The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Daryl Hunt]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Easy to answer.
Go back the the Revolutionary war, and the most massive weapons were cannon.
And who owned all the cannon in the revolutionary war?
It was private individuals.

Private individuals are ALWAYS more trustworthy than public figures because public figures are always working for pay.
That is why the founders were strongly against any large, mercenary, standing military, and instead wanted citizens soldiers.
The wisdom of that is even more obvious now, after war crimes by our own military, like Shock and Awe.

Not only must all weapons the military need be available to average individuals, but it is the military we need to lock up these weapons from.

Very good. Let's look at the times when the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights as well as the US Constitution was written.

Canons were private owned by the Rich. The common person could not afford a canon. That Canon would have fed and clothed his family for years. The Revolutionaries "borrowed" the canons and were expected to return them in good working condition or pay for their replacement after they won. It didn't really matter what year we are talking about. Canons are a rich person weapon. Those canons that are on display in town centers were donated by rich people.

Now, let's take a look at sidearms and longarms. In 1266 (the original 2nd amendment) swords were only owned by Kings and such. They were so expensive that the commoners could ill afford to own one. Yah, I know, in all those moves, you see everyone walking about with one on their hip but that's just the movies. Even in the 1600s when the English Bill of Rights was written. Governments and Rich had swords and such. Pretty much, if you were a private citizen with one, you were sponsored by a rich donor. But the Kings and such kept a supply in Armories in case of war. In case of War, they would meter them out so the new army could be trained, the new army would go to war. If they won, the army wasn't so new (nor so large anymore) and would come home, turn in their weapons and almost any other weapon they picked up (looted) to the armory and head home. If they did keep a sword as booty, they were allowed to take it home. The King knew that they sword wouldn't stay a sword for very long. It would be resmelted into useful things for the farmers and merchants. This is where the saying "Swords to Plowshares" comes from. It has a slightly different meaning today but in the 1600s and back, that's what it meant. The primary weapon of the day was a short bow and a dagger.

Enter the Firearms. Gearing up for the Revolutionary war, General George approached the newly formed Congress and wanted them to purchase a new gun. That gun would be the property of the newly formed America. They fought him tooth and nail. luckily, ol' George was quite persuasive. He got the new guns. The Muskets that the farmers who answered the call were laid aside for this new gun. It was the new gun with rifled barrels. Washington had them in his Armories and go them into the troops hands and got them trained in their uses. All of a sudden, that ragtag bunch of farmers became a fighting force. They went from losing battles to winning battles. Meanwhile, the English had only a handful of the new rifled barreled guns in their entire inventory and none were in the Colonies. The new Rifled Barrels meant that instead of trying to get within 40 yds for a guaranteed kill, you could get that same kill at 100yds and with a special person, it was possible to go out even over 250 yds. Although the British never really took the Colonials that seriously, even if they had I still think with the new weapon, Washington's forces would have prevailed. It was just a baby step in the revolution of guns but an important one. After the war, the newly formed Government didn't release those weapons to the Civilian population. They had the troops turn them in and then they placed them back into armories. The Rifle was still slightly out of reach for the common person. It was still a rich persons toy.

This is why, even into the early 20th century, if the civilian population were to even have a chance to go up against the local government the first thing they had to do was overrun the Armory for the weapons. Their primary weapon of the day was a single shot rifle and a shotgun. The Armory had the bolt actions and the Automatics along with some other nasty little surprises. One incident was made famous. I can't remember the location nor the date but I think at least one of you "Southern Boys" can help out there.

Because of these types of things, the weapons outgrowing mans ability to kill each other, the US had adopted a whole series of laws that ensures that the Federal Military will never be involved in a Civil War again. In order to get to a civil war, logistics and training has to happen and the civilian authorities will break it up long before that. So the US Military doesn't have a role. And the US Military is the ones with the really big, nasty weapons of war meant to combat the other nations with the other big and nasty weapons of war.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again not all gun defensive actions are reported to the police it's not reported if you don't discharge a cartridge. Just showing it will stop a crime from happening.

We are right back to just making up any fantasy number we want to make up. If it's not reported, it's not on the CDC report. Therefore, Kleck just must have dreamed it up. Shoot, I can dream up figures as well. How about 13 instead of 1.1 mil. Makes about as much sense for reporting purposes. And my figure is probably closer to reality. The real number will fall somewhere between 13 and 1.1 mil i would think but there is no way of verifying it. So I stand by my 13 and you can stand by your 1.1 mil. But the math makes more sense at 13.

Prove me wrong? There is no true data for showing gun stop crimes. Showing your gun to prevent crime does happen and will never be reported to the police.

It's impossible to prove a negative. You made the claim, you prove it. I showed where your background information was a lie. Both by experts and mathematically. Now it's up to you to prove your outlandish claim. Prove what you say is correct. I'll give you the 13 or more but I won't give you 1.1 mil much less 2.3 as Kleck claimed. come up with your own cites so I can fact check it. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke up everyone skirt once again.

blah blah blah that was my take away from what you said.
I deal with reality you deal with fantasy that's why you rarely hear about mass shootings or any shootings where there will be someone armed. Do you think someone armed with a knife will approach someone who has a gun?

What you are saying is, you can't prove your lie but I proved it was a lie. Thank you for verifying that.

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

No you're the enemy because your ideology is ignorant we already have gun control laws we also have motor vehicle laws that make it illegal to drive under the influence how does that work out?
Also we have laws making it illegal to sell drugs on the street.

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We are right back to just making up any fantasy number we want to make up. If it's not reported, it's not on the CDC report. Therefore, Kleck just must have dreamed it up. Shoot, I can dream up figures as well. How about 13 instead of 1.1 mil. Makes about as much sense for reporting purposes. And my figure is probably closer to reality. The real number will fall somewhere between 13 and 1.1 mil i would think but there is no way of verifying it. So I stand by my 13 and you can stand by your 1.1 mil. But the math makes more sense at 13.

Prove me wrong? There is no true data for showing gun stop crimes. Showing your gun to prevent crime does happen and will never be reported to the police.

It's impossible to prove a negative. You made the claim, you prove it. I showed where your background information was a lie. Both by experts and mathematically. Now it's up to you to prove your outlandish claim. Prove what you say is correct. I'll give you the 13 or more but I won't give you 1.1 mil much less 2.3 as Kleck claimed. come up with your own cites so I can fact check it. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke up everyone skirt once again.

blah blah blah that was my take away from what you said.
I deal with reality you deal with fantasy that's why you rarely hear about mass shootings or any shootings where there will be someone armed. Do you think someone armed with a knife will approach someone who has a gun?

What you are saying is, you can't prove your lie but I proved it was a lie. Thank you for verifying that.

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

Your figures are a bit off. The actual figure has hovered right around 40 to 44% for decades. Even though the numbers of guns had gone up, the percentage has stayed the same. Know that, repeat your statement.

You aren't taking into account for those who legally make their own firearms

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Prove me wrong? There is no true data for showing gun stop crimes. Showing your gun to prevent crime does happen and will never be reported to the police.

It's impossible to prove a negative. You made the claim, you prove it. I showed where your background information was a lie. Both by experts and mathematically. Now it's up to you to prove your outlandish claim. Prove what you say is correct. I'll give you the 13 or more but I won't give you 1.1 mil much less 2.3 as Kleck claimed. come up with your own cites so I can fact check it. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke up everyone skirt once again.

blah blah blah that was my take away from what you said.
I deal with reality you deal with fantasy that's why you rarely hear about mass shootings or any shootings where there will be someone armed. Do you think someone armed with a knife will approach someone who has a gun?

What you are saying is, you can't prove your lie but I proved it was a lie. Thank you for verifying that.

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

 

[U2Edge]

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

 

[U2Edge]

It's impossible to prove a negative. You made the claim, you prove it. I showed where your background information was a lie. Both by experts and mathematically. Now it's up to you to prove your outlandish claim. Prove what you say is correct. I'll give you the 13 or more but I won't give you 1.1 mil much less 2.3 as Kleck claimed. come up with your own cites so I can fact check it. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke up everyone skirt once again.

blah blah blah that was my take away from what you said.
I deal with reality you deal with fantasy that's why you rarely hear about mass shootings or any shootings where there will be someone armed. Do you think someone armed with a knife will approach someone who has a gun?

What you are saying is, you can't prove your lie but I proved it was a lie. Thank you for verifying that.

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

Simply displaying a gun or pulling out a gun can get you reported. Several people who did not fire a shot were reported last week.

 

[JGalt]

No you're the enemy because your ideology is ignorant we already have gun control laws we also have motor vehicle laws that make it illegal to drive under the influence how does that work out?
Also we have laws making it illegal to sell drugs on the street.

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

First off, 60% of US gun deaths are suicides, so you can discount those. A person intent on killing themself is not going to stop because they don't have access to a firearm. Only 3% are accidental gun deaths.

Putting Gun Death Statistics in Perspective

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia

Secondly, the death by firearms rate in 2014 is not lower than it was in 1977. It was actually higher in 1977, according to CDC statistics. Also keep in mind that the population was only 216,332,000 in 1977, compared to over 325 million today.

Firearm-related deaths rate U.S. 1970-2016 | Statista

Nice try hillbilly, but you can't just go about making up your own facts. That's called "lying."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Again, in 1977 50% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. In 2014, only 31% of U.S. households had a gun in the house. The death by firearms rate in 2014 is lower than it was in 1977.

You don't have to eliminate all possible weapons to substantially reduce the death rate from firearms. You just have to reduce the number of weapons that are out there. That can be done and will reduce the death rate from firearms.

You keep going to your 31% like that was a fact. Fact is, that when the last administration started talking up tighter gun controls and making ammunition harder to obtain,
people woke up. You don't get it or won't admit it....but whatever gets you to sleep at night.
It ain't going to happen, not in your lifetime or even your great-great grandchildren's lifetime.
Especially your ridiculous solution.
Try go Elk hunting with your damn air rifle. Don't be a goofball.

Yep, well they used to say slavery then, slavery now, slavery forever. Slavery has been gone for over 150 years now. Things change. In order to change things you need votes. Only 31% of households have guns today. Their voting power is weakening. Once it gets weak enough, change will come big time.

Its just like with people who smoke. As their numbers declined, their voting power declined. When their voting power declined enough, people were able to put restrictions and bans in place. It will be the same process with guns.

I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

blah blah blah that was my take away from what you said.
I deal with reality you deal with fantasy that's why you rarely hear about mass shootings or any shootings where there will be someone armed. Do you think someone armed with a knife will approach someone who has a gun?

What you are saying is, you can't prove your lie but I proved it was a lie. Thank you for verifying that.

When you prove something I will tell you that you did. Now what I did was force you to lie saying I lied.

Is that all you have to say? Keep trying to dribble that basket ball with no air.

You can't disprove because you can use a gun in self-defense without having to shoot it and if you don't shoot it, it doesn't get reported. but do keep trying

Simply displaying a gun or pulling out a gun can get you reported. Several people who did not fire a shot were reported last week.

Nope if you are deterring a crime.and the attackers turn tail and runs.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'm the enemy because I expressed my opinion for tighter gun control laws in attempt to bring down the huge numbers of deaths and injuries caused by firearms in the United States every year?

I don't think you understand what democracy, liberty and freedom are about if you attack another citizen for simply expressing their opinion on an issue.

No you're the enemy because your ideology is ignorant we already have gun control laws we also have motor vehicle laws that make it illegal to drive under the influence how does that work out?
Also we have laws making it illegal to sell drugs on the street.

Unfortunately, the current gun control laws are not saving enough lives. What I propose will save thousands of lives a year eventually. Tighter Gun control laws have saved many lives in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The United States needs to reduce its death rate from firearms down to levels similar to Western Europe, Canada, and Japan. The United States is the wealthiest country in the world and its intolerable to have the firearm death rate we have, when so many other 1st world developed country's have a much lower rate.

I'm more interested in saving lives than protecting the so called "rights" of the minority gun owning nerds.

No, they haven't. The peaceful culture of European countries before World War 2 kept criminals from murdering people...that has changed.....so will their violent crime rate, just ask the Swedes...

We have the gun murder rate because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail, over and over.

You don't want to save lives.....you want more victims of crime....Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, stopping rapes, robberies and murders...that is according to research by the Centers for Disease Control....

If someone wants to kill you, the fact that you have a gun is unlikely to save you. That's because the attacker gets to pick things like TIME, PLACE, the position you'll be in, the position the attacker will be in, before taking the first shot.

There for, the best way to save you from being murdered by a firearm is to make them unavailable to the attacker.

That is incredibly foolish because it obviously is impossible to eliminate all possible weapons.
Millions of weapons not only already exist in the hands of criminals, but they can easily make then from scratch if they wanted to.
Clearly the ONLY thing that actually prevents any crimes is the threat of instant retaliation.
And only an armed population can do that.
Reducing arms not only ensures a vast increase in crime, but also ensures the ordinary decay of government, through corruption, is greatly accelerated.
It totally violates the general principle of a democratic republic, to attempt to disarm the population while the government elite remain armed.
That is totally backwards.
It is the people who are supposed to be armed, while the hired public servants are supposed to remain unarmed unless needed.

Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

 

[Kondor3]

... I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Shotguns and air rifles are EXACTLY what the Tyrant wants to limit to his subjects.

.

Why do you need something more than a shotgun or an Air Rifle?

Again, citizens aren't required to justify the exercising of a fundamental right.

How about a machine gun then? A grenade launcher? An Anti-Tank Guided Weapon? A Tank? A Howitzer? Where do you draw the line on this so called "Fundamental right"?

There is nothing in the second amendment that says you need more than a shotgun or Air Rifle. Both are more accurate and deadly than anything available in the late 18th century.

Shoot someone with an air rifle and all you will do is piss them off so that they shove that air rifle up your ass. With you, it would not meet much resistance as you have been playing wide receiver for years!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

... I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

OK Mr. Chump change how many more are their of me that did exactly what I have done made firearms and gave to family members?

 

[Kondor3]

...Not all guns need to be removed. Just those that are causing the most body counts. It's called "Common Sense" which little is used in this discussion. One side says "Get rid of them all" and the other side says "You can't take my Toys". It's more like two adjoining monkey cages throwing feces at each other.

Hell, you want your assault rifle? Go ahead and keep it - once you jump through the new hoops required by new law that will eventually unfold. One per customer.

 

[TNHarley]

...Let's restrict free speech like that...

Free speech does not kill... guns do.

Cars do. Let's do all of this for getting a car. Or a knife, alcohol etc.
My point stands. Your attempt at pussification is dismissed.
Freedom isnt free.

 

[Kondor3]

... I have guns that I have made and gave them to family they are not on any gun stats records I can assure you their are many more firearm owners in America than you think.

Chump-change (statistically insignificant) compared to the overall inventory now in private hands.

OK Mr. Chump change how many more are their of me that did exactly what I have done made firearms and gave to family members?

Doesn't matter. It could be a thousand, and it would still be chump-change... a flea... a gnat... a speck... a pimple... a nothing-burger.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well, with that logic, we should not have any laws because supposedly the rich and famous can just circumvent them and that is not fair to the poor. Sorry, the country, society, needs laws regardless of what you think the rich are capable of.

We have laws you dickless turd: The Bill of Rights, and I have the right to bear arms without your punk ass infringing on it with your faggot bitch ass rules.

Only well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

The founders were extremely clear that they considered everyone part of the well regulated militia.
Remember there were NO police back then at all, and the military was supposed to be citizens soldiers, which included some women even.

But it is impossible to read the Bill of Rights at all and get anything except that it was entirely and completely a ban on any and all federal jurisdiction.
Whether or not weapons are an individual right is far more clear from the 4th and 5th amendments.
But the 2nd amendment absolutely forbids any federal weapons laws at all, in any way, shape, or form.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong.

All governments have the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with the Second Amendment, including the Federal government.

If you read the 2nd as it was intended for the day, it was meant to limit the Federal Government. Now, with that in mind, reread it.

 

[Kondor3]

...Let's restrict free speech like that...

Free speech does not kill... guns do.

Cars do. Let's do all of this for getting a car. Or a knife, alcohol etc.
My point stands. Your attempt at pussification is dismissed.
Freedom isnt free.

Irrelevant. Nationwide gun control is coming... if not this next election, the one beyond, or the one beyond that... it's now inevitable... we've crossed the Rubicon.