I know, I should have stated it correctly. :beer:
Sandy Hook families sue Bushmaster
- Thread starter B-O-B'03
- Start date
I know, I should have stated it correctly. :beer:
Apparently this guy does not understand the meaning of well regulated militia.... The 1700s definition.I dont remember the last time MSNBC reported a Mass Punching.
Quoting events from 60 years ago? its 2014. No one needs an assualt rifle to defend themselves.
What have I done to deserve being banned? Disagree with you?
You left out the part where the 2nd amendment refers to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA NOT Average citizens.
Name calling and Jokes regarding someones Masculinity. Im going to assume you and RDJ are good friends
how would criminals have them if they arent being produced in mass numbers by companies profitting off of Mass Murder?
What have I done improper? If ive broken any rules please let me know so I can correct that behavior.
So everyone you know should be armed with an assault rifle? you would personally sign off on every person you know owning an assault rifle???
He obviously does not understand guns either.... He keeps saying assault rifle, but he doesn't realize the most deadly shooting in Texas was done with a bolt action. he has been drinking to much socialist kool-aid.
Exactly. People that think they can easily take away 200 million American citizens firearms and at what cost? This is why it will NEVER happen. I truly believe that if an attempt were to take place, this could pretty much wipe the U.S off the map. The government would have to have other countries military come in as most of our military probably wouldn't back the government on something like this. This is just my speculation.
Would not be the first time a Democrat president enacted camps. Just ask the Japanese Americans during WWII.
These guys think that since they live in a nice neighborhood, they do not need guns. That's very nieve, like criminals would not travel to the nice neighborhood....
In the off chance your utopia ever happens, I will be staking a copy of the second amendment to the carotid artery of every tyrannical liberal I find with a hand-crafted poop smeared punji stick.
Really the US census and NRA say that their is around 80-95 million citizens that own at least a firearm in the US, but there is roughly 275 million firearms in circulation. Where the US military has a problem is unlike in Afghanistan the middle east or on some other foreign soil, their family members can be targets for reprisals over here. It makes you stop and think before just following orders that are questionable. So I say at least 35 to 45% of the military would not follow any gun grab issued by the federal government because of this possibility of having disgruntled citizens going after their families.
1. its not as if you can stop at the local drug store and by heroine or meth. making this the only way for guns to flow into the country will still take guns out of the hands of most criminals and make it that much harder for them to obtain a gun.
2. Your post is inflammatory and doesn't deserve a response but i will give one. Law enforcement, Game Wardens.
its easy to read between the lines.
Answered despite inflammatory language.
It would be as simple as issuing warrants for those that did not turn them in. this is why registration is so important. Once registration is nation wide, he government will have a grasp on WHO owns firearms and can confiscate them. if you fail to surrender your guns, local PD just picks you up for a warrant on your way to work. and your guns are confiscated while you are being processed as a criminal.
Yea good luck with that.
Requesting this Gets moved to SD so we can Verbally Impale someone that requires his hard drive de fragged from with in.
You yourself have said it. 1700. that was over 300 years ago. Times changed a little? the Militia today is the National Guard. if you want to protect your country and your state you can join that in defense of "tyranny"
Graphic and deplorable.
Yea good luck with that.
Requesting this Gets moved to SD so we can Verbally Impale someone that requires his hard drive de fragged from with in.
why does everything on this forum revolve around people abusing each other sexually? lol. you all have some serious soul searching to do.
and my avatar is lovely
Childish.
Childish.
and my avatar is lovely
Childish.
I bet your hello kitty bedroom is lovely too.
You yourself have said it. 1700. that was over 300 years ago. Times changed a little? the Militia today is the National Guard. if you want to protect your country and your state you can join that in defense of "tyranny"
Per the United States Supreme Court, you're incorrect. Please stop while you're so far behind.
I feel like I let my fellow AR-15 owners down by buying a 10 rounder the other day to make bench shooting easier.
I'll just be happy knowing that HellionTT is going to be butthurt about how I can go buy another AR (or build one) when I get back from vacation. I've already passed a background check good for 5 years so it's even easier.
I'll just be happy knowing that HellionTT is going to be butthurt about how I can go buy another AR (or build one) when I get back from vacation. I've already passed a background check good for 5 years so it's even easier.
Wow, you should move to Mexico, their constitution is much newer than ours. You should be right at home.You yourself have said it. 1700. that was over 300 years ago. Times changed a little? the Militia today is the National Guard. if you want to protect your country and your state you can join that in defense of "tyranny"
Graphic and deplorable.
why does everything on this forum revolve around people abusing each other sexually? lol. you all have some serious soul searching to do.
As for the US constifution, it was written by people far smarter than me and ratified by all the states. They agreed to what it said, not to an ever changing document.
FYI, tyrannical things restrict liberty not protect it and the National Guard is not what the framers meant for the militia. The militia is not a standing army, it is made up of citizens that can rise up against foreign and domestic enemies.
Last edited:
I have heard this argument and really don't think it would ever gain traction as times are different.
If a "militia" was formed today with intent on fighting government it would be stomped out so fast by the military. The American public would have to be extremely crafty and well organized to fight the goveremt these days and let's face it, that is going to be impossible.
I fail to see how the public could make a revolution or civil type of war with the governments and it be successful. Not exactly a good place to be, but the government knows this and that is why things are starting to get out of hand.
They do pretty good in Iraq and Afghanistan....... Need a few dedicated individuals that will do what it takes.
Completely different society.
People are relatively happy with the American dream and are far from giving that up. Good luck building a militia when people have jobs and a wealth of material objects.
Now when there are no jobs it may be a different story, but the government is smart enough to keep us happy.
It is a staple claim that firearms must be tightly controlled because they are more likely to cause serious injury in the hands of criminals than other weapons. An analysis of injury data shows that this claim is overblown. There may not be as big a difference as had been thought between gun violence and violence involving other kinds of weapons. Could it be that the public has been hypnotized by guns and has overlooked the dangers posed by other weapons?
Violent crimes involving firearms typically result in fewer injuries, and less serious injuries, than violent crimes involving other weapons. This pattern holds for both armed robbery and for armed assault. This suggests that if we could somehow magically remove firearms entirely from criminals, thereby forcing assailants to use other weapons instead, it would only increase the number of victims and even increase the number of serious injuries.
Let's use Canada as an example of what gun control ACTUALLY accomplishes:
Table 1 shows there were about 12,000 assaults involving firearms, knives, or clubs in Canada during 2003. Of the small number that involved firearms, 48 percent resulted in the victims being injured, as compared with 53 percent of assaults involving knives, and 76 percent of assaults involving clubs. Thus, firearms-wielding thugs are less likely to physically injure their victims than are thugs armed with other weapons.2 More importantly, assaults involving firearms resulted in victims receiving a serious injury the least often: only 6 percent of firearm assaults resulted in a serious injury compared to 11 percent and 14 percent of assaults involving knives or clubs respectively. This should surprise people who think firearms are more dangerous than other weapons. These data clearly show that assaults involving firearms result in fewer injuries, as well as fewer serious injuries, than do assaults involving other kinds of weapons.
Table 2 shows there were over 9,200 robberies involving firearms, knives, or clubs in Canada during 2003. Of the robberies that involved firearms, just 12 percent resulted in a victim being injured, compared to the 17 percent of robberies involving knives, and 47 percent of robberies involving clubs. As with assaults, there were fewer serious injuries when firearms were involved, although the difference between firearms and knives is smaller than with robberies. Assaults involving firearms are almost as likely to produce serious injuries as knife assaults. Only 2 percent of robberies involving firearms resulted in serious injuries, compared to 3 percent of robberies involving knives, and 9 percent of robberies involving clubs or other blunt instruments. Clearly, in both assaults and robberies, victims are less likely to be physically injured when their assailants are armed with firearms than when assailants are armed with other weapons.
Violent crimes involving firearms typically result in fewer injuries, and less serious injuries, than violent crimes involving other weapons. This pattern holds for both armed robbery and for armed assault. This suggests that if we could somehow magically remove firearms entirely from criminals, thereby forcing assailants to use other weapons instead, it would only increase the number of victims and even increase the number of serious injuries.
Let's use Canada as an example of what gun control ACTUALLY accomplishes:
Table 1 shows there were about 12,000 assaults involving firearms, knives, or clubs in Canada during 2003. Of the small number that involved firearms, 48 percent resulted in the victims being injured, as compared with 53 percent of assaults involving knives, and 76 percent of assaults involving clubs. Thus, firearms-wielding thugs are less likely to physically injure their victims than are thugs armed with other weapons.2 More importantly, assaults involving firearms resulted in victims receiving a serious injury the least often: only 6 percent of firearm assaults resulted in a serious injury compared to 11 percent and 14 percent of assaults involving knives or clubs respectively. This should surprise people who think firearms are more dangerous than other weapons. These data clearly show that assaults involving firearms result in fewer injuries, as well as fewer serious injuries, than do assaults involving other kinds of weapons.
Table 2 shows there were over 9,200 robberies involving firearms, knives, or clubs in Canada during 2003. Of the robberies that involved firearms, just 12 percent resulted in a victim being injured, compared to the 17 percent of robberies involving knives, and 47 percent of robberies involving clubs. As with assaults, there were fewer serious injuries when firearms were involved, although the difference between firearms and knives is smaller than with robberies. Assaults involving firearms are almost as likely to produce serious injuries as knife assaults. Only 2 percent of robberies involving firearms resulted in serious injuries, compared to 3 percent of robberies involving knives, and 9 percent of robberies involving clubs or other blunt instruments. Clearly, in both assaults and robberies, victims are less likely to be physically injured when their assailants are armed with firearms than when assailants are armed with other weapons.
^ I appreciate somebody posting data, but when statistics are concerned it is very important to provide the information about the populations used and the structure of the study. Do you have links to the study as some may want to read more about it.
Thanks for posting supporting information nonetheless.
Thanks for posting supporting information nonetheless.
Lol, for now...... Give it 20 years, if we remain on the current track.
You focus too much on today, to see the possibilities in the future. Don't worry, when the crap hits the fan and you are waiting for 911 to assist you, I am sure you will feel safe.
Also, this whole idea would open up a huge precedent for people that actually produce things, like cars computers etc....
So if someone is bludgeoned to death with a Apple laptop, will Apple be sued? If the answer is no, then why is it different.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
