The Right To Bear Arms

[Markle]

Just for the record***************

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -

As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws. The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover. Finally, it came out.

Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.

CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT
06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz

[...]

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

[...]

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not

One huge problem. I keep seeing this being cited over and over. yet the only time anyone has shown a url to it lead to a "Page not Found". It doesn't exist. It's made up. Find me the original CDC report and then I can discuss it with you. Until then, it's just a lot of people just making shit up.

If you've seen it frequently cited, and you question its authenticity, why not find it yourself? My guess is that you've already found it and just refuse to acknowledge the fact.

 

[Markle]

Just for the record***************

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to post this proving you are wrong and for others to enjoy!

CONVICTED MURDERER FATALLY SHOT DURING HOME INVASION (VIDEO)
02/15/19 9:30 AM | by Chris Eger

A North Carolina man with an extensive criminal record was slain as he and two others reportedly tried to rob an area home.

Convicted murderer fatally shot by resident during home invasion (VIDEO)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it amends this: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

So, the Union's government cannot infringe on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the Union?

The Federal Government must NOT stop itself from having an army of the people?

Why the FUCK did the founders feel it necessary to protect the federal government from itself?


Your argument is WRONG and STUPID.

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Just for the record***************

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -

As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws. The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover. Finally, it came out.

Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.

CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT
06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz

[...]

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

[...]

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not

One huge problem. I keep seeing this being cited over and over. yet the only time anyone has shown a url to it lead to a "Page not Found". It doesn't exist. It's made up. Find me the original CDC report and then I can discuss it with you. Until then, it's just a lot of people just making shit up.

If you've seen it frequently cited, and you question its authenticity, why not find it yourself? My guess is that you've already found it and just refuse to acknowledge the fact.

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

 

[Rigby5]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.

 

[Rigby5]

Just for the record***************

Can anyone produce evidence where a person was being robbed or threatened in some way and the person being threatened had a firearm which this person used to defend himself or herself-?

Just ONE example will do.

Just asking -

As you know, the CDC did a study with the intention of using it to bring about more gun laws. The actual results went contrary to their initial beliefs so it was kept under cover. Finally, it came out.

Please watingfromafar, show me what is NOT true.

CDC RELEASES STUDY ON GUN VIOLENCE: DEFENSIVE GUN USE COMMON, MASS SHOOTINGS NOT
06/27/13 7:31 AM | by Jennifer Cruz

[...]

Yet the study also looked at the effect of having firearms available for self-defense, and found that firearms are much more likely to be used in a defensive manner rather than for criminal or violent activity.

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

It was also discovered that when guns are used in self-defense the victims consistently have lower injury rates than those who are unarmed, even compared with those who used other forms of self-defense.

The study admitted that the results of interventions for reducing gun violence have been mixed, including strategies such as background checks and restriction of certain types of firearms, as well as having stricter penalties for illegal gun use. However, the study did reveal that “unauthorized gun possession or use is associated with higher rates of firearm violence than legal possession of guns.” In other words, law-breaking criminals are the ones most responsible for gun violence, not law-abiding citizens.

The study also looked at the source of guns used by most criminals, which helps to see partly why “there is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective.”

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possessed by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

[...]

CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not

One huge problem. I keep seeing this being cited over and over. yet the only time anyone has shown a url to it lead to a "Page not Found". It doesn't exist. It's made up. Find me the original CDC report and then I can discuss it with you. Until then, it's just a lot of people just making shit up.

If you've seen it frequently cited, and you question its authenticity, why not find it yourself? My guess is that you've already found it and just refuse to acknowledge the fact.

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

This article seems to prove such a CDC study did not and could not exist.

Spending Bill Lets CDC Study Gun Violence; But Researchers Are Skeptical It Will Help

 

[Lesh]

I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.

Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.

Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.

I own several

 

[Lesh]

This article seems to prove such a CDC study did not and could not exist.



Spending Bill Lets CDC Study Gun Violence; But Researchers Are Skeptical It Will Help

But researchers who study gun violence are unimpressed.


"There's no funding. There's no agreement to provide funding. There isn't even encouragement. No big questions get answered, and there's nothing here, yet, of significance for the research community," says Dr. Garen Wintemute, a well-known expert on gun violence and a professor of emergency medicine at the University of California, Davis.

"I'm not particularly optimistic that anything will change," says Daniel Webster, a researcher at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

 

[Lesh]

That is because, back in 1996, Congress passed something called the Dickey Amendment. It said that none of the funds given to the CDC for injury prevention could be used to advocate for or promote gun control. The law came along with a cut in funding that delivered a powerful message: Pursue research on hot-button questions about guns and face the wrath of lawmakers who control the agency's funding.


"At a time when we were just beginning to do good science around how to protect ourselves and better understand the risk and the benefit from owning and using firearms, language was put on the federal budget which had a chilling effect and, in effect, stopped research dead in its tracks," says Dr. Georges Benjamin, who is the executive director of the American Public Health Association.

Jay Dickey, the Arkansas Republican and former lawmaker whom the federal amendment is named for, later told NPR that he regretted it. "It wasn't necessary that all research stop," Dickey explained. "It just couldn't be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control. That's all we were talking about. But for some reason, it just stopped altogether."

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it amends this: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

So, the Union's government cannot infringe on the right of the militia to keep and bear arms for the Union?

The Federal Government must NOT stop itself from having an army of the people?

Why the FUCK did the founders feel it necessary to protect the federal government from itself?


Your argument is WRONG and STUPID.

.

making up arguments and claiming you are right only works in right wing fantasy.

otherwise, all you have is an appeal to ignorance. why not read our Constitution, first.

 

[watchingfromafar]

If you've seen it frequently cited, and you question its authenticity, why not find it yourself?

I thought you were the expert & I was hoping you could reach down into your archives and post it here. It seems I was wrong, you are just parroting a one-liner talking point with no substance.

My guess is that you've already found it and just refuse to acknowledge the fact.

Yes, your honesty is finally showing; you are “guessing”

-

 

[watchingfromafar]

And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense

And yet you cannot provide one instance where someone used an AR to defend themselves or their family; not one.

 

[Blues Man]

And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense

And yet you cannot provide one instance where someone used an AR to defend themselves or their family; not one.

Here's 8

8 Times Law-Abiding Citizens Saved Lives With an AR-15

 

[Pilot1]

I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.

Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.

Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.

I own several

Yes, I hunt with an AR, but that is NOT the reason for the 2A, never was about hunting. Read, learn, and educate yourself.

 

[Blues Man]

That is because, back in 1996, Congress passed something called the Dickey Amendment. It said that none of the funds given to the CDC for injury prevention could be used to advocate for or promote gun control. The law came along with a cut in funding that delivered a powerful message: Pursue research on hot-button questions about guns and face the wrath of lawmakers who control the agency's funding.


"At a time when we were just beginning to do good science around how to protect ourselves and better understand the risk and the benefit from owning and using firearms, language was put on the federal budget which had a chilling effect and, in effect, stopped research dead in its tracks," says Dr. Georges Benjamin, who is the executive director of the American Public Health Association.

Jay Dickey, the Arkansas Republican and former lawmaker whom the federal amendment is named for, later told NPR that he regretted it. "It wasn't necessary that all research stop," Dickey explained. "It just couldn't be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control. That's all we were talking about. But for some reason, it just stopped altogether."

The CDC was never banned from doing gun research and any Congress after the Dickey amendment was passed could have voted to fund a CDC study

They just chose not too and then lied about the reason why

 

[sealybobo]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?

One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.

Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?

 

[Rigby5]

I will hunt until I die, Leave me and my guns alone. I've almost perfected venison jerky.

Don't tell me you hunt with an AR.

Hunting weapons are fine...as long as they are properly registered and background checks performed.

I own several

An AR really is too weak for a clean kill that you want for hunting. An AR is only good for small things like rabbits or coyotes.
But hunting is not the main purpose of weapons. They are mainly for home defense and anti crime, including criminal governments.

 

[Rigby5]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?

One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.

Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?

Yes.
If the government starts building Ironman suits, it would essential for all responsible adults to also have them.
It is basic to a democratic republic, where the government is only supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people.
That means government is never supposed to ever be able to have more power than the people, or be able to intimidate or force them.
And in fact, the 14th amendment requires that if government has something, that then all people must have the same equal access and treatment under the law.

Government must always be OF the people and never OVER the people.
That is basic to any democratic republic, and is why the founders wanted NO standing military, and instead only gave the federal government the ability to call up a militia of citizen soldiers.
It was wrong to change that basic safety.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Here's 8

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again