CDZ Why are anti gunners so open all of a sudden about banning guns?

[JoeB131]

They couldn't have conceived of the internet either. Or radio or television. All of that would have been, as you say, science fiction to them.

And we have sensible regulations to run those things.

NEXT!!!!

You obviously didn't read Heller, just like the other anti gunners...you see the out of context quote from Scalia, and think it means you can regulate guns out of existence as long as you don't erase the 2nd Amendment on the original document.....

I could care less what Scalia thought. The day that guy took a dirt nap, the world was better off for it.

 

[Flash]

[
The entire "study" failed every standard

So you aren't complaining that the 43:1 number was wrong (it wasn't), you are complaining they should have counted "other' stuff, like all the times people scared other people with guns.

So, okay, do we want to also count all the times an abusive family member threatened his family with a gun?

That's not what was counted here. What was counted was.

Total number of deaths by gun

SUicides+ Domestic Murder + Accidents : Times someone was killed in self defense.

and it came out to 43:1.

Here's an easier way to validate that number.

Every year we have 32,000 gun deaths.

But the FBI only records 200 gun deaths that were justified self-defense by civilians.

If you take away the suicides and the accidents the great majority of the gun violence in this country is done in the Democrat control big cites that already have strict gun control laws. No amount of additional regulations will ever change that.

For instance, banning AR-15 magazine capacity just like Vermont is doing now will not effect .the number of people that get killed every day in Chicago where they have Parkland like numbers of gun deaths every weekend.

Taking away Constitutional rights from the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country will do nothing to stop gun violence in the ghetto, drug infested and gang dominated areas of this country where most of the gun violence takes places.

All it does is diminish our Liberty and that is a despicable deterioration of our Constitutional rights. .

 

[JoeB131]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was clear—it was to protect against government tyranny, foreign or domestic. The gun owning population of the United States is the largest standing army in the world. We'll never be invaded for that reason. That means the 2nd amendment is doing exactly what the FF intended it to do, and the citizenry keeping up with military weaponry—at least to the extent that it applies to single person, individual firepower—is exactly what they intended in order to accomplish that purpose.

No, buddy, we'll never be invaded because we have nukes.

I don't feel any safer because Billy Bob and Cleetus done have them some guns in case Al Qaeda shows up. They usually end up shooting some poor Sikh because they can't tell the difference.

Also, obviously no one wants kids to die in school shootings, but the number of kids who do amounts to statistical noise. The number of people killed by ALL long guns in the US every year is around 500.

Okay, you see, the thing is, that's more homicides than most industrialized countries have by ANY METHOD.

So, this isn't about saving lives. It's about virtue signaling from the rank and file and stripping the population of all guns from the leadership.

No, guy, it's because a lot of us are just sick and tired of how your very small minority of gun fetishists are holding the rest of us hostage.

When every school and workplace has to be built with security from an active shooter in mind, where we all have to carry key card to get from place to place so the management can lock us in place when Billy Bob goes on his shooting rampage, we aren't "Free".

And if the shoe were on the other foot, you better believe that the left would absolutely and in all seriousness be calling the right racist for focusing so much on banning weapons that kill a handful of white suburban kids every year while ignoring the guns that thousands of black teenagers and young adults shoot each other with in inner cities every weekend. Literally every weekend. You could have a march every week for those black kids, but it rarely happens, and curiously very, very few people admit that they want to ban handguns, which kill more (largely black) people by at least 2 x one order of magnitude than all rifles put together.

YOu might have a point here. We only care about gun violence when it is a lot of white kids all being killed by a white kid all at once.

But like any problem, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Mass shootings are a squeaky wheel, because they do get more attention than a shooting in an inner city.

The real problem, we've become so numb to gun violence that it doesn't even rate. 33,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries a year, we've accepted this as 'normal". A mass shooting shocks us because it is so horrific.

 

[JoeB131]

If you take away the suicides and the accidents the great majority of the gun violence in this country is done in the Democrat control big cites that already have strict gun control laws. No amount of additional regulations will ever change that.

I'm sorry, which "Strict gun control" laws are those? In Illinois, we have concealed carry that we didn't ask for, and the gun murder rate spiked.

most gun homicides are people shooting people they know.

Taking away Constitutional rights from the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country will do nothing to stop gun violence in the ghetto, drug infested and gang dominated areas of this country where most of the gun violence takes places.

I'm equal opportunity, I want to disarm the gang bangers and the rednecks...

 

[Skull Pilot]

It would also be Constitutional, unlike our current gun laws.

That arsenal was owned by the citizens of Lexington and did contain private arms in addition to the munitions of the Militia. They were not property of the Town, the Colony, or the Crown.

If it wasn't a government facility, why weren't those guns kept in people's homes, which is what you nutters are claiming.

So if we use your "logic" in regards to the second amendment and apply it to the first then the only type of written speech that is protected by the first amendment is that which was written with quill and ink on parchment.

Okay, you know they had printing presses in 1776. I'm sure they didn't cover that in your Home school.

As for other kinds of speech, they ARE regulated. That's why I can't set up my rogue Radio Station that plays Pink Floyd Music 24/7. First, I'd have to get permission, from the government, to use a certain frequency. Then I'd have to pay the people who have the legal copyright to Pink Floyd's music. See, buddy, they change the regulation to reflect the technology. And a good thing, too, or you'd be changing music formats on your car every other mile depending whose transmitter you were near.

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban all guns no one will ever get murdered again

I'd be good with Japan and their 4 gun murders a year, yeah.

Printing presses were few and far between and books were expensive and this forum is more akin to letter writing than printing

But then again cogent analogies are beyond you

 

[Skull Pilot]

[
The entire "study" failed every standard

So you aren't complaining that the 43:1 number was wrong (it wasn't), you are complaining they should have counted "other' stuff, like all the times people scared other people with guns.

So, okay, do we want to also count all the times an abusive family member threatened his family with a gun?

That's not what was counted here. What was counted was.

Total number of deaths by gun

SUicides+ Domestic Murder + Accidents : Times someone was killed in self defense.

and it came out to 43:1.

Here's an easier way to validate that number.

Every year we have 32,000 gun deaths.

But the FBI only records 200 gun deaths that were justified self-defense by civilians.

If you take away the suicides and the accidents the great majority of the gun violence in this country is done in the Democrat control big cites that already have strict gun control laws. No amount of additional regulations will ever change that.

For instance, banning AR-15 magazine capacity just like Vermont is doing now will not effect .the number of people that get killed every day in Chicago where they have Parkland like numbers of gun deaths every weekend.

Taking away Constitutional rights from the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country will do nothing to stop gun violence in the ghetto, drug infested and gang dominated areas of this country where most of the gun violence takes places.

All it does is diminish our Liberty and that is a despicable deterioration of our Constitutional rights. .

You don't understand

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban guns no one will ever get killed again

and since he's going to deny saying that I'll post the quote

CDZ - Guns, Culture & Politics

 

[JoeB131]

Printing presses were few and far between and books were expensive and this forum is more akin to letter writing than printing

But then again cogent analogies are beyond you

I thought I hit it pretty much right on the head, if you didn't understand the point, that's on you. I could explain it again and you still wouldn't get it.

You don't understand

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban guns no one will ever get killed again

and since he's going to deny saying that I'll post the quote

so Context is one of those notions you don't get, either.

Tomorrow, we will discuss Colors and Shapes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Printing presses were few and far between and books were expensive and this forum is more akin to letter writing than printing

But then again cogent analogies are beyond you

I thought I hit it pretty much right on the head, if you didn't understand the point, that's on you. I could explain it again and you still wouldn't get it.

You don't understand

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban guns no one will ever get killed again

and since he's going to deny saying that I'll post the quote

so Context is one of those notions you don't get, either.

Tomorrow, we will discuss Colors and Shapes.

I know your context.

You are a simplistic moron so everything you say is simplistic and moronic

 

[Flash]

[
The entire "study" failed every standard

So you aren't complaining that the 43:1 number was wrong (it wasn't), you are complaining they should have counted "other' stuff, like all the times people scared other people with guns.

So, okay, do we want to also count all the times an abusive family member threatened his family with a gun?

That's not what was counted here. What was counted was.

Total number of deaths by gun

SUicides+ Domestic Murder + Accidents : Times someone was killed in self defense.

and it came out to 43:1.

Here's an easier way to validate that number.

Every year we have 32,000 gun deaths.

But the FBI only records 200 gun deaths that were justified self-defense by civilians.

If you take away the suicides and the accidents the great majority of the gun violence in this country is done in the Democrat control big cites that already have strict gun control laws. No amount of additional regulations will ever change that.

For instance, banning AR-15 magazine capacity just like Vermont is doing now will not effect .the number of people that get killed every day in Chicago where they have Parkland like numbers of gun deaths every weekend.

Taking away Constitutional rights from the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country will do nothing to stop gun violence in the ghetto, drug infested and gang dominated areas of this country where most of the gun violence takes places.

All it does is diminish our Liberty and that is a despicable deterioration of our Constitutional rights. .

You don't understand

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban guns no one will ever get killed again

and since he's going to deny saying that I'll post the quote

CDZ - Guns, Culture & Politics

I understand that Joe Blowardhard is afraid of White men with guns.

The agenda of the extreme Left is not to curtail firearm violence because the people that would be affected by the regulations are not the ones committing the violence. The ones doing the violence right now will ignore the gun regulations.

The agenda of the extreme Left is to stop all potential opposition to their agenda to make this country a socialist shithole. The Constitution stands in the way of that. Especially that pesky Second Amendment. White men with guns protecting the Constitution scares the hell out of the Left.

It use to be that racism was the root of gun control. Nowadays it is the Left fear of the Right's opposition making the US Socialistic.

 

[Flash]

If you take away the suicides and the accidents the great majority of the gun violence in this country is done in the Democrat control big cites that already have strict gun control laws. No amount of additional regulations will ever change that.

I'm sorry, which "Strict gun control" laws are those? In Illinois, we have concealed carry that we didn't ask for, and the gun murder rate spiked.

most gun homicides are people shooting people they know.

Taking away Constitutional rights from the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in this country will do nothing to stop gun violence in the ghetto, drug infested and gang dominated areas of this country where most of the gun violence takes places.

I'm equal opportunity, I want to disarm the gang bangers and the rednecks...

Yes, like the ghetto guy shooting his drug dealer.

These tremendous number of gun crimes in the ghetto areas of the US among gang members, crooks, Druggies etc may involve shooting people they know but new gun regulations won't stop that. In fact nothing will stop that inbreed cultural violence.

 

[thewanderer]

They couldn't have conceived of the internet either. Or radio or television. All of that would have been, as you say, science fiction to them.

And we have sensible regulations to run those things.

NEXT!!!!

You obviously didn't read Heller, just like the other anti gunners...you see the out of context quote from Scalia, and think it means you can regulate guns out of existence as long as you don't erase the 2nd Amendment on the original document.....

I could care less what Scalia thought. The day that guy took a dirt nap, the world was better off for it.

Surely you realize if your argument is that we have regulations that govern those forms of communication, that's going to be my rebuttal. We already have gun regulations. NEXT!

And there's nothing "sensible" about banning a weapon that kills almost no one in the country. That's obviously not a rational regulation.

 

[thewanderer]

"No, buddy, we'll never be invaded because we have nukes."

Everybody has nukes. Everybody that might invade, anyway. That isn't likely to be a factor. No one is going to vote for mutually assured destruction, and if they were crazy enough to do so they wouldn't bother invading...they'd just hit the button. Besides, that ignores that the purpose was to protect against government tyranny, both foreign AND domestic.

"Okay, you see, the thing is, that's more homicides than most industrialized countries have by ANY METHOD."

Those aren't all homicides. Some of them are accidents, some are suicides. And you're wrong. 500 people out of 320 million is more than most industrialized countries? Read what I wrote again. My point is that you guys are all charged up to ban a type of weapon that hardly kills anyone. It's not a reasonable position at all.

"No, guy, it's because a lot of us are just sick and tired of how your very small minority of gun fetishists are holding the rest of us hostage."

In case you haven't noticed, the United States was set up to protect the rights of minorities. We were never intended to be, never have been, and hopefully never will be a democracy. We are a constitutional representative republic, and that's 100 times better than a democracy. Why? Because a democracy is simply mob rule. If we were a pure democracy black people probably STILL wouldn't have equal rights in this country...they damn sure wouldn't have gotten them recognized in the mid 1960s, because a majority of the country would have been "sick and tired of the race fetishists wanted to hold the rest of them hostage." The 2nd amendment recognizes the right of citizens to bear arms. If you don't like that, you can campaign to repeal the amendment, I guess (won't happen), or you can leave. But don't whine about protecting minority rights—that's one of the greatest things about this country.

"When every school and workplace has to be built with security from an active shooter in mind, where we all have to carry key card to get from place to place so the management can lock us in place when Billy Bob goes on his shooting rampage, we aren't "Free"."

I'm amazed at people who think that banning guns in a country in which there are already over 300 million of them would actually keep them out of the hands of people who would murder others with them. That's simply irrational. Not to mention that we share a border with a 3rd world country, a border that SOME PEOPLE refuse to control, and all sorts of contraband, including human slaves, gets brought up over that border to satisfy black market demand for all sorts of stuff. Sex slaves, drugs, etc., and even if you rounded up all 300 million guns in the US and melted every single one of them down, Mexico would simply add illegal guns to the menu. And Democrats would still refuse to control the border, and up through Me-hi-co they would come.

"But like any problem, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Mass shootings are a squeaky wheel, because they do get more attention than a shooting in an inner city."

But that's the entire problem. People are not reacting to this stuff rationally. They're taking the bait of sensationalism and knee-jerking and saying and doing some irrational stuff.

"The real problem, we've become so numb to gun violence that it doesn't even rate. 33,000 gun deaths and 70,000 gun injuries a year, we've accepted this as 'normal". A mass shooting shocks us because it is so horrific."

We're much more numb to those other things I listed. Which is why we don't march against swimming pools, or for that matter, processed food. Big Food kills far, far more people every year than guns.

You're right...a mass shooting is sensationalistic and graphic and it's not something most of us have experienced (in contrast to swimming pools and Hostess Ding Dongs). It's like a shark attack. But watching the news after an attack we forget that almost no one gets bitten every year.

 

[2aguy]

It would also be Constitutional, unlike our current gun laws.

That arsenal was owned by the citizens of Lexington and did contain private arms in addition to the munitions of the Militia. They were not property of the Town, the Colony, or the Crown.

If it wasn't a government facility, why weren't those guns kept in people's homes, which is what you nutters are claiming.

So if we use your "logic" in regards to the second amendment and apply it to the first then the only type of written speech that is protected by the first amendment is that which was written with quill and ink on parchment.

Okay, you know they had printing presses in 1776. I'm sure they didn't cover that in your Home school.

As for other kinds of speech, they ARE regulated. That's why I can't set up my rogue Radio Station that plays Pink Floyd Music 24/7. First, I'd have to get permission, from the government, to use a certain frequency. Then I'd have to pay the people who have the legal copyright to Pink Floyd's music. See, buddy, they change the regulation to reflect the technology. And a good thing, too, or you'd be changing music formats on your car every other mile depending whose transmitter you were near.

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban all guns no one will ever get murdered again

I'd be good with Japan and their 4 gun murders a year, yeah.

It wasn't their guns...it was the communal gun powder stores that the British were after......every militia member had to bring a rifle, and so much of their own powder and shot when called, the rest would be from the communal store.

 

[2aguy]

It would also be Constitutional, unlike our current gun laws.

That arsenal was owned by the citizens of Lexington and did contain private arms in addition to the munitions of the Militia. They were not property of the Town, the Colony, or the Crown.

If it wasn't a government facility, why weren't those guns kept in people's homes, which is what you nutters are claiming.

So if we use your "logic" in regards to the second amendment and apply it to the first then the only type of written speech that is protected by the first amendment is that which was written with quill and ink on parchment.

Okay, you know they had printing presses in 1776. I'm sure they didn't cover that in your Home school.

As for other kinds of speech, they ARE regulated. That's why I can't set up my rogue Radio Station that plays Pink Floyd Music 24/7. First, I'd have to get permission, from the government, to use a certain frequency. Then I'd have to pay the people who have the legal copyright to Pink Floyd's music. See, buddy, they change the regulation to reflect the technology. And a good thing, too, or you'd be changing music formats on your car every other mile depending whose transmitter you were near.

Joe Blowhard thinks if we ban all guns no one will ever get murdered again

I'd be good with Japan and their 4 gun murders a year, yeah.

I'd be good with Japan and their 4 gun murders a year, yeah.

Then you need to adopt Japanese culture, the Japanese police state, the ability of police to search you whenever, where ever and for what ever reason they want, and not talk back or cause them trouble, and you have to accept if you are arrested you will confess to your crime. The Japanese make stop and frisk seem like a pat on the shoulder......

Then, where I can agree with this....when we actually catch a gun criminal...someone using a gun for an actual crime, rape, robber and murder.....we need to lock them up for 30 years.....no more democrats letting them out on bail, parole or out in under 3 years.......that is how Japan stopped their Yakuza from using guns and grenades when they almost went to war again a few years ago.....

 

[2aguy]

It's a bad thing because the bad guys will out-gun YOU. You moron.

Okay, one more time.

Other countries have banned guns and they really don't have a problem with being "outgunned" by the bad guys.

33,000 gun deaths a year, and very few of them are 'bad guys", I'd say the bad guys are already winning.

Those countries are reaching the point where the criminals are no longer respecting the police....so yes, those police are going to be outgunned...and considering, Joe...that both the British and Australia police forces are now considering arming more of their police (Britain) and giving them AR-15 civilian rifles (Australia) you don't know what you are talking about...

And here is the truth about the 33,000 gun deaths.....most from suicide, a tiny number from accidents, the majority from criminals that democrats keep letting out of jail...

Leading Causes of Death | WISQARS | Injury Center | CDC

2016
Gun suicide

22,938


========================

Gun Accidental death.....
2016:
495
==================

Gun murder ( 70-80% of the victims of gun murder are actual criminals, not law abiding people)

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8


2016--

11,004
=======================

Suicide
...even though Japan, Korea, China, all have absolute gun control for law abiding citizens...only criminals and cops can have guns.......and they have higher suicide rates than we do....and our non-gun suicide rate has been higher than our gun suicide rate for 2 years in a row.....

Suicide rates Europe v. United States

Main tables - Eurostat

May, 2014

France....14.13

Finland...14.55

Poland....15.51

Belgium....17.28

Austria....15.26


U.S.....13.00


Gun Accidental Death...

Gun accidents....in a country with over 320,000,000 people...... with 400,000,000 guns in private hands, and over 15,700,000 people carrying guns for self defense..... 495 accidental gun deaths....

Gun murder
Of the 11,004 gun murders in this country, 70-80% of the victims are criminals, engaged in criminal activity or part of the criminal life style....and of the remaining victims....many of them are friends and family of the criminal...caught up in the criminal's lifestyle.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

Had gun ownership been widespread among targeted victim groups, the brown shirts could not have intimidated them into compliance, much like the klan was stopped when blacks were able to keep guns.

Wow, this is dumb.

First, gun ownership was very prevelant amongst the German people.

Second, most of the "targeted victim groups" were countries that Germany defeated militarily. Poland got the worst of it Of course, most of these countries were happy to hand over their Jews because, hey, nobody in Europe really liked the Jews. It's the whole rational behind Zionism, which is making sure no one in the Middle East likes them, either.

Third- they had the kind of uprising you fantasize about in the Warsaw Ghetto.. and they killed a whole whopping 17 Germans before 56,000 of them were killed or sent off to the camps.

Fourth, the only thing that stopped the Klan was government intervention.


The irony is, when blacks arm themselves, white people suddenly LOVE, LOVE, LOVE them some gun control.

First, gun ownership was very prevelant amongst the German people.

Yes....among nazi party members.....the Jews and the political enemies of the nazis were disarmed using the gun registration lists created in the 1920s.

Second, most of the "targeted victim groups" were countries that Germany defeated militarily. Poland got the worst of it Of course, most of these countries were happy to hand over their Jews because, hey, nobody in Europe really liked the Jews. It's the whole rational behind Zionism, which is making sure no one in the Middle East likes them, either.

The populations of the European countries Germany defeated were unarmed...facing brutal occupation....the only country that wasn't invaded...Switzerland, where they had 435,000 civilians armed with military rifles and who were prepared to fight the Germans when they invaded..no invasion happened, no Swiss were sent to death camps...




Opinion | Alan Steinweis’s bad history

Well, the point of the Uprising wasn’t to save the lives of the participants; they knew that they were almost certain to die to no matter what. They tied down Nazi forces for over fourth months — whereas the French and Polish armies had been unable to resist the Nazi invaders for even two months.
-------


Aggressive use of the Wiemar and the 1938 statutes was not the only form of Nazi gun control. The first years of the Nazi regime were dedicated toGleichschaltung (“forcing into line”) — to suppress any aspect of civil society which might offer resistance. That is why the Nazis required that every gun club and every hunting club submit to the supervision of a Nazi political officer. Some clubs disbanded rather than comply.

Pointing out that Jews constituted less than one percent of the German population, Professor Steinweis says that “It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of Germans…Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis…” But that is the point! Using gun licensing and gun registration laws enacted by a democratic government, the Nazis by 1938 had disarmed everyone who was not a certified supporter of the regime. Once everyone except the pro-Nazis was disarmed, only the German Officer Corps had the ability to overthrow Hitler, and they did not choose to act. The point of the Second Amendment, as Dr. Carson rightly said, is that obstructing tyranny should not hang on the fragile thread of military good will.



===========






Third- they had the kind of uprising you fantasize about in the Warsaw Ghetto.. and they killed a whole whopping 17 Germans before 56,000 of them were killed or sent off to the camps.

The Warsaw Ghetto uprising......had they actually been as well armed as the Swiss, had all the peoples in Europe been as well armed as the Swiss, the Germans could never have held the territory they captured......that is what armed citizens do...they discourage aggression...

There were 13,000 Jews killed in the uprising...unarmed......if those 13,000 had rifles, the outcome would have been a lot worse for the Germans.....and had that taken place in every country......World War 2 would have been very different...


A German force was tiny compared to 50,000 Jews.....and yet because they were unarmed...that tiny German force was able to destroy them...

By his own words, Stroop reported that after he took command on 19 April 1943 the forces at his disposal totaled 31 officers and 1,262 men:[51]

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Wikipedia


Marek Edelman, who was the only surviving uprising commander from the left-wing ŻOB, stated that the ŻOB had 220 fighters and each was armed with a handgun, grenades, and Molotov cocktails. His organization had three rifles in each area, as well as two land mines and one submachine gun.[20][21][22][23] Due to its socialist leanings, the Soviets promoted the actions of ŻOB as the dominant or only party in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, a view often adopted by secondary sources in the West.[18]

----

Death toll[edit]

Stroop Report original caption: "Bandits jump to escape capture." A man leaps to his death from the top story window of an apartment block. Taken at 23 and 25 Niska Street[67]

Plaque commemorating Home Armysoldiers - Eugeniusz Morawski ps. "Młodek" and Józef Wilk ps. "Orlik" killed during the Ghetto Action on the wall Church of St. John of God at ul. Bonifraterska 12 in Warsaw.
13,000 Jews were killed in the ghetto during the uprising (some 6,000 among them were burnt alive or died from smoke inhalation). Of the remaining 50,000 residents, most were captured and shipped to concentration and extermination camps, in particular to Treblinka.

Jürgen Stroop's internal SS daily report for Friedrich Krüger, written on 16 May 1943, stated:

180 Jews, bandits and sub-humans, were destroyed. The former Jewish quarter of Warsaw is no longer in existence. The large-scale action was terminated at 20:15 hours by blowing up the Warsaw Synagogue. ... Total number of Jews dealt with 56,065, including both Jews caught and Jews whose extermination can be proved. ... Apart from 8 buildings (police barracks, hospital, and accommodations for housing working-parties) the former Ghetto is completely destroyed. Only the dividing walls are left standing where no explosions were carried out.[42]

According to the casualty lists in Stroop's report, German forces suffered a total of 110 casualties – 17 dead (of whom 16 were killed in action) and 93 injured – of whom 101 are listed by name, including over 60 members of the Waffen-SS. These figures did not include Jewish collaborators, but did include the "Trawniki men" and Polish police under his command. The real number of German losses, however, may be well higher (the Germans suffered about 300 casualties by Edelman's estimate). For propaganda purposes, the official announcement claimed the German casualties to be only a few wounded, while propaganda bulletins of the Polish Underground State announced that hundreds of occupiers had been killed in the fighting.

 

[oldsoul]

Criminals, by definition, don't care about the laws, and therefore will carry/use what ever weapon they choose. With that in mind, and the FACT that humans have the right to self-defense, we must allow people the ability to protect their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

If no one is manufacturing them, they can't choose them.

And a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the household than a bad guy.

Every single time a government has oppressed a group of people, the first thing they did was dis-arm them, thus leaving them powerless to defend themselves.

That's a nice little cliche, but it's just not true. The Nazis, for instance, loosened the gun laws in Germany. And not one good German ever showed up to resist them. When Goldstein got sent to the camp to explore new career opportunities as a lampshade, the Good Germans did nothing.

Of the dozens of Cold War era scenarios that the USSR drew up for invading the US, not one included going through Texas. Texas has a history of defending itself with force ("Remember the Alamo!"). Texas also has a very high rate of private gun ownership. Coincidence? You decide.

The USSR never wanted to invade the US, period. Next.

So, are you a racist? Or maybe you are a Soviet sympathiser? Or a criminal? No? Then why, pray tell, would you wish for people to be unable to defend themselves?

Because gun nuts scare me a lot more than a communist does.

Because my next door neighbor shot wildly into the parking lot of the complex I live in (possibly hitting myself or one of my neighbors) before he offed himself a few weeks later.

Because other democracies have banned guns, they have less crime, less murder, and are more peaceful.

And generally, because you guys have made no effort to ever comprimise or be reasonable, so there's no reason our side should be when we win.

Let me look at each of these separately.

And a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone in the household than a bad guy.

According to who? Cite your source so that I may evaluate it and determine for myself it's validity. Should go without saying.

That's a nice little cliche, but it's just not true. The Nazis, for instance, loosened the gun laws in Germany.

Um, really? So the Jewish population WAS allowed to have guns, AND use them to defend themselves? Again, cite your source, as I assume, given the time that has elapsed that you were not there.

The USSR never wanted to invade the US, period. Next.

Someone begs to differ I think:

"By contrast, the documents released by the former Warsaw states reveal that the Soviet Union believed that nuclear weapons would be used to shape the overall battlefield. The traditional metrics of warfighting—namely, defeating the enemy’s forces and occupying his territory— would determine the outcome of the war.

As one Czech scholar, Petr Lunak, explains, “Contrary to the U.S. doctrine of massive retaliation, the Soviet bloc's response would have made use not only of nuclear weapons, but, in view of Soviet conventional superiority, also of conventional weapons. This massive retaliation, in the Soviet view, did not make planning beyond it irrelevant. Contrary to Western planners of the time, Soviet strategists assumed that their massive strike would only create the conditions for winning the war by the classic method of seizing enemy territory.”" The Soviet Union's Insane Plan to Crush NATO in Battle

Because gun nuts scare me a lot more than a communist does.

Well, "nuts" scare me too. Unstable people should not have weapons of any kind. Your statement seems to infer that most, if not all, gun owners are "nuts" though. Therefore I request elaboration on what, exactly, you mean here.

Because my next door neighbor shot wildly into the parking lot of the complex I live in (possibly hitting myself or one of my neighbors) before he offed himself a few weeks later.

So, because your, obviously, unstable neighbor did a bad thing, I should have my rights infringed? Why? Because you got scared? This is exactly why MORE people need to be armed. Imagine if you will, that 90% of your neighbors were armed, and even one of them confronted this guy, immediately after the shooting started. Or, heaven forbide, you actually knew your neighbors well enough to realise this guy was a threat, and DID something about it.

Because other democracies have banned guns, they have less crime, less murder, and are more peaceful.

You have got to be kidding me. Find one study that shows this to be true and I will show you a study that is unscientific at best.

And generally, because you guys have made no effort to ever comprimise or be reasonable, so there's no reason our side should be when we win.

Seriously? are you just plain dumb or are you really that indoctrinated? How many "gun control" bills have been signed into law in the last 240 years? And you have the unmitigated gaul to say we have not compromised? Well, I guess maybe it comes down to the definition of the word:

Compromise: accept standards that are lower than is desirable.

Nope, 2nd advocates sure haven't done that.

 

[oldsoul]

um sorry yourself Joe.....what you said had nothing to do with what i said,did it?....did dean teach you how to dance around questions you dont want to answer?..

I've answered your question pretty effectively. I'm done.

I cannot find anything historically to back up your claim. The first gun control law to be overturned while referencing the 2nd Amendment happened in 1846 concerning a handgun ban in Georgia. The ruling stated:

You are forgetting subsequent rulings like US v. Miller, which clearly stated that the 2nd gives the government the power to regulate guns.

Here's the problem, if you said "Gun" to one of the guys who wrote the constitution, he'd be thinking of THIS

View attachment 185850

fires maybe three rounds per minute in the hands of a highly trained user. Effective firing range of about 50 yards. Certainly not the weapon that you could murder a school full of children with, and back int hose days, a school was a little red school house with maybe 10 kids in it.


Now we have THIS- The AR-15, can fire up to 45 rounds a minute, maximum effective range of 420 meters.

View attachment 185851

YOu really can't say, "Well, the founding fathers thought..." It doesn't matter what they thought, weapons like this would have been science fiction to them.

Of course they could have also thought of this:

When you said gun.
Or this:

Maybe this:

Or perhaps something similar to this:

Point is, did they envision our modern weapons? Of course not. Did they have arms that were far more devastating than a Kentucky Long Rifle? Um, yes, and they knew how dangerous they could be too. Some may have even owned/carried something like one of these:

 

[JoeB131]

I understand that Joe Blowardhard is afraid of White men with guns.

Naw, I'm afraid of crazy people who shoot children..

The agenda of the extreme Left is to stop all potential opposition to their agenda to make this country a socialist shithole. The Constitution stands in the way of that. Especially that pesky Second Amendment. White men with guns protecting the Constitution scares the hell out of the Left.

If you guys cared about the constitution, you'd have never supported Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course they could have also thought of this:

Sorry, few of that kind of weapon was owned privately...

But nice try.