quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Since this is suppose to be about the 2nd Amendment here is something interesting.

http://www.theonlinerocket.com/news/2013/09/26/second-amendment-often-misrepresented/

And I did not write this article.

As I pointed out in my last post you can find a link to "prove" anything.

I also find it amusing that this supposed expert has a glaring error in the 3rd paragraph. "For example one can own military style weapons, but cannot own a machine gun." I was going to say that perhaps he can't get a machinegun, depending on what state he lives in, but he lives in PA. The Federal government hasn't made MGs illegal, just costly and requiring a specific permit. I know for a fact that PA allows class 3 firearms, including belt-fed MGs. I've seen plenty of MGs for sale, all it takes is an application, a squeaky clean record, time, and money.

I haven't read the rest of the article yet. When someone gets something that simple wrong right at the beginning, I tend to lack faith in the rest of what they have to say. Maybe I'll finish it later.

You know what is interesting 42% of the gun owners in the US have a High School diploma or less.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I cant recall you ever posting facts, from a reputed unbiased website, which prove me wrong. Most of those posting facts on gun crimes which mention the UK use websites run by gun owners or similar associations.


First an unbiased site is one that agrees with you.
Second a society which has had virtually no chance in murders, murders with guns perhaps, but not murders in general is of zero importance in this conversation.
Third Are you assuming that anyone who owns a gun is unreliable?
That would be like me saying that the fact that you do not own a gun invalidates everything you say and I AM NOT SAYING THAT

Bullshit, are you seriously suggesting extremist websites are not unbiased, just web sites that dont agree with you.

Now you are again putting words in my mouth and not even reading my posts properly. I clearly stated in rural areas people need guns for protection, something I have been consistently saying since I joined the Forum back in 2006. How is that saying all gun owners are unreliable ?

Your second point makes no sense, anyone can have an opinion on any issue. Are you saying because we dont have many gun murders we cant be appalled when they happen in America, which inturn gives us an opinion on the issue ? Hardly a shining example of free speech, is it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Granted much crime is caused by also caused by drug gangs, but for that our murder rate would be even lower. I have never blamed guns per se, just the assault type rifles and the ease with which guns seem to be obtainable. I have also said people living in rural areas needs guns for protection.


Another understandable misconception.
In this country you are more likely to be killed by a baseball bat than a rifle of any kind.

Really read this: does not matter what type of gun, it is a gun. A poor attempt to try and disprove something.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/murder-weapon-statistics/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Since this is suppose to be about the 2nd Amendment here is something interesting.

http://www.theonlinerocket.com/news/2013/09/26/second-amendment-often-misrepresented/

And I did not write this article.

As I pointed out in my last post you can find a link to "prove" anything.

I also find it amusing that this supposed expert has a glaring error in the 3rd paragraph. "For example one can own military style weapons, but cannot own a machine gun." I was going to say that perhaps he can't get a machinegun, depending on what state he lives in, but he lives in PA. The Federal government hasn't made MGs illegal, just costly and requiring a specific permit. I know for a fact that PA allows class 3 firearms, including belt-fed MGs. I've seen plenty of MGs for sale, all it takes is an application, a squeaky clean record, time, and money.

I haven't read the rest of the article yet. When someone gets something that simple wrong right at the beginning, I tend to lack faith in the rest of what they have to say. Maybe I'll finish it later.

You know what is interesting 42% of the gun owners in the US have a High School diploma or less.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Since this is suppose to be about the 2nd Amendment here is something interesting.

http://www.theonlinerocket.com/news/2013/09/26/second-amendment-often-misrepresented/

And I did not write this article.

As I pointed out in my last post you can find a link to "prove" anything.

I also find it amusing that this supposed expert has a glaring error in the 3rd paragraph. "For example one can own military style weapons, but cannot own a machine gun." I was going to say that perhaps he can't get a machinegun, depending on what state he lives in, but he lives in PA. The Federal government hasn't made MGs illegal, just costly and requiring a specific permit. I know for a fact that PA allows class 3 firearms, including belt-fed MGs. I've seen plenty of MGs for sale, all it takes is an application, a squeaky clean record, time, and money.

I haven't read the rest of the article yet. When someone gets something that simple wrong right at the beginning, I tend to lack faith in the rest of what they have to say. Maybe I'll finish it later.

It gets worse as it goes along.
When he started arguing that the right to bear arms was the right to serve in the militia I couldn't take anymore of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Since this is suppose to be about the 2nd Amendment here is something interesting.

http://www.theonlinerocket.com/news/2013/09/26/second-amendment-often-misrepresented/

And I did not write this article.

As I pointed out in my last post you can find a link to "prove" anything.

I also find it amusing that this supposed expert has a glaring error in the 3rd paragraph. "For example one can own military style weapons, but cannot own a machine gun." I was going to say that perhaps he can't get a machinegun, depending on what state he lives in, but he lives in PA. The Federal government hasn't made MGs illegal, just costly and requiring a specific permit. I know for a fact that PA allows class 3 firearms, including belt-fed MGs. I've seen plenty of MGs for sale, all it takes is an application, a squeaky clean record, time, and money.

I haven't read the rest of the article yet. When someone gets something that simple wrong right at the beginning, I tend to lack faith in the rest of what they have to say. Maybe I'll finish it later.

It gets worse as it goes along.
When he started arguing that the right to bear arms was the right to serve in the militia I couldn't take anymore of it.

I really liked THIS PART

The right is wrong in interpreting the founding era as establishing the individual’s right to bear arms individually so that they could defend themselves against a tyrannical state,” Bergmann explained. “That’s not what the founders intended the well-regulated militia to be.”

I like how he concluded THAT despite the fact thats EXACTLY what the founding fathers had JUST DONE a few years earlier!

PS. he did not argue the right to bear arms was a RIGHT to serve in a milita! he argued it was an OBLIGATION!


The language ’to bear arms’ in this case is not the individual’s right to bear arms but rather the individual’s obligation to their community to defend their community by bearing arms,” Bergmann said. “So in this sense, ‘baring arms’ is about one’s obligation to one’s community for purposes of defense

Bergmann said “They are wrong because not only did the founders intend for people to have guns, but they intended to force people to bear guns for your community.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Since this is suppose to be about the 2nd Amendment here is something interesting.

http://www.theonlinerocket.com/news/2013/09/26/second-amendment-often-misrepresented/

And I did not write this article.

As I pointed out in my last post you can find a link to "prove" anything.
This post unless you are predisposed to believe it to the kool aid level is completely irrational.
PS it also contradicts your favorite misconception concerning slavery.

Does not contradicts my conceptions, adds to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You know what is interesting 42% of the gun owners in the US have a High School diploma or less.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

WOW who'd have thought the percentage of people who own guns education level pretty much MATCHES the education level for the WHOLE COUNTRY

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Since this is suppose to be about the 2nd Amendment here is something interesting.

http://www.theonlinerocket.com/news/2013/09/26/second-amendment-often-misrepresented/

And I did not write this article.

As I pointed out in my last post you can find a link to "prove" anything.

I also find it amusing that this supposed expert has a glaring error in the 3rd paragraph. "For example one can own military style weapons, but cannot own a machine gun." I was going to say that perhaps he can't get a machinegun, depending on what state he lives in, but he lives in PA. The Federal government hasn't made MGs illegal, just costly and requiring a specific permit. I know for a fact that PA allows class 3 firearms, including belt-fed MGs. I've seen plenty of MGs for sale, all it takes is an application, a squeaky clean record, time, and money.

I haven't read the rest of the article yet. When someone gets something that simple wrong right at the beginning, I tend to lack faith in the rest of what they have to say. Maybe I'll finish it later.

You know what is interesting 42% of the gun owners in the US have a High School diploma or less.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

WOW who'd have thought the percentage of people who own guns education level pretty much MATCHES the education level for the WHOLE COUNTRY


More than half the U.S. population 25 years of age and over in 2000, (52 percent) had completed at least some college education.

(which means 48% have a HS edu or less for the entire population of the country)

Just under one quarter (24 percent) had a bachelor's degree or more. Nine percent had an advanced degree (master's degree, professional degree or doctoral degree.


Above taken from the U.S, Census Bureau

you'll grasp at ANY STRAW to try to prove your points huh?

Actually, I could be wrong but the statistic in the link looks like it means that 42% of those who have a 'High School Education or Less' own a gun. The higher the level of education a person has, the lower the likelihood of his/her owning a gun.

quote:

I beleive it means the OPPOSITE
42% of gun owners are less educated, while 58% of gun owners are higher educated

which means of all gunowners 16% MORE gun owners will be of higher education!

BUT, I think you missed my point, which was the the percentage of less educated people who own guns is not EXACLY the same but pretttty close to the national average of those who are less educated

quote:

ORIGINAL: treat4u1954

You are kidding!? More homicides by baseball bat than rifle of any kind? Gibberish -- debate and disagree over facts, not utter ignorance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

I beleive it means the OPPOSITE
42% of gun owners are less educated, while 58% of gun owners are higher educated

which means of all gunowners 16% MORE gun owners will be of higher education!

BUT, I think you missed my point, which was the the percentage of less educated people who own guns is not EXACLY the same but pretttty close to the national average of those who are less educated

No, on reflection, I'm certain I'm right. If you check the link it says:

Education
College Post Graduate 30 %
College Graduate 37 %
Some College 41 %
High School Graduate or Less 42 %

Those figures add up to more than 100%. Your interpretation makes no sense given that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You know what is interesting 42% of the gun owners in the US have a High School diploma or less.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

quote:

Look at the data without prejudicial blinders and it's quite clear

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro



You know what is interesting 42% of the gun owners in the US have a High School diploma or less.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Look at the data without prejudicial blinders and it's quite clear

.

Why are you saying that to me instead of BitYakin? My interpretation of the figures was the same as yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You know what is interesting 42% of the gun owners in the US have a High School diploma or less.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

So, that leaves 58% that have above a high school education.

Not that how much education a person has has anything to do with gun safety. I have two friends that I have known since high school. One did not graduate, yet he is the most conscientious person I know when it comes to gun safety. The other guy has something like 10 or 12 years of college. He took all kinds of computer classes, and can and has written software programs for tracking drugs for pharmacies, which is tied in to his actual career, which is as a pharmacist for Albertsons. But that guy...the "educated" one...has ZERO common sense, and while I have gone hunting with him when we were younger, he is someone that you keep a very close eye on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Look at the data without prejudicial blinders and it's quite clear

.

Why are you saying that to me instead of BitYakin? My interpretation of the figures was the same as yours.

You're bright enough to have been able to spot it immediately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Look at the data without prejudicial blinders and it's quite clear

.

Why are you saying that to me instead of BitYakin? My interpretation of the figures was the same as yours.

You're bright enough to have been able to spot it immediately.

So you were saying that was in fact BitYakin who had prejudicial blinders?