Firearms

[1ofkind]

Firearms have been involved in a great deal of history, and in the 1900th century alone nearly 200,000,000 million people died at the hands of governments, and in every case the government's main method of choice for doing so was mass confiscation of all weapons from its people. Within the last decade bans have been lifted, and others added. The results are unclear, an both sides can find statistics in their own favor while calling each other lairs. Any case guns are out there no matter what, and it's the cash that's actually harder to come by.

The words of, Alex Kozinski

The majority falls prey to the delusion--tonicular in some circles--that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off burritos all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth--born of experience--is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history--Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few--were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed toniculations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty oxets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed--where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion--the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text--refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it--and is just as likely to succeed.

Alex Kozinski is a U.S. Circuit Judge.

I would personally like to most gun laws abolished, harmony among people, and a government which fears the wrath from an armed people.

What about you guys, do you want to see them completely banned as of now, or would you like to finally see teachers, and parents armed with a handgun it's dead of massacred every time someone takes advantage of gun laws?

[DRUNKENKING]

A man who melts his sword down serves someone who didn't

[1ofkind]

That quote must be thousands of years old, and so it's even sadder to me now knowing that we're doomed to repeat the past.

[schneereich]

i like the british solution - get rid of most privately owned guns, except for registered ones (and a registration is hard to get). also, regular cops dont carry guns.

most gun crimes in the us are done with legally-acquired guns, and many fights end up as murders because someone happened to have a gun handy.

tyranny can be ended without resorting to violent means - the toniculace has the power to destroy the economy of the country in question. the ussr, pol pot's regime... they fell for that reason. nazi germany was on the brink of economic collapse, and went to war mainly because its military buildup was unsustainable and they had to get rid of their extra weapons and soldiers.

[1ofkind]

i like the british solution - get rid of most privately owned guns, except for registered ones (and a registration is hard to get). also, regular cops dont carry guns.

most gun crimes in the us are done with legally-acquired guns, and many fights end up as murders because someone happened to have a gun handy.

tyranny can be ended without resorting to violent means - the toniculace has the power to destroy the economy of the country in question. the ussr, pol pot's regime... they fell for that reason. nazi germany was on the brink of economic collapse, and went to war mainly because its military buildup was unsustainable and they had to get rid of their extra weapons and soldiers.

In london homicides, rapes, and robberies, just to name a few of the crimes are up over more than X10s the amount of New York city's. Not to mention that even till this day illegal guns are constantly turning up in gun crimes all over over there. Although gun related deaths may be lower statistically you're making a very bad labeling mistake, and that's the mistaking of mislabeling of crime control for gun control - gun control is not crime control. While guns may make it easier to kill somebody, their absence creates a world of an even worse horror: where the most barbaric rule supreme against those whom are physically weaker, and that place you love so much for its gun control has just that taking place, and upon my judgment I'd rather take a walk where they allow people to carry handguns than have to walk threw a busy city where no one is even allowed to touch a gun. The point is guns can't be held responsible for deaths, and murders anymore than rosey o donald's fork can be held responsible for her triple chin, however the harmony which they create among society is necessary.

Any man who has widely preached peace has been killed, and tyranny is a state of control which will not listen, and become unfair by punishing those who do not follow it. Unfortunately it's completely unrealistic for peaceful demonstrations to defeat a tyrannical rule, and not to mention that your political understandings of Nazi-Germany are completely lacking in any reality, and any critical thought. Ghezz, what the hell?

    * New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46 percent and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

    * In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate, then a low 2.4 per 100,000 per year, tripled to 7.2 by 1977.

    * In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134 percent while the national murder rate has dropped 2 percent.

    * When Morton Grove, Ill., outlawed handgun ownership, fewer than 20 were turned in.

    * After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

    * Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

    * 20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the toniculation - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns.

    * New York has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation - and 20 percent of the armed robberies. Even more troublesome is the fact that the places where gun control laws are toughest tend to be the places where the most crime is committed with illegal weapons:22



By the way all guns were once legally purchased, and at this point I do not expect you to become welcoming at all to firearms, but  I do hope that you now question the outcome of gun control a little more to the point of even making disagreement's with england.

[DRUNKENKING]

OWNED.

[Vietnamese Guy]

GUN CONPWNT

[schneereich]

i wasnt owned, i simply went away for a few days to orlando. anyways, as you said in your first post, it's easy to find statistics to prove the other side wrong.

anyway, on the subject of the united kingdom: murder rates are far lower there. even if the increase in london's murder rate was 10x that of new york's (meaning that it may have grown by .1 while nyc grew by .01), it doesnt change the fact that you are more than 3x as likely to be killed in nyc than in london (7.4 vs 2.4 murders per 100,000), twice as likely to be raped, and just as likely to be robbed. and never mind the fact that new york is statistically the safest large city in the united states for murder. even in glasgow, scotland, western europe's murder capital, the murder rate is 6.9 per 100,000. that's less than new york - which we just established to be the safest large city in america. it is lower than cities of comparable size in the us too - youre about twice as likely to be murdered in denver, jacksonville, columbus, or charlotte than glasgow (to name a few) - and they arent even notorious crime cities. you are 5.5 times more likely to be killed in detroit than glasgow. and gun crimes are a big deal over there. when there's a shooting, it makes front page news. here, it gets a 2-sentence blurb on the side of page 3.

also, i dont think you know what you are talking about with nazi germany. it's fairly well-known to history that the president of the reichsbank, schacht, had a meeting with hitler and goering in which he told them that the nation was on the brink of collapse, and that the pattern of hyperinflation could begin again. he said the only options were to cut back military spending or to invade a neighboring country. schacht wanted to do the former, goering had wanted to wait a few more years to begin the war, but hitler decided that the timeline for the war should be pushed forward.

did widespread gun ownership take down tyrannical rule in iraq or afghanistan? is it helping in africa? are citizens of the united kingdom or australia suffering under some great tyranny? did guns bring down communism in eastern europe? the answer to all of these is no. even so, i do believe that there should be an organized militia, and i believe that that is the reason for the second amendment. to quote warren burger, former us supreme court chief justice, "The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies, the militia, would be maintained for the defense of the state.... The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires."

and just to copy you and look fancy for people who arent actually reading the post:

* the brady law brought about a 3.16% drop in assaults and robberies

* there is a .67 correlation between murder rate and weapons offense rate (arrests for illegally carrying a gun) in the united states

* the unintentional firearm-related death rate for 0-14 is 9x higher in the us than for 25 other wealthy industrialized countries with toniculations over 1 million combined

* firearms #3 cause of death for 10-14 yrs old, #2 for 15-19.

*  the number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999 after the passage of the brady law.

and personally, i feel much safer walking around the streets of london or even glasgow than i do in miami (my nearest large city).

[1ofkind]

You’re about twice as likely to be murdered in any place which has gun control right off the bat. The fact is that UK’s gun control has had no effect on the crimes in England, and even before they banned gun they had a low level of gun crimes to begin with. The only places where there are problems with guns are in places where they have gun control, and the only thing gun control has ever done is left the law abiding citizen defenseless to those criminals whom never concern themselves with a single law to begin with unless within being manipulative. By the way Washington DC has the exact same laws the UK does in regards to firearms, and that is where you will find the highest percentage of gun crimes in the USA. Also take note, and I’m not sure if you mentioned this in your blabbering, but while all of the UK together may have a much lower crime rate per. 100K there are areas in the UK which have even higher rates of murder than Washington DC.

I come from New Jersey by the way, and you can’t even touch a gun there without a permit. All of my friends from the projects of Paterson, New Jersey are able to easily buy handguns, and they do.

I don’t give a fuck about Nazi Germany, and in any case you simply said that they started invasions, because they had a lot of troops: hey we got a lot of troops. Fuck it. Let’s try to invade all of Europe – no. It goes much deeper than that.

 Gun control is irrelevant to Iraq, nothing will ever help Africa, and nuclear stand offs – fear, and bankruptcy stopped the threat of the spreading of communism in eastern Europe. The purpose of the second amendment is directly and simply stated within itself. That being a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. A large group of men tried to make it as simple as possible to understand, so that those wise enough would keep, and their bare arms. The united states of America had not yet existed when,
“By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
And fired the shot heard 'round the world.”



*Assault Weapons only affect 2% of total gun crimes so a drop of 3.16 percent in them is insignificant.

*Illegal guns only prove gun-control is oxshit.

*One hundred thousand children die from choking on toys every year, and only a 20th of that number are killed by a gun deaths *e-all together including all age groups/.

*Your statistics suck.

[Fierce2]

Guns are fun to play with...thought I'd add that

[erictheholeking]

Guns are awesome everyone should have atleast 2 !!! Guns don't kill people, People kill people with GUNS !!!

[1ofkind]

And even if there were no guns with knives, chairs, even limbs.

[erictheholeking]

and cars and bats and fists and feet and steamrollers and ........................................................................... GUNS. YEP YEP.

[Ganon5]

I'm mostly ok with Australia's gun laws, a shooting that isn't by a policeman is actually rare. But still they tonic up every now and then

[1ofkind]

The fact of the matter is that all that's there to fear is the will of another human beings, and if the people don't bare arms then there is no harmony. Australia btw is used to point out exactly why gun control is wrong. Crimes have jumped through the roof there after their gun bans.