Founders favored gun regulation

[tecumseh]

They couldn't imagine life without it, says Cornell. That's the point of his new book, "A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America." In it, Cornell excavates the foundations of the Second Amendment and offers some startling conclusions.

"As long as we've had guns in America," says Cornell, "we've had gun regulation." In fact, the Second Amendment's chief purpose is to assure such regulation. Without it, the founders feared, anarchy might take hold.

http://www.startribune.com/561/story/695627.html

[Rhyknow]

I don't beleive in the right to bear arms. Just looking at the gun crime statistics in, say the late 80's-early 90's in the US, you can tell why. In 1992 i beleive, 12 people in the UK died from firearm related deaths. Guns are illegal there. In the US, thousands of people died from firearm related deaths... Where guns are legal. I think i'm beginning to see a pattern here :blink:

Of course, things have changed in the UK over 20 years. But i still beleive that guns oughta be illegal everywhere... even with coppers. Think about it. Bloody Sunday? The Tax Pole riots? Lots of people killed, inflicted by weapons used by the filth. Sure, give em the guns... but not the bullets... Bullets hurt :lol:

But seriously for a minute, i don't understand the point in legalizing guns. maybe it's a government plot to keep the population down... But to me human life is sacred, and should be treasured... To kill someone is terrible... and they make it all the easier by legalizing firearms :ph34r:

[Rhyknow]

Well i see where you're coming from Patton... But ideally, when people have guns, they kill people... Of course, it'd be a moronic thing to say that EVERYONE who owns a gun has killed someone... but say a nutjob buys a hunting rifle, what's to stop him from going to the nearest convenience store and blowing the clerk's head off? I agree with you to the extent where handguns are a bigger problem I.E. Drive by shootings etc... But don't forget that hunting rifles are still guns, and are still available to the general public.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

If I recall correctly, most countries that regulate guns have found no decrease in gun-related violence. Gun regulation is based on a fallacious claim of causation in an instance of correlation. Regulating guns does little except cost money. People like it because it makes them think they are safe.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Why complain about gun regulation when 99% of gun related violence is a direct result of squallid living conditions and the pursuit of a means to escape it?

Anyone who sopports gun regulation or banning does not completley understand the conditions under which the vast majority of the proletariat survive (barely and sometimes not at all) as well as the necessary means of massive revolution.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but guns win a fucking revolution.

[Rhyknow]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 25 2006, 04:12 PM--> (patton @ Sep 25 2006, 04:12 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 03:50 PM
Well i see where you're coming from Patton... But ideally, when people have guns, they kill people... Of course, it'd be a moronic thing to say that EVERYONE who owns a gun has killed someone... but say a nutjob buys a hunting rifle, what's to stop him from going to the nearest convenience store and blowing the clerk's head off? I agree with you to the extent where handguns are a bigger problem I.E. Drive by shootings etc... But don't forget that hunting rifles are still guns, and are still available to the general public.
Rhyknow if all firearm were banned whats gonna stop your nut job going to the store with a knife and cutting the clerks head off which happen alot as well in this country. Are we gonna start banning knives to? [/b]
Well... it's a lot easier to dodge a knife than a bullet. Beleive me, I know that from personal experiences. The thing to point out is that guns were MADE to kill people... Sure, they may help win a revolution... but just look at what happened after the russian revolution with Stalin seizing power and killing millions of his own people;.. a shit example i know

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 25 2006, 04:25 PM
Why complain about gun regulation when 99% of gun related violence is a direct result of squallid living conditions and the pursuit of a means to escape it?

Anyone who sopports gun regulation or banning does not completley understand the conditions under which the vast majority of the proletariat survive (barely and sometimes not at all) as well as the necessary means of massive revolution.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but guns win a fucking revolution.
Maybe, but I don't understand how you can blithely ignore the thousands of people killed by guns every year. Most if not all of them are proletarians, many of whom live in the inner city.

[KC]

Maybe, but I don't understand how you can blithely ignore the thousands of people killed by guns every year. Most if not all of them are proletarians, many of whom live in the inner city.


And most if not all attempts at reducing gun violence with gun control have failed. All gun control does is take guns from people that use them to defend themselves. The people that do the crimes can get guns regardless of whether or not there's gun control, so you have the option of either not enacting gun control and arming people or enacting gun control and making it much easier for those that commit crimes to commit crimes.

I personally think that everyone should be given a gun. Chances are they're not gonna rob you if they know you're packing.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Most if not all of them are proletarians, many of whom live in the inner city.

Who's ignoring it?

I believe I even addressed it in my opening remarks of the last post; you know, the one you just quoted.

Let me se if I can make this a bit clearer for you: If you outlaw guns in the USA (we're not talking about a tiny island off the coast of Europe here) and do not solve the root problem people will still get guns and still use them in an attempt to escape their current living conditions.

In fact, they may even be more pissed off to find that now the Police have yet another reason to unlawfully hassle every citizen that unfortunately lives in a ghetto.

Shit, it wouldn't shock me to find gun related crimes and violence levels increase in these areas.

[Pirate Utopian]

how come holland (with gun control) where i live has way less gundeaths, even when we compare it in population

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 25 2006, 10:02 AM
how come holland (with gun control) where i live has way less gundeaths, even when we compare it in population

Because the Netherlands doesn't have Watts, Detroit, the South Bronx....etc....

Don't even try to claim you do.

The smaller the population, the easier it is to govern.

[Rhyknow]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 04:56 PM

Rhyknow i respect your point of view i really do but we are gonna agree to disagree.
Yep, i think that'd be best Patton, i don't want to cause any trouble

[Rhyknow]

Yeah; they are... that doesn't stop the filth from carrying them around tho... give em the guns but not the bullets

[colonelguppy]

thats the biggest crock of shit i've ever heard in my life. anyone with a sense of historical context knows what the founders meant by it (or you could just look at the dozens of quotes pertaining to the matter). all the "comma seperating thoughts" arguements are hold no water.

an armed society is a free society. i would have assumed that most revolutionaries here would oppose gun control.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 25 2006, 12:49 PM--> (patton @ Sep 25 2006, 12:49 PM)
[email protected] 25 2006, 05:34 PM
Yeah; they are... that doesn't stop the filth from carrying them around tho... give em the guns but not the bullets
I think in England you can still own and buy firearms but they have to be locked up at your local gun shooting range. Not at your home. Which is not bad idea for America. [/b]
why? doing so didn't do anything to stop violent crime in england, infact the crime rate jumped.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by Rhyknow+Sep 25 2006, 04:38 PM--> (Rhyknow @ Sep 25 2006, 04:38 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 04:12 PM

[email protected] 25 2006, 03:50 PM
Well i see where you're coming from Patton... But ideally, when people have guns, they kill people... Of course, it'd be a moronic thing to say that EVERYONE who owns a gun has killed someone... but say a nutjob buys a hunting rifle, what's to stop him from going to the nearest convenience store and blowing the clerk's head off? I agree with you to the extent where handguns are a bigger problem I.E. Drive by shootings etc... But don't forget that hunting rifles are still guns, and are still available to the general public.
Rhyknow if all firearm were banned whats gonna stop your nut job going to the store with a knife and cutting the clerks head off which happen alot as well in this country. Are we gonna start banning knives to?
Well... it's a lot easier to dodge a knife than a bullet. Beleive me, I know that from personal experiences. The thing to point out is that guns were MADE to kill people... Sure, they may help win a revolution... but just look at what happened after the russian revolution with Stalin seizing power and killing millions of his own people;.. a shit example i know [/b]
If the people had the right to bear arms, they could have defended themselves from Stalin. Only a tyrant fears an armed citizenry. THat being said however, I feel that firearms should be registered and there owners be liscensed. After all we require automobiles to be registered, and drivers to be liscensed.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 25 2006, 06:05 PM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 25 2006, 06:05 PM)
Big [email protected] 25 2006, 10:02 AM
how come holland (with gun control) where i live has way less gundeaths, even when we compare it in population

Because the Netherlands doesn't have Watts, Detroit, the South Bronx....etc....

Don't even try to claim you do.

The smaller the population, the easier it is to govern. [/b]
what rijswijk what we rollin' hard! :), no but seriously, no guns also lowers the murderrate in tha hood!

[KC]

Taking guns away from people that aren't going to commit crimes with them doesn't do anything.

[D_Bokk]

Would you rather the police and military be the only people with guns? I'm glad that if I wanted to buy a gun, I could.

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino
Sticks and stones may break my bones but guns win a fucking revolution.
Exactly.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+Sep 25 2006, 01:36 PM--> (patton @ Sep 25 2006, 01:36 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:49 PM

[email protected] 25 2006, 05:34 PM
Yeah; they are... that doesn't stop the filth from carrying them around tho... give em the guns but not the bullets
I think in England you can still own and buy firearms but they have to be locked up at your local gun shooting range. Not at your home. Which is not bad idea for America.
why? doing so didn't do anything to stop violent crime in england, infact the crime rate jumped.
Colonel guppy America has a violent crime rate almost twice as high as any country in western europe. We are a society obbessed with violence.We place no value on human life. We are a sick culture. [/b]
so what? if we are a cociety obsessed with violence, removing one tool of violence won't do shit. all american gun control has thusfar succeeded in doing is taking guns away from competent, non-violent owners. infact, in recent instances where they approved conceal carry in several states (namely florida), crime rates dropped.

is violence inherently bad?

[Patchd]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 25 2006, 08:11 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 25 2006, 08:11 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:49 PM

[email protected] 25 2006, 05:34 PM
Yeah; they are... that doesn't stop the filth from carrying them around tho... give em the guns but not the bullets
I think in England you can still own and buy firearms but they have to be locked up at your local gun shooting range. Not at your home. Which is not bad idea for America.
why? doing so didn't do anything to stop violent crime in england, infact the crime rate jumped.
Colonel guppy America has a violent crime rate almost twice as high as any country in western europe. We are a society obbessed with violence.We place no value on human life. We are a sick culture.
so what? if we are a cociety obsessed with violence, removing one tool of violence won't do shit. all american gun control has thusfar succeeded in doing is taking guns away from competent, non-violent owners. infact, in recent instances where they approved conceal carry in several states (namely florida), crime rates dropped.

is violence inherently bad? [/b]
You cant possibly deny that taking away the guns wont reduce murders.

[KC]

You cant possibly deny that taking away the guns wont reduce murders.

Of course we can!

The chances of someone robbing someone that could potentially have a gun on them are much smaller than the chances of someone robbing someone that they know is defenseless.

What do you think gun control laws do? Lower crime? :lol:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Palachinov+Sep 25 2006, 03:15 PM--> (Palachinov @ Sep 25 2006, 03:15 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 12:49 PM

[email protected] 25 2006, 05:34 PM
Yeah; they are... that doesn't stop the filth from carrying them around tho... give em the guns but not the bullets
I think in England you can still own and buy firearms but they have to be locked up at your local gun shooting range. Not at your home. Which is not bad idea for America.
why? doing so didn't do anything to stop violent crime in england, infact the crime rate jumped.
Colonel guppy America has a violent crime rate almost twice as high as any country in western europe. We are a society obbessed with violence.We place no value on human life. We are a sick culture.
so what? if we are a cociety obsessed with violence, removing one tool of violence won't do shit. all american gun control has thusfar succeeded in doing is taking guns away from competent, non-violent owners. infact, in recent instances where they approved conceal carry in several states (namely florida), crime rates dropped.

is violence inherently bad?
You cant possibly deny that taking away the guns wont reduce murders. [/b]
the problem is that gun control doesn't ever effect criminals much, most violent crimes (non accidental) are committed with non-registered weapons. however, allowing law abiders to have weapons is a psycological deterrent for many cirminals, as illustrated in many states which allow concealed carry.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 09:25 PM

You cant possibly deny that taking away the guns wont reduce murders.

Of course we can!

The chances of someone robbing someone that could potentially have a gun on them are much smaller than the chances of someone robbing someone that they know is defenseless.

What do you think gun control laws do? Lower crime? :lol:
:huh: uuum yeah!, this is proven, countries with no gun control have more murder

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Big Manifesto+Sep 25 2006, 03:50 PM--> (Big Manifesto @ Sep 25 2006, 03:50 PM)
Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 09:25 PM

You cant possibly deny that taking away the guns wont reduce murders.

Of course we can!

The chances of someone robbing someone that could potentially have a gun on them are much smaller than the chances of someone robbing someone that they know is defenseless.

What do you think gun control laws do? Lower crime? :lol:
:huh: uuum yeah!, this is proven, countries with no gun control have more murder [/b]
what about switzerland?

the thing about comparing countries is that every one has a different culture so it makes comparing violence rates harder. on must gauge the effect of lowering/rasing control levels in each country to really gauge the effects.


Yes i think so and should only be used as last resort.

your taking away a last resort option for many innocents with gun control.

[Pirate Utopian]

and germeny didnt they have a violent history and culture?, 2 world wars!, yet rarely gundeaths

[RaiseYourVoice]

ah so less gun controll obviously makes the crime rate go down, please support that with a source.

You have to see different aspects of the issue...

first of all its easier to controll the use of guns if there are fewer guns around, so even if those who want to use guns still can, they cant do so as easy and are more easily identified.

the detering tactic is also only good in some cases. most robbers will try not to be confronted with their target anyway, because they can also use knifes, martial arts or whatever... so actually if you argue "you can kill people with a knife too" (which is certainly true) works against the argument that guns smaller the chance of getting robbed.

for murder it doesnt make much of a difference... even if you have 250 guns they wont help much if there is already a 9mm pointing towards your head. adding to that if you dont know how to use a gun in combat you wont stand much of a chance against someone who knows how to kill.

if the crime is a result of personall hatred, you may have a higher chance to defend yourself, because the attack wont be more prepared than you, but if the people are willing to attack you they are willing to get hurt themselves too.

guns alone wont protect you, sorry.

also possibilty to use guns can also encourage their usage. guns are an easier way to kill people if you have the intend to, but not the guts or the strenghs to confront someone in hand to hand combat.


on the other hand though gun controll will not mean no guns, but the monopoly of force in the hands of the state. that means in our case, the monopoly of force in the hand of the capitalist state which protects current property rights.

also gun controll is a stretchable term... in germany people can still join shooting ranges and one of those kids at the shooting range also shot people at his school with a shotgun and a handgun... so there is still also legal ways to obtain guns.

i am totally undecided on this issue, but just in case i guess i will train myself in the usage of guns... just to be prepared ^^

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 25 2006, 03:54 PM
and germeny didnt they have a violent history and culture?, 2 world wars!, yet rarely gundeaths
they had imperialist governments, that doesn't mean that the people aren't more civil to each other.

[RevMARKSman]

Old phrase: When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Out of the nutshell: Since most people are non-criminals/non-murderers/good, more guns means...more good people with guns! It shifts the balance of power from the criminals to the defenders.

http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes....pisodeid=s3/gun (http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/prevepisodes.do?episodeid=s3/gun)

Bullshit! Gun Control

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Dr. Rosenpenis believes that in the meantime, guns are counter revolutionary. They breed violence, murder, crime, generally end up in the hands of murderers and criminals, and are not presently tools of revolution. The people who most suffer from violence are the working poor, in Dr. Rosenpenis's opinion. Anybody committing acts of violence in the name of class war are idiots or terrorists.

Revolutions stem from mass movements... not everybody with a gun busting out one day and killing their bosses. If you think this, Dr. Rosenpenis fears you've been brainwashed by redstar.

[colonelguppy]

ah so less gun controll obviously makes the crime rate go down, please support that with a source.

it has in some instances

heres florida for the past 10 years after recently loosening laws (allowed conceal carry and whatnot). they've had crime problems for years.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Tre...olent/index.asp (http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/violent/index.asp)

and in england gun crime is up despite handgun ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

so yeah there are observable correlations


first of all its easier to controll the use of guns if there are fewer guns around, so even if those who want to use guns still can, they cant do so as easy and are more easily identified.

thats the thing, controlling guns is like controlling drugs, it's almost impossible to stop the black market flow. hell i myself have an unregistered handgun (not that i'm a criminal or anything)


the detering tactic is also only good in some cases. most robbers will try not to be confronted with their target anyway, because they can also use knifes, martial arts or whatever... so actually if you argue "you can kill people with a knife too" (which is certainly true) works against the argument that guns smaller the chance of getting robbed.

but to a lesser extent, i'd be much more afraid of guns than knives.


for murder it doesnt make much of a difference... even if you have 250 guns they wont help much if there is already a 9mm pointing towards your head. adding to that if you dont know how to use a gun in combat you wont stand much of a chance against someone who knows how to kill.

you'd try and kill a guy with 250 guns? odds are if you own guns you know how to use them.


guns alone wont protect you, sorry.

yeah but they help


also possibilty to use guns can also encourage their usage. guns are an easier way to kill people if you have the intend to, but not the guts or the strenghs to confront someone in hand to hand combat.

i would hope that people who take the time to buy guns use them, that doens't mean that their encouraged use will be for violent purposes.


on the other hand though gun controll will not mean no guns, but the monopoly of force in the hands of the state. that means in our case, the monopoly of force in the hand of the capitalist state which protects current property rights.

yeah thats why citizens should be armed


also gun controll is a stretchable term... in germany people can still join shooting ranges and one of those kids at the shooting range also shot people at his school with a shotgun and a handgun... so there is still also legal ways to obtain guns.

yeah it happens


i am totally undecided on this issue, but just in case i guess i will train myself in the usage of guns... just to be prepared ^^

yeah guns are fun.

[bcbm]

guns are counter revolutionary. They breed violence, murder, crime, generally end up in the hands of murderers and criminals

Material conditions breed violence, murder and crime, not inanimate objects. :rolleyes:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Sucka, please!

The violence bred by our given material conditions are perpetrated in large part with the use of guns acquired legally for private use... and they generally end up in the hands of murderous gangsters who like to shoot up innocent kids in the slums and inner cities. Not for killing capitalist counter revolutionaries.

[colonelguppy]

murderous gangsters don't acquire guns legally.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

But many legally acquired guns often end up in the hands of murderous gangsters... because they steal!

Where do you think the guns for sale in the black market came from? They were fucking stolen. Nobody manufactures firearms and sells them directly in the black market to murderous gangsters. But somehow murderous gagsters have all the latest weapons for killing innocent kids and being counter revolutionary.

[colonelguppy]

so because some people are criminals we should to punish non-criminals? i'd much rather just give everyone an equal chance of defense rather than try and play games with kepeing guns away from certain people.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Practically everyone who uses a gun is a criminal. If you use a gun to protect yourself, you're a fucking idiot. If you hunt... well that can be heavily regulated... or just banned for our safety.

Nobody is being punished. That's absurd.

[colonelguppy]

Practically everyone who uses a gun is a criminal.

thats literally one of the dumbest things i've ever heard.


If you use a gun to protect yourself, you're a fucking idiot

i use my gun for a number of purposes, i suppose protection is one of them. why does that make me dumb? i'm safe and educated about it's operation, don't keep it loaded laying around by its self.


If you hunt... well that can be heavily regulated... or just banned for our safety

who cares if its dangerous? lots of things are more dangerous than hunting, we don't ban them.



Nobody is being punished. That's absurd.

yeah they are, you're taking legitimate property away from people who use it for legitimate purposes.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 25 2006, 07:16 PM
But many legally acquired guns often end up in the hands of murderous gangsters... because they steal!
Oh my! And so do knives! And cars! And hatchets!

[KC]

Where do you think the guns for sale in the black market came from?

The majority of them come from out of the country.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 10:05 PM

Where do you think the guns for sale in the black market came from?

The majority of them come from out of the country.
Where they're sold and manufactured legally. Which is counter revolutionary to our objectives, because they either end up in the hands of law enforcement and military, private citizens who plan on killing people (for "protection"), and murderous gangsters who like shooting defenseless inner city children and their pregnant single mothers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by black banner black gun+Sep 25 2006, 10:04 PM--> (black banner black gun @ Sep 25 2006, 10:04 PM)
Dr. [email protected] 25 2006, 07:16 PM
But many legally acquired guns often end up in the hands of murderous gangsters... because they steal!
Oh my! And so do knives! And cars! And hatchets! [/b]
Knives and cars and hatchets have legitimate purposes. The only point of a gun is for killing people. There is no justification for a leftist to kill anyone right now. If you wanna chop wood, dice your peppers, or drive around, that is okay by me. Killing people isn't.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:58 PM
i use my gun for a number of purposes, i suppose protection is one of them. why does that make me dumb? i'm safe and educated about it's operation, don't keep it loaded laying around by its self.
In any scenario where protection with a gun is a viable measure (i.e. you are being threatened or assaulted by an armed person), whipping out a firearm is a terrible idea.


who cares if its dangerous? lots of things are more dangerous than hunting, we don't ban them.

It's not so much that hunting is dangerous, it's that hunting riffles are used for the express purpose of killing people. And their only alterior use is killing animals. Banning hunting is a small price to pay, as Dr. Rosenpenis sees it, for having less riffles floating around out there.


yeah they are, you're taking legitimate property away from people who use it for legitimate purposes.

Killing people is not a legitimate use for anything.

[colonelguppy]

In any scenario where protection with a gun is a viable measure (i.e. you are being threatened or assaulted by an armed person), whipping out a firearm is a terrible idea.

not in every scenario, its often times the risks are worth protecting you persons/property. besides, the very notion that you might have a gun does enough to lessen you chances of being attacked.


It's not so much that hunting is dangerous, it's that hunting riffles are used for the express purpose of killing people. And their only alterior use is killing animals. Banning hunting is a small price to pay, as Dr. Rosenpenis sees it, for having less riffles floating around out there.

so what? its not hunters fault that people use their tools for killing people (and when was the last time you heard someone using a hunting rifle to kill anyone?). besides, where do we draw the line when were restricting liberty to promote safety? are we going to take away chef's knives and lumberjacks axes?


Killing people is not a legitimate use for anything.

a. you don't have to kill someone to legitimately use a firearm

b. killing someone can be a legitimate use anyways.

[KC]

Killing people is not a legitimate use for anything.

What about killing someone that's trying to kill you?

[RaiseYourVoice]

if i have a gun and i'm trying to shoot you, you are dead. if someone has the wish to kill you, than he has the first shot, which means that you probably wont be able to make much use of your gun. i never heard of any gangster-movie scenes where two people points a gun at each others head to deter each other...

if he has a knife and you have a gun thats different... (and yes in germany (here) there are criminals without guns, which just use knives to rob you on the streets, or their fist in a group) but with a gun freely available for everyone i dont see that coming... with guns only available for people with a clean record and with experiance using them... maybe.

[encephalon]

Of course the bourgeoisie revolutionaries wanted gun control after they seized control. Don't be silly.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 08:03 PM
murderous gangsters don't acquire guns legally.
That is crap. The NRA claims that there is a black market for guns and that is where all criminals get them.

Wrong.

In the USA, gun control is such a joke there is no need for a black market.

Criminals (in the USA) get guns from two main sources, both technically legal:

1. Straw buys from gun stores (clean record criminal buys guns en masse for his fellows).
2. Gun shows (cash and carry, no ID, no record checks).

And this is a PROVEN fact, evidenced through serial number traces of recovered weapons. Google "GRIPS" and similar gun reduction programs for statistics if you don't believe me. Or "gun trace".

The black market is a myth. (again, just talking about the USA)

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:26 PM
not in every scenario, its often times the risks are worth protecting you persons/property. besides, the very notion that you might have a gun does enough to lessen you chances of being attacked.

The myth that firearms are used in self-protection is another NRA lie. A privately owned firearm kept in a home is 9x (actually it might be 19x, I can't find the source to see if it was 90% or 95%) more likely to be used to shoot a family member (intentionally or accidentally) than it is to be used to shoot an intruder.

Although this is not so much a myth about firearms than it is a myth about defense in general. Defense has to be kept up constantly, whereas offense only has to occur once. I.E. you have to carry the gun every hour of every day of every year in order to have it on you the one day in your life that you are attacked by a random stranger.


*** edit ***

Found it!

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.[16]
16. Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267.


So, when used, there is a 4.3% chance of using it in self defense vs. 95.7% chance of using it illegally, accidentally, or suicidally.


More fun statistics:

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.[17]
The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[18]

17. Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.
18. Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership." N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.


Again, for the record, I am a multiple gun owner. I'm just not in a state of denial, like the libertarians are.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 11:01 PM


Killing people is not a legitimate use for anything.

What about killing someone that's trying to kill you?
Giving everybody the authority to kill is a terrible idea, which leads to crime and anarchy. It's not in the least bit revolutionary.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:26 PM
not in every scenario, its often times the risks are worth protecting you persons/property. besides, the very notion that you might have a gun does enough to lessen you chances of being attacked.
(1) Not everybody should have the authority to kill. That protects nobody. It just puts everyone at risk. (2) So? It increases your chance of killing people. And that's not what Dr. Rosenpenis wants.


so what? its not hunters fault that people use their tools for killing people (and when was the last time you heard someone using a hunting rifle to kill anyone?). besides, where do we draw the line when were restricting liberty to promote safety? are we going to take away chef's knives and lumberjacks axes?

Cooking and chopping wood are productive and necessary activities. Game hunting is not. And I'm fairly certain that riffles are used for attacking people all the time. The police use them, for example. Handguns are also considered hunting weapons.


a. you don't have to kill someone to legitimately use a firearm

Threatening other people with murder is also pretty counter revolutionary.


b. killing someone can be a legitimate use anyways.

Not in Dr. Rosenpenis's opinion.

[apathy maybe]

Umm... Has anyone mentioned Canada, Finland and Switzerland yet? All places that have a higher percentage of guns to people then the USA, yet significantly less gun deaths (even as a percentage of population).

I blame the culture of violence and brutality that is very prevalent in some parts of the USA.


I do not support gun control as such. I think that we should all have guns, then we can shoot the tax collector when ve comes calling. If the tax collector brings police, we shoot them too.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And that is how we will overthrow capitalism! :rolleyes:

[colonelguppy]

(1) Not everybody should have the authority to kill. That protects nobody. It just puts everyone at risk.

good thing thats not what i'm advocating. i'm syain everyone should have the ability to defend their persons/property/liberty.


(2) So? It increases your chance of killing people.

so what?


Cooking and chopping wood are productive and necessary activities. Game hunting is not. And I'm fairly certain that riffles are used for attacking people all the time. The police use them, for example. Handguns are also considered hunting weapons.

defense isn't a necessary activity? not like it matters, banning items based on their relative necessity is retarded.


Threatening other people with murder is also pretty counter revolutionary.

not like i care if it is or not, but threatening to kill people is a pretty large part of a revolution.


Not in Dr. Rosenpenis's opinion.

so if someone is threatening you, a counter-strike isn't legitimate?

[Tungsten]

rev-stoic

The myth that firearms are used in self-protection is another NRA lie.
They're not? Ever? That's a outrageous thing to claim. I envy your omniscence.

A privately owned firearm kept in a home is 9x (actually it might be 19x, I can't find the source to see if it was 90% or 95%) more likely to be used to shoot a family member (intentionally or accidentally) than it is to be used to shoot an intruder.
That only takes into account the incidents resulting in a death and the statistic has been changed repeately, so it's probably a lie.

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings
Why are criminal acts, accidents and suicide lumped together as if they were the same thing?

The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.[17]
If I had a gun, I can assure you I wouldn't be 3 times more likely to murder someone.

The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[18]
I wouldn't become five times more suicidal either.

Again, for the record, I am a multiple gun owner.
Oh a graduate of the "everyone but me" school of politics.
apathy maybe

Umm... Has anyone mentioned Canada, Finland and Switzerland yet? All places that have a higher percentage of guns to people then the USA, yet significantly less gun deaths (even as a percentage of population).
And you can mention that a hundred years ago, the UK virtually no gun laws yet gun violence was virtually non-existent.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 03:35 PM

For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting [note that every self-defense is legally justifiable] there are 22 criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings
Why are criminal acts, accidents and suicide lumped together as if they were the same thing?
Because it is classifying forms of use of firearms. Excluding hunting (and excluding paper-weights, ie guns that never see use), this figure demonstrates that a firearm is 22 times more likely to be misused (for crimes, accidents, and suicide) than properly used (for self defense).


That only takes into account the incidents resulting in a death and the statistic has been changed repeately, so it's probably a lie.

Um, no, learn to read. The study is "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home." And this is a peer-reviewed study, unlike the propaganda put out by politcal action groups.


Oh a graduate of the "everyone but me" school of politics.
No, I just have non-politcally-correct reasons for ownership :)

[colonelguppy]

wait you said they weren't used for self protection than you came up with a statistic that admits that sometimes there are justifiable shootings.

either way, the likely hood of unintentional use is severely dimished if you practice common gun knowledge and aren't an idiot. i live by myself and have no intention of murdering anyone or myself, i think i have higher odds of shooting an intruder over anyone else.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

good thing thats not what i'm advocating. i'm syain everyone should have the ability to defend their persons/property/liberty.

Why should people be allowed to have guns, but not have the right to use them? That would be ridiculous.


so what?]

Killing people is counter revolutionary at this time.


defense isn't a necessary activity? not like it matters, banning items based on their relative necessity is retarded.

Banning items according to their relative necessity is dumb... but that isn't what I'm condoning. I'm suggesting they be banned for their purpose... which is for killing people and threatening to kill people. The necessity of guns comes into relevance because if they had a real and useful purpose, banning them would be bad. Cars for example. They kill people all the time. But they're useful. That's the difference. Guns aren't.


not like i care if it is or not, but threatening to kill people is a pretty large part of a revolution.

Yes, it is. But there is no revolution going on now. Any violence perpetrated now (where you and I live) "in the name of revolution" would just be terrorism. Wanton acts of violence are not revolutionary. They must be part of an objective and organized mass movement to achieve something other than just chaos and bloodshed.


so if someone is threatening you, a counter-strike isn't legitimate?

Didn't you just say that you weren't in favor of giving gun owners the "authority to kill others"?

Death threats can more objectively, efficiently, and more safely be dealt with by cops. Let them get fusilladed by baby-murdering gangsters.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Gun restriction is socially reactionary. You have no right to restrict someone's right to own a firearm as the item itself is not inherently evil.

People have guns in case they want to kill someone or protect themselves with the threat of killing someone. Perhaps maim someone. Whatever. Regardless, there are plenty of situations where a gun can be useful. I would want one for revolutionary reasons.

[violencia.Proletariat]

It's funny how gun control really becomes a concern when kids bring them into petty bourgeois school districts and shoot them up. Or when small children find them and make sensationalist news stories. They could give a shit less about the inner city.

[colonelguppy]

Why should people be allowed to have guns, but not have the right to use them? That would be ridiculous.

i didn't said they should never be able to use them.


Killing people is counter revolutionary at this time.

that arguement doens't hold much water for people who aren't revolutionaries


Banning items according to their relative necessity is dumb... but that isn't what I'm condoning. I'm suggesting they be banned for their purpose... which is for killing people and threatening to kill people. The necessity of guns comes into relevance because if they had a real and useful purpose, banning them would be bad. Cars for example. They kill people all the time. But they're useful. That's the difference. Guns aren't.

killing people isn't inherently bad


Yes, it is. But there is no revolution going on now. Any violence perpetrated now (where you and I live) "in the name of revolution" would just be terrorism. Wanton acts of violence are not revolutionary. They must be part of an objective and organized mass movement to achieve something other than just chaos and bloodshed.

so then when you do organize... you'll be largely unarmed.


Didn't you just say that you weren't in favor of giving gun owners the "authority to kill others"?

not randomely, but in defense.


Death threats can more objectively, efficiently, and more safely be dealt with by cops. Let them get fusilladed by baby-murdering gangsters.

no they aren't, cops are purely a reactionary force, they can't prevent much from happening. i'd rather not chance waiting for the cops to show up to protect myself/property/liberty. besides, what if the police or military become the enemy? you're fucked.

[freakazoid]

I own a CETME, chambered in .308, It is one of those "evil assault rifles" and yet I have no urge to go out and kill innocent people or myself. Why is that? If someone came into my house and went to hurt my family I wouldn't hesitate to use it to defind us. Your saying that if all guns were banned that they would just miraculasly disappear. Why wouldn't criminals not still have them? That is what makes them criminals, they don't care about breaking the law! Not all firearms are made to kill, The AK47 was made to defend the country. The Sten was specifically made to be easy and cheap to make, also it was used by resistance fighters within Nazi accupied territory. After all guns are banned whats next, cars, knifes? Because once guns are gone those are going to be the next on the list of killers. "Who cares that people use those for "legitimate" purposes, its for a better good, and whoever isn't willing to give up there cars to save innocent people most be evil." "Won't somebody please think of the children." The only people that gun controle will effect are law abiding people, not the criminals. Who do you think a criminal would rather attack, someone he knows is unarmed or someone that might be armed?

[RaiseYourVoice]

our saying that if all guns were banned that they would just miraculasly disappear
no one said that... ever...


Not all firearms are made to kill, The AK47 was made to defend the country.
the AK47 was not made to kill? how do you usually defend countries? you put a white flag on your AK47 and wave it around?


fter all guns are banned whats next, cars, knifes? Because once guns are gone those are going to be the next on the list of killers.
biggest bullshit i heard.


"Who cares that people use those for "legitimate" purposes, its for a better good, and whoever isn't willing to give up there cars to save innocent people most be evil."
um from my personall perception and from the statistics above you see that the "legitimate" purpose for guns seems to be outweight be the "illegitimate" purpose. if you can show me a statistic which showes that cars and knives are more often used to hurt or kill people than drive or butter your bread... go ahead xD


The only people that gun controle will effect are law abiding people, not the criminals
your perception of criminal and non-criminal is too easy. non-criminals can become criminals. if you have the intention to murder someone, sure you can buy a gun on the black market, but what about people who just get in a fight / get drunk / take drugs whatever and than find themselves with a gun in their pocket /home? they are probably more likely to shoot the person they fight with than going to someone who illegally sells guns, buy one and than shoot someone....


Who do you think a criminal would rather attack, someone he knows is unarmed or someone that might be armed?
has all been discussed above, its all about the crime

[freakazoid]

no one said that... ever...
While it might not of have been spoken it is implied.


the AK47 was not made to kill? how do you usually defend countries? you put a white flag on your AK47 and wave it around?
No it wasn't, Mikhail Kalashnikov made it so they could defend there country. While it has the ability to kill it doesn't have to be used that way.


biggest bullshit i heard.
You say it is but you don't say why. Why is that? Did you know that certain types of knives are already banned? Ever heard of a switchblade? Also where I live some people are wanting all pit bulls banned. Why.. because they are at the top of the list of dogs that have bitten people. Of course when they are all gone the next dog will be at the top. Same thing with the things that I have listed. How is that the "biggest bullshit that you have ever heard"?


if you can show me a statistic which showes that cars and knives are more often used to hurt or kill people than drive or butter your bread... go ahead xD
They don't have to be used more often. And those "statistics" about gun crime are kind of vauge on how they get there numbers. Why do they put suicide in there? If someone wants to kill himself he is going to kill himself, even if there isn't a gun. I wonder what it would look like if you split it up. I wonder how many people are hurt or killed in a vehicle a year and how many people are hurt or killed with just a common kitchen knife.


but what about people who just get in a fight / get drunk / take drugs whatever and than find themselves with a gun in their pocket /home?
What about the person that is drunk or on drugs and gets into a car and kills someone? If all vehicles were outlawed you wouldn't have to worry about that.


has all been discussed above, its all about the crime
You still haven't answered who he would rather attack.

A gun was the only thing protecting some people in New Orleans.
If you had a gun would you want to go out and kill people? Why are you afraid of other people owning one? Is it because you actually don't trust yourself with one?
How is someone supposed to support themselves out in the wild if they can't hunt?
And what about Switzerland!? All males are required to own a type of rifle called a Sig. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland It talkes about some of the laws but look at the picture on the right. The guy is walking around in a store with a rifle slung across his back and yet no one is freaking out and there isn't a bloodbath in the aisles. Why is that if firearms are so bad?
Also try comparing D.C., guns are super evil, to Virginia, guns are good. D.C., high crime rate, Virginia, low crime rate.

1999 Statistics (Per 1,000 residents):

DC - 81
Prince George's County MD - 53
Alexandria City VA - 47
Arlington City VA - 33
Montgomery County MD - 31
Prince William Country VA - 29
Loudoun County VA - 24
Fairfax County VA - 24

This was pasted from, http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art.../0800guncon.htm (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0800guncon.htm)
"The issue of continued high crime in the aforementioned areas is especially disconcerting when one compares the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and also the highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is at a high rate and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., just across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent and gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is many multiples higher. Some try to turn this argument around in an attempt to blame the crime problems in Washington, D.C. on weak gun laws in Virginia, but the reality is that Virginia with all of its guns and few laws does not have the crime problem that plagues Washington, D.C. and its gun bans. If guns are the problem, then why is it that those areas with the most guns have the lowest crime levels? "

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Tungsten+--> (Tungsten)
apathy maybe
Umm... Has anyone mentioned Canada, Finland and Switzerland yet? All places that have a higher percentage of guns to people then the USA, yet significantly less gun deaths (even as a percentage of population).

And you can mention that a hundred years ago, the UK virtually no gun laws yet gun violence was virtually non-existent.[/b]

It is not about the laws (the laws obviously do not stop anything), it is about guns:people guns/people:gun-deaths.

The places mentioned have a much higher rate of gun ownership (as a percentage of population) and a much lower rate of gun deaths (both as a percentage of population and as a total).

The reason? I would say that it is culture. The culture in these places does not encourage gangs or gang violence. There are not the poor ghettos that encourage this either.

The reason? Well it is more the just culture, it is the whole division between different segments of the US population.

[RaiseYourVoice]

While it might not of have been spoken it is implied.
no.


No it wasn't, Mikhail Kalashnikov made it so they could defend there country. While it has the ability to kill it doesn't have to be used that way.
ah ok so they used the guns as what? blockades?


Did you know that certain types of knives are already banned? Ever heard of a switchblade?
yes, its totally not fit for any non-violent use. i dont see why that will lead to the ban of a kitchen knife or a car.


Why.. because they are at the top of the list of dogs that have bitten people. Of course when they are all gone the next dog will be at the top.
yes i'm sure people will ban poodles because they are so damn violent... its not because pitbulls are on top of any list, its because they hurt alot of people.


If someone wants to kill himself he is going to kill himself, even if there isn't a gun.
no, without a gun you are more likely to fail in kiling yourself so you can be treated psychologically. if you have a gun around it makes killing a much easier solution for your problems


I wonder how many people are hurt or killed in a vehicle a year and how many people are hurt or killed with just a common kitchen knife.
i wonder how many lives are saved by cars and how many people can eat by using knives. your argument is totally stupid.


What about the person that is drunk or on drugs and gets into a car and kills someone?
do i really have to explain you the difference between hurting somone with a car or a gun? in terms of damage you deal, dmg you deal yourself, ability to use it fast, ability to cary it around, ability to use it inside of buildings... or can you think of that yourself?


You still haven't answered who he would rather attack.

because for "a criminal" there is no one answer.


If you had a gun would you want to go out and kill people?
maybe i'd shoot someone by accident or because i overrate a situation. yes with a gun i am certainly more likely to kill someone.


How is someone supposed to support themselves out in the wild if they can't hunt?
you do know that you can hunt without a gun? you also do know that ammonition is not like in your favorite computer game... it tends to be limited. if you were to be LOST in some unpopulated area of the planet, for long term survival a gun for hunting is a really bad choice. i'd go for a spear or a bow since you have enough woods around you.


the gun laws in switzerland are a result of its history and geography... its nothing you can simply apply to every other country.

for the states, i am not familiar with U.S. state laws so i leave that argument to someone who is



Why are you afraid of other people owning one? Is it because you actually don't trust yourself with one?
for this argument... are you likey you break into somebody elses house because you want to hurt them? if not why dont you trust other people that they dont break into your house? why do you need a gun? :wub:
i love to turn stupid arguments around.

[freakazoid]

Here is are some statistics from the US Department of Transportation

According to a preliminary report from the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 43,200 died on the nation’s highways in 2005, up from 42,636 in 2004. Injuries dropped from 2.79 million in 2004 to 2.68 million in 2005, a decline of 4.1 percent. Fifty-five percent of passenger vehicle occupants who died in 2005 were unbelted

43,200 died! 2.68 million injured!!! just last year. How many people were killed and injured last year by firearms?

What about all of those Jews who used guns to hold off the Nazis durring WW2. Are they "fucking idiots" for using a gun to protect themselves?

[RaiseYourVoice]

ah i'm sure you can name organisation / governments trying to kill you! go ahead to justify your need for guns.

also.. you dont seem to get the whole argument about cars being usefull and guns not being usefull outside of killing.... i wont write the same thing that has been written here hundrets of times again, since you will just ignore it.

you do know that without cars people who suffer from a stroke at home would have a really low chance of surviving since the doctor cant reach them? or our whole economy being based on fast connection between places etc. now tell what your use of guns is? outside fighting of the nazis regime (which proved to be not effective at all comparing to flee to another country) or shooting the massive amount of intruders in your home

[freakazoid]

you do know that without cars people who suffer from a stroke at home would have a really low chance of surviving since the doctor cant reach them? or our whole economy being based on fast connection between places etc. now tell what your use of guns is?
You know that without guns people that are assaulted by an intruder in there homes would have a really low chance of surviving since it takes a while for the police to get to their place. I use my gun for self defence, becase it is fun to shoot, and incase there is a major SHTF scenerio. What did people do before cars where invented?


also.. you dont seem to get the whole argument about cars being usefull and guns not being usefull outside of killing
Do you know what competition shooting is? People don't kill eachother in that sport.


outside fighting of the nazis regime (which proved to be not effective at all comparing to flee to another country)
If all we did was flee the country when the Nazis came they would control the world.


or our whole economy being based on fast connection between places etc.
And that shall be its downfall.

Why have't you talked about the difference in gun crime between Washington D.C. and the Virginia side?

[Lings]

I dont like guns, but one of the things i like much less than guns is the thought of a government gun monopoly.

[RaiseYourVoice]

You know that without guns people that are assaulted by an intruder in there homes would have a really low chance of surviving since it takes a while for the police to get to their place.
if someone comes to your house with the intention to kill you you always have a low chance of surival.... even if you open the door, go in the garden and get a bullet in your chest... what gun in the world will help you out of that situation? i'd go for a solid door and a video camera outside.


Do you know what competition shooting is? People don't kill eachother in that sport.
and since when do you need to own a gun for competition shooting? you can just use the guns at the shooting range cant you?


If all we did was flee the country when the Nazis came they would control the world.
what killed the nazi regime was not armed civilians but armies. it wasnt the few hundred resitance soldiers, it was the millions of soldiers from the usa, gb, russia, france etc.
it also wasnt the greatly armes swiss people who just let the nazis pass switzerland without resistance and stored the nazis money in their banks.


And that shall be its downfall.
yes, they all technology vanishes!


Why have't you talked about the difference in gun crime between Washington D.C. and the Virginia side?
go read my post again and you know!

[freakazoid]

and since when do you need to own a gun for competition shooting? you can just use the guns at the shooting range cant you?

lol, are you serious? In competition shooting your gun is your own and it is usually customized to exactly how you want it, one of the big things to customize is the amount of pounds it takes to pull the trigger and shoot it.


go read my post again and you know!
No I don't know, enlighten me. Explain how come one has a lot of crime while the other has very little and they are right next to each other.


yes, they all technology vanishes!
It shall be its downfall because everything is dependent on the speed of travel. It wouldn't take much to disrupt that. If the price of gas shot way up the price of everything else would go way up, because it would cost more money to ship the goods across the country. Then it would be alot harder for people to buy things and go to work, especially the people that have over an hours commute. It wouldn't take much to send the price of gas way up, another massive hurricane shutting down some oil rigs, some terrorists blowing some oil rigs and refineries up. Thats all it would take to send the price of gas way up wich would send the price of produce way up and so on.

[RaiseYourVoice]

lol, are you serious? In competition shooting your gun is your own and it is usually customized to exactly how you want it, one of the big things to customize is the amount of pounds it takes to pull the trigger and shoot it.
so customize it and leave it there?


No I don't know, enlighten me


Why have't you talked about the difference in gun crime between Washington D.C. and the Virginia side?


for the states, i am not familiar with U.S. state laws so i leave that argument to someone who is

[Seafire]

Originally posted by col[email protected] 25 2006, 01:46 PM
an armed society is a free society.

I agree with you totally! A well armed population is a necessary last-ditch defense against government imposed tyranny. The "crime" issue is not an issue at all. If guns were banned, murders would be committed by knives, forks, clubs, etc.... Crime is a social/economic disease, not a weapons one.

The first thing fascists want to do is disarm the population, making them easier to control. Why should the government be the only armed force in the country? That is a receipt for disaster.

Seafire

[A CLOCKWORK ORANGE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:42 PM
I agree with you totally! A well armed population is a necessary last-ditch defense against government imposed tyranny. The "crime" issue is not an issue at all. If guns were banned, murders would be committed by knives, forks, clubs, etc.... Crime is a social/economic disease, not a weapons one.

The first thing fascists want to do is disarm the population, making them easier to control. Why should the government be the only armed force in the country? That is a receipt for disaster.

Seafire
Exactly!

This thread reeks of liberals and Democrats. I never understood why so many comrades would favor such stiff gun regulation.