More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

FamousDavis wrote:Big Dave has outdone himself this time. He makes valid points as to why gun control won't work, is unnecessary and is not in our best interest. Armed citizens pose more of a threat to a government that wants to grow and gain control. In addition, it's pretty clear that guns are not the problem. Granted, access to guns by disturbed individuals is very much a problem and must be addressed. Dave brings up the interesting dichotomy of how so many democrats favor gun control yet have no problem with obscene violence on the news, TV shows, movies and music. I have no doubt that these sources of entertainment have much more to do with mass killings than the gun itself.

Big Dave wrote: Thanks HauerBoom. :-)

Big Dave wrote:Yeah, all the carelessness does bother me a lot. BUt.. I have not heard of more than one or two people being shot, and nobody killed, because of careless discharge (i.e. property situation where there is insufficient backstop, or not enough distance to next populated area, etc) in as long as I can remember. Everyone wants to react to something that MIGHT happen. It almost never does.

Whereas each year in America, as reported by the National Institute of Justice (a dot gov website btw), there are approximately two MILLION defenses with handguns. shown, pulled, brandished, discharged, all the way up to actual gun battles and shooting of perps. TWO MILLION defenses. To interfere with people's constitutional right to own a gun is to start making a substantial number of those crimes more successful, with more victims and more suffering. The more restrictive gun law becomes, the more criminals will feel unleashed and free, and even crimes that presently are NOT being committed will fall into the other column. Disarm the public and they are victims. It shows in crime stats by area. The heaviest gun bans match up with the most gun crime and violent crime in general, PERIOD. Where people are armed, i.e. Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, etc., the violent crime rate is spectacularly lower. People aren't dumb. Criminals don't want to be shot. Widespread gun ownership is a deterrent that results in safer society and fewer violent crimes, including GUN crimes. Anecdotal stories arouse the public, but hardly anyone ever puts it in this statistical broader view. Guns make MILLIONS of people SAFER, bottom line. Violent crime in England, post handgun ban, is four to five times higher than in America. It's just the truth.

The kneejerk response to an anecdote, to ban some item or increase regulations, does not WORK. Any fair review of stats shows it. Fewer legal guns equals MORE crime, usually including more GUN crime. We have rights, and we have responsibilities. It's a citizen's responsibility to be PREPARED, to protect himself and his fellow men and women and children, and to be safe with his weapons, to secure them and not endanger others when he fires them.. Cops don't get there fast enough. They are not constitutionally required to stop a crime in progress ANYWAY, and it's amazing how often they don't. If we are not allowed to have guns, we are condemned to simply roll over and play victim when a big young strong man wants our money or wants to harm us.

This isn't complicated. And it isn't antiquated.

THere were about a half dozen black rifle makers in America in 1994. The left chose to hang their collective hats on the "saturday night special" instead of black rifles, thinking that was fringe gun stuff. They got their bans, magazines etc. But the politicians who voted for them had trouble getting reelected.

And today, instead of a half dozen, there are 200 companies making black rifles. Many many millions more people have then now than in 1994. Getting them away from people, while the second amendment is still in the constitution, is just a nonstarter. The people who have guns are the people most convinced that their rights do not come from present day Democrat administrations, and that present day Democrats are legally bound to obey the law as it is written.

If you want to "infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms", you really do need to start by repealing the second amendment, so that this right doesn't appear directly under the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly ( peaceful protest against government )... But that requires significant majorities in state legislatures and congress. THAT requires a significant majority of the people be behind the repeal. Not gonna happen. And nobody who defends the first amendment can claim the second does not apply. They are both, sequentially, in the "BILL OF RIGHTS". It ain't the bill of needs. Government doesn't get to tell people what they need. The Amendment is written so as to A) imply that the right to be armed PRECEDED the constitution, and B) ensure that a citizen army can be raised quickly to defend the people against tyranny, i.e. to defend "the security of a free state". Not a free GOVERNMENT. A free state means free PEOPLE.

And since the oath of office of many posts in government requires them to swear to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, one may safely presume that a militia fighting for the security of a free state may find themselves fighting a domestic enemy, i.e. their own government becoming tyrannical. It is only the ENTIRE STORY OF HUMAN HISTORY, including a crescendo of horrors in the previous century, some continuing to this day.

A free man is a man who can carry a weapon. The sign of an unfree man is that he is made defenseless by government edict. Slaves were disarmed by edicts in the south. Jews were disarmed by the German gun law of 1938. Criminals might rejoice at unarmed victims, but government's purpose is not to expose the citizen to greater risk of crime; it is to reduce THEIR risk that the man might defend himself against GOVERNMENT, or worse still, might organize to overthrow a government which has become tyrannical. Government, disarming people, acts to protect ITSELF from THEM. In all of human history, this is the truth.

Big Dave wrote:


I"m sorry, what were you saying? I was just noticing that Lacey isn't wearing a bra...

Horseballs wrote:How about this?
If your gun was used in a shooting, you are responsible. If your gun is stolen and it's not reported, then used for a murder, the registered owner is responsible. If you sell your gun to your neighbor and don't transfer registration, you are on the hook. If your deranged relative gets access to your gun, it's your fault. Criminally responsible is probably not the answer.