# I Like Guns



## namvet

[youtube]-TC2xTCb_GU[/youtube]​


----------



## Mr. H.

...but hate vegetables.


----------



## B L Zeebub

Mr. H. said:


> ...but hate vegetables.


use birth control


----------



## Mr. H.

B L Zeebub said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but hate vegetables.
> 
> 
> 
> use birth control
Click to expand...


Bullets are cheaper.


----------



## B L Zeebub

Mr. H. said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but hate vegetables.
> 
> 
> 
> use birth control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
Click to expand...

coitus interuptus is free.


----------



## California Girl

Mr. H. said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but hate vegetables.
> 
> 
> 
> use birth control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
Click to expand...


Not much! Ammo is getting expensive!  That's how liberals plan to stop people having guns.  Since they can't take away our guns, they're making it too expensive to buy bullets. Bastards!


----------



## Missourian

California Girl said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> use birth control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much! Ammo is getting expensive!  That's how liberals plan to stop people having guns.  Since they can't take away our guns, they're making it too expensive to buy bullets. Bastards!
Click to expand...


Save your brass and load your own.

Reloading Data


----------



## Mr. H.

B L Zeebub said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> use birth control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> coitus interuptus is free.
Click to expand...


Got me through college. I think.


----------



## JW Frogen

I am not anti gun. Though I do think there should be controls, just like driving a car.

I qualified marksmen in the military several times (once, one point away from an expert medal), but I really do not love guns.

If I lived in the US you bet your ass I would have one, because you need to.

But having used them in war, I know what they are for, so I can not love them.

Love is an emotion about what you are for, not what you are against.


----------



## The Rabbi

Beautiful.  Brought tears to my eyes.


----------



## B L Zeebub

Mr. H. said:


> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> coitus interuptus is free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got me through college. I think.
Click to expand...

well your no cabbage then. I think as well.


----------



## Truthmatters

California Girl said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> use birth control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much! Ammo is getting expensive!  That's how liberals plan to stop people having guns.  Since they can't take away our guns, they're making it too expensive to buy bullets. Bastards!
Click to expand...


Supply and demand , you guys are buying a bunch of Ammo because you dont like the result of free elections.


----------



## slackjawed

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not much! Ammo is getting expensive!  That's how liberals plan to stop people having guns.  Since they can't take away our guns, they're making it too expensive to buy bullets. Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand , you guys are buying a bunch of Ammo because you dont like the result of free elections.
Click to expand...


Personally I buy a bunch of ammo twice a year because it's a part of my business. I guide hunts and offer instruction on my own private range. 
I think the idiots in our government are trying to control the supply of ammo simply because they are afraid of what the citizenry might do once they realize just how they have been lied to.
As a further note, I have years of experience with guns, thousands of them over the years.
I have never, ever not even once, seen one get up and shoot someone on their own.


----------



## Truthmatters

Gun, ammunition sales remain robust across the U.S. | Outposts | Los Angeles Times


Its supply and demand.

Gun people are buying up ammo and guns since Obama was elected.

Cops have already been killed over the lie that Obama will take guns away.


----------



## Yukon

I despise guns. To defend myself if necessary I use my fists. I'm quite good too.

Fr. Yukon


----------



## slackjawed

marking reload equipment makes it tough to reload your own shells, not supply and demand.
Announcing plans to require seriel numbers on all shell casings makes manufacturer's nervous and they cut back on production. This IS supply and demand, but it's a lessoned supply created by a corrupt government. Artificial supply and demand-I can agree with that.
Writing letters to our veterans telling them they alone are required to 'list' their guns because the corrupt government says sur military veterans? Really? Really? This government is afraid of our own heros, That should tell you something. This is another issue of supply and demand created by a corrupt government making overtures towards some type of gun control, causing more sales. That's why they call obama the gun salesman of the year, because he has been. 
Supply and demand, I suppose you can argue a case for that. 
I cited examples of where this corrupt government has exerted controls and created the shortened supply and therefore the higher price.
Like I said, I make two big ammo purchases every year, it's a business expense.
This year my clients paid more, I just passed it on. The real ironic thing is that my services are in demand by the type of people I have not seen before. City folks, men and women, even democrats are coming to get educated in the safe use of guns. Before this summer i usually only saw the 'bubbas' but this year has been different.
Gun salesman of the year indeed.


----------



## The Rabbi

Truthmatters said:


> Gun, ammunition sales remain robust across the U.S. | Outposts | Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> Its supply and demand.
> 
> Gun people are buying up ammo and guns since Obama was elected.
> 
> Cops have already been killed over the lie that Obama will take guns away.



More bullshit from "Truthdoesn'tmatter".

Do you ever get tired of lying or is it just second nature at this point?


----------



## Yukon

Rabbi,

I didnt think the chosen-people were violent?


----------



## uscitizen

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not much! Ammo is getting expensive!  That's how liberals plan to stop people having guns.  Since they can't take away our guns, they're making it too expensive to buy bullets. Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand , you guys are buying a bunch of Ammo because you dont like the result of free elections.
Click to expand...


Ahh but the ammo buying died down a bit during the holiday season.  I was able to find some ammo I wanted finally in stock at wally world.


----------



## namvet

funny how guns and ammo demands went thru the roof after the election 

there's always the black market.................


----------



## Yukon

*Bogus*NAMVET,

Exactly what do you mean by that statement? The US Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is a NEGRO therefor your comment is quite offensive and anti-American.


----------



## namvet

someone tell Yukon the fat fuck he's on ignore.


----------



## jillian

California Girl said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B L Zeebub said:
> 
> 
> 
> use birth control
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much! Ammo is getting expensive!  That's how liberals plan to stop people having guns.  Since they can't take away our guns, they're making it too expensive to buy bullets. Bastards!
Click to expand...


really? hmmmmmmm... you mean "liberals" have a monopoly on the manufacture and sale of ammo?

who knew?


----------



## Ringel05

jillian said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not much! Ammo is getting expensive!  That's how liberals plan to stop people having guns.  Since they can't take away our guns, they're making it too expensive to buy bullets. Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? hmmmmmmm... you mean "liberals" have a monopoly on the manufacture and sale of ammo?
> 
> who knew?
Click to expand...


Missed the point didn'tja.  Anti-gun liberals have realized attacking gun ownership is getting them nowhere so they have been attacking ammo.  They have been working towards higher taxes and more regulation on ammo which includes, but is not limited to micro-stamping and bullet types/caliber restrictions.  Micro-stamping is a practice that the FBI has already proven is non-workable from a law enforcement standpoint and only adds to the cost of ammo.


----------



## Yukon

The government should impose a 2.00 per bullet tax. Such a tax would curd the murder rate in the USA and reduce crime.


----------



## uscitizen

Sure why not I have all the bullets I will need.


----------



## namvet

[youtube]e60VhXBo1S8[/youtube]​


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Yukon said:


> The government should impose a 2.00 per bullet tax. Such a tax would curd the murder rate in the USA and reduce crime.



That is dumb as all hell.


----------



## Yukon

Not dumb just smart. The bullet tax would not affect your 2nd amendment but would protect innocent people from the NRA crazies.


----------



## Ringel05

Yukon said:


> Not dumb just smart. The bullet tax would not affect your 2nd amendment but would protect innocent people from the NRA crazies.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Yukon said:


> Not dumb just smart. The bullet tax would not affect your 2nd amendment but would protect innocent people from the NRA crazies.



Charging $2 for every bullet will not prevent any crime at all. Do you think having a $2 fine in addition to the regular sentence would help deter murder? The cost of ammo has increased a great deal over the last 2 years, gun crimes have not decreased.


----------



## keee keee

I love those food processors beats my Kitchen Aid food processor!!!! I got some of those same toys, love to play with my toys also!!!! My definition of Gun control is hitting the target at 200 yards!!!!


----------



## keee keee

They tried last year to redefine what amunition is and how to control and ship. They tried to reclassify it as an explosive and if this passed it would of made it almost impossible for dealers to buy and sell ammo to legal citizens. They will pull dirty tricks like they are using to get this unpopular healthcare system passed that the people are against and system they excluded themselves and families from using, and use the same nasty tricks to take away our right to bear arms!!!! The people of America are in favor of legal guns and the right to own arms for recreation and protection. It is the government Liberals and democrats who are against gun ownership and the right to protect yourself and family!!!! Every election cycle the Dems have to come out and lie and make themselves look like they are pro gun, pro hunting ect.but they are not. Remember that clown Kerry trying to buy a "Huntin licence" He looked like elmer fudd.


----------



## keee keee

You don't have to worry about NRA members or legal gun owners most crimes are commited by people who illegally own and use firearms. In every country that has outlawed ownership of guns crime went up because criminals don't follow gun laws!!!! the people all became sitting ducks to the criminals. And in every state that has the right to carry laws crime rates went down when this law was passed!!!!! Gun ownership was put in the constitution for the people to protect themselves from the unjust government!!!!


----------



## Intense

Yukon said:


> The government should impose a 2.00 per bullet tax. Such a tax would curd the murder rate in the USA and reduce crime.



How about a Vaseline Tax, a Child Molester Tax, an HIV Tax??? Pin Head. I think We should just invade Canada and be done with You.


----------



## Intense

Truthmatters said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullets are cheaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not much! Ammo is getting expensive!  That's how liberals plan to stop people having guns.  Since they can't take away our guns, they're making it too expensive to buy bullets. Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supply and demand , you guys are buying a bunch of Ammo because you dont like the result of free elections.
Click to expand...


You need to stop skipping on Your Medications.


----------



## keee keee

A dumbasscrat (democrat) tax!!!!! Let these dumbasses pay for the problems they create!!!


----------



## Intense

keee keee said:


> A dumbasscrat (democrat) tax!!!!! Let these dumbasses pay for the problems they create!!!



Don't You know that it would be Unethical for them to not Exempt Themselves, Their Families, and Their Friends from what They Impose on the Rest of Us ??? Silly.


----------



## Yukon

There have been 340 school shootings since 1992. How did any of those shootings relate to an "unjust government"?

source:
SchoolShooting.org


----------



## slackjawed

Yukon said:


> There have been 340 school shootings since 1992. How did any of those shootings relate to an "unjust government"?
> 
> source:
> SchoolShooting.org



I would say that school shootings by students themselves are the result of poor or non-existant parenting by stewing rabbits that shouldn't procreate in the first place.


----------



## Yukon

slackjawed said:


> I would say that school shootings by students themselves are the result of poor or non-existant parenting by stewing rabbits that shouldn't procreate in the first place.




.....out of the mouths of right-wing Trailer Trash.


----------



## The Rabbi

Yukon said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that school shootings by students themselves are the result of poor or non-existant parenting by stewing rabbits that shouldn't procreate in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....out of the mouths of right-wing Trailer Trash.
Click to expand...


Some people would really benefit by having a 45-70 government model shoved up their ass and the trigger pulled.
You are one of those people.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Truthmatters said:


> Gun, ammunition sales remain robust across the U.S. | Outposts | Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> Its supply and demand.
> 
> Gun people are buying up ammo and guns since Obama was elected.
> 
> Cops have already been killed over the lie that Obama will take guns away.



No President will ever have the power to take guns away from the American Public.!!


----------



## keee keee

there was a time when school children were taught shooting in schools and summer camps. Children learned how to use guns properly, taught respect and what guns could do. kids with knowledge about guns are not the problem just like with adults, it is the untrained and illegal people who use guns illegally that are the problem. Just like with the problem with terrorism go after the problem not harrass the people who are not the problem. we all know who is the problem is. Leave us LEGA GUNOWNERS ALONE!!!!


----------



## Intense

Yukon said:


> There have been 340 school shootings since 1992. How did any of those shootings relate to an "unjust government"?
> 
> source:
> SchoolShooting.org



I would sooner credit Hollywood and the Gaming Industry. The corruption of Morals and Ethics. Change is not always good or positive.


----------



## Intense

52ndStreet said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun, ammunition sales remain robust across the U.S. | Outposts | Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> Its supply and demand.
> 
> Gun people are buying up ammo and guns since Obama was elected.
> 
> Cops have already been killed over the lie that Obama will take guns away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No President will ever have the power to take guns away from the American Public.!!
Click to expand...


But The EPA seems to be able to do what ever it wants in response to what ever it imagines.


----------



## Sodafin

Screaming Eagle said:


> Charging $2 for every bullet will not prevent any crime at all. Do you think having a $2 fine in addition to the regular sentence would help deter murder? The cost of ammo has increased a great deal over the last 2 years, gun crimes have not decreased.



You are absolutely right, Screaming Eagle.

To reduce gun violence, one must reduce gun ownership. 

There is no other alternative. 

At least not one for people who care about civil rights.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charging $2 for every bullet will not prevent any crime at all. Do you think having a $2 fine in addition to the regular sentence would help deter murder? The cost of ammo has increased a great deal over the last 2 years, gun crimes have not decreased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right, Screaming Eagle.
> 
> To reduce gun violence, one must reduce gun ownership.
> 
> There is no other alternative.
> 
> At least not one for people who care about civil rights.
Click to expand...


Why?  Gun ownership among law abiding people does not account for gun violence.  Gun ownership among criminals is already illegal.
SO what is your solution??


----------



## Sodafin

My solution is to allow hunters and legitimate gun owners to own, buy and keep the guns they need to pursue their work or hobbies as they see fit. 

If you want to hunt, by all means hunt. If you're a farmer, by all means keep a gun around if you need one on the farm. 

But one needs a 9mm weapon or an automatic weapon for hunting. Guns that are used only for killing American people have no place in American homes.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> My solution is to allow hunters and legitimate gun owners to own, buy and keep the guns they need to pursue their work or hobbies as they see fit.
> 
> If you want to hunt, by all means hunt. If you're a farmer, by all means keep a gun around if you need one on the farm.
> 
> But one needs a 9mm weapon or an automatic weapon for hunting. Guns that are used only for killing American people have no place in American homes.



I own about 20 guns of all descriptions.  I do no hunting, never have.  My guns are for killing Americans.  Specifically Americans that try to do myself or my family harm.
They are tools, nothing more.  Criminalizing a tool makes little sense, especially when it will only affect the law abiding.  Of all the gun control schemes tried in this country over the last 40 years not a single one, except shall-issue carry permits--has been shown to reduce crime.


----------



## Sodafin

Rabbi - 

Your guns have only one real, provable, calculable outcome - they increase the likelihood that a member of your family will die of gunshot wound.

Fact.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Our second amendment rights are not about hunting, it is about defending ourselves from government. Gun ownership reduces crime. You can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, to take them away from law abiding citizens is to give the criminals free reign.


----------



## namvet

Sodafin said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charging $2 for every bullet will not prevent any crime at all. Do you think having a $2 fine in addition to the regular sentence would help deter murder? The cost of ammo has increased a great deal over the last 2 years, gun crimes have not decreased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely right, Screaming Eagle.
> 
> To reduce gun violence, one must reduce gun ownership.
> 
> There is no other alternative.
> 
> At least not one for people who care about civil rights.
Click to expand...


which means the killers have the guns


----------



## 52ndStreet

Sodafin said:


> My solution is to allow hunters and legitimate gun owners to own, buy and keep the guns they need to pursue their work or hobbies as they see fit.
> 
> If you want to hunt, by all means hunt. If you're a farmer, by all means keep a gun around if you need one on the farm.
> 
> But one needs a 9mm weapon or an automatic weapon for hunting. Guns that are used only for killing American people have no place in American homes.



Fully automatic assault weapons, 9mm hand guns, all must be made available to the 
citizenry of America. 
"The maintinence of a peoples militia must not be infringed upon by anyone"
You can not ban any form of personal weaponry, its unconstitutional!.

Guns must be in all American Homes! to prevent Governmental tyranny from within America, and from external 
threats!


----------



## namvet

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4Z_2oU9B2o[/ame]​


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> Rabbi -
> 
> Your guns have only one real, provable, calculable outcome - they increase the likelihood that a member of your family will die of gunshot wound.
> 
> Fact.



COmpletely bogus and already addressed in a different thread.  I have maintained a firearm in my home for almost 30 years.  Not a single person has been hurt with it.  Of the people I know with firearms, and that's over a hundred, the story is similar.  Not a single person has been hurt with them.
I'd suggest getting acquainted with the facts before posting stupid nonsense like this.


----------



## Sodafin

Rabbi - 

You have opinions.

I have numbers. 

# Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Harvard Injury Control Center).

#Gun death rates are 7 times higher in the states with the highest compared with the lowest household gun ownership. (Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).

Or let me guess - joethegunman.com has "rebutted" Harvard as well!


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> Rabbi -
> 
> You have opinions.
> 
> I have numbers.
> 
> # Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Harvard Injury Control Center).
> 
> #Gun death rates are 7 times higher in the states with the highest compared with the lowest household gun ownership. (Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).
> 
> Or let me guess - joethegunman.com has "rebutted" Harvard as well!


You have no numbers.  You only have opinions.  Wrong opinions, as it turns out.  Your studies have been shown to use faulty methodology.  THey are thoroughly debunked.  Your credibility is taking a hit by continuing to insist they are authoritative.  They are not.  Nor could you explain how having a gun makes one more likely to die from a homicide in a way that passes the laugh test.


----------



## Sodafin

At this stage I have not seen anything presented which would lead me to believe the Harvard Injury Control Centre - or the other dozen studies which came to similar conclusions - have got it wrong in any way at all. 

By all means present an authorative, peer-reviewed case - your opinions I am less interested in.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> At this stage I have not seen anything presented which would lead me to believe the Harvard Injury Control Centre - or the other dozen studies which came to similar conclusions - have got it wrong in any way at all.
> 
> By all means present an authorative, peer-reviewed case - your opinions I am less interested in.



If by this stage you have not seen anything then you are not going to see anything.  You will see what you want.
Carl Gustav Mannheim is rolling in his grave.


----------



## Sodafin

That's fine - if you don't have a case to present, let's see if someone else does.

btw, It's MannERheim.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Over the last year gun sales have soared and murder has plummeted.


----------



## The Rabbi

Screaming Eagle said:


> Over the last year gun sales have soared and murder has plummeted.



It doesnt matter.  To cretins like Sodafin, guns will always be the problem.  If they simply applied the same logic to anything else its absurdity would be apparent.  No one needs an SUV.  SUVs account for a large number of accidents.  Therefore we need to ban SUVs. Etc etc.
As I said, gun control is the most debunked liberal myth out there.  No one in America believes it, even those in favor of it.


----------



## Citizen

Yukon said:


> The government should impose a 2.00 per bullet tax. Such a tax would curd the murder rate in the USA and reduce crime.



It would not reduce crime, and there are many of us that already own thousands of rounds of various calibers.

Personally, I simply made a list of each firearm I own, calculated how much ammo I believed I would need for each, then purchased it over a period of time, so I no longer have to rely on the present supply.

Also I build my own muzzle loaders and have a reasonable amount of black powder and lead.

I already have enough firearms and ammo to outfit my whole family, so the only problem I have with the scarcity of ammo now is that it limits the amount I can shoot without depleting my supply.


----------



## Hemperor

America's Ultra-Secret Microwave Robot Weapon By MARK THOMPSON TIME Magazine 1/19/03

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE photo - HOW IT WORKS: (1) THE PAYLOAD. Tomahawk cruise missiles could carry microwave weapons; (2) THE DAMAGE. The electrical surge can fry the electronics needed to deliver enemy weapons of mass destruction

Every war has its wonder weapon. In Afghanistan, it was the Predator, the unmanned drone that would loiter, invisibly, over the battlefield before unleashing a Hellfire missile on an unsuspecting target. The Gulf War marked the debut of precision-guided munitions, and in Vietnam helicopters came of age. World War II gave us the horror of nuclear weapons, and World War I introduced the tank. If there's a second Gulf War, get ready to meet the high-power microwave. 

HPMs are man-made lightning bolts crammed into cruise missiles. They could be key weapons for targeting Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons. HPMs fry the sophisticated computers and electronic gear necessary to produce, protect, store and deliver such agents. The powerful electromagnetic pulses can travel into deeply buried bunkers through ventilation shafts, plumbing and antennas. But unlike conventional explosives, they won't spew deadly agents into the air, where they could poison Iraqi civilians or advancing U.S. troops. 

The HPM is a top-secret program, and the Pentagon wants to keep it that way. Senior military officials have dropped hints about a new, classified weapon for Iraq but won't provide details. Still, information about HPMs, first successfully tested in 1999, has trickled out. "High-power microwave technology is ready for the transition to active weapons in the U.S. military," Air Force Colonel Eileen Walling wrote in a rare, unclassified report on the program three years ago. "There are signs that microwave weapons will represent a revolutionary concept for warfare, principally because microwaves are designed to incapacitate equipment rather than humans." 

HPMs can unleash in a flash as much electrical power&#8212;2 billion watts or more&#8212;as the Hoover Dam generates in 24 hours. Capacitors aboard the missile discharge an energy pulse&#8212;moving at the speed of light and impervious to bad weather&#8212;in front of the missile as it nears its target. That pulse can destroy any electronics within 1,000 ft. of the flash by short-circuiting internal electrical connections, thereby wrecking memory chips, ruining computer motherboards and generally screwing up electronic components not built to withstand such powerful surges. It's similar to what can happen to your computer or TV when lightning strikes nearby and a tidal wave of electricity rides in through the wiring. 

Most of this "e-bomb" development is taking place at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, N.M. The Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland has been studying how to deliver varying but predictable electrical pulses to inflict increasing levels of harm: to deny, degrade, damage or destroy, to use the Pentagon's parlance. HPM engineers call it "dial-a-hurt." But that hurt can cause unintended problems: beyond taking out a tyrant's silicon chips, HPMs could destroy nearby heart pacemakers and other life-critical electrical systems in hospitals or aboard aircraft (that's why the U.S. military is putting them only on long-range cruise missiles). The U.S. used a more primitive form of these weapons&#8212;known as soft bombs&#8212;against Yugoslavia and in the first Gulf War, when cruise missiles showered miles of thin carbon fibers over electrical facilities, creating massive short circuits that shut down electrical power. 

Although the Pentagon prefers not to use experimental weapons on the battlefield, "the world intervenes from time to time," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says. "And you reach in there and take something out that is still in a developmental stage, and you might use it." 

Air Force chief: Test [death ray] weapons on testy U.S. mobs 

CNN dot com
09/12/2006
Associated Press 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday. 

The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne. 

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press." 

What the f---??? 

I guess we should test F-22s against US civilian airliners then, how about slamming some Tomahawk missiles into the suburbs, just to see if we can hit a car in a driveway -- or how about testing cluster bombs at a Little League baseball game or maybe even a MOAB or Daisy Cutter on a crowd at an NFL game?


----------



## Missourian

Sodafin said:


> Rabbi -
> 
> You have opinions.
> 
> I have numbers.
> 
> # Higher household gun ownership correlates with higher rates of homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings (Harvard Injury Control Center).
> 
> *#Gun death rates are 7 times higher in the states with the highest compared with the lowest household gun ownership. (Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009).*
> 
> Or let me guess - joethegunman.com has "rebutted" Harvard as well!





[FONT=arial,arial]These are the 13 states with the most pro-Second Amendment laws according to the Brady Center (Oklahoma being the most pro-Second Amendment in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:[/FONT]​ 


----------State-----------------------------# of Firearm Homicides-----------Population​ 




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Arkansas ----------------------130 ------------2,810,872
[FONT=arial,arial]Idaho -------------------------------------------------25 ---------------------1,466,465[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]New Mexico ---------------------------------------81 ---------------------1,954,599[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]South Dakota ---------------------------------------4 -----------------------781,919[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]West Virginia --------------------------------------37 --------------------1,818,470[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]Mississippi ---------------------------------------119 ---------------------2,910,540[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]Alaska -----------------------------------------------21 --------------------- 670,053[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]Louisiana ------------------------------------------455----------------------4,287,768[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]Missouri -------------------------------------------247 ---------------------5,842,713[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]North Dakota ----------------------------------------3 -----------------------635,867[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]Utah ---------------------------------------------------38 --------------------2,550,063[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]Kentucky ------------------------------------------131 --------------------4,206,074[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,arial]Oklahoma -------------------------------- --------132 --------------------3,579,212[/FONT]
And the 13 strictest gun control states according to the Brady Center (*California* being the strictest in the nation) with total firearm murders from 2007 according to the FBI and population from the Census Bureau:



*California* -----------------------1,605-----36,457,549
New Jersey ----------------------260-------8,724,560
Connecticut ----------------------57 -------3,504,809
Massachusetts ------------------114 -------6,437,193
Maryland ------------------------414------- 5,615,727
New York ------------------------500 -----19,306,183
Rhode Island -------------------- --9 ------ 1,067,610
Hawaii -----------------------------3 -------1,285,498
Illinois ---------------------------343* -----12,831,970
Pennsylvania ---------------------527 ------12,440,621
Michigan -------------------------444 ------10,095,643
Delaware--------------------------22 ---------853,476
North Carolina--------------------369 --------8,856,505
* incomplete data received by the FBI


The District of Columbia is not listed on the Brady Center ranking list but it did have the strictest gun control in the nation in 2007:


District of Columbia-----------------181--------581,530
So here is the break down for firearm homicides per number of citizens per state plus the District of Columbia with Washington D.C. being the most dangerous place to live with 1 out of every 3,212 residents murdered by firearms and Hawaii being the safest with 1 out of every 428,499 residents murdered by firearms.


The number listed is the population divided by the total firearm homicides to render 1 homicide per (X) number of residents. (Red are Strict Gun Control, Blue are Pro-gun)



*District of Columbia -----------1 / 3,212 *
*Louisiana ---------------------1 / 9,423 *
*Maryland ---------------------1 / 13,564 *
*Arkansas ---------------------1 / 21,622 *
*California ---------------------1 / 22,714 *
*Michigan ---------------------1 / 22,737 *
*Pennsylvania -----------------1 / 23,606 *
*Missouri ----------------------1 / 23,654 *
*North Carolina ----------------1 / 24,001 *
*New Mexico ------------------1 / 24,130 *
*Mississippi --------------------1 / 24,458 *
*Oklahoma --------------------1 / 25,115 *
*Alaska -----------------------1 / 31,907 *
*Kentucky ---------------------1 / 32,107 *
*New Jersey -------------------1 / 33,556 *
*Illinois ------------------------1 / 37,410 *
*New York ---------------------1 / 38,612*
*Delaware ---------------------1 / 38,794*
*West Virgina ------------------1 / 49,147*
*Massachusetts ----------------1 / 56,466*
*Idaho -------------------------1 / 58,658*
*Connecticut -------------------1 / 61,487*
*Utah --------------------------1 / 67,106*
*Rhode Island -------------------1 / 118,623*
*South Dakota ------------------1 / 195,479*
*North Dakota -------------------1 / 211,955*
*Hawaii -------------------------1 / 428,499*
*Bottom line, stricter firearm laws have no effect on firearm homicides.*


*That is why the Brady Center uses violent crime or firearm deaths instead of actual firearm homicides even though the firearm homicides are provided by the FBI online every year.*






Link to FBI Stats Table 20 - Crime in the United States 2007

Link to Brady Center state rankings list http://www.stategunlaws.org/xshare/p...d_rankings.pdf

Population from the U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts

Wikipedia Firearm Homicides for the District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.


This blog is entirely my own work and research...reproduce it freely in support of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## Missourian

Screaming Eagle said:


> Over the last year gun sales have soared and murder has plummeted.



I just posted this in another thread...http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...as-gun-and-ammo-sales-reach-record-highs.html


----------



## Sodafin

Missourian - 

If you had actually read the Harvard study, you would have noticed that one of the key factors is people travelling from one state to another to buy a gun, and then returning with it to their own state, and thus avoiding the tough laws in their own state. 

The bottom line is - high levels of gun ownership means a high homicide rate.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> Missourian -
> 
> If you had actually read the Harvard study, you would have noticed that one of the key factors is people travelling from one state to another to buy a gun, and then returning with it to their own state, and thus avoiding the tough laws in their own state.
> 
> The bottom line is - high levels of gun ownership means a high homicide rate.



Sodafin, if you had a fucking clue you would know that that is impossible legally.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over the last year gun sales have soared and murder has plummeted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt matter.  To cretins like Sodafin, guns will always be the problem.  If they simply applied the same logic to anything else its absurdity would be apparent.  No one needs an SUV.  SUVs account for a large number of accidents.  Therefore we need to ban SUVs. Etc etc.
> As I said, gun control is the most debunked liberal myth out there.  No one in America believes it, even those in favor of it.
Click to expand...


The point of an SUV is a method of transport. 

The point of an 9 mm Uzi is to take human lives. 

We have laws to control both - most sensible people understand quite well that the risk of having both in society needs to be balanced against the purpose and benefits such items bring. Uzis endanger the lives of people who live in the same house - they deliver no perceivable benefit. 

The same is not true of SUV's.


----------



## Missourian

Sodafin said:


> Missourian -
> 
> If you had actually read the Harvard study, you would have noticed that one of the key factors is people travelling from one state to another to buy a gun, and then returning with it to their own state, and thus avoiding the tough laws in their own state.
> 
> The bottom line is - high levels of gun ownership means a high homicide rate.



I have read the study,  and it is flawed.

Rabbi is absolutely correct.

Example:  As a resident of the state of Missouri,  I can only buy a *firearm directly* in the state of Missouri...if I buy a weapon in another state I must have it transferred to a dealer in Missouri with a Federal Firearm License (FFL) and pay that FFL a transfer fee.

That goes for private party transfers as well...Federal Law prohibits private firearm sales to non-residents of the state.  


No FFL holder would sell a firearm to a non-resident directly.

No private gun owner would sell a firearm directly to a non-resident.
A conviction for illegal trafficking of firearms is a felony offense resulting in revocation of 2nd Amendment rights.


----------



## Missourian

Sodafin said:


> Missourian -
> 
> The bottom line is - high levels of gun ownership means a high homicide rate.




I just proved that statement to be false.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-outdoors/99212-i-like-guns-2.html#post1890706​


----------



## Sodafin

Missouri - 

So it is not true that an enormous number of weapons used by the Mexican mafia originated in the United States?

If it is true - and I think we both know it is - why do you assume that the same does not happen between US states with different laws?

"I would dare say that Mexico has some of the strictest regulations about gun ownership in all the world, and we're right next to a country ... that has some of the easiest ones," said Lt. Col. Raúl Manzano Vélez, director of the military's civilian gun sales. "That creates a huge vacuum between the countries and feeds weapons trafficking."

Mexico: Gun controls undermined by U.S. - USATODAY.com


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over the last year gun sales have soared and murder has plummeted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt matter.  To cretins like Sodafin, guns will always be the problem.  If they simply applied the same logic to anything else its absurdity would be apparent.  No one needs an SUV.  SUVs account for a large number of accidents.  Therefore we need to ban SUVs. Etc etc.
> As I said, gun control is the most debunked liberal myth out there.  No one in America believes it, even those in favor of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point of an SUV is a method of transport.
> 
> The point of an 9 mm Uzi is to take human lives.
> 
> We have laws to control both - most sensible people understand quite well that the risk of having both in society needs to be balanced against the purpose and benefits such items bring. Uzis endanger the lives of people who live in the same house - they deliver no perceivable benefit.
> 
> The same is not true of SUV's.
Click to expand...


Strange.  I am in the process of buying a 9mm Uzi and it has never taken a life, despite existing for nearly 30 years.
In fact, there is no NFA-registered weapon that has taken a life since 1936, with the exception of one that belonged to a police officer.
Please keep spinning your fantasies.  They are amusingly naive.


----------



## Sodafin

Missourian said:


> Sodafin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Missourian -
> 
> The bottom line is - high levels of gun ownership means a high homicide rate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just proved that statement to be false.
Click to expand...


No, not at all - 

Firstly, taking raw sets of data from three different sources is a far less reliable way of drawing conclusions than working from a single set of data which has been compiled for this purpose - and we both know that data exists and what conclusions it has drawn. 

Secondly, as I have explained, not all guns end up in the state in which they were purchased, hence stats need to take the movement of guns and illegal ownership of guns into account. Harvard did this - your stats do not appear too.

Thirdly, while I appreciate your focus here is the US, it is not the only country on earth, and there are excellent studies which compare the success of laws in different countries which totally refute your point beyond any doubt at all.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> Strange.  I am in the process of buying a 9mm Uzi and it has never taken a life, despite existing for nearly 30 years.
> In fact, there is no NFA-registered weapon that has taken a life since 1936, with the exception of one that belonged to a police officer.
> Please keep spinning your fantasies.  They are amusingly naive.



So what? So if I smoke 30 cigarettes a day and don't get cancer, that proves smoking is not linked to cancer?

Of course not. What we are looking here are facts, numbers and trends - not only your personal experience.  

I have to say - this is some of the weakest posting on this topic I've come across in a long time.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange.  I am in the process of buying a 9mm Uzi and it has never taken a life, despite existing for nearly 30 years.
> In fact, there is no NFA-registered weapon that has taken a life since 1936, with the exception of one that belonged to a police officer.
> Please keep spinning your fantasies.  They are amusingly naive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what? So if I smoke 30 cigarettes a day and don't get cancer, that proves smoking is not linked to cancer?
> 
> Of course not. What we are looking here are facts, numbers and trends - not only your personal experience.
> 
> I have to say - this is some of the weakest posting on this topic I've come across in a long time.
Click to expand...


You're the one who claims that the purpose of a 9mm UZI is to take lives.  Obviously if there is no UZI that has taken a life in this country then either they are all faulty or your thesis sucks.  I'd bet on the latter.


----------



## slackjawed

I would like to see a study that makes a correlation between homocide and illegal gun ownership. Illegal gun ownership or possession of guns by those that are not legally allowed to have guns is simply not affected by laws that might be passed, that's why it's illegal gun ownership.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> You're the one who claims that the purpose of a 9mm UZI is to take lives.  Obviously if there is no UZI that has taken a life in this country then either they are all faulty or your thesis sucks.  I'd bet on the latter.



And you would be wrong.

The longtime police chief of a small Western Massachusetts town was one of three people indicted today on involuntary manslaughter charges for the death of an 8-year-old boy who fatally shot himself with a machine gun at a weapons exposition in Westfield.

Pelham Police Chief Edward B. Fleury owns COP Firearms & Training, which cosponsored the Machine Gun Shoot on Oct. 26 at the Westfield Sportsman's Club. Christopher Bizilj died while firing *a 9mm Micro Uzi *that recoiled and fatally shot him in the head.

Police chief indicted after Uzi death of boy, 8 - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe


----------



## The Rabbi

Pulled that out of your ass I guess.

That's called an accident, btw.  I realize it never happens with cars, ladders, swimming pools, etc etc.


----------



## Sodafin

slackjawed said:


> I would like to see a study that makes a correlation between homocide and illegal gun ownership. Illegal gun ownership or possession of guns by those that are not legally allowed to have guns is simply not affected by laws that might be passed, that's why it's illegal gun ownership.



Exactly, and well posted. 

I notice a lot of the statistics only include legally purchased and owned weapons - whereas quite obviously a lot of the guns used in crimes do not exist on any legal register.

It's very misleading to see this state has tight gun laws, low gun ownership and a high rate of crime if you ignore the numbers of illegal weapons and/or those brought into the state from elsewhere. 

Mexico is such a great example - very tight gun laws, but is swamped by guns brought in from the US - meaning a high rate of gun homicide.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over the last year gun sales have soared and murder has plummeted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesnt matter.  To cretins like Sodafin, guns will always be the problem.  If they simply applied the same logic to anything else its absurdity would be apparent.  No one needs an SUV.  SUVs account for a large number of accidents.  Therefore we need to ban SUVs. Etc etc.
> As I said, gun control is the most debunked liberal myth out there.  No one in America believes it, even those in favor of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point of an SUV is a method of transport.
> 
> The point of an 9 mm Uzi is to take human lives.
> 
> We have laws to control both - most sensible people understand quite well that the risk of having both in society needs to be balanced against the purpose and benefits such items bring. Uzis endanger the lives of people who live in the same house - they deliver no perceivable benefit.
> 
> The same is not true of SUV's.
Click to expand...


Why are you talking about Uzi's? No one has these. The reason we have the second amendment is primarily to protect ourselves. That is just as valid a reason today as it ever has been. 

Even if magically all guns disappeared, in less than 3 months criminals would begin to have guns again, they would just make them. If you think it is that difficult to put together a metal pipe, projectile, propellant, and ignition then you are hopeless. Even if they didn't make their own guns they would still have machetes or muscle and would still kill as many people and commit as many crimes. It would make it easier for them. Even the baddest, toughest, fightenist dude would probably lose when 3-4 criminals came to take his stuff and kill him and/or his family. And if you are that guy and you are a criminal then you know that you can walk into practically any house at any time and do whatever you want. If they have guns, even if it is just grandma home alone, your ass is in big trouble.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see a study that makes a correlation between homocide and illegal gun ownership. Illegal gun ownership or possession of guns by those that are not legally allowed to have guns is simply not affected by laws that might be passed, that's why it's illegal gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and well posted.
> 
> I notice a lot of the statistics only include legally purchased and owned weapons - whereas quite obviously a lot of the guns used in crimes do not exist on any legal register.
> 
> It's very misleading to see this state has tight gun laws, low gun ownership and a high rate of crime if you ignore the numbers of illegal weapons and/or those brought into the state from elsewhere.
> 
> Mexico is such a great example - very tight gun laws, but is swamped by guns brought in from the US - meaning a high rate of gun homicide.
Click to expand...


Gee, you just managed to refute your entire premise.
What laws do you think will be effective in dealing with illegal weapons?

Oh, and that "swamped with weapons brought in from the U.S." is nonsense.  Most of the drug cartel weapons are full autos and are brought in from further south.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> Pulled that out of your ass I guess.
> 
> That's called an accident, btw.  I realize it never happens with cars, ladders, swimming pools, etc etc.



Rabbi - 

I think the words you were looking for were "Wow, it looks like I was wrong about there is no UZI that has taken a life in this country."

Again - cars are intended to be get people from A to B. We have laws to control the moderate risk involved in that.

Guns such as Uzis are intended to take human lives. We need laws to control the relatively high risk involved in that, too.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pulled that out of your ass I guess.
> 
> That's called an accident, btw.  I realize it never happens with cars, ladders, swimming pools, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rabbi -
> 
> I think the words you were looking for were "Wow, it looks like I was wrong about there is no UZI that has taken a life in this country."
> 
> Again - cars are intended to be get people from A to B. We have laws to control the moderate risk involved in that.
> 
> Guns such as Uzis are intended to take human lives. We need laws to control the relatively high risk involved in that, too.
Click to expand...


So there has been one Uzi that was involved in an accident.  And there are 40,000 deaths from automobiles in this country every year.  And you want to say that Uzis present a high risk??
But you have already refuted your own contention up above.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see a study that makes a correlation between homocide and illegal gun ownership. Illegal gun ownership or possession of guns by those that are not legally allowed to have guns is simply not affected by laws that might be passed, that's why it's illegal gun ownership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, and well posted.
> 
> I notice a lot of the statistics only include legally purchased and owned weapons - whereas quite obviously a lot of the guns used in crimes do not exist on any legal register.
> 
> It's very misleading to see this state has tight gun laws, low gun ownership and a high rate of crime if you ignore the numbers of illegal weapons and/or those brought into the state from elsewhere.
> 
> Mexico is such a great example - very tight gun laws, but is swamped by guns brought in from the US - meaning a high rate of gun homicide.
Click to expand...


That actually isn't true, I've heard it too. Mexicans get 90%+ of their guns from somewhere other than the U.S.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> Most of the drug cartel weapons are full autos and are brought in from further south.



The ATF doesn't seem to agree with you, Rabbi. Surprisingly. 

Last year, 2,455 weapons traces requested by Mexico showed that guns had been purchased in the United States, according to the ATF. Texas, Arizona and California accounted for 1,805 of those traced weapons.

Tom Mangan, a senior ATF special agent in Arizona, compared the flow to reverse osmosis. "Just like the drugs that head north," firearms move south, he said. "The cartels are outfitting an army."

More than 6,700 licensed gun dealers have set up shop within a short drive of the 2,000-mile border, from the Gulf Coast of Texas to San Diego -- which amounts to more than three dealers for every mile of border territory. Law enforcement has come to call the region an "iron river of guns."

Guns from U.S. equip drug cartels - Los Angeles Times


----------



## Screaming Eagle

The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. - Political News - FOXNews.com


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> So there has been one Uzi that was involved in an accident.  And there are 40,000 deaths from automobiles in this country every year.  And you want to say that Uzis present a high risk??



Well, 138 people were shot in the USA today. 

So far this year, 3,138 people have been shot. 

In 2006, more than 10,100 Americans died of gun violence. 

So I'd say that represents a fairly high risk, yes, Rabbi. Wouldn't you?


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Also the 90% figure is that 90% of guns which Mexican authorities submit to the U.S. authorities to be traced turn out to be from the U.S. How many fully auto AK-47's do you think they turn in to the U.S.? Probably right around 0. The point is they know which ones are from the U.S. as they are U.S. brands and submit those so they can find the suppliers in the U.S.


----------



## Missourian

There's just one       problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:


*It's just not true.*


In fact, it's not even close.       The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.


What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the *traced* firearms originate from the U.S."

*

A Look at the Numbers*


In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced -- and of those, 90 percent -- 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover -- were found to have come from the U.S.

But       in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.

So, if not from the U.S., where do they come from? There are a variety of sources:

--  The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.

-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says       Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.

-  South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.

-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia,       Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.

-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.

-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.
*

'These       Don't Come From El Paso'*

Ed Head, a firearms instructor in Arizona who spent 24 years with the U.S. Border Patrol,       recently displayed an array of weapons considered "assault rifles" that are similar to those recovered in Mexico, but are       unavailable for sale in the U.S.

"These kinds of guns -- the auto versions of these guns -- they are not coming from El Paso," he said. "They are coming from other sources. They are brought in from Guatemala. They are brought in from places like China. 

They are being diverted from the military. But you don't get these guns from the U.S."

Some guns, he said, "are legitimately shipped to the government of Mexico, by Colt, for example, in the United States. They are approved by the U.S. government for use by the Mexican military service. The guns end up in Mexico that way -- the fully auto versions -- they are not smuggled in across the river."

Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot       be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.

The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.

"Most  of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/ele...-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there has been one Uzi that was involved in an accident.  And there are 40,000 deaths from automobiles in this country every year.  And you want to say that Uzis present a high risk??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 138 people were shot in the USA today.
> 
> So far this year, 3,138 people have been shot.
> 
> In 2006, more than 10,100 Americans died of gun violence.
> 
> So I'd say that represents a fairly high risk, yes, Rabbi. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...


Not really.
250,000 deaths were caused by doctors.  So doctors represent 25 times the risk of death that guns do.  Let's ban doctors!
And there are ten times the number of deaths from traffic accidents as from guns.
There are 20 times the number of childhood deaths from swimming pools as from guns.
And how many of the gun deaths you cite are the result of drug dealers and gangs shooting each other?  Probably a fair amount.  That represents real savings on the criminal justice system.


----------



## slackjawed

From a personal perspective, I ride along the border-even crossing it due to terrain, at least twice a year. I go about armed when I do. I have never been challenged by law enforcement either on a quad, on foot or on horseback. The border is porous in both directions.
I don't know where most mexicans get their guns, but from my experience, I don't think it is too hard to take them across the border in either direction.
I also keep a camp in Sineloa, I always go about armed at my camp. I have never been challenged by law enforcement, except to make a donation once or twice.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> Sodafin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 138 people were shot in the USA today.
> 
> So far this year, 3,138 people have been shot.
> 
> In 2006, more than 10,100 Americans died of gun violence.
> 
> So I'd say that represents a fairly high risk, yes, Rabbi. Wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 250,000 deaths were caused by doctors.  So doctors represent 25 times the risk of death that guns do.  Let's ban doctors!
> And there are ten times the number of deaths from traffic accidents as from guns.
> There are 20 times the number of childhood deaths from swimming pools as from guns.
> .
Click to expand...


Firstly - quite obviously many of your facts here are wildly off-target. 

Do you really believe there were 250,000 deaths caused by doctors last year?

No, of course you don't - you are just avoiding answering my question. 

But I'll explain this for a third time:

Cars are intended to get people from A to B. We have laws to limit the risk involved in that.

Swimming pools are intended for people to enjoy or use for sport. We also have laws to limit the risk involved in that, too.

Guns such as Uzis are used to kill people, and thus we needs laws to limit the impact of that. 

The greater the risk, and the lower the benefit to society - the tighter the laws.

It's not a difficult point to grasp, is it?


----------



## Sodafin

Missourian - 

Who claimed 90% of guns come from the US?

I know I didn't. 

And yet I've now seen three posts challenge the assertion.

Please stick to what I have posted - not to what you wish I'd posted!


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Why do you keep talking about uzi's? Why not talk about banning private ownership of tanks, howitzers, or nuclear arms?


----------



## slackjawed

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodafin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 138 people were shot in the USA today.
> 
> So far this year, 3,138 people have been shot.
> 
> In 2006, more than 10,100 Americans died of gun violence.
> 
> So I'd say that represents a fairly high risk, yes, Rabbi. Wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 250,000 deaths were caused by doctors.  So doctors represent 25 times the risk of death that guns do.  Let's ban doctors!
> And there are ten times the number of deaths from traffic accidents as from guns.
> There are 20 times the number of childhood deaths from swimming pools as from guns.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly - quite obviously many of your facts here are wildly off-target.
> 
> Do you really believe there were 250,000 deaths caused by doctors last year?
> 
> No, of course you don't - you are just avoiding answering my question.
> 
> But I'll explain this for a third time:
> 
> Cars are intended to get people from A to B. We have laws to limit the risk involved in that.
> 
> Swimming pools are intended for people to enjoy or use for sport. We also have laws to limit the risk involved in that, too.
> 
> Guns such as Uzis are used to kill people, and thus we needs laws to limit the impact of that.
> 
> The greater the risk, and the lower the benefit to society - the tighter the laws.
> 
> It's not a difficult point to grasp, is it?
Click to expand...


It's not difficult to grasp the concept but it is difficult to accept. Except in the realm of public safety, such as driving a car on the highways, I do not approve of giving up the freedom to make the decision of what risk I am willing to take. I am of the mind that when the government takes on the role of deciding what risk I am entitled to take, I lose freedom, and responsibility. I am willing to take responsibility for my own decisions and think that when a government plays a role in that decision I lose certain freedoms. 
People make poor choices and they sometimes die for them, regulating that is simply a means of excercising more control over the rest of us.
Especially when those laws are either not enforced or are selectivly enforced.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodafin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, 138 people were shot in the USA today.
> 
> So far this year, 3,138 people have been shot.
> 
> In 2006, more than 10,100 Americans died of gun violence.
> 
> So I'd say that represents a fairly high risk, yes, Rabbi. Wouldn't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 250,000 deaths were caused by doctors.  So doctors represent 25 times the risk of death that guns do.  Let's ban doctors!
> And there are ten times the number of deaths from traffic accidents as from guns.
> There are 20 times the number of childhood deaths from swimming pools as from guns.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly - quite obviously many of your facts here are wildly off-target.
> 
> Do you really believe there were 250,000 deaths caused by doctors last year?
> 
> No, of course you don't - you are just avoiding answering my question.
> 
> But I'll explain this for a third time:
> 
> Cars are intended to get people from A to B. We have laws to limit the risk involved in that.
> 
> Swimming pools are intended for people to enjoy or use for sport. We also have laws to limit the risk involved in that, too.
> 
> Guns such as Uzis are used to kill people, and thus we needs laws to limit the impact of that.
> 
> The greater the risk, and the lower the benefit to society - the tighter the laws.
> 
> It's not a difficult point to grasp, is it?
Click to expand...


Yes, there are credible claims that mistakes by doctors etc cause 250k deaths.
We have many fewer laws governing swimming pools than we do guns, even though swimming pools are many multiple times more responsible for deaths than guns are.  We have many more laws restricting gun ownership than drivers' licenses, even though there are ten times as many fatalities from cars as from guns.
As to benefit for society, what is the benefit of keeping yourself and your family safe?  And what benefit is there from a sports car or SUV?  They are not merely modes of transportation, and you know it.  Or motorcycles, which account for many more deaths and serious injury than guns.  Who needs a motorcycle?

As for your claim about Mexico, you wrote


> Mexico is such a great example - very tight gun laws, but is swamped by guns brought in from the US - meaning a high rate of gun homicide.


So "swamped" implies a high rate of guns coming in from the U.S.  This has been shown to be false.


----------



## Sodafin

Slackjawed - 

Good comments. 

Given we all accept swimming pools, cars and guns can be dangerous, it is a question of balancing the rights against the responsibility and the threat to others. 

Cars present a real threat to innocent people, so we limit your right to speed, to drive without a safety belt, to modify the car yourself in some ways, to drive down sidewalks, and to drive through red lights.

Those are all limits on freedoms that I see few people argue with - because those limitations also protect our freedom to walk down the street without being smacked down by a Hummer.

Guns also represent a real threat to innocent people - and any sane society also balances the rights of gun owners against those threatened by those guns.


----------



## The Rabbi

Please, tell me.  Who are "threatened by guns"?? WHo are these people?
While you're at it, please tell me what an assault weapon is, and a high calibre weapon, both phrases you have used in the past and not defined.


----------



## Sodafin

> even though swimming pools are many multiple times more responsible for deaths than guns are.



Really?

Are you sure?

Or is this going to be yet another case when your beliefs are not backed up by actual facts?

In 2005, there were 3,582 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day.

CDC - Water-Related Injuries Facts

In 2006, 10,100 people died of gun shot wounds in the United States.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> even though swimming pools are many multiple times more responsible for deaths than guns are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> Or is this going to be yet another case when your beliefs are not backed up by actual facts?
> 
> In 2005, there were 3,582 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day.
> 
> CDC - Water-Related Injuries Facts
> 
> In 2006, 10,100 people died of gun shot wounds in the United States.
Click to expand...


Wow, comparing apples to oranges again.  Amazingly you keep finding they don't have much in common.
How many fatal unintentional shootings were there in 2005?


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> So "swamped" implies a high rate of guns coming in from the U.S.  This has been shown to be false.



Has it really?

So how do you explain this, which I posted earlier? Is it false?

Last year, 2,455 weapons traces requested by Mexico showed that guns had been purchased in the United States, according to the ATF. Texas, Arizona and California accounted for 1,805 of those traced weapons.

Guns from U.S. equip drug cartels - Los Angeles Times


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> Please, tell me.  Who are "threatened by guns"?? WHo are these people?
> .



The students at Virginia Tech.


----------



## Sodafin

> even though swimming pools are many multiple times more responsible for deaths than guns are.



This claim was false, of course.

Perhaps you would also be good enough to admit that rather than just flailing away.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, tell me.  Who are "threatened by guns"?? WHo are these people?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The students at Virginia Tech.
Click to expand...


Students at Virgina Tech are threatened by guns I have at my house?  Wow, you really are stretching here.
I'll point out that the shooter obtained the guns illegally.  Not that that matters to you.


----------



## slackjawed

In AZ more CHILDREN die in swimming pools than by guns. That argument is simply a deflection, and those that make that argument are pushing for more regulation on both. Kids are not supposed to have unsupervised access to either, so that argument is a failure on several levels. Those that make that argument are arguing against freedom and for more regulation. 
Calling for more regulation to save the children has been a common theme among those that want bigger government and more laws. This only serves to allow people to shirk responsibility for their own actions and those of the children they are supposed to support and protect.


----------



## slackjawed

Noone is threatened by guns, that's just plain stupid. That gun can not threaten anyone. People are threatened by people, plain and simple.


----------



## The Rabbi

No, its a statment of relative risk.  People scream abiout how guns are killing children.  It isn't true.  Not any more than swimming pools are killing children.  The solution is not to regulate either one.
In fact accidental shootings have declined every year for the last 50 years in this country.  And this is in the absence of any regulation.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> Students at Virgina Tech are threatened by guns I have at my house?  .



No, that was not what you asked. What you asked was:



The Rabbi said:


> Please, tell me.  Who are "threatened by guns"?? WHo are these people?



No mention of your house there, is there?

I sense you are starting to flail around a bit here, but please try and respond to what I posted - not what you imagine I posted!


----------



## slackjawed

Laws do not protect people from getting shot. Shooting people is and has been very illegal for a long time. People that shoot other people are already breaking laws so how is passing more going to protect people from those that are already breaking the law?


----------



## Missourian

Sodafin said:


> Missourian -
> 
> Who claimed 90% of guns come from the US?
> 
> I know I didn't.
> 
> And yet I've now seen three posts challenge the assertion.
> 
> Please stick to what I have posted - not to what you wish I'd posted!




You should have read the article you linked to.

Paragraph 3:*More than 90% of guns seized at the border or after raids and shootings in Mexico have been traced to the United States, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Last year, 2,455 weapons traces requested by Mexico showed that guns had been purchased in the United States, according to the ATF. Texas, Arizona and California accounted for 1,805 of those traced weapons.
*Guns from U.S. equip drug cartels - Los Angeles Times​


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Students at Virgina Tech are threatened by guns I have at my house?  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was not what you asked. What you asked was:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, tell me.  Who are "threatened by guns"?? WHo are these people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No mention of your house there, is there?
> 
> I sense you are starting to flail around a bit here, but please try and respond to what I posted - not what you imagine I posted!
Click to expand...


So students are VA Tech are threatened by guns? WHose?  The campus security?  The local police? Those of the faculty and staff that they aren't allowed to bring in that might have stopped the shooter?
You are losing coherence here.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> The solution is not to regulate either one.



Oh my Lord. 

The solution to the numbers of children drowning in unfenced or unpatrolled swimming pools is to remove those regulations. 

That really is deranged. 

I assume you also oppose speed limits, traffic lights and seat belts?


----------



## slackjawed

In the area where I live, there are a lot of gun owners. It is written into the Az state constitution that the state 'prefers the citizenry go about armed and those that don't are dependent on those that do for protection'.
Any attempt to take them from the people here will result in something akin to armed rebellion. 
I can own firearms here that are banned in other states. The background check for AZ state residents takes less than 15 minutes. I can own handguns with registering them. I can own automatic and military armaments with a collectors permit. States have always been the ones that can and should regulate guns within their borders. If one doesn't like what their state says, they can move to another. 
Imposing a federal law to attempt to control guns will fail here and likely cause much bloodshed.


----------



## Sodafin

The Rabbi said:


> So students are VA Tech are threatened by guns? WHose?  The campus security?  The local police? Those of the faculty and staff that they aren't allowed to bring in that might have stopped the shooter?
> You are losing coherence here.



My post was perfectly coherent, Rabbi - please try reading the post before responding to it. 

The students at Virgina Tech were threatened by a man who entered their school and shot them. 

Thus, their civil rights were breached. 

Not difficult stuff, this.


----------



## slackjawed

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is not to regulate either one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my Lord.
> 
> The solution to the numbers of children drowning in unfenced or unpatrolled swimming pools is to remove those regulations.
> 
> That really is deranged.
> 
> I assume you also oppose speed limits, traffic lights and seat belts?
Click to expand...


There are already laws against child endangerment. Has been for a long time. Passing more laws isn't about protecting children, we already have those laws. Before we pass more laws it would make sense to have the ability and the will to enforce the ones we have.
Passing more is is simply a way to remove freedom and responsibility from the people.
Yep, wreckless driving laws cover speeding, traffic lights arent laws, but traffic control and are also covered under the term wreckless driving. Seat belts make sense but removing that as a choice is impossing on my freedoms and creating a stronger government.


----------



## slackjawed

Calling for more government regulations when the government can't or won't enforce the ones they have is really deranged.


----------



## Sodafin

slackjawed said:


> Laws do not protect people from getting shot. Shooting people is and has been very illegal for a long time. People that shoot other people are already breaking laws so how is passing more going to protect people from those that are already breaking the law?



Actually they do. 

Countries which have low levels of gun ownership, also enjoy low levels of gun violence. 

Countries which have high levels of fun ownership, endure high levels of gun violence. 

Missouri - 

I did read the article. But please try and respond only to what I actually post. I deliberately did not post the 90% figure, because I don't believe it is accurate. What is accurate, is the claim that several thousand weapons have been bought in the US and shipped to Mexico.


----------



## hjmick

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is not to regulate either one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my Lord.
> 
> The solution to the numbers of children drowning in unfenced or unpatrolled swimming pools is to remove those regulations.
> 
> That really is deranged.
> 
> I assume you also oppose speed limits, traffic lights and seat belts?
Click to expand...


We have speed limits, traffic lights, and seat belts. Yet every year, more people are killed in automobile related accidents than are killed by guns. Should we now ban automobiles?


----------



## uscitizen

hjmick said:


> Sodafin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The solution is not to regulate either one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my Lord.
> 
> The solution to the numbers of children drowning in unfenced or unpatrolled swimming pools is to remove those regulations.
> 
> That really is deranged.
> 
> I assume you also oppose speed limits, traffic lights and seat belts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have speed limits, traffic lights, and seat belts. Yet every year, more people are killed in automobile related accidents than are killed by guns. Should we now ban automobiles?
Click to expand...


Please do.


----------



## Sodafin

slackjawed said:


> Calling for more government regulations when the government can't or won't enforce the ones they have is really deranged.



So how do you feel about laws on wearing seat belts, or on drinking driving?

Would you say they have saved lives?

Would you say they are generally observed and frequently enforced?

Where we have logical laws which are widely understood and adequately enforced, we can also see people observing those laws, and lives being saved as a result.

Putting a fence around a swimming pool is one of those laws.


----------



## slackjawed

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws do not protect people from getting shot. Shooting people is and has been very illegal for a long time. People that shoot other people are already breaking laws so how is passing more going to protect people from those that are already breaking the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they do.
> 
> Countries which have low levels of gun ownership, also enjoy low levels of gun violence.
> 
> Countries which have high levels of fun ownership, endure high levels of gun violence.
> 
> Missouri -
> 
> I did read the article. But please try and respond only to what I actually post. I deliberately did not post the 90% figure, because I don't believe it is accurate. What is accurate, is the claim that several thousand weapons have been bought in the US and shipped to Mexico.
Click to expand...


I saw a tv report over the weekend that claimed when great britain toughened gun laws, gun violence went up.
There is evidence to support that an armed populace leads to less, not more violence.
Gun laws are the first thing hitler introduced to control his population, you know, back when almost everyone in the us and the rest of the world though he was a good guy and a visionary.


----------



## Missourian

*Guns don't kill people, Cities kill people.

OR

More Guns...Less Crime.
*​ 


Why do the rural communities with *twice as many legal gun owners and four times the owned firearms* have *25 times less gun crime* than urban communities?


Look here for firearm ownership study


Of the 22 Missouri counties with populations between 25K and 50K, having a combined population of *806,764* persons, there were *163 total firearm assaults* and 2604 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind. 


MSHP stats for 22 rural Missouri counties


During the same period, in only the city of St. Louis and the city of Kansas City contained within the state of Missouri (half is in Kansas of course), with a combined population of *793,587* persons, there were a total of *4,143 firearm assaults* and 8986 total assaults utilizing weapons of any kind.



MSHP stats for St. Louis 



MSHP stats for KC, MO 





The 2006 stats on Missouri crime came from this website : Missouri State Highway Patrol Statisical Analysis Center, they are the most recent available.

The 2004 rural/urban chart came from this website : Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA 2004 study.

If the links for the MSHP data are broken, you can find the information for 2006 here: MO SAC - Data and Statistics - Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Statistical Query


This blog is entirely my own work and research...reproduce it freely in support of the 2nd amendment.


----------



## 52ndStreet

All types of fully automatic  Rifles , and weapons must be made available for the " The maintinence and the establishment of the States Militia"  "The rights of States Militia must not be infringed upon"
Ther must be no bans whatsoever imposed on American citizens . This is in the United States Constitution.


----------



## slackjawed

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling for more government regulations when the government can't or won't enforce the ones they have is really deranged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how do you feel about laws on wearing seat belts, or on drinking driving?
> 
> Would you say they have saved lives?
> 
> Would you say they are generally observed and frequently enforced?
> 
> Where we have logical laws which are widely understood and adequately enforced, we can also see people observing those laws, and lives being saved as a result.
> 
> Putting a fence around a swimming pool is one of those laws.
Click to expand...


seat belt laws should be a choice, as stated before, drunk driving laws are about public endangerment and should be enforced.
here in az neither is enforced as it should be, but are usually used as an excuse to pull over mexicans or the ragged cars driven by the poor.
Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law. Its only a justification for less personal responsibility and more government control.


----------



## Sodafin

slackjawed said:


> Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law.



If your goal is to keep American people alive then, yes it is. 

In relation to guns, cars and swimming pools, in my view the law should be based upon keeping people alive, and balancing the rights of the users with certain responsibilities which ensure they do not breach the civil tights of others.

No point having civil rights if you're killed before you can enjoy them!


----------



## Sodafin

52ndStreet said:


> Ther must be no bans whatsoever imposed on American citizens . This is in the United States Constitution.



Do you really think the people who wrote the constitution anticipated that people might one day be keeping a 7.67mm Galil in their bedroom?

I think not. 

The constitution does not mention the internet either - that does not mean the government have no right - or responsibility - to ensure it is used within the limits of existing and amended laws.


----------



## slackjawed

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your goal is to keep American people alive then, yes it is.
> 
> In relation to guns, cars and swimming pools, in my view the law should be based upon keeping people alive, and balancing the rights of the users with certain responsibilities which ensure they do not breach the civil tights of others.
> 
> No point having civil rights if you're killed before you can enjoy them!
Click to expand...


My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.
civil rights do not include the right to stay alive, sorry but its a tough world.
passing laws to keep people alive at the cost of freedom and the denial of personal responsibility to provide a nanny state has a name-Socialism.
Thus far we are not a socialist society, (ok maybe new york is but that is their choice)attempts at socialism where I live will always be met with resistance, armed or otherwise.


----------



## Sodafin

slackjawed said:


> My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.



I take your point, but as I said earlier on this thread - the students at Virginia Tech didn't do very well out of their civil rights. Nor Columbine, nor for that matter the 8 year old who shot himself with an Uzi (linked earlier). 

Hundreds of innocent children die every year in gun accidents (and yes, in pools, too) - what about their civil rights?

We have hundreds of people killed each year by drunken drivers - don't they also deserve the right to drive down a street and not be hit by some drunk?

I am all about civil rights - but to me the first right I should have is safety in my home, at school, at work and on my street.


----------



## Missourian

slackjawed said:


> Sodafin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your goal is to keep American people alive then, yes it is.
> 
> In relation to guns, cars and swimming pools, in my view the law should be based upon keeping people alive, and balancing the rights of the users with certain responsibilities which ensure they do not breach the civil tights of others.
> 
> No point having civil rights if you're killed before you can enjoy them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.
> civil rights do not include the right to stay alive, sorry but its a tough world.
> passing laws to keep people alive at the cost of freedom and the denial of personal responsibility to provide a nanny state has a name-Socialism.
> Thus far we are not a socialist society, (ok maybe new york is but that is their choice)attempts at socialism where I live will always be met with resistance, armed or otherwise.
Click to expand...


*_You must spread some reputation around before giving it to slackjawed again.*_


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a seat belt law saved lives is no justifcation for that law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your goal is to keep American people alive then, yes it is.
> 
> In relation to guns, cars and swimming pools, in my view the law should be based upon keeping people alive, and balancing the rights of the users with certain responsibilities which ensure they do not breach the civil tights of others.
> 
> No point having civil rights if you're killed before you can enjoy them!
Click to expand...




I could list a million examples of crap that is bad for you that no one would want the government dictating but for some reason I don't think you'd understand.


----------



## Missourian

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take your point, but as I said earlier on this thread - the students at Virginia Tech didn't do very well out of their civil rights. Nor Columbine, nor for that matter the 8 year old who shot himself with an Uzi (linked earlier).
> 
> Hundreds of innocent children die every year in gun accidents (and yes, in pools, too) - what about their civil rights?
> 
> We have hundreds of people killed each year by drunken drivers - don't they also deserve the right to drive down a street and not be hit by some drunk?
> 
> I am all about civil rights - but to me the first right I should have is safety in my home, at school, at work and on my street.
Click to expand...


Then we must rid ourselves of knifes, bats, clubs, blunt objects, sharp sticks, amputate all hands and feet....


----------



## Citizen

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> My goal is to keep americans free. It is up to themselves to keep themselves alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take your point, but as I said earlier on this thread - the students at Virginia Tech didn't do very well out of their civil rights. Nor Columbine, nor for that matter the 8 year old who shot himself with an Uzi (linked earlier).
> 
> Hundreds of innocent children die every year in gun accidents (and yes, in pools, too) - what about their civil rights?
> 
> We have hundreds of people killed each year by drunken drivers - don't they also deserve the right to drive down a street and not be hit by some drunk?
> 
> I am all about civil rights - but to me the first right I should have is safety in my home, at school, at work and on my street.
Click to expand...



I agree that we all have individual natural rights, and my right to keep and bear arms end when I attempt to shoot an innocent person with that firearm because at that time I have infringed upon the individual right of another, but until then I have infringed upon the rights of no one.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> So students are VA Tech are threatened by guns? WHose?  The campus security?  The local police? Those of the faculty and staff that they aren't allowed to bring in that might have stopped the shooter?
> You are losing coherence here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My post was perfectly coherent, Rabbi - please try reading the post before responding to it.
> 
> The students at Virgina Tech were threatened by a man who entered their school and shot them.
> 
> Thus, their civil rights were breached.
> 
> Not difficult stuff, this.
Click to expand...


Please try following the thread here.  Your statement was that people have their rights threatened by guns.  I asked which people.  You responded those at VA Tech.
Now, VA Tech was one incident several years.  Those people are not currently having their rights threatened by anyone with a gun, which is what you implied.
So again, who is currently having his rights threatened by a gun?
And were not the faculty and staff denied their rights by a university that refused to allow them to carry their legal weapons on campus, where they might have thwarted the assailant?


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> slackjawed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws do not protect people from getting shot. Shooting people is and has been very illegal for a long time. People that shoot other people are already breaking laws so how is passing more going to protect people from those that are already breaking the law?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually they do.
> 
> Countries which have low levels of gun ownership, also enjoy low levels of gun violence.
> 
> Countries which have high levels of fun ownership, endure high levels of gun violence.
> 
> Missouri -
> 
> I did read the article. But please try and respond only to what I actually post. I deliberately did not post the 90% figure, because I don't believe it is accurate. What is accurate, is the claim that several thousand weapons have been bought in the US and shipped to Mexico.
Click to expand...


Again, you are talking out of your ass.
In Switzerland every adult male is required to maintain a full automatic weapon in his house (I think they are about to change this).  Shooting ranges are plentiful.  And yet there is a low level of gun violence.
South Africa has relatively few legal guns and the rate of violence is out the roof.

Please, inform yourself before posting such stupid things again.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ther must be no bans whatsoever imposed on American citizens . This is in the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think the people who wrote the constitution anticipated that people might one day be keeping a 7.67mm Galil in their bedroom?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> The constitution does not mention the internet either - that does not mean the government have no right - or responsibility - to ensure it is used within the limits of existing and amended laws.
Click to expand...


A Galil is a 5.56mm weapon.  there is no 7.67mm weapon I am familiar with.
Yes, the founding fathers anticipated that every able bodied citizen would have a military style weapon in his home and be able to use it to serve with the militia.


----------



## Citizen

Sodafin said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ther must be no bans whatsoever imposed on American citizens . This is in the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think the people who wrote the constitution anticipated that people might one day be keeping a 7.67mm Galil in their bedroom?
> 
> I think not.
> 
> The constitution does not mention the internet either - that does not mean the government have no right - or responsibility - to ensure it is used within the limits of existing and amended laws.
Click to expand...


Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.


----------



## Gunny

namvet said:


> [youtube]-TC2xTCb_GU[/youtube]​



This thread sounds kinda gay, if ya know what I mean ...


----------



## Sodafin

Citizen said:


> Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.



The constitution does not mention - and clearly could not - weapons which did not exist at the time the constitution was written. 

I think one has to step back a little from regarding the constitution as some divine work of God, and accept that issues such as the internet and 9 mm Uzi weapons need to be viewed according the the spirit of the constitution - not according to the letter. 

Galil also make a 7.62 (sorry, it was typing error before) that was used a lot in Israel during my time there.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not mention - and clearly could not - weapons which did not exist at the time the constitution was written.
> 
> I think one has to step back a little from regarding the constitution as some divine work of God, and accept that issues such as the internet and 9 mm Uzi weapons need to be viewed according the the spirit of the constitution - not according to the letter.
> 
> Galil also make a 7.62 (sorry, it was typing error before) that was used a lot in Israel during my time there.
Click to expand...


The Constitution does not mention newspapers.  It does not mention television.  It does not mention lots of things that nontheless are included in its protections.
I agree these things need to be viewed in the spirit of the Constitution.  And that spirit was to empower the citizens of this country, not reduce them to serfdom.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Sodafin said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not mention - and clearly could not - weapons which did not exist at the time the constitution was written.
> 
> I think one has to step back a little from regarding the constitution as some divine work of God, and accept that issues such as the internet and 9 mm Uzi weapons need to be viewed according the the spirit of the constitution - not according to the letter.
> 
> Galil also make a 7.62 (sorry, it was typing error before) that was used a lot in Israel during my time there.
Click to expand...


Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis? 

It doesn't matter if the Constitution is a divine work of God or not, it is the law of the land and is to be upheld.


----------



## Citizen

Sodafin said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only are you claiming we do not have the right to keep an imaginary weapon, there is no 7.67 Galil, but the Constitution is clear that we have the right to keep military type weapons in order for the militia to furnish their own firearms if and when called upon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The constitution does not mention - and clearly could not - weapons which did not exist at the time the constitution was written.
> 
> I think one has to step back a little from regarding the constitution as some divine work of God, and accept that issues such as the internet and 9 mm Uzi weapons need to be viewed according the the spirit of the constitution - not according to the letter.
> 
> Galil also make a 7.62 (sorry, it was typing error before) that was used a lot in Israel during my time there.
Click to expand...


Although you might not know it, at the time our Constitution was adopted, the private citizen or militia, was better armed than the military.

While the military had to rely on smooth bore muskets, with questionable accuracy, the frontiersman carried a rifle capable of hitting a man's head at up to 200 yards.

The only drawback to the long rifle, from a military standpoint, was that it could not be fitted with a bayonet, but since it could kill at two to three times the distance of the musket, those that carried them did not rely on a bayonet, and most had a tomahawk as a back up weapon.

In other words, at the time our constitution was adopted, the Founding Fathers knew that the citizens were armed as well or better than the military, and found no fault with that fact, so in keeping with that intent, we should be able to keep and bear any arm the average soldier carries.


----------



## Sodafin

Screaming Eagle said:


> Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?
> 
> .



Because they are an example of the kind of weapon that I think has no role in a safe and civilised society. 

If you don't like the example, I'd be happy to use AK-47 or an M-16 instead. 

I don't believe I suggested the Constitution should NOT be upheld - what I said was that any legal document requires amendments to take into account new concepts such as the internet - and I believe the existence of weapons such as the AK-47 is such a new concept.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are an example of the kind of weapon that I think has no role in a safe and civilised society.
> 
> If you don't like the example, I'd be happy to use AK-47 or an M-16 instead.
> 
> I don't believe I suggested the Constitution should NOT be upheld - what I said was that any legal document requires amendments to take into account new concepts such as the internet - and I believe the existence of weapons such as the AK-47 is such a new concept.
Click to expand...


Fortunately the Supreme Court disagrees with you.  And I have never seen a proposed amendment on the internet or AK-47s.


----------



## Citizen

Sodafin said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are an example of the kind of weapon that I think has no role in a safe and civilised society.
> 
> If you don't like the example, I'd be happy to use AK-47 or an M-16 instead.
> 
> I don't believe I suggested the Constitution should NOT be upheld - what I said was that any legal document requires amendments to take into account new concepts such as the internet - and I believe the existence of weapons such as the AK-47 is such a new concept.
Click to expand...


Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.

Also, if memory serves, legally owned fully automatic weapons have posed no danger to the American public for decades.

In closing, I would remind you that when our Constitution was adopted the private citizen already owned firearms superior to those used by the military, and the Founding Fathers had no problem with that fact then, and we should not have any problems with any firearms citizens now own.


----------



## Missourian

Sodafin said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the third time, why the hell are you talking about uzis?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are an example of the kind of weapon that I think has no role in a safe and civilised society.
> 
> If you don't like the example, I'd be happy to use AK-47 or an M-16 instead.
> 
> I don't believe I suggested the Constitution should NOT be upheld - what I said was that any legal document requires amendments to take into account new concepts such as the internet - and I believe the existence of weapons such as the AK-47 is such a new concept.
Click to expand...


Uzis,  AK-47s and M-16 ownership is already highly regulated in the U.S.

You may only purchase an automatic weapon after passing a BATF background check, submit fingerprints and photo, procure a letter from your County (or Parrish) Sheriff and acquire a federal tax stamp.

Civilian versions of these weapons are no different in their operation than semi-automatic hunting rifles and pistols.



[youtube]YjM9fcEzSJ0[/youtube]​ 
Share it with others.​ 
Copy and paste this link:​ 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0​


----------



## Sodafin

Citizen said:


> Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.
> .



Yes, sure - but that does not mean there are not AK-47s in the USA, and being used in crime. Many may be being bought and sold illegally, others not. 

While the guns on this site presumably do US legal requirements - when pointed at someone it is difficult for them to establish that. They are a very threatening weapon.

AK-47 Manufacturers & Builders

We are talking about an example here - it is not that I believe the entire crisis of gun violence begins and ends with Uzis or AK's - they are the tip of the iceberg, but are also an example that I think most people understand the danger of.


----------



## The Rabbi

Sodafin said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, sure - but that does not mean there are not AK-47s in the USA, and being used in crime. Many may be being bought and sold illegally, others not.
> 
> While the guns on this site presumably do US legal requirements - when pointed at someone it is difficult for them to establish that. They are a very threatening weapon.
> 
> AK-47 Manufacturers & Builders
> 
> We are talking about an example here - it is not that I believe the entire crisis of gun violence begins and ends with Uzis or AK's - they are the tip of the iceberg, but are also an example that I think most people understand the danger of.
Click to expand...


What law would you suggest passing to deal with the problem of illegal buying and selling of AKs?
In fact they are not much used in crimes.  This has been proven numerous times.  The most common weapon used in a crime is a cheap handgun in the 9mm or .38 variety.


----------



## Missourian

Sodafin said:


> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, sure - but that does not mean there are not AK-47s in the USA, and being used in crime. Many may be being bought and sold illegally, others not.
> 
> While the guns on this site presumably do US legal requirements - when pointed at someone it is difficult for them to establish that. *They are a very threatening weapon.*
> 
> AK-47 Manufacturers & Builders
> 
> We are talking about an example here - it is not that I believe the entire crisis of gun violence begins and ends with Uzis or AK's - they are the tip of the iceberg, but are also an example that I think most people understand the danger of.
Click to expand...


I own an AR15,  the semi-automatic version of the M-16.

I own it mostly because it was my primary weapon when I was in the service,  it's modular,  easy to maintain and reliable.

I also own it BECAUSE it is threatening.  If I have to point it at someone,  I want them to be threatened....because I *don't* want to be forced to shoot them.

The threatening nature of the weapon works to the advantage of lawful firearm owner who wishes to resolve a situation *without* lose of life.


----------



## Citizen

Missourian said:


> Sodafin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you just do not understand what a real AK-47, or M-16 really is, because they are capable of fully automatic fire, and all fully automatic weapons are required to be registered with the BARF and a license and transfer tax are required.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, sure - but that does not mean there are not AK-47s in the USA, and being used in crime. Many may be being bought and sold illegally, others not.
> 
> While the guns on this site presumably do US legal requirements - when pointed at someone it is difficult for them to establish that. *They are a very threatening weapon.*
> 
> AK-47 Manufacturers & Builders
> 
> We are talking about an example here - it is not that I believe the entire crisis of gun violence begins and ends with Uzis or AK's - they are the tip of the iceberg, but are also an example that I think most people understand the danger of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I own an AR15,  the semi-automatic version of the M-16.
> 
> I own it mostly because it was my primary weapon when I was in the service,  it's modular,  easy to maintain and reliable.
> 
> I also own it BECAUSE it is threatening.  If I have to point it at someone,  I want them to be threatened....because I *don't* want to be forced to shoot them.
> 
> The threatening nature of the weapon works to the advantage of lawful firearm owner who wishes to resolve a situation *without* lose of life.
Click to expand...


I applaud your restraint, but I was taught from a young age never to point a firearm at anyone, unless I intended to shoot, and if I shot to shoot three times at center of mass, but I have had to modify that idea to two shots at center of mass and one to the head because of the increasing use of body armor.


----------



## The Rabbi

The magic phrase is "unless you intend to shoot."  Just pointing one at someone doesn't obligate you to pull the trigger.  If the person gets the idea and makes tracks the other direction, so much the better.
I'll mention that a Marlin 30-30 is a heck of a lot more devastating than any AR.  And it's just an old deer rifle.


----------



## Citizen

The Rabbi said:


> The magic phrase is "unless you intend to shoot."  Just pointing one at someone doesn't obligate you to pull the trigger.  If the person gets the idea and makes tracks the other direction, so much the better.
> I'll mention that a Marlin 30-30 is a heck of a lot more devastating than any AR.  And it's just an old deer rifle.



The point being that if the situation has gotten to the point that pointing a forearm is necessary, pulling the trigger should be almost instantaneous.

A also agree that a 30-30 is much more devastation than any 7.62x49 ever hoped to be, and I used to shoot an old 30-30 in competition and it had no problem knocking down the rams at 200 meters.


----------



## Citizen

The Rabbi said:


> The magic phrase is "unless you intend to shoot."  Just pointing one at someone doesn't obligate you to pull the trigger.  If the person gets the idea and makes tracks the other direction, so much the better.
> I'll mention that a Marlin 30-30 is a heck of a lot more devastating than any AR.  And it's just an old deer rifle.



The point being that if the situation has gotten to the point that pointing a firearm is necessary, pulling the trigger should be almost instantaneous.

A also agree that a 30-30 is much more devastation than any 7.62x49 ever hoped to be, and I used to shoot an old 30-30 in competition and it had no problem knocking down the rams at 200 meters.


----------



## The Rabbi

Might be.  But every situation is different.  And if producing the firearm makes the bad guy reconsider his future then shooting him will be a very bad idea indeed.

The 30-30 would make an ideal patrol rifle.  It is inoffensive in court and there isn't a vehicle or Level 3 vest that can't be defeated with one.


----------



## keee keee

The Rabbi said:


> The magic phrase is "unless you intend to shoot."  Just pointing one at someone doesn't obligate you to pull the trigger.  If the person gets the idea and makes tracks the other direction, so much the better.
> I'll mention that a Marlin 30-30 is a heck of a lot more devastating than any AR.  And it's just an old deer rifle.



you never point a gun at anything you are not about to shoot. If you point a gun at someone be prepaired to die yourself, because you are telling that person you are going to kill them, they will intern fight for their life maybe killing you trying to save their life!!!! I would rather shoot targets or hunt deer, but am willing and able to protect myself if and when needed!!!


----------

