Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by RightHand, Dec 17, 2012.
Graphic: Gun ownership around the world
Well that would never make the NY post or any of the big three (nbc, abc, cbs) and anywhere it is run would be accused of being right wing gun loving lunatics. It is refreshing to see in print, just a shame the masses will not accept it.
Its pretty interesting to see how low the murder rates are in europe. Its South and Central America that are showing to be most problematic. I think if anything this chart shows that, though we do not have the pest murder per 100,000 rate or percentage of murder by firearm rates, we are a country that is very responsible with our gun ownership as a whole.
I know most of you wont agree with me on this but I do think that sales could be handled better. I also don't see the need for high capacity magazines. 30 rounds a mag is enough for me. If we ever really needed anything more than that we have bigger problems than worrying about having 100 round magazines. All in all I think crazies are crazies and will do what they want no matter what.
My dad told me something when I was a teenager. If someone wants you dead bad enough there is just about nothing you can do about it. Though I believe prepping is a means to help prevent something like this I know deep down there is truth in that.
".......... Cuba declared a two-month amnesty for unlicensed gun owners—an implicit acknowledgment of the presence of an illegal underground market in Cuba, since very few individuals beyond active military personnel and state security agents are legally allowed to even possess weapons. As the Associated Press reports:
“Even most police officers are required to leave their pistols at the station or in a regional barracks when on vacation or leave, and young men participating in mandatory military service are given unloaded firearms for most exercises.”
During this “exceptional and one-time only” two-month amnesty, gun owners who come forward and pass aptitude and psychological tests will be allowed to keep their weapons.
Unclear: will they have to pay a fee for registration? This would certainly deter some Cubans from coming forward. Indeed, the Prensa Latina announcement says that gun owners will have to pay established taxes related to gun ownership.
And Cuban officials have a history of mistrust to contend with: Cubans were encouraged to register any weapons they owned in the years after 1959. Then later, authorities used the list of those who had sought licenses to go door-to-door and encourage them to turn over their firearms.
Nepal was interesting......
I would caution everyone about the results though. It's hard enough getting local LEO offices to count crimes correctly for the FBI's UCR. Some of these places are so obscure, I just don't see how the numbers are accurate. For example, in places like the DRC, there's probably a lot that goes on that never makes the books.
That's Chuck Schummer in case you didn't recognize him with a gun...because he's very anti-gun.
So...since you don't want anything bigger than 30rds, then nobody should have them?
Joined the Democratic Party yet? You seem to be a natural for them.
But they're not just talking ultra high capacity mags. We all know they would like to ban all semi-auto with no grandfathering and if not that, limit mags to 5 rounds. Checkmate may make a fortune off this.....
I am a registered democrat, yes . Typical cherry picker, taking one thing someone says and applying it to something unrelated. I said I don't see the need for them and that 30 was enough for me. I NEVER said we should outlaw them. Practice some critical reasoning exercises please.
However, if you could explain the need for high cap mags I would love to hear it. The reason is I would love to be informed as a way to defend OUR rights to have them. I am just not creative enough to think of one I suppose.
"high cap" mags, as you WILL see soon, will be anything over 10 rounds . . . maybe 5 rounds. Since you're young, you're not basing your statements on the '94 assault weapons ban, but, most of us are.
To you, a "high cap" mag is a drum mag. Those 60+ drum mags are gimmicky, and we are lucky they don't work well because mall ninjas think they're cool.
To answer your question:
The aim of the 2nd Amendment was to have citizens to have comparable arms to that of then typical infantry soldier. Then, it was a musket, today, it is an AR with many 30rd HI-CAP mags.
Since you WANT to be informed, educate yourself on what HAS happened before. A good place to start would be reading Unintended Consequences. There is lots of historical info in the book.
Thanks CATO! I have read Unintended Consequences BTW. It was required for my undergrad.
An even better source of information is "Patriots: The men who started the American Revolution" by A. J. Langguth. You will find it hard to put down
Thank you for the suggestion RightHand. I just might have to take a look at that.
You two are right. I don't look at a mag of 30 as a high cap mag. The reasons I support our right to own AR-15's (I own one) is because it is our right to have a militia that rivals that of our military. I am with you guys on that.
Having ARs doesn't put you anywhere near on par with proper conventional military.
People should be less concerned with their capacity to wage civil war, and focus more on real life problems.
Why do you need a car that goes well above the speed limit? You are a speeder and need a throttle governor right? Same as if you had a capacity magazine you are going on a mass shooting spree...
Nor should you have to.
The second amendment is not dependent upon justification....but this is something that is beyond the grasp of one dedicated enough to statism to register as a Democrat. Thank you, but based upon the tone and attitude displayed in the post to which I responded before, I have no wish for you to "defend" my rights...since you apparently do not understand them.
Have a nice day...I find that if I continue discussions with arrogant youngsters I find myself getting nastier than I wish to be here at the Tree...
Try it from my viewpoint. I collect them and some I don't even shoot.
Take a look at the 5 most recent shooters and tell me why they were still on the street?
Did you know we cannot force them to take their meds; can't violate a nut hell bent on killing people's rights; but ours are a different matter.
Why were they still on the streets? CT has some mighty strict gun laws.
You won't do a damn thing to remove them from our streets and btw, England's gun ban increased gun crime go look it up.
People refuse to address the issues and head out on a stupid tangent blaming inanimate objects instead of the nut jobs who commit the crimes.
The democrats apply this stupid logic to everything; 4 years ago 0bama promised to create jobs, spent trillions and didn't create jobs.
I know never let a crisis go to waste, huh.
We used to have nut houses in this country where they locked all these people up but then the libs determined that it was not nice to lock people up in nut houses so most of tyem were shut down. Now only the most obviously dangerous nuts that have already committed a crime can get a bed in one. The rest just roam about society and every once in a while one of them snap and go on killing sprees. That and we over medicate our children. They are given heavy psychotropic drugs for peoplems that used to be solved by a spanking or detention. Have an issue, here are some pills. Can't work and play well with others? Here are some pills. Depressed because you are a teenager and have poor self esteem? Here are some pills. It seems everyone has some kind of mental defect now.
As someone that has committed my best friend to a mental hospital and seen him fall into mental disrepair I have seen first hand what the state does....medicate, not solve the problem.
I think the real issue is that we glorify the killer.
People that would otherwise kill themselves go on to kill others as well so that they go out with a BANG and not a whimper.
....and pax....I am sorry if you feel I have an arrogant tone. That is not the intent. It is simply your assumptions about me based on 1 issue that bother me.
I do not have a personal need for high cap mags: therefore that makes me a democrat.
this led you to...
You are a democrat: therefore you want stateism.
These are all assumptions on your part.
For the record:
I did not vote for Obama in either election. Nor have I ever voted for a democrat in a presidential election. (4 to date) Last election I voted almost straight ticket republican. Just because someone is registered one way or another does not make them think one way or another. I pray (ohh look, a democrat who believe is god!) that you can look past our previous discussion in this forum and you will continue to add to the debate constructivly. In the mean time take more than a 1,2,3 glance at most of what I do here.
Yeah..I have plenty reason's for a 30 rd,
Slidefire and other goodie's..When i'm rock'n a herd..I want to rock'em all !!!
I too am a registered democrat. Living in Maryland, and knowing which way this state usually leans, it allows me to vote in the primaries and try to select the candidate that most closely will represent my views in the case that my first choice does not win the general election. A mans voting registration does not say anything about him as a person, Its how you use your vote that counts.
Separate names with a comma.