Turns out you brits without any guns to protect yourselves with are getting hammered by violent crimes. Almost 4 times more violent crime in Britain than the US. And in areas where gun ownership is common here in the states (rural non-urban), violent crime is almost non-existent.
Jim
Tell me about it..I'd move if I was able too..out of this country in a flash.
a farmer was arrested recently for firing his shotgun at thieves in the UK..great isn't it
what i find interesting is the people who continue to harp the militia aspect of the second amendment overlook the fact that all the rights protected by the amendments are INDIVIDUAL rights so why would the 2nd be any different.
ORIGINAL: chijohnaok
1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.
It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times
2) in the United States, the right to bear arms is a natural right protected in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
It is a right, just as is the freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to due process, the right of assembly, etc.
3) unless you had some magical means to do so, you could not eliminate every gun in the United States (allowing for law enforcement to be armed).
Certain states and localities have enacted very strict gun controls, at times making it so difficult to obtain one that their legal possession was effectively banned.
The City of Chicago and Washington DC were examples of this. If i recall, Chicago in 2012 had more murders than any city in the US, despite the rigid restrictions. Criminals have the guns; the average law abiding citizen did not.
1) the police cannot be there to prevent every crime.
Citizens should have the means to defend themselves.
It is estimated that if all lawful civilian self defense killings were counted, the actual number of violent criminals killed by citizens might exceed the number killed by police each year by as much as five times
2) in the United States, the right to bear arms is a natural right protected in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
It is a right, just as is the freedom of speech, of the press, of the right to due process, the right of assembly, etc.
3) unless you had some magical means to do so, you could not eliminate every gun in the United States (allowing for law enforcement to be armed).
Certain states and localities have enacted very strict gun controls, at times making it so difficult to obtain one that their legal possession was effectively banned.
The City of Chicago and Washington DC were examples of this. If i recall, Chicago in 2012 had more murders than any city in the US, despite the rigid restrictions. Criminals have the guns; the average law abiding citizen did not.
Well said chijohnaok. But those advocating removing the RIGHT of citizens to bear arms ignore cities like Chicago, with these numbers just released:
Chicago 2011 Homicides- 441
Chicago 2012 Homicides- 533
PLUS- 92
Chicago 2011 Person Shot- 2,217
Chicago 2012 Person Shot- 2,698
Plus- 481
"I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."- W.T. Sherman
another thing people ought to be worried about is the ruling of the supreme ct.on chicago's and wash.d.c gun bans.
it basically eliminates the individual states 2nd amendments in their state constitutions and makes the feds preeminent.
you watch and see the ruling will come up when that fool biden's committee comes up with their "comprehensive"gun legislation!
another thing people ought to be worried about is the ruling of the supreme ct.on chicago's and wash.d.c gun bans.
it basically eliminates the individual states 2nd amendments in their state constitutions and makes the feds preeminent.
you watch and see the ruling will come up when that fool biden's committee comes up with their "comprehensive"gun legislation!
Not sure if you saw it, but despite the USSC's decision, the IL General Assembly is moving forward with an assault weapons ban (that will most likely cross back into the very same thing that the USSC rules against them on recently).
Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.
Hey can I say this, I'm amazed this thread wasn't locked earlier, this issue is a hot potato to say the least. There obviously strong beliefs on both sides of the debate, the impressive part of this thread has been the ability of the forum community to express their belief without personal attacks on the poster. Hmm perhaps we are a little mature than we thing we are, well done folks. End of waffle. Waffles icecream and maple syrup yaum.
Ron
Conserv vs leftest that will be the next civilwar....abound by regions not states. And it may not be shooting war but a war of change.....bad change....a nation of change....I think it has already started and the Leftest are winning.[:-]
Note: The Leftest Headquarters is the Supreme Court of the United States!
"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".
Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.
Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.
Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.
Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"?
Who does "these guys" consist of?
Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this?
Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.
Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.
Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"?
Who does "these guys" consist of?
Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this?
The ones willing to kill their neighbor over gun rights, and willing to start a civil war. I'd like to think it's a very small portion of the public, and keep in mind my first sentence.
No such thing as an "assault weapon" wish people would quit using that name. I hit you with a base ball bat, the bat became an assault weapon.
The proper name is a military style semi automatic rifle.
I am prior infantry, so tanks do not scare me. Just rolling steel pill boxes. Open country, like desert, yes, I might have some fear. Wooded, hilly or urban and they are just rolling coffins. I do not advocate civil war, but I will never turn my guns in, they will have to take them from me by force, and I will fight for my constitutional right.
Even if I do wish the left would all collect in one place, say in the Utopias up north that they have built, while us right leaning folks go to where we have built our Utopias, the south. They can live under what ever laws they want, tax themselves silly, spend how ever much they want, but I want OUR side to say, "sucks to be you" and we can live under our laws, pay our taxes and spend what we need to. They leave me alone, I leave them alone, problem is, they refuse to leave me alone, they keep trying to jack with my rights.
Five Rounds....I'am just getting started with 5 rounds.[;)]
ORIGINAL: Qwixt
ORIGINAL: chijohnaok
ORIGINAL: Qwixt
Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.
Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"?
Who does "these guys" consist of?
Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this?
The ones willing to kill their neighbor over gun rights, and willing to start a civil war. I'd like to think it's a very small portion of the public, and keep in mind my first sentence.
"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".
Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about. There's nothing that can convince me that assault weapons and military automatic weapons need to be possessed by citizens. Semi-automatic and no clips over 5 rounds.
Furthermore, state allegiance has pretty much disappeared outside of college sports. Now taking that into consideration, in order for there to be a civil war over a topic like guns, you have to be willing to kill your neighbor because there would not be clear cut lines. I'd like to think that there only so many nuts are willing to do that. At most, it would be cowardly terrorist acts against innocent people because these guys wouldn't face down tanks, and modern U.S. military.
Could you please clarify what you mean by "these guys"?
Who does "these guys" consist of?
Also (while I'm not the gun expert) "military automatic weapons", while they maybe e obtained legally by average citizens, the process is so involved, and takes so long, that they are very uncommon. Could someone confirm or clarify this?
The ones willing to kill their neighbor over gun rights, and willing to start a civil war. I'd like to think it's a very small portion of the public, and keep in mind my first sentence.
1) I'm not sure who is advocating violence in this case.
(caveat: If government used unconstitutional means to infringe on constitutional rights, then I can see where some might feel they would be forced to stand up).
2) regarding your first sentence: "Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about";
there are currently limits on firearms. Access is not unlimited.
In efforts to further limit access, where is the line to be drawn?
In the context of the right to bear arms in comparison with other constitutional rights, what if efforts were undertaken to restrict those rights?
Religion: What if worship of one religion was banned or restricted while others were not?
Speech: What if criticism of the government or elected officials was restricted?
Assembly: What if the right to assemble was denied to those of one viewpoint, political party, cause?
Search and seizure: What if law enforcement was allowed to search homes without a warrant on Tuesdays?
Due process, self incrimination, eminent domain: What if you were compelled to provide testimony that was self incriminating?
Trial by jury, right to counsel, speedy trial: What if you were not allowed a lawyer in certain capital cases?
Excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment: What if bail was denied anyone with an Irish last name?
Some of the examples I gave are silly. But the point is, when you start to tinker with and restrict one right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, then the door is cracked open just a little bit for doing the same with others.
Feel free to drop by and chat about whatever is on your mind.
Religion: What if worship of one religion was banned or restricted while others were not?
Christmas displays come to mind...
Speech: What if criticism of the government or elected officials was restricted?
Media picks and chooses who gets air time now, demonizes some as whacos, edits audio and video for effect...
Assembly: What if the right to assemble was denied to those of one viewpoint, political party, cause?
Already happens with gang members
Search and seizure: What if law enforcement was allowed to search homes without a warrant on Tuesdays?
See NDAA
Due process, self incrimination, eminent domain: What if you were compelled to provide testimony that was self incriminating?
Like reading our email, monitoring facebook, phone calls?
Trial by jury, right to counsel, speedy trial: What if you were not allowed a lawyer in certain capital cases?
Guantanamo?
Excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment: What if bail was denied anyone with an Irish last name?
Got me on that one.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
1) I'm not sure who is advocating violence in this case.
(caveat: If government used unconstitutional means to infringe on constitutional rights, then I can see where some might feel they would be forced to stand up).
2) regarding your first sentence: "Guns will never be 100% banned in the U.S. so it's a silly topic to even debate, or feel threatened about";
there are currently limits on firearms. Access is not unlimited.
In efforts to further limit access, where is the line to be drawn?
In the context of the right to bear arms in comparison with other constitutional rights, what if efforts were undertaken to restrict those rights?
Religion: What if worship of one religion was banned or restricted while others were not?
Speech: What if criticism of the government or elected officials was restricted?
Assembly: What if the right to assemble was denied to those of one viewpoint, political party, cause?
Search and seizure: What if law enforcement was allowed to search homes without a warrant on Tuesdays?
Due process, self incrimination, eminent domain: What if you were compelled to provide testimony that was self incriminating?
Trial by jury, right to counsel, speedy trial: What if you were not allowed a lawyer in certain capital cases?
Excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishment: What if bail was denied anyone with an Irish last name?
Some of the examples I gave are silly. But the point is, when you start to tinker with and restrict one right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, then the door is cracked open just a little bit for doing the same with others.
1. Well the topic is new civil war, and that would require some violence.
2. Nowhere in the second amendment does it guarantee unlimited access to all types of weapons. When it was written, I highly doubt that the writers could envision the advances made on guns today. U.S. citizens will always have the right to bear their .38s, .44s, shotguns, hunting rifles,...
The restriction of types of guns is nowhere near the same thing as restricting any of the other listed rights. You can still protect yourself and hunt with all those guns I mentioned.
See there was this little thing called the Militia Act 1792 (IIRC) that was connected to the 2nd Amendment, but you will never hear about it.
Going from memory, it stated that ALL male law abiding citizens were to own and maintain proficiency with a military style rifle of their day and age.
I have hunted with my AR15 and my M4 version, guess they count too as hunting rifles. How about my dad's M14? I know he has used it hog hunting with me. Plus my shooting range ventures employ about 3 full time US employees, due to the amount of ammo I shoot when I go, the number of targets I rip to shreds, the metal smelters that melt all the brass and then ship off to have them reformed into something else. Us target shooters help the economy. I dare anyone to say they can go to a range with an AR15 or M4 and shoot 20 rounds and be happy. I travel with about 500-1000 rounds when I go. 500 is just me, 1000 if I let the wife, step daughter and boy go too. That is just for my .223/5.56 green tips.
rhondabrwn, with all due respect ma'am, crazies are not constrained by any party or ideology. One need look no further than the Huffington Post. The progressives have commented many times about repealing the 2nd Amendment, calling the constitution toilet paper, suggesting house sweeps for guns, officially naming the NRA as a terrorist origination etc.
I have mostly respected liberals of the not so distant past, classical liberals if you will, even if I did not agree with some of the things they were for. But what has changed imo is that classical liberals feared, and for good reasons, a powerful overreaching government. The radicals of today care nothing of your rights or opinion because they have deemed you too ignorant to have any rational thought to begin with. And your rights? They consider them privileges.
They are calling for a national registry for one thing. Sure makes it easier when those same radicals violate the 4th Amendment and 'decide' to come and take them. Regulation is their vehicle. Confiscation is their designation.
Don't believe me. Just read what those who are pushing this agenda post. No need for conspiracies I say.
'those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.'
Ah, everyone is crazy save thee and me... and... (wait for it.....) sometimes I think ME a bit crazy as well [:D]
I'm not any kind of classic liberal... I'm just a reformed conservative Republican who fell on hard times and got a real, close look at poverty and discrimination in America... and it changed me forever... I care about people, all people, all races and I don't want to see them massacred in any "bloody Kansas" re-enactment over manufactured fears and hatreds. I want to see equal rights for all and the right to a living wage, adequate medical care, a decent un-politicized education for everyone, and personal safety and freedom for all. If that makes me crazy in some people's eyes, then so be it.
But I ask once again... exactly what is everyone's scenario for using their weapons to fight the feared government takeover? You have your guns, now how do you see them being used to defend freedom? I haven't heard a plan yet from anyone I've asked. What would ACW II look like... you are all expert military gamers... how do you see it playing out. What kind of government would replace the feared declaration of martial law by Executive Order. I'd be interested in your plans. Rush Limbaugh, President for Life perhaps? Imposition of Biblical Law? A mandated State Religion? A good old military dictatorship by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? A return to the Articles of Confederation and eliminate a National Government? A Libertarian society with minimal laws and everyone for themselves? So many possibilities, but would you really prefer any of these to our current, admittedly imperfect, Democracy?
I don't have manufactured fears nor hatred. My fight is one born out of love for my decedents that their Rights are maintained, whether it is the 1st 2nd or 10th. These things are important to me.
'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.'
And I believe others have touched on what would happen. The military personnel that swore an oath to defend the Constitution and meant it would be the driving force, yet I'm afraid it would be a larger scale of bleeding Kansas and other actions. I just feel like this country has become an old married couple who cannot agree on anything and it may be time for a 'divorce', preferably peaceful. Honestly there would be support from all sides I believe.
What kind of government would I like to see? Simple. A Constitutional Republic. I already have a good name for the new country.
We would call it..............................................America.
Because at the point where I raise my weapon against my neighbor is the time when what was once America resembles Her no more. I would not be attacking Her, I would be defending Her. Let those who would change Her beyond recognition come up with what kind of country they would want.
Here is Chuck Woolery on 'assault weapons'. Sometimes wisdom and support come from the most unlikeliest of places.
'We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker.'
Lastly, I refer people to The Bath School Disaster. Not a gun used and the biggest school slaughter in our history. There will ALWAYS be evil people just like there always have been.
**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul
**A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford
and rhondabrwn. I appreciate your passion for those less fortunate than yourself and it is something near and dear to me as well. A boaster would tell you of their exploits of helping those in need while I prefer to do my charity mostly private. I have given when there was little to give because I felt there was always someone who was needier than I and that we would manage fine as always. We share an interest here. But all too often I have seen that many want a handout instead of a hand up. That troubles me. Again, not all or even close to all.
I come from one of the poorer parts of this great nation and have worked as much as 3 jobs at once to better myself. Life challenges ensured that I was only able to have an eighth grade education because someone had to work. That alone is very embarrassing to me and something I am not usually forthright in sharing. I have also been broke more than once, the last one costing me all I had but, through more hard work and determination I have come out stronger and more prosperous than ever while never taking a nickle from the government. I fear that we are becoming an entitled nation where people think prosperity is a Right.
My wife's job ensures that she is very close to those that are on the government dole and the lack of drive among many and a complacency to live with what they are given, never striving for more, is troublesome. I shouldn't have to work so hard to pay for people who refuse to work, and yes there are MANY, so that I can pay for them to fill up on junk food and expensive meats, utilize a free phone, tear up property and homes where they have no vested interest while they demand things such as free internet. Get a job if you can work.
For instance, a consumer of my wife has a son that is 43, older than we are, who 'can't' find a job after 4 years of 'searching' for one. Yet he spends his day on mommy's internet playing games. My wife suggested that he try McDonalds as they are usually hiring. His response? It is below him to work there. Soaking the govt (me) for $300 a month in food stamps and hitting the local food pantries, basically stealing from those who really need it evidently is not below him though. His kind make me ill and there is no one that will do anything about it because those you would complain to are the biggest enablers there are and their job hinges on giving away the treasury.
I have been an employee and an employer so I have seen both sides of that issue. I remember many times not taking a check so my employees received one when those paying on a 90 day rotation were too numerous. And I recall giving out Christmas bonuses at the expense of taking any profit for ourselves on more than one occasion. Think how it felt when we paid vacations without having the funds or time to have one ourselves especially how needed it was considering the long hours the business called for.
Hope this makes sense? I'm tired as I was up at 5 a.m. to go do it all again. Is it too much to ask the govt to be niggardly with my taxes? I think not.
**Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul
**A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have-Gerald Ford
The country I grew up in and was so proud of is gone.
The country my father fought for, believed in and taught me to love is gone.
The belief in personal responsibility is gone replaced by those who believe others must be responsible for them and they are owed free handouts.
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you is becoming the majority belief.
What the founding fathers established and believed in is a minority belief.
A very wise man once said that Government is not the solution, Government is the problem. But the problem is that a growing number expect Government to give handouts for nothing in return.
A smaller and smaller number of citizen producers are expected to pay more and more for a larger and larger number of non-producers.
This course can only result in total collapse and/or abandonment of the principles and beliefs the country was built on.
One man one vote? Imagine the electorate consists of 10 people. Easy enough to get elected, just run on the promise that everything will be paid for by those 4 people. You win 6 to 4. Not a far description from where we are.
Sorry folks, I'm up late and actually surprised to see this thread still not locked. I guess I couldn't resist the temptation. Overstated above, perhaps, but we are on a wrong path. It may be too late to save our country if we can't find a way to restore the type of government and personal responsibilities we need. This should not pit us against each other if only we would actually believe in and practice those core beliefs. The American Drean need not become lost, we must earn it. Again my apologies for rambling and my hope that no one is offended.
I read this thread with interest, coming from a country which has very strict gun control, the right to bear arms is such a foreign concept to me. I was a police office for 15 years (a detective for 13 of those years) and carried a sidearm for the entire time. I feel confident that I can comment on the AU criminal underworld, but obviously, I know nothing of the criminal element in the US. In Australia, we had a fairly large shooting massacre in 1996 in Tasmania where one man killed 35 people and injured a further 21, this was and still is, our largest gun related crime.
Following on from this, the Government, with public support (although there was opposition), further tightened our gun control laws and instigated a moratorium period in which it bought back, at higher than retail price, 100s of thousands of guns from people who, under the new legislation, would no longer be permitted to own or carry a firearm. Additionally, gun owners are now required to have their firearms secured in a gun safe at all times when not in use, people cannot simply carry them around for protected at all. If you are not a security guard, police officer, farmer culling pests or other similar profession, it is absolutely against the law to carry a gun, no exceptions.
One would think then, as law abiding civilians cannot carry guns, that the criminal element would have free reign. Well, speaking from experience, it is simply not the case. Yes, criminals can and do find ways to buy guns, but shooting related offenses are very very rare here (I'm not saying that shootings don't happen, only that they are rare). I'm citing this example, not because I think a similar process would work in the US, but as an example of why it would not.
As people have rightly pointed out, US citizens have the right to carry guns, a right that has existed for a great length of time and as such, has become part of US culture. So unless one can find a way to change culture, then no law banning forearms would ever pass, let alone work (IMHO).
People can argue for and against gun control until the cows come home, for every stat supporting armed citizens, there is an equal and similar stat supporting disarming citizens.
Also, arguments such as, well if you ban guns then ban knives or schools or some other ridiculous option. But this is not an issue about knives, or schools, it's an issue about guns. All problems cannot be solved at once, they can only be tackled individually, it's a fools errand to try and justify gun control (or the opposite) by pointing to other issues. For example, arguments such you can't ban guns because knives are just as bad, or alcohol is just as bad, or medical incompetence is just as bad. These arguments will go nowhere and are fruitless because they seek to deflect the issue rather than address the issue.
I truly feel sorry for law abiding citizens that the US has ended up in this position.
I hope some way can be found to solve the problem, but as it's such a cultural problem (not just a gun problem), it's not going to be easy. All I can say is this, I live in a society where the population is not armed, but I feel just as safe as I possibly could in any modern society. But as I've said, guns are not part of the culture here and to be honest, having seen the seedier side of life, I'm thankful that they're not.
