Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[JoeB131]

The point is that such regulations are targeted at groups that those behind the regulations wish to put at a disadvantage.

In Nazi Germany, good Aryan Germans were allowed arms, but Jews were not. It'snot difficult to understand why.

Here n America, as a matter of de-facto reality, criminals will always be able to obtain arms. Those who support gun control know very well that iot is only honest,law-abiding citizens who will be deterred by the policies that they advocate. That they would disarm honest people, while leaving criminals able to obtain arms, only goes to prove that without exception, whether by malice or by ignorance, every single person who supports any gun control law,no matter how benign it may be made to seem, is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.

Except other countries limit or prevent people from having guns, and criminals DON'T get guns.

Germany today has pretty strict gun laws, but there's about 17 million privately owned guns.

Guess what, Germany only had 258 gun homicides compared to our 11,000.

Imagine that.

How is that?

 

[Correll]

So, because the Jews were such a small minority, it was perfectly OK for Germany to deny them the same basic rights that they most other Germans were allowed to enjoy? Starting, of course, with the right to bear arms, but we all know that that it didn't end there.

I'm going to repeat this SLOOOOOOOWLY so you understand, Corky.

Jews didn't have gun rights in Germany.

But everyone else in Germany did.

Gun ownership amongst GERMANS didn't stop the Nazis. The argument that we's gots to have our guns to prevent tyranny didn't work.

Germans had guns, they still had tyranny.

Does this get through to you? Or are you just going to be dense?

Did Bob claim that an armed citizenry was perfect PROOF against tyranny?

If so, he overreached.

Hitler picked the Jews because Antisemitism was already widely spread in the Germany Population.

Thus the German People did not react to protect their fellow citizens.

 

[Correll]

The point is that such regulations are targeted at groups that those behind the regulations wish to put at a disadvantage.

In Nazi Germany, good Aryan Germans were allowed arms, but Jews were not. It'snot difficult to understand why.

Here n America, as a matter of de-facto reality, criminals will always be able to obtain arms. Those who support gun control know very well that iot is only honest,law-abiding citizens who will be deterred by the policies that they advocate. That they would disarm honest people, while leaving criminals able to obtain arms, only goes to prove that without exception, whether by malice or by ignorance, every single person who supports any gun control law,no matter how benign it may be made to seem, is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.

Except other countries limit or prevent people from having guns, and criminals DON'T get guns.

Germany today has pretty strict gun laws, but there's about 17 million privately owned guns.

Guess what, Germany only had 258 gun homicides compared to our 11,000.

Imagine that.

How is that?

Do you think poverty drives crime?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right. Hitler only disarmed the Jews. You'd love that, you Nazi fuckwad

There were less than 500,000 Jews in Germany before the war out of a population of 80 million.

Point was, most Germans could own guns if they wanted them, and none of those Freedom Loving Germans decided to use their guns to resist the government, even after it was REALLY CLEAR they were going to lose the war.

Progressive are like that, they live and die for their government

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The point is that such regulations are targeted at groups that those behind the regulations wish to put at a disadvantage.

In Nazi Germany, good Aryan Germans were allowed arms, but Jews were not. It'snot difficult to understand why.

Here n America, as a matter of de-facto reality, criminals will always be able to obtain arms. Those who support gun control know very well that iot is only honest,law-abiding citizens who will be deterred by the policies that they advocate. That they would disarm honest people, while leaving criminals able to obtain arms, only goes to prove that without exception, whether by malice or by ignorance, every single person who supports any gun control law,no matter how benign it may be made to seem, is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.

Except other countries limit or prevent people from having guns, and criminals DON'T get guns.

Germany today has pretty strict gun laws, but there's about 17 million privately owned guns.

Guess what, Germany only had 258 gun homicides compared to our 11,000.

Imagine that.

How is that?

Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.

The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.

The US has 11,000.

The problem, again, isn't criminals. The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.

The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.

The US has 11,000.

The problem, again, isn't criminals. The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

Don't hate on The Beast. Nobody else is selling cases for less than 10 dollars.

 

[Correll]

Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.

The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.

The US has 11,000.

The problem, again, isn't criminals. The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

Right. Because our high crime states are driven by poor Southern Whites...

Do you believe that poverty drives crime?

 

[JoeB131]

Some people don't understand they are being ignored.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem, again, isn't criminals. The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

Don't hate on The Beast. Nobody else is selling cases for less than 10 dollars.

Yeah, but it tastes like dog-piss

 

[Auld Phart]

Yes they do. Any criminal in Britain can get a firearm and in mainland Europe they have access to fully automatic ak-47's as proven by several terrorist attacks.

The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.

The US has 11,000.

The problem, again, isn't criminals. The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

yeah...

Because 'Cleetus' is known for shooting so many people

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.

The US has 11,000.

The problem, again, isn't criminals. The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—“Criminals aren't the problem.”

Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.

It's not clear whether, in your Cleetus example, you meant to blame the gun, or the trailer park, but neither of them would have had anything to do with a death, unless a criminal acted to cause that death.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

The militia is BOTH the unorganized militia AND the National Guard.

The whole point of the Dick Act was to make sure people couldn't complain about not being in the militia. Had they set up just the National Guard, individuals would have had the RIGHT to join up the National Guard. It would have caused problems. So they set up the unorganized militia to tell people that hey, dude, you're in the militia already, you can't go to the Supreme Court and get this changed.

This is because a military unit like the National Guard needs discipline and you don't get this by people having a right to be in the National Guard.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.

The US has 11,000.

The problem, again, isn't criminals. The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—“Criminals aren't the problem.”

Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.

It's not clear whether, in your Cleetus example, you meant to blame the gun, or the trailer park, but neither of them would have had anything to do with a death, unless a criminal acted to cause that death.

Criminals are the problem but the US has far more criminals than most other first world countries. Why? Because social problems are never dealt with in the US. So it's the fault of the politicians.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

No

 

[JoeB131]

Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—“Criminals aren't the problem.”

Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.

point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house. That's the point you don't get. Guns allow petty arguments to escalate into tragedies.

 

[Auld Phart]

Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—“Criminals aren't the problem.”

Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.

point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house. That's the point you don't get. Guns allow petty arguments to escalate into tragedies.

point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house

He wouldn't be a criminal if he used a knife, a crowbar, a ball bat, any of a hundred other items?

interesting

 

[Correll]

The UK has 48 Gun homicides a year.

The US has 11,000.

The problem, again, isn't criminals. The problem is Cleetus in his trailer park who done thinks his gun and his bible make him safe, and he shoots Mrs. Cleetus in an argument over who drank the last can of Milwaukee's Best.

Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—“Criminals aren't the problem.”

Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.

It's not clear whether, in your Cleetus example, you meant to blame the gun, or the trailer park, but neither of them would have had anything to do with a death, unless a criminal acted to cause that death.

Criminals are the problem but the US has far more criminals than most other first world countries. Why? Because social problems are never dealt with in the US. So it's the fault of the politicians.

Well, to be fair to them, it is pretty hard to address the root causes when the libs demagogue any attempts to do so.

 

[Dan Daly]

The current text: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

Free men don't need permission, registration or constitutions to exercise their inherent human right to defend themselves by the means of their choosing.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Pretty typical wrong-wing thinking—“Criminals aren't the problem.”

Of course, it isn't surprising that you couldn't muster the intellectual capacity to realize that your hypothetical Cleetus who shoots his wife in a dispute over beer would be a criminal, and that would, in fact, be the entire cause of the problem.

point is, he wouldn't be a "criminal" if he didn't have a gun in the house. That's the point you don't get. Guns allow petty arguments to escalate into tragedies.

It wouldn't be the gun that would make him a criminal. It would be the willingness to unjustly and inappropriately use deadly force. A man who would shoot this wife in a dispute over beer is a man who would still be dangerous, and almost certainly turn out to be a criminal, even if he didn't have access to a gun.

My wife and I each, separately, grew up around guns. My wife has a shotgun that her parents gave to her as a Christmas present when she was eight years old. We have guns in our own home, now.

Neither of us have ever used our guns in any manner that was harmful or threatening to anyone else. The presence of guns in our homes has not turned us into criminals.

Guns don't make criminals. Criminals are criminals because of their own internal faults, because they are willing to unjustly cause harm to others, or to otherwise violate the rights of others. Your willingness to deny your countrymen their essential right to keep and bear arms demonstrates you to be far more criminally-inclined than the vast majority of Americans who own guns. It shows that you have no respect for the rights of other, and that you would happily violate those rights for your own selfish purposes.