I changed my stance on gun control!!!

[RDKirk]

“Eliminate murder” is a poor choice of word. But rest of the world statistics prove that stronger gun control , and removing guns from citizen will reduce gun valiance and also murder rate in US homicide rate is 4.96 , where in Canada it is 1.76, in Europe it is less then 2, in AU less then one. And gun related homicide US – 12.21/ 100K , Canada 2.05/100k, EU less then 3/100k . it’s statistically proven a stronger gun control reduce violence. But American conservatives don’t care!

Those were folk who were not so inclined to kill each other anyway.

 

[RDKirk]

And if you were 90 some lbs, under five ft tall and one of
those so- violent Americans you described decided to defile
you, what would you propose to do?

I tried being seriously injured. Whats your preference?

You don't seem to have read my last paragraph:

So for many Americans, being armed with a gun is a last option against the meaner, tougher, larger people armed with knives, clubs, greater numbers, more fighting experience that really are out there.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

Those were folk who were not so inclined to kill each other anyway.

Well if your argument is Americans are homicidal in nature, then the smart things to do is take away the tool which makes them kill each other more easily.

 

[Astrid]

You don't seem to have read my last paragraph:

So for many Americans, being armed with a gun is a last option against the meaner, tougher, larger people armed with knives, clubs, greater numbers, more fighting experience that really are out there.

I read it. Just making sure.

 

[Arcangl86]

No, not delusional. It means is that Private Pyle will have to face the possibility of shooting Sherrif Andy, Deputy Fife and even Aunt Bea. From the point of view of a soldier, that's a daunting possibility.

Even the Soviet Red Army refused to fire on Soviet citizens during the last days of the Soviet Union. American soldiers are not more likely to do so, unless there is a very bright indication that it's definitely a matter of protecting Sherrif Andy, Deputy Fife and even Aunt Bea.

What I saw the military do in the last days of Watergate, and what I heard from them during the last days of the Trump presidency, is that they're going to be watching all three branches very, very carefully and reading the Constitution very strictly. If the Executive doesn't get at least one other branch on its side in this kind of matter, they will fold their hands.

That would be just as true if the population was unarmed.

 

[RDKirk]

That would be just as true if the population was unarmed.

No, it wouldn't. It would mean the army could just walk in and not have to actually mow down anyone. It makes a tremendous difference.

 

[RDKirk]

Well if your argument is Americans are homicidal in nature, then the smart things to do is take away the tool which makes them kill each other more easily.

A. It wouldn't resolve the problem.

B. Unless the government has the responsibility to protect me and my family--and in fact, the government does not have that responsibility according to the courts--then it is immoral to deny me the capacity to protect myself. I'm not responsible for what other people do.

 

[durangodawood]

No, it wouldn't. It would mean the army could just walk in and not have to actually mow down anyone. It makes a tremendous difference.

Interesting. Thats why a proper security state would be needed, so it doesn't get to that point.

 

[RDKirk]

Interesting. Thats why a proper security state would be needed, so it doesn't get to that point.

The situation in the US has in the last couple of decades gotten dicier. We don't know to the extent that groups like the Proud Boys and various neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups have infiltrated the military since 9/11...but we know it's happened. The Proud Boys even claim now to have a Marine general in their group. I personally believe the proportion is small, but it's significant enough to have alarmed the military leadership of the Army and Marine Corps.

So what happens if a military unit sent against Proud Boys has a Proud Boys commander? Or any manner of various combinations?

What all this means is that the US military cannot be fully trusted to be sent against US citizens...and that's probably a good thing.

 

[durangodawood]

....So what happens if a military unit sent against Proud Boys has a Proud Boys commander? Or any manner of various combinations?....

What happens if a unit with a bunch of proud boys and a proud boys commander is sent against "antifa rioters" or similar?

 

[RDKirk]

What happens if a unit with a bunch of proud boys and a proud boys commander is sent against "antifa rioters" or similar?

Probably not as much of a problem. But that's not what we're talking about, because "rioters" would not be in quotation marks, regardless of who they actually are.

That's why people in the Trump Administration took definite steps to make sure the National Guard was not available on January 6. They expected there would not be quotes around rioters.

 

[Tiberius Lee]

A. It wouldn't resolve the problem.

B. Unless the government has the responsibility to protect me and my family--and in fact, the government does not have that responsibility according to the courts--then it is immoral to deny me the capacity to protect myself. I'm not responsible for what other people do.

Here are few things about 2nd amendment

1) The idea that “well-regulated militia” will overthrew US government is a fantasy. It will never come to that. Unlike any other country in 3rd world where dictator frequently overthrow government, I hope our democracy is strong enough to survive such an attempt. I must admit I was scared with last administration but at the end, we prevailed. Last administration proved the point that we the citizen need to exercise our rights and vote.

2) And which “well-regulated militia” Proud Boys? I don’t want Proud Boys to have gun in the first place , let alone overthrow government. How about BLM , I bat many in the forum had similar feelings about BLM like I do about Proud Boys.

3) I can understand and accept guns for self defense. If you live in rural America, I can see you have few guns to protect yourself. But do you need constitutional right to run around with your AR-15 in downtown Huston in the name of self defense? Do you really need AR-15 to defend yourself? Even Gen. McChrystal says Assault rifles are for battlefields.

4) Or do you need AR-15 and act like police office “wannabe” like Kyle Rittenhouse, unfortunately our law says you can run around with AR-15 and create a situation where you have no choice but to defend yourself.


“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.” Gen. McChrystal

 

[RDKirk]

Here are few things about 2nd amendment

1) The idea that “well-regulated militia” will overthrew US government is a fantasy. It will never come to that. Unlike any other country in 3rd world where dictator frequently overthrow government, I hope our democracy is strong enough to survive such an attempt. I must admit I was scared with last administration but at the end, we prevailed. Last administration proved the point that we the citizen need to exercise our rights and vote.

2) And which “well-regulated militia” Proud Boys? I don’t want Proud Boys to have gun in the first place , let alone overthrow government. How about BLM , I bat many in the forum had similar feelings about BLM like I do about Proud Boys.

3) I can understand and accept guns for self defense. If you live in rural America, I can see you have few guns to protect yourself. But do you need constitutional right to run around with your AR-15 in downtown Huston in the name of self defense? Do you really need AR-15 to defend yourself? Even Gen. McChrystal says Assault rifles are for battlefields.

4) Or do you need AR-15 and act like police office “wannabe” like Kyle Rittenhouse, unfortunately our law says you can run around with AR-15 and create a situation where you have no choice but to defend yourself.

That really wasn't much about the 2nd Amendment, nor was it anything about my post.

 

[renniks]

All you have to do is look at the homicide statistics. Don't forget to look at abortion and capital punishment rates, as well. Americans have a homicide problem.

It has a drug and gang problem that leads to homicides. It's a problem that starts with lack of fathers.

 

[renniks]

you really need AR-15 to defend yourself?

Lol, it's just a semi automatic, nothing special about the AR 15. Why is everyone obsessed with them?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Those were folk who were not so inclined to kill each other anyway.

YES if I want someone dead badly enough I do not need a gun. I knew a woman that had fatal allergies to cats. Now I knew this did not particularly like her and no I was not crazy enough to do that, but my point is I could kill her by petting a cat and then the fur getting on her. That kind of murder would be tough to prove as the DA would have to show the suspect one knew of the person's allergy, knew how serious it was and then purposefully exposed the victim to whatever the allergy was You could kill someone with a lock in a sock, your bare hands, a knife any number of things.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It would seem that the preference of many is to wait until it happens to them, THEN do something. Meanwhile, they assume "It can't happen here. It can't happen to me."

I mentioned earlier in this thread that my county has a LOT of guns and very few violent crime. It is not that it could not happen here or in any number of other rural counties around here. It is not as though it has never happened but it gives criminals something to think about if they know that behind that locked door would very likely be a legally armed home owner.

 

[Sparagmos]

I used to own a bunch of guns. I ended up in a situation where I could not store them so I end up having my lawyer dispose of them.

After 5 or so years of being gun-free, I became more sympathetic to the gun control crowd. I had no guns but I felt pretty safe anyway with 911 only minutes away, where I live so easy for police to mop up the criminals.

Recently I heard a question asked.....Who do you call when the police are criminals? Then I read a quote by Washington the said (paraphrase) There should be a rebellion every 20 years or so.

That made me think of the context the Constitution was written in. We need law-abiding citizens to own guns because we have a right to self-defense. Whether it's from a criminal or a totalitarian government, we need to be able to overthrow the government if need be. That is what Washington was saying.

I don't think we are anywhere near the point where we need to rise up, but we need to be able to if we get some Fascist in office suspends the Constitution or tries to dissolve our rights.


We have 2,000 laws about guns. No more gun laws......Agree or disagree......

Discuss.........

The idea that the people in this country would unite against the government, and that the government would be united against the people, is naive. That’s not how things go down. You have the country as a whole, including our respective representatives, divided. Without support from a good portion of the populace, the government couldn’t carry out much. That means that the guns that people say we could use against the government could, and would, also be used against other citizens in support of a fascist government.

Also, the biggest threat to our Democracy is not governmental force (because who would carry that out? The military? The police?). The biggest threat is propaganda and misinformation. Fascism starts by winning over the people through populist psychological manipulation. The people clinging to their guns are the very people a populist, fascist leader would seek to manipulate and recruit. Those guns would be turned against the rest of us.

Finally, let’s just accept that modern militaries are so much more sophisticated than a bunch of people with guns that those guns wouldn’t be able to stop the unlikely scenario where the full government attacks the people. That’s nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, it's just a semi automatic, nothing special about the AR 15. Why is everyone obsessed with them?

The AR-15 often fires high energy rounds that do considerably more damage than a handgun or even many other rifles do. It makes the odds of a wound being fatal quite a bit higher. That along with the extended magazines one can obtain for that gun makes them very dangerous when it comes to mass shooting events.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

I used to own a bunch of guns. I ended up in a situation where I could not store them so I end up having my lawyer dispose of them.

After 5 or so years of being gun-free, I became more sympathetic to the gun control crowd. I had no guns but I felt pretty safe anyway with 911 only minutes away, where I live so easy for police to mop up the criminals.

Recently I heard a question asked.....Who do you call when the police are criminals? Then I read a quote by Washington the said (paraphrase) There should be a rebellion every 20 years or so.

That made me think of the context the Constitution was written in. We need law-abiding citizens to own guns because we have a right to self-defense. Whether it's from a criminal or a totalitarian government, we need to be able to overthrow the government if need be. That is what Washington was saying.

I don't think we are anywhere near the point where we need to rise up, but we need to be able to if we get some Fascist in office suspends the Constitution or tries to dissolve our rights.


We have 2,000 laws about guns. No more gun laws......Agree or disagree......

Discuss.........

I am very pro-gun control. The more restricted the supply, the more difficult it is for people who would do ill with them to get their hands on them.