This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Majority Of Americans Believe US Would Be Safer If More People Carried Guns
When 26-year old Chris Harper Mercer opened fire at an Oregon community college earlier this month killing 9 people, the gun control debate was once again thrust into the national spotlight just a little over a month after Vester Flanagan gunned down a reporter on live television and just three months after 9 worshippers were fatally shot at an African American church in downtown Charleston.
The arguments are always the same on both sides. On the one hand there are those who contend that easy access to firearms and the very existence of the Second Amendment are to blame for the violence. On the other side are those who say that mental health is the problem and that in fact, the world would be a safer place if more people had concealed carry permits (i.e. if more people were carrying around guns in public).
As is always the case, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but from a kind of mutually assured destruction/ deterrence perspective, there does seem to be some merit to the idea that one responsible citizen with a handgun might well be able to make a difference in scenarios like that which played out at Umpqua Community College. That’s not to say that the best thing to do is turn the entire country into the Wild West where disputes are solved at ten paces in the middle of a dusty street at high noon, only that it’s a lot easier to stop someone who is determined to shoot innocent people if you have a gun yourself.
Against this backdrop, we bring you the following from Gallup whose most recent poll shows that the majority of Americans think the country would be safer if more people carried firearms after passing a criminal background check and training course. Here’s more:
A majority of Americans, 56%, believe that if more Americans carried concealed weapons after passing a criminal background check and training course, the country would be safer.
These results are from Gallup's annual Crime poll conducted Oct. 7-11. In the wake of mass shootings at schools and other public places, some have argued that the shootings could have been stopped if any of the victims had carried weapons. Others argue that having more citizens carrying weapons can lead to more violence and accidental shooting.
Among key subgroups, Democrats and those with postgraduate education are least likely to believe that more concealed weapons would make the U.S. safer. Republicans and gun owners are most likely to say it would make the nation safer. Younger Americans are more likely to choose the "safer" option than those aged 30 and above.
The seemingly continuous incidence of mass shootings in the U.S. in recent years underscores the need for a focus on what can be done to prevent such tragic events in the future. Previous Gallup research has shown that Americans believe a failure of the mental health system to identify individuals who are a danger to others and easy access to guns are more to blame for mass shootings than other causes tested.
Gallup's most recent poll on gun control shows that a majority of Americans favor stricter gun sale laws in this country. At the same time, however, less than half of Americans believe that one such stricter law -- universal background checks -- would prevent mass shootings. In fact, a majority say that if more Americans carried concealed weapons after passing background checks and training, the nation would be safer.
From a sociological perspective, the interesting thing here is that the spirit of the Second Amendment to a certain extent harkens back to citizens' right (indeed, their civic duty) to resist injustice in the event government becomes oppressive. Now, the social fabric of the US has apparently been stretched to the point that citizens need to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms just to keep from getting shot in math class or at the movie theatre.
We'll leave it to readers to determine what that says about where society is headed going forward.
»
- 15334 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
No Debt's posts not withstanding, this could be the most ignorant post of the week or year even.
At the very least we might be a bit more polite.
Never mind the gun owners. America would be a far safer place if anyone running for political or public office were required to undergo a background check and mental health evaluation with particular attention paid to psychopathic tendencies.
Okay, so a majority of Americans believe we would be safer if everyone had a gun, maybe even with open carry. So what?
So who really give a flip what Americans believe? They are stupid sheeple. I would rather trust what a majority of toddlers believe.
For the record, GO READ THE DAMN 2ND AMENDMENT. It has two clauses, not one, and they don't even make sense without each other...so the entirety of the 2nd Amendment has been abandoned. And before all you gun-goobers jump on the whiney wagon...I think gun ownership is absolutely protected...by the 4th Amendment right to "be secure in you personal effects." The 2nd Amendment is all about State Militia, which has been meaningless since shortly after the Civil War.
Meh. Some interesting factoids in there, but they're all already known, digested and interpreted by everyone in this venue according to their own lights. For any here who don't know about those items or haven't made up their mind, your in-your-face-everybody-is-stupid-but-me delivery probably pushed them toward the other way of thinking.
That sort of gross ignorance of history isn't worth wasting a fresh can of Redneck® Whoop Ass for, but I can spare a CTRL-C/CTRL-P.
The state militia and the unorganized militia are very different, and the unorganized militia plays a role in both US and international law to this day.
---
Troll or troglodyte, they both live under rocks.
If the Tyrants are sending professionals, instead of useful idiots, then they should send professionals worthy ZH.
A debate over how much "well regulated" owes its origin to the drunken discharge of firearms versus those "special" rednecks who went full-auto with their AK47's and then realized their neighbor's M16 musket balls wouldn't fit in their fancy ferner weapons, or that fat kid who always complained and couldn't hit the broad side barn at 20 paces is at least interesting, and can be supported by the mountains of historical evidence.
---
Dimwit: the definition of militia goes back goes back well over 1000 years (hint: fyrd, leding, leidang, etc). In the War of 1812, who do you think was fighting the mighty British Royal Navy with the latest military artillery?
Or to quote myself:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-19/ukraine-military-reveals-protes...
For the legion of low-intellect lefties who want to demonstrate their stupidity by quibbling about the English language meaning of "well-regulated" I would recommend reading the works of Fletcher (1698) and Stanyan (1714) beforehand.
Then read the correspondence between Mason and Washington regarding the Virginia Militia. Back then, gun-toting rednecks worldwide brought their own black guns, powder, and high-capacity bags of balls, along with their own BEER for the weekend chug & shoots. The Virginian officer corps had a predilection for RUM (which created some desires for slightly better "regulation" among those with responsibility for victory). However, to this day in Switzerland, while most of the black rifles are paid for by the State, the gun-toting rednecks still have to bring or buy their own ammunition and BEER at the range (outside of certain State-sponsored parties where some brass is included with the price of admission).
Well-regulated doesn't, and never did, mean what most people think it means (but then Vizzini was a pompous asswipe)
EDIT There's also Eliot's Debates, which details ad nauseam many of the nuances of the actually debate over the text and ramifications of Second Amendment through the various State ratifying Conventions. Or if you want to go really hardcore Virginian, there is David Robertson's Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, convened at Richmond, on Monday the second day of June, 1788, for the purpose of Deliberating on the Constitution recommended by the Grand Federal Convention, to which is prefixed the Federal Constitution
Copies of both books should still be available from the Google Plagiarization & Intellectual-Property-Theft bot.
---
danke vielmals. I didn't have those two in soft-copy, now I do.
Elliot's Debates- The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
Debates and other proceedings of the Convention of Virginia
A discourse of government with relation to militias (1755)
An Account of Switzerland: Written in the Year 1714 (English Version)
---
Whatever happened to READ BEFORE YOU GRADUATE TO POSTING?
I could also be a dick and whip out the DICK ACT from 1902 or the Selective Service Act of 1917 for a more recent affirmation by the US Congress and signed by the US President as to who is included in the militia is... (both of these acts have been more recently revised and updated by Congress, yet the defintions contained therein remain the law of the land to this day
EDIT: For the extremely ill-informed readers, the reason Virginia actually is more important that other States in regards to the Second Amendment is because the entire Bill of Rights was basically plagarization of the Virginia Declaration of Rights (the preamble to the Virginia State Constitution, but since people were well read if not also well educated back in the day, this went without saying)
---
Sorry about that - here's the non hyperlinked version from Bosworth and Tolle An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary (1898)- over 1500 years of the Anglo-Saxon "tradition" and legal history of the right to bear arms (and draft-dodging by the monied). First encroached upon by Alfred-the-not-so-Great in around 890 AD with the advent of the borough system to combat the Danes, who ironically employed the leding (basically the same as the fyrd) to finance and staff their Viking army and expeditions against the Anglo-Saxons.
FYRD, fyrdung, e; f.
I. an army, the military array of the whole country; exerctus, expdtio. To take part in the fyrd was the general duty of every freeman, even of the mere churl, but as forming one branch of the trinoda necessitas it belonged especially to owners of land. 'Every owner of land was obliged to the fyrd or expeditio; the owner of bookland as liable to the trinoda necessitas alone; the occupier of folkland as subject to that as well as to many other obligations from which bookland was exempted.' Stubbs' Const. Hist. i.190, q. v. By the simple appellation of fyrd the land-force was to be understood. The naval armament was denominated the scip-fyrd. v. folc-land I [c] :-- Be ðon ðe gesíþcund man fyrde forsitte. Gif gesíþcund mon, landágende, forsitte fyrde, geselle cxx scillinga andþolie his landes; unlandágende lx scillinga; cierlisc xxx scillinga; to fyrd-wíte [MS. fierd-wíte] in case a gesithcund man neglects the fyrd. If a gesithcund man owning land, neglect the fyrd, let him pay 120 shillings and forfeit his land; one not owning land, 60 shillings;a churlish man, 30 shillings; as a fine for neglecting the fyrd, L. In. 51; Th. i. 134, 7-10.
II. an army; agmen, exerctus :-- Fyrd sceal wið fyrde sacan army shall strive against army, Menol. Fox 565; Gn. C. 52 : Cd. 146; Th. 183, 8; Exod. 88. On Faraones fyrde in Pharaoh's army, Exon. 122 a; Th. 468, 3; Phar. 2. Claudius, se cásere, fyrde geldde on Breotone Claudius, the emperor, led an army into Britain, Bd. 1, 3; S. 475, 11 : Cd. 145; Th. 181, 17; Exod. 62. Gesomnade he his fyrd wið West-Seaxum he assembled his armyagainst the West Saxons, Bd. 2, 9; S. 512, 2 : Cd. 149; Th. 187, 24; Exod. 156. Fór fyrda mst the greatest of armies marched, Elen. Kmbl. 69; El. 35. Hí heora fyrd gesomnedon they assembled their armies, Bd. 3. 14; S. 539, 36.
III. an expedition; expdtio :-- Ðæt icof ðisse fyrde feran wille that I will flee out of this expedition, Byrht. Th. 138, 16; By. 221. Ðeáh ðú mid us ne fare on fyrd though thou go not with us in the expedition, Ps. Th. 43, 11. Onginnaþ ymb ða fyrde þencean they begin to think about the expedition, Cd. 21; Th.26, 18; Gen. 408 : 32; Th. 43, 11; Gen. 689 : 92; Th. 118, 7; Gen. 1961.
IV. a camp; castrum :-- Fyrd castrum, Ælfc. Gl. 7; Som. 56, 76; Wrt. Voc. 18, 28. [Laym. ferde, uerde, f. an army : Orm. ferd an army : Scot. ferde an army, host : O. Sax. fard, f. an expedition :Frs. feard : O. Frs. ferd, f. an expedition : Ger. fahrt, fart, f. ter : M. H. Ger. vart, f : O. H. Ger. fart, f. ter : Dan. fart, færd, m. f. an expedition : Swed. fart, m. a passage : Icel. ferð, f. travel.]
---
Ghordius,
You probably know more than most Americans about the US militias formed and funded by US oligarchs... so'll skip the privateers.
The most famous example I can think of being a certain oligarch (and later trust buster) named T. Roosevelt who resigned his position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy after ordering the invasion of the Philippines in order to form the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry and invade Cuba (Uncle Sam wasn't paying for Brooks Brothers to outfit the general Army).
The Rough Riders were subordinated to the regular army 5th Corps, and the top heavy 1st Volunteer officer corps had received federal commissions, so all the paperwork was in order before they departed, but the sequence commenced with self/private finance and organization after the President was "persuaded" to call for the formation of a new militia organism.
Then came the Dick Act
---
The way I am reading your post it think you might be errantly applying the 2nd amendment to the militia, when it actually applies to the people.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I will contradict and undercut myself in a minute, but this generalization might help (outside of the two quotes below) "A/The Militia" (unqualified) simply refers to the whole body of of the people. In legal parlance and literature this is often more precisely specified as the "unorganized militia" to distinguish the militia from various organized formations of the militia.
The second amendment simply doesn't address who has authority to organize units of the militia. Those individuals certainly have the right to keep and bear those arms. But whether there is a specific State or Local law that precludes those individuals from organizing their own militia is a separate matter and one which would actually be "difficult" to address through Federal law (except if it applied strictly to organization of non-Federal militias on Federal lands). Federal Law only deals with 1) the organization of the Federal militias, 2) the transfer of State regulated militias to Federal control under certain circumstances, and 3) conscripting members of the unorganized militia into units of the organized Federal militia under certain circumstances. (#2 could also be written as "conscripting members of the organized State militia into units of the organized Federal militia under certain circumstances", but that muddies the waters even more)
Richard Henry Lee
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.
George Mason's ominous warning about Dick Cheney and the neocons...
Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.
---
The European Redneck answer- see the defnitions of militia in the Hague and Geneva conventions, during wartime basically any armed "group" engaged in the fight (that doesn't fall into regular military or spies) receives "militia" protection- hence some of the US legal acrobatics in the "War on Terror" with "enemy combatants"
The US Redneck answer- great ... great grandpa George Mason drafted the Virginia Bill of Rights before he drafted the US Bill of Rights, and actually refused to sign the US Constitution because it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect the People and the states from the Federal government. The Virginia language is less ambiguous since it did not cater to whiny New Englanders- i.e. the right & obligation of a well armed citizenry overthrow and abolish the government of state by force if it got out of line.
---
The definition of "organized" and "unorganized" militia changes over time and legal jurisdictions. However, the correct English verb use was and is to "raise" a militia, so the militia always exists.
The Swiss system is similar, but I haven't properly read the Federal and Cantonal laws- since they don't apply to permanent residents.
---
If they had simply adopted the resolution language of the Virginia Convention they could have avoided so many headaches centuries later-
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power
The article link below is a lengthy and well documented source on the ratification debates and conventions, useful for enlightenment of the gun fearing heathens crippled by intellectual snobbery, including such bits as:
[w]ho are the militia, if they be not the people of this country ...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor .
As near as I can recall since my copy is still in Virginia- the paper above reads like an abbreviated version of a chapter in the Halbrook's book
---
As bad as the US education system is, even the little kiddy psychos figured that one out. Go back a couple decades in the US when kids could bring guns to school - that stuff didn't happen.
---
My point is that the 2nd ammendment has nothing to do with militias or the right to hunt.
The founders intent was codify the right of armed revolt in the event of the corruption of the ballot box.
For purely intellectual shits & giggles- the 13th ammendment is a hoot since it actually codifies an existance for slavery under the US constitution, "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted"
Ain't US education great?
It might be OK if all visitors to Washington DC and Wall Street were required to carry guns. But then requiring people to do something that was previously voluntary (such as buying health insurance) is not really what a free country is all about.
Guess we discovered that when political critters say we live in a free country, they are lying.
This just in: The majority of Americans also believe chickens have lips.
What if more people accepted the free gift of salvation from God in Jesus Christ?
The majority of Americans also believe in angels
...majority of Americans also believe in angels...
Are you saying that like it's a bad thing?
Huh? Do you believe in angels?
If you really want an example of how citizens can all have weapons, look at Switzerland. Every household has a gun, but they are registered and used for a '"well regulated militia".
Either that or people in Switzerland have far fewer mental problems than US citizens.
They also have better democracy than the rest of us...
Hmm... I wonder if that might be related...
You ignorant hussy. Well regulated militia dosent mean registered weapons. Read up on the founders intent.
Switzerland has a population around 8 million of which 25% have an advanced degree. Black are less than 1% of the population and there are almost no jewish.
Try the second theory -- fewer mental problems.
Active members of the ready militia are a minority of gun owners in Switzerland, just as the Stgw90 represents a minority slice of the total firearms of the citizenry and permanent residents in Switzerland.
Furthermore, guns are not registered in Switzerland. What is required (and not even for all guns, and even before considering the alternate standards for private person-to-person sales) is that one obtains a purchase license [Waffenerwerbsschein] from the Cantonal Police before picking up their new firearm from a gun store (in theory/practice the Cantonal Police will usually conduct a background check [Auszug aus dem Zentralstrafregister] before issuing the license, but it's not actually required and it doesn't always happen.
Furthermore, there are differences in the firearms laws between Cantons, and unlike in the US, the Cantonal Authorities have statutory authority to grant exemptions from certain Federal restrictions to individuals). Until 1988 there weren't even any federal regulations of firearms. Of course there are routine pushes and a few victories by the Statists and EU/Brussels lovers and the gun haters who collect enough referendum signatures for more encroachments on civil rights, but this has been a worldwide tendency over the same period.
If you have experience with the byzantine ATF regulations and can read German/French/Italian then the Swiss rules are a cakewalk, even if the "why" behind them is often mysterious. Unfortunately, most of what anyone who reads about the gun laws in Switzerland in English has incorrect information, and when one moves from unbiased sources to politically motivated sources, the factual and characterization errors escalate into pure bullshit.
As to those with in Switzerland mental problems, and common misconceptions among outsiders... The frequency and death rate due mass shootings in Switzerland are actually higher than the US (since there only 8 million people in the entire country, and there are a few nutcases among them). Of course, the death rate here isn't helped by that fact that people tend to be very skilled at shooting. Once you get away from Stgw90 crowd on the countless public ranges, the number of Kel Tec P3s being shot (and actually hitting the target) at 50 meters is shocking... as I've never seen anyone in America even try to shoot standard pistol distances with either a Kel-Tec P3/P3AT or a Ruger LCP.
Everyone would be a lot more polite..
in 2013 rifles were used in 274 killings
in 2013 hands, feet etc were used in 687 killings
so yes i would feel safer knowing that my rifle will protect me from those mass murdering hands and feet
(i used the rifles data because thats what they want to ban (.223 and .308) the most and it is rare that they would be found in the "unknown weapon" category as these rounds are almost exclusively a rifle round unlike a 9mm which is in the pistol/carbine category so they wouldn't be able to tell if it was a rifle or pistol killing.)
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the...
Another selective use of statics ... The same data show that out of a total 12,253 murders, 8,454 were committed with firearms. That is 69% of total murders.
There is no getting around the fact that the US has one of the highest incidences of gun related deaths, not to mentions random massacres, in the so-called 'developed nations' (with Sweden catching up fast). You have to go to Mexico to find worse.
If you want to own a gun, so you can defend yourself from an oppressive government who happens to own nuclear weapons, air carriers, fighter jets and drones, please feel free to do so (an good luck with that). Just stop pretending it makes the nation safer. This ain't 1775 any more.
they want to ban "assault rifles" so it was in context
Who cares what people think or how they vote. Americans have a Constitution that enshrines the right to bear arms. If you want America to be America, respect your Constitution. If you want America to be something else you're talking about a new country. Why is this point so important? Why not throw out the rest of the constitution as well? I mean you already don't respect some elements of it so why maintain the illusion. Make a new one constitution then if that's what you want but don't call it the America of your founders, because it won't be.
you probably noticed that the demoncunts won't go through the amendment process to try and overturn the 2nd amendment as they would fail miserably, they prefer the courts
How is that legitimate? I mean does the Constitution not superceed everyday courts?
it's not. the constitution is the supreme law of the land...supposed to be anyway
Yeah I would think so. I mean why should you listen to some judge over your values. That makes no sense. How would you even try to prosecute people for obeying the supreme law of the land? So this must just be political posturing.
if they push a ban through the courts or with an executive order it would be ignored by about 90% of the gun owners thereby turning those people illegally into criminals by fiat like in connecticut and new york
Wow so your president can actually issue an order to make you disobey your founding values. Or at least try I suppose, he/she can't actually prosecute people. If you do that's treason or at least extremely illigitimate.
it wouldn't be a law...legislators write laws. it would be executive or judicial fiat. only a 2nd amendment repeal through the amendment process would be legitimate. and maybe not even then as some past amendments were not properly conducted
Thanks for the information. Politics and law not easily understood.
you're welcome
only a 2nd amendment repeal through the amendment process would be legitimate.
I thought that any of the bill of rights (amendments 1-10) were permanent and cannot be repealed?? I could be wrong on that.
I mean does the Constitution not superceed everyday courts?
You're damn right it does!! Unfortunately the majority of people in the USA believe that if the Supreme Court (or any court for that matter) rules on something that is the law. News flash people . . . . the Supreme Court cannot create law of any kind and any ruling they hand down that is contrary to the Constitution is as null and void as if it never had taken place in the first place. Over the decades they have been allowed to far exceed their authority in this area to the detriment of the entire country. It's time that Justices that rule in opposition to the Constitution get promptly impeached (along with all the other assholes in D.C.)
Don't get hung up on the Constitution or the courts. Your own self-determined rights supersede all. Anything else merely upholds or infringes upon those rights.
. . . . the interesting thing here is that the spirit of the Second Amendment to a certain extent harkens back to citizens' right (indeed, their civic duty) to resist injustice in the event government becomes oppressive.
"To a certain extent"??? To ensure that the people could defend themselves against an oppressive and tyranical government is EXACTLY WHY the founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment!
Seems the major group against Americans are the Jews, as usual for the Satanic bastards!
Fuck the "majority".
The ablility to protect one's self is a natural right. And is INALIENABLE.
The "majority" don't even know what planet they are living on.
The people who commit the mass shootings are protecting themselves first, how long before its you?
When has it happened that a gun owner has protected themselves in a mass shooting?
When has it happened that a gun owner has protected themselves in a mass shooting?
In case you haven't noticed, nearly every mass shooting has occurred in a "gun free zone". This has effectively taken away peoples rights and ability to protect themselves. This is why your precious gun control laws make absolutely no sense. Crazy people don't give a shit about any gun control laws.
Also people doing the killing are not protecting themselves in any sense of the word. They are hurting others who cannot protect themselves. Your argument is dogshit.
Blaming guns for killing people is tantamount to blaming spoons for making people fat.
You seem to be part of the majority that don't even know what planet you are living on you twit.
Who are politicians going to listen to? The groups that have the most money of course. Here are a couple sample groups and their ANNUAL revenue.
Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc) - $9 million
NRA - $347 million
Love it.
Or leave it.
Guns are a problem. With Americans carrying guns we cannot carry out our program. The same program we executed in Russia where 50-100 million were slaughtered at our hand. And also the same program in Maoist China where an equal number were slaughterd. We have plans for America as well and the guns must go.
- The Elders of Zion
The right to protect yourself is just as important as a cat having claws to defend itself. Most liberal leftist morons who love animals and thinks it's cruel to declaw a cat because they can't defend themselves are the first one to proclaim that the ability of humans to defend themselves from aggression, especially women, is an abomination.
It's time to truly admit that you leftist idiots suffer from a mental disease called liberalism.
You know it to be true. You just can't admit that you are wrong so your normalcy bias prevents you from being honest with yourselves.
TAKE THE RED PILL FUCKERS AND JUMP IN WITH BOTH FEET!!!
FREE HOUR MIND!!!
Barry, et al, know that US citizens will kill them - as they will
If you demand "background checks" and "training courses", then you are FOR gun-control.
You have taken the side of the gun-grabber.
It remains only to discuss the extremity of your beliefs.
Sooo by that logic:you dont care if people who drive are licensed or not.
you dont care if your doctor is qualified or not.
you dont care if the person who teaches your kids is a paedophile or not ( no background checks)
You are simply a moron.
America is developing a new firearm based evolution I dont understand who exactly survives, the dumbest, the strongest?
Funny you invoke logic at the outset of your response, and then proceed to abandon it in your analogies and conclusions.
@ BeagleBog:
The "background check" is, imo, a feel-good measure that's largely useless, but 'better than nothing at all'.
I shoot at the public range nearby, and I have seen plenty of dumbasses with guns up there, who have no business owning them. As a gun-owner, I don't for a second think that "everyone should be allowed to have them", inalienable right, or not.
I've seen people shoot across the firing line, not follow basic range safety procedures, have accidental discharges because they weren't paying attention, start walking to their targets while the range is hot, try to impress their girlfriends by trying to shoot like a "gangsta", and generally display an attitude that makes them dangerous to others.
As a gun owner, maybe YOU should support the idea of training courses - the examples I've cited above, are EXACTLY the kind of shit that causes accidents, which only STRENGTHENS the gun-grabber arguments, right?
Guns aren't the problem, "people doing dumb shit with guns" is the problem.
You describe failures of training...of teaching and learning - and conclude they "have no business owning them."
Wrong - and ridiculous. They merely have "no business" being in the presence of others while shooting this way.
Beyond that, you MUST be arguing for MORE restrictive government policies, as there are already requirements in place regarding purchases/ownership, and yet you still have this experience.
Meanwhile, I would argue that any self-respecting and self-PROTECTING range facility would do well to police both the knowledge level, and practical behavior of their shooters. I would also argue YOU are derelict if you witness and/or are subjected to these unsafe individuals, and do nothing more than whine about it on ZH. I would further argue that you are foolish to continue to patronize any facility that allows this on an ongoing basis.
Like most gun control advocates, you would have us all subjected to even more oppression, based on the actions of a relative very few - and very anecdotal - examples of bad behavior.
The sad part is...you would do it while claiming to be a gun "advocate".
If some criminals want to get a gun, they will. No matter how tough the law is.
I always like to comapre Guns and Nukes.
Wouldn't the world be safer if every country had a thousand nukes.
I'll get a hundreds of replys with people trying to have one rule that validates guns but invalidates nukes in one simple reply. But most of them will only reply one or two words.
Would you sleep better at night if almost every country had nukes - except the one you are living in?
I would only sleep better if nobody had any nukes
Americans are stupid, not that we needed confirmation of that though.