January 10, 2013
-
Should President Obama Take Guns Away?
Vice-President Joe Biden indicated that President Obama may use his executive order to restrict gun use.So he might work around Congress and just restrict guns. Here is the link: LinkDo you think President Obama should restrict gun use?

Comments (160)
I have a feeling this blog post will not end well.
no
First!
The option is not about taking guns away from people who use them for hunting or protecting their homes.
I’m fine with a more thorough background check for any sale of any weapon. I’m not so sure I’d like to be restricted from owning a certain class of weaponry though…It didn’t do very well in the 90s when we had a ‘rash’ of school shootings but then again people will harm others in any way they can if they are determined enough to do it – sad but true.
Is there an option to go back in time and use that men in black wand thing to wipe the mind of the person who invented the gun so that it never existed in the first place?
He’s the obvious choice.
We can take a step toward gun control or we can continue with our charade that we give a shit that kid’s bodies were found dead with as many as 6 bullet wounds then once again do nothing.
No. Just no.
The crazies already have guns. It will take an entire generation for any comprehensive “gun control” to show effectiveness.
To do so is to decide for all the country; not to do so is to remain too softhearted for a politician of his level. There are situations where a man must act correctly and not be afraid of the public opinion that will surely be negative.
The question is, for how long will this law last after Obama?
i think i want more restrictions…
no, i dont think so.
First of all, I don’t think anybody on the federal level is trying to restrict guns beyond so-called assault weapons, the title of the post, I humbly believe, is a little misleading.
But for the sake of argument, there is only so much authority that the executive office can exercise to restrict weapons access. The Supreme Court has ruled that outright prohibitions on handguns (Chicago and Washington, DC, cities that ironically have high rates of gun crimes) are unconstitutional, so there are limits to how far you can go with banning weapons.
Beyond that, as someone who carries a firearm, I pay close attention to two trends: the first is that these mass shootings always seem to take place in weapons-free zones (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, Colorado movie theater shooting, and Sandy Hook shootings), which as far as I’m concerned prove that weapoms-free zones do nothing to protect people from criminals or psychopaths who by nature ignore the law, at best, and at worst have blood on their hands because they made people defenseless when these kinds of things happen. These people may be mentally ill or just plain criminals, but they aren’t stupid: they go shoot up places where they know that they will be the only ones armed. Think about that when you go to your local college or elementary school classroom, where you think (hope, really) that no one else has a gun.
The second trend is that when something like this happens, it usually takes someone showing up (with a gun) to put a stop to a shooting in progress. Usually, its the police, but there is precident for armed private citizens having stopped robberies and mass murders in progress. Proof that the best defense against an armed criminal is an armed citizen, generally speaking.
FUCK NO!!!!
I don’t think guns should be taken away. They just need to be regulated a lot better. Like, background checks for mental health and exactly what types of guns people should be able to have. In my opinion, I feel like if guns were taken away only criminals would have them. Criminals get drugs illegally, so who says they won’t be able to get guns the same way. People are crafty, and if they’re desperate enough to own something illegal, they certainly will find their ways to smuggle and obtain them.
I hate it when I hear people talking about gun control and they say something to the effect of “we’re not taking the shot guns and the pistols or the hunting riffles” like they’re doing us some kind of favor that we should be thanking them for. It’s oozing through the t.v. from news castors to letterman, like we should wipe our brow and sigh in relief for them not stepping on our necks and stealing our rights.Even
though they are widely ignorant of many of the bills and legislation
trying to be crammed through the governmental cogs that would do that
very thing.
It doesn’t matter if guns kill or people kill.
It doesn’t matter if the founding fathers meant for you to be able to
shoot a deer or overthrow a tyrant. What matters is that the people have
not authorized the government to limit their right to bear arms.
Forget the fact that he’s now lying about yet another thing ( source)
Also they ARE in fact looking to take away handguns and shotguns and hunting riffles.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
IIt doesn’t matter why the 2nd amendment was written…. its there… and it shouldn’t be messed with
@TheGiantSlayer -
All I have to say is your view of how constitutional interpretation should be done is retarded.
@whataboutbahb - yeah, well, in exercising my first amendment right …. bite my ass.
@TheGiantSlayer -
Good to know you don’t understand how the first amendment works as well.
Yes.
@whataboutbahb - sorry, I meant to say feel free to bite my ass.
@TheGiantSlayer -
Hopefully you still don’t think the first amendment plays any significant role in allowing you to make the modified statement.
I have mixed feelings about this issue.
@TheSutraDude - what about protecting their country? every able-bodied person is expected to come to the defense of their country in time of invasion by outside forces. yes, I know the odds are slim on that, but in light of 9/11, the American people were cut out of the picture by the Patriot Act. if the American people with guns had been told the truth on a number of issues, then the best resource the US Gov had access to for true homeland security would have been properly utilized.
No. If Obama abuses his “executive order” privilege, then he has failed to defend and support the constitution. he will be seen as an enemy of the State. from this, he will be rightfully charged with a high crime before all gun owners. if he truly is an American, then the punishment will meet the crime. the issue becomes much murkier if he is a usurper. he doesn’t want to do an executive order on this, because the truth of his origins will come out.
Of course not, we need population control.
First, that’s not the question. Nobody’s talking about taking away guns. Even if they were, the Supreme Court doesn’t exactly look favorably on that sort of thing. But again, nobody actually talking about it.
Second, we’re probably looking at another do-nothing commission that *might* at some point propose legislation that *might* get passed, but probably wont.
As long as the public clamoring doesn’t get too loud, we’re not likely to see any major changes in gun policy.
On the other hand, a few commonsense restrictions (such as those supported by a majority of NRA members) might not be the worst thing ever.
@wordwarrior39 - Executive orders are not a new thing, and are not (under the definition in the Constitution) treason. They
are
subject to judicial review. If you think the President isn’t or even might not be a US Citizen, you’re an idiot.
@TheSutraDude – Feinstein and Schumer DO INDEED desire the total disarmament of America’s private citizenry – they’ve both been at it for over twenty years.
@SlickRick297 – THANK YOU, Sir, for pointing out that areas declared to be “weapons free” by administrative diktat end up as the most likely places to be killed by one of these spree shooter types.
@TheGiantSlayer – Actually, in DC v. Heller, the majority decision makes the point that
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g.,Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
So YES our M-4s, HK-91s, AK-47s, FALs, etc., etc., are indeed protected by the Second Amendment.
Think about it – the Founders were just four, five years out of a war with a global superpower (the UK), so they wanted the citizenry to be armed with the same sorts of arms that were in military usage at the time. I refer anyone who doubts this to Federalist Paper #46, where Madison argues that the fledgling United States can tolerate a standing army of 25,000 to 30,000 men because that army, if it ever got out of line, would get whupped by an armed citizenry twenty times its size:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
@BobRichter - Bob, I don’t engage in name-calling. You think me an idiot. I see myself as an English teacher in a foreign country who hasn’t forgotten that Congress admitted that they failed to properly vet Obama the way they did McCain in 2008. That admission came out in 2010. Until the allegations of forgery are cleared up concerning Obama’s paperwork, then there is sufficient grounds to doubt his stories. Go ahead and continue showing the world your own idiocy and continue earning the contempt of your peers.
If the constitution of the US says that Congress shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, then any executive order issued by the president that infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is equally wrong. Yes, it can be interpreted as a treason, as it is a violation of his oath of office to defend the constitution. The executive order privilege is one thing, but what would make it treasonous would be what the order contains.
Now go back to sleep.
@mikewb1971 - gold. this is gold. thanks
I see no reason whatsoever to believe that making certain guns illegal, or disarming the law abiding will make any of us safer. I also do not see how law abiding citizens arming themselves to the teeth if they so choose affects the rights of any other citizen whatsoever.
@wordwarrior39 - Don’t talk to me about 9/11. I was working that morning at Ground Zero. If everyone of us there was armed to the gills it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference. If you’re talking about allowing everyone who boards a commercial aircraft to carry firearms do you have any idea what would happen if everyone on a plane pulled out a gun and opened fire? One of Mitt Romney’s gaffes was to ask why you can’t open a window on a commercial flight.
@mikewb1971 - Whether or not Feinstein and Schumer advocate for a total ban on guns is true that is not what the conversation today is about. It’s about reinstating the ban on military assault weapons and high capacity magazines and closing loopholes on background checks.
@TheSutraDude - No, I am not talking about letting everyone on the plane have guns. There should have been air marshals on those flights. As for Romney, right… Neocons got the same brain capacity as Liberal Democrats. Idiots all with no intellectual giants among them. Its too bad that emotion is more important than rational thought where Democrats and RINOs are concerned. Being emotional means never having to stop and think critically about anything.
By the way, if everyone on those flights had guns and opened fire, they would have brought those planes down, more than likely before they hit the Towers. How many lives would have been saved that day if the planes splashed in Hudson Bay instead of crashing into the Towers? I don’t like the answer because too many people would have died on those planes. The people in the Towers would have lived, but only because of the sacrifice of the passengers.
Being on the ground on 9/11 has nothing to do with my point concerning invasion. It was concerned with homeland security. The US Gov had a resource of millions of gun owners that they could have united behind them had they played their cards right. Instead, the idiots gave us the Patriot Act, and as a result the government lost a lot of credibility and respect.
@wordwarrior39 - This exactly!
It annoys me when politicians keep assuring us that they won’t stop us from being able to hunt. That’s nice and all, but I keep trying to explain to people that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting–it never mentions hunting–it’s about a militia. And who is the militia? The National Guard is one militia, yes, but the “unorganized” militia, according to the Militia Act of 1903, is every able-bodied male citizen between 18 and 45.
Unless you plan on killing someone there is no reason to own a gun. I support an Executive Order that would require all gun owners to turn their guns over within 90 days. On the 91st day a Federal warrant should be issued for those who didn’t and they should all be charged with possessing an illegal firearm and sentenced to the five year mandatory sentence. As for “hunting”, it’s completely unnecessary these days and those who do it for sport are murderers in training who will eventually work their way from animals up to people.
Absolutely. We should do away with all 10 of the Bill of Rights. We should just toss out the entire Constitution while we’re at it. No sense wasting all this time gradually sliding into fascism.
I’d say it’s funny that people seem to believe an executive order can legally remove a Constitutional right. . . But really, it’s just depressing.
Checks and Balances aren’t just banking terms people.
“Every once in a while there’s something that awakens the conscience of the country, and that tragic event did it in a way like nothing I’ve seen in my career,” ~ Joe Biden
Every once in a while, are you kidding me… we need better consciousnesses
“Vice-President Joe Biden indicated that President Obama may use his executive order to restrict gun use. “
Wow, Dan, did you even read the article? It’s not even about that..
I think automatic weapons should be restricted. Citizens should be allowed to own a revolver, rife, and shotgun. I have never owned a firearm.j
Should Obama take guns away? No. And I honestly don’t think he’d ever be able to. I don’t know too much about guns, but basically anything you can’t/wouldn’t hunt with unless you were really sadistic shouldn’t be for sale. I do, however, think a little more security goes a looong way.. nothing wrong with having a cop patrolling areas where you wouldn’t expect a shootout, considering the recent shooting have been in places like that.
I was surprised recently when I walked into a gun shop and was told I could buy a 38 special with ammo with no background check. That is ridiculous. I have to pass a test and have good eyesight to get a drivers license. But I can buy a gun without any kind of check (except a personal check for the amount of the gun, that is – and then they would want ID to prove I am okay to write the check, nothing to do with the item I am purchasing.) I found that a little disturbing. I think there needs to be a background check on anyone wanting to purchase a handgun. (BTW – I didn’t make the purchase.) OTOH, the president does not have the authority to change the constitution unilaterally. This president is becoming drunk with power.
“They are trying to take away my right to own a gun. This makes me so mad that I have violent thoughts of shooting the person who I think is at fault…,” said unstable gun owner.
I have no problem with people owning guns. I have a problem with emotionally-compromised, psychotic meltdown-having, unstable gun owners.
Everyday, we put A LOT of trust on everyone… Strangers, neighbors, relatives, friends… Trust that they obey society rules… That they don’t snap.
Is restricting guns too much to ask for? Meh.
If he did I’m pretty sure he would end up shot.
yes
the guns. the knives. the stones. the sticks. the bricks. the rocks. fists.whips.chains.poisonous substances.ban everything including brains. just fit us all with our mind control chip.
That ain’t happening.
Just imagine that we could successfully confiscate every last gun on the planet. Then what?
Would homicidal maniacs stop being homicidal? Would rapists stop raping? Obviously not.
The firearm is the one thing that puts the 100 lb woman (with a 30-round magazine) on equal footing with five 200 lb men.
She knows the police will only get there after the fact to document the crime and eventually catch the criminals. Small comfort after being raped and/or killed.
With what do you propose she replace her gun to protect herself and her family from evil people?
No. He may have to abrogate the Constitution of the USA in order to do so, and the way to do that is to enact FEMA when a disaster occurs. Disasters can be fabricated….
No, he should not.
He should start by taking away the army’s guns.
He has no authority to take guns away. He does not have the power to create law, he can only enforce the laws passed by congress. Any action he would take would be an unprecedented assault not only on our rights but the foundation of our Republic.
Then there is the fact that there is no evidence this criminal action would serve any purpose other than disarming law abiding citizens. The numbers just don’t add up.
I am a student of history; I believe that the past holds the answers for the problems of today, if we are smart enough to find them. In the case of gun control history grants us many examples of past attempts to stem violence by limiting or eliminating the public’s access to fire arms. If gun control is a viable method to reduce or eliminate violent crimes its implementation will result in lower crime rates. The following are examples of those attempts.
Example: In 1976 Washington D.C. passed a law generally prohibiting private citizens from possessing guns, as well as requiring guns in private homes to be kept unloaded and inoperable via disassembly or by a trigger lock. The law went into effect on September 24, 1976.
Result: From the time the trigger lock law was put into effect, until it was overruled by the Supreme Court in 2008, the murder rate in Washington D.C. averaged 73% higher that it was at the outset of the law. While the murder rate in the nation averaged 11% lower.
Example: Chicago passed a hand gun ban in 1982.
Results: Now at first it seems as though this ban was effective, as the murder rate in Chicago dropped 17%, while the U.S. murder rate was 25% lower. However, sense the outset of the handgun ban in Chicago, until it was deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, the percentage of murders committed with a hand gun rose by 40%. In 2005 96% of all murder victims in Chicago were killed by a man using a hand gun.
It appears as though the evidence does not support the theory of Gun Control. However there are many people who will say that the gun bans referenced above were ineffective because the criminals could go a crossed state boarders to acquire a firearm. Therefore, they claim, a gun ban will only be effective if it is done on a national scale. History once again blesses us with a passed example of just such a ban. This time it comes from Europe. However, sense the countries in Europe are the size of states in the United States it would seem that a national gun ban there would suffer from the same weaknesses as a statewide ban in the United Sates. However, one European nation is separated from the rest by a large body of water, the English Channel. I of course am speaking about the United Kingdom of Great Brittan. The U.K. is obviously on an island, so bringing firearms into the country would be a very difficult feat. So a national gun ban here would be an excellent example of their effectiveness.
Example:Great Brittan passed a gun control law in 1967 that made it so that civilians had to get a license from their local police chief in order to purchase a firearm. You also had to provide id numbers for all the guns you owned. In 1997 Great Brittan passed a law that required the surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 hand guns and a million pounds of ammunition were confiscated. Using the records the government began mandating in 1967, the government knew they had all but 8 legal handguns in England, Wales, and Scotland.
Results: Sense 1967 the murder rates have averaged 52% higher than before the law took effect, Sense 1997, the murder rate has averaged 15% higher than before the ban.Even in the case of an island nation such as the United Kingdom, a gun control law was ineffective at stemming the rising tide of violence. The United Kingdom is an island nation, connected to the mainland only the euro tunnel. That makes it incredibly hard for criminals to smuggle guns to the nation, seeing as they have limited points of access. The data though shows that violent people are committing violent acts, at a much faster rate than before the gun ban. Using the lessons of history it is easy to understand that banning the public from owning firearms will not prevent criminals from acquiring them, or committing evil deeds.Gun control proponents will rightly point out that Gun Control does not only mean banning the sale of firearms, but it could also mean limiting the sale, or placeing more controls on the sale of fire arms. Many call for longer waiting periods, so the government can do background checks to prevent criminals from acquiring guns. They say that limiting the ability of citizens to carry firearms will lower the crime rates. Once again history shows us the answer.In 1976 Georgia and Wisconsin tried two very different approaches to lower crime rates. Wisconsin tried a gun control style approach. They imposed a 48 hour waiting period to purchase a hand gun. It was thought that this way the government could conduct a background check and prevent criminals from purchasing firearms. Where as in Georgia, the government passed legislation that would make it not only easier to purchase firearms, but also easier to carry them. If the gun control theory worked, crime rates would be higher in Georgia, and lower in Wisconsin. The results of the two plans are quite clear. In Georgia homicide rates dropped an amazing 21%. Unfortunately for those who support the idea of gun control, Wisconsin did not share Georgia’s good fortune, as their murder rate rose 33% in the same time frame.It should be clear by now that the data does not support the theory that Gun Control will put an end to violence in this nation. However, evidence of gun control failure is not enoughto disprove a theory. So far I have proved that past attempts at gun control have failed, but I have yet to disprove the concept behind gun control. That brings me to a controversial topic, and that is Concealed Carry. If the concept behind gun control is a valid one, then allowing people to carry firearms will only lead to increased crime rates. Once again we must turn to history to show us the answers.
Example: On October 1st, 1987 Florida’s right to carry law became effective. Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits, with 746,430 active.
Result: Sense the law took effect, Florida’s murder rate is down 36% from what it was prior to when the law went into effect. To put that in perspective, during that same time frame the United States murder rate only dropped 15%
Example: In January 1996 Texas’s right to carry law became effective. In 2009 Texas had 402,914 active permits.
Result: Sense the law took effect Texas’s murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was prior to the law taking effect. To put that in perspective, during that same time frame the United States murder rate averaged 28% lower.
Example: On July 1st, 2001 Michigan’s right to cary law became effective.
Results: Sense the law took effect Michigan’s murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was prior to the law taking effect. To put that into perspective the United States murder rate averaged 2% lower than.
What does all of this show? It shows that in states that returned the right of their citizens to bear arms, the murder rates went down. In two of the above examples the decrease in the murder rate actually doubled the decrease in the national average. So thus showing that rather than banning guns, or limiting access to guns, that by actually allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves crime rates went down.
@julia_f_jones - How is violating the Constitution “the right thing”? Go to England if you don’t like the 2nd ammendment. They have a complete gun ban. So does India. Maybe you can try things there, just don’t get caught out after dark with a man you’re not married to.
HELL to the NO! Barack Osama’s got no business taking our guns. Let’s have someone do a more thorough background check on him.
@StupidSystemus - ”That they don’t snap”? Why don’t you have the same worries about the government? Or maybe you just believe that they are all ubermensch and therefor a double standard is completely acceptable.
I understand his wanting to ban the Assault Rifles, their clips and ammo, but to ban all guns? No!
On the News last night, a comment was made, that President Obama wanted to ban the Assault (Automatic’s and Semiautomatic’s) Rifles, their clips and ammo. But it may be hard to do. If that’s the case, then they want to make the taxes on the clips and ammo 50% of the cost of buying them, hoping that it would make it too hard to buy them…What good would the Assault Rifle be, if you can’t buy the clips an ammo?
They need to realize this one very simple thing….The criminals don’t care if they’re banned, they’ll still find a way to get them….
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – that sentiment of “them snapping” is all-inclusive. Yes, that includes the government. I did say ‘everyone.’ But sheeple’s opinion of the government depends on who is in power and whether the government sides with their version of reality.
i’d rather see it done through legislation. but, considering that pro-gun people seem to be willing to sacrifice the safety and security of others… desperate times call for desperate measures.
Cmmnt nd reblg
@SKANLYN - I carry a gun. I plan on using lethal force against anyone who puts my life, or that of my family, in danger using a weapon or other lethal force, within the confines of the law. I will be completely happy if I am never put in that situation and never take a life, especially after witnessing the trauma my mom went through after she took a life in the line of duty as a sworn police officer.
You completely miss the point of why private citizens legally carry weapons. We don’t plan to murder anyone, rather defend ourselves against those who would do us such harm.
I hope you were joking. If not, you should take a look on the federal and Supreme Court rulings that say no level of government can legally take the actions you are proposing.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Your way of thinking is entirely backwards. How about this, I want guns to protect myself from both shooters and the government should it decide to herd me and my family into a prison camp. You can be proudly unarmed either way.
@StupidSystemus - Well if you would also like for the government to be disarmed then I would still call that fair. The problem is all the people who want the government to have weapons but not the citizens. But on the other hand, if there are no guns in the country then that would make us pretty vulnerable to invasion from anyone.
@SlickRick297 - Don’t waste time talking to Skanlyn, he’s just a troll trying to sound extreme so that people will argue with him. I also saw his idiot comment and chose to ignore it. If someone breaks into my house and starts doing something to my wife then I do most certainly plan on killing him, but I can do that with or without a gun. The only thing is if I have a gun it gets done more quickly, and with less personal risk on my part.
@obamawatch - Thank you for pointing out the areas where gun control has made violence worse, and where relaxed restrictions have had a positive impact on violent crimes. People need to understand that when they propose wide sweeping gun control, that this has already been tried in many areas, and has not helped reduce violent crime, and if anything, they have made it a lot worse. You can argue that gun control advocates have blood on their hands, because they force people to be legally defenseless against criminals who ignore the law, thats why they are called criminals.
@SlickRick297 - Owning a gun is 25x’s more likely to result in the accidental death of a family member than in stopping an intruder. If you want to protect yourself here’s an idea – install a damn alarm! Murderers and rapists are far less dangerous if they never get into your home in the first place. But then again I get the feeling most gun owners relish the thought of someone breaking into their home so they can let the fireworks begin. And don’t give me any bullshit about the constitution. It’s an outdated document written by rich old white men who owned slaves and slaughtered native Americans to entertain themselves.
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - WORD!
This debate is almost pointless. In the end, the Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms. Recent decisions by the Supreme Court basically show that the USSC rejects extreme gun control measures and that position doesn’t look like it is changing soon. If Congress or the Executive Branch enacted a major overhaul of gun control, there will be twenty different lawsuits filed in federal court before the ink signing the bill into law is even dry, putting it on the fast-track to getting shot down by a federal court or the USSC.
I’m not a Republican (anymore) but this is one instance where I am glad for them, because there are too many Republicans around to let this go too far.
What no one is talking about is addressing the root cause of these types of events. An assault weapons ban is not going to stop them, nor is limiting the magazine capacity of weapons. If we really want to put an effective stop to such violence, we need to pay much more attention (and dollars) to our education and mental health rehabilitation programs. People who want to commit mass murder will find a way to do it, ask Timothy McVeigh. We are all focusing our attention in all of the wrong areas.
I’m just wondering, at what point are people going to start thinking the government is getting a little too powerful and a little too controlling?
Imo, it’s already alarming enough that they want to take a consitutional right away. I think we need to start getting the bottom of why people are snapping…and how we can take care of that.
No, and if he tries, he should be impeached and removed from office for attempting to violate the Constitution which he swore an oath to uphold.
Answer: 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.
Second Amendment, baby……Guards against this lil thing called tyranny.
@TheGiantSlayer – Glad to help!
@ellie1945 - They realize that. The thing is they want to eventually do away with the 2nd ammendment completely, and the way they are going to do it is one piece at a time. You can kill a frog by boiling it slowly. Today it’s assault rifles, tomorrow it will be something else. Eventually it’s going to be like India where guns AND knives are banned, and at that point it will be just as safe as India.
No.
I’m so glad my neighbors have hundreds of guns. That really makes me feel safe and secure.
I’d say it would be illegal but the way they keep changing things I’m not sure if we still have a constitution.
@TheGiantSlayer – I don’t own any guns but I don’t like what I’m seeing lately. How much the government under this administration wants to take from us.
You yanks never seem to care about where you fit into the international community. You support your government running around the playground (the earth) being the bully, stealing lunch money, other kids right to sit in the shade (or you extort a fee so they can). I say you should keep your guns for one reason and one reason alone…..One day the bully might need putting down and the only ones that can get to him is his crew that made him boss. All other reasons are self-serving BS. You can say it’s to defend yourself…..but just end up sounding like you still haven’t evolved from amoebas. In Oz we had our guns taken away years ago….but we are just pussy-whipped bitches and we hardly ever stand up to our government. Mind you our guns mostly are smuggled into the country in shipping containers and *surprise* we have very low gun crime. THE WORLD IS WATCHING YOU AMERICA. If you do oppose the government taking your guns………at least use valid, intelligent, modern arguments rather then the hick attitude of ‘I need my guns so I can shoot crims’.
@Teh_Redfoe - As a so called yank who has lived abroad, is currently living abroad, and knows a bit about world opinion, having spent enough time living outside the U.S. to become bilingual, as well as experience how at least 2 other countries do gun control differently than we do, I’d like to humbly submit that you, sir, could benefit from getting a clue. Thank you for reading.
I just payed for membership in the NRA,
@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex - that’s fine. but the reality of the situation is, people with evil intentions are also being armed at the same time as well-inintention citizens such as yourself. hell, for all i know you could shoot up a school some day. you seem willing to let that happen for the sake of securing your own rights.
i also have to consider the security and safety of my loved ones who, it just so happens, work for federal and local governments. considering your obvious hatred for the government, i imagine you’d like to make them target practice. am i supposed to care about your safety more than theirs?
@SlickRick297 - Hmmm fair enough….My interests mainly lie in the IT world not gun control….but we are still watching….
@wordwarrior39 -
“ if the American people with guns had been told the truth on a number of issues, then the best resource the US Gov had access to for true homeland security would have been properly utilized. “
if it wasn’t for the rampant anti-Islamism, i’d agree with you.
no i dont think they should take guns away because we need them for self defence what would happend if some war break thru and nobody had guns? what are we gnna depend on the goverment?and this is like world war 2 when hitler took away the jews guns and had no way to fight and look what happend i believe we shouldnt mess with our laws and should not change the amendmant. sorry but i dont believe in this idea and shouldnt be thougt of.
@SherylM - Do you mind if I ask what state you live in?
Welcome to the machine. I hope everyone enjoys living in a police state.
@Teh_Redfoe - I’m curious… you accuse us of not giving a hoot about where we stand in the international community, and then you warn us that you’re watching…
And?
We don’t give a hoot, remember?
Yes, absolutely.
@Bobby - then someone had better step up now and do something about it, right? The sooner someone does something the sooner the results.
There should be no reason for the general public to own a high powered semi-automatic rifle. Period. They are built to kill large amounts of people in small amounts of time. It is a weapon of war.
With that said, I’ll hang onto my 9mm for protection, thank you very much.
No, I do not.
I like how when Bush was in office, all the liberals hated the government. But when there is a president in office who would force everyone to live exactly how the liberals want them to live, they have complete trust in the government, and wonder why no one else does.
Maybe we should trust the balancing of power. Both of the people’s and the government’s. We should never trust solely in the government. If you do, you simply have not read enough history.
If you want a police state, go to Europe. Let America remain America. No one asked the liberals (or Republicans!) to change us into something we were never meant to be. Which is totalitarian government. We specifically have in place the balances of power, the laws that would keep a leader from becoming a tyrant. If you want to do away with that, go somewhere else where they don’t have such protection anymore. See how you like it.
@GitterCritter - The AH-64 D Longbow would be my suggestion as what to replace her guns with. Holy crap, I swear there should be a place where I can get my hands on one. Gah, what a beautiful machine.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
@Jenny_Wren - i don’t trust the government completely… just far more than the average citizen.
Yes because if he does not do it then he will get blamed for not doing anything about the mass shootings…he is in a no-win situation.
@MomWithoutaMinivan -
The muzzle velocity of the M9 Beretta, which is a 9×19 (9mm) round, is 1200 feet per second. There are commonly available rounds with higher muzzle velocities as well. Contributing factors to a muzzle velocity of a round are the rifling and length of the barrel, as well as the grain count on the round itself.
Companies like Double Tap, Extreme Shock, Federal, and Hornady all make 9mm rounds that have muzzle velocities in the 1500 fps range, and one company named Magsafe makes a round that has a 2000 feet per second muzzle velocity. These are all publicly sold rounds, available at your local gun store or… gasp… Wal-Mart.
The muzzle velocity of the 5.56 (NATO) round is 3,110 feet per second. This is only 1000 feet per second “higher powered” than the readily available 9mm pistol rounds that you seem to be ok with.
Your claim that these rifles are built to “kill large amounts of people in a short amount of time” is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps if you’re talking about an M249 squad assault weapon, or an M60 machine gun, or maybe even the .50 cal on top of some Humvees, but what those weapons have is an “automatic” fire capability. This means that as long as you hold the trigger, rounds will come out until the weapon is empty. Unfortunately, this isn’t an option for a civilian purchase, unless you have an (INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT) to obtain Class III license. The common “assault rifle” that the common citizen can buy only fires one round per trigger squeeze. They don’t even have the three-round burst capability that today’s military M4 rifles have.
When you refer to “high powered” I hope that you now realize the “high power” effects the distance a bullet will travel from the weapon, not how many rounds per minute it will fire. Since the muzzle velocity of a little .22 caliber plinker is often less than 1000fps, and still more than capable of killing someone, your claim that “high powered” rifles are somehow more dangerous than your 9mm is ultimately ludicrous.
Oh, wait, did you want to say that the “high powered” rifle is more dangerous because of it’s magazine capacity? Well, you should know then that your average 9mm handgun’s magazine comes in 15 round capacity. With one “in the hole” that makes 16 rounds. The average civilian AR-15 magazine? 20 rounds. You’re talking about a whopping five more bullets before a reload. Since it only takes an even remotely capable shooter an average of 3 seconds to drop the mag and insert a new one, that just doesn’t seem to pan out to be much more of an advantage, now does it?
Reasons for the common citizen to own an assault rifle?
Because we want to, because we don’t need your permission, and because we’re Constitutionally protected in our right to do so.
Have a nice day.
@Teh_Redfoe - I’m sorry then, I must have confused your saying, in all capital letters, “THE WORLD IS WATCHING YOU AMERICA”. I took that as bearing an intonation of “warning.”
Perhaps your intent was to…let us know that American Idol was a hit across the world?
@Under_the_Ghillie - I am not warning anything…..you are responsible for yourselves. I am just talking about world perspective……. But like you are inferring you don’t give a damn. I just wish your country would work with us instead of dictating to us. Sorry I mixing different issues but we all part of one big family now.
@Under_the_Ghillie - MWHAHAHA……true as…….You lead the world in so many things…..I wish you would in everything
@Under_the_Ghillie - Well. guess I need to hit the books. I was misinformed. To be fair, I know how mine works….
@Under_the_Ghillie - Hey if you are interested in in my opinion go to my site and read my Just a quote post from a few days ago….hehe I was a supporter of the idea originally taking guns off civilians after the latest horrible tragedy over there. But I did some thinking and looked at the close-to police state Australia attitude and it lines up with the fact we literally are our governments bitch and we got no guns. So if I had a say back when the gun-buyback scheme ran here I think I would of opposed it. My grouch though is its USA pushing us further down the police-state path.
At the moment? Ultimately, no. There is the Second Amendment after all–and the implications that go with it.
Of course that being said, there’s not enough people discussing about getting to the root of the issue that’s causing these mass shootings and even the everyday one-on-one or one-on-few shootings. In reality, the root of the issue(s) is potentially complex and can’t be easily explained in a single paragraph. Therefore, it’s much easier to say “I’ll simply shoot the messed up folks in defense. We’ll (maybe) figure it out after they’re dead…or not since they’re dead.”
To take my cynicism even further, I could say that many people could easily use this line of thought…”I don’t believe in abortion, but the moment that kid comes out the womb a little crazy, I’ll just shoot it. Problem solved. See? Guns are handy after all and you don’t have to waste my tax dollars on addressing mental health issues, education and such. They just weren’t feeling and accepting God’s love.”
HELL NO.
Yes.
I love when people who know NOTHING about guns talk about assault rifles. Not a single one of them even knows what makes a gun an assault rifle. It is simply cosmetics. There is essentially no functional difference between an Assault rifle and a semi-auto standard rifle and a semi-auto assault rifle except looks.
I own Machine guns .. actual full auto machine guns. When the ignorant masses hear Assault rifle, they think machine gun. Machine guns are already not able to be made and sold to the public .. since 1986. It used to be back in the early 1900′s that you could buy machine guns through the mail via a catalog (from places like Sears) http://www.reuhlproducts.com/images/machinegun.JPG. At that time most everyone had guns. How many school shootings happened back then. I would venture to say none.
Gins are not the problem. Being told we are the most important thing form the moment we are born .. and then finding out that everyone else thinks THEY are the most important thing and not you .. this is what is causing all of our problems. We have moved away from God, we have moved away from community, we have moved away from absolute truths and peer pressure to keep to those truths. When all we have left is what is important to us, and frankly no one else cares what is important to you, then you get a generation who goes crazy and hates and has murder in their hearts. When you have the ruling political party removing every stitch of personal responsibility and teaching people they can do whatever they want and the government will take care of them, it just teaches people to not think before they do anything because there are no consequences.
The foolishness that is pervasive in this country is due simply to these things;
A Lack of God
A lack of personal responsibility for your actions and taking the consequences for those actions
A lack of Common sense
A lack of everyone owning a gun so peace can be forced on crazy people by knowing they won’t make it far
A Lack of community (No one cares about anyone else anymore .. I know I don’t care enough, and I should.)
fix those things and we won’t have a gun problem, or a teen pregnancy problem, or an abortion problem, or a war problem.
@TheSutraDude - The biggest school massacre in this country did not involve guns at all – it involved bombs. So why are we concentrating on things like fake assault rifles when they only are involved in 3% of all murders and one recent school shooting?
@Captric - The largest attack on civilians on U.S. soil didn’t involve nuclear weapons – it involved commercial jets. So why are we concerned about Iran gaining nuclear capability. There’s your logic right back at ya.
School shootings are not the only shootings committed with assault rifles. The commercially available Bushmaster is not a fake assault rifle. It’s a semi automatic version of the military Bushmaster which has both semi and fully automatic modes. When soldiers go on raids they normally put the Bushmaster on semiautomatic mode because it is more accurate.
Most gun owners including the majority of NRA members support stricter gun registration laws and most and a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
- Cocaine and heroin have been banned in ALL 50 States. So glad we have whipped that problem.
@flapper_femme_fatale - Armed guards in the schools and/or arming the teachers could easily stop another thing like that from happening. There is a reason why these shooters always go for soft targets. People like you want to turn the entire country into a soft target, or maybe you would rather have the criminals use knives like in England.
Make them target practice to what end? Just out of curiosity. Also, I care more about my friends and family than yours, especially my wife (or future wife in this case), and guess who gets held responsible if something happens to her because the criminal has a gun and I don’t? BTW in most cases I could stop it without a gun, but it would be a lot more messy and not as quick. That being said, I find your logic twisted. How do I know that when all the law abiding citizens are safely unarmed the government won’t turn on us and put us into prison camps? I don’t. That’s why we have the second ammendment. For that reason, and to defend ourselves from criminals. All your faith in the corrupt government is heavily misplaced. They are not ubermensch that are somehow better than everyone else, if anything they are worse because they just live off of those who actually generate wealth.
@TheSutraDude - that is not my “logic back at me”. You have introduced a perfect example of a straw man argument. You have also discredited you opinion with your glaring lack of knowledge about so called assault rifles. NO BODY in the military carries a “Bush Master”! A REAL assault weapon has a full auto selector as you correctly stated. But the assault rifles used by are not manufactured by Bushmaster!! That is laughable. The bushmaster is a cheap poorly manufactured look alike to the real M4 used in the military. The metal used to manufacture the parts is sub standard. The parts do not have the same tight tolerances as a military grade weapon. These factors combine to make the gun unreliable when you most need it – when it gets hot from repeated firings. That is why Lanza gun jammed at Sandy Hook – that is why Klebolds so called assault rifle jammed at Columbine.
You are focused on so assault rifles while assault rifles constitute only 3% of all murders in this country. Hammers are more used in murders — twice as many people are killed by hands and feet – and knives are used 16% of the time. These numbers are from the FBI’s on uniform crime reports. Actually handguns are used in 47% of all murders. Are you talking about confiscating all of the handguns in the US? If not - why not? Is it because the Supreme Court has ruled TWICE (2008 and 2010) that banning handguns would be a violation of the constitution. If you are not in favor of banning handguns is it because you believe that the children killed in Sandy Hook are more important than the 5000 (including hundreds of children) in Chicago are less important?
Taking guns from Americans shouldn’t be this big of an issue. The fact that there is such a backlash against the issue means something needs to be done. You guys sound like drug addicts and are acting like it is your crack that’s being taken away…
@Under_the_Ghillie - Glad you like it! I get to see it out my office window every day.
You might be interested to know we’ve moved on to the E-model, now — AH-64E Guardian. Has lots of cool new bells and whistles.
aLioness - Or it could be that Americans don’t want to see their Rights and Way of Life stripped from them before our very eyes….something we started fighting for way back in 1775….
@Captric - Yes I misstated by calling military assault rifles Bushmasters but the fact remains soldiers often set their assault rifles on semi when doing raids, night raids in Iraq for example. You are the one who brought forth a straw man argument. I was simply reflecting yours back at you in response in part to your characterization “fake assault rifles”. It is btw illegal to be in possession of bombs and/or components clearly intended to create explosive devices with the exception of licensed users such as in the case demolition firms even though there are fewer people killed by bombs than by guns every year.
There are usually traffic signs that tell drivers to slow down while in a school zone. Some inform drivers fines for speeding in school zones are doubled. There is a common sense reason for that but State governments aren’t taking peoples’ cars away. It’s not a slippery slope. Automobiles serve a function as do many guns. Assault weapons and high capacity magazines do not serve a reasonable function within a civil society.
@aLioness - Because it’s violating our freedom and the Constitution. Hey, if you don’t like the way things are done here then why don’t you go to a country where the law abiding citizens aren’t allowed to have guns? I recommend England or India.
@Captric - And in answer to your question, no I am not for banning all guns. As for murders in Chicago and elsewhere, we need a comprehensive solution which includes universal background checks. Also, most gun owners believe checking a potential gun buyer against terrorist watch lists is a common sense idea but it’s an idea the NRA has also opposed.
Even though assault weapons put on the public market are more cheaply made they are apparently good enough to kill and wound large numbers of people in a matter of minutes.
@Under_the_Ghillie - Michigan. Evidently there was a law on the books requiring background checks that was set to expire at the end of December and the governor vetoed an extension. At least, that’s what I gathered from what the gun sales guy told me.
MR. Obama uses way to many executive orders, which I don’t think he should be allowed to use so many. Any take away weapons is the first way to get told control of the Country. Bro. Doc
@TheSutraDude - So how do you get criminals to submit to background checks when they buy a gun from a buddy at crack house? Get real – all of the things you mention do nothing to stop criminals from obtaining guns – illegally and using them for illegal purposes – like murder and armed robbery. How would having people checked against a terrorism watch list have prevented ANY of the mass murders in this country. The terrorists here did not buy guns – they bought fertilizer and diesel fluid and box cutters!
@TheSutraDude - you really have never been in the military have you? And you have never been on a police force either…..which sort of makes you the classical left wing gun expert. Rifles of EVERY kind only account for 3% of the murders in this country. They are barely a factor! You would be better served by taking HAMMERS and BASEBALL bats away from people. Bicycles and family dogs kill more children every year than all guns combined – let alone assault rifles. Did you see the films of the police showing up hours after the Sandy Hook massacre? They ALL had assault rifles – where do you imagine they got those? What about the sniper rifles? As long as the police are allowed to buy and possess assault rifles so too should the public.
We live in a dangerous world – the law breakers are armed and will remain that way regardless of what laws or restrictions are passed. In fact after the ban on assaullt rifles and high capacity magazines during the Clinton administration sales went to 4 million per year and millions of individuals started carrying concealed all over the country. But in spite of the astronomical increase in available weapons – murder rates came down significanlty. Why do you think that is?
@Captric - I suggest you get real. Terrorists do manage to get their hands on guns, easily at this point. They can. Universal gun registration would function in the same way as car registration. If you sell your car to someone you sign and turn over your registration. In order for the buyer to be able to get plates and insurance he or she has to produce the registration. Is legislation going to stop every shooting. No but look at drunk driving laws. There continue to be accidents and deaths involving drivers with blood alcohol levels over the legal limit but they are fewer and if a cop pulls someone over for erratic driving the cop can arrest the driver if his or her blood alcohol is too high. It happens and lives are potentially saved.
The NRA is using the same tactics once used when the tobacco industry claimed there were no negative health effects stemming from smoking. Then and now this is a matter of public safety. Incidents of mass shootings declined during the assault weapons ban. They have risen since the ban was allowed to expire in 2004.
@TheSutraDude - OK — I WILL get real! Tell me ONE mass terrorist incident that has been prevented by denying a firearms sale tot a terrorist? The terror watch list did not even exist before 9/11….and it was instituted to keep terrorists off of airplanes. And how did that work out? It did nothing but severely inconvenience people with similar names. Including people who’s names were simply too long to be fully printed on the limited number of characters available on an airline boarding pass. Was Adam Lanza’s name on a terrorism watch list? How about Tim Mc Veigh? Anders Brevik? Klebold? Harris?
These simple minded solutions to complex problems NEVER work….like so called assault weapons” bans. Ar-15′s are the weapon of choice for home defense. I am not even agreeing that they are the best weapon – but they are in fact the most used weapon for home defense. Between 2.5 and 4.5 MILLION violent crimes are prevented every year by armed civilians without them having to fire their guns. The news media doesn’t report on crimes that don’t happen. 80% of the firearms involved in these defensive uses are long-guns. Assuming only half of those long-guns are rifles, and half of those are AR15s that would mean between 500,000 and 900,000 violent crimes are prevented by AR15s annually. If you assume that one tenth of those violent crimes would have resulted in murder, AR15s SAVE between 50,000 and 90,000 innocent people each year. Assuming that legally owned AR15s KILL about 200 innocent people every year it would appear that outlawing AR15s will increase the number of people killed by between 250 and 450 times.
@Captric - No I haven’t been in the military or a member of a police force. I was set to go to Vietnam even though along with the majority of Americans I saw the war as wrong. I was A1 and had no intention of going to Canada. The draft was ended months before I came of age to go. I went to college instead as we were pulling out of the war. Last I heard America is a country in which one has the right to voice an opinion whether or not he or she was in the military or a member of a police department. It was a soldier deployed in Iraq who has gone on raids who explained why they put their assault weapons on semi.
Calling me a left wing gun expert gets you nothing but points for deflecting the argument into irrelevance of your opinion. There are soldiers and Generals in the military who are outspoken in favor of the need for stricter gun control in this nation. There are also many police studies done over decades that have concluded putting more assault weapons in the hands of people only exacerbates the problem in the midst of a situation where mayhem has already broken out. It’s why police go through serious training to learn how to remain calm and make the best decisions in such a situation. Even so police sometimes make mistakes. Imagine everyone pulling out guns in a dark theater and deciding who to shoot.
And I’m a registered Independent so take your phony liberal rhetoric and shove it.
@Captric - Believe what you want. There are an average of 11,000 murders by guns per year in the U.S. with a population of 300 million. Germany with a population of 80 million living within an area the size of Oregon sees an average of 40 gun murders per year. Great Britain sees a lower rate per year. Most law abiding gun owners believe we need to do something in the way of stricter background checks and outlawing assault weapons along with high capacity magazines, about 80% and they believe we can without violating the 2nd amendment. About 70% of NRA members believe the same. I agree with them.
The only problem I see with this Theo is – honest people might listen to him. Dishonest people won’t so dishonest people will benefit from this policy cause honest people won’t have guns then. There’s no easy answer unfortunately …
My Mom said years ago a lock only keeps out an honest person. Φ ≡
@TheSutraDude - The homicide rate for the US is 4.7/100K — WAY below average in spite of the huge ownership of firearms. That is illustrated here.
And you mention Germany and England. Michael Ryan killed 16 people in Hungerford England in 1987. Thomas Hamilton killed killed 16 kindergartners and a teacher in Dunblane Scotland in 1996. Robert Steinhauser kills 13 teachers, 2 former classmates and a policeman in Erfurt Germany in 2002. There have been several more in Countries that have outlawed firearms. Finland (18 dead) – Australia (35) – Canada (25) – and Norway (75). All mass shootings in recent years. Only one of those killings involved an assault like rifle – Norway and 6 of those deaths were form a fertilizer bomb..The one thing that everyone of these mass murders had in common was that the shooter did not stop killing until he was confronted by an armed individual – whether it was police or a citizen. In point of fact - when the police respond to a mass murder incident an average of 14 people loose their lives. When a civilian or an off duty police officer responds 2.5 people have lost their lives.
@TheSutraDude - the graph didn’t copy — here is the link
http://georgeoughttohelp.tumblr.com/post/38139814109/gun-ownership-vs-murder-rate-by-country
@TheSutraDude - well having almost been drafted does not make you an expert on anything! You merely demonstrate your ignorance. I have been a special operator in the military – and a municipal as well as federal law enforcement officer. The biggest “gun nuts” in the nation are cops and I know of none of them who are in favor of taking people guns away – in fact – they would then become criminals themselves when they HIDE their personal assault weapons!! The problem isn’t GUNS! Too many - or too few – whatever the argument anyone cares to make. Guns are NEVER going away – not in this country- neither the military nor the police are in favor of it despite what your anonymous “generals” might say. Oh – by the way – generals have ARMED guards when they travel – just like diplomats.
As I stated before, our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events. Is gun violence increasing in the United States? No. But it certainly seems to be when one recalls recent atrocities in Newtown and Aurora. In fact, the overall rate of violent crime has fallen by 22 percent in the past decade (and 18 percent in the past five years). That is in spite of 10′s of millions of new assault rifles, high capacity magazines and concealed carry permits.
The correlation between guns and violence in the United States is far from straightforward. Thirty percent of urban households have at least one firearm. This figure increases to 42 percent in the suburbs and 60 percent in the countryside. As one moves away from cities, therefore, the rate of gun ownership doubles. And yet gun violence is primarily a problem in cities. Just look at Chicago the toughest gun laws on the books and yet- 5000 murders since 2000. Compare that to 2000 US KIA in Afghanistan. Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said recently that only about 300 of the 7,000 guns Chicago police have pulled off the street this year would be classified as assault weapons.
Seventy mass shootings have occurred in the U.S. since 1982, leaving 543 dead. These crimes were horrific, but 564,452 other homicides took place in the U.S. during the same period. Mass shootings scarcely represent 0.1 percent of all murders. When talking about the problem of guns in our society, it is easy to lose sight of the worst violence and to become fixated on symbols of violence.
Of course, it is important to think about the problem of gun violence in the context of other risks. For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly. Measured in bodies, therefore, the problem of hand washing in hospitals is worse than the problem of guns, even if we include accidents and suicides.
@Captric - Okay first, those graphs do not show anything, literally. The labels and numbers are stacked atop each other and are illegible. I enlarged the charts 1600% and they were still garble. Second, they are posted by someone who calls himself “George Ought to Help”. No offense to the fellow but he’s not given a source for his data and is not exactly the F.B.I. or any other authority. Third, I worked professionally on Wall Street with Excel. Data can be faked/manipulated using PowerPoint, Photoshop and Illustrator. FOX news is notorious for faking data but one can’t even tell if George faked the data. Again, the charts are illegible. He certainly does not know how to use Excel. It’s no wonder the graph didn’t copy.
On another note, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people including 19 children and injured over 600 because he believed the government was going to take our guns away.
CEO James Yeager posted a video 2 days ago in which he said he will start killing people if another inch is taken toward taking his guns away. Today his resident State of Tennessee revoked his permit to carry a weapon because of his threat to public safety. He is the CEO of a company called “Tactical Response”. People like him give gun owners an undeserved bad rap.
ALL guns should be banned, with them being available ONLY to the tools of the State, such as the military, police etc. I GUARANTEE gun crime will drop to ZERO. This has been proven.
@Captric - I never claimed being almost drafted makes me an expert. Neither does it demonstrate my ignorance. One of my best friends was in special ops. He would disagree with you on this subject so being in special ops does not make you the ultimate authority or spokesperson either. You have an opinion which is yours, that’s all. Calling someone a liberal because he doesn’t agree with you is also no argument. I could call you a fascist. It would add nothing to the discussion.
All crimes committed with guns happen in Canada thanks to the bloody Americans who smuggle the fucking shit across our border, to the point we are now arming our border guards. I have written to my MP demanding we bring our military back from Afghanistan (who the fuck gives a shit what happens in AFghanistan?????), and post said military along our entire border with the USA. Someone mentioned to me that such a move would be viewed by the US as an act of aggression against them. Who cares? It is OUR country, and we will do whatever we wish inside our own borders. I have suggested we take our top-notch Leopard II tanks out of Afghanistan, and place them at EVERY BORDER CROSSING with the USA. I doubt Americans are stupid enough to attempt to smuggle guns into our country with the barrel of a Leopard II staring them in the face. I have also demanded we make the crime of gun-smuggling a capital crime with the death penalty. It is GUARANTEED if my suggestions, nay, my DEMANDS, were followed, the Americans would shut the fuck up and keep their bloody guns out of my country, thus resulting in ZERO gun crimes. This is a FACT.
Ahem… ahem… Americans are full of shit, and we Canadians have known this for centuries, especially since the bastards attempted to invade us in 1812 before we made them our bitches.
The statistics…
MURDERS WITH FIREARMS BY COUNTRY
GUN MURDERS AND OWNERSHIP
@CanuckFascist - Ha ha — -well I remember the massacre at Ecole Polytech in 1989 where Marc Lepine killed 25 people . The Canadian murder rate is not far off from the the US and increasing while the US rate has dropped from 10.2 in the 80′s to 4.7 mow and going down. Canada is a second world country – totally dependent on the US for everything. I lived in Canada for seven years. My Yacht Club Manager was beaten to death in the parking lot in Vancouver. I aw a guy jump from a high rise and splat on the pavement at a high rise and it never made the news because the Canadians are so afraid of their “reputation”. It is the land of 9/11 and faked moon landing conspiracy theories. British Columbia is seriously considering Sate Hood and Quebec wants to break away as well. Canada exists at the discretion of the US. If tanks were put on the border – in a provocative manner – and that is only a pipe dream – but you must know the US military would crush you in a week or less. Canada cannot even move it’s troops over seas without US military transports and it’s its fighters are made by Boeing and the pilots are trained in the US. So stay on your side of the fence and try to think of something else to be “proud of” while you enjoy your American made cars with a “canadian package” whatever that is! LOL
@Captric - You sir, are the biggest retard I have ever had the misfortune to read. ‘Second-world’ country? You cannot be serious. Our murder rate is FAR, FAR from your own, and we only have one at all because you assholes keep smuggling your guns into our country. As for 9/11 and faked moon landing conspiracy theorists, you may blame your own people for that. BC has never seriously considered statehood. Quebec wants to break away? It has been given the freedom to do so for decades, yet it remains. Hmmm?
In order to ‘crush’ us, the US military would need to cross our border, something it would NEVER do, thanks to our place within the British Commonwealth, and NATO. So, good luck with that. Do I not recall you morons saying that you would ‘crush’ us in 1812? Did you not lose a large portion of your territory as a result before we decided to return them to you in the name of peace?Ah yes, the transports. Thanks for the ride, guys. Keeps our military costs down. *ROTFLMAO* As for the CF-18 Hornets, they are overpriced pieces of shit. I have demanded my government look to the Russians for new fighters. At least they do not attempt to steal money from us whilst selling us crap for far more than it is worth. No, our pilots are NOT trained in the US. That has NEVER been the case, you dipstick. American-made cars? Considered in Canada to be the worst cars in the world? NO one buys American anymore up here, because they are shitboxes. So, I am more than happy to remain behind my border, in my beloved Canada, away from that murderous, dirty warmongering dump we all know and hate as the USA. You see, the world LOVES us. The world DESPISES the USA. Ask anyone.Most amusing is when Americans travel to Europe, they do so claiming to be Canadian. Bwaaaaaaahhhhaahhhaaa.
By the way, I can GUARANTEE you never lived in Canada for 7 years. That one is a gimme, otherwise you wouldn’t be talking shit about my country.
@TheSutraDude - The figures come from the the FBI’s own Uniform Crime Reports. If you want you can take this link……… http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha- ………..that spells out the rates in fine detail – and with the help of the UN’s numbers make your own graph. This guy did the work for you but have at it. What you will find is the US has more guns per capita than any country in the world yet we are WAY below the average in murder rates. At 4.7/100K in homicide rates (remember homicides include murders as well as other thing so the murder rate is lower) the US is WAY below the maximum rate of 88/100K and not that far off of the lowest rate of .3/100K. We are much closer to Germany, Canada and the UK than people with an agenda would like us to believe. You have to compare the US to Switzerland when looking at assault rifles. In Switzerland every male between the ages of 20 and 50 has a REAL assault rifle in his home. It’s the law and a long tradition. There is also UNLIMITED ammunition – some people lie and say they are issued ammo and it is controlled. That is only the government issued ammo and but the same ammo is available at every gun store in the country. Not only do the Swiss have a gun culture – they are ENCOURAGED to go shoot their weapons fro proficiency. Now why is it that with a half a million assault rifles in a small country they have a homicide rate of only .3/100K? It is CLEARLY not the fault of the assault rifles otherwise the Swiss would be the murder capital of the world.
@CanuckFascist - Well i DID live and Canada and YES I AM talking shit about your country! Get off your arrogant bar stool and get an education. The world does’t rotate around Canada. Hardly anyone in the world even knows where it is! LOL
@Captric - Let me guess, you are a member of the NRA, a looney gun owner, yes? In my fascist utopia, guys like you would be shot for uttering the bullshit you do, because people like you are the root cause of such high crime.
@CanuckFascist - You really are an illiterate Canuck. You weren’t even CANADA at that time of the war of 1812 – you were a colony of England. And you got your Independence through the blood of Americans and by default when the Americans kicked the British off of the Continent! LOL If it were not for Americans and their – OMG!! OUR GUNS!!! You wouldn’t even BE Canada you dumb Canucklehead.
@Captric - Those who do not know the location of Canada would have a very, very poor education. Are you suggesting your country is full of such? I should think so, considering your joke of an education system which has us Canadian laughing.
The world may not rotate around Canada, but the USA sure does. Piss us off and we shut your country down tomorrow. Don’t believe me? Ask your own CIA.
@CanuckFascist - Better go look up the word “facist”. And who is going to shoot me — you??? You would not even know which end the FIRE comes out of ! Ha ha
@CanuckFascist - Ask the CIA? Ha ha —- If the US wants anything from Canada we can just take it — anytime — you would wimper and roll over and cry like a little girl. Beside - what are you going to do — SHOOT at us?????? LOL You have never held a gun on your life!!
@Captric - What’s a ‘facist’? Like I said, about your country’s education. I thank you for making my point for me.
@CanuckFascist - Are you going to cry now little boy? I lived in Canada – I know every one there is either on drugs, gay – or both….NOT that there is anything wrong with that…..I have gay friends…..but they do cry a lot and they aRE Canadian!! LOL
@Captric - What? You never heard of Upper Canada and Lower Canada? As I said, keep your mouth closed about things you know nothing. Canada was actually the name of our territory, even if it was under British dominion.
Do you even know when we became independent? According to your logic, the British were sure scared so scared of you they waited almost one hundred years before they gave us our independence. Ohh, they were just shaking with fright, so much so they forced Abraham Lincoln’s hand at starting a Civil War which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of your own people, all that over Black people. *ROTFLMAO*
Your Revolution was so irrelevant to Canada that it would have had no effect then. You act as if the British were afraid of you, that you ran them off the Continent. If not for you Americans and your willingness to take French cock into your mouths whilst begging for their military assistance, sucking Dutch cock for financial assistance, and sucking Prussian cock for military training, you would have lost. The British at the time were fighting FOUR major world powers. They felt the homeland was simply more important than some bush territory they could learn to live without, especially whilst they had a much larger territory called CANADA, you moron.
@Captric - Um, you tried that in 1812, to take our country, that is. How’d that go for you? *ROTFLMAO @ a mere LETTER causing General Hull to shit his pants and surrender all of Detroit* So cowardly and stupid are Americans. Even Brock was killing himself laughing. A fucking piece of paper caused you Americans to squeal in fright like little girls and hand over the city. To this very day, we Canadians have a good laugh about it.
@CanuckFascist - And you claim to have an education? Better go back to school little boy – Canada wasn’t even Canada in 1812!! LOL And who won that war moron? The fight on the Canadian border was the third front and the least important. It is too bad we drew the line after the war – because inside every Canadian is an American just screaming to get out! LMAO!!
@Captric - As I said, I mock the American education system. The northern British colonies were called Upper Canada and Lower Canada. Do you notice the word ‘CANADA’ used? It has been called ‘Canada’ ever since the 1500s, long before your country was known as the United States. Duuuuuuuuhhhhhh.
Canada/Britain won the War of 1812, although myself and the rest of the world knows the ridiculous claims of your country’s history books that YOU won. The rest of the world knows better.
Third front?? WTF are they teaching you down there? You had ONE front, and that front was an empty territory to the north of your traitorous states. You fought a power that was thousands of kilometres away, and STILL you lost. Once again, during the War of 1812, you sucked French cock in order to gain their assistance in such a war. What is it with you Americans and your taste for French cock? Always begging them for help. Your country owes its continued existence to one Napoleon Bonaparte. Never forget it. Were it not for him, the US would have fallen back under British dominion.
@CanuckFascist - I see you really are a fag — all of those thoughts and expressions about sucking cock! haha The War of 1812 was won when the British were defeated at sea. And the battle of new Orleans was won butafter the peace treaty was signed 30 days earlier! I bet you didn’t even KNOW about the Naval engagements and the Battle of New Orleans. Besides the British had ALREADY been defeated and kicked out of this country in the 1776 Revolutionary war! Did you forget about that??? LOL What a dumb ass Cunucklehead!! You don’t know any more about guns and crime than you do about the British American War you little FAG
nope. he’s not my president. and i will not be disarmed because he refuses to address the real problems. new york, dc, california, chicago (to name a few) have strict gun laws.. see how that’s workin’ out for them? disarming the law abiding isn’t the problem. i think the purchase requirements can be a bit more strict. i recently bought two revolvers. a 3 day wait and a background check.. easy peasy. for my concealed carry, though, i will be fingerprinted. i think more extensive screening can be done- i do not oppose that. i do oppose registering firearms because that information can be and HAS been used against those who legally own firearms (journal news and gawker publishing names and addresses of registered gun owners). my guns are LOCKED- not even loaded- until my 18 year old has moved out of my home permanently. yes, she’s 18, but she’s still curious. and she knows how to shoot (her dad is an expert marksman). i am responsible. most of us are. again, i will not be disarmed EVER. i don’t give a shit what that moron in office does.
@Captric - Ah, American revisionist history. *ROTFLMAO* My relatives in Britain have been laughing at American revisionism for years.
@Captric - The Battle of New Orleans was a temporary retreat. The British were ready to take New Orleans before news of the peace treaty reached them, you lying dipshit. You DO realise the British took YOU on whilst fighting the French, yes? That would have been the modern equivalent of today’s US military taking on the former Soviet Union AND China. We all know how that would go, yet the British defeated BOTH YOU and the FRENCH. Never forget it. This is why by far the majority of British power was still in Europe… thanks to Napoleon Bonaparte. I’ll give you a few hours to Google Napoleon, then get back to me. Le Grande Armee was a force you Americans would have run from, yet Wellington made them his bitch.
@pseudoecho - Sweetie, why do you even have guns? Your very ownership of guns makes you a danger to the State, and a danger to society. As such, you should be removed from that society. Had any urges to er, visit any schools lately??? You Americans seem to love taking your guns to schools, movie theaters etc. As I am an avowed fascist, I would have someone like you either locked up behind bars for a minimum of 30 years, or at the very least, placed against a wall and executed in a hail of gunfire. Quite appropriate, you dying in a hail of gunfire, yet you love your guns. This way, you get to enjoy that love up close and personal. I despise gun owners.
@CanuckFascist i don’t owe you any explanations for why i own guns. your mind is made up about me and you have no clue who i am. what a shitty, miserable way to live. cheers!
Nope! ^..^
@pseudoecho - Actually, you DO owe me an explanation as to why you own guns. Whatever reason do you require guns? I live a shitty, miserable way of life? That is your response, full of hate and invective? Are you people SURE we should let this little girl own a gun? Do you not see her mental weakness? One post, and she resorts to slinging insults my way. What if she had one of her guns in her hand at the time? Would she have preferred to shoot me full of lead? She has displayed her erratic mental state already. Allowing people like this to own guns PROVES you Americans are incredibly stupid.
Let’s try gun control and see if it works.