|
On August 28 2012 11:34 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 07:23 TheFrankOne wrote:On August 28 2012 06:33 Cirqueenflex wrote:you know that the US (amongst many other countries) are not listed in this statistic because it is from an european institute? In 2006 there were 206 murders in Germany, and it has slightly more than 1/4 of the population of the US (which is crazy if you compare the size of the country). So it does not depend on the amount of people living together. According to this site: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htmin 2006 there have been 17,030 cases of murders in the US. So if i calculated correctly, the US should be at around 54 killed people per 1 million inhabitants. Now go compare to the other western european countries That puts us at #5 on the European list. Suck it Ukraine! If this recovery stays bumpy Estonia better watch out too. Since about 90% of weapons used by the cartels come from the USA, might as well include anything about the Mexican Drug War in your search. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdfDespite the well grounded "people kill people, not the thing that makes it really fucking easy" argument it sure seems like the lax gun laws in the US have helped mass murders in other countries (Norway shooting ammo) and gone a ways towards destabilizing our southern neighbor. Plus the US has very high rates of gun violence and homicides but its just our culture... right? So does that mean there's nothing we can do about it? Complete myth created by government officials for the purpose of furthering their gun control agenda. They even set up an operation (Fast and Furious) in which they purposefully allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so that they could blame Mexico's violence on American gun laws resulting in the death of an American border patrol agent.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-mythAs for what can be done about it, legalize drugs to combat organized crime and encourage the concealment of firearms in public to prevent mass shootings. Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 11:33 Trevoc wrote:
I have a financial question though: If there was to be some sort of crackdown on firearms.. would there have to be funding for a whole new department of the government? Or would a different one take over? It all sounds like a good idea when the logistics of it are not very efficient. Here are your logistics: Civil war. The banning of guns is not a step towards dictatorship that America is ready to make.
You're talking conspiracy theory there totally unsupported by your source which is awful anyways. It says that 90% of the gun we were able to track were from the US, but a significant number were untracked. So until I see a source that details what portion of the cartels weapons are military grade hardware since thats the level at which things are no longer available in the US, (maybe that "some documentary" esk23 referenced) I will stick with the GAO analysis. Many of the automatic weapons that the cartels are using are simply modified versions of semi-automatic weapons legal in the US. Not from South American countries.
Yes, we were only able to track slightly over 10% of the guns recovered for that year but that could be a representative sample. Your article isn't much of a source. The article only refutes one year, when you look at the GAO report you can see that they have put it at well over 70% for 5 years. It really explains everything for you, all you have to do is beleive there is no vast government conspiracy lasting through multiple presidencies to take away your guns.
Don't go creating conspiracy theories about Obama and his regime due to a program that started under Bush going bad. Unless you're non-partisan in your theories, which makes it no less ridiculous.
Give it a read buddy:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf
|
On August 28 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 12:07 MooMu wrote:On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs. Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them? I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours? Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
A rework of the mental health care system is needed before gun control. It's horrible right now and helps nobody. It's set up just to make certain people rich, and profits are fueled by bad parents who want to believe that the problem rests on their kids. That's easy to market. I don't know why this is rarely a topic of discussion.
|
On August 28 2012 11:02 SayGen wrote:
Sigh I'm so tired of every thread that involves guns being turned into 'US has loose gun laws'
IT IS EASIER TO OBTAIN AN AK47 IN GERMANY THAN IN THE US.
Us gun law, isn't as loose as everyone likes to think it is.
But people will always beleive what they want to- never challenging any idea or concept that is in-line with their core beliefs.
Don't be stupid on purpose.
On August 28 2012 14:39 Esk23 wrote:
It's a prominent Human Rights organization, whatever religions they might be affiliated with doesn't matter and doesn't make what they do any less.
Same for you.
|
On August 28 2012 15:17 Rah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 12:07 MooMu wrote:On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs. Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them? I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours? Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it. A rework of the mental health care system is needed before gun control. It's horrible right now and helps nobody. It's set up just to make certain people rich, and profits are fueled by bad parents who want to believe that the problem rests on their kids. That's easy to market. I don't know why this is rarely a topic of discussion.
It's rarely a topic for discussion because the media/health authorities has brainwashed the general public into thinking that the health authorities + pharaceutical industry has the public interest in mind. Coupled with the fact that the "Big Pharma" has made alot of "donations" to politicians and doctors, you can see why these things are kept under wraps.
|
On August 28 2012 14:37 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 14:23 AlphaWhale wrote:On August 28 2012 14:08 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 13:52 AlphaWhale wrote:On August 28 2012 12:47 Shady Sands wrote:
Blaming the gun here is stupid. If these inner-city kids have it in their heads to kill each other, they'll do it, gun or no gun. What's the difference between a nine and switchblade? A knife is a lot more personal. Guns are a way of distancing you from the victim, mentally and physically. Most cases of extreme domestic violence are blade related because it's such a personal thing to do (to pierce flesh yourself, rather than letting a focused explosion do the work for you) No one is arguing that a psycho can do more damage with a gun than a knife. But the Constitution of the US "protects" your "innate" rights to be able to defend yourself. Meaning it's not a right the government gives you, it's a right we believe you have innately when you're born here. The only realisitic means of self defense is having a gun whether you like it or not. What's an old lady going to do against a 200lb robber without a gun. Or what's some random Joe going to do when you have 3 robbers break into your house with the intention of robbing you and threatening your life without a gun? Guns level the playing field and make people who would otherwise not be equal, equal in force. You can't really defend yourself or your family without a gun in many situations in my opinion, that's why it's protected in the United States. There is also the fact that based on history of man, governments can always start out good and turn evil down the road and suppress the rights of its people, the 2nd Amendment is supposed to be a defense against that kind of government. If the people have to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government they have the means to do so because they own weapons. A country of people without guns/weapons can't fight a revolution and overthrow a corrupt government, with guns they have a chance and can fight. The 2nd Amendment protects all these rights of the people. Now of course you're going to have people abuse this right and break the law and commit murder, it's always going to happen and it has always happened with and without guns, but there are better reasons to have to right to own guns than not to. Would a criminal be more likely to rob someone with a gun or without one? This reads like one giant, poorly spaced "paragraph" of paranoia. I don't know any old ladies who carry a loaded gun in their handbag or even their bedside table. Not that I'm an expert on what's in an old lady's bedside table/handbag. Simply because they are not afraid of such horrible things happening because they live in a fairly normal world. However look at the points your raising. You're openly admitting that you live in a climate that is rife robberies and murders and that it's not your environment that is at fault for creating such an attitude (that you all need to be gun toting to ensure safety). It's like solving a bad problem with a bad answer. And your point on "overthrowing tyrannical governments" let's keep it relevant and focus on America. I really don't see any political coups being staged (maybe a few piss weak attempts by new world order nut jobs, but that's it.) How many absurd gun crimes need to occur before the excuse of "self defense" is realised to be not enough to excuse such horrible things happening in the day to day? That being said, perhaps life will decide to turkey slap me with some home invasion and my position which shift entirely. You view it as paranoia but I'm not paranoid at all. I view it as a right to defend yourself. I suppose you missed my point in that some people are not in the physical shape to defend themselves from people who are bigger or stronger. A gun levels the playing field in that sense. All you want to point is out that bad people commit murder with guns yet you don't want to point out and give any attention to people who have saved their own lives with a gun from criminals meant to do them harm. You also talk in a way banning or passing gun laws will have any impact on homicide. The same psychos will continue to be psychos whether they have a gun or not. There is no way you'd be able to keep guns out of criminal hands if you ban guns, you'd still have criminals who are going to murder and you'd have good people who own guns who abide by the law at risk because they can no longer realisitically defend themselves. Gun banning didn't help cities like Chicago (a city by the way who have the worst crime rates and shootings in the world) where crime rate and shootings increased significantly after they banned guns. Nor New York where guns are also banned yet they have one of the highest crime rates in the country. I suppose I shouldn't try to debate with people from other countries because they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to mine. On YOUR point about tyrannical governments, it doesn't mean that it won't or can't happen in the future, or perhaps it hasn't completely happened yet because with the 2nd Amendment. Either way, it's a good law that intends to protect the people.
But there's a big difference in outcome between a psycho who's able to easily obtain an automatic gas powered rifle complete with 30 round magazine in comparison to one who can only get a hold of a bolt action/semi-automatic with a 5/10 round magazine.
I'm a libertarian at heart and I wish I could apply the same ideas to gun control (I'd love to own a farm and nerd out with some AK-47s) but I can't justify their availability as a self defense tool in a country with such severe social problems. You being a perfect example, anticipating some sort of violent political revolution.
There's a strict gun ban here and it's not as if everybody is living in constant fear of the door being kicked in by big bad evil men because we don't have a firearm at the ready.
|
Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
|
On August 28 2012 16:11 GT350 wrote:
Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
No it's wrong. Not in the world at least. But it's the highest murder rate per capita in rich countries, including China (i'm not sure that we can trust official statistics from this country btw...). Considering it's the also richer (then potentially the best to be able to change things), it's huge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
|
On August 28 2012 06:24 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 04:31 BlackPanther wrote:On August 28 2012 04:04 Trevoc wrote:
I should also add that if someone wants to kill someone, they'll get a gun regardless of the laws surrounding This is such a ridiculous idea. If law enforcement actually put more resources into cracking down on illegal guns in the US, there wouldn't be this argument. Before someone says how prohibition-like enforcement doesn't work, guns are not the same as alcohol and marijuana. They require lots of manufacturing, certainly beyond any individual's capability to produce (unlike alcohol or marijuana). If I can get a carton of name brand cigarettes imported to the US at $15 a pop (which is a $10,000 fine per carton if caught) then I can most likely find a way to get a gun if I really want one. Just some food for thought.
Not a good argument. The government probably couldn't give two shits about imported cigarettes.
|
On August 28 2012 17:41 Agathon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 16:11 GT350 wrote:
Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
No it's wrong. Not in the world at least. But it's the highest murder rate per capita in rich countries, including China (i'm not sure that we can trust official statistics from this country btw...). Considering it's the also richer (then potentially the best to be able to change things), it's huge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Lol look at all those southern states at the very top...kinda ironic eh?
|
I don't mean to proliferate the fires of gun control vs constitutional freedom but:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down/
That being said, there are some issues with the acquistion of guns, namely the severe lack of education involved in getting one. One would think that some form of training should be mandatory when purchasing a firearm, including some moral lecture to impress the fact upon people that while what they're purchasing is a tool for a purpose (self defense), it is a tool solely meant to critically injure, main, or kill, and that is not a fact to be taken lightly. No such education truly exists around the fire arms market so unfortunately there is a terrible culture around guns.
But taking them away really doesn't solve the issue, because in a sense you aren't really removing them entirely from the picture, you're only making it more difficult to acquire them, and while that might be good in the sense of preventing mindless scrubs from getting ahold of them, if you have a psychopath who really wants to perpetrate an act of violence, they'll find a way to get their weaponry, or they'll resort to learning a new trade of weaponry (explosives/etc).
Anyways, I'm still trying to find the stats on where we stand on gun violence on the global front, but I do know it's pretty high, but people fail to factor in gang violence, which very often goes unreported, or at least certainly doesn't receive the amount of coverage to justify just how common place it is, and how much it's growing and spreading.
Example: I live near Birmingham, AL, which consistently makes within the top 10 most dangerous cities list for violence/murders, and has for years. Not so bad during the day, but I wouldn't go there at night without being fully armed to the teeth. It's best not to at all :3
Getting back onto the original topic at hand though. Motivation lies in hard economic times, bad culture, and a lack of education. I don't think shootings are really on the rise though, because even back in the days around columbine there had been plenty of smaller shooting incidents that just weren't taken very seriously as they weren't as grandiose in nature, often only involving a couple deaths or even none. I believe that now that we've had such terrible landmarks such as columbine and Virginia tech that every single incident involving gun violence is being covered with the eyes of a hawk, so we're noticing it more.
|
On August 28 2012 17:51 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 17:41 Agathon wrote:On August 28 2012 16:11 GT350 wrote:
Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
No it's wrong. Not in the world at least. But it's the highest murder rate per capita in rich countries, including China (i'm not sure that we can trust official statistics from this country btw...). Considering it's the also richer (then potentially the best to be able to change things), it's huge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Lol look at all those southern states at the very top...kinda ironic eh?
Washington DC doesn't necessarily qualify as a southern state. and also of great note, DC has had some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation up until the last couple years. Now go look at the stats on that, because im seeing a fair decline since they struck down part of the law
|
On August 28 2012 18:09 Fulmine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 17:51 Silidons wrote:On August 28 2012 17:41 Agathon wrote:On August 28 2012 16:11 GT350 wrote:
Is it true that the US has the highest non-war related gun incident in the world? Anyone who has the statistics on that?
No it's wrong. Not in the world at least. But it's the highest murder rate per capita in rich countries, including China (i'm not sure that we can trust official statistics from this country btw...). Considering it's the also richer (then potentially the best to be able to change things), it's huge. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate Lol look at all those southern states at the very top...kinda ironic eh? Washington DC doesn't necessarily qualify as a southern state. and also of great note, DC has had some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation up until the last couple years. Now go look at the stats on that, because im seeing a fair decline since they struck down part of the law
I'll be the advocate of the devil for a second, DC is also the second smallest state in USA after Wyoming (In inhabitants' term), rates are a bit less relevant.
EDIT : After Wyoming and the small Islands ofc
|
On August 28 2012 12:37 Silentness wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 10:42 evanthebouncy! wrote:
The injured 17-year-old student was flown by medevac to the University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center
am I the only one who laughed at the thought of loading it up instead of healing it on the spot? D: uhh no. I don't see a wounded 17 year old funny...
Yeah, you're the only one.
|
On August 28 2012 13:59 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 12:07 MooMu wrote:On August 28 2012 11:42 Esk23 wrote:On August 28 2012 11:40 Azzur wrote:
If I recall correctly, the USA always had gun ownership - the problem is not guns but the society itself. You have increasing amounts of desperate, angry, bitter and drugged-up people - this is what is causing the killings.
In my opinion, restricting gun ownership will help reduce killings - because these people are borderline psychotic - making it harder for them to obtain lethal weapons means they will be less to snap actions. However, as I mentioned, guns are not the problem - it is the society - restricting guns will merely reduce the symptoms but never solve the cause. That's what I believe too: http://www.cchr.org/videos/psychiatrys-prescription-for-violence.htmlUS is the most drugged up country in the world, a lot of these shooters are on psychiatric drugs. Did the psychiatric drugs induce the killings or did they prevent more that may have happened without them? I know America is particularly drugged up and people are generally too pill-happy over there, but do you have evidence that their side-effects are facilitating these behaviours? Well it was after they took the drugs that they committed horrific acts. Psychiatrists nowdays have all kinds of "mental illness" they can "diagnose" you with, and all kinds of drugs for each "mental condition". I don't know but it seems wrong to just take a drug anytime you have a problem in life. Pharmaceutical and psychiatric drugs is a $650 billion dollar industry, a lot of people make tons of money selling and giving you drugs so it would make sense they would want to continue it whether or not it actually helped you or made you more prone to suicide and violenece (to be clear, it doesn't make sense to me personally because I would rather not make money off selling harmful drugs to people but we obviously have bad people in this world.). Think about it.
You wouldn't be saying that if you had a mental disorder that was relieved by medication. The fact that they took these drugs before the violent acts tells me nothing about causation.
|
On August 28 2012 18:50 Flamingo777 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 12:37 Silentness wrote:On August 28 2012 10:42 evanthebouncy! wrote:
The injured 17-year-old student was flown by medevac to the University of Maryland's Shock Trauma Center
am I the only one who laughed at the thought of loading it up instead of healing it on the spot? D: uhh no. I don't see a wounded 17 year old funny... Yeah, you're the only one.
Now that I hear the medvac comment I get a little giggle, you guys take life to seriously ^^ any moment you can die in a head on collision that was completely out of your hands so lighten up.
|
As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem.
What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense.
The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun.
Its 2012 - wake up America 
|
On August 28 2012 22:02 My.Row wrote:As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem. What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense. The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun. Its 2012 - wake up America
When you have people slavering on the words of relative savages from the beginning of the common era, 325 years is practically yesterday, I guess.
|
The last time we changed the constitution was 1992 so its pretty up to date, as far as the most recent revisions go. If we want to edit it we have a way to do that, don't act like its old and outdated. The second amendment would of been changed if Americans wanted it to be changed. Yay Democracy!
I even sort of agree with your sentiments but don't go hating on our constitution, its an amazing document we can change if we damn well please.
|
On August 28 2012 22:02 My.Row wrote:As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem. What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense. The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun. Its 2012 - wake up America
The right to bear arms is indeed for self-defense, but not personal self-defense. It's there so the populace will always be able to defend itself from tyranny.
Every tyranny is history has tried to disarm its civilians, so they could not rise up and overthrow said tyranny. The founding fathers knew this, and included the right to bear arms to allow citizens to protect themselves.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
On August 29 2012 01:18 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2012 22:02 My.Row wrote:As long as Americans claim their right to wear guns as part of the constitution, there will be shootings. With that being said I have to admit that I don´t really give a shit about another shooting in the USA. If there´s a report on a topic like that in the newsmagazin, I switch channel. A shooting/murder in the USA is for the rest of the world just as "normal" as the news about a random war-action in the middle-east. Unfortunately. Yes, we all SHOULD be sad about sth like this happening, but after all we got used to hear that. Just like the weather-report. What do you say? Not guns kill people, people kill people. I say: The american "freedom" is the problem. What the Americans use to call "freedom" is nothing more than an invitation to every man for using his gun (his right to "defend" himself) to kill the dude next door and calling it self-defense. The constitution was declared when? .... 1787... yep, in those days men might have had the use of a gun. Its 2012 - wake up America The right to bear arms is indeed for self-defense, but not personal self-defense. It's there so the populace will always be able to defend itself from tyranny. Every tyranny is history has tried to disarm its civilians, so they could not rise up and overthrow said tyranny. The founding fathers knew this, and included the right to bear arms to allow citizens to protect themselves. "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." - Thomas Jefferson
Why don't you have a read over here.
"But I didn't bring up Nazi Germany!"
So then every 'tyranny' in history hasn't disarmed its civilians then.
Furthermore unless you actually get the army on your side you're fucked either way, guns or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
