The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[frigidweirdo]

No mind reader, and you clearly didn't read what I had actually written either. You decided what I had written meant something that it didn't say. It happens too much for me not to get annoyed at it.

I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.

Well it's not what light infantry would have. It was always the weapons that citizens carried around in their normal daily life.

I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.

I didn't say there was a limitation on the number of arms. I said what the Amendment means, which is that the feds can't prevent individuals from having arms. If you have a handgun, have I prevented you from having arms? No, I have not. If I prevent you having two guns, am I preventing you from having arms? No, I'm not.

Actually, yes. Yes to are preventing me from having arms. Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms. The dead give way is the word preventing.

Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom. Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie. Gotta have the shottie.

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

 

[ding]

But our 32,000 gun fatalities a year go well beyond the gang bangers. They include suicides, domestic violence, criminal uses, accidents

Having a gun in a volatile situation rarely makes it better

You are so desperate to make your point that you have included suicides.

According to the FBI, in 2014 there were 12,253 murders which is a 3.88 murder rate per 100,000 persons. Of these 12,253 murders, 7,763 were committed with a handgun for a 2.46 murder rate per 100,000 persons, 383 were committed with a rifle for a 0.12 murder rate per 100,000 persons, 308 were committed with a shotgun for a 0.10 murder rate per 100,000 persons. Knives, other weapons and hands/fists accounted for 3,799 murders for a 1.2 murder rate per 100,000 persons. So the murder rate for guns was 2.67 per 100,000 persons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

 

[ding]

Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average. If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.

So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.

 

[ding]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

 

[ding]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

You mean racist like these guys?

So when did blacks start voting for Democrats? When reconstruction ended and federal troops were pulled back. Why did they start voting for Democrats? That's easy. They did so to keep from getting lynched. There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Black political participation in Reconstruction | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

"Blacks made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters, forming a coalition with “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags” (derogatory terms referring to recent arrivals from the North and southern white Republicans, respectively). A total of 265 African-American delegates were elected, more than 100 of whom had been born into slavery. Almost half of the elected black delegates served in South Carolina and Louisiana, where blacks had the longest history of political organization; in most other states, African Americans were underrepresented compared to their population. In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South."

Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

"In almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!"

"By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan). This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard. But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party."

September 3, 1868

25 African-Americans in the Georgia legislature, all Republicans, were expelled by the Democrat majority. They were later reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

September 12, 1868

Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in the Georgia Senate – all Republicans – were expelled by the Democrat majority. They were later be reinstated by a Republican-controlled Congress.

October 7, 1868

Republicans denounce the Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.

October 22, 1868

While campaigning for re-election, U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who were organized as the Ku Klux Klan.

December 10, 1869

Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs First-in-nation law granting women the right to vote and to hold public office.

February 3, 1870

After passing the U.S. House of Representatives with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, the Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, which granted the right to vote to all Americans regardless of race.

May 31, 1870

President Ulysses S. Grant signs the Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving civil rights to any Americans.

June 22, 1870

The Republican-controlled Congress creates the U.S. Department of Justice to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South.

September 6, 1870

Women vote in Wyoming during the first election after women’s suffrage legislation was signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell.

February 28, 1871

Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters.

April 20, 1871

The Republican-controlled Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans.

October 10, 1871

Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against blacks voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto was murdered by a Democratic Party operative, and his military funeral was attended by thousands.

October 18, 1871

After violence was committed against Republicans in South Carolina, Republican President Ulysses S. Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan.

November 18, 1872

Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”.

January 17, 1874

Armed Democrats seize the Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate the Texas government.

September 14, 1874

Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow the racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg. 27 people were killed.

March 1, 1875

The Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, was signed by Republican President Ulysses S. Grant. The law passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition.

"Black men participated in Georgia politics for the first time during Congressional Reconstruction (1867-76). Between 1867 and 1872 sixty-nine African Americans served as delegates to the constitutional convention (1867-68) or as members of the state legislature.

Democrats used terror, intimidation, and the Ku Klux Klan to "redeem" the state. One quarter of the black legislators were killed, threatened, beaten, or jailed. In the December 1870 elections the Democrats won an overwhelming victory. In 1906 W. H. Rogers from McIntosh County was the last black legislator to be elected before blacks were legally disenfranchised in 1908."

Black Legislators during Reconstruction

"One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation…. Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.” An issue of Harper’s Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”"

"The Klan’s primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out “push cards” -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) “Radicals” of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan."


Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ding,
judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.

 

[Tennyson]

The US cannot be compared to other countries regarding guns, homicides, and violent crime. There is a marked difference between the murder rate and violent crime rate in the US between areas with populations over 250,000 and under 250,000. The U.S. has double the crime and murder rate in areas with populations over 250,000. The number of murders in the US in areas with populations under 250,000 is 1.9 percent. the US will have a dramatic increase vis-a-vis other countries regarding violent crime as well. The US has 186 metropolitan areas with populations over 250,000, Sweden has 3, Norway has 1, Finland has 2, and Iceland has 0. In the U.K, there are only 32 areas with populations over 250,000, so their murder rates will be lower, and their violent crime rates should be lower as well, but with only 32 metropolitan areas with populations over 250,000, the U.K. has over 5 times the violent crime rate as the U.S. With 186 metropolitan areas with populations over 250,000, the US will have a dramatic increase vis-a-vis other countries regarding violent crime as well, and these factors will increase a far more potential violent interaction between the population and police, thus a far higher percentage of justified homicides committed by the police.

 

[ding]

Ding,
judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.

55, and those whites you talk about... they were all Democrats. The more Republican the south became the less racist it became. Furthermore, gun control was done by Democrats to take guns away from blacks. Republicans fought and won that battle.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Ding,
judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.

55, and those whites you talk about... they were all Democrats. The more Republican the south became the less racist it became. Furthermore, gun control was done by Democrats to take guns away from blacks. Republicans fought and won that battle.

Well, I can see why they gave you a complementary red hat. It is your passport to an alternative universe.

 

[ding]

Ding,
judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.

As for blacks not voting... you do realize there was a period of time after the civil war where blacks were the majority in many southern state legislatures.

Black political participation in Reconstruction | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

"Blacks made up the overwhelming majority of southern Republican voters, forming a coalition with “carpetbaggers” and “scalawags” (derogatory terms referring to recent arrivals from the North and southern white Republicans, respectively). A total of 265 African-American delegates were elected, more than 100 of whom had been born into slavery. Almost half of the elected black delegates served in South Carolina and Louisiana, where blacks had the longest history of political organization; in most other states, African Americans were underrepresented compared to their population. In all, 16 African Americans served in the U.S. Congress during Reconstruction; more than 600 more were elected to the state legislatures, and hundreds more held local offices across the South."

Articles: The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

"In almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party’s achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn’t elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!"

"By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan). This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard. But don’t bother checking the Democratic National Committee’s website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party."

 

[ding]

Ding,
judging from a quick scan of your talking points, i would say that you are about 38 years old or younger. The political movement of blacks to the democratic party in the South happened in my lifetime. Before that, they did not vote at all. The whites made sure of that.

55, and those whites you talk about... they were all Democrats. The more Republican the south became the less racist it became. Furthermore, gun control was done by Democrats to take guns away from blacks. Republicans fought and won that battle.

Well, I can see why they gave you a complementary red hat. It is your passport to an alternative universe.

Why don't you research it for yourself? Don't take my word.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't have to research racial politics in the South, son. I lived with in in Georgia from 1944 and thereafter. I walked in MLK's funeral procession in 1968 in Atlanta. I seriously doubt if there is anything you can teach me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

No, like I've told you, Europe and all other first world countries have as much, if not MORE freedom than the US, yet don't have anywhere near that level of gun violence. It's simply not true what you're saying.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Blacks committed 4 times the per capita murders with guns than the national average. If blacks had just committed murders at the rate of the national average, our gun death rate would have dropped from 2.67 murders per 100,000 persons to 1.76 murders per 100,000 persons.

So when liberals talk about taking guns away, that is code for taking guns away from blacks.

Then again blacks are far more likely to be in poverty too. White people in poverty are more likely to use guns in crime, as are black people. But then it's easy to just take one statistic and float it around without looking at the whole situation, isn't it?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

That is, indeed, what the racists used to teach us during the civil rights struggle in the South, but that damned traitor, JFK, nationalized the national guard and crushed our freedom to lynch negros and kill Yankee civil rights workers. They also did the same thing at all the riots in 1967-1970. Didn't seem fair that they used tanks, and the freedom loving patriots only had rifles and handguns:

Still doing it now.

They go after those they feel they can go after, and the Native Americans are seen as weak.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am absolutely 100% positive that I read every single word.

I read militia as light infantry because that's what a militia is.

Actually, yes. Yes to are preventing me from having arms. Allowing one and preventing another still is preventing arms. The dead give way is the word preventing.

Maybe you read every word, however a lot of people end up thinking from their preconceived ideas on the subject, rather than trying to understand what is actually there.

The militia isn't "light infantry" at all. The militia is a citizen army. You look at rebel groups, which is what the militia would become if it ever had to fight against the US armed forces, and you see that they use all sorts of weaponry. However in the modern era they'd need more than just guns. In the past it was merely the sort of guns that people had for normal use, and that would be handguns for the most part.

No, allowing one and banning another is NOT preventing you from having arms. It is preventing you from having specific arms. However no one has ever argued that individuals be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, SAM missiles, or other such things. There are clearly limits to what arms can be had.

Semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazine is all we need to maintain liberty and freedom. Plus a good semi-automatic sidearm and shottie. Gotta have the shottie.

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

the norm?

What is the norm?

FYI our murder rate is the same as it was in 1950 and is still declining despite the liberal murder capital of Chicago and other high crime cities

and another FYI the murder rate of the UK is the same as ir was in 1950 despite the draconian gun control laws passed in the 60's

The norm is this:

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

The UK murder rate 0.9
France 1.2
Germany 0.9
Austria 0.5
Belgium 1.8
Luxembourg 0.8
Netherlands 0.7
Switzerland 0.5
Australia 1.0
New Zealand 0.9
Italy 0.8
Spain 0.7
Japan 0.3
South Korea 0.7
Canada 1.4

Here is NORMAL for FIRST WORLD countries

The USA 3.9

Yeah, the US's murder rate is 2.1 higher than the next highest, and Belgium's rate was probably high for one year due to some unexpected attack or other, rather than a normal yearly rate. The US's rate is consistently higher than every other first world country, and by a long way. I mean, it's more than double Belgium's rate for this particular year, and is 4 times higher than most.

Yes, the US's murder rate is declining. FYI the murder rates of most countries are declining too. Why? Probably due to modern entertainment. Since the 1990s murder rates have been going down across the board. That doesn't stop the US having a disproportional murder rate, and the difference appears to be guns in society.

The UK's murder might be the same, or even slightly higher than it was in the 1950s. But that doesn't tell me much at all.

BBC - Mark Easton's UK: The history of homicide

"For England, the risk of homicide falls from 1.7 (in the 1840s) to 0.7 (mid-20th Century) and back up again as we approach the present day."

So, the murder rate fell into the modern era, and then has had fluctuations, most recently due to a surge in gun violence that has been tackled and the stats have dropped, the reports in the media have dropped, the crimes have dropped.

Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950–2014

Then again the US murder rate isn't much different.

In 1950 the US murder rate was 4.6, today it's like 3.9. That's a slight fall. US murder rates were more or less steady until the mid 1960s, then rose to a high in 1980 of 10.2 and then began to drop with the 1990s and new entertainment being more available.

What you're trying to claim isn't so. Most countries have seen a similar pattern, but we're still having the US with guns with a higher murder rate in the 1950s and the 1980s and the 2010s. Both saw a doubling in murder rates, both saw a drop. There's only one constant in the whole affair. GUNS.

guns don't cause murder

there are more guns in this country than ever before and the murder rate continues to drop

 

[ding]

I don't have to research racial politics in the South, son. I lived with in in Georgia from 1944 and thereafter. I walked in MLK's funeral procession in 1968 in Atlanta. I seriously doubt if there is anything you can teach me.

Apparently there is.

 

[ding]

Liberty and freedom huh? A murder rate 4 times the norm is what you get with less than that. You'd not get liberty and freedom, but fear and killing.

Ever wondered why the US has the highest murder rate in the first world? And why the Americas are much worse than other continents?

Gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of freedom and liberty. If you are truly concerned about the murder rate with guns, you would be more concerned with inner city violence which is why our murder rate is so high. I'll provide the numbers for you after I get back from work.

Are they? They are to a certain extent, but then again the Brits, the western Europeans, the Canadians, the Australians etc have the same freedom and yet have LESS gun violence and don't have tyrannical govts (well, not any more tyrannical than the US's, in some regardless less tyrannical).

List of freedom indices - Wikipedia

You can see the middle one, Australia is free but the US is "mostly free".

Hmm, and yet less gun violence.

Yes, I'm concerned with inner city violence, it happens in the UK, France and the US, but the rates in the US are higher across the board. In fact the US only have one city above 250,000 people with a murder rate that is lower than the UK's murder rate. ONE CITY.

But it appears you're trying to pass off the fact that the US has a high rate of murder, and you're unwilling to see that the only difference is guns.

Sorry, bruv, gun violence and gun accidents are the price of freedom and liberty.

No, like I've told you, Europe and all other first world countries have as much, if not MORE freedom than the US, yet don't have anywhere near that level of gun violence. It's simply not true what you're saying.

That's your opinion. I don't believe they have more freedom and liberty than we do at all.