If you voted for biden and democrats, you voted for this: New York Police to citizens...on your own in subways......

Gee, get rid of guns and the bad guys won't be able to get them. Hmmmm. You know.....perhaps we should do that with recreational narcotics.

Hmmm... not really the same thing. Nobody is really hurt by drugs but the people who take them. Guns, on the other hand, pose a danger whether we own one or not. That's why gun bans work in Europe just fine. No one wants to live next to a gun nut, and they'll happily turn them in.

Gun nuts as you call them are generally the most law abiding citizens our country has. They collect guns, buy and sell them, most have a CCW I'm sure. Your holiday weekend had 24 shootings resulting in 7 deaths. Do you think those were gun nuts that did the shootings? But you didn't think much about that, did you? After all, this is very common in Chicago. You are callous to it by now. But if one person killed 7 people and injured 14 others, you'd be screaming how the problem is the guy was a gun nut.

Guy, on any given day in America, 100 people are killed with guns. Not sure why you want to keep signaling out Chicago, where we HAD a sensible gun ban and the National Rampage Association got it struck down. So then all these gun stores and CCW shops popped up and the murder rate doubled.
 
Hmmm... not really the same thing. Nobody is really hurt by drugs but the people who take them. Guns, on the other hand, pose a danger whether we own one or not. That's why gun bans work in Europe just fine. No one wants to live next to a gun nut, and they'll happily turn them in.

Nobody is hurt by drugs except the user? Why do you think people get killed so often in the inner-city? Much of it is because of drugs. Do you think that 7 year old playing on the living room couch that gets shot by a stray bullet from a drive-by isn't hurt? How about her parents? My cousin lost her son at the age of 27 from an OD a few years ago. I can tell you that she and her husband lives are changed forever.

Bottom line is when bad people want something bad enough, they are going to get it. A few years ago London bypassed NYC murder rate. Europe is not nearly as integrated as the US, and most of our murders and gun crimes are because of minorities. You are comparing apples to oranges.

In the US, people use their firearms to defend themselves or others tens of thousands of times a year. Take their guns away, and they won't be able to do that any longer. It will result with more injuries than we have today, and more deaths. Women and senior citizens will be helpless to the criminal element, even if the attacker is not armed with anything but a knife or club.


Guy, on any given day in America, 100 people are killed with guns. Not sure why you want to keep signaling out Chicago, where we HAD a sensible gun ban and the National Rampage Association got it struck down. So then all these gun stores and CCW shops popped up and the murder rate doubled.

CCW holders are the most law abiding citizens in our country, and I have the stats that you will refuse to look at. Very few criminals commit crimes with legally purchased firearms. They get their guns hot off the street. You will never stop gun crime when you only disarm law aiding citizens. You can only increase it. The only way to decrease it is build more jails and prisons, increase the penalties for illegally carrying or owning a gun, quit electing liberal judges that give them a slap on the hand and put them back out into the streets, use programs like the successful Stop and Frisk which was rescinded that saved a lot of lives. That's how you handle it.
 
Nobody is hurt by drugs except the user? Why do you think people get killed so often in the inner-city? Much of it is because of drugs. Do you think that 7 year old playing on the living room couch that gets shot by a stray bullet from a drive-by isn't hurt? How about her parents? My cousin lost her son at the age of 27 from an OD a few years ago. I can tell you that she and her husband lives are changed forever.

Naw, that 7 year old wasn't killed by drugs.

HE WAS KILLED BY A BULLET FIRED FROM A GUN.

You know, the rest of the world, they don't let people have guns and they treat addiction as a MEDICAL problem instead of a CRIMINAL one. As a result, they have less crime, less murder and less problems.

CCW holders are the most law abiding citizens in our country, and I have the stats that you will refuse to look at.

Sure they are.. Oh, wait.


 
Naw, that 7 year old wasn't killed by drugs.

HE WAS KILLED BY A BULLET FIRED FROM A GUN.

You know, the rest of the world, they don't let people have guns and they treat addiction as a MEDICAL problem instead of a CRIMINAL one. As a result, they have less crime, less murder and less problems.

No they don't. In fact countries in south America have a much higher gun murder rate than we do; you know, the people Biden wants to open up our borders to? We come in at 11th. I'd post the link but why bother. The 7 year old was killed by a gun, but because of drug wars between various gangs. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will never change that. In fact it would make it worse.


Your bias sources are FOS. In those totals, most of the gun deaths were suicides which has nothing to do with a person carrying a firearm. Others that were listed were suicide murders which happens in domestic cases, again, nothing to do with CCW other than the shooter had one. CCW holders do kill people--attackers. Plus your sources had to go back 13 years to come up with the numbers they did.

 
No they don't. In fact countries in south America have a much higher gun murder rate than we do;

This is your argument, we are doing slightly better than a third world country?

I mean, I know Trump is trying to turn us into a banana republic, but really?

We come in at 11th. I'd post the link but why bother.

There are 300 countries in the world, most of them poor and miserable... The fact that we only do better than only 10 of them is kind of pathetic.


The 7 year old was killed by a gun, but because of drug wars between various gangs. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will never change that. In fact it would make it worse.

Nope that 7 year old died because 1) we've made it much too easy for bad guys to get guns and 2) we've made drugs a commodity worth fighting over. Like we didn't learn our lesson from the 1920's and prohibition.

Take Germany. In Germany, you can own a gun, but it isn't a "Right". Which means you have to undergo strict scrutiny before you can get one. They treat drug addiction as a medical issue and not a criminal one.

As a result, they have nowhere near the murders we have... and nowhere near the crime rates.

Others that were listed were suicide murders which happens in domestic cases, again, nothing to do with CCW other than the shooter had one.

Um, yeah, if you let unstable people have guns, they will kill themselves and members of their families... that's the point.

Most gun violence is in fact- wait for it - self-harm and domestic violence. Which is what happens when you call gun ownership a "right" and let any untrained, unstable idiot have one.
 
This is your argument, we are doing slightly better than a third world country?

I mean, I know Trump is trying to turn us into a banana republic, but really?

No, my argument is we do not have the most gun murders in the world as you just claimed.

Nope that 7 year old died because 1) we've made it much too easy for bad guys to get guns and 2) we've made drugs a commodity worth fighting over. Like we didn't learn our lesson from the 1920's and prohibition.

Take Germany. In Germany, you can own a gun, but it isn't a "Right". Which means you have to undergo strict scrutiny before you can get one. They treat drug addiction as a medical issue and not a criminal one.

As a result, they have nowhere near the murders we have... and nowhere near the crime rates.

And nowhere near the minorities either. Here, owning a gun is a right. Don't like that, try to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that one with the growing interest in self-defense.

Um, yeah, if you let unstable people have guns, they will kill themselves and members of their families... that's the point.

Most gun violence is in fact- wait for it - self-harm and domestic violence. Which is what happens when you call gun ownership a "right" and let any untrained, unstable idiot have one.

Nobody can determine if somebody is going to slip off the slide in most cases. Many of these people were otherwise normal. I have a cousin who lived in Canada. She was married to a great guy. Everybody loved him. She came home one day and found him in the garage with the car running. He didn't need a gun, he (like anybody else in that state of mind) found a way to kill himself.
 
No, my argument is we do not have the most gun murders in the world as you just claimed.

Well, I guess if you aspire to be a banana republic, that's fine. I actually want to live in a first world country.

And nowhere near the minorities either. Here, owning a gun is a right. Don't like that, try to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that one with the growing interest in self-defense.

Wow, Ray goes to his two standbys.. blaming the darkies and pretending the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership.

I'm all for well-regulated militias. I was a member of one for years.

Nobody can determine if somebody is going to slip off the slide in most cases. Many of these people were otherwise normal. I have a cousin who lived in Canada. She was married to a great guy. Everybody loved him. She came home one day and found him in the garage with the car running. He didn't need a gun, he (like anybody else in that state of mind) found a way to kill himself.

True enough. Thing is, it took a lot more effort to kill himself with a car than with a gun.. Which means there was a much better chance someone could have caught him and stopped him.
 
Well, I guess if you aspire to be a banana republic, that's fine. I actually want to live in a first world country.

It has nothing to do with what kind of country this is or others are. It has to do with the fact we do not have the most gun crime in this country. It's an utter lie.

Wow, Ray goes to his two standbys.. blaming the darkies and pretending the Militia Amendment is about gun ownership.

I'm all for well-regulated militias. I was a member of one for years.

Good for you, but that doesn't discount the fact our founders created the amendment for all Americans, not just the militia. A militia is not like our military today. The government didn't supply guns to their members. You brought your own if you were summoned to fight. Like today, people used guns for self-defense and hunting. They had gun smiths in towns like today. Many didn't live in towns and settled in the wilderness. If you were out there and attacked by a bear, do you think you'd be able to kill the thing with a bow and arrow? People walked around with their sidearm just like you see in those western movies.

I know statistics to a Democrat is like showing a cross to Dracula. Per capita, minorities commit the most violent crime in this country.

True enough. Thing is, it took a lot more effort to kill himself with a car than with a gun.. Which means there was a much better chance someone could have caught him and stopped him.

No, my cousin came home at the same time every day. Even if he was stopped, it wouldn't have stopped him from trying again.
 
The founders certainly didn't want that... They certainly didn't want the slaves getting a bunch of guns and ending slavery.

They couldn't have ended slavery because they were such a small group. Blacks were not always 13% of our population. Citizens owned guns before and after the Constitution was written. And when it was written, they didn't use punctuation and grammar we use today.

 
They couldn't have ended slavery because they were such a small group. Blacks were not always 13% of our population. Citizens owned guns before and after the Constitution was written. And when it was written, they didn't use punctuation and grammar we use today.

1607254396568.png


1) Actually, blacks were 20% of the population in 1790. and yes, the Founding Slave Rapists were very worried about them taking up arms. A major complaint they had was the Brits were offering freedom to any slave who enlisted with them.


2) Privately owned guns were RARE in 1776. A gun cost as much as a months wages for a skilled craftsman.


And when it was written, they didn't use punctuation and grammar we use today.

quite right, they were clearly talking about militias, not private gun ownership. That's the point. Again, I'm all for well-regulated militias...

These guys, not so much. These guys are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

1607254955566.png
 
2) Privately owned guns were RARE in 1776. A gun cost as much as a months wages for a skilled craftsman.

Your link is the NYT and a guy trying to sell a book. Plus he's only talking about two states. It's in direct conflict to what I have, but since you won't even open it up........

Rhode Island (1679-1726), and Gunston Hall Plantation's sample of325 inventories from Maryland and Virginia (1740-1810). Also discussed are a sample of 59 probate inventories from Essex County,Massachusetts (1636-1650), Gloria L. Main's study of 604 Maryland estates (1657-1719), Anna Hawley's study of 221 Surry County,Virginia estates (1690-1715), a sample of 289 male inventories from Vermont (1773-1790), and Judith A. McGaw's study of 250 estatesin New Jersey and Pennsylvania (1714-1789). Guns are found in 50-73% of the male estates in each of the eight databases and in 6-38%of the female estates in each of the first four databases. Gun ownership is particularly high compared to other common items. For example, in 813 itemized male inventories from the 1774 Jones national database, guns are listed in 54% of estates, compared to only 30% of estates listing any cash, 14% listing swords or edged weapons, 25% listing Bibles, 62% listing any book, and 79% listing any clothes. Using hierarchical loglinear modeling, the authors show that guns are more common in early American inventories where the decedent was male, Southern, rural, slave-owning, or above the lowest social class-or where the inventories were more detailed.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/...e.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1489&context=wmlr


quite right, they were clearly talking about militias, not private gun ownership. That's the point. Again, I'm all for well-regulated militias...

These guys, not so much. These guys are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

No, if you read the link I posted, it clearly states that the comma was used as a pause, or as an "and" in those times. So I disagree with you, and so do the courts.
 
our link is the NYT and a guy trying to sell a book. Plus he's only talking about two states. It's in direct conflict to what I have, but since you won't even open it up........

You realize that you only have an "estate" if you have any property worth inventorying, right? So we are talking about maybe a few dozen guns out of millions of people.

Guns were rare in the Colonial Period.
The Second Amendment was about Militias, not guns.
 
Trump Humpers don't know truth, because your saviour NEVER tells you any. I get tired of seeing black folks murdered by police unjustly. Don't have we a problem with peaceful protest.

If you get tired of seeing blacks killed by cops, quit protesting and start promoting the message to listen to all orders of a police officer. Nearly all cases of blacks getting killed by police have one thing in common: they didn't obey the officers.
 
You realize that you only have an "estate" if you have any property worth inventorying, right? So we are talking about maybe a few dozen guns out of millions of people.

Guns were rare in the Colonial Period.
The Second Amendment was about Militias, not guns.

The point of the author is that yes, people were well armed back in our early days. They didn't have grocery stores, they had to hunt their own food. They not only had to worry about law breakers, but Indians as well.

The courts disagree with you. Having a firearm in the United States is a right to all people with some exceptions. It's been a right since the document was drafted and ratified.



Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Thomas Jefferson
 
The point of the author is that yes, people were well armed back in our early days. They didn't have grocery stores, they had to hunt their own food. They not only had to worry about law breakers, but Indians as well.

The courts disagree with you. Having a firearm in the United States is a right to all people with some exceptions. It's been a right since the document was drafted and ratified.

Yes, the courts have been bought out by the National Rampage Association... it's a problem we need to fix.

Most people didn't hunt with muskets... which weren't very effective for hunting because they weren't very accurate. Muskets were only effective in volleys. They were more likely to use bows or traps to catch meat.
 
.............deblasio and cuomo have destroyed that city......
I had thought the hyper-partisan prissy boys were trying to blame the next President.

As Trump's Approval Rating Sinks, New York Gov. Cuomo's Soars

De Blasio defends hiring of 900 new NYPD cadets as stabilizing move for police force
Only a true idiot would think Andrew Cuomo was some sort of hero.
That idiot is you, apparently. Ask relatives and friends of seniors he killed off at NY senior homes
what a hero he is.
 

Forum List

Back
Top