Why Gun Control is Bullshit

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was browsing the Internet when I found this thread. Some of the posts are so absurd, I felt it worthwhile to join and chime in.

I am referring to the fellow dressed in a clown suit (I think) calling himself "JoeBlow" or something?


Anyway....
There is proof that in countries where gun control is very strict (UK and Australia) there are more assaults and robberies than in the US...by a large margin

Most gun crimes here in the US are gang related or suicides.

Not sure where anyone could logically come to the conclusion that passing a lot of new laws or even confiscating ALL guns will make anyone safer. Laws don't change a persons true colors. And criminals don't need guns to be violent or dangerous. Without guns they'll just hack people up or beat them with bats or slice them with knives. Heck, CARS kill 1000 times more people. Should we focus on getting the Car Control issue resolved first and save a far larger number of people?

Yes, this is 2013, not 1776 and the movement of illegal arms across borders is easier than ever. How have drug wars and drug czars stopped the flow of drugs into the country?
They haven't is the point. And neither will gun laws. In fact, criminals can now PRINT plastic guns at home.

Even if by some magic ALL guns were gone today, they would begin to flow at a rapid pace across the borders and back into criminal hands.

Perhaps as Liberals create these massive "gun free Zones" around themselves, a lot more of them will die and eventually their numbers will be thinned through their own choices. New York, CT, CO and CA....join DC and Chicago as murder capitals of the world. Lots of Liberals dying.

Gun control just doesn't work in 2013 apparently.

What about ex prosecutors and judges. Sometimes targets of criminal violence. Let's say your aging mother was a judge. Do you really want her to be without an efficient means of self defense? If so, SHAME on you. So many people are saved by guns. It just doesn't make the MSM.

I do have a few disgustingly liberal friends and even they have begun to come around after seeing the massive corruption that's finally revealing itself in the government and IRS. One who WAS very similar in attitude to JB has finally agreed that owning handguns is really not that bad. He just had to stop garbage mouthing and be quiet long enough to think. That's really ALL it took.

People should spend less time hyperventilating and more time thinking.

Thanks for chiming in and sharing your ignorance.

Some gun control measures are reasonable and appropriate and others are not; it’s the role of the courts to make that determine in accordance with current case law.

To advocate a given gun control measure is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment.’

The Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that there are reasonable restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, that is beyond dispute – the only question now is determining which laws are Constitutional and which are not.

And in the context of the Second Amendment debate, no one has advocated firearms be comprehensively ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated,’ including ‘liberals.’ Indeed, liberals have acknowledged post-Heller/McDonald jurisprudence as settled and accepted law, recognizing the individual’s right to own a firearm.

 

[asaratis]

I was browsing the Internet when I found this thread. Some of the posts are so absurd, I felt it worthwhile to join and chime in.

I am referring to the fellow dressed in a clown suit (I think) calling himself "JoeBlow" or something?


Anyway....
There is proof that in countries where gun control is very strict (UK and Australia) there are more assaults and robberies than in the US...by a large margin

Most gun crimes here in the US are gang related or suicides.

Not sure where anyone could logically come to the conclusion that passing a lot of new laws or even confiscating ALL guns will make anyone safer. Laws don't change a persons true colors. And criminals don't need guns to be violent or dangerous. Without guns they'll just hack people up or beat them with bats or slice them with knives. Heck, CARS kill 1000 times more people. Should we focus on getting the Car Control issue resolved first and save a far larger number of people?

Yes, this is 2013, not 1776 and the movement of illegal arms across borders is easier than ever. How have drug wars and drug czars stopped the flow of drugs into the country?
They haven't is the point. And neither will gun laws. In fact, criminals can now PRINT plastic guns at home.

Even if by some magic ALL guns were gone today, they would begin to flow at a rapid pace across the borders and back into criminal hands.

Perhaps as Liberals create these massive "gun free Zones" around themselves, a lot more of them will die and eventually their numbers will be thinned through their own choices. New York, CT, CO and CA....join DC and Chicago as murder capitals of the world. Lots of Liberals dying.

Gun control just doesn't work in 2013 apparently.

What about ex prosecutors and judges. Sometimes targets of criminal violence. Let's say your aging mother was a judge. Do you really want her to be without an efficient means of self defense? If so, SHAME on you. So many people are saved by guns. It just doesn't make the MSM.

I do have a few disgustingly liberal friends and even they have begun to come around after seeing the massive corruption that's finally revealing itself in the government and IRS. One who WAS very similar in attitude to JB has finally agreed that owning handguns is really not that bad. He just had to stop garbage mouthing and be quiet long enough to think. That's really ALL it took.

People should spend less time hyperventilating and more time thinking.

I agree that gun laws(and many others) do not affect criminals. They will get what they want whether it is illegal to do so or not.

Where I'm from, judges and prosecutors can carry guns. Of the judges I know, two of them for sure are packing heat under their robes while in court. I doubt they have to give them up when they leave the bench....good old boy shit...don't you know.

 

[asaratis]

I was browsing the Internet when I found this thread. Some of the posts are so absurd, I felt it worthwhile to join and chime in.

I am referring to the fellow dressed in a clown suit (I think) calling himself "JoeBlow" or something?


Anyway....
There is proof that in countries where gun control is very strict (UK and Australia) there are more assaults and robberies than in the US...by a large margin

Most gun crimes here in the US are gang related or suicides.

Not sure where anyone could logically come to the conclusion that passing a lot of new laws or even confiscating ALL guns will make anyone safer. Laws don't change a persons true colors. And criminals don't need guns to be violent or dangerous. Without guns they'll just hack people up or beat them with bats or slice them with knives. Heck, CARS kill 1000 times more people. Should we focus on getting the Car Control issue resolved first and save a far larger number of people?

Yes, this is 2013, not 1776 and the movement of illegal arms across borders is easier than ever. How have drug wars and drug czars stopped the flow of drugs into the country?
They haven't is the point. And neither will gun laws. In fact, criminals can now PRINT plastic guns at home.

Even if by some magic ALL guns were gone today, they would begin to flow at a rapid pace across the borders and back into criminal hands.

Perhaps as Liberals create these massive "gun free Zones" around themselves, a lot more of them will die and eventually their numbers will be thinned through their own choices. New York, CT, CO and CA....join DC and Chicago as murder capitals of the world. Lots of Liberals dying.

Gun control just doesn't work in 2013 apparently.

What about ex prosecutors and judges. Sometimes targets of criminal violence. Let's say your aging mother was a judge. Do you really want her to be without an efficient means of self defense? If so, SHAME on you. So many people are saved by guns. It just doesn't make the MSM.

I do have a few disgustingly liberal friends and even they have begun to come around after seeing the massive corruption that's finally revealing itself in the government and IRS. One who WAS very similar in attitude to JB has finally agreed that owning handguns is really not that bad. He just had to stop garbage mouthing and be quiet long enough to think. That's really ALL it took.

People should spend less time hyperventilating and more time thinking.

Thanks for chiming in and sharing your ignorance.

Some gun control measures are reasonable and appropriate and others are not; it’s the role of the courts to make that determine in accordance with current case law.

To advocate a given gun control measure is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment.’

The Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that there are reasonable restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, that is beyond dispute – the only question now is determining which laws are Constitutional and which are not.

And in the context of the Second Amendment debate, no one has advocated firearms be comprehensively ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated,’ including ‘liberals.’ Indeed, liberals have acknowledged post-Heller/McDonald jurisprudence as settled and accepted law, recognizing the individual’s right to own a firearm.

Yo, Einstein! Many criminals are prohibited by law from legally owning or possessing firearms. They still manage to get them....despite all the laws on the books already. Passing more laws that infringe on everybody's right to legally own whatever weapons and ammo they want is totally useless...and unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I was browsing the Internet when I found this thread. Some of the posts are so absurd, I felt it worthwhile to join and chime in.

I am referring to the fellow dressed in a clown suit (I think) calling himself "JoeBlow" or something?


Anyway....
There is proof that in countries where gun control is very strict (UK and Australia) there are more assaults and robberies than in the US...by a large margin

Most gun crimes here in the US are gang related or suicides.

Not sure where anyone could logically come to the conclusion that passing a lot of new laws or even confiscating ALL guns will make anyone safer. Laws don't change a persons true colors. And criminals don't need guns to be violent or dangerous. Without guns they'll just hack people up or beat them with bats or slice them with knives. Heck, CARS kill 1000 times more people. Should we focus on getting the Car Control issue resolved first and save a far larger number of people?

Yes, this is 2013, not 1776 and the movement of illegal arms across borders is easier than ever. How have drug wars and drug czars stopped the flow of drugs into the country?
They haven't is the point. And neither will gun laws. In fact, criminals can now PRINT plastic guns at home.

Even if by some magic ALL guns were gone today, they would begin to flow at a rapid pace across the borders and back into criminal hands.

Perhaps as Liberals create these massive "gun free Zones" around themselves, a lot more of them will die and eventually their numbers will be thinned through their own choices. New York, CT, CO and CA....join DC and Chicago as murder capitals of the world. Lots of Liberals dying.

Gun control just doesn't work in 2013 apparently.

What about ex prosecutors and judges. Sometimes targets of criminal violence. Let's say your aging mother was a judge. Do you really want her to be without an efficient means of self defense? If so, SHAME on you. So many people are saved by guns. It just doesn't make the MSM.

I do have a few disgustingly liberal friends and even they have begun to come around after seeing the massive corruption that's finally revealing itself in the government and IRS. One who WAS very similar in attitude to JB has finally agreed that owning handguns is really not that bad. He just had to stop garbage mouthing and be quiet long enough to think. That's really ALL it took.

People should spend less time hyperventilating and more time thinking.

Thanks for chiming in and sharing your ignorance.

Some gun control measures are reasonable and appropriate and others are not; it’s the role of the courts to make that determine in accordance with current case law.

To advocate a given gun control measure is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment.’

The Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that there are reasonable restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, that is beyond dispute – the only question now is determining which laws are Constitutional and which are not.

And in the context of the Second Amendment debate, no one has advocated firearms be comprehensively ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated,’ including ‘liberals.’ Indeed, liberals have acknowledged post-Heller/McDonald jurisprudence as settled and accepted law, recognizing the individual’s right to own a firearm.

Yo, Einstein! Many criminals are prohibited by law from legally owning or possessing firearms. They still manage to get them....despite all the laws on the books already. Passing more laws that infringe on everybody's right to legally own whatever weapons and ammo they want is totally useless...and unconstitutional.

Such as?

Tell us what laws you ‘think’ are un-Constitutional and cite the case law in support.

 

[asaratis]

Thanks for chiming in and sharing your ignorance.

Some gun control measures are reasonable and appropriate and others are not; it’s the role of the courts to make that determine in accordance with current case law.

To advocate a given gun control measure is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment.’

The Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that there are reasonable restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, that is beyond dispute – the only question now is determining which laws are Constitutional and which are not.

And in the context of the Second Amendment debate, no one has advocated firearms be comprehensively ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated,’ including ‘liberals.’ Indeed, liberals have acknowledged post-Heller/McDonald jurisprudence as settled and accepted law, recognizing the individual’s right to own a firearm.

Yo, Einstein! Many criminals are prohibited by law from legally owning or possessing firearms. They still manage to get them....despite all the laws on the books already. Passing more laws that infringe on everybody's right to legally own whatever weapons and ammo they want is totally useless...and unconstitutional.

Such as?

Tell us what laws you ‘think’ are un-Constitutional and cite the case law in support.

ANY laws that...^^^^^^^.

You can read all about it in the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yo, Einstein! Many criminals are prohibited by law from legally owning or possessing firearms. They still manage to get them....despite all the laws on the books already. Passing more laws that infringe on everybody's right to legally own whatever weapons and ammo they want is totally useless...and unconstitutional.

Such as?

Tell us what laws you ‘think’ are un-Constitutional and cite the case law in support.

ANY laws that...^^^^^^^.

You can read all about it in the Constitution.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Tell us what laws you consider to be un-Constitutional and cite the case law in support.

We’ve already established the fact that certain restrictions are Constitutional, and that indeed the Second Amendment does not allow the possession of absolutely any type of weapon:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Clearly, therefore, there is no ‘right’ for persons to “own whatever weapons and ammo they want.”

 

[asaratis]

Such as?

Tell us what laws you ‘think’ are un-Constitutional and cite the case law in support.

ANY laws that...^^^^^^^.

You can read all about it in the Constitution.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Tell us what laws you consider to be un-Constitutional and cite the case law in support.

We’ve already established the fact that certain restrictions are Constitutional, and that indeed the Second Amendment does not allow the possession of absolutely any type of weapon:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Clearly, therefore, there is no ‘right’ for persons to “own whatever weapons and ammo they want.”

Of course it makes sense. You are misreading what I say. Don't get all bent out of shape on semantics.

Concealed carry is legal for law abiding citizens that have permits. Many states have a "shall issue" law that allows ALL law abiding citizens of age to obtain a carry permit. I have one in my pocket at all times. I don't carry at all times because there are places I go that do not allow it...even with a permit. Since I abide by all laws of which I am aware (with exception of occasional speeding), I do not attempt to carry into those places...such as a movie theater or any establishment that posts a NO WEAPONS ALLOWED sign, airports, courthouses, school campuses, etc.


By "whatever weapons and ammo" I mean those HAND CARRIED weapons that are similar (or identical) to those carried by our military. Other weapons, such as fully automatic handguns and rifles, machine guns, cannons and the like...are legal if the owner has the proper paperwork.

 

[jgarden]

Poll: Crime drives Detroiters out; 40% expect to leave within 5 years
October 9, 2012

Detroit — Detroit's crime crisis is prompting such pessimism that 40 percent of residents plan to move within five years, according to a comprehensive poll of Detroiters' attitudes about their city and leadership.

Residents overwhelmingly believe the city is on the wrong track and have no faith that city leaders have a plan to turn it around. Crime is by far their biggest worry — even higher than finding a job in a city where some put the true unemployment rate as high as 50 percent.

The survey suggests that, unless city officials can combat violence, efforts to halt decades of decline will fail. The city's population already has fallen by 1 million over the past 50 years, and residents including Michael LaBlanc said they are ready to leave.

"There's an aura of fear that just pervades the whole neighborhood," said LaBlanc, 63, who installed a security system at his northeast side home last week because he's weary of car thieves and gunfire.

"It's almost like being in prison. We always like to have at least one person home for security sake."

..... The survey's author said crime is the biggest obstacle to stemming an exodus that has seen Detroit's population drop to about 700,000. The city lost a quarter of its residents from 2000 to 2010, an average of one every 22 minutes.

"Crime is the pre-eminent challenge facing the residents of Detroit," said pollster Richard Czuba, Glengariff's president. "That was a defining element of the survey. It's absolutely the driving factor.

"It shows a tremendous mindset of exodus. If you want people to stay, you have to deal with crime first. That's devastating for the future of the city and it needs to be dealt with."

Nearly 58 percent of respondents said crime is their "biggest daily challenge." That far surpassed unemployment and the economy at 12.8 percent.

The survey suggests that many residents who remain would like to leave but are stuck: More than half, 50.9 percent, say they would live in another city if they could, while 39.9 percent plan to move in the next five years.

..... "At night you can sit here and listen to the gunfire," said LaBlanc.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121009/METRO01/210090369#ixzz2V2AzQujx

Contrast this description with that of Windsor Ontario - a Canadian city approximately half the size of Detroit that is located just 1900 feet directly across the river from the "Motor City" and connected by the Ambassador Bridge.

While Detroit averages 1 homicide daily, Windsor recently went 27 months without registering a murder. One of the major reasons for the contast is that Canada has strict firearms laws where handguns, automatic weapons and concealed fiirearms are virtually nonexistant.

Windsor residents see no pressing need for firearms to guarantee their personal safety or the necessity for a "well regulated militia" to depose a "tyrannical" government. Unlike their Detroit counterparts, however, Windsor residents are not subject to the tyranny of living in constant fear, forced to remain in their homes after dark and wishing that they could move to someplace else.

Only diehard NRA types like the OP, "OldUSAFSniper," would argue that it better to reside in Detroit or any other American city with your gun in one hand and a copy of the 2nd Amendment in the other while listening to gunfire every night.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ANY laws that...^^^^^^^.

You can read all about it in the Constitution.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Tell us what laws you consider to be un-Constitutional and cite the case law in support.

We’ve already established the fact that certain restrictions are Constitutional, and that indeed the Second Amendment does not allow the possession of absolutely any type of weapon:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Clearly, therefore, there is no ‘right’ for persons to “own whatever weapons and ammo they want.”

Of course it makes sense. You are misreading what I say. Don't get all bent out of shape on semantics.

Concealed carry is legal for law abiding citizens that have permits. Many states have a "shall issue" law that allows ALL law abiding citizens of age to obtain a carry permit. I have one in my pocket at all times. I don't carry at all times because there are places I go that do not allow it...even with a permit. Since I abide by all laws of which I am aware (with exception of occasional speeding), I do not attempt to carry into those places...such as a movie theater or any establishment that posts a NO WEAPONS ALLOWED sign, airports, courthouses, school campuses, etc.


By "whatever weapons and ammo" I mean those HAND CARRIED weapons that are similar (or identical) to those carried by our military. Other weapons, such as fully automatic handguns and rifles, machine guns, cannons and the like...are legal if the owner has the proper paperwork.

“ANY laws that infringe on everybody's right to legally own whatever weapons and ammo they want…

You can read all about it in the Constitution.”

Made no sense whatsoever.

And nothing was ‘misread,’ you were quite clear: "whatever weapons and ammo" obviously means "weapons such as fully automatic handguns and rifles, machine guns, cannons and the like."

Although you now concede that indeed there are appropriate and Constitutional restrictions on firearms, many of your fellow rightists remain unaware of this fact.

 

[JoeB131]

Yer projecting AGAIN, junior.

No projection at all, guy.

Statistically, a gun in your home is a greater danger to you than any bad guy.

But it gives you the imaginary control of some aspect of your otherwise failed and useless life.

 

[JoeB131]

I was browsing the Internet when I found this thread. Some of the posts are so absurd, I felt it worthwhile to join and chime in.



Anyway....
There is proof that in countries where gun control is very strict (UK and Australia) there are more assaults and robberies than in the US...by a large margin

Most gun crimes here in the US are gang related or suicides.

Okay, the point is, you are going to live after an assualt or robbery. You aren't going to live after a murder or suicide. That's kind of the point, dumbass.

Not sure where anyone could logically come to the conclusion that passing a lot of new laws or even confiscating ALL guns will make anyone safer. Laws don't change a persons true colors. And criminals don't need guns to be violent or dangerous. Without guns they'll just hack people up or beat them with bats or slice them with knives. Heck, CARS kill 1000 times more people. Should we focus on getting the Car Control issue resolved first and save a far larger number of people?

1) Cars aren't designed to kill people.
2) To own a car, I have to get a license, insurance, Registration, only operate it in a prescribed manner,get it checked for emmissions, secure it when it is not in use. Not to mention there are thousands of police officers watching how I utilize that car every day.

Perhaps as Liberals create these massive "gun free Zones" around themselves, a lot more of them will die and eventually their numbers will be thinned through their own choices. New York, CT, CO and CA....join DC and Chicago as murder capitals of the world. Lots of Liberals dying.

And this is why the best argument for gun control is a talk with a gun nut. They just can't stop fantisizing about killing people.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yer projecting AGAIN, junior.

No projection at all, guy.

And now yer LYING again, kid!

 

[zeke]

ANY laws that...^^^^^^^.

You can read all about it in the Constitution.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Tell us what laws you consider to be un-Constitutional and cite the case law in support.

We’ve already established the fact that certain restrictions are Constitutional, and that indeed the Second Amendment does not allow the possession of absolutely any type of weapon:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Clearly, therefore, there is no ‘right’ for persons to “own whatever weapons and ammo they want.”

Of course it makes sense. You are misreading what I say. Don't get all bent out of shape on semantics.

Concealed carry is legal for law abiding citizens that have permits. Many states have a "shall issue" law that allows ALL law abiding citizens of age to obtain a carry permit. I have one in my pocket at all times. I don't carry at all times because there are places I go that do not allow it...even with a permit. Since I abide by all laws of which I am aware (with exception of occasional speeding), I do not attempt to carry into those places...such as a movie theater or any establishment that posts a NO WEAPONS ALLOWED sign, airports, courthouses, school campuses, etc.


By "whatever weapons and ammo" I mean those HAND CARRIED weapons that are similar (or identical) to those carried by our military. Other weapons, such as fully automatic handguns and rifles, machine guns, cannons and the like...are legal if the owner has the proper paperwork.

And here I thought you were an advocate of no restriction on weapons. Then I read where you acknowledge that there are a couple of restrictions you abide by with no problem.

So which is it? Cause you know that slippery slope is a coming. You allow two restrictions (business owners saying no weapons allowed and requiring permits to own fully automatic machine guns) it is just a matter of time before they take away your guns.

 

[TexM3]

[

If someone much bigger and stronger is raping your wife or daughter what do you do; kindly ask him to stop, or call the police make some coffee and wait in the other room for them to show up?

ooooh, the scary rape question.

Frankly, I couldn't imagine a rapist who is so dumb that he's got his pants around his ankles and letting the woman's husband run around loose.

but only in Gun-Fetishist land does this scenario happen.

Given lethal force is not an option for you Joe, what would you do in this situation?

Man shot during alleged rape attempt in Brighton - Action News 5 - Memphis, Tennessee

After being tied up, one of the girls was able to escape, and ran to the home of her next-door neighbor and cousin, Keith Ingram.

Ingram, carrying a gun, quickly went over to the sisters' residence. Ingram confronted Fleming while he was attacking the other girl, and shot the man once when he attempted to attack him.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Guy, I think you show the problem of the modern Gun Nut.

He feels helpless against society, but as long as he has they hypothetical ability to kill an imaginary tormentor, he feels empowered.

Clinging to guns and bibles, indeed.

You fail to see that gun owners do not necessarily want to kill anyone.

I certainly don't and I can say pretty confidently that I won't kill anyone.

Simply because I own a weapon is no reason to assume I will kill. In fact the percentage of legal gun owners who kill anyone is miniscule.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I was browsing the Internet when I found this thread. Some of the posts are so absurd, I felt it worthwhile to join and chime in.

I am referring to the fellow dressed in a clown suit (I think) calling himself "JoeBlow" or something?


Anyway....
There is proof that in countries where gun control is very strict (UK and Australia) there are more assaults and robberies than in the US...by a large margin

Most gun crimes here in the US are gang related or suicides.

Not sure where anyone could logically come to the conclusion that passing a lot of new laws or even confiscating ALL guns will make anyone safer. Laws don't change a persons true colors. And criminals don't need guns to be violent or dangerous. Without guns they'll just hack people up or beat them with bats or slice them with knives. Heck, CARS kill 1000 times more people. Should we focus on getting the Car Control issue resolved first and save a far larger number of people?

Yes, this is 2013, not 1776 and the movement of illegal arms across borders is easier than ever. How have drug wars and drug czars stopped the flow of drugs into the country?
They haven't is the point. And neither will gun laws. In fact, criminals can now PRINT plastic guns at home.

Even if by some magic ALL guns were gone today, they would begin to flow at a rapid pace across the borders and back into criminal hands.

Perhaps as Liberals create these massive "gun free Zones" around themselves, a lot more of them will die and eventually their numbers will be thinned through their own choices. New York, CT, CO and CA....join DC and Chicago as murder capitals of the world. Lots of Liberals dying.

Gun control just doesn't work in 2013 apparently.

What about ex prosecutors and judges. Sometimes targets of criminal violence. Let's say your aging mother was a judge. Do you really want her to be without an efficient means of self defense? If so, SHAME on you. So many people are saved by guns. It just doesn't make the MSM.

I do have a few disgustingly liberal friends and even they have begun to come around after seeing the massive corruption that's finally revealing itself in the government and IRS. One who WAS very similar in attitude to JB has finally agreed that owning handguns is really not that bad. He just had to stop garbage mouthing and be quiet long enough to think. That's really ALL it took.

People should spend less time hyperventilating and more time thinking.

Thanks for chiming in and sharing your ignorance.

Some gun control measures are reasonable and appropriate and others are not; it’s the role of the courts to make that determine in accordance with current case law.

To advocate a given gun control measure is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment.’

The Heller Court reaffirmed the fact that there are reasonable restrictions on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, that is beyond dispute – the only question now is determining which laws are Constitutional and which are not.

And in the context of the Second Amendment debate, no one has advocated firearms be comprehensively ‘banned’ or ‘confiscated'"

Except, of course, Bloomberg's group, which seeks to take certain constitutionally-protected firearms "off the streets" and "out of out communities".

Get high capacity rifles and ammunition magazines off our streets: Military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines have no appropriate civilian or sporting function. They are designed to kill large numbers of people quickly. They are also disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers; approximately one out of five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty is killed with assault weapons. The time has come to review the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and draft a new law that is clear and enforceable and will take these weapons out of our communities.

MAIG - Media Center

These goals necessitate confiscation.
Never mind their justifications for doing so are lies.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Poll: Crime drives Detroiters out; 40% expect to leave within 5 years
October 9, 2012

Detroit — Detroit's crime crisis is prompting such pessimism that 40 percent of residents plan to move within five years, according to a comprehensive poll of Detroiters' attitudes about their city and leadership.

Residents overwhelmingly believe the city is on the wrong track and have no faith that city leaders have a plan to turn it around. Crime is by far their biggest worry — even higher than finding a job in a city where some put the true unemployment rate as high as 50 percent.

The survey suggests that, unless city officials can combat violence, efforts to halt decades of decline will fail. The city's population already has fallen by 1 million over the past 50 years, and residents including Michael LaBlanc said they are ready to leave.

"There's an aura of fear that just pervades the whole neighborhood," said LaBlanc, 63, who installed a security system at his northeast side home last week because he's weary of car thieves and gunfire.

"It's almost like being in prison. We always like to have at least one person home for security sake."

..... The survey's author said crime is the biggest obstacle to stemming an exodus that has seen Detroit's population drop to about 700,000. The city lost a quarter of its residents from 2000 to 2010, an average of one every 22 minutes.

"Crime is the pre-eminent challenge facing the residents of Detroit," said pollster Richard Czuba, Glengariff's president. "That was a defining element of the survey. It's absolutely the driving factor.

"It shows a tremendous mindset of exodus. If you want people to stay, you have to deal with crime first. That's devastating for the future of the city and it needs to be dealt with."

Nearly 58 percent of respondents said crime is their "biggest daily challenge." That far surpassed unemployment and the economy at 12.8 percent.

The survey suggests that many residents who remain would like to leave but are stuck: More than half, 50.9 percent, say they would live in another city if they could, while 39.9 percent plan to move in the next five years.

..... "At night you can sit here and listen to the gunfire," said LaBlanc.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20121009/METRO01/210090369#ixzz2V2AzQujx

Contrast this description with that of Windsor Ontario - a Canadian city approximately half the size of Detroit that is located just 1900 feet directly across the river from the "Motor City" and connected by the Ambassador Bridge.

While Detroit averages 1 homicide daily, Windsor recently went 27 months without registering a murder. One of the major reasons for the contast is that Canada has strict firearms laws where handguns, automatic weapons and concealed fiirearms are virtually nonexistant.

I love how you post this, and then run way when I ask you to compare and contrast the gun control laws in Canada with those in Detroit and the state of MIchigan.

 

[Bfgrn]

Guy, I think you show the problem of the modern Gun Nut.

He feels helpless against society, but as long as he has they hypothetical ability to kill an imaginary tormentor, he feels empowered.

Clinging to guns and bibles, indeed.

You fail to see that gun owners do not necessarily want to kill anyone.

I certainly don't and I can say pretty confidently that I won't kill anyone.

Simply because I own a weapon is no reason to assume I will kill. In fact the percentage of legal gun owners who kill anyone is miniscule.

When do 'legal' gun owners become accessories to helping illegal gun owners buy weapons in the safe and secure environment of a gun show?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Guy, I think you show the problem of the modern Gun Nut.

He feels helpless against society, but as long as he has they hypothetical ability to kill an imaginary tormentor, he feels empowered.

Clinging to guns and bibles, indeed.

You fail to see that gun owners do not necessarily want to kill anyone.

I certainly don't and I can say pretty confidently that I won't kill anyone.

Simply because I own a weapon is no reason to assume I will kill. In fact the percentage of legal gun owners who kill anyone is miniscule.

When do 'legal' gun owners become accessories to helping illegal gun owners buy weapons in the safe and secure environment of a gun show?

When they actually break the law.

It's a pretty simple concept; you don't punish people who have done nothing wrong.

 

[Bfgrn]

You fail to see that gun owners do not necessarily want to kill anyone.

I certainly don't and I can say pretty confidently that I won't kill anyone.

Simply because I own a weapon is no reason to assume I will kill. In fact the percentage of legal gun owners who kill anyone is miniscule.

When do 'legal' gun owners become accessories to helping illegal gun owners buy weapons in the safe and secure environment of a gun show?

When they actually break the law.

It's a pretty simple concept; you don't punish people who have done nothing wrong.

Punish? You right wing turds are always 'victims'...so going through a background check when you buy a lethal weapon is 'punishment'?