Connection between poor minorities and gun control

The biggest threat against the right to own guns comes from the presence of poor minorities. Because of all the violence plaguing their inner neighborhoods, it is natural that minority leaders would want a ban on guns in hopes of stemming the rampant shootings. A ban on guns may be appropriate for their communities, but it is certainly unwelcome and not at all necessary everywhere else. But the fact is that these crime ridden cities are in the same countries as the rural areas, and the presence of guns in the rural areas will inevitably find their way into the bad cities, despite whatever gun control ordinances such cities decide to make. Unfortunately, the inner cities are growing biger and biger everday, crowded with more immigrants from the third world. These places are breeding grounds for poverty and crime.

Leave my guns alone and stop trying to restrict different models!
The government is just trying to take even more power away from the people.

"Terrorism" is being used as an excuse for tighter gun control. If the government wants to cut terrorism in half, the first thing they can do is stop bringing over muslim immigrants. I am not going to have my guns taken away from me because the government would rather protect its multicultural agenda!

This is just like immigration and the minimum wage. First the government says that the immigrants are only going to do the jobs europeans are not willing to do. After all the desperate immigrants are let in, wages start falling for some inexcplicable reason. Even the wages for paramedics become little above the minimum wage. So the underpaid europeans demand higher wages. But guess what? The government now tells us that raising the minimum wage would cause more unemployment! In other words, all those immigrants the government brought in would never have been hired if the minimum wage had been higher in the first place! So we have to put up with low wages so our society can be "culturally tolerant" to the waves of people coming in from the third world.

The phenomena is similar with terrorism. We have to sacrifice more and more of our freedoms so that our society can be "culturally tolerant" to let in muslim immigrants, while at the same time minimizing the ill effects of such immigration policies, namely terrorism and riots. No, I say if our government wants to bring the immigrants in, it is just going to have to deal with the consequences! If we are not willing to tolerate terrorism and riots without taking away civil liberties from everyone else, than perhaps we should not be tolerating immigration.

End the long security lines and stop sifting through my personal luggage! No more invasive full body searches at the airport!

I sometime think the government is intentionally bringing in immigrants to cause poverty and terrorism, just so it will have more excuses to expand its power, and make us more and more reliant on the state.

Just trying to say that there is a very important connection between immigration into europe and the increasing restrictions on guns we are seeing.

Our societies managed to get along with few problems before the bans on chemicals. Have things changed so much since then? If so, we need to look at the reasons for this change, not restrict chemicals.

The USA manages to function well with everyone being allowed to own guns. Most of the killings involving guns in the USA are committed by ethnic minorities in the decaying inner cities. Europe can learn from the experiences of the USA.

Threat to Civil Liberties
"Washington D.C's most dangerous neigborhood is only about a mile from the Supreme Court. On any given night, armed police roam the streets in the northeast part of the city in search of guns and drugs. So routine are these patrols that black men sitting on stoops or standing on corners will reflixively lift their T-shirts when the police approach, to show they have no pistol tucked into their waitbands. Often the police frisk them anyway, and search their cars as well. You might almost forget, in light of these encounters, that the fourth amendment to the constitution establishes the right of the American people to be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. America's search for safety is relentlessly eroding the precious protections in the Bill of Rights."

Is this what you want your country to turn into?

 

Dude, you make a few valid points about Gun control but it's all wrapped up in racist screed.

Poor People act the way they do because they have been inculcated with a counter culture against the mainstream. It has nothing to do with race. The riots in the UK prove it beyond a doubt now.

Poverty based counter culture is the problem, not race.

Figure out a way to defeat the counter culture and you can solve the problem.

 

Really, because if you have actually seen the unedited video of the rioters, nearly all of them appear to be african/muslim. (yes, there were one or two opportunistic whites in the crowd) The media in the UK is going to great lengths trying to make people think the riots have nothing to do with race.

This is exactly the problem. "Multiculturalism" views any racial tension as due to mere cultural differences, that can eventually be overcome and solved. Take a look at other "multicultural" countries and you will find a good deal of ethnic conflict lurking below the surface, despite the different races living in close proximity to eachother for hundreds of years. (China for example)

Your utopian vision of a multiracial egalitarian society will never come to fruition, for the reason that it cannot, nor has it ever, existed. Take a lesson from the communists: a utopian vision of equality does not always turn out how its proponents intended.

 

I would also mention that in Switzerland, all the men are required to keep an assault rifle in their homes. They are even issued three grenades. Yet violent crime in Switzerland is far lower than it is in the UK. I personally know someone who tried to return his government-issued rifle back to the government because he was bipolar, and afraid he might do something he would later regret. The Swiss government refused to take the gun back, and told him he was required to keep it at his home. Guns by themselves do not cause murders. It is the type of people in the country that cause murders (some would also blame poverty).

 

A bad analogy. The Swiss actually have a system far closer to what our Founding Fathers formulated as to a common defense by a trained militia. Our system has evolved from that to what we currently have; a largely unregulated and untrained citizenry.

Swiss gun laws are stricter than they are in this country. Sort of contradicts your OP, no?

 

"while 57% of whites say state and local governments should not be allowed to pass laws prohibiting handguns, majorities of African Americans (64%) and Hispanics (61%) say they should be allowed to pass these laws."

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1535/poll-state-local-governments-laws-banning-sale-possession-handguns

not really much of a surprise that blacks want to take away the ability of whites to defend themselves.

"Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites."

Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

According to the latest annual report on murder by the FBI, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.

 

Your perceptions are not born out by the statistics I've seen. The vast majority of victims are victimized by their own race and not the reverse. That goes for both White AND Black, and we're talking about a majority in the 90 percentile range.

Your rant has no value.

 

I think this guy posts in the race relations forum.

Irrc, his children dating a different race was an issue.

 

Some of the "untrained" citizenry put 10-50 k rounds downrange each year.

 

That is a small minority though. The poor state of CCW classes can be a good example, atleast here in Colorado you are not required to do any more than sit in a brief class and someone show competency with a firearm.

 

Here in Shasta County we have hours & hours of very informative classroom with surprise VIP guests & have to put 200 rounds downrange (Outdoors) and have very anal & puritain Observers watching every unholster & move ...

 

That is interesting. Do you have some link to this?

 

As a 'mountain' guy myself, I can tell everyone that any one wishing to rob someones 'castle' up here will have to contend with a quite well-trained 'militia' and most homes have several guns.

 

Oh, is that all?

What else should you have to do?

 

I believe that he already answered this.

"show competency with a firearm"

That was the purpose of our well regulated militias, no?

 

He made it sound like it was too easy to get. I'm just wandering what else he believes should be required.

 

The so called "Poor Minorities" will always resort stolen (HOT) firearms. Or the Black Market sales.

I personally know many Gun Shop Business Owners all around the country. And from personal knowledge. It's rare that a poor minority class person, will purchase a handgun from a Gun Shop.
Maybe one in a hundred will.|
They come into a store and brouse with wishfull thinking.

FACT

 

I would think the answer to this would be obvious. Don't you believe that it's reasonable to ask that those who carry firearms be required to show that they know how to handle and shoot the weapon? The reference in the 2nd Amendment to a "well regulated militia" was about a public militia that were required to muster and show proficiency with their weapons. This is not, exactly radical thinking, you know.

 

"FACT" are simple to prove. Can you prove your so-called "FACT" above?


Thought not.

 

I never claimed people shouldn't be required to show competency with a firearm before getting a concealed carry permit.

Wolverine said:

and then I sarcastically replied: "Oh, is that all?"
I thought the "rollseyes" icon was enough to denote my sarcasm, but I guess not. He referred to "the poor state of CCW classes", and said "not required to do anymore than" before showing competency with a firearm.

God, I get sick of explaining (*)(*)(*)(*) to people on this forum because of their comprehension problems.

 

I see, you only have 124 posts here, but act as if you know me?

Interesting.


Wolverine said: "That is a small minority though. The poor state of CCW classes can be a good example, atleast here in Colorado you are not required to do any more than sit in a brief class and someone show competency with a firearm." [emphasis mine] This training class is what Wolverine seemed to be finding fault with.

I fully got the sarcasm and specifically addressed it, remember? You further clarified saying that you wondered what Wolverine would like to see other than COLO's pathetic little charade (my words). Again, I specifically addressed this too. Perhaps the "comprehension" problems you're having are more related to your own writings than to the other member's comprehension of your writing. All I can say is that the clearer you make YOUR position known, the easier it is for others to respond.

 

All this immigration from third world countries is bringing thefts and crime, on a scale most rural Americans would never have previously imagined.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/

This is exactly the time more Americans need guns. But paradoxically, this is exactly the time when a growing segment of "Americans" (read: gang-banging grown-up anchor babies) should not be allowed to have guns. This is the dilemma immigration has created for Americans.

How to both protect America and prevent a rise in gun-related crimes? Put restrictions on gun ownership for blacks and hispanics (and vietnamese). Since this would be "racist", it is unlikely to ever happen. So to protect gun ownership, Americans need to first protect the borders.

 

I have been saying this for many years and no one has been listening: the more poor people we have, the more problems there will be in society, and the more the government will have to raise taxes, take away more of our freedoms, and force us into social systems we otherwise would not want to be under.

 

poor minorities need to protect themselves from the likes of sheriff Arpaio - that's why they should exercise their 2d Amendment rights and fend him off if he gets in their way

 

advocating lawlessness? Not to truthful eh?