Defend the Second Amendment!

I did call the police when my car was stolen, twice. They are good at finding things that are sitting in plain view on the street. First time car found with some damage second time intact.

 

Some US stats to ponder. From 1 Jan 2015 to 11 Jan 2015.

Source: www.gunviolencearchive.org


2015 TOLL OF GUN VIOLENCE

• Total Number of Incidents: 1,006
• Number of Deaths1: 351
• Number of Injuries1: 561
• Number of Children (age 0-11) Killed/Injured1: 15
• Number of Teens (age 12-17) Killed/Injured1: 44
• Mass Shooting2: 8
• Officer Involved Shooting2: 99
• Home Invasion2: 55
• Defensive Use2: 37
• Accidental Shooting2: 43

Gun Violence Incidents collected and validated from 1200+ sources daily.
1: Actual number of deaths and injuries
2: Number of INCIDENTS reported and verified
Numbers on this table reflect a subset of all information
collected and will not add to 100% of incidents.
www.gunviolencearchive.org www.************/gunviolencearchive
Data Validated: January 11, 2015

 

I don't have that answer. There are plenty of people smarter than me trying to figure that out.

 

Fair enough.

I just typed a long reply and Chrome crashed before I could Post it, so I'll give you the abridged version.

32,000 gun related deaths in the US last year. They can be broken down - 60% are suicides, 3% accidents, a certain percentage is legitimate self-defense and police involved shootings, in the end approximately 10,000 are actual homicides. Yes, that's still too many.

Of those 32,000 deaths, only 380 involved rifles. The FBI doesn't specify how many are assault rifles, they just lump rifles all together.

Anti-gun groups focus all their attention and hundreds of millions of dollars on restricting the weapons used in only 380 out of 32,000 deaths. Rifles aren't the problem. These same anti-gunners refuse to acknowledge the other 31,620 victims of handguns or the conditions that led to those deaths. Those deaths primarily occur in the inner cities, and to blame gun violence on minorities (most, but not all of those neighborhoods are minority neighborhoods) will get you branded a racist. It's not a race issue. It's hypocrisy of the highest order. To give you some examples, officials claim 80% of gun deaths in Chicago are gang related (a city that outlawed guns altogether) and 80% of gun deaths in Baltimore are drug related. Thirty to forty people get shot every weekend in Chicago but anti-gunners won't talk about it because until recently guns were banned in Chicago. The decades old ban was recently overturned but the city is still fighting it.

What do anti-gunners get for their efforts? They disarm law-abiding gun owners. They get to disarm, or partially disarm, a large percentage of the population. Now you see the wizard behind the curtain.

So called "assault weapons" are identified by having a barrel shroud (safety device), collapsible stock (adjust for arm length), flash suppressors (so you're not blinded my muzzle flash), and a useless little pice of metal called a bayonet lug. None of those features make an "assault weapon" any more lethal than any other rifle. Their only legitimate argument revolves around magazines but they don't do a good job making their case on those either. Their definitions are arbitrary and vary from state to state. Last year California tried to reclassify little .22 rifles as assault weapons. .22s are target guns and squirrel guns.

Yet my SKS is not considered an assault weapon. Unlike the AR-15 it's never been manufactured for civilian use. It's a military weapon that fires a high powered round, has a permanently attached bayonet that conveniently rotates up under the foregrip, and even has a grenade launcher on the end of the barrel. Yep, you read that correctly....a grenade launcher. Don't worry, you're safe, it's not classified as an assault weapon.

So yes, I oppose assault weapons bans because they're all smoke and mirrors. It's not their end goal.

I know what a piece and a shotty are. "Piece" is a bit dated...reminds me of Dragnet

 

Yeah but people think they look 'bad-assed' and can pretend to be army-man. .22 wouldn't be my weapon of choice for stopping a charging bear, or even a rabid raccoon, but they can still be plenty lethal to humans.

I agree that some of the details of how they classify assault weapons don't make sense, but banning high capacity magazines has an obvious legitimacy.

yeah I know what SKS's are...

Why the hell would you want to own such a weapon? What is it's ultimate purpose? Yeah there are people out here that hunt with them, and it's just ridiculous.
Again, pretending to be a bad-ass, creating a false sense of importance, of which they could never retain on their own. Little-man syndrome.

 

.
You think adults play army man? That's cute. Airsofters, paintball, military reenactors, and maybe a few wing-nut militias, but not typical behavior. I used to play Paratrooper and ran around with toy machine guns. Oh wait...I actually was a Paratrooper and the machine guns were real.

I don't quite recall running around with my AR-15 or SKS though. I don't see the point.

SKS is a legitimate hunting rife. It's caliber is similar to a .308, a popular hunting round. It's no less a legitimate hunting rifle than any other. Looking "scary" doesn't define it's legitimate uses or capabilities. The popularity of AR-15s for hunting is growing too. Not because they're "evil black rifles", but because they're good at the task. I don't hunt so not applicable to me.

You're grasping at straws with the insults. You're making yourself look foolish. Copied and pasted from some email I'm sure. I could resort to childish insults as well, but I'm not a child.

Not much left to talk about in this thread so I'll be moving on. Enjpy.

 

Ah gotcha, never got over playing army man in the first place. Looks like you took what I was directing at "people" a little too personally, hmm?
Copy and pasted huh, ha ha ha! Yeah I had to search all my anti-gun emails for just the right response, ha ha ha!

I don't need schooled on your play things. I personally know people with fucking arsenals of "hunting" weapons. You don't hunt, then what do you do with your Rambo guns? Look at yourself in the mirror? Go away little man.

 

Seriously southpaw, after being deluded into service to a military branch of the government into fighting in a conflict created by them, for the self interests of a handful of major corporations, not the least of which are weapons contractors that often profit from the sale of weapons to our supposed enemy's, are you going to turn around and tell me you need the right to bear arms to protect yourself from a possible tyrannical government?


We don't need to ban guns, we need to reduce the demand for them. Hollywood is an arm of the military industrial complex, if anyone hadn't noticed. They glamorize military style weapons, with all the high tech do-dads. But it's much more insidious than that, they produce outright military propaganda of all kinds. Beginning with "Top gun" when I began being aware of it and probably before, I could give a long list of admitted joint Hollywood/ military productions where the military decided how certain scenes and themes played out, to protect their image, to increase recruitment, to project their agenda.
It's a pretty good bet something you saw in a movie was a factor in your decision to join the military, lefty.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/03/holl-m14.html
"....Since then, plot and character changes and outright historical falsification have been the most common demands made by the military, its stated aim being to encourage movies that boost “recruitment and retention programs."

"Special military “advisers” are appointed to ensure that filmmakers do not attempt to introduce non-scripted innovations that depart from Pentagon directives. As Major David Georgi, the military adviser to Clear and Present Danger, told Robb: “Always, somewhere in the mind of the producers, they’d try and turn the picture in the direction that they had originally presented to us.... It would be my job as a technical advisor to make sure that the movie did not stray substantially from the original approved version” (Operation Hollywood, p. 38).
Today this interference is such a commonplace that the military and other agencies do not even attempt to disguise their operations. The Air Force Entertainment Liaison Office, for example, now boasts it own web site—Wings over Hollywood—and in 2001, the CIA appointed its own film industry liaison officer. His role is to give “advice and guidance” to authors, screenwriters, directors and producers and encourage a “better understanding of and appreciation for the Agency”.

 

I think hunters should only be allowed to use bows and dart guns. Give the animals a sporting chance.

 

If it is a matter of recreation.

 

[SIZE=12pt]paw[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Well thank you for backing up what I’ve been saying – as I’ve said it seems to me that many of those promoting guns as a means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems seem to give little or no thought as to why those problems exist - let alone how they could be tackled. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]To me such people seem little more that gun sellers and might as well be working for the gun manufacturers; they have no solutions they just seem to want to sell guns.[/SIZE]

 

This doesn’t seem to make sense to me in the context of the discussion.

A fear of heights is an irrational fear and such fears can be overcome just as most phobias can – so are you then saying that the fear that drives people to want guns is also an irrational fear? That would be to be more along my lines.

My point been that if people stopped been so fearful of the society they live in they wouldn’t feel they needed at gun as protection against it

As to road accidents well society makes a big effort to limit them that’s why there are so many rules and regulations attached to car use and road use - to try and minimize the risks. And car safety has become a selling point for car manufactures who think up new was to try and keep the motorist safe – there are already cars in production that could not rear-end the car in front because proximity detectors would automatically engage the brakes before it could happen.

Guns are not cars, cars are designed and built as vehicles - guns were built and designed to kill and maim,

Here is something I’ve posted before -

There are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns.

People have to have a driving licence, and they only get a driving licence if they have passed a driving test. There are bars on people with a medical problem that may cause them to lose control of a vehicle (e.g. epileptics) or otherwise be of danger to other road users or pedestrians (sight defects). We remove licences from those that we deem unfit to hold one (e.g. drunk drivers). People have to have a tax disc and current insurance and driving without is illegal.

Then there are the rules of the road, which side of the road to drive. How to turn left or right, how to conduct at traffic lights or crossing points.

The car manufacturer also has a number of regulations to make sure the car is safe and a user has to have a yearly certificate of road worthiness to make sure it is still safe and driving without one is illegal.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.

To me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.

 

Paw

Why would it be racist? I’ve mentioned this many times, but as one person I discussed it with said many people in America don’t really care about gang member deaths because they’re criminals and so the fewer there are of them the better - to me that’s a bit sick as well as short sighted would be counterproductive if the aim is to limit the amount of fear in a society.

The thing is the questions that are screaming to be hear are – why is this violence going on, why are often minority groups involved, why other than suppression is nothing seemingly been done to change things?

The problem is that many people like you and others seem to prefer to put your fingers in your ears and ignore such questions, will trying to sell guns as a means of protection against the dark.

 

AGAIN – the question is why people feel they need to be armed for personal protection in the first place? If they were not so frightened they’d likely stop wanting them.

Why is it you seem to want to sell guns rather than thinking about a society where people didn’t feel they needed such guns?

 

OK let’s take the things that we have been using to try and reduce harm from having a lot of automobiles in a society and see how they could relate to gun ownership?

All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence to get a gun licence and have a current licence.

All guns would need to be registered and any theft or resale reported and logged.

Insurance would be needed and be paid up and valid.

Accidents or misuse (e.g. having a gun while intoxicated) could result in penalty points, increased insurance payments or loss of licence.

All guns would be needed to be inspected once a year for the licence to be renewed.

 

OK, I guess I'll wade back in after all.

Many states do have similar regulations. Others do not.

Cars aren't really a valid comparison. A driver's licenses isn't a constitutionally protected right. It's a privilege.

Despite the first few pages of this thread discussing whether or not gun ownership is a right, both "DC v. Heller" and "McDonald v. Chicago" have solidified that right whether you agree with it or not. The recent "Peruta v. County of San Diego" decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals set precedent for the elimination of "may issue" jurisdictions in regards to concealed carry. "May issue" means issuance is based on the mood of the Sheriff, but "Shall issue" states base issuance on meeting a strict set of guidelines. The AG of CA tried to challenge Peruta but the court ruled a third party can't intervene. Probably in their best interest - if they bring this to the Supreme Court they WILL lose.

Insurance and annual registration will never fly. It will be considered an unreasonable financial burden on the exercise of a constitutional right. It'd be the equivalent of a poll tax. This argument gets used all the time to fight voter ID laws, claiming people on welfare can't afford a $10 ID (free if you're below the poverty line). They even go so far as to say the poor are too stupid to know how to get one, or can't afford to take a bus. Ironically you can't get welfare, any public assistance, buy a car, open a bank account, register a car, or rent an apartment without valid ID, but the legitimacy of that argument is for another thread.

Registration is a hot topic here too. Many feel it's none of the government's business what they own. States have passed laws outlawing gun registries at the state level, and it's already illegal at the federal level. It's a legitimate privacy issue. Several states like MA, CA, and NY do have registration. There's always a paper trail leading right up the point of sale. It exists. Law enforcement agencies just have to do some work to follow it. Once it gets stolen though...no registry in the world can stop it from being used.

Just my input as to what would happen if they tried to implement these suggestions at the federal level. Wouldn't happen. They could only be implemented at the state level and even that would be difficult.

 

Paw

So are you saying you consider these ideas unreasonable?

 

Paw

I do find it amazing that you seem to find all this information on such and such v. X court or other so easily but when asked to think a little about the reasons for the socio-economic problems in your society [and the reason you give for people wanting a gun for protection] you say you are incapable of doing so.

Why is that?

 

Training is more important than any law they could pass. I was trained young and so were my kids, They know they're not toys and not to touch them without my permission (I don't leave them accessible anyway). They also know what to do if they or a friend fine one. That removes the mystery. My father left guns out and I wouldn't touch them because they weren't a big deal to me. At a minimum every citizen, whether they own guns or not, should be taught how to safely handle a firearm to be prepared if they ever find themselves in possession of an unknown gun. I don't mean they should all be taught to shoot, but how to hold a gun, how to safely hand one to another person, and the four golden rules (treat all guns as if they're loaded, never point the muzzle at anything you don't want to destroy, keep your finger off the trigger, and never shoot at anything unless you know what it is). A lot of accidental shootings could be avoided.

I also agree with reporting lost/stolen weapons.

I don't have a problem with Form 4473 (background check).

I don't agree with registration.

I don't agree with being forced to buy extra insurance.

 

Paw

So are they reasonable if unenforced but unreasonable if actually the law? I mean if there is no penalty for losing or selling on a gun and no way for the authorities to know if it has been lost stolen or sold on then there is no incentive for people to inform them. That’s way I think guns should be checked on annually.

[SIZE=11pt]Why is registration or insurance unreasonable? I mean wouldn’t a background check be registration? [/SIZE]