Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

No the second is about the right of the PEOPLE

Only in right wing fantasy. There is No Thing concerning the whole and entire concept of natural rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

That is the subject of the second

No, it isn't. Just lousy right wing, reading comprehension?

The Intent and Purpose Clause, leads the way.

Yes, it is.

Public justice is holding the perpetrator until police arrive and that person gets a trial.

No it is not. You are confusing vigilantism with self defense

natural rights for private citizens equals private justice not social justice.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

No you are the only one who doesn't get it.

And there is no such thing as "social justice"

Killing in self defense if perfectly legal and has nothing to do with justice. You think killing in self defense is illegal

Getting personal justice as you call it it is vigilantism

only in right wing fantasy. the concept of social justice exists and is taught in tertiary education.

Not when I went to college it wasn't.

"Social Justice" as it is defined today is viewed primarily as a matter of redistributing goods and resources to improve the situations of the disadvantaged.

Social justice has always been about understanding human rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What part don't you understand?

You seem to be arguing that the 2A was to secure a free state, and that the part about rights is irrelevant. Then, you go off onto an argument that the Founders were communists (command economics) and the purpose of the Amendment was to keep control of the economy in the hands of the government, I think. It's not really clear what you are arguing at this point, other than the right wing doesn't get it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Social justice has always been about understanding human rights.

Social Justice has always been about government control over the means of production, A.K.A. Commie Bullshit.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Those Necessary to the Security of a free State shall not be Infringed. It really is that simple, dears.

But it doesn't say that. It says "the right of the people...shall not be infringed" without qualification.

As I have argued, and demonstrated with quotes from the Founders themselves, the intent was to limit the federal government, period. It was not to provide for establishment of a militia or to actually secure a free State. The purpose was to limit the federal government, so that States would accept the Constitution. It was a limitation on government power. Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

James Madison, Federalist No. 41:

"Not less true is it, that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs, and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have with few exceptions been the price of her military establishments. A standing force therefore is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale, its consequences may be fatal. On any scale, it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties."

Madison, from Federalist No. 46:

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Is there any doubt about the concerns of the founders and the intent of the 2nd Amendment, based on those quotes?

I dare ANYONE to argue against it. Give it your best shot.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I like to call out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle when I see it, usually on the Right but today I see it on the Left. I just watched the press conference for the recent tragedy in Manhattan. My heart goes out to the victims. During this press conference I heard De Blasio and Como speak about the resolve of New Yorkers and Americans. They emphasized the point that terrorists are trying to break our spirit and if we change our lives in any way then we are letting them win. A respectable point.

It made me think about how the "Left" typically reacts to gun violence, something we heard a lot of after Vegas, and I noticed that the messaging is quite different. After a shooting event the Left seems quick and adamant to try and change our laws to make communities safer. I've heard it communicated as a negligence of duty to not talk about gun control after a shooting. In the same spirit, why isn't there a reaction to legislate a way to keep us safer from terrorism after a terror attack by the Left? Its a rhetorical question, i know why, hence the hypocrisy. But if anybody would like to try to rationalize it then please go ahead!

Note that i'm pretty liberal and support both of these reactions. I'm fine with common sense gun control measures and I am pro immigration and religious freedom. But I have to call it like I see it when hypocrisy hits.

the way we get gun control and stop the murdering of americans is simple.get rid of the CIA.the last president that tried paid the price for it on nov 22nd 1963. not conspiracy theory conspiracy FACT.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No the second is about the right of the PEOPLE

Only in right wing fantasy. There is No Thing concerning the whole and entire concept of natural rights, in our Second Article of Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

That is the subject of the second

No, it isn't. Just lousy right wing, reading comprehension?

The Intent and Purpose Clause, leads the way.

No it is not. You are confusing vigilantism with self defense

natural rights for private citizens equals private justice not social justice.

Only the right wing, never gets it.

No you are the only one who doesn't get it.

And there is no such thing as "social justice"

Killing in self defense if perfectly legal and has nothing to do with justice. You think killing in self defense is illegal

Getting personal justice as you call it it is vigilantism

only in right wing fantasy. the concept of social justice exists and is taught in tertiary education.

Not when I went to college it wasn't.

"Social Justice" as it is defined today is viewed primarily as a matter of redistributing goods and resources to improve the situations of the disadvantaged.

Social justice has always been about understanding human rights.

And you obviously don't.

 

[Brain357]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

 

[Skull Pilot]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

Cops know the risks before they take the job.

 

[Brain357]

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

Cops know the risks before they take the job.

And the risks are significantly higher here obviously. But again those risks lead to them shooting a lot of people which leads to unrest and increased crime rates. That is a problem. Not to mention more crime as guns make criminals more bold. Believe it or not the gun courage you get is the same for a criminal.

 

[2aguy]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

No...their criminals do not cross the line and murder their police officers...that is the difference. Our thugs have had more time to become sociopaths.....the young males in Europe are reaching that point....expect more police deaths...

 

[2aguy]

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

Cops know the risks before they take the job.

And the risks are significantly higher here obviously. But again those risks lead to them shooting a lot of people which leads to unrest and increased crime rates. That is a problem. Not to mention more crime as guns make criminals more bold. Believe it or not the gun courage you get is the same for a criminal.

No...guns don't create more crime.....but attacking the police, cutting their numbers and their funding...that creates more crime...Britain is finding this out...this is what happened here......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.




Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

 

[Brain357]

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

No...their criminals do not cross the line and murder their police officers...that is the difference. Our thugs have had more time to become sociopaths.....the young males in Europe are reaching that point....expect more police deaths...

They aren't really killing anyone with guns regularly actually. They have much lower homicide rates than us. They don't have unrest from cop shootings. They don't have lots of empowered criminals running around with guns.

 

[Brain357]

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

Cops know the risks before they take the job.

And the risks are significantly higher here obviously. But again those risks lead to them shooting a lot of people which leads to unrest and increased crime rates. That is a problem. Not to mention more crime as guns make criminals more bold. Believe it or not the gun courage you get is the same for a criminal.

No...guns don't create more crime.....but attacking the police, cutting their numbers and their funding...that creates more crime...Britain is finding this out...this is what happened here......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.




Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

 

[2aguy]

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

No...their criminals do not cross the line and murder their police officers...that is the difference. Our thugs have had more time to become sociopaths.....the young males in Europe are reaching that point....expect more police deaths...

They aren't really killing anyone with guns regularly actually. They have much lower homicide rates than us. They don't have unrest from cop shootings. They don't have lots of empowered criminals running around with guns.

Their criminals have guns...they don't use them to commit murder...yet....

 

[sakinago]

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but **** off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State and well regulated militia being necessary, not the unorganized militia.

All y'all have is appeals to ignorance.

I’ll ask this for the 50th time IF IT WAS ABOUT THE SECURITY OF THE STATE, AND A WELL REGULATED MILITIA...WHY DID THEY NOT USE A STANDING ARMY VS A BUNCH OF LITTLE GROUPS THAT MET UP EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, ELECTED THEIR OWN BUDDIES TO LEAD THEM??? A standing army is much more effective than a milita. The founders already knew this after the revolution. Militias back then were in no way shape or form “well regulated” like you seem to imagine. They meet whenever, elected their own leaders, and brought their own guns and ammo, no matter how shitty they were, and were very disorganized. USING THEM IN THE REVELOUTION WAS LIKE HERDING CATS, AND THEN TRYING TO HERD THOSE CATS AT A VERY WELL TRAINED ARMY THEY WERE AFRAID OF, AND HOPING THEY KILLED SOME OF THEM. So why entrust the “security of the free state,” to the herd of cats, vs the standing army that actually won the revolution.

dude, even Texas was not that slow.

It is about the security of a free State; it says so in our Second Amendment.

Yea and I’m asking why did they not go with a standing army??? I’ve asked this many times, you keep dancing around it.

I already told you. It did not make sense to you then. It is about the command economics and the cost of our exorbitantly expensive superpower; and the right wing having a Republican Doctrine.

Now do you understand, dear.

No, that’s not at all why, they talked about it in extensively, and the reason was a standing army (that government had control of) was a threat to free society. And even when they did institute a standing army not too long after, the debate was never should we replace the militia with the standing army, it was is the militia made up of citizens strong enough to stand up to a standing army if need be. And the standing army almost didn’t happen.

Here’s what the founders actually said (not what your guessing and hoping they said to fit your reality).

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387
(This is where the 2nd ammendment comes into place)

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

“It is more a subject of joy that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261

“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
—Joseph Story,

“second way to cope with the peril to liberty of a standing army is to counter its existence with an armed citizen’s militia which stands outside of the control of the government. That was the constant theme of the Whig pamphleteers from the 1690s on, as they sought to check the power of government. Indeed, one of the important grievances that produced the Glorious Revolution had been the King’s attempt to disarm the Protestants; the subsequent English Bill of Rights, forced on King William, had specifically guaranteed their right to arms. And, as Bernard Bailyn has shown in The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, those Whig pamphleteers, such as John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, were among the foremost intellectual influences on the Americans. The latter writers, particularly in their Cato’s Letters, a series widely reprinted in the colonies, argued that the defense of the realm was best entrusted to the armed body of the citizenry, rather than a standing army. They argued both that this was a superior form of national defense and that it was the best means of protecting the people’s liberties against the state’s usurpation:

“[W]hen a Tyrant’s Army is beaten, his Country is conquered: He has no Resource; his Subjects having neither Arms...nor Reason to fight for him.”

“[A]nd therefore it is fit that Mankind should know...that his Majesty can be defended against them...without Standing Armies; which would make him formidable only to his People....”

“When the People are easy and satisfied, the whole Kingdom is [the King’s] Army.” “

Militia, Standing Armies, and the Second Amendment - William F. Marina

 

[sakinago]

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

Cops know the risks before they take the job.

And the risks are significantly higher here obviously. But again those risks lead to them shooting a lot of people which leads to unrest and increased crime rates. That is a problem. Not to mention more crime as guns make criminals more bold. Believe it or not the gun courage you get is the same for a criminal.

No...guns don't create more crime.....but attacking the police, cutting their numbers and their funding...that creates more crime...Britain is finding this out...this is what happened here......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.




Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Gun Crime has been reduced by 50% over the last 10 years, while gun ownership has been climbing. And the countries with lower crime than us have had lower crime than us for a much longer time. And in Switzerland you are issued full auto assault rifles yet it’s the safest place on the planet...what’s up with that? Not to mention Europe doesn’t have the war on drugs that we do, with straight up street wars raging in our cities as well as cartel war raging across our border. You eliminate our war on drugs, and we become one of the safest places on the planet as well.

Yet when Britain Instituted gun control, gun crime doubled within a decade. In fact, every single time a country has instituted gun control, murder rates go up, there is no exception to this.

Guns are not the issue. If they were Switzerland would be a war zone. More guns in America would equal more crime. And gun control would always reduce crime with a very clear correlation. It never does

 

[sakinago]

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

Cops know the risks before they take the job.

And the risks are significantly higher here obviously. But again those risks lead to them shooting a lot of people which leads to unrest and increased crime rates. That is a problem. Not to mention more crime as guns make criminals more bold. Believe it or not the gun courage you get is the same for a criminal.

No...guns don't create more crime.....but attacking the police, cutting their numbers and their funding...that creates more crime...Britain is finding this out...this is what happened here......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.




Hard Data, Hollow Protests

The reason for the current increase is what I have called the Ferguson Effect.

Cops are backing off of proactive policing in high-crime minority neighborhoods, and criminals are becoming emboldened.

Having been told incessantly by politicians, the media, and Black Lives Matter activists that they are bigoted for getting out of their cars and questioning someone loitering on a known drug corner at 2 AM, many officers are instead just driving by. Such stops are discretionary; cops don’t have to make them. And when political elites demonize the police for just such proactive policing, we shouldn’t be surprised when cops get the message and do less of it.

Seventy-two percent of the nation’s officers say that they and their colleagues are now less willing to stop and question suspicious persons, according to a Pew Research poll released in January. The reason is the persistent anti-cop climate.

Four studies came out in 2016 alone rebutting the charge that police shootings are racially biased. If there is a bias in police shootings, it works in favor of blacks and against whites. That truth has not stopped the ongoing demonization of the police—including, now, by many of the country’s ignorant professional athletes. The toll will be felt, as always, in the inner city, by the thousands of law-abiding people there who desperately want more police protection.

With the most guns in the world and the highest incarceration rate we still have much higher crime rates than other civilized countries with gun control. We also have many unique problems to our country like mass shootings, over 50 police shot and killed each year, our police shoot many, many people, toddlers shoot people, road rage shootings, women shot by significant others.... Too many guns.
Why the US has the most mass shootings - CNN
US cops killed 100 times more than German police in 2015
Analysis | American toddlers are still shooting people on a weekly basis this year
Study: Road rage incidents involving guns are increasing

The “boyfriend loophole” in U.S. gun laws is costing women’s lives

More police officers die on the job in states with more guns

Fallen officers: 64 shot dead in the line of duty in 2016 - CNN

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Gun Crime has been reduced by 50% over the last 10 years, while gun ownership has been climbing. And the countries with lower crime than us have had lower crime than us for a much longer time. And in Switzerland you are issued full auto assault rifles yet it’s the safest place on the planet...what’s up with that? Not to mention Europe doesn’t have the war on drugs that we do, with straight up street wars raging in our cities as well as cartel war raging across our border. You eliminate our war on drugs, and we become one of the safest places on the planet as well.

Yet when Britain Instituted gun control, gun crime doubled within a decade. In fact, every single time a country has instituted gun control, murder rates go up, there is no exception to this.

Guns are not the issue. If they were Switzerland would be a war zone. More guns in America would equal more crime. And gun control would always reduce crime with a very clear correlation. It never does

Here’s the “very scary” assault rifle your basically issued (should you choose to accept) in Switzerland. And yes full auto, “high caliber”, and you are free to shoulder it while you run out to grab some coffee

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/pe_90acog-tfb.jpg

 

[Skull Pilot]

One gun murder is too many, but let's take a look at statistics. There were 8,100 homicides using a firearm in 2016. Here is a chart that gives us a break down of gun homicides:

View attachment 158230

From this we can calculate that whites are responsible for about 25% of that 8,000 figure. So whites were responsible for around 2,000 gun homicides in 2016 , and that figure includes self-defense and accidental shootings.

I'm not a wiz at math, so perhaps somebody can figure out what that means per 100,000 people and compare that with those wonderful anti-gun countries and see how we compare. After all, we are a population of 320 million people.

Minorities tend to live more in big cities and more in poverty. If you removed them you wouldn't lower crime. Gangs would enlist a different group.

That's not the point I was making to Joe. The point I was making is he is comparing mostly white countries to ours which is very diverse, and then saying that guns are what makes the difference in the comparisons. As is said so many times, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people that are the problem, and you don't solve the people problem by taking everybody's gun away from them.

Guns are not the only problem certainly, but they are obviously a problem. No country with decent gun control has their police shot and killed weekly. Since our police are shot regularly, they shoot a lot of people themselves. Since they shoot so many people we have all this current unrest like BLM. A problem with it's root completely in too many guns. Shame BLM thinks it's racism.

Cops know the risks before they take the job.

And the risks are significantly higher here obviously. But again those risks lead to them shooting a lot of people which leads to unrest and increased crime rates. That is a problem. Not to mention more crime as guns make criminals more bold. Believe it or not the gun courage you get is the same for a criminal.

So what?

And I don't get courage from a gun anymore than I get courage from a hammer

A gun is a tool, the very best tool for self defense, and I have a right to keep and bear.

 

[sakinago]

I already told you. It did not make sense to you then. It is about the command economics and the cost of our exorbitantly expensive superpower; and the right wing having a Republican Doctrine.

Now do you understand, dear.

I have give COUNTLESS quotes from Founders showing that they feared a standing army. Economics may have been a factor, but their words do not indicate such. They feared the tyranny that a professional standing army could cause.

Do you want me to fill up this thread with more quotes? I don't want to have to beat your ass AGAIN, but I will. You are decidedly WRONG on the economics angle.

Economics was a factor...but having their citizens armed was always a necessity. Never in question, not only for defense of the nation but defense against the nation if need be. The debate was never a standing army VS militia, it was could armed citizens stand up to a standing army, and even if they theoretically could, is a standing army needed in peacetime as long as our citizens are armed, and why waste not only the money doing that but why risk having a standing army that could overtake the citizens.