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

[Ernie S.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of which matters a hill of beans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did surrendering the right to keep and bear arms work out for Cambodia under Pol Pot? Russia under Josef Stalin? Jews under Hitler?
What you fail to grasp is, our Founding Fathers assumed that the basic right to self defense would never be up for debate so basically ignored it. What they were ever mindful of was tyrannical governments, they had just rid themselves of one, and they saw the possibility of our republican government becoming another one if power was allowed to centralize and gain too much control.
The 2nd Amendment is not there to protect you from me, but so that I may protect you and I from tyranny.

 

[Rustic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

The vast majority of violence in this country is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws.

Execute violent criminals… Violence plummets

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of which matters a hill of beans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did surrendering the right to keep and bear arms work out for Cambodia under Pol Pot? Russia under Josef Stalin? Jews under Hitler?
What you fail to grasp is, our Founding Fathers assumed that the basic right to self defense would never be up for debate so basically ignored it. What they were ever mindful of was tyrannical governments, they had just rid themselves of one, and they saw the possibility of our republican government becoming another one if power was allowed to centralize and gain too much control.
The 2nd Amendment is not there to protect you from me, but so that I may protect you and I from tyranny.

We are way past that original idea. There is enough in Doctrines, Laws and Policies to prevent that from ever happening. Let's see, first the Tyrant would have to overthrow the Military. Fat chance with that. I would think the Military would have more than a little say in that. Then the Tyrant would have to overthrow the Justice Department. Okay, that's not hard to do by a wannabe tyrant. But that alone doesn't get the job done. Then the Tyrant would have to get at least 60% of his blind supporters in Congress. That came close to happening but the Voters took care of that. Then the Tyrant would have to control the Supreme Court. They wannabe tyrant thought he had that licked. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise. All Presidents try and become Tyrants, barring none. You just overlook it when Trump tries it. But he fails because the Founding Fathers and the doctrines, policies and laws that came after them are designed for the tyrant to fail.

The way to prevent a Tyrant is to get involved in the Political System. And keep the wannabe tyrant honest. You aren't doing a very good job of that lately. But enough of the rest of us are on watch.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

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

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

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

The vast majority of violence in this country is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws.

Execute violent criminals… Violence plummets

With guns imported from the rural areas where the guns are distributed openly without any gun background checks. In the past, I have shown that over 60% of all guns used in crime in those areas that you condemn come from areas like yours and are freely, and legally, purchased without background checks and transported to those areas. Yah, I know, you are going to go...CITE, CITE, CITE. Don't bother. Enough of us know and remember that little riff where there were solid cites given. You want to get 60% of the guns off those streets, do background checks in all states and back them up with jail sentences for those that don't comply. Plus, those that don't comply, hold them directly responsible for the crimes the guns are used in those inner cities. Make it a law and then enforce that law. It's pretty cut and dried. You keep saying that would should get the criminals off the street well here is your chance. It should be criminal to sell guns to people that are going to ship them out of state to the crime ridden areas. And don't tell me that the sellers don't have any idea that this is where the guns are going to go.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

The vast majority of violence in this country is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws.

Execute violent criminals… Violence plummets

With guns imported from the rural areas where the guns are distributed openly without any gun background checks. In the past, I have shown that over 60% of all guns used in crime in those areas that you condemn come from areas like yours and are freely, and legally, purchased without background checks and transported to those areas. Yah, I know, you are going to go...CITE, CITE, CITE. Don't bother. Enough of us know and remember that little riff where there were solid cites given. You want to get 60% of the guns off those streets, do background checks in all states and back them up with jail sentences for those that don't comply. Plus, those that don't comply, hold them directly responsible for the crimes the guns are used in those inner cities. Make it a law and then enforce that law. It's pretty cut and dried. You keep saying that would should get the criminals off the street well here is your chance. It should be criminal to sell guns to people that are going to ship them out of state to the crime ridden areas. And don't tell me that the sellers don't have any idea that this is where the guns are going to go.

Lol
You’re a fool if you think Firearms used in violent crimes come from law abiding citizens in rural areas...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

The vast majority of violence in this country is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws.

Execute violent criminals… Violence plummets

With guns imported from the rural areas where the guns are distributed openly without any gun background checks. In the past, I have shown that over 60% of all guns used in crime in those areas that you condemn come from areas like yours and are freely, and legally, purchased without background checks and transported to those areas. Yah, I know, you are going to go...CITE, CITE, CITE. Don't bother. Enough of us know and remember that little riff where there were solid cites given. You want to get 60% of the guns off those streets, do background checks in all states and back them up with jail sentences for those that don't comply. Plus, those that don't comply, hold them directly responsible for the crimes the guns are used in those inner cities. Make it a law and then enforce that law. It's pretty cut and dried. You keep saying that would should get the criminals off the street well here is your chance. It should be criminal to sell guns to people that are going to ship them out of state to the crime ridden areas. And don't tell me that the sellers don't have any idea that this is where the guns are going to go.

Lol
You’re a fool if you think Firearms used in violent crimes come from law abiding citizens in rural areas...

I already proved that over 60% do. You prove they don't. You can stamp your feet, throw yourself to the ground in a fit of rage and miss all you want but you can't change that fact.

From what I see, the only real argument you have is "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO", and "YOU AREN'T MY DADDY". No, I am not your Daddy. But the rest of us Can and Do tell you what to do. You don't like it, keep throwing those tantrums. But in the end, you will comply no matter how noisy you are going to be.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

The vast majority of violence in this country is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws.

Execute violent criminals… Violence plummets

With guns imported from the rural areas where the guns are distributed openly without any gun background checks. In the past, I have shown that over 60% of all guns used in crime in those areas that you condemn come from areas like yours and are freely, and legally, purchased without background checks and transported to those areas. Yah, I know, you are going to go...CITE, CITE, CITE. Don't bother. Enough of us know and remember that little riff where there were solid cites given. You want to get 60% of the guns off those streets, do background checks in all states and back them up with jail sentences for those that don't comply. Plus, those that don't comply, hold them directly responsible for the crimes the guns are used in those inner cities. Make it a law and then enforce that law. It's pretty cut and dried. You keep saying that would should get the criminals off the street well here is your chance. It should be criminal to sell guns to people that are going to ship them out of state to the crime ridden areas. And don't tell me that the sellers don't have any idea that this is where the guns are going to go.

Lol
You’re a fool if you think Firearms used in violent crimes come from law abiding citizens in rural areas...

I already proved that over 60% do. You prove they don't. You can stamp your feet, throw yourself to the ground in a fit of rage and miss all you want but you can't change that fact.

From what I see, the only real argument you have is "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO", and "YOU AREN'T MY DADDY". No, I am not your Daddy. But the rest of us Can and Do tell you what to do. You don't like it, keep throwing those tantrums. But in the end, you will comply no matter how noisy you are going to be.

Lol
You are relying on fake news

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

The vast majority of violence in this country is done by repeat offenders in progressive controlled urban areas with extremely strict gun control laws.

Execute violent criminals… Violence plummets

With guns imported from the rural areas where the guns are distributed openly without any gun background checks. In the past, I have shown that over 60% of all guns used in crime in those areas that you condemn come from areas like yours and are freely, and legally, purchased without background checks and transported to those areas. Yah, I know, you are going to go...CITE, CITE, CITE. Don't bother. Enough of us know and remember that little riff where there were solid cites given. You want to get 60% of the guns off those streets, do background checks in all states and back them up with jail sentences for those that don't comply. Plus, those that don't comply, hold them directly responsible for the crimes the guns are used in those inner cities. Make it a law and then enforce that law. It's pretty cut and dried. You keep saying that would should get the criminals off the street well here is your chance. It should be criminal to sell guns to people that are going to ship them out of state to the crime ridden areas. And don't tell me that the sellers don't have any idea that this is where the guns are going to go.

Lol
You’re a fool if you think Firearms used in violent crimes come from law abiding citizens in rural areas...

I already proved that over 60% do. You prove they don't. You can stamp your feet, throw yourself to the ground in a fit of rage and miss all you want but you can't change that fact.

From what I see, the only real argument you have is "YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO", and "YOU AREN'T MY DADDY". No, I am not your Daddy. But the rest of us Can and Do tell you what to do. You don't like it, keep throwing those tantrums. But in the end, you will comply no matter how noisy you are going to be.

Lol
You are relying on fake news

We already covered this and it came from the Justice Department. To be specific, the
Treasury Department. Again, you can deny, deny, deny. In the end, you can do a tantrum like a spoiled little 7 year old, throw yourself to the ground, and miss like you always do. And we will still tell you what to do. Let me know when the temper tantrum is done.

 

[westwall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

Really? Where? 130 dead in Paris with more anti gun laws than you want.

 

[westwall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of which matters a hill of beans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

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

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

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

Really? Where? 130 dead in Paris with more anti gun laws than you want.

The US isn't France. The French are sloppy as is most of the rest of Europe. Bomb makers don't fare so well iin the US as we control the main ingredients to making those bombs. Only in the Movies and TV shows does the bad guys get their hands on that kind of quantity in the US. We learned from the Oklahoma City Bombing. France and others can't seem to learn a thing. But I guess in some ways they are more free and more dangerous than we are. Why aren't you marching up and down that you have the right to that van load of Nitrogen Fertilizer without having the Chemical Business that requires it's use? Afterall, isn't it part of the 2nd amendment?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of which matters a hill of beans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[2aguy]

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

None of which matters a hill of beans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about......almost all mass public shootings are in gun free zones, including school shootings......you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

There are over 17.5 million people with concealed carry permits right now and our gun murder rate went down 49% and our gun crime rate went down 75%.........

 

[westwall]

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

None of which matters a hill of beans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[westwall]

Lol
Stop blaming firearms for violence… They have nothing to do with it.
You need to quit listening to the main stream media and watching Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

LOL, am I making you mad? I hope so. Am I making you clean that weapon you have even harder? Polish, rub, polish.

Lol
People kill people not firearms...
Criminal control not gun control.

And since when do we have complete control over all criminals? But we do have some control over the tools they use.

Really? Where? 130 dead in Paris with more anti gun laws than you want.

The US isn't France. The French are sloppy as is most of the rest of Europe. Bomb makers don't fare so well iin the US as we control the main ingredients to making those bombs. Only in the Movies and TV shows does the bad guys get their hands on that kind of quantity in the US. We learned from the Oklahoma City Bombing. France and others can't seem to learn a thing. But I guess in some ways they are more free and more dangerous than we are. Why aren't you marching up and down that you have the right to that van load of Nitrogen Fertilizer without having the Chemical Business that requires it's use? Afterall, isn't it part of the 2nd amendment?

And France is a lot smaller. Or, to put it in terms a simpleton can understand, it is illegal to transport fentanyl into the country. How many people die from over doses every year?

You are so completely clueless that it beggars belief.

 

[Brain357]

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brain357]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Rustic]

 

[Brain357]

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

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

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

You don't know what you are talking about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MPD: Homicides down two years in a row

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

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

Green bay...


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


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

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

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


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

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

---

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

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

Murder:
2011: 2.4
2016: 4.0

What a success.

 

[Brain357]

Countries with strong gun control don’t regularly have stories like this.

Family gripped with grief over shooting death of toddler: 'It was an accident'

Yes they do.....they murder their children too.......

And more children are killed in car accidents than gun accidents...so I guess that means we have to ban cars....and pools.......

What the rate of accidental gun death in Britain for children vs the US?