

First of all, half those are suicides so do not at all count in any way.

Uh, they count to the people who care about them.

I knew a lady whose teenage son killed himself with that gun she bought for protection. My nextdoor neighbor killed himself. Um, yeah, they do count

 

[JoeB131]

And you also don't hold Budweiser responsible for the idiot who drowns after he says hold my beer do you?

Budweiser does a lot to promote responsible drinking.

The gun industry is the opposite of that.

Point is, bars can be sued if they kept serving someone who was obviously impaired.