Americans Buying AK47's Like They Are Going Out Of Style

[ItsjustmeIthink]

No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A compulsory psyche evaluation and a compulsory firearm safety course would be a start.

Sorry... like in any free country, we don't need to prove to our government that we meet some subjecitve standard of worthiness before we can exercise one of our fundamental rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.

:yawn:
"Assault weapons" are the -very best- example of sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.

 

[Steelplate]

Obviously Saigon has never heard about Switzerland's gun laws. EVERY household is REQUIRED to own a weapon,they have the lowest crime rate in the world. Blows your little theory about more guns equals more crime out of the water.

Actually, no, it doesn't, not in the slightest.

Switzerland is a unique situation in that most of the guns there are not in active use. They are handed out to off-duty soldiers, most of whom safely lock them away and never use them. They are also owned by people well trained.

What you need to remember with Switzerland is:
- the guns were not purchased (i.e. it is not like people actually wanted them)
- the owners were all trained by the state
- the owners were all psyche tested as part of their army call-up.

And no, not all houses are required to own a weapon.

What you forget to add is that the only thing preventing a swiss citizen from opening up his sealed ammo pack and using his weapon is the law abiding nature of the person owning the firearm. The same dedication to obeying the law is what makes CCW holders and legal gun owners such a small percentage of actual criminal use of firearms.

So how, by banning the legal posession of these weapons, do we reduce the crime with them, when the majority of the crimes are committed by people who shouldnt have had them in the first place, under current law?

what you forgot to add us that Switzerland has cradle to grave government support that makes life a hell of a lot less stressful for the average Joe....less stress means more mental stability. Unlike our country, where it's all dog eat dog....and if Conservatives get their way, it will be be sink or swim with no safety net at all. Wait till you see even more disaffected trying to find their next meal, sleeping in the streets. Angry, bitter and hopeless people do not make for a stable and peaceful society.

I know....all that fancy "SIKEOLOGY" stuff is Communist propaganda.

 

[nitroz]

People having guns has resulted in a much lower total amount of murders.
But the bad side to that is that Gun Violence has risen to take the majority of the reduced amount of murders.

I see nothing wrong with the increased demand for AKs.
If a right is going to be taken away, then might as well make the most out of your current situation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People having guns has resulted in a much lower total amount of murders.
But the bad side to that is that Gun Violence has risen to take the majority of the reduced amount of murders.

I see nothing wrong with the increased demand for AKs.
If a right is going to be taken away, then might as well make the most out of your current situation.

I find part of your comment troubling Who has the authority to take away any rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, no, it doesn't, not in the slightest.

Switzerland is a unique situation in that most of the guns there are not in active use. They are handed out to off-duty soldiers, most of whom safely lock them away and never use them. They are also owned by people well trained.

What you need to remember with Switzerland is:
- the guns were not purchased (i.e. it is not like people actually wanted them)
- the owners were all trained by the state
- the owners were all psyche tested as part of their army call-up.

And no, not all houses are required to own a weapon.

What you forget to add is that the only thing preventing a swiss citizen from opening up his sealed ammo pack and using his weapon is the law abiding nature of the person owning the firearm. The same dedication to obeying the law is what makes CCW holders and legal gun owners such a small percentage of actual criminal use of firearms.

So how, by banning the legal posession of these weapons, do we reduce the crime with them, when the majority of the crimes are committed by people who shouldnt have had them in the first place, under current law?

what you forgot to add us that Switzerland has cradle to grave government support that makes life a hell of a lot less stressful for the average Joe...

Translation:
Violent crime rates are more affected by societal issues than the widespread availibility of guns.

Duh.

 

[GuyPinestra]

It's going to be sink or swim REGARDLESS, there is NO MONEY for your entitlements. We're going BROKE!

Or hadn't you noticed??

 

[ItsjustmeIthink]

No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.

:yawn:
"Assault weapons" are the -very best- example of sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Do a bunch of people running around with AKs contribute to our security, or take away from it? Considering that the National Guard is under oath from State governors I'd say the tidbit about having "a well regulated Milita" is pretty well covered.

-sigh

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's going to be sink or swim REGARDLESS, there is NO MONEY for your entitlements. We're going BROKE!
Or hadn't you noticed??

Yes. Entitlement-driven fiscal collapse is virtually unavoidable, with economic and then societal collapse right behind.

Winter is coming. We must defend the wall.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.

:yawn:
"Assault weapons" are the -very best- example of sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

The 2nd protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, regardless of that individual's association with any militia, and so your post is meaningless.

Now, back to what I said:

Various SCotUS rulings have established that for a weapon to be protected under the 2nd amendment, it must be appropriate for service in the militia, in common use at the time, part of the ordinary military equipment. and suitable for any of the traditional legal uses for a firearm.

There is, quite possibly, no better specific example of this weapon than the AR-15 with 20/30rd USGI magazines, and no better general example than 'assault weapons' as a class.

I look forward to your reasoned argument to the contrary.

 

[nitroz]

People having guns has resulted in a much lower total amount of murders.
But the bad side to that is that Gun Violence has risen to take the majority of the reduced amount of murders.

I see nothing wrong with the increased demand for AKs.
If a right is going to be taken away, then might as well make the most out of your current situation.

I find part of your comment troubling Who has the authority to take away any rights?

Nobody does.
But with political leaders breaking laws and infringing on rights, do you think we can do anything about it if we don't forcefully give them the boot and throw them in the slammer?

I mean we should just walk in ourselves and get the damn job done.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

People having guns has resulted in a much lower total amount of murders.
But the bad side to that is that Gun Violence has risen to take the majority of the reduced amount of murders.

I see nothing wrong with the increased demand for AKs.
If a right is going to be taken away, then might as well make the most out of your current situation.

I find part of your comment troubling Who has the authority to take away any rights?

Nobody does.
But with political leaders breaking laws and infringing on rights, do you think we can do anything about it if we don't forcefully give them the boot and throw them in the slammer?

I mean we should just walk in ourselves and get the damn job done.

I will fight it to the last breath I take it that is what it takes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are three tiems as many deaths related to negligent driving than fire arms. There are also many more vehicles than guns. Ban cars?

The left would like nothing better.

Control the movement of the people and you control the people. Herd everyone onto trains and buses controlled by the state and you take away any chance of resistance.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Possibly...but they still have homicide rates 90% lower than the US.

I'm calling bullshit.

Per capita? Try again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one really needs combat weapons for civilian use. Shotguns and pistols have self-defense covered and rifles, bows, and shotguns also got hunting covered.

:yawn:
"Assault weapons" are the -very best- example of sort of firearm protected by the 2nd.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

Do a bunch of people running around with AKs contribute to our security, or take away from it? Considering that the National Guard is under oath from State governors I'd say the tidbit about having "a well regulated Milita" is pretty well covered.

-sigh

The second amendment is made up of two parts
Since their was a regular army small but it did exist at the time of the creation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
The states have a right too a militia
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,


The People have a right too keep and bear arms
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And supreme court rulings have stated that the only weapons protected under the second amendment are those of suitable use for the militia and must be bought the individual.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Therein lies the fundamental question.

Do we want people so easily scared to have a weapon of mass destruction in their custody and control?

AK-47 in Semi-Auto is your idea of a "weapon of mass destruction?"

What a fucknut you are.

Greatest acts of terrorism in USA.

• 
  * A truck bomb using sulfur and fuel oil.
  * Muslims using Jet Liners.

Both the Columbine and Dark Knight murderers had contingency plans to use explosives and poison gas, which would have exponentially increased the death toll in both instances.

I don't know about gun control, but we need to clamp down on fucknuts.

 

[asaratis]

The homicide rate in the US is currently around 10 times the rate on most civilised countries....I wonder how high it would have to get before Americans would start to worry.

There have been something like three major mass murders in the US in the past fortnight - I suspect there will be more to come.

I suspect there will be also...and passing a law making such guns illegal will NOT take the guns away from those who would do such a thing.

As long as there are NO_GUN zones, there will be assholes going into them and shooting at random.

 

[Uncensored2008]

From the last link: While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons

Yeah, but don't you think Brits lie their dying and think with relief "I'm sure glad I was beaten to death and not killed with a gun?"

 

[Steelplate]

What you forget to add is that the only thing preventing a swiss citizen from opening up his sealed ammo pack and using his weapon is the law abiding nature of the person owning the firearm. The same dedication to obeying the law is what makes CCW holders and legal gun owners such a small percentage of actual criminal use of firearms.

So how, by banning the legal posession of these weapons, do we reduce the crime with them, when the majority of the crimes are committed by people who shouldnt have had them in the first place, under current law?

what you forgot to add us that Switzerland has cradle to grave government support that makes life a hell of a lot less stressful for the average Joe...

Translation:
Violent crime rates are more affected by societal issues than the widespread availibility of guns.

Duh.

that's exactly what I am saying. I've never been an advocate of gun control. What I am in favor of is reducing our societal issues.

When the majority of the people in our country work their asses off and can't afford to live comfortably in their own country, when people have to choose between needed medication and food, when kids have to either raise themselves because both parents are working, or live in poverty to keep one parent home...that environment is one that is ripe for mental illness, crime, alcohol and drug abuse/addiction and violence.

And no.... I'm not talking about "Gubmint", I am talking about the failed policies of Reaganomics. The only people who have benefited from trickle down economics in the long run are the people who run the show. The vast majority have sufffered wages that don't jibe with the cost of living, a huge reduction in benefits(if they have any at all), and the constant pandering to our most capable and powerful of us.

I know I am talking to the wall though, so what does it matter?