Boycott the NFL

[cheri1122]

The media does not want you to know the truth about firearms. They have not been honest about this for at least 40, when the Democrats started the BIG push to outlaw firearms ownership.

It is very difficult for people to vote for candidates/issues when the press is totally biased.

The media doesn't want us to know about a whole lot of things [which might embarrass people with the power to make the media suffer for their transgressions], hence the constant diet of random violence and celebrity gossip. Both subjects are a safe and reliable distraction, guaranteed to not offend any advertisers or legislators - or not very many, at least.
Irony: the media is considered to be largely liberal. Corporations are considered to be decidedly not liberal. The media is owned entirely by corporations - and not very many of them, at that.

 

[zorry]

Turtle, ever been to Pagliliy's ( spelled wrong) in Murray ?
We go to his other place in Princeton.

 

[layoutshooter]

The media doesn't want us to know about a whole lot of things [which might embarrass people with the power to make the media suffer for their transgressions], hence the constant diet of random violence and celebrity gossip. Both subjects are a safe and reliable distraction, guaranteed to not offend any advertisers or legislators - or not very many, at least.
Irony: the media is considered to be largely liberal. Corporations are considered to be decidedly not liberal. The media is owned entirely by corporations - and not very many of them, at that.

You mean the same corrporations that are funding Obama and the Democrats? The media is decidedly anti-gun. They regularly lie, and repeat the lies, of those who would destroy the Bill of Rights. It is not a distraction.

The 1968 Gun Control Act took away some the power of the People to pass laws. It gave some of that power to the Executive Branch, allowing the BATF to decide and rule on firearms issues, WITHOUT going through the Congress. They have been outlawing, or trying to outlaw, some or all semi-auto rifles and shotguns under the guise that they have NO sporting value. Number one, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with sporting uses of firearms, only defense. Number two, they are used for sporting purposes on a daily basis, all over the country. The media pushes these lies. They are the mouth piece of this administration.

People had better wake up. The Constitution is without a doubt under attack. On many fronts, not just the Second Amendment.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle, ever been to Pagliliy's ( spelled wrong) in Murray ?
We go to his other place in Princeton.

Pagliai's (polly eyes)
Yeah, many times. It's kind of a hangout, especially if you have kids (or nieces and nephews). They have a monster play park in there and a game room for the kids. They used to be really small, but over the years they've taken over the storefronts next door and expanded. Now they're huge. I used to live half a block away but now I love on the south side of town, almost 1/2 a mile away.

Everything they have is excellent, but the lasagna is their signature dish, for good reason.

 

[cubansammich]

I used to live half a block away but now I love on the south side of town, almost 1/2 a mile away.

Turtle da playa

 

[WanderngFool]

LDB - as promised, I did a little googling.

Japan. They cut down on gun ownership in a huge way and gun homicides (and I would assume all gun deaths) are down in a huge way.

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Facebook posting on handgun deaths has out-of-date numbers, but the trend persists

Check the table at the bottom of the page. They're a much smaller country but 11 gun homicides in 2008! Wow.


But there could be other factors than just reducing the number of guns so let me get back to my original thought that simple math is all you need to appreciate a smaller number of guns in circulation.

The population of the US is about 330 million. Let's call it 300 million to make the math easier. Let's say for the sake of argument that 1% of the population is mentally unstable - around 3 million people. If 40% of the population owns guns and the percentage is spread evenly between the mentally stable and unstable then we have 1.2 million mentally unstable people with guns. If you reduce the gun ownership to 20%, still evenly spread, the number of unstable people with guns is .6 million. It's a simple proportion.

I think arming crazy people is crazy. The greater the number of guns there are, the greater the number of crazy people with guns (all else being equal and of course it never is). Btw, I didn't say that you shouldn't be able to enjoy your toys, er excuse me, your means of defending yourself and your family.

 

[LDB]

There are many factors, most of which have little to do with the number of guns and much to do with the people, the culture, the laws and the legal system. You fail to take into account the number of criminals and gang bangers in your 300M. I don't know the number but I suspect it's at least 10% or 30M. Now, in your idealistic world, we reduce gun ownership to only 20% and 2.4M "unstable" people no longer have guns. Let's say 100M "stable" honest citizens originally have guns. Now 80M "stable" people no longer have guns. Oh, and the 30M criminals? They all still have their guns because they aren't going to participate in your idealistic world. So now we have 80M people no longer able to defend themselves against the criminals. Oh, and the "unstable" people are far more likely to hurt themselves than others. So, how about crime control and a change in societal standards rather than a hysterical seizing of guns.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Here is what I know: In Ohio at least, gun laws are far, far more non restrictive than they were even 10 or 15 years ago. CCW, the Castle Law and on and on... The only people I ever hear freaking out about their "rights being taken away" are either the extremely paranoid or the people who have something to hide. Enough already. You will have you guns to hug at night for the foreseeable future. It's a non issue.

 

[layoutshooter]

Here is what I know: In Ohio at least, gun laws are far, far more non restrictive than they were even 10 or 15 years ago. CCW, the Castle Law and on and on... The only people I ever hear freaking out about their "rights being taken away" are either the extremely paranoid or the people who have something to hide. Enough already. You will have you guns to hug at night for the foreseeable future. It's a non issue.

Paranoid? The Federal government just this year tried to outlaw an entire class of rifles and the draft of the law that Holder wanted passed wanted to out all semi-auto shotguns as well. It came very close to passing, despite the fact that we have the right to own them

We are talking about the Bill of Rights, not hugging guns, which is a snarky, demeaning remark. This is a very serious and import subject not to be taken lightly.

The Bill of Rights IS under attack. We had the IRS using tax code to stifle political speech. We had the BATFE trying to ban the sale an import of ALL semi-auto shotguns.

They are trying to insure that the People have no chance of challenging their control. The PRIMARY reason the the Framers saw in important to enumerate, not grant, the RIGHT to own and carry firearms, was to provide the People the ULTIMATE check and balance over the Federal Government.

 

[layoutshooter]

LDB - as promised, I did a little googling.

Japan. They cut down on gun ownership in a huge way and gun homicides (and I would assume all gun deaths) are down in a huge way.

PolitiFact Rhode Island | Facebook posting on handgun deaths has out-of-date numbers, but the trend persists

Check the table at the bottom of the page. They're a much smaller country but 11 gun homicides in 2008! Wow.


But there could be other factors than just reducing the number of guns so let me get back to my original thought that simple math is all you need to appreciate a smaller number of guns in circulation.

The population of the US is about 330 million. Let's call it 300 million to make the math easier. Let's say for the sake of argument that 1% of the population is mentally unstable - around 3 million people. If 40% of the population owns guns and the percentage is spread evenly between the mentally stable and unstable then we have 1.2 million mentally unstable people with guns. If you reduce the gun ownership to 20%, still evenly spread, the number of unstable people with guns is .6 million. It's a simple proportion.

I think arming crazy people is crazy. The greater the number of guns there are, the greater the number of crazy people with guns (all else being equal and of course it never is). Btw, I didn't say that you shouldn't be able to enjoy your toys, er excuse me, your means of defending yourself and your family.

First off, this is the United States, not Japan. Our cultures are not even close to the same and what works there, will not work here.

Second, why is it that all anti-freedom/Bill of Rights people ALWAYS and ONLY look at countries that restrict freedoms? Take a look at Switzerland, which has almost a 100% gun ownership rate and a DRASTICALLY lower murder rate than ours.

You see like a reasonable man who has little background on the subject, and has just fallen for the hysteria that the media bombards us with on a daily basis. Reread history, learn where our rights come from, why the Right to own and carry was deemed so important that the Framers enumerating that right, and then look at HONEST statistics.

Then get back to me on this. Just a question, so I can understand you more, have you ever handled a firearm? Do you have any background with them at all?

 

[davekc]

I'm not sure I would use Japan as a comparison. In the US, the "horse is already out of the barn". There are firearms readily available legally or illegally. Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in the country yet crime and gun violence continue to rise. So there is your experiment.
Doesn't seem that restriction policies will do much at this point other than enforcing the existing laws. Adding new ones will accomplish little as we currently see.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Paranoid?

Yes.

The Federal government just this year tried to outlaw an entire class of rifles and the draft of the law that Holder wanted passed wanted to out all semi-auto shotguns as well. It came very close to passing, despite the fact that we have the right to own them.

But it didn't. And it won't.

We are talking about the Bill of Rights, not hugging guns, which is a snarky, demeaning remark.

What does that even mean?

The Bill of Rights IS under attack. We had the IRS using tax code to stifle political speech. We had the BATFE trying to ban the sale an import of ALL semi-auto shotguns.

Please see line one.

They are trying to insure that the People have no chance of challenging their control.

Just because you keep saying it over and over doesn't make it so.

 

[layoutshooter]

I'm not sure I would use Japan as a comparison. In the US, the "horse is already out of the barn". There are firearms readily available legally or illegally. Illinois has some of the toughest gun laws in the country yet crime and gun violence continue to rise. So there is your experiment.
Doesn't seem that restriction policies will do much at this point other than enforcing the existing laws. Adding new ones will accomplish little as we currently see.

In addition to the "horse is already out of the barn" problem, there are cultural differences, HUGH differences. We don't believe the same about most things. Our views on government do not compare to their's, they never will. Their's is a highly structured society. Highly regulated and it has always been that way. Their society as close to a "monoculture" society as you can find anywhere. Basically one race, that has lived together in a tightly ruled, rigid way of life for eons. Their ways can never work here.

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes.



But it didn't. And it won't.



What does that even mean?



Please see line one.



Just because you keep saying it over and over doesn't make it so.

Your ignoring what is going on does not change it either. It does, however, make it far easier for those who would do away with the Constitution to do so. EVERYTHING that the Federal government is doing, in regards to firearms, is in direct contradiction. They have been infringing on that RIGHT for decades and continue to chip away at it. Same can be said for their attempts to stifle free speech.

 

[letzrockexpress]

Your ignoring what is going on does not change it either. It does, however, make it far easier for those who would do away with the Constitution to do so. EVERYTHING that the Federal government is doing, in regards to firearms, is in direct contradiction. They have been infringing on that RIGHT for decades and continue to chip away at it. Same can be said for their attempts to stifle free speech.

 

[davekc]

The only way to have gun control is to enforce the existing laws. Restricting them means nothing if a criminal can obtain them anyway. Strict prison sentences looks to be the only effective answer. Any of the other stuff is basically window dressing for democrats to raise tax money.

 

[layoutshooter]

The only way to have gun control is to enforce the existing laws. Restricting them means nothing if a criminal can obtain them anyway. Strict prison sentences looks to be the only effective answer. Any of the other stuff is basically window dressing for democrats to raise tax money.

Everything this government does is "window dressing". They are not interested in taxes. They are interested only in control. They first have to remove the last means of control that the People have over the government. The political controls that once existed have been taken down. Their last remaining fear is those who may stand up and fight them.

 

[WanderngFool]

Everything this government does is "window dressing". They are not interested in taxes. They are interested only in control. They first have to remove the last means of control that the People have over the government. The political controls that once existed have been taken down. Their last remaining fear is those who may stand up and fight them.

But would you describe yourself as an anarchist?

 

[layoutshooter]

But would you describe yourself as an anarchist?

No sir, I would not. I took the oath to defend the Constitution, against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic, on MANY occasions. I take ALL oaths I take VERY seriously.

The restoration of the Rule of the Constitution is paramount.

 

[WanderngFool]

No sir, I would not. I took the oath to defend the Constitution, against ALL enemies, both foreign and domestic, on MANY occasions. I take ALL oaths I take VERY seriously.

The restoration of the Rule of the Constitution is paramount.

I was just messing with ya. I decided you probably needed it.