Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[P@triot]

Ever heard of non-lethal weapons?

Yes.....it is called the liberal mind. A useless organ which is most definitely not lethal

 

[Votto]

Dims would rather give guns to Syrian rebels and drug lords in Mexico than they would the average US citizen.

I guess cuz they trust them more than the average US citizen.

Then again, if you were as corrupt as they are I guess it is pretty understandable.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Guns in Iraq — Firearms, gun law and gun control

34 of every 100 people are terrorists, Puddles? Try again,

Jack-dressing-like-Jill "logic". I have to point to Iraq for reasons why I want to ban guns in the U.S.

Um...why can't you point to the U.S. for reasons why you want to ban guns:

Jack-dressing-like-Jill: "Oh....because that proves me wrong. I have to point to nation all the way on the other side of the world, which doesn't have U.S. laws, and then lie about that nation to make some form of an argument".

You said guns equal peace. Wrong.

They do. Tell me junior - how many mass shootings have we experienced in the White House? The place is packed with hundreds of people with access to thousands of fully automatic weapons.

I'm waiting.....

Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases? How about at gun ranges? How about street gangs, where they all have guns?

No guns, no mass shootings. Few guns in Japan, and good luck finding a mass shooting. The whole country is a gun-free zone to you.

A military base is nearly unarmed only a very small select few are allowed to carry firearms and then they are either police or guards at specific small facilities.Street gangs blow your argument up as they are illegally owned and criminals to boot. Law abiding citizens do not rove about in packs of armed thugs murdering for fun.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They do. Tell me junior - how many mass shootings have we experienced in the White House? The place is packed with hundreds of people with access to thousands of fully automatic weapons.

I'm waiting.....

Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases? How about at gun ranges? How about street gangs, where they all have guns?

No guns, no mass shootings. Few guns in Japan, and good luck finding a mass shooting. The whole country is a gun-free zone to you.

No, there are guns in Japan, it's just that you have to get a permit to buy one with heavy government oversight, but there are guns.

It's the people that are different--not the guns. You libs don't seem to understand that. Japan is nearly a single culture where ours is multi-cultured. Some of our cultures are much more violent than others.

We had a so-called assault weapons ban. Didn't show any positive results. Australia instituted their gun ban, it didn't do any good and even increased firearm deaths for a while. Same with Great Britain. But guess what? Those places never had a serious violence problem in the first place.

Few guns, much peace. Puddles loses.

Well we have places in the US where there are not few guns, but no guns. They are called Gun Free Zones, and that's usually where mass murder takes place in this country.

Then explain mass shootings where guns are? There should be zero, right?

And don't forget this, no guns no mass shootings, or any shootings at all.

Even if you banned private ownership tomorrow not one single criminal would turn in their weapons. And since the National Guard Police and Military have weapons they will steal them from them, further they will just smuggle them in from foreign Countries.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

Then again how many people have been killed because of guns?

Yeah, the US has a higher murder rate than any other first world country. Yes, guns in the US kill more people than guns in any other first world country.

Maybe if there were a God to be thanked, it would be because he'd kept crime rates low. But oh, Republican states, and religious states, have higher crime than non-Republican states and less Religious states.

Oh, so Republican states it is? Gee, I guess in Republican states, there are no liberal cities or people.

Why don't you talk about Republican cities compared to liberal cities........ I know you don't want to go there.

I can talk about the whole thing if you like. In fact I started a whole thread on the matter.

If a US state has Governor, House and Senate (or equivalent) that are all Republican, the average crime rate is 3107
If a US state has Republican in 2 of those positions the average crime rate is 2788
If a US state has Republican in 1 of those positions the average crime rate is 2521
If a US state has a Republican in 0 of those positions the average crime rate is 2777

If a US state voted Republican in the last 4 Presidential elections the average crime rate is 3109
If a US state voted Republican 3 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 2792
If a US state voted Republican 2 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate is 3053
If a US state voted Republican 1 out of the last 4 time the average crime rate is 3253
If a US state voted Republican 0 out of the last 4 times the average crime rate 2582

(for one out of 4 there's only 2 states, one has low crime, the other much higher crime, and that's a state with 2 out of three state positions Republican)

But let's look at cities.

I've looked at the top 55 cities for size.

The average size of cities with Democrat mayors is 1.1 million
The average size for cities with Republican mayors is 576,000
The average size for independent mayors is 692,000

Republicans have only one city above 1 million.
Democrats have 9

Republicans have 13 mayors in the top 55, Republicans have 33.

So, the reality is, large cities are far more likely to be Democrat.

Yes, on average Democrat cities are likely to have higher violent crime rates.

However, when you compare the city violent crime rate with the state violent crime rate, you find something a little different.

Seven cities have lower violent crime than the state they're in.

Four in California, two in Texas and one in Virginia.

Three are Republican, two of these are in California and on in Virginia. So, you have Republican cities in Democrat states or in Virginia which is border line, slightly more Republican than Democrat.

There are four Democrat, two in Texas, two in California, so Democrat cities in both Republican and Democrat states.

What seems clear is that these are larger states, with larger cities around them to raise crime rates overall in the city, and therefore make their crime rates relatively (compared to the state) lower.

Basically big cities have higher crime rates as a rule, there is no set pattern of population size to violent crime rate.

There are 17 worse cities for violent crime than Philadelphia which has the worst crime of any city of over 1 million.
In those 17 there are 4 under 300,000, 4 between 400,000 and 499,999, 6 between 600,000 and 699,000. There's one over 700,000

Nothing in the data really points to anything right now, other than Republicans are less likely to run bigger cities.

I can add a lot more data to this, this is just with the basis. What a city constitutes Democrat/Republican wise isn't so clear from just the party of the mayor.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

Then again how many people have been killed because of guns?

Yeah, the US has a higher murder rate than any other first world country. Yes, guns in the US kill more people than guns in any other first world country.

Maybe if there were a God to be thanked, it would be because he'd kept crime rates low. But oh, Republican states, and religious states, have higher crime than non-Republican states and less Religious states.

Guns do kill... People do. Lol

Guns do kill, people do???? What?

Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.

 

[Rustic]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

Then again how many people have been killed because of guns?

Yeah, the US has a higher murder rate than any other first world country. Yes, guns in the US kill more people than guns in any other first world country.

Maybe if there were a God to be thanked, it would be because he'd kept crime rates low. But oh, Republican states, and religious states, have higher crime than non-Republican states and less Religious states.

Guns do kill... People do. Lol

Guns do kill, people do???? What?

Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.

Guns don't kill... People kill... Lol

 

[there4eyeM]

Guns don't 'go off', people cause them to fire.
People without guns do not cause firearms to 'go off'.
Prudence, good sense and moderation are what are required, but the extremists deem even this as 'gun grabbing'. When repression of firearm ownership does finally come, it will be cause by these far out few.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Well, I know you liberals hate logic, but can we try it here anyway?

• Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

• Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?

When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed. They will be collected and destroyed.

Can you go through the dynamics for us please?

The closest you can come to outlawing firearms is for the new SC court (If Hillary wins) to say that firearm ownership is no longer protected by the Constitution.

What that means is cities and states across the country (more likely liberal) could create laws against ownership or carrying of a firearm. That does not mean that conservative states have to do the same. In fact, conservative states can make guns even more available and easier to get a carry permit than ever.

On a national level, any President wanting to outlaw guns (or confiscate them) would have to get full approval by a majority of Congress and Senate. That's never going to happen..
And even if Democrats were able to pull that off, it would be the end of their leadership for decades in the White House and both Congress and Senate.

But keep dreaming.......we all have dreams you know.

Flying was once a dream, walking on the moon, cars that drive themselves. Time is on my side.

In your Liberal utopian world the 80 year old lady in the story would have been beaten and probally murdered . In your dreamy world the 80 year old great grandmother has no right to protect herself, home or family.

Great-granny, 80, got a gun, kills a home intruder who attacked husband | Fox News

Ever heard of non-lethal weapons?

Have you ever seen a 250 lb pound man take multiple hits from a stun gun and keep on coming I have and that's from a police issue taser. The crappy little hand held ones civilians have to settle for puts you within choking distance an 80 year old women would end up being a statistic. One last thing even in your utopia criminals won't be using non-lethal means .that's why sane law abiding citizens have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones and should arm themselves accordingly.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases? How about at gun ranges? How about street gangs, where they all have guns?

No guns, no mass shootings. Few guns in Japan, and good luck finding a mass shooting. The whole country is a gun-free zone to you.

No, there are guns in Japan, it's just that you have to get a permit to buy one with heavy government oversight, but there are guns.

It's the people that are different--not the guns. You libs don't seem to understand that. Japan is nearly a single culture where ours is multi-cultured. Some of our cultures are much more violent than others.

We had a so-called assault weapons ban. Didn't show any positive results. Australia instituted their gun ban, it didn't do any good and even increased firearm deaths for a while. Same with Great Britain. But guess what? Those places never had a serious violence problem in the first place.

Few guns, much peace. Puddles loses.

Well we have places in the US where there are not few guns, but no guns. They are called Gun Free Zones, and that's usually where mass murder takes place in this country.

Then explain mass shootings where guns are? There should be zero, right?

And don't forget this, no guns no mass shootings, or any shootings at all.

Even if you banned private ownership tomorrow not one single criminal would turn in their weapons. And since the National Guard Police and Military have weapons they will steal them from them, further they will just smuggle them in from foreign Countries.

The scary thing that Liberals don't want to admit is it will take force to get the majority of Americans to relinquish there firearms. I believe the elite on the left are secretly hoping this happens because it will get rid of a number of people they deem political unacceptable mostly Conservatives and those who believe the Constitution is written in stone.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

Then again how many people have been killed because of guns?

Yeah, the US has a higher murder rate than any other first world country. Yes, guns in the US kill more people than guns in any other first world country.

Maybe if there were a God to be thanked, it would be because he'd kept crime rates low. But oh, Republican states, and religious states, have higher crime than non-Republican states and less Religious states.

Guns do kill... People do. Lol

Guns do kill, people do???? What?

Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.

Guns don't kill... People kill... Lol

Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.Maybe you mean to say, people with guns kill people more effectively than people without guns.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, there are guns in Japan, it's just that you have to get a permit to buy one with heavy government oversight, but there are guns.

It's the people that are different--not the guns. You libs don't seem to understand that. Japan is nearly a single culture where ours is multi-cultured. Some of our cultures are much more violent than others.

We had a so-called assault weapons ban. Didn't show any positive results. Australia instituted their gun ban, it didn't do any good and even increased firearm deaths for a while. Same with Great Britain. But guess what? Those places never had a serious violence problem in the first place.

Few guns, much peace. Puddles loses.

Well we have places in the US where there are not few guns, but no guns. They are called Gun Free Zones, and that's usually where mass murder takes place in this country.

Then explain mass shootings where guns are? There should be zero, right?

And don't forget this, no guns no mass shootings, or any shootings at all.

Even if you banned private ownership tomorrow not one single criminal would turn in their weapons. And since the National Guard Police and Military have weapons they will steal them from them, further they will just smuggle them in from foreign Countries.

The scary thing that Liberals don't want to admit is it will take force to get the majority of Americans to relinquish there firearms. I believe the elite on the left are secretly hoping this happens because it will get rid of a number of people they deem political unacceptable mostly Conservatives and those who believe the Constitution is written in stone.

Well I'm a Liberal, and I don't necessarily think the main problem is whether people have firearms or not.

There are so many problems in the US. The left pick up on guns because there's a problem in society, and one very visable way it manifests itself is through gun violence. So they attack the gun violence. However a lot of crime happens for other root causes, and the left should be more inclined to target these. But they don't, so much. They do target these MORE than Republicans, who you'd think would target these root causes simply because it would justify their guns far more, but they don't either.

It's a simple case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place, with an Mi-24 Hind shooting at you an then crashing on top of you while you're still stuck between the rocks.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

It has already been shown that the people not the militia hold the right to keep and bear arms

 

[Skull Pilot]

Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.

Customer Steps Up to Stop a Hatchet-Wielding Masked Man From Wreaking Havoc at a 7-Eleven

Another perfect example of a statistics of small numbers fallacy from the right.

The funny thing about statistics is that they they are easy to rationalize until you become one.

If a person with a CC permit is able to defend himself or someone he loves from a piece of shit criminal just once then that's enough of a reason for people to carry IMO

 

[Skull Pilot]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.

Supreme Court to Define ‘Well Regulated Militia’?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

I am sure. It clearly states "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.

The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.

Every person 17 to 45 is a member of the militia there fore EVERY person 17 to 45 has the right to own possess and bear arms thanks for playing.

That is correct and that is why "well regulated" is the introduction to the Amendment is included. The State has the authority to impose regulations. As long as the regulations are followed every able bodied citizen is part of the militia and the right can not be infringed. The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of whether a regulation is an infringement of not.
Not sure about the age limitations. Is that a SCOTUS ruling?

Well regulated at the time did not mean government controlled but rather well ordered and disciplined

 

[Skull Pilot]

God is positive energy....guns are negative energy that destroys....therefore you worship Satan.

Guns in this country save far more lives than people using them illegally take.....

No one can prove anything of the kind but suicide kills twice as many as crime. That we can prove.

Suicide is not a crime it is a choice.

People have the absolute right to end their own lives if they so choose

 

[Skull Pilot]

Use logic here. I see a big scary black man coming towards me late at night and I point a gun at him. He, being sensible, runs away. Was I in danger, did a gun save my life? It's impossible to know.

Anyone who brandishes a gun for no reason can have their permit revoked. It just doesn't happen very often.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, there are numerous studies that have calculated that guns do in fact help save lives. If you don't want a gun, it's simple. Don't own one.

The studies are crap. Someone pulling out a gun might think they needed to but there is no way to know in most cases.

They are not "crap." They are legitimate studies that have been peer reviewed.

Now, let me ask you, who do you think "laws" effect? The law abiding or the criminals (who disregard "laws")?

Laws affect both, dummy. That's why people who break them go to prison.

No, criminals don't obey laws. Lol. Only law-abiding people obey the laws. It's already illegal to kill someone with a gun (when it isn't in self defense). If someone is going to kill someone, anti-gun legislation is not going to stop them.

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

Laws do not stop criminals never have never will

 

[Skull Pilot]

That already happens. Felons are not allowed to own guns. Lol. Do you live in this country?

Dummy, I know this but that changes nothing.

Your constant resorting to name-calling just reveals what kind of a lowly person you really are.

Do you live in the United States?

Dummy is not a name in this case. It is your mental ability, a highly limited one.

Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion. You are the one getting all . . . crazy. I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control. Lol.

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

Yeah I want to spray anthrax or set off a suitcase nuke if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night. A shotgun works just fine

Idiot.