Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...stevenAs says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.Australia...ISSo you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
YOU WERE SAYING???
As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...stevenAs says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.Australia...ISSo you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
YOU WERE SAYING???
As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...stevenAs says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.Australia...ISSo you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
YOU WERE SAYING???
CDZ is not my strong point but I would say they are Gun-a-phobic.
Its not gun owners they are afraid at least not directly. They fear the gun, it is just a man made object with no ability to arm or fire itself.
And in many cases just the sight of one sets them off kind of like mice or spiders.
I only put this here because it gets old when the anti 2nd Amendment types start talking about the male sex organ....I thought at least here they won't be able to get that childish........I am betting they don't post on this...
Truth hurts, huh.
Its true that those who carry guns all the time are afraid. Its also true that they are using guns to make up for the courage (call it balls/penis, if you like) they lack.
That's why they make up lies about President Obama, "gun grabbers" and "anti2nd Amendment".
Wrong…fear has nothing to do with it. Understanding and rational thought do. Are we likely, most of us, to be a victim of a crime? No. Are people every single day victims of violent crimes? Yes. Do we know if on any particular day we will be a victim of a life changing crime? No. Does carrying a gun offer a chance at keeping that crime from changing our lives if we happen to be a victim? Yes.
This is fear…..2-3 AR-15s, maybe are used each year to commit any form of crime…….so therefore you demand that all 3,750,000 of them be banned from private ownership.
That is fear of an object that is not used to harm anyone or to commit crimes.
I have no fear of an inanimate object and have never heard of anyone being afraid of an inanimate object.
Its the Mighty Mouse froot loop behind the gun we should (fear is too strong a word) be aware of and avoid.
If I see a hero-wannabe froot loop carrying a gun, I will always call the police and vacate the area. That's simply the smart thing to do.
And how often have you experienced this phenomenon?
Hmmmn, I grew up in the generation after the hippies, and we all pretty much hated the hippies (loved the music, hated the phony values). I don't think there's been much of a resurgence of that kind of delusional mindset, though the fashions pop up from time to time.I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.
What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.
As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...stevenAs says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.Australia...ISSo you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
YOU WERE SAYING???
As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...stevenAs says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.Australia...ISSo you would argue that a communist society IS a "civilized society?"
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
YOU WERE SAYING???
Hmmmn, I grew up in the generation after the hippies, and we all pretty much hated the hippies (loved the music, hated the phony values). I don't think there's been much of a resurgence of that kind of delusional mindset, though the fashions pop up from time to time.I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.
What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.
It's not hippie mentality which drives anti-gun sentiment, it's death. The numbers are something which translates to a chart showing the US with a biiig death bar and our friends and allies with much smaller bars. Reason doesn't win the international argument, as the link I posted above to the Council on Foreign Relations notes. It's all about prestige and influence.
It's death which drives the US politicians, too. What would you do if you were given an impossible job to do? Punt? Do showy things which accomplish nothing but which give the appearance of "doing something"? Take unconstitutional actions such as gun bans or gun confiscations?
As far as the idea of defending against tyranny goes, I must disagree. I think that is the other end of the problem. Both sides of this debate attach too much importance to guns. I would be glad if guns provided the same protection against the threat of tyranny that they did in 1791, but they don't. A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns? A military in the hands of a tyrant who will not hesitate to be brutal? What difference will the shotguns make? He'll level their town from a hundred miles away, as an object lesson. Then the ranchers in the next county will put their guns back in the closet. There are modern forms of tyranny, just as there are modern forms of warfare, but you cannot fight the threat of modern tyranny with handguns and hunting rifles.
Hmmmn, I grew up in the generation after the hippies, and we all pretty much hated the hippies (loved the music, hated the phony values). I don't think there's been much of a resurgence of that kind of delusional mindset, though the fashions pop up from time to time.I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.
What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.
It's not hippie mentality which drives anti-gun sentiment, it's death. The numbers are something which translates to a chart showing the US with a biiig death bar and our friends and allies with much smaller bars. Reason doesn't win the international argument, as the link I posted above to the Council on Foreign Relations notes. It's all about prestige and influence.
It's death which drives the US politicians, too. What would you do if you were given an impossible job to do? Punt? Do showy things which accomplish nothing but which give the appearance of "doing something"? Take unconstitutional actions such as gun bans or gun confiscations?
As far as the idea of defending against tyranny goes, I must disagree. I think that is the other end of the problem. Both sides of this debate attach too much importance to guns. I would be glad if guns provided the same protection against the threat of tyranny that they did in 1791, but they don't. A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns? A military in the hands of a tyrant who will not hesitate to be brutal? What difference will the shotguns make? He'll level their town from a hundred miles away, as an object lesson. Then the ranchers in the next county will put their guns back in the closet. There are modern forms of tyranny, just as there are modern forms of warfare, but you cannot fight the threat of modern tyranny with handguns and hunting rifles.
A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns?
I think when push comes to shove the military will break and side with the people. DHS is the group you need to worry about.Hmmmn, I grew up in the generation after the hippies, and we all pretty much hated the hippies (loved the music, hated the phony values). I don't think there's been much of a resurgence of that kind of delusional mindset, though the fashions pop up from time to time.I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.
What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.
It's not hippie mentality which drives anti-gun sentiment, it's death. The numbers are something which translates to a chart showing the US with a biiig death bar and our friends and allies with much smaller bars. Reason doesn't win the international argument, as the link I posted above to the Council on Foreign Relations notes. It's all about prestige and influence.
It's death which drives the US politicians, too. What would you do if you were given an impossible job to do? Punt? Do showy things which accomplish nothing but which give the appearance of "doing something"? Take unconstitutional actions such as gun bans or gun confiscations?
As far as the idea of defending against tyranny goes, I must disagree. I think that is the other end of the problem. Both sides of this debate attach too much importance to guns. I would be glad if guns provided the same protection against the threat of tyranny that they did in 1791, but they don't. A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns? A military in the hands of a tyrant who will not hesitate to be brutal? What difference will the shotguns make? He'll level their town from a hundred miles away, as an object lesson. Then the ranchers in the next county will put their guns back in the closet. There are modern forms of tyranny, just as there are modern forms of warfare, but you cannot fight the threat of modern tyranny with handguns and hunting rifles.
Yeah...I love this argument...
A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns?
One...which is why we won't give up our own Aks and ARs.....
Two...you mean like the bunch of backward ass barbarians who held off the most powerful military in the world to using second hand rifles and improvised explosives to the point that we are going home......that difference?
three...our own people will also be a large part of that military machine....with sons, daughters, fathers, mothers......on top of our own private arms...which is why we won't give up our AR-15s and AKs........
Hmmmn, I grew up in the generation after the hippies, and we all pretty much hated the hippies (loved the music, hated the phony values). I don't think there's been much of a resurgence of that kind of delusional mindset, though the fashions pop up from time to time.I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.
What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.
It's not hippie mentality which drives anti-gun sentiment, it's death. The numbers are something which translates to a chart showing the US with a biiig death bar and our friends and allies with much smaller bars. Reason doesn't win the international argument, as the link I posted above to the Council on Foreign Relations notes. It's all about prestige and influence.
It's death which drives the US politicians, too. What would you do if you were given an impossible job to do? Punt? Do showy things which accomplish nothing but which give the appearance of "doing something"? Take unconstitutional actions such as gun bans or gun confiscations?
As far as the idea of defending against tyranny goes, I must disagree. I think that is the other end of the problem. Both sides of this debate attach too much importance to guns. I would be glad if guns provided the same protection against the threat of tyranny that they did in 1791, but they don't. A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns? A military in the hands of a tyrant who will not hesitate to be brutal? What difference will the shotguns make? He'll level their town from a hundred miles away, as an object lesson. Then the ranchers in the next county will put their guns back in the closet. There are modern forms of tyranny, just as there are modern forms of warfare, but you cannot fight the threat of modern tyranny with handguns and hunting rifles.
gtopa1, you are an Australian who is pro gun rights, aren't you?
Do you understand/believe in the concept of soft power? If so, everything I've said is self evident. If not, you will reject any such reasoning. There are not too many deniers of the validity of the concept of soft power, even amongst conservative foreign affairs experts. That kind of denial is pretty common on forum boards, though.Hmmmn, I grew up in the generation after the hippies, and we all pretty much hated the hippies (loved the music, hated the phony values). I don't think there's been much of a resurgence of that kind of delusional mindset, though the fashions pop up from time to time.I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.
What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.
It's not hippie mentality which drives anti-gun sentiment, it's death. The numbers are something which translates to a chart showing the US with a biiig death bar and our friends and allies with much smaller bars. Reason doesn't win the international argument, as the link I posted above to the Council on Foreign Relations notes. It's all about prestige and influence.
It's death which drives the US politicians, too. What would you do if you were given an impossible job to do? Punt? Do showy things which accomplish nothing but which give the appearance of "doing something"? Take unconstitutional actions such as gun bans or gun confiscations?
As far as the idea of defending against tyranny goes, I must disagree. I think that is the other end of the problem. Both sides of this debate attach too much importance to guns. I would be glad if guns provided the same protection against the threat of tyranny that they did in 1791, but they don't. A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns? A military in the hands of a tyrant who will not hesitate to be brutal? What difference will the shotguns make? He'll level their town from a hundred miles away, as an object lesson. Then the ranchers in the next county will put their guns back in the closet. There are modern forms of tyranny, just as there are modern forms of warfare, but you cannot fight the threat of modern tyranny with handguns and hunting rifles.
I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. What EXACTLY are you saying? That we should merely give up the second amendment? To what ends? To make people "fell better" about themselves? You say our "friends and allies" have a much lower death rate because of guns? Well, no kidding. Those "friends and allies" that you speak of have COMBINED less populations than we do. So, because their "death toll" is smaller, that justifies our "falling into line"? I don't think so.
Now, imagine that you are say, Russia and you decide one day to invade the Mainland US. You will be fighting bands of civilian guerrillas for the next 50 years along with the US military. believe me, as one who fought in Viet Nam - that is a war you can never win. So, your answer is what, when tyranny rears it's ugly head? Talk them to death? Remember this: You can put up one hell of a fight with those "handguns and hunting rifles".
Bottom line? There have been millions of men who have fought and died for the idea of "freedom". America is one of the very few countries that places "freedom" above all else. Above men, above ideals, above party and above state. I have no intention of giving up those RIGHTS that so many have fought and died for. And anyone who desires to rob me of my birthright that was so hard fought for is an enemy of mine.
Do you understand/believe in the concept of soft power? If so, everything I've said is self evident. If not, you will reject any such reasoning. There are not too many deniers of the validity of the concept of soft power, even amongst conservative foreign affairs experts. That kind of denial is pretty common on forum boards, though.Hmmmn, I grew up in the generation after the hippies, and we all pretty much hated the hippies (loved the music, hated the phony values). I don't think there's been much of a resurgence of that kind of delusional mindset, though the fashions pop up from time to time.I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.
What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.
It's not hippie mentality which drives anti-gun sentiment, it's death. The numbers are something which translates to a chart showing the US with a biiig death bar and our friends and allies with much smaller bars. Reason doesn't win the international argument, as the link I posted above to the Council on Foreign Relations notes. It's all about prestige and influence.
It's death which drives the US politicians, too. What would you do if you were given an impossible job to do? Punt? Do showy things which accomplish nothing but which give the appearance of "doing something"? Take unconstitutional actions such as gun bans or gun confiscations?
As far as the idea of defending against tyranny goes, I must disagree. I think that is the other end of the problem. Both sides of this debate attach too much importance to guns. I would be glad if guns provided the same protection against the threat of tyranny that they did in 1791, but they don't. A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns? A military in the hands of a tyrant who will not hesitate to be brutal? What difference will the shotguns make? He'll level their town from a hundred miles away, as an object lesson. Then the ranchers in the next county will put their guns back in the closet. There are modern forms of tyranny, just as there are modern forms of warfare, but you cannot fight the threat of modern tyranny with handguns and hunting rifles.
I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. What EXACTLY are you saying? That we should merely give up the second amendment? To what ends? To make people "fell better" about themselves? You say our "friends and allies" have a much lower death rate because of guns? Well, no kidding. Those "friends and allies" that you speak of have COMBINED less populations than we do. So, because their "death toll" is smaller, that justifies our "falling into line"? I don't think so.
Now, imagine that you are say, Russia and you decide one day to invade the Mainland US. You will be fighting bands of civilian guerrillas for the next 50 years along with the US military. believe me, as one who fought in Viet Nam - that is a war you can never win. So, your answer is what, when tyranny rears it's ugly head? Talk them to death? Remember this: You can put up one hell of a fight with those "handguns and hunting rifles".
Bottom line? There have been millions of men who have fought and died for the idea of "freedom". America is one of the very few countries that places "freedom" above all else. Above men, above ideals, above party and above state. I have no intention of giving up those RIGHTS that so many have fought and died for. And anyone who desires to rob me of my birthright that was so hard fought for is an enemy of mine.
As far as your assessment of Russia invading the US goes, what happened to our army? Our vastly superior fighting force? Shouldn't we give them a crack before turning to the VFW?
Yes, the Founding Fathers were wise to reserve the right to defend themselves against tyranny to the individual citizen. Unfortunately, what worked in 1791 doesn't work today. I find it astonishing that you could believe that conditions are exactly the same today. That the establishment of a standing army hasn't changed the dynamic. That guns occupy exactly the same place in modern day culture that they did in 1791.
FWIW, the second amendment died when the US declared a standing army, and militias ceased to exist. Your right to own guns has nothing to do with the second amendment, until the current morons on the SC decided that the 2nd amendment meant something that no other court in US history found it to mean. That either makes the Robert's court smarter than every other court we've had, or the explanation for their decision lies elsewhere. Even after they declared a right where no other court has found a right to exist, gun rights extremists STILL don't feel secure in their constitutional rights. That's pathetic.
Do you understand/believe in the concept of soft power? If so, everything I've said is self evident. If not, you will reject any such reasoning. There are not too many deniers of the validity of the concept of soft power, even amongst conservative foreign affairs experts. That kind of denial is pretty common on forum boards, though.Hmmmn, I grew up in the generation after the hippies, and we all pretty much hated the hippies (loved the music, hated the phony values). I don't think there's been much of a resurgence of that kind of delusional mindset, though the fashions pop up from time to time.I guess what I was attempting to say (I'm 72, I tend to rant) is that as long as there is a second amendment, the left can not realize their 1967 vision of "peace and love". Pretty much living in the dream world of hippiedom.
What they fail to understand is that we are the only nation on earth that the populace has the ability to protect themselves from government or any outside force that would impose tyranny upon us.
It's not hippie mentality which drives anti-gun sentiment, it's death. The numbers are something which translates to a chart showing the US with a biiig death bar and our friends and allies with much smaller bars. Reason doesn't win the international argument, as the link I posted above to the Council on Foreign Relations notes. It's all about prestige and influence.
It's death which drives the US politicians, too. What would you do if you were given an impossible job to do? Punt? Do showy things which accomplish nothing but which give the appearance of "doing something"? Take unconstitutional actions such as gun bans or gun confiscations?
As far as the idea of defending against tyranny goes, I must disagree. I think that is the other end of the problem. Both sides of this debate attach too much importance to guns. I would be glad if guns provided the same protection against the threat of tyranny that they did in 1791, but they don't. A modern military against a bunch of ranchers with shotguns? A military in the hands of a tyrant who will not hesitate to be brutal? What difference will the shotguns make? He'll level their town from a hundred miles away, as an object lesson. Then the ranchers in the next county will put their guns back in the closet. There are modern forms of tyranny, just as there are modern forms of warfare, but you cannot fight the threat of modern tyranny with handguns and hunting rifles.
I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. What EXACTLY are you saying? That we should merely give up the second amendment? To what ends? To make people "fell better" about themselves? You say our "friends and allies" have a much lower death rate because of guns? Well, no kidding. Those "friends and allies" that you speak of have COMBINED less populations than we do. So, because their "death toll" is smaller, that justifies our "falling into line"? I don't think so.
Now, imagine that you are say, Russia and you decide one day to invade the Mainland US. You will be fighting bands of civilian guerrillas for the next 50 years along with the US military. believe me, as one who fought in Viet Nam - that is a war you can never win. So, your answer is what, when tyranny rears it's ugly head? Talk them to death? Remember this: You can put up one hell of a fight with those "handguns and hunting rifles".
Bottom line? There have been millions of men who have fought and died for the idea of "freedom". America is one of the very few countries that places "freedom" above all else. Above men, above ideals, above party and above state. I have no intention of giving up those RIGHTS that so many have fought and died for. And anyone who desires to rob me of my birthright that was so hard fought for is an enemy of mine.
As far as your assessment of Russia invading the US goes, what happened to our army? Our vastly superior fighting force? Shouldn't we give them a crack before turning to the VFW?
Yes, the Founding Fathers were wise to reserve the right to defend themselves against tyranny to the individual citizen. Unfortunately, what worked in 1791 doesn't work today. I find it astonishing that you could believe that conditions are exactly the same today. That the establishment of a standing army hasn't changed the dynamic. That guns occupy exactly the same place in modern day culture that they did in 1791.
FWIW, the second amendment died when the US declared a standing army, and militias ceased to exist. Your right to own guns has nothing to do with the second amendment, until the current morons on the SC decided that the 2nd amendment meant something that no other court in US history found it to mean. That either makes the Robert's court smarter than every other court we've had, or the explanation for their decision lies elsewhere. Even after they declared a right where no other court has found a right to exist, gun rights extremists STILL don't feel secure in their constitutional rights. That's pathetic.
For you attention please type in..>>>>> theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-...As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...stevenAs says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.Australia...IS
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
YOU WERE SAYING???
It's not the NRA...it is the Australian press...you have to actually look at the Australian press because no one else is covering the increase in gun crime in Australia...
For you attention please type in..>>>>> theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-...As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...stevenAs says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steveYou do know the crime rate is UP since you went to single shots. Oh and the ILLEGAL importation of firearms by and to criminals is also up.
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
YOU WERE SAYING???
It's not the NRA...it is the Australian press...you have to actually look at the Australian press because no one else is covering the increase in gun crime in Australia...
so much for you and your possee blathers
this is in the CDZ because it gets a little old when some start talking sex organs and guns.....
soooo....
We are constantly told that if you carry a gun you are afraid.
Is this true.
No.
Carrying a gun for self defense is a rational response to the reality that even though I know where I live is ver safe, there are still criminals out there and that you never know when one will target you. These things happen every day, in every state, in every country.
How much fear goes into carrying a gun...for me....there is about as much emotion to carrying a gun as there is carrying my cell phone.
Now....the other side...the one that is constantly accusing my side of being afraid.....I believe that fear is what they feel....especially about guns. The don't like people, but they hate guns in the hands of people.
For example.
There are over 3,700,000 AR-15s in private hands in this country.
Each year maybe, maybe, 2-3 are used in any type of crime or even a mass shooting.
With those numbers, those who I believe fear guns want all AR-15s banned from private hands. To me, that is real fear. The numbers show that the odds of being a victim of a violent attack by an attacker with an AR-15 are so remote...you would actually have more of a chance of running into Big Foot and Elvis having Lunch with Aliens.....
And yet, they call for all AR-15s and other rifles like it to be completely banned.
And yet even if AR-15s are completely banned, there is not one crime that is committed on those rare occasions where an AR-15 is used that cannot be done to the same effect with a pistol, shot gun or other rifle or a combination of those......
Yet we are called scaredy cats for wearing a gun like we wear a cell phone or buckle our seat belts.
To a rational person....who sounds more afraid of guns...who sounds more filled with actual fear...?
I got in,try ...Australian rapes compared to the USAFor you attention please type in..>>>>> theconversation.com/faking-waves-how-the-nra-and-pro-gun-americans-...As ADVOCATED By your discredited NRA......who were thrown out of Australia by our Government.....you believe their Bullshit because you thrive on Bullshit,we are different.......We threw Shits like the NRA OUT.......you lemmings of the GUN CULTURE as thick as two planks,in answer to your answer...quite the opposite happened.....but keep trying Moron...stevenAs says your discredited NRA who were kicked out of Australia years ago as UNDESIREABLES ........ after the buy back the crime rate with Guns went down.so your point was ???? steve
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
April 13, 2009
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
- See more at: AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
- In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
- Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
- Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
YOU WERE SAYING???
It's not the NRA...it is the Australian press...you have to actually look at the Australian press because no one else is covering the increase in gun crime in Australia...
so much for you and your possee blathers
Yeah...it isn't coming through......got another way in?
