PART of the solution: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-shootings-in-america.527903/#post-1068804083 See post # 11 Since I am not a supporter of the NRA, I don't know what arguments they are making. I do know that if they has listened to their Hard Corps back in the 1980s and 1990s, this would be a much different conversation.
You're right, gun control does work... when you use two hands. Exactly where is 'all over the place'? Because news reports contradict that a wee bit.
Perhaps you need to define what YOU mean by 'gun control'. Convenient that Chicago, one of the places with the strictest gun laws in this country, isn't on your list. All 'gun control' is, is hindering law abiding citizens. Criminals won't care what the laws are, they will continue to do what they do regardless.
Chicago is too close to a place that has lax gun laws. All traffic control is hindering law abiding citizens too.
This conversation is limited to what the liberals want to talk about. But what is it they expect gun control to do? Plain and simple, no B.S. and not being partisan, if gun control limits the number of people killed by other citizens with guns then they are satisfied. If you point out, in their comparisons, that the same number of people die in a given country from other causes and the number of dead is constant, they don't care. For example, they love to cite Japan. But wait... Japan has more than TWICE the number of suicides than the U.S. does. If you add that number into those in Japan that die by homicides other than firearms, they aren't looking too good. I mean, really, who wants to live in a country that is so depressing that their suicide rate is more than twice that of the United States? And remember, the United States leads the world in legal and illegal drug use. We have 13 percent of our population drugged on anti-depressants and we're still not as bad as Japan.
Firstly - back your claims Secondly have you ever seen the correlation between length of day and suicide rates??? Interesting and quite robust
Apparently you have forgotten a phrase in the 2A - Shall not be infringed. "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on." Restricting access to firearms by legislation or otherwise, is infringement. You can choose not to own or carry, that is your choice, but restricting access is a violation of other people's rights.
Liberals cannot see that part of the Second Amendment that says "the Right of the people." To hear them argue it is a state's right to maintain a militia is hilarious. The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government, NOT a limitation on people.
To what end would it be for me to quote a KNOWN figure? Isn't it an opportunity for you to argue some other irrelevant point? Or if I do, will you admit it and then move to some other aspect of this discussion that makes a flying flip?
The great British Empire had a strangle hold on India and most of its citizens were unarmed and yet they gained independence Fighting for Freedom does not rely on a gun - in fact you are better with peaceful revolution than trying to start a civil war
When others are willing to use force against you, words are quite empty. As you see on this board, there are those who will use everything at their disposal to deny people the Right to propose alternative ideas. They will use lies, threats, force, the wrongful use of the authorities or anything else to retain their power. You must not know how America came to be. I'll be glad to educate you some day. India v. British Empire 10 men versus 1 armed man. The British v. the United States.
http://www.worldcitizensunited.org/Howard Clark.html Or you can bring a bog load of guns into the mix and start firing at each other Civil wars are great because it is difficult to tell friend from foe and is is completely assured that some foriegn government will send in troops to confuse the entire situation and next thing you end up with is a nation bombed back to barbarism
Hmmm Japan 15.4 America 12.6 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate My math may be wrong but that does not look like twice the rate
MAAAATE If you are feeling threatened by an internet discussion then it is time to re-evaluate I have NEVER seen anyone from the so called "anti gun" lobby threaten anyone else I HAVE however been threaded by someone who was very definitively "pro gun" - he demanded I tell him where I lived so he could drive to my house and shoot me - then told me he had a means of identifying my address in any event I told him "Fine you can drive to my place.................................... I live in Australia"
Americans have already given up the guarantee of Habeas Corpus and sat on their asses while it became ok for a president to issue targeted assassinations on citizens without a whimper. We’ve watched as children are mowed down weekly in mass school shootings. We’ve watched as the police murder unarmed citizens in the streets with impunity. We’ve watched US leadership turn into war criminals and launch bogus wars based upon untruths and lies. We’ve watched corporate for profit prisons become legalized slave plantations with convict labor leasing. We’ve watched the world’s most staunch “free marketeers” turn to the public for socialist bailouts once they tanked the economic system. I think we already have that answer for the population taken as a whole, the subjugation of american public is well established.
Do you have access to my PMs? If you irritated someone that much, you must have wanted to pick a fight. Then you're too cowardly to give the guy a time and a place? And people like you want control? You find the soothing words of a communist to be helpful?
There is a critical part of me that does not want to admit some of the points you make. But, it is true. Not only can presidents authorize assassinations, but the LEOs do it as well. Been there - Done that... didn't appreciate it. Children get mowed down in public schools and people get killed in churches because we don't act. And, you cannot deny that the cops chase unarmed citizens and kill them in a manner that civilized people wouldn't tolerate on an animal, much less a human being. I see all the evils, but then I try to remind myself that other countries have over-all problems worse than ours. Yet it pisses me off to no end that the posterity of our founders don't take proactive steps to do anything. I mean if the government is going to take your guns predicated upon the need to protect schools, why not protect the schools and the children and take the pretext off the table? Why not save lives rather than give up the primary tool that has kept the Republic safe from tyranny? A conversation is futile if the right won't put a proposal on the table.