A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[MindWars]

These gun nuts are embarrassed about their tiny penis size, so they have to compensate by talking about how high caliber and awesome their metal bang bang didloes are.

It took a while but there you go.......another anti gunner who gets sexually excited when guns are discussed.....whoever you are...get help.....somewhere in the wiring of your brain you have associated the natural act of sex with the object we call firearms....it is not normal, you need help....

Yep. These people are pretty useless. They have no non emotional, logical, arguments so they resort to personal insults and whining.

My argument is this: I want to stop the 33,000 gun deaths in this country. You pieces of shit don't.

I don't support the death sentence, but I would be happy to sentence the entire membership of the NRA to life imprisonment for the 33,000 deaths a year they cause

Moron..Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to save lives and stop violent attacks.......and in 2014 non gun suicide out numbered gun suicide....Japan, china, and South Korea disarmed normal people...and their suicide rates are higher than ours....dittos for France and most of Europe and throw in
Canada too....

The 1.5 million number is a lie. The actual number of self defense firearm uses in the us is estimated to be between 300 to 1000, FAR, FAR less than the number of murders by firearm. And in most of those 300-1000 cases, a better alarm system, a guard dog, locking the doors, or a quicker police response would have been far better solutions than the ending of a life simply to prevent a tv or a painting from being taken.

“The Constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Alexander Hamilton

"Liberals fear power or its application.… They talk glibly of people lifting themselves by their own bootstraps but fail to realize that nothing can be lifted except through power…. Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action -- by using power…. Liberals protest; radicals rebel. Liberals become indignant; radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Liberals do not modify their personal lives[,] and what they give to a cause is a small part of their lives; radicals give themselves to the cause. Liberals give and take oral arguments; radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life."[13]


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualP

 

[peach174]

Then who interprets the constitution if not the Supreme Court?

the SC ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not a militia right

Not if the SC turns liberal and it will if Hillary gets elected.
A liberal court will rule it's only a militia right.
The very same types who got rid of the State citizen milita at the begging of the last century and put in Gov. Controled State Militia.

This is scare mongering from the right. It seems they think this is the fear they can use most to turn people against Hillary. They tried the "He'll take your guns" against Obama and it didn't work and didn't happen.

No
It's based on past rulings of liberal judges and historical facts.

Oh, so all liberal judges will be on the Supreme Court. You're also ignoring that the Senate plays a part in putting a justice into the Supreme Court.

Breyer, in DC v. Heller, didn't go fully for the individual argument, just that an individual right has limitations.

You can read Steven's dissent and tell me whether he would be voting for a "collective right" or not.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Which is actually right. The 2A was not about self defense in any way. It's about the militia. Individuals have two rights, the right to be in the militia and the right to own a weapon, and the 2A protects those, but not so people can defend themselves. However self defense would come from another part of the Bill of Rights.

In fact Stevens says he upholds the Miller view of things. And after Miller there was no collective right implemented.

So, you can say "they will take away our guns", but you're not providing any evidence for it.

I never said all.
I said liberal judges, based on passed rulings and if Hillary gets elected, yes the court would get one or more liberals on.

The Dems have a good chance at taking the Senate.

 

[westwall]

These gun nuts are embarrassed about their tiny penis size, so they have to compensate by talking about how high caliber and awesome their metal bang bang didloes are.

It took a while but there you go.......another anti gunner who gets sexually excited when guns are discussed.....whoever you are...get help.....somewhere in the wiring of your brain you have associated the natural act of sex with the object we call firearms....it is not normal, you need help....

Yep. These people are pretty useless. They have no non emotional, logical, arguments so they resort to personal insults and whining.

My argument is this: I want to stop the 33,000 gun deaths in this country. You pieces of shit don't.

I don't support the death sentence, but I would be happy to sentence the entire membership of the NRA to life imprisonment for the 33,000 deaths a year they cause

Moron..Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to save lives and stop violent attacks.......and in 2014 non gun suicide out numbered gun suicide....Japan, china, and South Korea disarmed normal people...and their suicide rates are higher than ours....dittos for France and most of Europe and throw in
Canada too....

The 1.5 million number is a lie. The actual number of self defense firearm uses in the us is estimated to be between 300 to 1000, FAR, FAR less than the number of murders by firearm. And in most of those 300-1000 cases, a better alarm system, a guard dog, locking the doors, or a quicker police response would have been far better solutions than the ending of a life simply to prevent a tv or a painting from being taken.

No, that only counts the uses where the gun is fired. I have had two DGU's my own self and neither time was I forced to shoot the bad guy. One time he ran away, and the other the police arrested him. According to you those events never happened.

 

[Xathor]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

The 2nd Amendment exists to protect us from an out of control government.

 

[frigidweirdo]

the SC ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not a militia right

Not if the SC turns liberal and it will if Hillary gets elected.
A liberal court will rule it's only a militia right.
The very same types who got rid of the State citizen milita at the begging of the last century and put in Gov. Controled State Militia.

This is scare mongering from the right. It seems they think this is the fear they can use most to turn people against Hillary. They tried the "He'll take your guns" against Obama and it didn't work and didn't happen.

No
It's based on past rulings of liberal judges and historical facts.

Oh, so all liberal judges will be on the Supreme Court. You're also ignoring that the Senate plays a part in putting a justice into the Supreme Court.

Breyer, in DC v. Heller, didn't go fully for the individual argument, just that an individual right has limitations.

You can read Steven's dissent and tell me whether he would be voting for a "collective right" or not.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Which is actually right. The 2A was not about self defense in any way. It's about the militia. Individuals have two rights, the right to be in the militia and the right to own a weapon, and the 2A protects those, but not so people can defend themselves. However self defense would come from another part of the Bill of Rights.

In fact Stevens says he upholds the Miller view of things. And after Miller there was no collective right implemented.

So, you can say "they will take away our guns", but you're not providing any evidence for it.

I never said all.
I said liberal judges, based on passed rulings and if Hillary gets elected, yes the court would get one or more liberals on.

The Dems have a good chance at taking the Senate.

Not sure why I wrote that, but anyway.

Yes, the court would get one more liberal, that also doesn't mean that it would happen. It's scaremongering at it's best, and has been happening for 8 years already.

 

[2aguy]

Not if the SC turns liberal and it will if Hillary gets elected.
A liberal court will rule it's only a militia right.
The very same types who got rid of the State citizen milita at the begging of the last century and put in Gov. Controled State Militia.

This is scare mongering from the right. It seems they think this is the fear they can use most to turn people against Hillary. They tried the "He'll take your guns" against Obama and it didn't work and didn't happen.

No
It's based on past rulings of liberal judges and historical facts.

Oh, so all liberal judges will be on the Supreme Court. You're also ignoring that the Senate plays a part in putting a justice into the Supreme Court.

Breyer, in DC v. Heller, didn't go fully for the individual argument, just that an individual right has limitations.

You can read Steven's dissent and tell me whether he would be voting for a "collective right" or not.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Which is actually right. The 2A was not about self defense in any way. It's about the militia. Individuals have two rights, the right to be in the militia and the right to own a weapon, and the 2A protects those, but not so people can defend themselves. However self defense would come from another part of the Bill of Rights.

In fact Stevens says he upholds the Miller view of things. And after Miller there was no collective right implemented.

So, you can say "they will take away our guns", but you're not providing any evidence for it.

I never said all.
I said liberal judges, based on passed rulings and if Hillary gets elected, yes the court would get one or more liberals on.

The Dems have a good chance at taking the Senate.

Not sure why I wrote that, but anyway.

Yes, the court would get one more liberal, that also doesn't mean that it would happen. It's scaremongering at it's best, and has been happening for 8 years already.

Wrong.....they haven't had a majority on the Supreme Court, not during obama's 8 years....that is why Heller and Macdonald were one vote decisions......now they will be 1-3 votes against gun rights...not to mention all the Appellate Court judges he appointed who ignore every aspect of Heller.....

Obama was preoccupied and focused on destroying American healthcare....hilary will continue that and also attack the 2nd Amendment...first, by nullifying the Lawful Commerce in Arms act, and then passing prohibitive Poll Taxes on the right to bear arms.....

 

[peach174]

Not if the SC turns liberal and it will if Hillary gets elected.
A liberal court will rule it's only a militia right.
The very same types who got rid of the State citizen milita at the begging of the last century and put in Gov. Controled State Militia.

This is scare mongering from the right. It seems they think this is the fear they can use most to turn people against Hillary. They tried the "He'll take your guns" against Obama and it didn't work and didn't happen.

No
It's based on past rulings of liberal judges and historical facts.

Oh, so all liberal judges will be on the Supreme Court. You're also ignoring that the Senate plays a part in putting a justice into the Supreme Court.

Breyer, in DC v. Heller, didn't go fully for the individual argument, just that an individual right has limitations.

You can read Steven's dissent and tell me whether he would be voting for a "collective right" or not.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Which is actually right. The 2A was not about self defense in any way. It's about the militia. Individuals have two rights, the right to be in the militia and the right to own a weapon, and the 2A protects those, but not so people can defend themselves. However self defense would come from another part of the Bill of Rights.

In fact Stevens says he upholds the Miller view of things. And after Miller there was no collective right implemented.

So, you can say "they will take away our guns", but you're not providing any evidence for it.

I never said all.
I said liberal judges, based on passed rulings and if Hillary gets elected, yes the court would get one or more liberals on.

The Dems have a good chance at taking the Senate.

Not sure why I wrote that, but anyway.

Yes, the court would get one more liberal, that also doesn't mean that it would happen. It's scaremongering at it's best, and has been happening for 8 years already.

It is a fact, like I or not.
Look at the actions of the elites on both sides.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

This is scare mongering from the right. It seems they think this is the fear they can use most to turn people against Hillary. They tried the "He'll take your guns" against Obama and it didn't work and didn't happen.

No
It's based on past rulings of liberal judges and historical facts.

Oh, so all liberal judges will be on the Supreme Court. You're also ignoring that the Senate plays a part in putting a justice into the Supreme Court.

Breyer, in DC v. Heller, didn't go fully for the individual argument, just that an individual right has limitations.

You can read Steven's dissent and tell me whether he would be voting for a "collective right" or not.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Which is actually right. The 2A was not about self defense in any way. It's about the militia. Individuals have two rights, the right to be in the militia and the right to own a weapon, and the 2A protects those, but not so people can defend themselves. However self defense would come from another part of the Bill of Rights.

In fact Stevens says he upholds the Miller view of things. And after Miller there was no collective right implemented.

So, you can say "they will take away our guns", but you're not providing any evidence for it.

I never said all.
I said liberal judges, based on passed rulings and if Hillary gets elected, yes the court would get one or more liberals on.

The Dems have a good chance at taking the Senate.

Not sure why I wrote that, but anyway.

Yes, the court would get one more liberal, that also doesn't mean that it would happen. It's scaremongering at it's best, and has been happening for 8 years already.

It is a fact, like I or not.
Look at the actions of the elites on both sides.

You're damn right it's a fact. The 5-4 majority in Heller vs. DC will be reversed into a 5-4 or 6-3 majority in favor of common sense gun laws and the proper interpretation of the second amendment in regards to the "militia" being the u.s military.

 

[westwall]

No
It's based on past rulings of liberal judges and historical facts.

Oh, so all liberal judges will be on the Supreme Court. You're also ignoring that the Senate plays a part in putting a justice into the Supreme Court.

Breyer, in DC v. Heller, didn't go fully for the individual argument, just that an individual right has limitations.

You can read Steven's dissent and tell me whether he would be voting for a "collective right" or not.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Which is actually right. The 2A was not about self defense in any way. It's about the militia. Individuals have two rights, the right to be in the militia and the right to own a weapon, and the 2A protects those, but not so people can defend themselves. However self defense would come from another part of the Bill of Rights.

In fact Stevens says he upholds the Miller view of things. And after Miller there was no collective right implemented.

So, you can say "they will take away our guns", but you're not providing any evidence for it.

I never said all.
I said liberal judges, based on passed rulings and if Hillary gets elected, yes the court would get one or more liberals on.

The Dems have a good chance at taking the Senate.

Not sure why I wrote that, but anyway.

Yes, the court would get one more liberal, that also doesn't mean that it would happen. It's scaremongering at it's best, and has been happening for 8 years already.

It is a fact, like I or not.
Look at the actions of the elites on both sides.

You're damn right it's a fact. The 5-4 majority in Heller vs. DC will be reversed into a 5-4 or 6-3 majority in favor of common sense gun laws and the proper interpretation of the second amendment in regards to the "militia" being the u.s military.

I find it amusing that you think the government needs a Bill or Rights to reinforce the fact that it can be armed. You are a moron of the first order.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yes it does. It says "the right to bear arms".

As I've already shown. The founding fathers used "bear arms" synonymously with "render military service" and "militia duty".

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

It's here. This is the meaning of "bear arms".

dont what you are trying to prove

bear arms according to the second is the right of the people

Repeal Judicial Review Before We Are All Disarmed

Hillary's SCROTUS appointees will say that you can keep your arms in the National Guard armory and bear them when your unit is activated.

Then who interprets the constitution if not the Supreme Court?

An Obsolete Elitist Overlord on Self-Determination

We, the people, interpret it through election and referendum. In a free country, it would have been a temporary start-up document to be superseded by all subsequent legislation. There is no need for Amendments, which we don't vote on anyway; the state legislatures do.

There is a need for Amendments, and it's not just the states which vote on it. But you vote for the state govts.

Judicial Injustice

I've broken through the totalitarian brainwashing the Constitutionazis have put Americans through. It is only natural that you'd be afraid to defy them yourself, but eventually a whisper of dissent may grow into a loud uproar.

On a TV show, a character's wife told him he had no real friends; people were playing up to him only because he was the boss. Like you, he totally rejected that. But later, at dinner with his cronies, he told them a joke he knew wasn't funny at all. They broke out into laughter, confirming his latent suspicions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

dont what you are trying to prove

bear arms according to the second is the right of the people

Repeal Judicial Review Before We Are All Disarmed

Hillary's SCROTUS appointees will say that you can keep your arms in the National Guard armory and bear them when your unit is activated.

Then who interprets the constitution if not the Supreme Court?

An Obsolete Elitist Overlord on Self-Determination

We, the people, interpret it through election and referendum. In a free country, it would have been a temporary start-up document to be superseded by all subsequent legislation. There is no need for Amendments, which we don't vote on anyway; the state legislatures do.

There is a need for Amendments, and it's not just the states which vote on it. But you vote for the state govts.

Judicial Injustice

I've broken through the totalitarian brainwashing the Constitutionazis have put Americans through. It is only natural that you'd be afraid to defy them yourself, but eventually a whisper of dissent may grow into a loud uproar.

On a TV show, a character's wife told him he had no real friends; people were playing up to him only because he was the boss. Like you, he totally rejected that. But later, at dinner with his cronies, he told them a joke he knew wasn't funny at all. They broke out into laughter, confirming his latent suspicions.

I'm sorry, I don't really get what you're trying to say. You say "Like you", what like me?

Note, I actually know the process for amending the Constitution. If that makes me "brainwashed" then you're just being ridiculous.

 

[namvet]

tuff shit. I have a full auto AR-15 and a glock

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Repeal Judicial Review Before We Are All Disarmed

Hillary's SCROTUS appointees will say that you can keep your arms in the National Guard armory and bear them when your unit is activated.

Then who interprets the constitution if not the Supreme Court?

An Obsolete Elitist Overlord on Self-Determination

We, the people, interpret it through election and referendum. In a free country, it would have been a temporary start-up document to be superseded by all subsequent legislation. There is no need for Amendments, which we don't vote on anyway; the state legislatures do.

There is a need for Amendments, and it's not just the states which vote on it. But you vote for the state govts.

Judicial Injustice

I've broken through the totalitarian brainwashing the Constitutionazis have put Americans through. It is only natural that you'd be afraid to defy them yourself, but eventually a whisper of dissent may grow into a loud uproar.

On a TV show, a character's wife told him he had no real friends; people were playing up to him only because he was the boss. Like you, he totally rejected that. But later, at dinner with his cronies, he told them a joke he knew wasn't funny at all. They broke out into laughter, confirming his latent suspicions.

I'm sorry, I don't really get what you're trying to say. You say "Like you", what like me?

Note, I actually know the process for amending the Constitution. If that makes me "brainwashed" then you're just being ridiculous.

You are so inner-directed that you view the outside world as if looking in a mirror and seeing it confirm what you want to believe. That's why you think it is impossible for us to see through you. The outside world sees what you refuse to believe about your sheltered and confined mental masturbation.

 

[Rustic]

No
It's based on past rulings of liberal judges and historical facts.

Oh, so all liberal judges will be on the Supreme Court. You're also ignoring that the Senate plays a part in putting a justice into the Supreme Court.

Breyer, in DC v. Heller, didn't go fully for the individual argument, just that an individual right has limitations.

You can read Steven's dissent and tell me whether he would be voting for a "collective right" or not.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution."

Which is actually right. The 2A was not about self defense in any way. It's about the militia. Individuals have two rights, the right to be in the militia and the right to own a weapon, and the 2A protects those, but not so people can defend themselves. However self defense would come from another part of the Bill of Rights.

In fact Stevens says he upholds the Miller view of things. And after Miller there was no collective right implemented.

So, you can say "they will take away our guns", but you're not providing any evidence for it.

I never said all.
I said liberal judges, based on passed rulings and if Hillary gets elected, yes the court would get one or more liberals on.

The Dems have a good chance at taking the Senate.

Not sure why I wrote that, but anyway.

Yes, the court would get one more liberal, that also doesn't mean that it would happen. It's scaremongering at it's best, and has been happening for 8 years already.

It is a fact, like I or not.
Look at the actions of the elites on both sides.

You're damn right it's a fact. The 5-4 majority in Heller vs. DC will be reversed into a 5-4 or 6-3 majority in favor of common sense gun laws and the proper interpretation of the second amendment in regards to the "militia" being the u.s military.

Canned post by a paid poster...
commonsense gun laws is a dog whistle for firearm registration and more frivolous laws… LOL

 

[Crixus]

The love affair with guns continues, over 1000 posts, many arguing that their gun is the best gun. What is the attraction?

These gun nuts are embarrassed about their tiny penis size, so they have to compensate by talking about how high caliber and awesome their metal bang bang didloes are.

It took a while but there you go.......another anti gunner who gets sexually excited when guns are discussed.....whoever you are...get help.....somewhere in the wiring of your brain you have associated the natural act of sex with the object we call firearms....it is not normal, you need help....

Yep. These people are pretty useless. They have no non emotional, logical, arguments so they resort to personal insults and whining.

My argument is this: I want to stop the 33,000 gun deaths in this country. You pieces of shit don't.

I don't support the death sentence, but I would be happy to sentence the entire membership of the NRA to life imprisonment for the 33,000 deaths a year they cause

No, your argument is "I want to destroy the Rights of 85 million people to prevent the 11,000 criminal deaths created overwhelmingly by the illegals that I have imported. And I don't care that the 85 million people are doing nothing wrong. It is MY will that should dominate them."

Fuck you.

That's the kicker, the laws that punish the 85 million don't even effect the 11,000 bad guys so they just make more laws that are just stupid. These laws are not mentioned to fix anything, they are not more then chunks of red mead tossed to Democrat electorate to make them feel good about being stupid.

 

[WinterBorn]

The love affair with guns continues, over 1000 posts, many arguing that their gun is the best gun. What is the attraction?

These gun nuts are embarrassed about their tiny penis size, so they have to compensate by talking about how high caliber and awesome their metal bang bang didloes are.

It took a while but there you go.......another anti gunner who gets sexually excited when guns are discussed.....whoever you are...get help.....somewhere in the wiring of your brain you have associated the natural act of sex with the object we call firearms....it is not normal, you need help....

Yep. These people are pretty useless. They have no non emotional, logical, arguments so they resort to personal insults and whining.

My argument is this: I want to stop the 33,000 gun deaths in this country. You pieces of shit don't.

I don't support the death sentence, but I would be happy to sentence the entire membership of the NRA to life imprisonment for the 33,000 deaths a year they cause

I am hoping someone mentioned that your figure of 33,000 deaths includes 23,000 (or more) suicides? And if someone commits suicide with a firearm, the only thing you actually know is that they truly wanted to die. Removing the tool will not change that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Reloading often sure would have slowed down the Orlando shooter.

Correct and banning pressure cookers would have saved lives in Boston. What's your point? That all law-abiding citizens should be penalized because of a few terrorist nutjobs?

Making bombs is illegal and people can be caught trying to make them. Sometimes bombs don't work.

I don't consider it a penalty to take away the ability to quickly and legally become a mass killer. Why do you think people should be able to easily become mass killers?

"I don't consider it a penalty to take away the ability to quickly and legally become a mass killer. Why do you think people should be able to easily become mass killers?"

Uh...where exactly is it currently legal to be as mass killer?

It is legal to buy a semi auto with hi cap magazines. That legally makes you a very capable mass killer. If you chose to use a bomb, making a bomb is illegal. But owning a gun for mass killing is legal.

You didn't answer the question.
Mass murder is illegal irregardless of the weapon. It is no more or less legal with a bomb, thrown rock, or machinegun.
Aircraft are not illegal but they were used to commit mass murder on 9/11. Should we outlaw aircraft?

The average hunting shotgun loaded with buck shot can put as much or more lead downrange in about the same time span. Shoot fast=run out of ammo fast. An assault rifle without ammo doesn't even make a very good club.

Shotguns are called "room brooms" and "street sweepers" for a reason.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The only armed guard ran from the fight to call for help....you then had 300 unarmed people in a confined space with no way to fight back.....300 people and according to your foolish ideas they should have rushed him as he reloaded....and you had him in the bathroom and on the main floor reloading in front of survivors and they couldn't do anything......

And two weeks later at another night club another shooter was stopped by an armed citizen......you anti gun people are liars

Because he was out gunned because you think people should legally own mass killing guns.

300 unarmed people in a gun free zone you helped to create....you disarmed those people and allowed them to be slaughtered....and your armed, off duty cop, left the scene to call for help.....that killed those people..your gun free zone...

Two weeks later, a night club shooter was stopped by an armed civilian.....stopped cold........

Yes because drunk and high people in a club at 2am should be armed. Even the NRA admitted that would be stupid. The shooter should not have been able to legally buy a mass killing gun.

Asswipe.......the Bars in Virginia allowed concealed carry last year....their bar crime rate went down over 5%....and 43 states allow people to carry guns in bars...they just are not allowed to drink...

Troll....

And had there been armed civilians there....those people would still be alive.....

All you gun craze has done is get more people killed. Cops are shooting people cause guns are everywhere. How's carry working for Chicago?

Gun ownership went up. Concealed carry went up. Crime went DOWN. You fail.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You think people "you know" go around telling everyone they meet? I have used guns for defense and the result is living nearly 50+ yr. more as a result. I consider that a very good thing. Aside from people they have produced optimal results in encounters with poisonous snakes, coyotes, feral dogs, and wild boar. Also good things.
You also overlook the fact that guns are used for many other things.

Yes I do. I have known many who lived and died never needing a gun for defense. Many lives are lost in gun accidents.

How many times have you needed a hi cap magazine?

200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s, and 1.2 people carrying them for self defense....and 357 million guns in private hands and 15 million now carrying them for self defense...

The gun murder rate went down 49%....

The non fatal gun accident rate went down....

The fatal gun accident rate went down....

nothing you say about guns is true or accurate.

Thanks to the bill Clinton crime bill.

Accidents are on the up.

More gun control laws equal more violent crime... fact

Yeah, which is why the states with the most guns have the most gun violence, right?

The state with the loosest gun laws is one of the safest.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

I am a veteran too. I see my firearms as tools. I use them to hunt, shoot recreationally and to protect myself and my loved ones.