RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment ***

RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 9:00:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I answer in a single post, criminals want money and organized crime secure its source of money by controlling the territory, three things make it easier for them: individualism of people that think they can defend by their own and don't care about others, easy access to guns and a low rate of uniformed police officers patrolling the streets, than social degrade is fertile ground for the growing of new criminals, as you said that kind of distorted values exist only in that subcultures but there must be a reason if people end to accept that rules. Eulero, your subjugation by the state is so intense you fear individualism. You fear not having a controlling nanny state. And because you fear you lash out at what makes you afraid. We saw the same thing when the individualistic US Army liberated all of Europe and especially the European Concentration Camps during WWII. I think they call it the Stockholm Syndrome now. You can't see what your owners have done to you so you're really not worth debating. HunterCA well you have shown yourself to be wrong, first off the US Army did not liberated ALL of Europe, They got as far as Austria, the British and Russian liberated a lot of Concentration of Camps as well. As to the Stockholm Syndrome it was actually called "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot. It become known as the Stockholm Syndrome after an attempted bank robbery in Stockholm in 1973. The FBI has reported that is may effect some 27% of those taken hostage. Now as to Italy chew on this. On September 25, 2001, US Congress passed a resolution that officially recognized the Florentine immigrant to the United States, Antonio Meucci, as the inventor of the telephone. Giulio Natta, Nobel prize for the polymerization of plastics. Guglielmo Marconi, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics for the invention of radio. Wow, I am so pleased you find me wrong. I can stop worrying now. It shows I'm on the side to truth, justice and the American way. Oh, and Patton was forced to stop and allow the Soviets to take Berlin. But, the Soviets didnt liberate Europe. They just changed one socialist dictator for another. It took until Reagan to finally bring the evil empire down. And, that was with US troops on the wall all of the time.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 9:18:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Eulero, your subjugation by the state is so intense you fear individualism. You fear not having a controlling nanny state. Actually, for those of us who don't live in the USA and in a "nanny state" as you put it, aren't in fear of individualism. What we do fear, is massive numbers of individuals who think they have the right to kill and terrorize people on a regular basis. Although eulero may live in a rabbit warren, when was the last time Italy had mass killings by people who shouldn't have access to guns? In fact, when was the last mass killing anywhere in central Europe by similar people? We see this almost daily in the US. So before anyone jumps on their soap-box about responsible gun owners, it is clear from anyone outside of the US that there are waaay too many that are irresponsible. Who gives a shit about who made the last major medical discovery (Marie Curie, Polish, double Nobel Prize winner in two different subjects. Louis Pasteur, French). And it can be argued that the Italian Renaissance is unparalleled anywhere on this planet. And I think those of Hunter's ilk like to split up posts so they can raise their post count. If you look to the left you'll see I don't have enough posts to even know what splitting posts means. And...I would argue that the Italian Renaissance was unparalleled. But what has it done since it allowed a post modern government to organize life. You are actually arguing in my favor.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 9:19:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I'm thinking though I should change to something with a kewl more deadly name like Hydro Shock or Black Talon. [8D] those names are catchy and sexy but I prefer ammo called, Dead People or Oops, wrong person or Shit, I panicked at bit then, my bad or Fuck, shot with my own gun not as sexy but more realistic Hornady is making Zombie loads. You might try those.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 9:22:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Then there was World War II, in which a lot of mass killing occurred in Central Europe. During the Cold War, there were a number of people shot trying to escape from behind the Iron Curtain, not to mention the atrocities committed by the regimes involved. But since those were killings perpetrated by governments, I guess those are considered "good killings" in the eyes of Europeans, since governments can do no wrong. I stopped answering because HunterCA is just writing random sentences that have only rhetorical value, but I want to make a point about this. After WWII European culture changed a lot, for an example italian republic's costitution is dated 1946, and it's wrote so that our governament will never perpetrate such killings for example our governament can't declare war first, just defend if directly attacked or help an allied. About what happened on the other side of the iron curtain we were on the same side as you of that wall and I don't know where you heard that were good killings for europeans. It's funny, one of the foundation principals of socialism is that the masses are to ignorant to be able to govern themselves and they must be governed by the intellectual elite. I think eulero, that you've just copped to your place. You just don't see.

Zonie63 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 9:27:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 I lived in the US for a bit (NC and FL) and I can honestly say it's the only place I've been in the world where I didn't feel safe. I live in AZ, but I've also lived in CA and NY at various times, as well as traveled all over the country on multiple occasions. It's only in the large cities (especially if they're unfamiliar to me) where I've felt unsafe. quote: You are probably right. However, there always seems to be many more, all over the country, that seem to enable yet another mass killing somewhere. We don't see that here or in Australia where there are strict gun laws. I'm sure the stats will prove you right, although I find it difficult to believe that it never happens in the UK or Australia. In fact, wasn't there a mass killing in Tasmania some years back? True, they occur more frequently in the U.S., but I don't know that I would automatically correlate that with the gun laws. I think there must be other factors involved, such as our culture, history, and the kinds of influences which have shaped Americans' mindsets. I don't think there's any equivalent of the Hatfields and the McCoys in British history, nor the Clantons and the Earps, nor John Wesley Hardin who shot a man just for snoring. There are huge chunks of American history where "law and order" just did not exist (or was so terribly corrupted that it was useless), so our history has taught us the need to fend for ourselves since no one is coming to our rescue. The image may have gotten a bit twisted in recent decades, which leads us to where we are now. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: Well, there was that mass shooting in Norway a few years ago, although you may not consider that to be part of Central Europe. It isn't. Maybe so. I think that the Cold War may have taught us to divide Europe between East and West, although "central" may be kind of hard to define. Even in America, not everyone seems to agree on what constitutes the "Southwest" or the "Midwest." But that's another topic. [;)] quote: If you follow Bama's opinion, the US soldiers won WWII. I would not agree with that, although US soldiers did help (even if Europeans don't seem to appreciate it as much now as they did during the event). However, I won't say any more since this isn't really a WW2 thread. quote: But, true, government killings appear to be acceptable for most people, unfortunately. And that's where the point of contention seems to lie. In a government which purports to believe in equal rights and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then that says it all. The people who work in government have no more of a right to own weapons than I do. If the government can't trust its own people, then I put that on the government, not the people. It's the government's responsibility to police itself, to ensure that the Constitution is followed and that the rights of the people are guaranteed. If they don't do their job, if law and justice are treated as an inconvenience, then consequences are sure to follow. quote: Whilst the rates are slowly reducing, it's still a long way above anywhere else in the world by several orders of magnitude. We aren't talking about other causes of death (which others tend to interject with); just gun-related deaths. In something I read recently, you are 668x more likely to die of a gun death in the US than in the UK. And we have strict gun controls here. So as much as many in the US (and on here) want their guns, the figures are startling. It may be a vicious circle. The more killings there are, the more people feel the need to defend themselves just in case. Still, it's been pointed out that citizens of the UK (as well as other European countries) can purchase guns under certain circumstances. They can likely also be obtained on the black market or smuggled in, so if someone is really hellbent on killing a lot of people, the possibility exists. quote: Quite true. I actually agree. Although if you look at our past, in the 20's when our gun controls were introduced, we also had something in our constitution that should have been debated and arguably had a referendum on it, theyt just simply swept it aside and enacted the gun control laws. So it doesn't always take a lot of debate. Our Constitution has prescribed methods by which it can be amended, so it's impossible to just sweep it aside in this country. The Constitution would have to be amended in order to enact such gun control laws, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:03:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 However, there always seems to be many more, all over the country, that seem to enable yet another mass killing somewhere. We don't see that here or in Australia where there are strict gun laws. Help me if I'm wrong. I haven't checked this in years. But I do remember that violent crime was going down in Australia for a couple of decades until they enacted strict gun laws then they started to go up again. Largely rape and violent mugging since it was no longer expected that anyone would be able to defend themselves. I know violent crime increased for at least three years after confiscating all the guns and then I stopped checking. I believe the same sort of thing happened in Britain. So, you traded gang bangers killing each other for bad guys raping women. Hardly fair in my mind.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:10:30 AM)
Oh goodness, how interesting. I find a November 5, 2013 article in the Daily Mail online that says Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia. Figures in the article say 3.6 percent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crimes. Scotland was 3.4 percent and the US was 2 percent. Goodness gracious. Someone will have to tell me if the Daily Mail can be expected to report the truth.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:11:54 AM)
It does appear to be old stats.

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:29:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: eulero83 I answer in a single post, criminals want money and organized crime secure its source of money by controlling the territory, three things make it easier for them: individualism of people that think they can defend by their own and don't care about others, easy access to guns and a low rate of uniformed police officers patrolling the streets, than social degrade is fertile ground for the growing of new criminals, as you said that kind of distorted values exist only in that subcultures but there must be a reason if people end to accept that rules. Eulero, your subjugation by the state is so intense you fear individualism. You fear not having a controlling nanny state. And because you fear you lash out at what makes you afraid. We saw the same thing when the individualistic US Army liberated all of Europe and especially the European Concentration Camps during WWII. I think they call it the Stockholm Syndrome now. You can't see what your owners have done to you so you're really not worth debating. HunterCA well you have shown yourself to be wrong, first off the US Army did not liberated ALL of Europe, They got as far as Austria, the British and Russian liberated a lot of Concentration of Camps as well. As to the Stockholm Syndrome it was actually called "Norrmalmstorgssyndromet" by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot. It become known as the Stockholm Syndrome after an attempted bank robbery in Stockholm in 1973. The FBI has reported that is may effect some 27% of those taken hostage. Now as to Italy chew on this. On September 25, 2001, US Congress passed a resolution that officially recognized the Florentine immigrant to the United States, Antonio Meucci, as the inventor of the telephone. Giulio Natta, Nobel prize for the polymerization of plastics. Guglielmo Marconi, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics for the invention of radio. Wow, I am so pleased you find me wrong. I can stop worrying now. It shows I'm on the side to truth, justice and the American way. Oh, and Patton was forced to stop and allow the Soviets to take Berlin. But, the Soviets didnt liberate Europe. They just changed one socialist dictator for another. It took until Reagan to finally bring the evil empire down. And, that was with US troops on the wall all of the time. You are missed informed. Patton was not forced to stop and allow the Soviets to take Berlin. His line of March was far to south of Berlin. General Eisenhower lost interest in the race to Berlin and made no plans for Berlin. Romania at the time of World War 2 was a Constitutional Monarchy, under King Carol II. Poland was a military dictatorship, Czechoslovakia was a democratic elected government, sorry no socialist dictators as you claim. And as to the fall of the Berlin Wall, no US troops were involved, just unarmed civilians. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MM2qq5J5A1s

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:39:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Oh goodness, how interesting. I find a November 5, 2013 article in the Daily Mail online that says Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia. Figures in the article say 3.6 percent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crimes. Scotland was 3.4 percent and the US was 2 percent. Goodness gracious. Someone will have to tell me if the Daily Mail can be expected to report the truth. Gee the UNDOC shows England with a 1.2 per cent murder rate, 722 murders, America 4.7 percent 14, 612. Oh and the Daily Mail is a tabloid it has been successfully sued by Elton John, Diana Rigg and Tony Blair to name a few.

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:43:00 AM)
Our Constitution has prescribed methods by which it can be amended, so it's impossible to just sweep it aside in this country. The Constitution would have to be amended in order to enact such gun control laws, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. [/quote] There are gun control laws in effect and up held by the Supreme Court, so it does not take a change in an amendment.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:47:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro You are missed informed. Patton was not forced to stop and allow the Soviets to take Berlin. His line of March was far to south of Berlin. General Eisenhower lost interest in the race to Berlin and made no plans for Berlin. Romania at the time of World War 2 was a Constitutional Monarchy, under King Carol II. Poland was a military dictatorship, Czechoslovakia was a democratic elected government, sorry no socialist dictators as you claim. And as to the fall of the Berlin Wall, no US troops were involved, just unarmed civilians. Disagree on Patton taking Berlin. My understanding is that Roosevelt and Stalin had agreed that the Russians would have the honor, ostensibly having lost so many to the Hun as Patton called them. Patton was furious, but Monty got the supplies after his botched Market-Garden. Stalin didn't care (he'd killed so many of his own) and Roosevelt let them take the brunt of Berlin.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:52:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro You are missed informed. Patton was not forced to stop and allow the Soviets to take Berlin. His line of March was far to south of Berlin. General Eisenhower lost interest in the race to Berlin and made no plans for Berlin. Romania at the time of World War 2 was a Constitutional Monarchy, under King Carol II. Poland was a military dictatorship, Czechoslovakia was a democratic elected government, sorry no socialist dictators as you claim. And as to the fall of the Berlin Wall, no US troops were involved, just unarmed civilians. Disagree on Patton taking Berlin. My understanding is that Roosevelt and Stalin had agreed that the Russians would have the honor, ostensibly having lost so many to the Hun as Patton called them. Patton was furious, but Monty got the supplies after his botched Market-Garden. Stalin didn't care (he'd killed so many of his own) and Roosevelt let them take the brunt of Berlin. Yachtie, it always goes without saying that Nosathro has the rewritten politically correct version. I just ignore him. But, you are correct.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 10:59:20 AM)
FR This is interetsing, on Patton. Apparently based on his diary. You appear to be correct, Nosathro. Perhaps the greatest error in Eisenhower's judgment proved to be one of the greatest political blunders in history. Eisenhower refused to take the European capitals of Berlin, Germany and Prague, Czechoslovakia, foolishly believing unfounded rumors about a "redoubt area" in southern Germany. When he secretly explained his plan to advance southeast into the Bavarian area to Soviet Premier Josef Stalin, the communist leader said, "Berlin has lost its former strategic importance. The Soviet High Command therefore plans to allot secondary forces in the direction of Berlin." Within moments of his communication, Stalin ordered five tank armies and 25,000 artillery pieces, all under the command of Marshal G.K. Zhukov, to attack the German capital. When Winston Churchill discovered the appalling error Eisenhower was making he wired to Franklin Roosevelt, "The Russian armies will no doubt overrun all Austria and enter Vienna. If they also take Berlin, will not their impression that they have been the overwhelming contributor to our common victory be unduly imprinted in their minds, and may this not lead them into a mood which will raise grave and formidable difficulties in the future? I therefore consider that from a political stand point we should march as far east into Germany as possible, and that should be in our grasp we should certainly take it." On 11 April, the eve of Roosevelt's death, Eisenhower told Patton his plans for the American stop line, and his reasons. Patton replied, "Ike, I don't see how you figure that one. We had better take Berlin and quick, and [then go eastward] on to the Oder [River]." Patton's protests met with indifference. Patton was disgusted with Eisenhower's naive political beliefs and his incompetence. The Americans had promised freedom to Europe yet Eisenhower was carelessly handing half of Europe to a communist regime which cared nothing about freedom. Patton was fully cognizant that Stalin wanted real estate and once he got it he wasn't about to give it up. Although Patton never lived to hear the phrase "cold war" he knew it was coming.

Nosathro -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 11:03:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro You are missed informed. Patton was not forced to stop and allow the Soviets to take Berlin. His line of March was far to south of Berlin. General Eisenhower lost interest in the race to Berlin and made no plans for Berlin. Romania at the time of World War 2 was a Constitutional Monarchy, under King Carol II. Poland was a military dictatorship, Czechoslovakia was a democratic elected government, sorry no socialist dictators as you claim. And as to the fall of the Berlin Wall, no US troops were involved, just unarmed civilians. Disagree on Patton taking Berlin. My understanding is that Roosevelt and Stalin had agreed that the Russians would have the honor, ostensibly having lost so many to the Hun as Patton called them. Patton was furious, but Monty got the supplies after his botched Market-Garden. Stalin didn't care (he'd killed so many of his own) and Roosevelt let them take the brunt of Berlin. Yachtie, it always goes without saying that Nosathro has the rewritten politically correct version. I just ignore him. But, you are correct. Nope fact. You may be thinking of one of the conferences: http://news.yahoo.com/authorities-look-lax-shooters-government-view-055243240.html And on Eisenhower http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_22.htm The truth does hurt, especially when it agree with your delusion.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 11:18:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I live in AZ, but I've also lived in CA and NY at various times, as well as traveled all over the country on multiple occasions. It's only in the large cities (especially if they're unfamiliar to me) where I've felt unsafe. That's how it felt with me in Raliegh, Jax and Tampa. I didn't feel safe walking to the local shops even. Here, I can stroll anywhere, towns, woodlands etc and feel completely safe knowing there are virtually no guns around quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I'm sure the stats will prove you right, although I find it difficult to believe that it never happens in the UK or Australia. In fact, wasn't there a mass killing in Tasmania some years back? True, they occur more frequently in the U.S., but I don't know that I would automatically correlate that with the gun laws. I think there must be other factors involved, such as our culture, history, and the kinds of influences which have shaped Americans' mindsets. I'm not saying it never happened and events like Tasmania were triggers to create the majority of the harsh gun laws. Guns for Joe Public were just declared illegal to have. Whether we agreed with it or not, it was just declared by the government of the day. But, since those laws were introduced, gun related deaths just plummeted through the floor and never rose again. And, as I predicted in my last post, Hunter has interjected with general crime rates when we are specifically dealing with guns in this thread; it always happens. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I don't think there's any equivalent of the Hatfields and the McCoys in British history, nor the Clantons and the Earps, nor John Wesley Hardin who shot a man just for snoring. There are huge chunks of American history where "law and order" just did not exist (or was so terribly corrupted that it was useless), so our history has taught us the need to fend for ourselves since no one is coming to our rescue. The image may have gotten a bit twisted in recent decades, which leads us to where we are now. I tend to agree. For eons, we always had something to control law and order even before the Peelers came into existance. When we, and a few other countries, ventured over to the new lands, they didn't really behave very well and things like law and order outside of the military were just non-existant. I can understand the need for guns in the days of the wild west; no law enforcement, not even much in the way of laws, no help nearby. But these days? For hunting and target practice, yes, just like we do here. But to carry them in the streets, loaded? There really isn't any need for that in modern times. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 And that's where the point of contention seems to lie. In a government which purports to believe in equal rights and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then that says it all. The people who work in government have no more of a right to own weapons than I do. If the government can't trust its own people, then I put that on the government, not the people. But equally well, if that government calls on some radical change which in theory should be better for the people of its country, your political system is such that it isn't very likely to happen. I'm sure the founding fathers didn't intend for those 'checks and balances' they built in to it to be used to such a crippling degree as we all witnessed in recent weeks. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 It's the government's responsibility to police itself, to ensure that the Constitution is followed and that the rights of the people are guaranteed. If they don't do their job, if law and justice are treated as an inconvenience, then consequences are sure to follow. Equally well, sometimes one political party can hold the government and the country to ransome over some point that they don't want to repeal or enact. We have seen that all too frequently over recent decades with Obamacare being the latest incarnation. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 It may be a vicious circle. The more killings there are, the more people feel the need to defend themselves just in case. I think that's where our laws stem from. The government saw the spiral of weapons and decided to act before it got well out of hand. We never got into the realms or numbers that we hear on an almost daily basis from the US. You could say that they nipped the problem in the bud. Sure, we didn't like it. But it became law. And the rest, as they say, is history. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Still, it's been pointed out that citizens of the UK (as well as other European countries) can purchase guns under certain circumstances. They can likely also be obtained on the black market or smuggled in, so if someone is really hellbent on killing a lot of people, the possibility exists. Yes we can. And that fact may surprise a lot of people in the US. The major difference is that we have to have a damned good reason to have one (and self defense doesn't count), the license is issued on a per-gun basis after background checks, is registered, and there are strict limits so nobody is able to own an arsenal. Also, there are checks on the type of gun and its usage. For instance, if you go grouse/pheasant shooting, you wouldn't get a license for a hand gun (it's an inappropriate weapon for that activity). And, of course, no gun is allowed to be carried in any public area, anywhere; it has to be unloaded and locked up for transport. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Our Constitution has prescribed methods by which it can be amended, so it's impossible to just sweep it aside in this country. The Constitution would have to be amended in order to enact such gun control laws, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Our constitution (such as it was, and where yours originated from), was deemed to be obstructive for the purpose of the law being proposed so it was just swept aside and the law enabled. It doesn't usually happen that way but it was felt at that time that it was inappropriate and effectively ignored rather than spend ages arguing about it and making amendments - they just did it. I believe Australia did something very similar when they swept away their existing laws and legal controls. Like us, they just swept away what got in the way and just landed the new laws onto the people. And again, like us, gun crimes just fell through the floor and I believe they have not witnessed a single mass shooting since then. You can't say that about the US. I don't have any figures but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a single month where there hasn't been some tragic mass shooting somewhere in the US in the last 3 decades.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 11:21:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Help me if I'm wrong. I haven't checked this in years. But I do remember that violent crime was going down in Australia for a couple of decades until they enacted strict gun laws then they started to go up again. Largely rape and violent mugging since it was no longer expected that anyone would be able to defend themselves. I know violent crime increased for at least three years after confiscating all the guns and then I stopped checking. I believe the same sort of thing happened in Britain. And as I predicted, someone comes up with non-gun crimes in a gun thread. [:D]

thompsonx -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 11:28:39 AM)
ORIGINAL: HunterCA Bama, I just bought a sig saur p238 to add to my concealed carry permit. I've spent the weekend wringing it out and it's a dandy. We should really start a thread discussing whether or not the .380 auto is powerful enough to use for personal defense. What a totally stupid thread it would be. If one cannot kill a human with one shot from a .22 the one has no business owning a firearm. My other guns on the permit are a .357 and a 10mm. Bassically little girls guns[:-] I do live in bear country and I buy special bullets for the 10mm just for them. Lil black bears are soooo scarry...they are herbavors arent they???[;)] But my thinking with the little sig p238 is that it's such a dandy to carry that when I go to town, say a Starbucks in San Francisco, it's much easier to conceal no matter what the weather and the clothes I'm wearing, and six very well placed shots with the .380 should handle the natives The "natives" is that code speak for "hatians"

thompsonx -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 11:36:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Gangs are a product of one of our failed trips down socialist nirvana lane. Who knew that jessie james,cole younger,vasquez,murieta,capone etc were the product of "socialist nirvana"[8\|] At the time Johnson imposed the "Great Society" socialism black children being born out of wedlock into families with no father around was lower than most other cultures in this country. After thirty years of the socialist Great Society being inflicted on them, basically forcing them to become statist wards, their rate of children being born to unwed mothers climbed to nearly eighty percent where it remains. What exctly has pregnancy out of wedlock have to do with gangs? Gangs are a product of the socialist ideal of forcing subjects to become dependent. This is one of the most ignorant statements I have read in my life. It lacks any shread of intelligent thought.

thompsonx -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/5/2013 11:39:36 AM)
ORIGINAL: HunterCA We saw the same thing when the individualistic US Army liberated all of Europe According to the history books you are mistaken. The u.s. actually played a rather minor part in ww2.

Page: << < prev 37 38 [39] 40 41 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.347656E-02