For You Gun Hating Nutters

[Dr Grump]

then why is it the right of the people?

Oh yeah the people, all people, were considered to be the militia

That's right. They were to belong to a militia. Do they all belong now? You're talking 1776 back when there were still slaves and only land owning men could vote. Things change.

No. They were to be ready to be called into service which was just one reason the people have the right to keep and bear arms it is not the only reason

What other reasons are mentioned in the second?

 

[Dr Grump]

Be specific you mean murder rate because our rates of other crimes are not that high

And we have pockets of high crime that skew the numbers for the entire country. Most murders are criminals shooting other criminals and occur in just a handful of urban areas.

Chicago has strict gun laws and look at that shit hole?

New Hampshire has relaxed gun laws and is consistently one of the top 5 safest states in the country.

We know that most gun murders are committed by people with criminal records not by law abiding citizens.

So tell me how restricting people who don't commit crimes with guns or otherwise stop criminals from using guns.

Here's a hint for you. It doesn't

Different countries measure different rates different ways.

And yet where I live and NZ and Canada and Scandinavia and the Netherlands and Belgium and France and Ireland and and and ....have strict guns laws and have relatively low crime rates. And all countries have areas where crime rates are higher. The US is not exceptional in that regard. If all the other western countries got rid of their 'skewed' we'd all look grand and dandy. Where I come from, it's called cherry picking.

 

[2aguy]

The latest from War Zone Chicago:

● Man who sold gun used to shoot 2 cops released on $4,500 bond: sources.

There was another case where a woman was sentenced to probation for selling guns to a man with gang ties:

● Mount Prospect woman gets probation for illegal gun sales.

● Police: Woman with FOID card bought and sold guns for profit.


I have an idea for you gun haters. How about enforcing the laws to get violators off the streets?

If guns are the answer how come one of the most armed societies in the western world has THE highest deaths per capitas with guns?

We have the weakest sentencing laws for repeat gun offenders. That, and we have single teenage girls raising young males in democrat controlled voting districts...

And the truth? Our violent crime rates are going down, not up, as more Americans own and carry guns....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 15.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

The latest from War Zone Chicago:

● Man who sold gun used to shoot 2 cops released on $4,500 bond: sources.

There was another case where a woman was sentenced to probation for selling guns to a man with gang ties:

● Mount Prospect woman gets probation for illegal gun sales.

● Police: Woman with FOID card bought and sold guns for profit.


I have an idea for you gun haters. How about enforcing the laws to get violators off the streets?

If guns are the answer how come one of the most armed societies in the western world has THE highest deaths per capitas with guns?

Also....you have taken a snapshot in time....Britain banned guns 21 years ago...their gun crime is rising now, up 42% in London and up all over the country, dittos Australia......

The mistake you guys always make is assuming it is access to guns that cause the violence, and you are wrong. It is the culture of the criminal that causes the violence, not law abiding gun owners.

Britain banned guns 21 years ago...and their violent crime rates are now going through the roof, they are finally unable to civilize their young males as more and more of their underclass, teenage girls, are having children without fathers...and that is helping to generate young, violent sociopaths....that and they are importing violent people from 3rd World countries...

 

[Cellblock2429]

You gun nuts won't Be happy until guns are available out of vending machines .

that's not a bad idea at all

No, that would be terrible .

only for hoplophobic pussies

You seriously think we should have gun vending machines ? Anyone can walk up and buy a gun ?

/---- Of course not. What a dumb idea. What we need are drive through windows where you can pull up, pick from the menu and pull to the window when our order is ready. "Would you like some ammo with that order sir?"

 

[2aguy]

Because Democrats are the most violent group in the world. Even more violent than their Muslim allies.

Totally unsupportable assertion.

No....not really......you can look at murder rates by county...and then you have this...

Want to Stop Gun Murder, Democrats? Give Up Your Guns - Breitbart



But he’s just one example of gun crime in the Democrat-supporting world. From 2009-2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 26,632 firearm-related homicides took place in the United States. The CDC investigated the number of firearm-related homicides in the 50 most populous U.S. cities; all but six of those cities were located in counties which would go on to vote for Barack Obama in 2012. In those cities, 13,014 firearm-related homicides took place.

In other words, just by confiscating all the guns from all the people in the most populous Democratic cities–by following the Democratic theory that less guns mean less gun crimes–the American gun murder rate would drop by half. And that doesn’t even count all murders from all Democrat-supporting areas in the country.

Obviously, that wouldn’t work–virtually all the major Democratic cities already have gun control, and the Democratic-area murder spree continues. But the media will never discuss where most murders actually occur, or who actually commits them.


Then you can look at where murders actually take place....

Murders in US very concentrated: 54% of US counties in 2014 had zero murders, 2% of counties have 51% of the murders - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[2aguy]

I don't have a problem with it in the least. I'm against background checks, against paperwork for purchases, all of that

Which is why you're a gun nut...

The first thing every fascist government does is ban guns.
Fascist lover.

who wants to ban guns?

The leadership of the democrat party. They have stacked the courts with anti gun justices, and had hilary won, she would have used the courts to attack gun makers....

Articles: Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat



Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans. A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”

This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council. The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years! Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.

The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.

The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.

Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).

After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).

But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.

They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.

They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.

They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.

They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.

The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.

The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.

The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[2aguy]

the left. they might not want to ban EVERY ONE from possession of ALL types of firearms, but they definitely dont consider firearms ownership to be a right of the people.

I agree with them. The second is outdated and unnecessary. I also agree that not all guns should be banned.

No....the 2nd isn't outdated.....Americans use guns to save themselves from criminals 1,500,000 times a year, according to bill clinton and barak obama......those Americans know the 2nd Amendment isn't outdated.

 

[2aguy]

You gun nuts won't Be happy until guns are available out of vending machines .

that's not a bad idea at all

No, that would be terrible .

Only to you anti gun nuts.

You use to be able to go into Sears and walk out with a firearm and no paper work required. That was real Liberty that you filthy Libtards destroyed.

Real liberty ? Nothing says liberty like every psycho and criminal being able to buy a gun on demand !

You are a great example of a delusional gun nut .

Criminals can't legally buy a gun here. They can't buy, own or carry them. The dangerously mentally ill can't own or buy guns either.....please...try to get your facts straight.

 

[2aguy]

the post didnt include the word western when I qouted it
secondly, is mexico in asia? africa?
it has a form of government based on the US, and its official language is a western european language...Mexico is in the west.

Yeah it did. I didn't edit it at all.

It is a third world country. It is not a western world country. It is a corrupt, tinpot regime with nothing in common with the democracies of the western world.

Anyway, if you want to compare a country like Mexico as being more similar to the US than say the UK or Australia or Canada....go for it...sounds about where it is heading with the Orange Buffoon in charge.

Yeah....here is a more accurate look...

The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries

Why Turkey and Chile and Bulgaria? Well, those countries are OECD members, and many who use the "developed country" moniker often use the OECD members countries as a de facto list of the "true" developed countries. Of course, membership in the OECD is highly political and hardly based on any objective economic or cultural criteria.

But if you're familiar with the OECD, you'll immediately notice a problem with the list Fisher uses. Mexico is an OECD country. So why is Mexico not in this graph? Well, it's pretty apparent that Mexico was left off the list because to do so would interfere with the point Fisher is trying to make. After all, Mexico — in spite of much more restrictive gun laws — has a murder rate many times larger than the US.
----
More Realistic Comparisons Involve a Broader View of the World

Why not use the UN’s human development index instead? That would seem to make at least as much sense if we’re devoted to looking at “developed countries.”

So, let’s do that. Here we see that the OECD’s list contains Turkey, Bulgaria, Mexico, and Chile. So, if we're honest with ourselves, that must mean that other countries with similar human development rankings are also suitable for comparisons to the US.

Well, Turkey and Mexico have HDI numbers at .75. So, let’s include other countries with HDI numbers either similar or higher. That means we should include The Bahamas, Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela, Russia, Lithuania, Belarus, Estonia, and Latvia.

You can see where this is going. If we include countries that have HDI numbers similar to — or at least as high as — OECD members Turkey and Mexico, we find that the picture for the United States murder rate looks very different (correctly using murder rates and not gun-deaths rates):

Wow, that US sure has a pretty low murder rate compared to all those countries that are comparable to some OECD members. In fact, Russia, Costa Rica and Lithuania have all been invited to begin the process of joining the OECD (Russia is on hold for obvious political reasons). But all those countries have higher murder rates than the US. (I wonder what excuse Fisher will manufacture for leaving off those countries after they join the OECD.)

Things get even more interesting if we add American states with low murder rates.

And why not include data from individual states? It has always been extremely imprecise and lazy to talk about the “US murder rate” The US is an immense country with a lot of variety in laws and demographics. (Mexico deserves the same analysis, by the way.) Many states have murder rates that place them on the short list of low-crime places in the world. Why do we conveniently ignore them? The US murder rate is being driven up by a few high-murder states such as Maryland, Louisiana, South Carolina, Delaware, and Tennessee. In the spirit of selective use of data, let's just leave those states out of it, and look at some of the low-crime ones:

 

[2aguy]

the post didnt include the word western when I qouted it
secondly, is mexico in asia? africa?
it has a form of government based on the US, and its official language is a western european language...Mexico is in the west.

Yeah it did. I didn't edit it at all.

It is a third world country. It is not a western world country. It is a corrupt, tinpot regime with nothing in common with the democracies of the western world.

Anyway, if you want to compare a country like Mexico as being more similar to the US than say the UK or Australia or Canada....go for it...sounds about where it is heading with the Orange Buffoon in charge.

gun crime in Britain, Australia and Canada is going up....gun crime in the United States is going down...

 

[2aguy]

Obama, Crooked Hillary and about every shithead Democrat holding office in the US.

The only thing that has kept the filthy Democrats from banning firearms was the fact that the shitheads have not control Congress since 2010.

None of them want outright bans. So that is a lie.

Yes...they do....they start with bans of various categories of weapons...the 4th Circuit court of appeals, clinton and obama appointees control that court, just decided that military weapons are not protected by the 2nd Amendment......which goes completely against all Legal Precedent and Supreme Court rulings on the subject......which essentially sets the ground work for banning all guns...

 

[2aguy]

no, the fight started in Lexington and concord over firearms confiscation

And the Brits were trying to confiscate those weapons because.....?

They wanted to oppress the colonists......which is why the 2nd Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights...

 

[2aguy]

that's not a bad idea at all

No, that would be terrible .

Only to you anti gun nuts.

You use to be able to go into Sears and walk out with a firearm and no paper work required. That was real Liberty that you filthy Libtards destroyed.

Real liberty ? Nothing says liberty like every psycho and criminal being able to buy a gun on demand !

You are a great example of a delusional gun nut .

what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand

So even psychos and criminals should have peashooters? hhhmmm...interesting. BTW, what militia do you belong to? And I mean bona fide militia, not some "I'm a Texan and that is my militia" BS.

No....we already have laws for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill.....

There is no militia requirement to own and bear arms....

 

[2aguy]

Obama, Crooked Hillary and about every shithead Democrat holding office in the US.

The only thing that has kept the filthy Democrats from banning firearms was the fact that the shitheads have not control Congress since 2010.

None of them want outright bans. So that is a lie.

Obama left guns alone until Sandy Hook. Gee, god forbid he act after a bunch of 5 yr olds were turned to hamburger !

No....he didn't. He packed the lower courts and the Supreme Courts with gun grabbing judges.....that way he didn't have to lose democrat seats to anti gun votes. They also allowed drug cartels to buy weapons, in order to have them show up at crime scenes across the border......

 

[2aguy]

I belong to two different militia groups, which are none of your business, but that has zero to do with my right to bear arms...it says the right of the people,, not the right of the militia

Nope, it specifically states militia. If belonging to a militia is irrelevant why even have it in the second at all? hint: It does matter. BS, I bet you don't belong to any legal entity or militia.

Read Heller, they explain why you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Obama, Crooked Hillary and about every shithead Democrat holding office in the US.

The only thing that has kept the filthy Democrats from banning firearms was the fact that the shitheads have not control Congress since 2010.

None of them want outright bans. So that is a lie.

Obama left guns alone until Sandy Hook. Gee, god forbid he act after a bunch of 5 yr olds were turned to hamburger !

B-b-b-but according to Bitter Clinging it's more important that a mentally ill person be allowed to carry a firearm than it is for society to be protected from these loons.

No...the ACLU stated that you can't just take rights away from people without actual due process, and the ACLU pointed out that only a tiny number of mentally ill people are too dangerous to own guns.......

your beef is with the ACLU...

 

[2aguy]

I belong to two of them.......there are dozens here in texas alone...besides that you are 100 percent wrong, the amendment states the right of the people o keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of the militia. our founders were very clear on this

No, they were very unclear, thus the number of USSC cases trying to sort it out. From the outside looking in, it seems the FF wanted people to be armed so they could form militias if the US was attacked. It's black and white. It wasn't so people could be armed for the sake of it.

Are they state or fed sponsored militias? didn't think so...

Nope......please read District of Columbia v. Heller......it explains why you don't know what you are talking about....

 

[2aguy]

Liberty is walking down the streets without getting your head blown off .

It's ridiculous to say they can just get guns on their own. That's not true .

But hey, illegal aliens are just going to get into the country. Why bother having any border patrol !

If you want to use that mantra with other issues.


By the way . I'll give you the 2nd . But righties wipe there ass with all the other constitutional rights . How dare u lecture anyone on freedom .

Such as? The only ones who are violating the Bill of Rights are the left........

 

[2aguy]

Its an non-issue... shit for brains
Lol

2017 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Crap, unreliable site...

Any site that puts abortion at the top is not credible.

Also, we are comparing firearms in the US vs firearms in other, civilised countries.

And the gun crime rate in Britain and Australia is going up.....the gun crime rate in the U.S. is going down.