The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Rigby5]

...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.

Crossing the Rubicon means a battle is inevitable, but not that you will win.
You think it is all just a game about votes.
But it isn't.
Even if you get the votes, the first raid will likely result in a murder, so then people will be forced to pick sides.
And all the people with guns, including most of the police, will be against you.
You will lose.
Remember that I warned you.

 

[Rustic]

No, drugs tend to make people relaxed, happy, and complacent.
It is the War on Drugs that causes murders.

Look at the statistics.

The last time we had a peak like we do now, what Prohibition of Alcohol.
And it caused a massive murder spike for the same reason.
Once you make something illegal that people do not believe should be illegal, its use increases.
There are higher profits, more sellers, etc., but they also can not use banks or call police.
So there are more turf wars, thefts, murders, etc.
The estimates are that 90% of the US murders are due to the War on Drugs.

Then by the same logic, prohibitions on firearms would also cause a spike in the rate of shootings, just as the prohibition on alcohol and drugs caused a spike in bootlegging, gang activity, and drug use and sales.

True?

Yes, most likely.
Any government imposed, arbitrary prohibition is always guaranteed to fail.
It just increases the Black Market, while destroying the credibility of the current government.
Gun control is just evil or incredibly stupid.
It can not possibly ever do any good at all.

Australia gun buyback cut gun deaths nearly in half.

UK's approach resulted in no more than 60 gun deaths per year in a population of 56 million.

Japan has only 10 gun deaths per year across 127 million people.

Norway has a 3rd of the guns per person as the US, but just 1/10th of the gun deaths.

That is just a total lie.
ARs are responsible for less than 100 deaths a year.
Almost all the gun deaths are from pistols, like 99%.
And almost all these deaths actually are due to the War on Drugs, that prevents the use of banks or the police, and causes large sums of cash to accumulate.

Since so few guns are used in crimes, it is impossible to reduce the number of guns in the hand of criminals, by passing more laws that will only effect the honest people.

Lol
Did you read the post?

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

Nonsense.
The MAIN purposes of the citizens bearing arms it hunting, self defense, and crime prevention.
The well regulated militia is WAY down the list.
The only reason why the 2nd amendment mention the militia is that the states asked for that to be included, not that individuals care that much about the militia.

But you totally misunderstand the meaning of the word "regulated".
When the constitution gives the authority to the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, did that means to restrict or control it? Of course not. It meant to keep it regular and moving, to prevent some state from blocking it up.
The word "regular" means to facilitate.
The point of " a well regulated militia being necessary for a free state" meant that you can't have federal gun restrictions or else then when the states need to call up a militia, no one will have arms or know how to use them.
Keeping the militia well regulated means ensuring the general population is armed, practiced, and ready to go at any time.

 

[Rigby5]

... 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.

oh it matters because it adds an unknown number

Once effective gun-control unfolds ( weapons classifications, licensing-by-class, registration, training, national databases, etc. ) the home-made stuff will have to be registered.

Once it's inspected for compliance with national gun-safety standards, that is, and, of course, if you're caught with an un-registered one, you get crucified at dawn.

That is committing the crime of ex post facto legislation.
It is not legal and the courts won't allow it since there are so many tens of millions of them.

{...
An ex post facto law (corrupted from Latin: ex postfacto, lit. 'out of the aftermath') is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
...
Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 (with respect to federal laws) and Article 1, Section 10 (with respect to state laws).
...}
Ex post facto law - Wikipedia

That which was legal can not later be prosecuted.
It is illegal to confiscate all the tens of millions of assault weapons out there already, legally.
And it can never be illegal to build your own firearms.

 

[Rigby5]

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

And those legally made weapons MUST be registered with the ATF just the same as Remington or Colt. So, no, I didn't leave them out.

Wrong.
Government only can license and register the SALE of firearms, not their manufacture or possession.
Colt and Remmington do NOT register all their firearms, such as test samples, etc.
They ONLY register the ones they intend to sell.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

 

[Rigby5]

Then by the same logic, prohibitions on firearms would also cause a spike in the rate of shootings, just as the prohibition on alcohol and drugs caused a spike in bootlegging, gang activity, and drug use and sales.

True?

Yes, most likely.
Any government imposed, arbitrary prohibition is always guaranteed to fail.
It just increases the Black Market, while destroying the credibility of the current government.
Gun control is just evil or incredibly stupid.
It can not possibly ever do any good at all.

Australia gun buyback cut gun deaths nearly in half.

UK's approach resulted in no more than 60 gun deaths per year in a population of 56 million.

Japan has only 10 gun deaths per year across 127 million people.

Norway has a 3rd of the guns per person as the US, but just 1/10th of the gun deaths.

That is just a total lie.
ARs are responsible for less than 100 deaths a year.
Almost all the gun deaths are from pistols, like 99%.
And almost all these deaths actually are due to the War on Drugs, that prevents the use of banks or the police, and causes large sums of cash to accumulate.

Since so few guns are used in crimes, it is impossible to reduce the number of guns in the hand of criminals, by passing more laws that will only effect the honest people.

Lol
Did you read the post?

Sorry, I was in too much of a hurry to read the last line that said, "Pic unrelated."
So I assume the evil thing was something else.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Except that the lowest murder rates are before Prohibition, when the gun ownership rate was much higher than now.
It is obvious that the highest murder rates were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and have nothing at all to do with the ownership rates.

I will admit that during Prohibition, the gun homicide rates were slightly higher than before. In fact, they were almost exactly as they are now hovering right at 9.2 per 100K. But gun ownership was actually lower prior to prohibition and today was much lower. I can only speculate on the percentage of guns owned per capita since there are no real records. So my claim is as valid as any one else's. But it makes sense. Guns weren't that important to society at the time. The primary gun in the homes were shotguns and single shot rifles. Handguns were rare as they had almost no practical use and were just an added expense for the average person. Handguns didn't really effectively put meat on the table like shotguns and long guns. In fact, I doubt if the number of guns even came close per capita even in the prohibition than it does today. You can make all kinds of claims to that effect but there are no records to back it up either way until 1934.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

...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.

Nope, are not going to be any new gun laws.
The ex post facto concept prevents any new laws from effecting anyone, and with over 30 million assault weapons out there now, there is never going to be an Assault Weapons Ban.

There already are in 7 states and a bunch of Counties and Cities. And it looks like more are on the way. The States and below have the legal right to heavily regulate (notice, I didn't say ban) the AR into non existence.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Ok, I will agree with the theory that you don't have to remove all guns, and that you just want to concentrate on the guns in the hand of the evil criminals.
But the government has never done anything about the guns in the hands of criminals, and instead has always tried to only target the least expensive, or the most popular guns in the hands of honest people.
Like the Assault Weapons Ban. That is not a weapon used by criminals at all, and is the 95% most popular of all the firearms owned by honest people.

And no, gun owners are not saying "You can't take my toys".
They are saying the world is a crazy and dangerous place, where we not only need firearms, but have had to use them to stay alive several times already.
And in a world where the BATF murdered so many people at Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc., as well as the military massacring Iraqi civilians, then anyone not armed is insane and irresponsible.

Keep throwing that Feces.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Go blow a goat

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Sorry, but the Constitution says otherwise.

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

Nukes are munitions, not arms.

Try again

 

[JBond]

The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

In order to purchase a firearm, an individual must do the following:

01. Attend three month class on firearms

02. Pass a written test when the class has been completed

03. Achieve at least 95% accuracy during a shooting-range test

04. Pass a Mental Health evaluation at a hospital

05. Pass a background check in which the government digs into their criminal record

06. Pass a background check involving interviews with friends and family

07. Only shotguns and Air Rifles may be purchased, no handguns

08. New magazines can only be purchased by trading in empty ones

09. When a gun owner dies, their relatives must surrender the deceased members firearms

10. Every three years, the individual must pass the above tests and investigations

Curious about those that don't give a fuck. You know... criminals.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

No, you got it wrong.

The lowering price of firearms from 1500 on is what ended the monarchies.
It is what made average individuals equal to the best trained soldiers.
The result was French and American Revolutions, which would otherwise not have been possible.
Firearms equate to democracy and individual rights.

And no, Washington had it wrong and wanted smooth bore muskets because they had a more rapid rate of fire, due to quicker reloads.

{...
Brown Bess
The "Brown Bess" muzzleloading smoothbore musket was one of the most commonly used weapons in the American Revolution. While this was a British weapon, it was used heavily by the revolutionary patriots. The musket was used to fire a single shot ball, or a cluster style shot which fired multiple projectiles giving the weapon a "shotgun" effect. There were two variations of the Brown Bess: the Short Land Pattern and the Long Land Pattern. The Short Land was shorter, less bulky, less heavy than the Long Land. Most American fighters implemented the Long Land Pattern.[1]

Charleville musket
Large numbers of Charleville Model 1763 and 1766 muskets were imported into the United States from France during the American Revolution, due in large part to the influence of Marquis de Lafayette.[6] The Charleville 1766 heavily influenced the design of the Springfield Musket of 1795.

American-made muskets
Many muskets were produced locally by various gunsmiths in the colonies, often reusing parts from other weapons. These are known as "Committee of Safety" muskets, as they were funded by the fledgling local government. Because of the need to produce as many weapons as quick as possible, and also out of fear of prosecution by the British government, many of the muskets did not bear a maker's mark. Some were simply marked as property of a state, or "US," or U:STATES," or "UNITED STATES." [2]

Long rifles
Long rifles were an American design of the 18th century, produced by individual German gunsmiths in Pennsylvania. Based on the Jäger rifle,[3] long rifles, known as "Pennsylvania Rifles", were used by snipers and light infantry throughout the Revolutionary War. The grooved barrel increased the range and accuracy by spinning a snugly fitted ball, giving an accurate range of 300 yards compared to 100 yards for smoothbore muskets. Drawbacks included the low rate of fire due to the complicated reloading process, the impossibility to fit it with a bayonet, the high cost, and lack of standardization that required extensive training with a particular rifle for a soldier to realize the weapon's full potential. Due to the drawbacks, George Washington argued for a limited role of rifles in the Colonial military, while Congress was more enthusiastic and authorized the raising of several companies of riflemen.[4] Long rifles played a significant part in the battles of Saratoga and New Orleans, where rifle units picked off officers to disrupt British command and control, but required support by units armed with smoothbore muskets or by artillery to prevent the riflemen from being overrun.
...}

List of infantry weapons in the American Revolution - Wikipedia

Most of the Revolutionary war was won with captured muskets or domestic Kentucky Long Rifles make and owned by civilians.

Whether expensive or not, clearly the whole democratic republic is greatly enhanced by an armed population.

I quoted American History. You quote Wiki. If you believe the Americans needed the English to make guns, you would be wrong. America had it's premiere gun makers all along. Plus the foundries and materials. The Kentucky Rifle (misleading name as it was produced in Pennsylvania) was ALL American. At the beginning of the war, both sides used British flintlocks. The British stuck with their Brown Bess while the French started providing the Americans with the French Charleville musket which loaded faster than the brown bess. But the Kentucky Rifle was only used for sniping as it was too slow to reload, too long and just not suited for open fuild use. But in the hands of a sharp shooter, it was good out to as much as 300 yds meaning it was even out past the range of the canons. The Kentucky Rifle had nothing to do with Kentucky at all and wasn't something that anyone brought from home.

 

[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

No, it is easy to disprove the claim there are not many defensive uses of firearms because we have other methods that don't require people reporting it.
We can conduct polls randomly, by telephone, or through selected groups.
We can conduct surveys at prisons, asking convicted criminals how often they were prevented by someone armed.
We can take the 1.1 million successful violent crimes each years, and extrapolate that there are about 3 to 4 failed attempts for every successful one.
We can use anecdotal experiences, such as I personally prevent a crime every 15 years or so, and would not have been able to do that unless armed.
Etc.

Some calls my house asking about guns I don't own any guns kills your argument

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Except that the lowest murder rates are before Prohibition, when the gun ownership rate was much higher than now.
It is obvious that the highest murder rates were caused by Prohibition and the War on Drugs, and have nothing at all to do with the ownership rates.

I will admit that during Prohibition, the gun homicide rates were slightly higher than before. In fact, they were almost exactly as they are now hovering right at 9.2 per 100K. But gun ownership was actually lower prior to prohibition and today was much lower. I can only speculate on the percentage of guns owned per capita since there are no real records. So my claim is as valid as any one else's. But it makes sense. Guns weren't that important to society at the time. The primary gun in the homes were shotguns and single shot rifles. Handguns were rare as they had almost no practical use and were just an added expense for the average person. Handguns didn't really effectively put meat on the table like shotguns and long guns. In fact, I doubt if the number of guns even came close per capita even in the prohibition than it does today. You can make all kinds of claims to that effect but there are no records to back it up either way until 1934.

I don't think so.

First of all, the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture back then, and did not live in cities. Therefore they would have no police, telephones, or automobiles. So then guns were essentially ubiquitous. I know this from direct discussions with relatives who were alive back then.
And what estimates I have seen from others, historic accounts, etc., all tend to agree that all households had the obligatory shotgun or rifle over the fireplace mantle, as well as more firearms for hunting and defense.
I have been in discussion with my parents who claim that elementary school students would take firearms with the to school, so that the might have the opportunity shoot dinner on the way home. The turn of the century was very poor on the farm in this country.
Guns were not only extremely important, but vital.
There was likely hardly a single family without at least one firearm.
The other means of verification that most US families were rural and armed, comes from stories of WWI, where the vast majority of US soldiers were already very familiar with firearms, and that is why they did so well in WWI. The Sargent York stories.
There is no way anyone would have lived in rural USA without a phone or car, and not be armed.
In fact, there were not even any significant number of police around the turn of the century.
And I think you are wrong about the number of pistols because anyone riding a horse would be much better off with a pistol than a bulky rifle.

 

[Rigby5]

And by the way, notice that not only are Prohibition and the War on Drugs the main causes of the spikes in murders, but the end of the War on Drug spike was caused by a relaxation in allowing more civilians to be armed with concealed carry.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

The purpose of citizens bearing arms is to facilitate a well-regulated militia... gun-control will merely regulate the milita (at-large), well.

well regulated as expected in working order.
Not Congress shall regulate

A mere matter of interpretation.... convenient for rationalizing and enforcing nationwide gun-control law at the Federal level.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

I think you need to start talking about the Constitution since the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it was printed on in a court of law.

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

 

[Rigby5]

...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.

Nope, are not going to be any new gun laws.
The ex post facto concept prevents any new laws from effecting anyone, and with over 30 million assault weapons out there now, there is never going to be an Assault Weapons Ban.

There already are in 7 states and a bunch of Counties and Cities. And it looks like more are on the way. The States and below have the legal right to heavily regulate (notice, I didn't say ban) the AR into non existence.

I don't see how that can be legal?
First of all you can not make illegal what was legal and done in good faith.
Second is there is no logical or scientific basis for any AR ban, since it is not an exception weapon in any way.
Third is that it violates the 4th and 5th amendment to destroy businesses without compensation.
Forth is that people are not going to stand for it.
At the first confiscation attempt, there will be blood.
And those with ARs are going to win, not only because they are in greater number and better armed, but because the police and military will not cooperate with draconian gun control laws.

And you should not be on the wrong side like this either.
In the 1960s, I am proud to say that my main accomplishment was getting guns to Civil Rights groups so that KKK chapters could not just murder them all. They still kill some of them, like the 3 Freedom Riders, but few after the hundreds of defensive guns I was able to help provide. MLK Jr. was done from a distance, so defensive weapons could not save him.

Murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner - Wikipedia

{...
The murders of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner, also known as the Freedom Summer murders, the Mississippi civil rights workers' murders or the Mississippi Burning murders, involved three activists who were abducted and murdered in Neshoba County, Mississippi in June 1964 during the Civil Rights Movement. The victims were James Chaney from Meridian, Mississippi, and Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner from New York City. All three were associated with the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) and its member organization the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). They had been working with the Freedom Summer campaign by attempting to register African Americans in Mississippi to vote. This registration effort was a part of contesting over 70 years of laws and practices that supported a systematic policy, begun by several states in 1890, of disenfranchisement of potential black voters.

The three men had traveled from Meridian, Mississippi, to the community of Longdale to talk with congregation members at a church that had been burned. The trio was thereafter arrested following a traffic stop outside Philadelphia, Mississippi for speeding, escorted to the local jail and held for a number of hours.[1] As the three left town in their car, they were followed by law enforcement and others. Before leaving Neshoba County their car was pulled over and all three were abducted, driven to another location, and shot at close range. The three men's bodies were then transported to an earthen dam where they were buried.[1]

The disappearance of the three men was initially investigated as a missing persons case. The civil rights workers' burnt-out car was found near a swamp three days after their disappearance.[2][3] An extensive search of the area was conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), local and state authorities, and four hundred United States Navy sailors.[4] The three men's bodies were only discovered two months later thanks to a tip-off. During the investigation it emerged that members of the local White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, the Neshoba County Sheriff's Office and the Philadelphia, Mississippi Police Department were involved in the incident.[1]

The murder of the activists sparked national outrage and an extensive federal investigation, filed as Mississippi Burning(MIBURN), which later became the title of a 1988 film loosely based on the events. After the state government refused to prosecute, in 1967 the United States federal government charged 18 individuals with civil rights violations. Seven were convicted and received relatively minor sentences for their actions. Outrage over the activists' disappearances helped gain passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5]

Forty-one years after the murders took place, one perpetrator, Edgar Ray Killen, was charged by the state of Mississippi for his part in the crimes. In 2005 he was convicted of three counts of manslaughter and was serving a 60 year sentence.[6] On June 20, 2016, federal and state authorities officially closed the case and dispensed with the possibility of further prosecution. Killen died in prison in January 2018.
...}