Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do We Really Want & Need To Disarm Ourselves

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 19, 2012, 1:14 p.m. EST by Dontbackdown (22)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I think not gun laws wont do shit...do u know years back genocides in countries started by gun laws/control??? do ur research before u jus say hey lets vote against this!!

265 Comments

265 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Agree.

All this is not about gun control. It is all about absolute and ultimate control.

Bad time to be giving up rights, even if you don't want them.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

It's all about people control.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

twinkle

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Good time to use the biggest right. The right to alter or abolish abusive government. Article V.

Education is needed because Article V is controlled by constitutional intent, and the people are the only one that get to define that. Courts interpret what the people define through their influence on their states.

We don't need to go to DC, go to your local state capitol and kick ass. Demand they work with other states in constitutional defense. Congress violated the constitution and their oaths 100 years ago to avoid Article V. That's how it's gotten so far out of control.

You go to your state capitol I'll go to mine.

[-] 4 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

DC Has Committed The Ultimate Sins----Extreme Acts Of Treason----Mass Slaughter----Terrorism----False Flag Attacks Beyond Belief

*Yes Article V*

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.

Amendments may be proposed by either:

two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress; or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the states. To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of:

the legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or state ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states.

NOT HAPPENING

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

If we can't do Article V it shows how pitifully divided and confused we are. Not doing Article V assures the nwo can continue with what they are doing.

There is no real alternative. If that is not true, then name it.

You would attempt to imply the only tool for peaceful revolution as not possible. By doing so you reduce the possibility, The nwo loves you for that.

[-] 2 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

These posts are more like getting somewhere! I understand what you note about the implication and if unable to actively support a suggestion we could leave room for others in the possibility. All possibility is now alive.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yes. Just because something appears not possible, it needs to be considered that some one wants us to think it is impossible so we abandon the only real threat.

That is exactly what the elite are doing with alec. I'm calling them out and challenging them to recognize constitutional intent. If they fail, they have by default admitted they are a fraud.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/action-petition-alec-to-make-a-statement-about-the/

Note how my challenge to those opposing the notion of the petition or preparatory amendment is evaded by msstacy.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/gunself-control/#comment-895308

Clearly, I am using natural law here and it is working. Perhaps you can see this if you post as you do. To oppose this concept goes against our instincts.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/this-forum-is-no-longer-recognized-by-occupy/#comment-896410

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

There is no evasion going on you are correct and so default it is.

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Natural law, constitutional intent demonstrated.

Know what the lack of response means, best and worse?

[-] 1 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Oh my I forgot that someone has my real name as their screen name so excuse me please for I am all in and with you and if you have not guessed my real name is Stacy lovin' you peacehurricane...

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

When posters don't respond to the question about which mother or father will pass or ignore the real opportunity to assure their child grows in a nnation that holds high and honors the freedom to share knowledge that will create an understanding that will protect their lives, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness; they are either responding to social fears or they are against the constitution

Some may not know they are against constitution, because they don't know what it is. Or, are deceived to a degree where they are unable to discern the simple philosophical inquiry and by default consider the question a trick.

It is not. It simply uses human instinct as natural law which is also constitutional intent.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Go ply your fear mongering somewhere else - you will be popular with the ALEC CATO HERITAGE FOOLS.

[-] 0 points by peacehurricane (293) 1 year ago

Thanks DKAtoday. I am a do person and I believe you to be of a social fear wanna be and against the constitution. I am sure of this it is ours to define as we each so choose. No harm intended none done. Your talk of Law to which I refer is what all comes from and is nothing there is nothing added or taken from it and it is bigger than all not of this place made. What are you here for?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Kicking your little ass.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

{:-]) - Why GF - I don't even know what it is - yet. lol

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What?????????????? sorry but was there a coherent thought/communication there?

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Knowing and discussing constitutional intent between us is where it starts. Americans who support the constitution should begin participating in this, even if they do nothing else. It is fundamental to being human.

Q-Is it of constitutional intent that freedom of speech have it's ultimate meaning in its potential to create an understanding between people which can create; foregiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

A-Until a mother or father steps forwards to say they will pass and ignore a real opportunity through alignment with other citizens and Article V, to assure their child grows in a nation that holds high and honors its capacity to share and understand information needed for survival, protecting their life, retaining their social liberties and pursuing happiness, **it is logical to say it is, and Americans need to assure that free speech has that quality.

Let us test alec. sign

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/975/440/does-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I must say - you are a stubborn shill/idiot.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Uh, yes, but why? It my children's future at stake here and you are not accountable to reason for the issue of constitutional intent.

Knowing and discussing constitutional intent between us is where it starts. Americans who support the constitution should begin participating in this, even if they do nothing else. It is fundamental to being human.

Q-Is it of constitutional intent that freedom of speech have it's ultimate meaning in its potential to create an understanding between people which can create; foregiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

A-Until a mother or father steps forwards to say they will pass and ignore a real opportunity through alignment with other citizens and Article V, to assure their child grows in a nation that holds high and honors its capacity to share and understand information needed for survival, protecting their life, retaining their social liberties and pursuing happiness, **it is logical to say it is, and Americans need to assure that free speech has that quality. Let us test alec. sign http://www.thepetitionsite.com/956/975/440/does-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

You are purposely wasting time. You provide nothing. The move to Amend campaign ( http://occupywallst.org/forum/move-to-amend-update-1212013/ ) is article v in action/process.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

no chance of an article v. you are not get 2/3rds of the house or senate to agree to it. you are not getting 2/3rds of state legislature to agree to it. not a fucking chance in hell of it happening unless you want a constitutional amendment on terrorism stripping them of all human rights or something.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Name the alternative before trashing the ideal.

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

It is just the facts. There is no way you will get that many legislators at the state and federal level to vote against their own economic self interest. We all know what the alternative is when political solutions expire. George Washington was pretty clear as to what to do if constitutional amendment can not be obtained. Only under those conditions did he advocate such measures.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Why let congress off the hook? Seriously, a 100 years of treason, non feasance, mal feasance and fraud and you advocate letting them off the hook. WTF! What about our right to alter or abolish?

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

It is a worthless right since it can not be exercised.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

So you give it up because its denied? How do you know it cannot be exercised?

If you thought it could be, how would it be done? If you can't think of a way, and I could, would you listen?

It is the ideal of "alter and abolish". Maybe you would give that up and simply settle for being a complainer.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

No, I just don't waste time on frivolous endeavours. Have fun with your petitions and your non existent protests. There is no chance in hell of an article V. Pull your head out of your ass. The only chance we really have at this point is to create our own parallel society that can take over after the collapse.

[-] -1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

"parallel society" That's done locally, not on the web. Subcultures qualify, we have those.

Nice to know you consider the U.S. constitution frivolous.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

wow you think in 20th century terms. way behind the times how old are you?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

If its not local it mostly corporate. Cultures deal with needs, we still have those you know. The 20th century is reducing the value with terms that are inadequate for life.

Why do you ascribe to that?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

not all corporations are bad.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Name the alternatives. Do you mean violent revolution, or protest with no legal process?

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

The government will dictate all that.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Okay, you mean the people should make no attempt to use legal process to control government.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Oh you can try. Have fun. In case you have not noticed up to this point ows is losing.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Uh, I've been saying that and ows loses because it uses NO legal process. It doesn't even mention that which gives the rights used in protest.

I can tell you have unconditional support for change and demands being met:-)

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

dude there were teams of lawyers working with ows at one point.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Yea, trying to do something like that without legal process takes teams of lawyers, for defense.

Overtly defending your constitutional rights and making demands with legal process is basically free and any citizen can do it. Trained elite manipulators are actually devoted to that which trained them.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

How would the Senate look without Senators elected by voters?

Before the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, that's exactly how it worked. State Legislatures elected the Senate.

1913 again - the year power was concentrated into the hands of a few. The Federal Reserve Act was passed and signed into law, also the 16th Ammendment upon which the federal income tax commenced.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

1911, Article v due, 1912, dumbing down and titanic, 1913, fed. reserve.

A formal criminal complaint to the US AG against congress for failing to call an Article V convention,

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2012/02/18/congress-refuses-to-call-a-convention-to-amend/

something due in 1911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs7qIQ1VkE

Clearly, with the sequence of events, there was a plan, or . . . a conspiracy.

[-] 1 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

good to see your mention of the titanic:

Here’s how the Federal Reserve and the Titanic are connected. In 1910, seven men met on Jekyll island just off the coast of Georgia to plan the Federal Reserve Bank. Nelson Aldrich and Frank Vanderclip represented the Rockefeller (Illuminati) financial empire. Henry Davidson, Charles Norton and Benjamin Strong represented J.P. Morgan (Illuminati). Paul Warburg (Illuminati) represented the Rothschilds (Illuminati) Banking dynasty of Europe. The Rothschilds were the banking agents for the Jesuits and hold `the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church.’

The Federal Reserve did have some opposition; those who saw what the future would become if banking was outside of the government’s hands, the rates set by a private company such as the Fed. All the wealthy and powerful men the Jesuits wanted to get rid of were invited to take the cruise. Three of the richest and most important of these were Benjamin Guggenheim, Isador Strauss, the head of Macy’s Department Stores, and John Jacob Astor, probably the wealthiest man in the world. Their total wealth, at that time, using dollar values of their day was more than 500 million dollars. Today that amount of money would be worth nearly eleven billion dollars. These three men were coaxed and encouraged to board the floating palace. They had to be destroyed because the Jesuits knew they would use their wealth and influence to oppose a Federal Reserve Bank as well as the various wars that were being planned.

It can also be mentioned that J.P. Morgan, the individual contracted to build the Titanic was scheduled to be on the maiden voyage, but canceled.

http://www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Nice summary of titanic economic impacts.

Here's a piece that needs to be in there. The captain was a jesuit and a jesuit priest visited with him the night before the ship departed.

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

Thank you rayolite. I am aware of that as well and glad you are too. Click link for more details:

http://www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy

A Jesuit tempore co-adjutor was picked to captain the ship, a man that would do anything for the order and God’s will; Captain Edward Smith. Quite possibly the most experienced captain of the time, Smith had navigated the waters of the Atlantic for 26 years, a master of the icy waters that the Titanic would be sailing. He was a Jesuit and worked for J.P. Morgan. As National Geographic stated in their 1986 documentary entitilted ‘The Secrets of the Titanic,’ “Anyone could be a Jesuit and their identity not be known.”

When the ship departed southern England, on board was Father Francis Browne. He was the most powerful Jesuit in all of Ireland and the Jesuit Master of Edward Smith. Here is Jesuit treachery at its finest. The provincial Father Francis Browne boards the Titanic, photographs the victims, most assuredly briefs the Captain concerning his oath as a Jesuit, and the following morning bids him farewell. (Eric J. Phelps, Vatican Assassins Halcon Unified Services).

Theorists believe that the mysteries surrounding the sinking of the Titanic are simply too coincidental not to be premeditated. Smith, being a mater navigator of the Atlantic, allegedly sailed directly into iceberg territory, failing to heed the numerous warnings given by other ships to decrease speed, and tread carefully. The glancing blow to the side of the Titanic is also said to violate basic safety measurements associated with sailing. Danger is meant to be met head on to avoid exactly what happened to the Titanic.

Less well known: the Titanic’s flare guns fired white flares. Red was (and is) the emergency standard. Other colors were used for identification (white = White Star Line). When the Titanic was sinking, her crew fired her flare guns. The Californian and other ships saw the white flares, but didn’t consider them a distress call. At one point, the Californian, commanded by Captain Lord, may have been as close as six miles to the stricken vessel.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Ah, details of neglect, no, intent. Thanks for the emphasis. We really must be conscious of structures that use power in these ways. Here is a good source, you may have even seen it.

http://one-evil.org/

[-] 2 points by PublicCurrency (1387) 1 year ago

Thanks for the link - I don't think I have seen it before, but maybe am aware of some of the ideas presented there.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

It's mostly history. Quite solid, which I recognized quickly because I had researched aspects and the info there was very consistent and explanatory with links in time.

Humanity needs to understand how this structure is organized and dominant in order to end it. Unfortunately 2000 years ago the campaign to make human afraid of that those methods was started.

Learn, unlearn, cease dissociating facts about our existence.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Seems how so many here are afraid that an aritcle 5 would be taken over by the corporate interests, Im guessing we really have an issue then with the very people of the country.

Would the people be willing to participate?

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Preparatory Amendment to Article makes is safe from corporate dominance.

Citizens agree to only vote for delegates that agree to propose and work to ratify 3 amendments that effect these things prior to allowing a general convention.

1)End the abridging of free speech 2)Campaign finance reform 3)Secure the vote

Preparatory amendment is needed to assure all amendments have constitutional intent. The people are the "rightful masters of the congress and the courts" (Lincoln 1859) and they are the masters through their states at Article V.

[-] 1 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

"I ask you Sir, what is a militia?It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them". G. Mason co-author of the 2nd amendment, spoken during the viginia convention to ratify the constitution, 1788

[-] 5 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

These post's/threads are a distraction. There is no meaningful change that can be made by changing gun laws - the guns are out in the public - stopping the manufacture and sale of high ammunition capacity clips and semi-auto weapons will keep the numbers down ( in legal hands anyway ). But gun laws/rights will not stop mass murderers. Healing societies ills will reduce the number of murders - but will not do a thing to cure a mass murderers intents/reasoning/atrocities.

[-] 3 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

FACT CHECK: Stacks Of Gun Facts

Tired of running into ignorant people who don't know the real facts about gun violence in America? YEP! Find the answers here. Bookmark and Share

We've heard it too many times to count, from people all over America, that these kinds of things - mass shootings - won't ever happen in their hometown. As the team at Mother Jones has shown us with the map below, "these things" can happen almost anywhere.

Sources: Research by Mother Jones. (With thanks to the Associated Press, Canada.com, and Citizens Crime Commission of NYC.)

As we noted recently, the availability of guns isn't the only factor in America's gun violence problem. It is the component that's been the most lied about though, often through the vast propaganda tools of the lobbying group that is the NRA.

So as a public service, we've collected and corrected some of the most common lies about guns, and provided the correct information, below.

Lie: Mass shootings don't really happen that often. It just seems like it because of the media.

Truth: The number of mass shootings has actually risen significantly over the last 30 years.

Since 1982, there have been 62 mass murders carried out with firearms, across America, where 'mass murder' is defined as a single person killing four or more people in a single incident (other than the killer).

Lie: The assault weapons ban in the U.S. did nothing.

Truth: The assault weapons ban did, in fact, limit unexpected mass killings.

Using the more accurate standard used for "mass killings" used by Mark Follman at Mother Jones, and Princeton researcher Sam Wang - where crimes that involve armed robbery or gang violence are not counted - statistics show the assault weapons ban did make a significant difference. As Wang's research noted, "Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years [since 1980] occurred since the expiration [of the ban]."

Lie: "If there had been someone there [at a massacre site] who was packin', those people would still be alive!"

Truth: Armed civilians do not stop mass shooters. As Mark Follman of Mother Jones notes, "...not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way."

Lie: More guns will actually make us all safer!

Truth: More guns actually mean more murders.

As the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found, where there are more guns - in America and in other, similar rich nations - both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Lie: Gun-loving Americans don't support gun control or gun safety laws.

Truth: In general, responsible gun owners support effective, smart gun safety laws.

According to a poll taken by noted GOP pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, and published in Think Progress by Zach Beauchamp, "...gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as 'gun control.'"

That includes 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners who support requiring criminal background checks on gun owners. 80 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 79 percent of NRA gun owners also support requiring criminal background checks on gun shop employees.

Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=10652140#ixzz2FbSDpGGb

[-] 1 points by ChemLady (576) 1 year ago

It's both a distraction and an object lesson. Beliefs are so entrenched that it borders on the impossible to change them. The political beliefs of people or their ideas about guns. It would seem to be the case that you can't really change enough people to make a difference.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

All existing guns must be accounted for, registered, licensed, insured, tracked (with electronic device)

That can minimize the use by criminals.

So yeah ban assault weapons, high cap ammo, and get control of existing guns.

Gun owners must know where there guns are at all times. This CAN make a difference.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

ill sell my guns to anybody, cause as a free man, i dont need to do a background check. I stand for freedom more than I stand for government involvement. I do not believe that happiness can only exist with bigger government, if you do then maybe america isnt for you.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Then you are an irresponsible gun owner who cares more for his profit than keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill.

You are the problem. So fuck you!

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

at least im taking a stand for freedom, ever hear of the constitution, specificially the right to "BEAR ARMS"? If you want to be the first to take this right away, whats next? Hi O Hitler! Besides why would you want the government to defend you when you can do it yourself, and save your money? wear a side arm.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No one is even talking about taking away the right to bear arms!!

That's you exaggerating, blatantly lying, and pushing the republican fear mongering used to get votes, & the lies the NRA uses to increase the profits of gun makers.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

republican? i havent voted the ignorant 2 party system in 20 years. Im for everyone making a profit. Not the top 1 percent however, id love to see 80-100% tax on them.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But you are pushing the same republican fear mongering lies used to get votes, & the lies the NRA uses to increase the profits of gun makers.

So vote how you want. I ain't askin, & I ain't interested. But since you are spewing the lies of the repubs & NRA, I will identify that as such!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Selling guns to just anyone is a dumb fuckin move.

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

at least im taking a stand for freedom, ever hear of the constition, specificially the right to "BEAR ARMS"? If you want to be the first to take this right away, whats next? Hi O Hitler! Besides why would you want the government to defend you when you can do it yourself, and save your money? wear a side arm.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Im not for taking guns away, and quite frankly they can remove guns from this country, its such a mess its still going into the toilet.

You can take a stand for freedom and not declare you will sell your weapons to anyone who wants them.

Freedom doesnt mean you can yell fire in a mall.

[-] -1 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

What will banning assault weapons do? they are used in .2% of violent crime and 1% of gun crime. They are not even used in a majority of mass shootings. Do you have any evidence the void will not be filled by handguns? Why has crime and murder gone down since the ban expired and gun sales have gone through the roof?

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Try to dig deep, find the courage to ignore the right wing wacko partisan bullshit thatrepubs spew to get your vote, & the nra spews to increase gun makers profit, & try to think about the gun victims.

Gun victims over gun owners, & gun profits. It's simple.

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

No, it's not simple, criminology is a very complex issue. Guns have been proven to not cause murder, or Vermont would have a murder rate higher than Britain. There are too many factors involved, guns are not the problem.

Let the police be the only ones with guns, they won't hurt you! Honest!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Gun victims over gun owners, & gun profits. It's time.

[-] -1 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

Sure. Whatever. It beats factual analysis of statistics!

Switzerland has 45 guns per 100 residents, some of which are machine guns. Their murder rate is lower than Britain's.

If you think guns are the problem, you are ignoring data, which is very dangerous.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

Many differences

It is not Switzerland's cultural makeup, or its gun policies per se, that explain that low crime rate. Rather, it is the emphasis on community duty, of which gun ownership is the most important part, that best explains low crime rate.

In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive. The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity. One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area. Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.

Proud to have the weakest central government in the West, Switzerlan is governed mainly by its 3,095 Einwohrnergemeinde (communes, sub-states of a canton). Several cantons still make their laws by the traditional Landsgemeinden system, whereby all eligible voters assemble in annual outdoor meetings.

Unlike the rest of Europe, the police force is decentralised. Judges and jurors are popularly elected. With less mobility, and more deeply developed community ties, there is less crime.

Most democratic nations impose long prison terms more frequently than does America, but Switzerland does not. For all crimes except murder, the Swiss rarely inflict a prison term of more than a year; most serious offenders receive suspended sentences. As in Japan, the focus of the criminal justice system is on the reintegration of the offender into the community, rather than punishment.

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

[-] 2 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

Heres a statistic 31000 gun deaths a year.

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Here's an interesting graph showing the leading causes of death not related to health issues like cancer or heart disease.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/leading-cause-of-death.png

[-] -2 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

31000 means nothing, you need per capita rates which actually mean something.

Extra? I don't think so. But they're available. All a criminal needs to do to obtain a fully-automatic weapon is to break into a house and grab one. Why don't they? Because there's someone sleeping in the house with a fully automatic weapon. Seriously, if guns inherently cause mayhem, Switzerland would have a murder rate higher than Britain. Also Wikipedia only lists two mass shootings for Switzerland, one in 1912 and one in 2001. Certainly the Swiss go nuts at the same rate, why aren't the huge amount of guns causing mayhem? Could it be the social differences in how they handle the mentally disturbed?

And why aren't the guns in the five US states that allow concealed carry with no permit causing all kinds of murders? Their murder rates are below the national average, with the exception of Arizona. And Vermont's is lower than Canada, with one quarter the violent crime in the lowest violent crime province in Canada, Prince Edward Island.

And why aren't the millions of guns sold in just the last few years causing the murder rate to go up instead of down?

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

Of course it would appear that way, if you believe everything that is spoon-fed to you and don't closely examine the data. Let's get our hands dirty in some statistical cross-examination, shall we?

The Kellerman study is agenda-laden junk science, merely from what you provided without even having to look at the source data. Why? because, if you study criminology at all, you will see that not even a fraction of all self-defense incidents involving firearms include a shot being fired, much less the attacker being hit. The Department of justice indicated during the Clinton administration that guns are used around 1.5 million times per year for self defense (though this was during the 90s when gun restrictions were tighter and crime more prevalent), Gary Kleck's study indicated that the rate is possibly higher. The DOJ also notes that less than 40% of violent crimes (It was lower but I can't find the study right now and I need to go) are perpetrated with guns, which means that at least 50% of violent crimes could be stopped if the victim had a gun, because no unarmed criminal is going to get shot over your wallet. I most cases of self defense, no shots are ever fired, saving lives. Not to mention the unobservable factor of confidence a person would have if they knew they had a chance against an attacker, who would likely read the situation to see how likely the person would be to be a good target by their body language. It is laughable to compare self defense shootings to crime rates, let alone in as small of a sample group as 626 incidents.

I will examine the other data closely tomorrow but expect the same results. I need to go to bed.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2727) 1 year ago

That's ok.

You can keep your guns.

I don't want one.

The "better half" Wife would drink, become enraged, and commence firing.

I shall better rely on karma for preservation

Kellerman study looks fine.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I KNOW guns are part of the problems. Not the only part.

Mental health care is a big part of the problem and we only have to get repub extremist tea party wackos to put their unreasonable deficit/debt ideology aside.

Ending the scourge of bullying will help. Some progress has occured on that.

Personal responsibility is always an important part of these issues. (keeping guns, violent ent from mentally ill) Not too much push back on that.

Prescription drugs with side affects that result in murder/suicide is part of it. Some push back on that,

but nothing like the push back from gun lobbys more concerned about gun makers profits than 6 year old gun victims.

This thread, your ignorant shilling for gun makers profits is not about anything but guns.

Stop putting gun maker profits ahead of human beings.

[Removed]

[-] 4 points by trashyharry (788) from Waterville, NY 1 year ago

What do the Masters of the Universe want?That's an easy question to answer-They want Better,Faster,Cheaper.They think if they can wade in and knock us down quickly they will be able to crush all opposition within a short time thereafter.They know that if they declare Martial Law,they will have an Armed Insurrection on their hands at once.Definatly not better,faster or cheaper than manufacturing consent beforehand."All youse other kids with yer Pumped Up Kicks-youse better run,better run-out run my gun,all youse other kids in yer Pumped Up Kicks-better run,run-run-outrun my bullets."-LOL-at least they are still fear us-as well they might...

[-] 3 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

"Do We Really Want & Need To Disarm Ourselves"??

YEP!

No guns, no shot kids!! Real simple!!

No solution is perfect, but doing nothing is perfectly stupid!!

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

i dont hear anybody crying over the innocent kids in the mid-east being killed by us drones!!!! lets make new laws on drone strikes!!!!!!!!

say goodbye to our 2nd amendment!!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So we should disregard 6 years olds being slaughtered here because we are killing people with drones.? Don't make sense

Your reaching, desperate. We've spent a whole lot more time debating, protesting, petitioning against war/drones than gun violence.

Where were you? You emerge only to protect gun maker profits!.

2nd amendment? Not being threatened. That's you blatantly lying & using the normal fear mongering your repubs use to garner votes, and the nra uses to increase gun makers profits.

Transparent partisan

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Those kids in middle east were killed months ago...so in actuality they have been disregarded

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But they haven't been disregarded by us. Many Americans have protested, petitioned for an end to war/drone strikes.

This forum has many more threads/comments on war/drones strikes than the ct children.

I think you are simply trying another weak attempt to distract from the issue at hand.

It's not like you've ever commented on the drones victims before. It is without HONOR to use the dead children of drone strikes to support the profits of gun makers.

Disgusting, dishonorable, lying piece of shit!!!!!

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

First of all i dont give a damn about gun makers profit!!! im no way or form in that business u asshole...but the push on that petiton didnt go as widely as this situtation...

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Fuck you, You gun mfg shill!!!!

You've never fought for the victims of drone strikes and are using them now disgracefully to protect gun maker profits.

You are the shit of shit!!!

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Wut a idiot... i clearly stated that I DONT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT GUN PROFITS!!!!!Dumb american i see why other countries dislike us....Over half of the people in this country are ignorant,naive and arrogant....and ur a prime example

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You say you don't care about gun makers profits. But your actions/comments here are all a weak attempt to increase the gun makers profits.

So I say I don't believe you. I say you are a lying piece of shit that supports the gun makers profits over your fellow Americans.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

No if anything i support the people...ur probly some red neck drunk and talking shit

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You support the gun maker people. not the American people who have been gun victims, or know gun victims, or care about preventing more gun victims. You don't care about people who support reasonable, gun safety measures that do not infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

You care for the profits you can make by selling your guns to anyone you want without background checks.

Well the 2nd Amendment don't give you the right to sell guns to murderers or mentally ill people.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

sober up before ur next post buddy...plz put down the coors light

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You wish I was drunk, but I am clear headed, Of course even drunk I could wipe the floor with your pro profit anti people arguments.

Your position is impotent. Without merit. There is no foundation for your hysterical claims about threats to the 2nd amendment rights.

Perhaps you should pick up a beer. Time to self medicate. You've been chewed up and spit out.

LOL

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

and this is exactly how the govt manipulates the masses ...jus keep watching that illusion will become reality.....

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"exactly how"? How? by getting us drunk? I ain't drunk.

Have lost all sense of logic? Are you responding to someone elses comment.?

Have you become confused and befuddled? It frequently happens when you run out of lies & distractions.

'sok, take a breath, gather your thoughts. I'll wait.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

sir wen will u understand i dont care about profits etc???????

[-] 0 points by shooz (26738) 1 year ago

Someone using the word wut in place of what, has no place at all calling anyone else an idiot.

What "over half" on America do you consider to be ignorant, naive and arrogant?

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Sorry but wen did this website become a class?? who is grading me? what course am i taking? exactly!!! shut the fuck up this is the internet not a college course so with that being said ur the idiot.....

[-] 0 points by shooz (26738) 1 year ago

Oh my.

Such idiotic, misguided anger from a self described expert on EVERYTHING!

So? Anger is your best thing? The ONLY thing you are actually well versed in? You own idiotic misguided anger?

Yep.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Where do u see anger?? where talking about a serious matter and ur talking about spelling...like who gives a fuck?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26738) 1 year ago

Anger?

Every post you've made so far is from a point of fear and anger.

Are you really so dumb, that you don't realize that?

You're anger at being corrected still has not subsided.

I think someone in your frame of mind should be prevented from access to weapons of any kind.

You could wind up like this woman.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/19/woman-with-sword-arrested-at-orlando-mosque/

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

im glad ur a doctor and see that im angry...while ur at it can u check this lump on my balls for me?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26738) 1 year ago

Whoa!

Another angry comment?

Face the simple fact that you came to this forum out of fear.

Fear is the only thing that drives you and your anger.

It's why you feel the NEED for more guns.

Fear. Nothing else.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Lawrence O’Donnell Rewrites NRA’s ‘blood-drenched’ boss

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/18/lawrence-odonnell-rewrites-nras-blood-drenched-boss/

[-] -2 points by aville (-678) 1 year ago

so, you're in favor of govt. tyranny.

[-] 3 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

Let's not delude ourselves and call these gun laws or gun control.This is orwellian speak.What you have here is people control.Control is a fairytail.You are not going to stop humans from killing each other no matter what laws you put in place.It is not that I do not trust the US goverment.I do not trust the people that Owmn the goverment.If Occupy does not trust the goverment to regulate banks,Keep our water and air clean.Why should we trust them to disarm us?

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Well Said

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But no one has mentioned disarming anyone of the 300million existing guns.

You don't know what you are talking about.

try thinking about the gun victims a little more and gun owners/gun makers profits a little less.

[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

Try thinking why you want to pass laws which will not help a single past present or future gun victim.Then try thinking why you would trust only the security state with our well being?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I have lot'sa problems with the police, and I want much change and improvement. I am not willing to surrender security to the mob.

http://www.upworthy.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-guns-in-the-us?c=upw1

[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

I have no problem with police either.One of the hardest most demanding jobs I can think of.Nor would I want a "mob"to be in control of our security.I also do not trust the people that own the people that make our laws.Many which only serve to further the intrest of the one percent ot our expense.You have a good head on your shoulders. keep on pluging away.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

We must take the peoples govt back from the 1% corp plutocrat tools. by replacing them with pro 99% progressive candidates.

https://www.facebook.com/OccupyTheNRA

[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

I find the so called progressives as bad as any of the others.Not political change,institution change is what is needed.Changing one ideology with another does nothing,unless we change the structure of the power base.That base does not care what ideology you adhear to.Knowing that control of the system is simply a matter of minipulating sociatal organizations that are always top down.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Nah. The key is the best policy, Gotta get rid of the damaging conservative approach that is at the center of all our problems & replace it with progressive policies that will benefit the 99%.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

okie dokie

[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

If I do not know what I am talking abouit,Why reply?It is a shame when anyone is hurt.It is also a sham when people look blindly to a corrupt system for answers.Answeres that in reality they do not nor never will posses.And again the word is Sham.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I answer because it is important that when people see the ignorance of comments like yours they also see reasonable counter arguments.

No one looks blindly at any corrupt system for answers. Thats you spewing some unrelated distration in order to protect yourand gun makers profits.

You've already said you don't check buyers when you sell your guns.

That is THE problem. YOU are the problem.

[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 1 year ago

The distraction is calling it gun control when in reality it is people control.Do not put words in peoples mouth.You have a knack for that.And excuse me if I do not blindly follow your ideas of utopia.I am not concerned about corporate profits or a conservative/liberal agenda.In addition I have never said not to do back ground checks.But people with a preset agenda that feel the best thing is more useless laws from corrupt politicians always look to lay blame where it does not belong.It is called partisan politics And you sir are a hack.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

A little more concern for gun victims, a little less for gun owners/makers. And certainly less focus on attacking me! LOL That ain't gonna accomplish anything. It damn well ain't gonna slow me down. Ha Ha.

http://www.upworthy.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-guns-in-the-us?c=upw1

[-] 3 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

An unarmed population is wonderfully pliable and docile. Not safer.

[-] 3 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

America for the most part already fits that bill.As dc blow smoke up our ass about gun control AKA people control.Mr. President is about to rape your social security.News flash,If you protest this your face will be smashed.

[-] 2 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

You sir are the master of the obvious. Any population that docile is only deserving of such rewards. Incidentally raping social security brings a vile image. Why rape the elderly when he can rob everything from them. I digress.

[-] 3 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

. they are many deaths in car accident/hit n runs...and most people in accidents have a license and registration...how am i(or anyone) registering gun is gonna stop them from shooting someone? its not!! So if u make a new law on guns u might as well make one on cars Etc

[-] 4 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Protesting an obviously corrupted government while demanding gun laws from it, is a beautiful example of how well that government is manipulating its people.

[-] 4 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Thats my Exact reason for being against gun laws...citizens should spend that time on more important matters SUCH AS OUR GOVT!!!!

[-] 4 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

Once the government has been wrenched from its usurpers it can then address laws that benefit its citizens.

What kind of mind controlled jack ass would entrust the same thief who robbed them to babysit their kids?

[-] 4 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Well How Bout this buddy ...With Dangergous Vaccines,Chemtrails,Labratory made diseases Etc ur less likely to die by a mass murder....so u can go head and surrender ur guns and register them while the govermnt teabags u...i will keep mines in arms reach!!

[-] 4 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

I fear corruption in government far more than I fear gun owners: Even the real crazy ones. Corrupt government will allow people to die unnecessarily in droves so long as the businesses that control the government are not infringed upon. Corrupt government will wage illegal wars globally to retain a power monopoly. It will use the children of Americans as cannon fodder to attain its' ends.

So please keep your gun. Safely. God forbid you need it to assist your fellow Americans.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

A population armed with the knowledge of how to stand up for their rights and the determination to act upon them are more powerful than any army.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

That's our job here at this forum, throughout OWS, and everywhere else to wake up that army (nonviolent) of the populace.

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 1 year ago

A population ignorant of the few rights they have remaining and too apathetic, overfed and lazy to do anything about it, are deserving fodder for any army.

We have a majority of that type of population here in America and we need the kind of population you speak of.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

fuckk all that

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

THOSE WHO CAN – DO
THOSE WHO CAN’T - RANT

1►
learn as much as you can about the numbers that show the solutions

2►
demand a plan:

http://www.youtube.com/user/maigcoalition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Za8SOVuGHs&list=UUu4Q7iE0z1Jw7yUjs56dvXA&index=1

alex jones – without his straight jacket!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZvMwcluEg&feature=endscreen&NR=1

3►
WRITE CONGRESS:

find your congresspeople
house:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
senate:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm
VP Joe Biden, Gun Panel, 1600 Pennsylvania Av, Washington DC 20006


╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬═╬


Dear ............................:

[ _ Y.O.U.R...I.N.T.R.O...H.E.R.E_ ]

While some people may want to confiscate guns, here is a much more feasible approach. It will not solve all gun problems, but it will
reduce the number of guns
and that will reduce the number of dangerous people who have access to guns - and isn't THAT our real goal?

My proposal - for a NATIONAL gun law for all guns & owners:
My four points are SIMPLY based on seeing a logical parallel between cars & guns.

Please consider advocating these four steps below to help America with our gun disasters:


1►
all gun owners must be licensed & tested with all guns they own and pass a written test.

If you own a motor cycle, a dump truck, and a car - you are tested in each.
Require a written gun test - to guarantee the owner's understanding of gun laws thus
being forced to know the law - via the test – also means the police know who you are - and you may be less likely to commit a crime or be careless storing your guns

2►
every year, you must prove that you have gun liability insurance &
be background checked and prove that your gun is properly locked when not used.

Insurance should be at least as high as car insurance [ I would like at least $1,000,000 ]
You must prove your car insurance.
Annual ( fee ) back ground check to verify your suitability to own guns.
Every gun must be locked in a gun case or have a trigger lock.

3►
as the owner of a gun, you are legally responsible for what is done with it.

You are required to report if your gun is missing within 48 hours,
The owner will be much less likely to leave a gun accessible to a family member or thief.

4►
every gun must be registered and tested & a sample fired bullet stored by the police

Knowing that your gun & its bullets are so easily traced will make you think before using it.

additionally -

Gun fees [ licenses fees & registration fees & fines ] should be
high enough to create a very substantial gun buy-back program

Penalties must be very high in money & jail time -
especially after the first offense

No citizens ( except dealers & collectors ) need more than a small number of guns

Gun fees should be higher for more guns & for bigger guns.

The nra will fight against this –
but will be balanced by the insurance companies fighting for it

But the nra may be in favor of this when the gun companies understand that gun owners
can get paid to turn in their old gun and will be able to buy a new gun -
with an INTEGRATED lock .

If we legalize drugs, we will clear out jail cells to fill with gun law breakers and
free up police "time" for real crime investigation

We WILL get higher compliance and lower opposition if we use high fees & buyback.
Take a position of reducing guns, like assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles -
rather than punishing a gun nut who spent $10,000 on an armory.
LBJ proposed a gun plan similar to the above 4 point plan

***


Some real 2011 / 2012 gun statistics:

Americans own almost half of all civilian owned guns in the world.
Per 100,000: America: 88,880 guns owned ; 2.97 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: England.…: 6,200 guns owned ; 0.07 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Austrailia: 15,000 guns owned ; 0.14 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Canada…: 30,800 guns owned ; 0.51 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: France….: 31,000 guns owned ; 0.06 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Japan……..: 1,000 guns owned ; 0.08 homicides Per 100,000
Per 100,000: Israel……..: 7,300 guns owned ; 0.90 homicides Per 100,000


http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/rft-annual-trend-and-demographic-tables-2011-12.xls
The above link is to England police statistics - see table D19

Is the nra & its trolls claiming that we will fail, where England & Australia succeeded in reducing gun deaths substantially by legislation?


Statistics clearly prove that the number of guns adds to the risk of homicides.

More complex is the effect of gun laws and restrictions.

When Australia had a massacre in 1996 when 35 people were killed, gun laws were substantially strengthened and a major buy-back was instituted.
There has not been an incident in Australia since then.
Of course, they did not have the benefit of the nra.

In 2011, there were 11,000+ gun homicides in America
In 2011, there were 35 gun deaths in England

For 2011, the average Murder Rate in Death Penalty States was 4.7,
while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1

For 2011, the murder rates were highest in red state regions:
Per 100,000: South 5.5 Midwest 4.5 West 4.2 Northeast 3.9

VERY IMPORTANT:
The 1994 gun "ban" did NOT ban assault weapons.
It banned the MANUFACTURE of assault weapons.

Scalia - yes that Scalia - has ruled the AR15s are NOT “protected” by Article 2
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line. That link could be between you and an bushmaster.
During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. "We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.
"Some limitations undoubtedly are permissible because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."
"So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
The conservative justice notably authored the Supreme Court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which ruled that the Second Amendment protects a person's right to bear arms. The court ruled that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Scalia pointed out that that the Second Amendment "obviously" doesn't apply to weapons that can't be hand-carried, and modern-day weapons like "hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes" weren't factored in at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
"My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time," he said. "They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons." Ultimately, Scalia said, any new gun restrictions will have to be weighed "very carefully"

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Sorry, Dontbackdown appears to have backed down. Changed his cowardly alias and left town. Ignorance is, as ignorance does.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

If we would just confiscate all of the guns here, we could ship them to the rebels in Syria. At least then they would be put to good use and we would be setting a good example to Lybia who needs to disarm the competing militias that are acting like Mexican cartels.

Buy backs? You thought you were making an investment? I don't think so.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

ur a idiot..

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

The proper word choice is "an." At least I'm not a scaredy cat. Let's hear your comprehensive, well reasoned response to bensdad's fact-based analysis above.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Ur a idiot...Open ur eyes those rebels only exist because there govt is evil not because theyre trouble makers...i am completley on the side of the rebels govts are worldwide bullies...

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Inspirational. Vacuous.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Welcome to the Reservation. You don't get to vote on Congressional Law ...Congress passes them based on Lobbying. What is the best way to control a population.

1) Buy more guns and Ammo for government authorities, drones, better communication technology, fusion centers, evesdropping, etc.

2) Get more people to go on sedatives or mental drugs, get more people evaluated for mental problems like ADD, or whatever.

3) Ban all hand guns, ban all semi-auto rifles, or limit magazines to 3 shells max in citizen possesion.

4) Privatize Social Security and Medicare, Privatize all payments to citizens like veteran benefits, disability, unemployment payments, food stamps, government wages, etc.

5) Nationalize all US Pension or Retirement Acccounts to pay off Federal Debts/reduce federal debt.

6) End the Tax Credit for write off of Interest Expense on Home mortgages. End the Home Heating Credit. End the Head of Household Credit. End right off of Medical Expenses.

7) End the Free Internet. Tax purchases on the Internet. Put internnet site ownership under department of homeland security - where you have to get a lisence. Regulations force you to prove copyrights.

8) End the Freedom of Information Act (FOI), announce that Anti-Trust Laws will no longer be enforced and will be repealed. Reveal that it is now possible for Walmart to own the Major Cable, TV Networks, as well as Major Print Media newspapers. Conglomerates in the USA must be allowed to compete with other global corporations.

9) National Identity Cards will be required for travel and travel outside of the Country. DHS will run your ID Card at all ports when you travel this will include running bank and credit data for outstanding debts, alimony, child support payments, and of course wants and warrants.

Welcome to the Reservation.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Would make a great forum post.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

well, I posted it, but now it is kind of too long. Thank.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

When I looked to see if other countries that had "disarmed", I found this example:

AUSTRALIANS WERE FORCIBLY DISARMED 12 MONTHS AGO. PREPARE TO BE SHOCKED BY THE RESULTS!

NEWS BRIEF: Letter written to the Orange Country Register (8/04/99), Australia.

"It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. And now the results are in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent; Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (changed drastically in the past 12months). There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly."

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1329.cfm

Does a 44% rise in armed robberies sound palatable to you? It is obvious that removing the legal guns left a void; and the filling of that void is reflected in the numbers above.

[-] 3 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Good point. Criminals actually do try to plan to steal or mug people that are weaker than them. Old people without guns are a target. Women, kids, and handicaps are targets.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Agree.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Sounds like Jefferson had a lot of Bandits around his country side. I guess he carried a rifle?? http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/firearms (No, he had Pistols as well as Shotgun for sure)

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

In the link you provided, it said:

Unquestionably, the finest arms that Jefferson owned were a pair of Turkish pistols received from the estate of General Isaac Zane in place of a money bequest. He described them and, at the same time, modestly alluded to his ability as a pistol shot: "They are 20. inch barrels so well made that I never missed a squirrel at 30 yards with them.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Yeah, don't know if they were cap & Ball, or Flintlock (pan for powder)... I'm not an antique guy, but surprised that Turkey even had this technology. Talk about Ethnocentric history. I never heard of guns from Turkey in 18th or 19th century... Turkey had war technology and military before the USA did and was part of the Roman Empire at one or two times.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Those are them, except these are 16 inch as opposed to 20 inch. What a pain though to push Powder & balls down, then prime with power in the pan. Of course European Military was still standing in a line waiting for you to shoot them I guess....

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

They were real good at standing and waiting in line - or even not waiting and just marching forward in a line into the teeth of enemy fire. I wonder - were they trained under the influence of opium? and is that how they managed that unswerving slow march straight into the meat-grinder they were blitzed on opium?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Was just listening to Chris hedges and he says you get addicted to war. You want to go back. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2SaM8RJ30c&playnext=1&list=PL327EB850BC382539

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Another type of adrenalin junky. Hanging it all out there to be lost or saved.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Yeah I guess. If it were me, I'd have to find a big ol' oak tree and rely on guerrilla tactics.

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

There is a booklet called Roger's Rangers I think. It is all about Guerrilla tactics for fighting Red Coats.

[-] 0 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 1 year ago

Wow, that is short, but I think that is the Booklet. I haven't read over the rules for like 20 years.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Teach each individual how to use and have confidence in their body and it's capabilities and end up with fewer victims and perhaps with the inclusion of good moral ethics - more protectors.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Would make good forum post.

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Good points Sparky. This says so much.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. - Thomas Jefferson

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

If the gun owners had to come up with a solution by a date certain in order to keep guns of some definition, do you think they could do it?

Why haven't they tried to solve it? Is it because 18,000 gun deaths and 80,000 gun wounds is fine with them? What kind of people would be that irresponsible? Tobacco companies? Would they call themselves "Dontbackdown"?

[-] 1 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

Real statisticians and anyone interested in statistical analysis would use murder rates, not total counts which are subject to the total population.

Now that we have that out of the way, perhaps we can examine Vermont which has virtually no regulations on gun ownership and allows concealed carry with no permit. Their murder rate is lower than Canada's, the same as Britain's.

Switzerland's murder rate however, is much lower than all three and they have 45 guns per capita.

Yeah, guns cause crime.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

They do in our culture. Must be when you put them in Repelican hands. Just can't resist shooting folks like themselves.You new in town? Look like a city slicker to me.

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

Yeah, all the crime is caused by repukes dealing drugs on street corners. I forgot.

If guns cause crime within our culture, why is Vermont, with 42% of residents owning guns, number 48 in violent crime? Many times lower than the lowest violent crime province in Canada? Why is their murder rate lower than Canada's and lower than the US national average? Why aren't all the MILLIONS of guns that have been sold in the last few years raising the murder rate instead of it going down? Many of them EVIL ASSAULT WEAPONS? Could it be that there are more factors involved than you think?

You're such a statistician.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Gun homicides per 100,000 - in the US - 3.7, in New Zealand - 0.17, in Great Britain - 0.04. What does that mean?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

Some say, if there are no guns people will find another way, even if you look at homicides, US 5.22, New Zealand 1.25, Great Britan 1.57, per 100,000.

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

One thing I find interesting about these numbers is if you take the 1.53 non-gun homicides in GB and add it to the 3.7 gun deaths in the US you almost exactly the 5.22 US overall number. Which would indicate that all gun homicides are extra homicides.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

It is hard to make complete sense of all of the numbers. It seems to me that the folks who want guns and have guns have the burden of solving the problem instead of chanting, "That won't work." If places with less guns have less gun homicides and suicides, Or places that are less religious have less homicides and suicides or are better educated have less... ? It seems like the folks who want them should have to prove that they have a solution that works. More guns seems to be pretty thoroughly discredited, so what is next? Show me.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (10721) from Phoenix, AZ 1 year ago

I took this and made a post of it hope you don't mind.

Seeing how people often say that the US and GB are very similar, our roots and all, I was surprised to find that we had almost the same rate of non-gun murders.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

People kill people not guns. However, this perspective seems lost on about everyone.

Clearly, human being are ready to go extinct before they acknowledge enough about themselves to control their behaviors. That will be long after they are forced to give up their guns because the infiltrated government creates enough gun violence to make it look necessary.

[-] 1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Which i believe these recent mass shootings are theyre way of intiating that process of disarming the people..

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Yes, False Flag

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

2nd Amd. rights posters at dailypaul can't discuss the facts reasonably.

http://www.dailypaul.com/245587/mental-health-guns-which-comes-first

And the infiltrations strategy will work because there is no mental health care option for the shooters.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

I just went by there. Do mean they can't discuss any of the Sandy Hook/Newtown anomalies? I couldn't find any such.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

No, that thread was started after Aurora. The anomalies appear to be a manipulation of info sources to make the political counter culture appear to be nonsense. They may or may not be true. Better to not get caught in the trap and work with the obvious instead.

At the dailypaul they couldn't discuss mental health care as a way to preserve gun rights. They all assume that psychology/psychiatry are using the most advanced treatment and the mental health care is a failure. The fact is that psychology was infiltrated in the 1960's and prevented from examining the unconscious mind.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-if-there-were-a-secret-revision-of-local-cour/#comment-895820

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

?? "The anomalies appear to be a manipulation of info sources to make the political counter culture appear to be nonsense"?? -- WHOA!! Really now? Don't you wish. (Note to self: 'rayolite' - remember that name.)

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Only because there is no good confirmation of the alternative media info. Yes, this is convoluted, but works to explain the consistency regardless of the info which isn't being confirmed. Real things tend to be confirmed eventually by new info, that didn't happen with Aurora.

Most of this appears to be things that may or may not be true.

What is most concerning, is that there is no way to confirm. If there was, then the masses would eventually know and some investigation into law enforcement handling would be justified.

Critical thinking time: If the alternative info is true, and BTW, I think it is, it makes sense and has detail. Details that are invented are most often not very consistent.

Accordingly consider that compromising the credibility of alternative media then releasing truth to it for dissemination, creates an environment where those knowing some truth that happens to be different than what the mass media shows, are automatically dismissed with an attitude.

So if you witnessed something we term an anomalie, and went to law enforcement and say, "You must be one of alternative media conspiracy nuts". Now they are immune to leaks.

BTW, this would take nearly total control over mass media and I think most of us agree, that such a condition exists with media.

Look what someone went through with a local paper relating to a lawsuit trying to compel a county to develop effective mental health care pursuant to state law. Unbelievable, a gag order on reporters who are getting fired, filing lawsuits, the public defender resigning, all timed around aspects of the suit. Weird.

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

I'm thinking the lawsuit represented a way to create mental health care so effective that shooters would get treated instead of shooting, or perhaps something else altogether would be exposed by the treatment in a shooter seeking alternatives to shooting.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Apparently, Bank of America is or was blocking all purchases of guns and ammo with their bank issued credit and debit cards.
Whether you are pro gun or not, we have a serious issue arising now where banks are going to tell us what we can buy and what we can't? NOT GOOD! Aside from gun control, many health freedom activists have been concerned about this same thing happening in re: to medical care, supplements and healthy foods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x4f2h5EiWPY#!

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

see that's the thing you are not thinking.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1537) 1 year ago

Disarming is foolhardy. However, one would hope it should be possible to protect our second amendment rights while instituting measures for keeping our public safe at the same time. The question is how much firepower is required to defend oneself against a government or anyone else. When does a firearm cease to be a weapon for defense, and becomes a weapon primarily for inflicting terror?

Does any body out there know what kind of gun was used to shoot the shooters?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 1 year ago

Woman pushed a man onto elevator train the other day.When does each person have there own police person.Perhaps each commuter should be declared a school.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 1 year ago

Here's an interesting video about gun control laws in the USA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m9LWioXYaic#!

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

If there are ever genocides in this country I think we know who would be in charge.

“The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier, ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understandings of facts, evidence and science and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Mann and Ornstein in "It's Even Worse than It looks."

And they are trying to accumulate all of the guns.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Exactly - who cries out against immigration - legal - or - not?

It is a surprisingly fascist group in Greece ( golden dawn ) that are acting out against immigrants in the country.

Intolerance/selfserving

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

500 homicides in Chicago in 2012. There are plenty of examples in the world that are doing a better job of protecting citizen's rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, lets try "all of the above", everything that other countries with lower per capita homicide rates than we have are doing. The folks who really want to exempt themselves after five years, should request an exemption for their city. If the trend starts to go the wrong way, their exemption is cancelled.

The GOP tells us that nothing will work. Not true. They say that mental health screening and treatment will help, then propose to cut funding for mental health. They had their chance and then some, to manage this issue. They did exactly nothing, while it got worse. We have 5% of the population of the world and 50% of the per capita gun ownership and increasing rapidly. Has per capita gun deaths gone down? No, of course not. Which lie do you want to try next? Don't bother.

It's time for all of the above. Plus outlawing ALL clips.

Same approach was used with health care. Lie. "We have the best health care in the world." Wrong! We have the highest health care cost in the world. Fraud. Do nothing, while costs go to double what others pay and they get better results. It's a broken record.

“The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier, ideologically extreme, contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understandings of facts, evidence and science and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” Mann and Ornstein

Your family value is to lie, to deceive, to bribe, just do whatever it takes to get what you want. Corruption. Not this time. Not again. We must protect ourselves all right, from you guys.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Guns are for weak and fearful babies.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Australia, May 1996, a lone gunman killed 35 people and wounded an additional 23. Subsequently, Australia passed a very strict gun control law that included a buy-back program that managed to recover 600,000 assault rifles and other arms -- 20 percent of all the known firearms in Australia. There were no more private sales of firearms, there were stringent registration laws, and, as with other nations, you had to prove to authorities that you had a specific reason for purchasing a firearm. And no, according to Slate, self-defense wasn't a valid excuse. What happened after that?

Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post's Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Nope, just the ones that actually have guns.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (5271) from Cornelius, OR 1 year ago

Lawrence O’Donnell Rewrites NRA’s ‘blood-drenched’ boss

http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/18/lawrence-odonnell-rewrites-nras-blood-drenched-boss/

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

Only if you feel comfortable bending over.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

Woot. Bring back the ban.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

idiot....

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21783) 1 year ago

I'm crushed. CRUSHED.

Yep, this came from the nimrod that doesn't know his history but is one of those suckers that picks out what he likes. Prolly a tea twit, too.

[-] 1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

have to credit this government tho...they are geniuses...

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

proper legislation and enforcement of gun laws absolutely will decrease the number of mass shootings. only an ignorant fool would deduce from available evidence a different conclusion. the vast majority support a ban on semiautomatic weapons across the board. soon it will be law and you will have to turn in your arms or face criminal prosecution. that is how this is going to all play out. the notion that you are going to resist a competent and battle hardened military such as ours with all the electronic surveillance you begged for after 9-11 is a fallacy of the highest order. you people are lunatics. if you want to beat the new world order you need to build autonomous building communities and base your economies off of resources available and the proper maintenance of these resources and local production of the goods and services you can best supply and provide and engage in trade with others even internationally for the goods you can not produce or require. for example many regions of the world held fame and acclaim for just one product that they produced from a region. like a swiss watch or french champagne or italian olive oil or cuban sugar. this i believe is the way to defeat a genocidal government. guns will just get death. gardens well they will green deserts and grow trust between peoples and heal the wounds of our peoples. autonomous buildings, bio diverse integrated permaculture, and aquaponics/hydroponics. this is the way to freedom and liberty and progress.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

typical blind american smh....freedom and liberty will digress

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

what makes you say that?

[-] -1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

these recent mass shootings was a of throwing the 2nd amendment out the window...its jus part of the govt total control process

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

NO ONE is comin for your guns! The 2nd Amendment is not being threatened. Don't believe the hype.

Those fear mongering lies are spewed only to get votes for republicans and fatten the profits of gun makers.

You can't be so stupid you don't see it. are you.?

[-] -1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Im Stupid??? riiiiiight....Keep putting ur faith in this govt to heal us...the same govt thats releasing these chemtrails on us...the same govt thats infecting us with man made sicknesses...the same govt that orchestrated 9/11..the same govt thats responsible for those drone attacks!!!! And if u cant see that were slowly getting stripped of our rights ur a zombie....

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You sound a bit paranoid schizo man. At the very least you are desperately throwing out one unrelated distraction after another in a weak attempt to protect the profits of gun makers.

Give it up. Nobody believes your wackjob lies. I think your tinfoil hat might be a little too tight.

[-] -1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

These are not lies if u cant see that we are slowly losing our rights ur a american idiot!!! u bitch and complain ""to much liberty not enough gun laws" when 20 kids are killed here its""oh lets get this done quick fast and a hurry"" over hundred kids died in those drone strikes thats a real MASS MURDER...and how many more times do i need to say that i dont give a FUCK about gun profits!!!! take uncle sams red white and blue penis out ur face and mayb u can read clearly!!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I never said "too much liberty" That's you blatantly lyin'. You can't stick to the truth. You can't argue honestly. You have to use unrelated drone deaths, and conspiracy distractions cause your position is impotent.

More concern for gun victims, less for gun owners/gun makers profits.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

ur basically saying to much liberty by bitching about gun laws...

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No I ain't. I'm saying gun owners are irresponsible! (Like in CT) And it's time we ended their profit centered desire to sell any gun (without background checks) to criminals and mentally ill with no concern for the potential gun victims.

The profits are not more important than people.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Gun laws don't kill people, people kill people, with guns.

Love pacifiers, not guns.

[-] 1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Pacifism has. Been pushed off the cliff years ago...won't see it...at least not in this lifetime

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

No it is killed 18,000 times a year.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Pacifiers, the things little kids suck on, not pacifists. Big kids suck on their guns.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

This whole "gun debate" is nothing more then a vehicle to achieve the long held desire and agenda of disarming ALL AMERICANS.

We all know this has been the goal of the Progressive Left among other domestic interests for a very long time and coincidentally our enemies abroad and our supposed friends the UN.

Private gun ownership is the big obstacle to "fundamentally transform" America into the Utopia of their dreams.

Once America is "de-fanged" there will be nothing to stop the vehicle/agenda from rolling over every liberty and freedom Americans have.

These are the facts that many don't want to talk about and will deny,for obvious reasons.

[-] 2 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Well Put..............

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4024) 1 year ago

Agree. People want gun regulation from the ones conducting the False Flag events.

[-] 1 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Partisan politics are being used to distract citizens from constitutional defense. Or, gaining control of the authority which the government cannot dismiss. The constitution.

Dontbackdown has a good perspective that is inclusive of this.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/do-we-really-want-need-to-disarm-ourselves/#comment-897998

[-] 2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Surely you can not deny that the political ideology of the Left has and is still working on disarming Americans? Either through incremental means or just complete and total absolute banning of all private firearms.

I don't believe there is a single prominent "real" Conservative that advocates for the kind of gun regulations and restrictions and out right dissolution of the 2nd Amendment that is the mantra of the Left.

This is the way it is and to pretend otherwise is foolish. There are plenty of Democrats that are gun owners,yes, but apparently they have not yet figured out what many of us already know. The Democrat Party as of the last 40 years has come to be the Party of extreme gun regulation and advocates of out right gun bans.

The problem has to be recognized first before it can be solved. If more gun owning Democrats stopped voting against their own best interests we would most likely be talking about mental health issues instead of gun bans.

[-] 0 points by rayolite (461) 1 year ago

Absolutely, but partisan politics can't stop the dems.

outlawtumor wrote "Surely you can not deny that the political ideology of the Left has and is still working on disarming Americans?"

Both parties are used for different aspects of the same agenda. Neither is what they say they are. They are what corporate and elite want them to be in order to better ensnare us in useless activities.

To reach for Article V as one of the people, the "rightful masters of the congress and the courts" (Lincoln, 1859) is to reach for the authority to stop any abridgement or infringement on any right.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are a wack job. No one is talkin about disarming anyone. Your fear mongering is childish and dishonest.

[-] 1 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

No one? Really? Well, if you use both of the visual thingies on the front of your head, and look real hard, you can find people on websites like the Huffington Post demanding outlawing and confiscating all weapons.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Stop putting gunmakers profits over human life!!

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

Besides, what if my only gun was an evil assault weapon with a folding stock and all the other stuff that makes it evil? Wouldn't I be disarmed?

Thanks for playing "debate night", we have some lovely parting gifts.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Your focus on these meaningless details of gun features/functions/models is pathetic.

Can you recite the details of the children slaughtered.? One girl convinced her parents to let her wear her holiday dress to school. Precious.

6 ran past their dead teacher (who protected them) and were consoled by a nearby neighbor.

Yesterday a priceless goodby note was left at the funeral of one of the 6 year old gun victims by his best friend.

These are the important details we should be focusing on.

Stop putting gunmakers profits ahead of human life.

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

I'm not even saying we shouldn't ban all guns, I'm merely pointing out your factual inaccuracy. You gotta be better about that, dude.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I ain't pushing banning all guns.

I'm agitating for all of us to stop putting gun makers profits ahead of 6 year old gun victims.

What factual inaccuracy of mine have you pointed out.?

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

LMAO,..that's exactly what the end result will be.

I remember how Liberals would say "Obama is not coming after your guns, you're just being paranoid".

We now see how right we were. Obama failed at Fast and Furious so this is just round 2. Obama IS coming after American guns,...count on it. He may not succeed but that won't stop him from trying.

[+] -4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You're a paranoid wack job. no one is talkin about takin anyones guns. Ain't gonna happen. Only in your paranoid fantasies.

Stop worryin about gun owners, & start thinkin about gun victims. Reach down deep beyond all the political lies you are fed from the gun maker pr firm (NRA), and the repubs lookin for votes, and try to think about your fellow man, women and CHILDREN!

Stop playing the old phoney partisan game designed ONLY to protect gunmaker profits.

Now is the time to protect human beings! 20 children were slaughtered man, doesn't that mean any thing to you?

[-] 1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

What would you call an "assault rifle" ban??

If the Government bans private ownership of a particular gun that is now currently legal and available,...that constitutes the Government taking guns from the American people.

It's all really simple and everything makes more sense if you just be honest instead of angry and deceitful.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Consider the slaughter 6 & 7 year old children, more would be alive if the wackjob gunman had to reload after 10 shots.

Stop putting gun makers profits above human life.

[-] 2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Nobody would have been killed if "gun free" zones weren't such a darling of the Democrats,RINO's and the MSM. This IS the real culprit.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Stop putting gun makers profits above human life.

Put aside the partisan bullshit! Put gun victims over gun profits & gun owners.

[-] 2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Stop hiding behind the children and your propaganda.

People kill people,not guns.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Stop hiding FROM children! I stand up FOR the children.

I stand up for ALL gunvictims.

You stand up for gunmakers profits!

[-] 2 points by outlawtumor (-162) 1 year ago

Calm down and chill out,people are beginning to talk.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

So! My outrage is a badge of honor. I express my humanity when I stand up for gun victims against the partisan shills who care more for gun makers profits.

I WANT people to talk. That's the point. And when they choose to put gunowners, & gunmakers over 6 yr old gun victims, I'm obligated to challenge those mistaken priorities.

There is NO HONOR in putting gun makers profits over human life.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (20423) 1 year ago

I agree. I can't believe some of the stuff I read on this forum.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Thank you. I know I get emotional and extreme. But only in the face of those who have lost their way and become stuck in gun OWNERS rights, or gunMAKERS profits, and forget gunVICTIMS lives.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 1 year ago

the minority (criminals) could never get the upper hand on the majority (law abiding citizens) unless the majority is disarmed, and the minority is armed, oh wait that is exactly how our society is set up. The majority of people are dumb!

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

thats racist bro..

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Lie: Mass shootings don't really happen that often. It just seems like it because of the media. Truth: The number of mass shootings has actually risen significantly over the last 30 years.

Since 1982, there have been 62 mass murders carried out with firearms, across America, where 'mass murder' is defined as a single person killing four or more people in a single incident (other than the killer).

Lie: The assault weapons ban in the U.S. did nothing. Truth: The assault weapons ban did, in fact, limit unexpected mass killings.

Using the more accurate standard used for "mass killings" used by Mark Follman at Mother Jones, and Princeton researcher Sam Wang - where crimes that involve armed robbery or gang violence are not counted - statistics show the assault weapons ban did make a significant difference. As Wang's research noted, "Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years [since 1980] occurred since the expiration [of the ban]."

Lie: "If there had been someone there [at a massacre site] who was packin', those people would still be alive!" Truth: Armed civilians do not stop mass shooters. As Mark Follman of Mother Jones notes, "...not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way."

Lie: More guns will actually make us all safer! Truth: More guns actually mean more murders.

As the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found, where there are more guns - in America and in other, similar rich nations - both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Lie: Gun-loving Americans don't support gun control or gun safety laws. Truth: In general, responsible gun owners support effective, smart gun safety laws.

According to a poll taken by noted GOP pollster Frank Luntz for the group Mayors against Illegal Guns, and published in Think Progress by Zach Beauchamp, "...gun-owning Americans, including National Rifle Association (NRA) members, overwhelmingly support a raft of common-sense measures typically described as 'gun control.'"

That includes 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners who support requiring criminal background checks on gun owners. 80 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 79 percent of NRA gun owners also support requiring criminal background checks on gun shop employees.

Lie: Obama is the worst President for gun-loving Americans, ever. Truth: 2012 has been a record setting year for gun sales.

As of August 1, 2012, there are nearly 130,000 federally licensed firearms dealers in the United States - which means there are more stores selling guns than groceries in the U.S.

If you're looking for even more facts on guns, check the links below.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 1 year ago

Very good stuff. Thanks.

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

You should remember from statistics class (just kidding...lol) that an increase in rate does not imply a high overall rate.

Indeed mass shootings are rare, you are two to three times more likely to be struck by lightning and 50 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver (Enabled by easy access to hard liquor and fast, heavy cars).

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

More guns do not mean more murders, there is no correlation. Vermont has a 42% gun ownership rate and concealed carry with no license, and the third lowest murder rate in the US (lower than Canada)

There are other factors involved, such as urbanization, poverty, drug use and gang activity.

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

Number of grocery stores in US: 180,000+

http://www.naics.com/free-code-search/siclist.html?sictwo=54

Your predetermined conclusions are invalid.

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html The folks at Mother Jones must have their eyes closed.

"I can't hear you LalalaAAA!!!"

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I looked up one of them: The "hero" did NOT stop the attack - he only stopped the killer AFTER he left the school


The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing a trench coat, to hide his rifle when he entered the school, Woodham fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School's assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others.

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into a his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a US Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived.

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Lie: "If there had been someone there [at a massacre site] who was packin', those people would still be alive!" Truth: Armed civilians do not stop mass shooters. As Mark Follman of Mother Jones notes, "...not one of the 62 mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years has been stopped this way."

im sorry but i think thats bullshit....jus because it never happned dont mean that it cant..i believe if a citizen had a gun during these mass murders they would not have been mass murders...sorry dont agree with u at all on that...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

"just because it never happned dont mean that it cant." no it means it AIN'T NEVER happened. And it probably NEVER will.

Better we not let just anyone start shootin every which way when these things happen.

We must depend on professionals. Civilians with guns are not trained adequately, and 70% of the time are hurt with their own guns while having that gun stolen.

Understand?

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

No i dont understand go look up how many people police shot and killed that were not threats...also did u know that police shot kids in columbine to???look it up

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Another distraction. Police ain't perfect, some even corrupt. Still the best we got. If police can make mistakes, and be corrupted then civilians would be worse.

You don't see that?

[-] 0 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugQhhJAUtuA Police my ass!!! i have just as much trust with a civilian wit a gun..

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are mistaken in placing that trust in civilians.

Has there been more police or civilians perpetrating mass killings.?

Has there ever been a police officer perpetrate a mass killing?

[-] 1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

Well Statistics show ur more likely to get shot by a office than a mass murderer.............

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

No they don't

That's you desperately trying to find some justification for us to have everyone armed in a transparent attempt at increasing your gun maker puppetmasters profit.

You are pathetic.

[-] 1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

yes they do....do ur research sir

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Done. As always you are just spewing fear mongering lies, to get republican votes, and increase gun makers profits.

I got yer research right 'er! LMFAO!

[-] 1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

bottom line is this...criminals break laws...what makes u think a criminal is goin to register his gun? what makes u think a criminal still cant get his hands on semi autos? all this law and changed will do is make us more vunerable to criminals.....

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Will do no such thing. But if we stop the 40% gun sales through the gun show/private sale loophole we will cut down drastically on criminals access to guns. If we register, license, insure every gun we will find it is more difficult for criminals to get guns.

If we install tracking on every gun we will see that criminals will get caught with illegal guns before their used.

If we arrest irresponsible gun owners whose guns wind up in criminal hands we will see more responsibility and less criminal access to guns.

If we crack down on gun makers with huge punitive/prison for lost/stolen guns we will see the current 6000 lost guns from mfg evaporate and minimize the criminal access to guns.

It will take years but yeah I absolutely expect that criminals (and mentally ill) will have less access to guns, and I know there will be less death from guns.

[-] 2 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

So this country has a war on drugs spent and spents billions and billions....only to have drugs usage go up!!!! so now i guess were gonna have a "war on guns" how much is this gonna cost us again? smh.........

[-] 2 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

exactly so wut do u think they plan to take next???

[-] 1 points by Dontbackdown (22) 1 year ago

face it that will not work waste of time,money and effort...and if this country is rich why is there so much poverty in it...

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Because of the greedy corp 1% oligarchs takin all our money?

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I say take the money from the ending of the war on drugs. Also add a tax to gun sales, and gun insurance. (use some ofthat for healthcare) and of course there will be annual registration fees.

So don't worry about the money we are the richest country in human history.

I never believe them when they say we don't have enough money for your program. They always seem to have enough for their wars and tax cuts for the wealthy.

So that's just bullshit to cut programs for the 99% right?

[-] 0 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

We are the richest country in human history? That's hilarious, where did you get that? We're number seven depending on who you ask.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita]

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree.

[-] 1 points by billybelch (10) 1 year ago

I disagree with numerical analysis also.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Bully for you.

[-] 0 points by occupycampbellco (34) from Newport, KY 1 year ago

Meanwhile, 24 states have fascist "right-to-work" laws now.