I do what I wanna do, **** it.

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Why can't you grasp that's an unfounded, paranoid right-wing conspiracy that's simply not going to happen?

If you like your doctor, can you keep your doctor?

 

[DBS1970]

Why can't you grasp that's an unfounded, paranoid right-wing conspiracy that's simply not going to happen?

Tim beat me to the historical reference. I will add to it that confiscation and disarmament is the stated goal of the anti-2nd amendment organization.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Tibs, if you care to enlighten yourself, have a read. This is a wonderful paper that takes into account many angles of the discussion. Written by our good friends over at Jews for the Preservation for Firearm Ownership. It's a deep, long paper, but it covers most of the angles.

http://jpfo.org/pdf/dociviliangunsdoanygood.pdf

Does Civilian Ownership of Firearms Actually Do Any Good?

The article begins by answering a reader's question

Your question is essentially this: “Can widespread private ownership of firearms really empower the citizens to deter or stop a tyrannical or totalitarian government?”

It begins with these statistics:

The Statistics of Tyranny
First, let’s note what Professor R. J. Rummel discussed in his book, Death by Government. In the history of the 20th Century, there were zero wars between what we would term "democratic" countries. The wars that killed so many millions involved either (1) non-democratic vs. democratic countries, or (2) non-democratic vs. non-democratic countries.

Second is another Rummel observation: governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by non-democratic governments.

Third is JPFO's observation: the mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

170Million people killed by their own governments in 100 years. 70Million in countries where gun control had taken hold. 8.5Million in Democratic countries.

Yeah Tibs, we're all just paranoid...

Three Elements For Human Suffering

Hold the above facts in mind, and consider this three-element formula for horrific human suffering:

(1) Evil exists in the world. This concept sounds obvious, but actually there are legions of people, many of them highly-educated and highly-placed, who believe that "bad things happen because there is too much inequality of wealth and not enough education." Many of these people cannot accept the idea that Evil exists and that people are capable of doing Evil. They prefer the "poverty, disease, and ignorance" explanation for bad behavior.

If the concept of Evil needs proof, then consider just a few examples of terrible things done by people who are not poor and not ignorant: (a) when government leaders develop written plans to persecute and exterminate a disfavored group, and then carry them out; (b) when a parent methodically goes from room to room strangling or drowning or stabbing several children; (c) when a young adult straps on a bomb and boards a city bus carrying people to work or school, detonates the bomb, and kills dozens of the people and seriously maims dozens more.

(2) Imbalance of Power Creates Opportunities for Evil. This point should be obvious, too. On the micro level, consider the Carlie Bruscia case. Remember how a security video camera caught the act of the predator contacting Carlie, then grabbing her by the wrist and taking her away. This is just one example, but it makes the point. Carlie was 12. The predator was 35 or so and a strong male. The predator was probably three times a strong as Carlie, plus he had a plan and a motivation. Carlie had much less strength and no plan for defense. It was nearly a sure thing that the predator would win. Carlie was brutally raped and murdered.

Consider the recent case where Iraqi terrorists shot down in cold blood a whole bus load of women and children. The victims were powerless compared to the terrorists. All it took then was an Evil idea, and the victims being selected. The power advantage of the aggressors made the rest easy.

Now on the macro level. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution worked to ensure that there was no great imbalance of power among the branches of government. In each branch of our Constitutional government there are checks and balances. Where government systems have checks and balances, and where these operate with open discussion and competition for votes, you have the sort of “democratic” society that rarely makes war on another “democratic” society. As Professor Rummel pointed out, unbalanced political power within nations is a major factor in the outbreak of wars between nations.

(3) Betrayal of Trust Multiplies the Results of Evil. This point is much more subtle because most of us do not want to think about it. It’s too painful.

On the micro level, consider the doctor or nurse or medic who starts killing the patients. One doctor in Britain was believed to have murdered some 35 patients (he killed himself in jail). A male nurse in the Pacific Northwest also terminated dozens of patients. How could this happen?

Notice: in addition to the Evil idea and the imbalance of power, these victims had put themselves into a position of dependence. The patients submitted themselves willingly to the potential killer. They trusted the doctor or nurse – they willingly gave up their self defense – they created the imbalance of power – and placed their lives at the mercy of the supposed caregiver and protector. When an Evil idea formed in the minds of the caregivers and protectors, then the killing was next.

This terrible result is worse than just murder because it involves the evil of taking advantage of someone who has placed his or her trust in the killer. Many of the Jews who boarded trains bound for death camps in Nazi Germany could not allow themselves to believe that their own countrymen, their own police and army, would betray them so fatally. Children and teens often fail to even try to resist a child molester or kidnapper, because the children cannot grasp that a trusted adult could turn against them.

The Effects of Civilian Disarmament Ideas

Now you have the basic groundwork. Next, consider "gun control" ideas and laws. To the extent that “gun control” causes any results, those results are:

(1) The non-evil, peaceful, law-abiding people will be discouraged from owning, carrying, using, and even learning more about or practicing with firearms. "Gun control" laws act to discourage firearms ownership and use by making it more expensive, embarrassing, difficult, or legally risky to have and use guns.

(2) “Gun control” laws do not decrease the incidence of Evil – not one bit. Gun control laws discourage people, or impose costs on people – but they do not affect evil minds and evil intentions.

(3) “Gun control” laws encourage people to render themselves less powerful. Turn in guns, not own guns, avoid guns, learn little or nothing about guns. “Gun control” laws work only in the direction of causing law-abiding people to reduce their personal defense power.

(4) “Gun control” laws thus make it necessary for people to rely upon their government or private defense providers. For most people, hiring a private body guard or other security service that would come anywhere close to the effectiveness of being personally armed, is too expensive. So most people depend upon their government police and upon dialing Emergency 911.

(5) The more Draconian the “gun control” laws and policies, the more it is likely the civilians are unarmed.

(6) When a government takes power with evil intentions, and extensive “gun control” laws are in place, then you have the set-up for destruction. Most of the people have obeyed the laws and placed their self-defense trust in their governments. The people are relatively we ak. Meanwhile, the aggressors are mostly undeterred by gun control laws. The aggressors would include street criminals, organized crime, and government agencies (e.g. the Nazi SS, the Soviet KGB, various death squads). In fact, the government agencies are usually specifically exempted from the “gun control” laws.

So, there are deliberate programs of persecution by government, as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia / Ukraine or in Cambodia. There are cultures of civilian powerlessness as in China during the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking in 1937. There is the malign neglect that allows armed parties to raid and attack defenseless people, as in El Salvador and Uganda. In all cases, the imbalance of power, coupled with the people’s helpless dependence upon the same entity that doesn’t mind if they get killed or enslaved, produces the worst human suffering imaginable.

How Can An Armed Society Help?

Now, you may ask: “Yes, but what difference would it make if the people were armed?”

The answer is pretty simple: even evil people calculate the costs. Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.

It is known that Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the Nazis did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth. Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries.

Likewise, in the Iraq War, the American military chooses to deploy its forces in a manner less likely to result in American casualties. Thus, the American military does not blindly attempt to move into some towns and regions where they know the civilian resisters (“insurgents”) are armed and dangerous.

We therefore learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations.

All of these facts and observations suggest the following conclusion:

When a civilian population widely possesses firearms such as rifles, shotguns and handguns, along with ammunition for them, and the population has the training with the weapons along with the ethic of self defense, then the population is very unlikely to be conquered and persecuted either by their own government or by an invading force.

This conclusion means that lives are saved and human suffering is avoided when the population generally undertakes to prepare for its own armed defense. Stated simply: an armed population saves lives.

The data from the 20th Century suggest that millions of non-combatant lives were lost to genocide and persecution, because (a) the afflicted populations were tremendously underpowered compared to the killers, (b) the population relied solely upon their government to protect them, and (c) the government protectors either failed or actively turned against the populations.

Hey, but we all just cray-cray.

 

[Rod Farva]

I really don't know some of the subtle nuances of this thing. What I saw last night was him trying to get public support for a very simple piece of executive order legislation (because he can pass no legislation through regular channels). Now I do think that is problematic as it will create precedent for future presidents to do the same. He isn't pushing for registration or licensing of firearms. He freely admits the country is too divided for that. He wants to make it mandatory in all states to have a background check before purchase of a firearm. PERIOD.
As to the woman who was raped I thought he very subtly made two key arguments:
1. Yes the gun could have saved you from being raped, but it also could have escalated things and you might be dead. Either is speculation....so why should someone be denied the opportunity to protect oneself because of another's speculation?2. A gun in the home of a parent used for protection (Unlocked, no trigger guards) is statistically more dangerous than the home invasion it is trying to protect. If that's true it's a personal issue....tragic maybe, but not a reason to inflict more restrictive laws on those who responsibly keep guns.The woman's answer was that she has one of those guns with a safety on it. Really, one of those guns with a safety on it. I've been around firearms my whole life. Every gun has a safety on it.

Depends on your definition of "safety". Glock's have no traditional safety.

Why can't you grasp that's an unfounded, paranoid right-wing conspiracy that's simply not going to happen?

Why can't you imagine the possibility that it may not be?

 

[ark steel]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/08...nding-gun-control-at-george-mason-university/

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/08...nding-gun-control-at-george-mason-university/

I had to share on FB. That's classic. The question begs, were Obama and the WH ignorant to these facts? I'd not be surprised if they were. Or was the "Town Hall" deliberately held at George Mason to send the message "**** the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and screw you America"?

 

[21STEELERS21]

257,000 is the estimated number of Americans killed in the US with a gun during Obama's 8 years in office

that's equivalent to a good size war

Kind of funny that everyone was up in arms that Obama wasn't doing enough on Ebola when 1 American died from that and
they get equally up in arms when he does something in regard to 257,000 Americans dying on his watch from guns.

If I were the President I would be redeploying troops stationed overseas to the streets of the USA.

 

[ark steel]

If I were the President I would be redeploying troops stationed overseas to the streets of the USA.

I guess as long as they are not protecting the border, your lot will be happy...

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

257,000 is the estimated number of Americans killed in the US with a gun during Obama's 8 years in office

that's equivalent to a good size war

Kind of funny that everyone was up in arms that Obama wasn't doing enough on Ebola when 1 American died from that and
they get equally up in arms when he does something in regard to 257,000 Americans dying on his watch from guns.

If I were the President I would be redeploying troops stationed overseas to the streets of the USA.

There isn't a soul here, if your numbers are right, who wouldn't want to see those numbers lower. Not one.

What you have here are realists who know that gun control measures don't work and won't work and see this ruse for what it is.

Wanna stop gun violence? Treat mental health. As has been stated, gun deaths in Japan are virtually zero, but their suicide rate is incredibly high. Removing guns from that society didn't lower deaths. The problem is, was, and always will be the person. You have to treat the problem - the person. Not the implement.

Another way to treat the problem? Stop the drug trade.

Another way? Stop the Government. Yep. Make our Government do its job and go after the pharma companies that produce the psychotropic drugs that are being over-prescribed to our youth and citizens daily in this country, psychotropic drugs that every mass shooter has been on. 1 in 4 women suffers depression, as previously stated.

21, if you really cared about that number, you'd be ranting for all of these measures. Because the real goal is/should be to save lives. If I remove all guns, and 257,000 people still die from suicide or some violent death by other means, I've fixed nothing. For you to put this number out there is just politics, just like Bammy plays it - using these deaths to cause a desired outcome - the wrong outcome. The goal shouldn't be the removal of guns, it should be the elimination of these deaths. And until you have a plan that will actually make a difference (because gun control doesn't - see Chicago, DC, California), you're just politicizing and wasting board space.

 

[SteelerSask2]

Depends on your definition of "safety". Glock's have no traditional safety.



Why can't you imagine the possibility that it may not be?

So you are picking one model of one gun to represent something. A Glock is the preferred 9mm of many if not most police forces in Canada. I'm pretty sure they all have safeties. But you see that is the problem with the right. They will take some tiny piece of say a 10 000 piece jigsaw puzzle and argue that is the truth of the matter of a very complex issue.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

So you are picking one model of one gun to represent something. A Glock is the preferred 9mm of many if not most police forces in Canada. I'm pretty sure they all have safeties. But you see that is the problem with the right. They will take some tiny piece of say a 10 000 piece jigsaw puzzle and argue that is the truth of the matter of a very complex issue.

He's not doing that.

 

[SteelerSask2]

Yeah he is. I said it was ridiculous for the woman to say that her ownership of a defensive firearm was safe because her particular gun had a safety. In my experience all guns have a safety. He is trying to discredit that statement because some glocks don't have traditional safeties. What do you think the ratio of firearms that don't have safeties to those that do?
And the real issue here isn't whether all guns have safeties or not. The real issue is that if you are a parent in a home with a defensive gun, which by the very nature of a defensive gun, must be easily accessible, loaded or ammunition in close proximity without things like trigger locks. Or at least with the keys easily accessible. That creates a great danger to any child.

 

[21STEELERS21]

We have only been in two wars with more deaths than those killed by guns in last 8 years.
Civil War 750,000, WWII 405,000

If gun laws don't work why do New York and Connecticut with strictest laws have the near lowest gun deaths per capita in the
United States and Louisiana and Alaska with least gun laws have near highest per capita deaths.

Gun laws work all over the world and for some reason people think we are so unique they can't work here. Defies common sense.

 

[Vader]

257,000 is the estimated number of Americans killed in the US with a gun during Obama's 8 years in office.

How many of those were suicide? How many were good cop shoots? How many were good defensive shoots? How many accidental? You really have no idea WTF you are talking about without context. How many people were killed with cars during that same time. Yet not one of you liberal nut cases want to do anything about cars which killed 100X more people than guns. And they aren't even a right.

Kind of funny that you are up in arms over a small fraction of deaths when thousands of more people are killed with cars. If I were the president I'd redeploy troops oversees to the states to watch the highways. That's where the vast majority of deaths are right?

 

[SteelerSask2]

How many of those were suicide? How many were good cop shoots? How many were good defensive shoots? How many accidental? You really have no idea WTF you are talking about without context. How many people were killed with cars during that same time. Yet not one of you liberal nut cases want to do anything about cars which killed 100X more people than guns. And they aren't even a right.

Kind of funny that you are up in arms over a small fraction of deaths when thousands of more people are killed with cars. If I were the president I'd redeploy troops oversees to the states to watch the highways. That's where the vast majority of deaths are right?

Cars, Cars. Do you even read this **** before you hit Post. A car has an extremely important everyday use. It transports people. At this point in human history I would say it is a necessity, or at least virtually a necessity. If you were going to make an argument that seat belts, and speed limits infringe on your liberty of personal choice. OK. But cars kill more people than guns. Really, I would kind of expect they would.

 

[Tibs]

Why can't you imagine the possibility that it may not be?

Because if foreign-born, muslim-loving, caliphate-establishing, communist socialist nut-hugging Barack Obama wanted to do something like that, he would have done so looooong ago. We're literally counting down the last few months of his presidency and you freakazoids are still flipping out about this ****. Really???? Get a grip folks, that **** ain't happening! Or what, Obama is gonna wait till the last few weeks of his presidency to round up 300+ millions guns throughout the country? I must ask the question: do you people actually think any of this stuff through or just get caught up with all the hype you read online?

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Yeah he is. I said it was ridiculous for the woman to say that her ownership of a defensive firearm was safe because her particular gun had a safety. In my experience all guns have a safety. He is trying to discredit that statement because some glocks don't have traditional safeties. What do you think the ratio of firearms that don't have safeties to those that do?
And the real issue here isn't whether all guns have safeties or not. The real issue is that if you are a parent in a home with a defensive gun, which by the very nature of a defensive gun, must be easily accessible, loaded or ammunition in close proximity without things like trigger locks. Or at least with the keys easily accessible. That creates a great danger to any child.

Several of my weapons don't have safeties. They have a ****-back hammer only, and therefore don't require one. This idea that Glocks are the only safety-less weapons is pretty much nonsense.

 

[ark steel]

So you are picking one model of one gun to represent something. A Glock is the preferred 9mm of many if not most police forces in Canada. I'm pretty sure they all have safeties. But you see that is the problem with the right. They will take some tiny piece of say a 10 000 piece jigsaw puzzle and argue that is the truth of the matter of a very complex issue.

The Glock does have a safety, it just isn't a button or lever you slide to click off the safety. When you are holding the gun properly, the safety is off.

 

[ark steel]

Cars, Cars. Do you even read this **** before you hit Post. A car has an extremely important everyday use. It transports people. At this point in human history I would say it is a necessity, or at least virtually a necessity. If you were going to make an argument that seat belts, and speed limits infringe on your liberty of personal choice. OK. But cars kill more people than guns. Really, I would kind of expect they would.

Yet, in not one place in the Constitution does it say that the right of the people to travel around in cars/horse/buggies, whatever "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

There is one place where the Constitution uses that phrase (maybe more, I guess, but it doesn't relate to people traveling around),

 

[SteelerSask2]

So we have decided that some, but surely not most guns do not have safeties and the rape victim lady is certainly a responsible parent because she owns one of the ones that do and her child would have to figure out how to use that mechanism before blowing off their own or someone else's head with a loaded gun.
Got it.

 

[Vader]

Cars, Cars. Do you even read this **** before you hit Post. A car has an extremely important everyday use. It transports people. At this point in human history I would say it is a necessity, or at least virtually a necessity. If you were going to make an argument that seat belts, and speed limits infringe on your liberty of personal choice. OK. But cars kill more people than guns. Really, I would kind of expect they would.

Go **** yourself... A gun is a personal right defined in the constitution by the 2nd amendment. There are MILLIONS of people that don't have cars. Most people in NY don't have cars. And they aren't a right. But don't let fact get in the way of your liberal bullshit and pseudo shock.

BTW for someone who's been around guns a long time you don't know **** about them. Revolvers don't have safeties.

 

[Steelin]

It's all about baby steps. The progressives just keep marching in that direction. I wouldn't have necessarily believed that their goals would be met successfully until England and Australia were stripped of their right to bear arms. Who could doubt that is the ultimate goal? If a person doesn't wish to own a gun, then by all means, don't own one. Leave my rights alone.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

So you are picking one model of one gun to represent something. A Glock is the preferred 9mm of many if not most police forces in Canada. I'm pretty sure they all have safeties. But you see that is the problem with the right. They will take some tiny piece of say a 10 000 piece jigsaw puzzle and argue that is the truth of the matter of a very complex issue.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about, but you are pretty sure they all have safeties. Funny.

 

[ark steel]

BTW for someone who's been around guns a long time you don't know **** about them. Revolvers don't have safeties.

I've only ever held a couple of revolvers and only ever shot one. Didn't know they didn't have safeties.

Every gun I have ever had has had a safety, but, now, I wonder if the 30-30 lever action did. Didn't have it long and I was pretty young.

 

[SteelerSask2]

I own a shotgun, a deer hunting rifle and two .22s. You basically can't own a handgun in Canada or if you do it is useless. Handguns are for three things:
1. Target practice and you can target practice with a long gun.
2. Getting a small dick hard with all that power.
3. Killing people.