Murder rate drops as Gun sales soar.

[GunsBeerFreedom]

I support the 2nd Amendment and law enforcement's support of sanity in keeping military weapons off the streets.

Those are two polar opposites there. You cannot support both positions. Well not logically anyways.

 

[antagon]

I support the 2nd Amendment and law enforcement's support of sanity in keeping military weapons off the streets.

Those are two polar opposites there. You cannot support both positions. Well not logically anyways.

what if you can set standards for the types of weapons on the streets? shotgun, hunting rifle, handgun - ok. gattling, ma-deuce, rocket launcher - not ok. can you follow that logic? what about the role of law enforcement in curtailing stolen, unregistered and grey/black market weapons? worth the effort?

the second amendment doesnt have to be taken as a weapons free-for-all.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

[

what if you can set standards for the types of weapons on the streets? shotgun, hunting rifle, handgun - ok. gattling, ma-deuce, rocket launcher - not ok. can you follow that logic? what about the role of law enforcement in curtailing stolen, unregistered and grey/black market weapons? worth the effort?

the second amendment doesnt have to be taken as a weapons free-for-all.

That's contrary to the entire premise of the 2A, so it's not really logical. Further, all the stuff you mentioned is already legal (albeit restricted).

 

[CMike]

Show me any post where I have ever said people do not have second amendment rights to own a gun.....I have only said that the country pays a price for the open ownership of guns

Yes SewerBoy the price of citizens being able to protect themselves.

And as I have previously posted.....the US has a murder rate 2-5 times that of countries that do not have unrestricted access to guns. That is the price we pay for the second amendment

I have never advocated repeal of the second amendment or removing guns from the populace. Only acknowledged that there is a down side

Drugs, gangs, repeat offenders, etc.

Criminals rarely get guns legally.

 

[antagon]

[

what if you can set standards for the types of weapons on the streets? shotgun, hunting rifle, handgun - ok. gattling, ma-deuce, rocket launcher - not ok. can you follow that logic? what about the role of law enforcement in curtailing stolen, unregistered and grey/black market weapons? worth the effort?

the second amendment doesnt have to be taken as a weapons free-for-all.

That's contrary to the entire premise of the 2A, so it's not really logical. Further, all the stuff you mentioned is already legal (albeit restricted).

how then is law enforcement's enforcement of these restrictions illogical.

what is the entire premise of the 2nd amendment, then, guns. help me out.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

how then is law enforcement's enforcement of these restrictions illogical.

what is the entire premise of the 2nd amendment, then, guns. help me out.

It's illogical because the restrictions are contrary to both the original intent of the founders, and USSC decisions. The intent of the 2A is to have an armed citizenry that is capable of fighting a tyrannical government, and thus requires military weaponry to do so.

 

[Coyote]

Free speech does not include yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Oh it most certainly does. It only is unprotected if there is not a fire AND you incite a panic/riot. Thus it becomes illegal once you have committed an act that creates a dangerous situation for others. All of which is not at all related to gun ownership.

That was what I meant.

Free speech has limits. It is also limited by laws concerning slander and libel, as well as by inciting a riot. It's related to the right to carry firearms in much the same way - both have the potential to create dangerous situations and those rights are not unlimited and the limits don't have to be the same for all rights.

 

[rightwinger]

I support the 2nd Amendment and law enforcement's support of sanity in keeping military weapons off the streets.

Those are two polar opposites there. You cannot support both positions. Well not logically anyways.

No its not....never has been

 

[rightwinger]

Yes SewerBoy the price of citizens being able to protect themselves.

And as I have previously posted.....the US has a murder rate 2-5 times that of countries that do not have unrestricted access to guns. That is the price we pay for the second amendment

I have never advocated repeal of the second amendment or removing guns from the populace. Only acknowledged that there is a down side

Drugs, gangs, repeat offenders, etc.

Criminals rarely get guns legally.

Other countries have drugs, gangs and repeat offenders and don't have anywhere near our murder rate.
Domestic homicides are primarily done with legal guns. So are homicides between neighbors, road rage and accidental shootings

 

[CMike]

As much as we do? You sure?

 

[CMike]

Free speech does not include yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Oh it most certainly does. It only is unprotected if there is not a fire AND you incite a panic/riot. Thus it becomes illegal once you have committed an act that creates a dangerous situation for others. All of which is not at all related to gun ownership.

That was what I meant.

Free speech has limits. It is also limited by laws concerning slander and libel, as well as by inciting a riot. It's related to the right to carry firearms in much the same way - both have the potential to create dangerous situations and those rights are not unlimited and the limits don't have to be the same for all rights.

Obviously, you can't shoot a firearm in a crowded theatre.

There is no requirement before you can exercise free speech.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Did someone just compare the crime rates of DC, a major city, to hicksville Michigan? REALLY now?

The problem here is that people believe more guns = more safety. Compared to every other country, this is solidly proven incorrect. Where do you people believe criminals get guns from in the first place? I'll give you a hint: they're not making them in the basement. They're stealing yours. You buying more guns = criminals getting more guns. It's as simple as that.

So yes, there's a small correlation to areas with more firearms mildly reducing crime. But there's an overlying correlation between no guns and markedly reduced crime much more than getting more guns. Furthermore if you actually look at the stats, the percentage of gun owners who actually have their guns for use during a crime is minuscule.

This all comes down to the ridiculous American mindset of "screw community, I'm looking out for me". It doesn't matter that if everyone agrees to tossing guns then crime gets reduced, because dumb hicks only look out for themselves, at the expense of others, and their neighbors repay the favor.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

Free speech does not include yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Oh it most certainly does. It only is unprotected if there is not a fire AND you incite a panic/riot. Thus it becomes illegal once you have committed an act that creates a dangerous situation for others. All of which is not at all related to gun ownership.

That was what I meant.

Free speech has limits. It is also limited by laws concerning slander and libel, as well as by inciting a riot. It's related to the right to carry firearms in much the same way - both have the potential to create dangerous situations and those rights are not unlimited and the limits don't have to be the same for all rights.

Slander and libel are civil, not criminal, violations, so I won't touch on them. The laws against inciting a riot only apply IF YOU INCITE A RIOT, nothing else. Meaning that once you have committed an act that IS dangerous, then you are punished, and only you. Not everyone with lungs/vocal cords.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

Other countries have drugs, gangs and repeat offenders and don't have anywhere near our murder rate.
Domestic homicides are primarily done with legal guns. So are homicides between neighbors, road rage and accidental shootings

According to the FBI, only 9% of all gun crime is committed with legal guns. So either Domestic homicides are a very small issue, or you're mistaken.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

No its not....never has been

Yes it is, and always has been.

 

[CMike]

And guns are used by citizens to defend themselves about 2.5 million times/year.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I hate to interrupt, but did rightwinger ever get around to acknowledging the examples and supporting evidence that he demanded, or did he just run off and change the subject like the little bitch he is?

 

[CMike]

It doesn't matter what evidence we provide, SewerBoy will never accept it.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

Did someone just compare the crime rates of DC, a major city, to hicksville Michigan? REALLY now?

The problem here is that people believe more guns = more safety. Compared to every other country, this is solidly proven incorrect. Where do you people believe criminals get guns from in the first place? I'll give you a hint: they're not making them in the basement. They're stealing yours. You buying more guns = criminals getting more guns. It's as simple as that.

So yes, there's a small correlation to areas with more firearms mildly reducing crime. But there's an overlying correlation between no guns and markedly reduced crime much more than getting more guns. Furthermore if you actually look at the stats, the percentage of gun owners who actually have their guns for use during a crime is minuscule.

This all comes down to the ridiculous American mindset of "screw community, I'm looking out for me". It doesn't matter that if everyone agrees to tossing guns then crime gets reduced, because dumb hicks only look out for themselves, at the expense of others, and their neighbors repay the favor.

Ummm hi....

Like I mentioned earlier, England has the same crime rate it had 100 years ago when you could buy anything you wanted. In fact, since their various gun bans, crime has risen. The same goes for Austrailia.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did someone just compare the crime rates of DC, a major city, to hicksville Michigan? REALLY now?

The problem here is that people believe more guns = more safety. Compared to every other country, this is solidly proven incorrect. Where do you people believe criminals get guns from in the first place? I'll give you a hint: they're not making them in the basement. They're stealing yours. You buying more guns = criminals getting more guns. It's as simple as that.

So yes, there's a small correlation to areas with more firearms mildly reducing crime. But there's an overlying correlation between no guns and markedly reduced crime much more than getting more guns. Furthermore if you actually look at the stats, the percentage of gun owners who actually have their guns for use during a crime is minuscule.

This all comes down to the ridiculous American mindset of "screw community, I'm looking out for me". It doesn't matter that if everyone agrees to tossing guns then crime gets reduced, because dumb hicks only look out for themselves, at the expense of others, and their neighbors repay the favor.

Hick must be one really fucking stupid person.