If you knew Americans you would not have to ask that question. Do Really think those that own guns would give them up? I asm a Liberal and the government would get my guns, one round at a time, as would ALL those that live around me and all my relatives. Heck it sounds like a firing range sometimes out where I livem since we all are allowed to shot on our own property. Is that idea strange to you, guess what we never have any cases of accidental shootings, NONE. Well trained shooters, which requires practice, are no danger to anyone other than criminals and those that would try and take away the rights the founders saw fit to install in the Consitution. Heck even the Sheriff of my County in North Teaxas said that he and his Department would never enforce any unconstitional law when asked about gun laws, think he isn't popular here, that is the TEXAS[/ attuitude on the topic of gun control, breath easy, focus, put the round down range, that is gun control and the only one we need. Want to stop the killings go after thoise committing the majority of them, they are called gangs.
OK Alex. Care to start another personal counter-attack? I was thinking a little about this thread today. You say that the gun owners of America are "hobbyists", and we just need to find another hobby. There are over EIGHTY MILLION of us. It's not just about hunting, or target shooting, or being fascinated with shiny objects. Try to "ban guns completely", and you'll see a civil war that will make the first one look like a dress rehearsal.
To ban guns completely would take a constitutional amendment; sounds to me like your suffering from paranoia. to quote George Thorogood and the Destroyers........."Paranoia, big destroyer"
First, that line was sung by Nine Inch Nails, I believe. I believe that the rest of the RIGHT MINDED people on this forum have already covered anything that might need to be covered. Please read before posting.
You are correct; however Thorogood did a cover on it as well. In the future I'll make sure that both artists get credit. I call it as I see it. Sorry to disappoint you.
Alright then, given that your forum name is almost the same as Lenin's brother---a fellow communist revolutionary---and no coincidence, you may be able to understand how well Lenin and Stalin were able to so easily commit so many atrocities against their own people after disarming them. This article by Pravda may give some insight: Americans never give up your guns 28.12.2012 By Stanislav Mishin These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions. This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles. Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles), or Napoleon, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor. This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently. Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot. Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers. To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere....but criminals are still armed and still murdering and too often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined. While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This in turn breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse. For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves. The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture? No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect. Stanislav Mishin http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2013/01/pravda-americans-never-give-up-your-guns.html
This statement is the source of your fundamental mistake. For not ONLY is this statement NOT true, in fact, the exact OPPOSITE is true. Crime in the US is at, or very close to, all time low in ALL categories. Murder, violent crime, non-violent crime, property crime, you name it. All at all time historical lows. And you don't need to take my word for it, the data is available for anyone who wants to examine it on the FBI website. The reality is NOT that crime is increasing, but the speed and volume of information you are receiving is increasing, so it creates the appearance that crime is increasing. It's not, you're just hearing about more things faster than you used to, that's all. Things that 20 years ago would have made page 5 in the local paper in Podunksville now become breaking news alerts that we all hear about 5 minutes after it happened.
http://americablog.com/2012/12/its-time-to-ban-guns-completely.html I don't take seriously people who want something guaranteed a right in a free society banned who don't want banned vices that kill far more such as alcohol. Doing this makes the gun ban advocate look like a flaming alcoholic. No, it's not about the lives. It's about the guns. And that my friends is a red flag.
Sir, I applaud your courage in introducing this topic, and making your recommendations in this matter, but alas - as you have already seen - your post will only elicit vituperation from the majority of people here. You have invaded the sanctum sanctorum of US society, and are not about to be thanked for your honest opinions. I was about 12 when I first started posting on American political fora, but even at that tender age, I quickly learnt not to discuss guns and religion with Americans (particularly as I am not an American, but a de facto representative of 'the ould enemy'. ) I confine the odd comment upon the subject to the occasional statistic - you are a braver man than I am, Ginga Din! And while I could not possibly comment - you are of course right.
Do you think Leo's courageous friend actually has any ideas that can hold up under scrutiny? He's not responded of late. Perhaps he can take up his cause. The temple is open.
Your post was interesting and well written, but I hold the exact opposite opinion myself. I don't value life as highly as you do, I'm much happier to have the ability to act as I please. Also, there's always an obviously more reasonable option than full prohibition. For instance, what wrong could possibly come from firearms being locked securely away in licensed and tightly regulated gun range, for use in a secure environment. Hell, if you're really pro-life you could even mandate they be on rails. If the gun is bolted down so it cannot point in any direction but down range, then what possible wrong could come of that? I don't mean to judge, but if you don't allow at least that then you have seriously crazy views and I can respect that.
