Exactly! When they decided on the constitution they specifically put the 2nd amendment in it to keep the government from being too powerful. The National Guard was never meant to be federalized. Each state has the federal right to keep their own military. The federal forces were never meant to be as large and powerful as they are, they were meant to be supplements to each states military.
The militia argument went up in smoke the minute America decided to have standing armies (something that would have terrified our Founders), instead of local militias. Plus, the militia statement in the 2nd amendment was one of the justifications for the right to bear arms, not a condition precedent to the right.
i wouldnt characterize it as 'threatening' necessarily, even though i get what you mean, i think it comes under the heading of 'ask a stupid question- and you are wasting my valuable time...." and both of these guys are KING of the 'stupid question'
@@LetsDruz When you show me a country with zero illegal drugs, I'll believe the authorities have the ability to keep guns off the streets as well. Until then, gun laws only keep guns away from honest people. I hate to break it to you, but criminals break the law. I know, it's hard to believe, but almost all mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones... because the criminals were the only ones with guns. Because the honest people left theirs at home. Weird.
@@vaeshethblade931 Actually most mass shootings take place in the US- not gun free.. And mass shootings rarely involve 'criminals'. Mass shootings are typically carried out by individuals using legally owned weapons. Owned by their parents generally. Criminals use guns in the commission of a crime - robbery, theft etc. The major consistent in mass shootings is prescription drugs. Your definition of gun-free zones is schools, restaurants etc. The perps in almost all mass shootings did, as you assert, target areas where guns were unlikely to be present. That's because they were pathetic, cowardly bullies. The answer to limiting mass shootings is limiting mass gun ownership. If a society wishes to preserve mass gun ownership, it must accept mass shootings. Accidental death by gunshot has never occurred in a home where there was no gun owned. Funny, that...
@@ernieh3860 Those who give up their right to keep and bear arms are likely to be enslaved. That is the meaning... and it is quite true. Just look at the UK government cowering due to threats of riots from "asians" if they call "asians" by their real name - as they go about organizing massive campaigns of rape of very young white british girls. Because the "asians" will use make shift weapons, or even use illegal weapons to riot, and the rest of the populace is disarmed. A once free society is falling to a 7th century cult. The native British can't even get their government to enforce the existing laws of immigration, because the disarmed populace is no longer a concern to the government. What are the native British going to do? Cry some more?
@Ernie H sigh, it's means metallurgy type stuff. I.e. if you turn your guns into plows i.e. losing your weapon. You will be growing food for the man who didn't give up his guns. My way is a far inferior way than the founder said but is accurat3.
Just when i thought I couldn’t respect the dude more. He might be loopy sometimes but at least he understands the roots and exact nature for the second.
@@IAm-dm3ej Random police. There is plenty of evidence of police killing even unarmed people unprovoked. Just recently someone was shot in the back several times, by a cop who followed him to his car, after _he,_ not the cop broke up a fight between two people.
I remember being a kid and seeing all the commercials on Mexican channels asking the people of Mexico to turn in their guns for peace time or whatever cause they had going and they would be rewarded... they were rewarded with the protection of the cartels...
@@ronniebaker4549 next time you stuff your face with cheese dip at the el nino house of tacos. Maybe strike up a conversation. You will learn some real facts. Ask the waitress why Mexican workers have the reputation of being hard workers and work multiple jobs. Ask them who they owe for getting them here. It will scare you. Guaranteed.
And every other city that is heavily gun control. They all have too many criminals with guns that don't give a flying rats patootie about laws to begin with. Remember the biggest mass killing? Does 9/11 sound familiar. Not one gun used.
He's a Soros pawn so of course he's against guns like a good little nazi boy. That's the first thing dictators do...take away the means to defend against tyranny. Been happening since before the english controlled Scotland and made all bladed weapons illegal for the Scott's. George misses the big war when he hid his jewish ethnicity and marched around confiscating his neighbors belongings! He literally admits to it. m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-X9tKvasRO54.html
It's simple, take all the guns away and never report on violent crime when other weapons are used. See? Not only is the problem solved but we get rid of ALL violent crime!
I live in Ireland and a few years ago they found rocket launchers in a suburban house belonging to a drug gang. 2016 2 gangsters dressed as police and shot up a hotel with ak47s . it's easy to get guns here if you really want them. it's also not even about guns here in Ireland/UK we have knife crimes and in Ireland pipebombs are easier to get tjhan guns so it is about the indivisual .
Michael Moore was calling on the military overthrow trump install Hillary right after Trump was elected that's all you need to know about him people like him is a reason why we have a second amendment and I think he knows that I think a lot of these liberals know that it's kind a hard to beat some up in the street If they're Aimed
No aircraft has been brought down at a mile and a half or 10 feet by a rifle or hand gun. Anyone trying to take your right to defend yourself for your protection is a tyrant, a liar, real stupid or all three.
I was just about to say that...when I heard that I about shit my self...I mean wtf stats are they reading??? it sure is not the same stats I have been reading from the FBI and other credible sources
I have no idea what that was about. Some high caliber sniper rifle have been used to destroy engine blocks in stationary vehicles. But their effective range isn't a mile and a half and you wont take an aircraft out of the sky with it from such a range. They're just inventing shit to try to scare people.
duckpwnd yes and no, a .50 can and HAS taken out an airplane (more like a heli) but you are talking about someone who has to be highly trained to take a shot like that and even then it would take more than one.
This isn't entirely true. The soviet snipers in WW2 shot down quite a few German airplanes from the ground and is a significant reason that they have recorded some of the best snipers in the world within the last century - some with over 700 credited kills if my memory serves correctly. I am not certain of the ranges on these shots, but doubt that they were anywhere over a mile. Also this was against planes that flew a heck of a lot slower than modern aircraft today. Anyway, the general meaning of your point is correct; no rifle available to to the public today (or even the military I'd guess) is going to drop a modern aircraft out of the sky. Certainly not an AR15, M16, or an M4 - and a range of a mile and a half is simply ridiculous (that's 2640 yds). When I served in the military the maximum effective range of the M16s that we used was about 800 yards (or was that meters? its been awhile, I ETS'd in 1993) - the only way that we were hitting (stationary) targets at that range with open sights was in the prone supported firing position. I fully agree with the second part of your comment and added a thumbs up.
I guess the man with the biggest gun wins then? Just need to make getting a gun harder. I have lived in several dangerous places all around the world and have never needed a gun to be safe.
Vision Electric Solutions PE dam that sucks my Aussie brother come to us and help us when it's time like we always have and you can have one of mine freedom should be ours and it ain't free
Schechter Arts Back in 97 we were forced to give back all our semi auto’s due to a political decision to end gun violence ? We have a small farm in South Australia and 6 of my rifles and one shotgun were taken and destroyed. I’ve never committed a crime ( other than some dumb driving offences) and Ive always had a legitimate reason for every weapon I own. This was a failed experiment Gun crime in Australia wasn’t reduced .
They banned guns in the UK and armed crime quadrupled - despite the fact that firearm ownership in Britain hasn't been for self-defence for about a century.
Umpa Lumpas I’ll take my Semi-auto and accuracy over fully auto and recoil any day tyvm. Even in the military they teach you that full auto is a waste. Movies are the only place fully auto actually works.
@@josephleblanc3884 full auto weapons do have a military purpose. The machine gun is the base of fire of a squad. The purpose is to lay down a suppressive fire that allows the squad's riflemen to maneuver against the enemy.
John Ryan I never said they didn’t have a purpose. What I said is for light arms we are taught that full auto is a waste. Machine guns like the M249 and the M60 have their place as an area denial weapon, but light arms are about accuracy, not firing as many rounds as possible. Therefore I stand by my earlier statements. This attitude was further reinforced by the fact that the M16 switched from a fully auto weapon to a 3round burst between the A2 and A3 variants.
I heard in poor countries( like usa) that if u have an abcessed tooth u can have the leech latch on to the swollen gum and it will suck infection out..
And we still use leaches. Some things just work. Protecting yourself takes many forms. Just because it’s an ancient method doesn’t make it any less effective.
There is actually nothing in the 2nd amendment of the constitution that says it’s for protecting your property or going hunting it’s specifically for a tyrannical government
Moore's response hinges on his false pretense that we hold the authors of the Constitution as infallible, and that the Amendments are "cast in stone." It's simply not the case. We don't worship the Constitution. The Constitution can be and has been modified. Those opposing gun rights just simply don't have the votes to do it.
Weak and off topic. Yes, humanity has evolved. But not past the point that sometimes governments become tyrannical. Would be nice but it's not the case. People will argue that taking away a bunch of guns, ammo and rights will save lives... It will. Some. It's up for debate on how many. There are just too many illegal and legal guns in America for the results to be evident without at least 20 years of a gun ban having to pass. The thing is. What happens when an emp is detonated and the country falls apart? Law abiding citizens with no guns become targets. What happens when the economy collapses and welfare, food stamps and other benefits stop? Law abiding citizens with no guns become targets. What happens when someone kicks down your door and takes aim at your family? Well, law abiding citizens with no guns get raped and killed while bubba with his Beretta in his nightstand defends what's his. Its a tough emotional argument. Ice t is 100 percent correct about the origins of the right to bare arms. And it's just as relevant today. Especially today. Look where the country is at
I do view the bill of rights as being chiseled in stone.............they are basic rights that can't be removed..............we have changed parts of the constitution but we have never removed an amendment from the bill of rights
@Joe Bosco I am not the punk a$$ afraid to get out of the house or be in the house without a gun. The sensible gun owners are all for gun control. It is the chicken s#!ts with a gun fetish that are the ones gun control will take their guns. That would be you.
Real American Warhero 1945 not defending gun control at all, but the fact is, after that happened, makers Of fertilizer were forced to change their formula. Just in case you ever try to bring that up in an argument.
TooJ Kool no they didn't. You have to get a background check for over 3000lbs. I've worked in the lawn and landscape biz and trust me you can still buy the same shit
Agreed. A man with an Assault rifle murdered 59 people using thousands of rounds of ammunition while a terrorist in Nice, France murdered 86 with a Truck. Where are the anti truck laws?
The second amendment doesn't give us the right to have firearms, it states that our natural right to do so won't be impeded by a government, by force. The section of having a well regulated Militia (National Guard and Police are the evolutions of this) is in addition to the right to have own weapons to defend yourself. And while yes, it does not state that the police are a part of the problem, but IF(not when, cause I don't think we live in a tyrannical state) the government becomes tyrannical the Police, being regulated by the government and not the people themselve would be an entity from which we would need to protect ourselves. And in regards to "he didn't cite evidence" to support his statement, he doesn't have too, I was the one asking for reasoning so I asked why you felt the way you did so I can evaluate a different opinion. The fact that we can talk as adults on the internet is leaps and bounds above what Congress seems to be capable of.
In the 4 years since President Jair Bolsinaro relaxed Brazil's gun laws, civilian gun ownership has increased six-fold while the homicide rate has fallen by 27%.
I come from a rural town in Washington state. As a kid, all through school, during the fall hunting seasons for deer and elk, there were always older kids that had rifles and shotguns on gun racks out in their trucks, right in the school parking lot. No one ever dreamed about bringing a gun into school and shooting everyone, that wasn't even joked about. There have always been guns and there always will be guns. Guns are not the problem. It's society that has changed. Take away guns and there will still be sick, twisted individuals bent on doing evil and killing innocent people. They could use a homemade bomb, steal a big truck to run people over, poison the food or water....any number of ways. The problem is not guns.....it's the darkness of evil in our midst, a very insidious, powerful force that has taken hold in the very fabric of our society and there is no way to legislate against it. This is all part of the end times as prophesied in the Bible and we are ever nearer to the final countdown. The Bible calls it, "the birth pains of the beginning of our demise."
Because Michael is a white boy who grew up in a working middle class suburb and doesn't know shit about minority oppression in the ghetto big city. He's not from any hood. He's never had to live in neighborhood of gang bangers in South Central. He hasn't had to grow up experiencing the clash with rouge predatory cops and the bangers the way rappers like ICE T and ICE Cube have. Also, people like Michael weren't in Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King Riots were the cops were NOWHERE to be found and the streets where absolute lawlessness. Citizens like the Koreans were all alone and had to defend themselves because they were specifically preyed upon by angry thugs. Thank god they actually had guns because after some fire fights, it kept the Thugs at bay and K-Town survivied compared to other communities. That was in 1992 and 1992 was a pretty modern time! So when Michael says we evolved? UGH! Wake the hell up, Michael! Yeah we evolved....Making better gun powder that is.
It’s not a constitutional divide the constitution says what it says and let it be till the end of time because the constitution was written to protect the citizens from the government and that’s the bottom line
DC v Hiller You have a right to own a firearm...But you DON'T have a right to own whatever firearm YOU want The state retains the authority to restrict access to (I believe the words are) "dangerous and unusual" weapons Mortars....fully automatic firearms....flamethrowers....40mm Bofors...nuclear devices That IS the constitution...as interpreted by the SCoUS So that is what you are sworn to defend That authority to say..."no AR's...without an enhanced permitting process" Which is NOT the same as "No AR's" It is actually the same process as You can own a Glock But you need a permit to conceal carry Yet....no one is blowing righteously indignant spittle and snot all over their keyboard over that "infringement" Kinda....inconsistent
@not likely if the founding fathers would have gone to war over a particular Supreme Court ruling, then that ruling is wrong and the justices failed to uphold the constitution. DC vs Heller is a prime example. The SCOTUS ruling went against the constitution
@@nicholasselke5214 And YOU know what the founding fathers would do.....because? These are the same people who refused their slaves the right to possess weapons
haaaaaaaaaaa if the country is so racist and unfair, why are people from all over the world running to come here. i think these socialist politicians need to move to china, russia or the middle east. it is funny, these countries would just execute these devils. because they dont want them either.
lol he has more to fear than any gun. Like Obesity and Cankles. He needs to check them Cankles at the door and cry on his way to the Doctor's Office. Then Mind his own business. My family and I do not have his and other wealthy people's luxury of gated and guarded communities with police officers fully funded. If I had to call for a break in I would have to wait for an hour or more. We have the right to defend our families and homes.
Matthew Kohen Well, think about it. He was responsible for the biggest media scandal in British history and rightly fired. Meanwhile, Larry King is retiring and CNN needs a replacement. Naturally, its a match made in heaven. CNN knew Piers was their guy, because, being a foreigner, he was somewhat unknown to Americans outside of his being a judge on AGT, and he was willing to lie on national TV to push an ideological agenda, as he did in the UK. No credible American media personality would take the gig. Then he invited a young Ben Shapiro on his show and it was all downhill from there. Ben called him out as a bully early, and his credibility was shot within the first 3 minutes. The show never recovered and he was sent packin'. Even the most elequent of speakers cannot tell a lie elequently. Eventually, everyone gets found out, but Ben will expose a fraud in less than 30 seconds.
Richard Guajardo how? If you are stupid enough to violate one constitutional right of the people how can we trust you to regulate all our constitutional rights?
Actually there is. Here is why. The divide comes from the why you have a right to bear arms. People forget that part, it was to maintain a militia. To be part of the collective defense against those that threaten the USA. If the Constitution said you have a right to bear arms shall not be abridged to defend yourself against the government that would be different. People cling to the 2nd Amendment while they ignore everything else in the Constitution. The reason why is they want to have the right to kill people and they will accept tragedies to protect that right.
Michael Moore implies that the constitution is no longer applicable to the evolved country. If that were the case, there is a process to amend the document but those opposed to the constitution don't go through the process. Perhaps they don't use the process because they know that the majority of people would not agree to the amendment. I believe the majority of the population appreciates the check on power that the second amendment affords the country, whether they realize it or not. The more extreme the grab for power becomes, the more apparent the need for the second amendment becomes and the harder those opposed to it will try to sell their opposition through fear and promises of security and peace.
THE PROBLEM IN CHICAGO, IS NOT BECAUSE OF GUNS. THE REASON IS THE WAR ON DRUGS; WHICH IS THE EPITOME OF THE PHRASE: "EPIC FAIL". YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF AND DISCOVER THE REAL TRUTH!
Kunal Sharma, ah...drug war and guns go hand and hand. Duh. The bad thing is only criminals have them. Citizens can't defend themselves or their families. That's the Real Truth!
Kunal Sharma that is the real problem. As law abiding citizens have been disarmed criminals are the ones most armed. I'm sorry but that's not a modern society, that's premodern society.
If Chicago is a country not a state and ban guns in that “country” without any other states people carrying any gun in that Territory. I can guaranty you less people die from the guns.
@@plasticweapon you’re right it’s not but it could become that way. Criminals don’t care about laws that’s why they’re criminals so gun laws don’t protect citizens they endanger them not just from criminals but from their own government. If the citizens have to disarm so should the government
The largest mass shooting in history happened in NORWAY with tough laws , New Zealand started with massive restrictions still has had mass shootings . A few years ago there were mor murders in London than in New York City (they used knives)
@@brewerdaniel Every American is born with these rights that are in our Constitution. Guns,Religion,and Patriotism. My family is a gun family. I am former military. In America we are a Christian Democratic Nation. Ive never been to Australia, but i have been to plenty other Countries. In America our liberal government is having a hissy fit over our President. So, they do everything that they can think of under the sun to mess with the President. If these people would help ( or maybe not be such whiny babies), maybe the people in this Country wouldnt look like a bunch of idiots. I think the 2 parties should come together and fix the problems we have here, but they wont. It reminds me of a little child throwing a fit because they didnt get some candy.
@@brewerdaniel no reason to cuss and stuff. Its kind of childish, isnt it ? Im not really all that obsessed with guns. Actually, i do not own a gun, and havent for the last 10 or so years. I hunt with a recurve bow, actually. I am still an out doorsman , though.
@bruce preston... Do you really think That Trump is fighting for you? Seriously. Do you think that Trump can relate to you? Hell naw. He looks at you like he looks at everyone else who doesn't have money. A nobody. If you have hundreds of millions, Trump can relate to you. If not, you're just a pawn like the rest of us. Keep the restless natives at each others throat. Politicians are like preachers in a church. Highly intelligent sophisticated con men. Find a fool, use that fool. The people in charge and in power are masters at deception. They've been deceiving the masses for hundreds of years. You have no clue who you're cheerleading for.
Weapons can be used both for committing atrocities and protecting one's self. It is inevitable. And removing them from their users? The ''bad guys'' will always have them. Always. They buy them easily, and cheap. Illegally.. But not we do not possess them, and we cannot defend our loved ones.
***** Now, let's not get overzealous about common phrases in the English language just because they disagree with your own beliefs. And as for "ice tea", he didn't say that, he said "Ice T", which is the name of a rapper.
Actually, I am too. It's just an expression. Ice T may not be a rocket scientist, but on this issue he is correct on the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. So God bless you, Ice T. And Iced tea, which is delicious.
Thanks Qalile. Remember peace is always the best option until the enemy poses a real and imminent threat. Jesus and I love you. Oh, don't believe everything on CNN. Trump can be a jerk....but he is the best thing for cleaning up the corrupt swamp in the USA. Stay safe brother !!!
yeah, well you guys have been having a civil war for about 40 years. Thats not exactly a normal example on the global level, some might say you guys are special, or special ed.
So heres a situation. Lets say 3 guys break into my home while im at work armed with a Hi Point 9MM per intruder. Your telling me my wife should have to attempt to protect herself and our unborn child armed with just a 9mm herself? Or does it make more sense that she should be armed with a SEMIAUTOMATIC AR15 with 30 shots to atleast try to even the playing feild? Well for my old lady she has FULL and easy access at any time to a red dead ready AR15 that she is proficient and comfortable with. And fuck anyone who doesn't agree with it. That aside the 2A was absolutely created for the people to have a way to keep tyrants in check. And it will continue that way unless alot of blood and gold is shed.
To be fair (and I’m a gun owner and pro 2a) - that never happens. Maybe 2-3 guys with semi auto pistols will invade your home, although even that is relatively rare. 5 invaders with fully auto weapons will not happen, unless you’re in like fucking Yemen or something. And even if it did your semi auto AR won’t do shit against a fully auto weapon, let alone 5 of them
Eric Locke the middle East and Africa is awash with guns and tyranny so im not sure that works. If the government unleashes the 1st infantry Division on your city I don't think your ar15 will stop them
But we are still here, even after the guns and small pox blankets and being on reservations to the biggest genocide on this earth!! We are still here!! UnConquerred
I used to work for a guy who hated guns and the 2nd Amendment. He said that The 2nd Amendment only applied to muzzle-loaded single-shot flintlock rifles and pistols, which were in common use at the time that The Constitution was written, and that if The Founding Fathers of this country could have foreseen AR-15s, semi-automatic pistols, and other firearms that are commonly available to the general public in this day and time, that they would have never written The 2nd Amendment. If that’s true, then the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" clauses of the 1st Amendment only apply to the spoken word of mouth, sign language, the handwritten word, and a printing press that turns out only one page at a time when the handle is pulled, because those were the methods of communication at the time The Constitution was written. If The Founding Fathers could have foreseen in their wildest dreams or hallucinations, the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, television, cellular telephones, computers, and the Internet, they would have never written the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" clauses in The 1st Amendment either. Our rights supersede any available and/or advancing technology.
There is 30 seconds more to what he said right before that. He said it's our last line of defense against tyranny. He also said I'll give up mine when everyone else does. And said for instance if everyone here had a gun would you wanna be the only one without one.
Vehicle control is next. Don't kid yourselves people. Then internet control, then health control, food control, education control, total control. I think there's a word for that.
It's hard to believe but Chicago's murder rate isn't even the worst. Washington D.C. and Baltimore are even worse and along with Chicago have some of the strictest gun control in the country as well as the lowest rates of legal gun ownership as you'll find with any high crime area. I did a very in-depth report on this a couple years ago using fbi stats. The states and cities with the most gun control and lowest legal gun ownership rates was one of the best predictors of high murder rates and crime rates period.
Way back at ICE-T’s debut album he produced a track you should hear it’s named: “SHUT UP, BE HAPPY” it was regarding martial law in the 🇺🇸 USA. A track that’s very relevant for our current climate, he was giving warning to people... The only way out of this mess is to root out corrupt people & corruption at large!
Lol, gotta love the horrible logic that assumes people are treating the constitution as a divine document... Fact of the matter is, there is a process to AMEND the constitution. If you want it changed, you have to amend it. That process exists BECAUSE it was never a finished document. Now... here's the rub. Someone who thinks the constitution is wrong, yet is not willing to follow the correct process to change it... what is that person if not a tyrant?
I'm a liberal, Democrat, atheist, combat veteran, and a gun owner. Don't let these fools like Michael Moore lead you to believe that the gun control issue is about religion or politics. It's not. People have a natural right to defend themselves, their loved ones, their neighbors, and their community. Not only do we have a right to do so, but we have a duty.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm a combat veteran as well. I'm also atheist, Libertarian, and a gun owner. It is my own duty to protect what I hold dear. Regardless of what ever it is. I think Ice-T's comments were spot on as well. Also, from one vet to another, thank you for your service and sacrifice.
So, out of all of the people who call themselves "liberal" you really ARE. To an honest liberal, gun control would be an anathema. People who call themselves "liberal" usually aren't -- they typically are leftist totalitarians.
Does the constitution force you to use leaches? Neither does it force you to have guns? But you can use leaches and have guns if you find them necessary.
They do still use leeches for some medical treatments, maggots too. If the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to all the new types of guns, then the 1st for freedom of speech should only apply to the old style of hand printed books/newspapers/etc and not the Tv/radio/internet or other forms of communication that didn't exist when the Constitutions was written.
Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Moore have armed guards to protect them. Why should we be allowed less than either of them just because they are rich? My family is just as important to me as theirs are to them. I cannot protect my family against a man with a gun unless I have a gun too.
So fight fire with fire ? You really think that is the answer to the growing amount of school massacres ? You think that if guns where stricktly for use in hunting or regulated alot more than now there would be no change in crime or murder statistics ? Please enlighten me.
pr0tese You either ignore FBI facts or live under a rock. Which is it? Facts are stubborn things for you liberal minded liars. FACT: More guns=less crime. According to FBI and Mr. Lott's studies armed citizens are not victims of crime as often as unarmed citizens. You nut brains overlook the fact that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I hope somebody with a gun comes to your house and enlightens you. I bet if they do, you will be a changed person who will go get a gun.
Ken E. If he survives. I always tell people I carry a pistol not because I think I'll need it... but because if I do need it, and don't have it, it could be the last mistake I make.
In 1791 when the 2A was written the only entity in memory with a "National Guard" were the Pro-British Torry's. A Militia was US citizens with their firearms, which were and have always been better than what the military had until 1934. 2A is about tyranny not hunting.
+Beau Remington You don't seem to get it. Gun ownership will never be allowed over here as at its core the vast majority of people disagree with it and realise it will lead to many more deaths over basically nothing, the figures from your own country prove it beyond doubt. The reason those terrorist fucks drove vans was because they couldn't get illegal arms. If they had I`ve no doubt the death toll would have been far higher. Or are you seriously telling me a few individuals willing to give their lives and armed with automatic weapons wont kill an awful lot of people? As regards Ice t`s comments. He`s right about the purpose of the second amendment being to protect against tyranny, at the time it was written it was perceived English tyranny. But to say that having a gun doesnt make it easier to kill someone is just plain wrong as well as simplistic.
MrRainjunky, "the reason those terrorist fucks drove vans was because they couldn't get illegal arms". So what you're saying is terrorists still killed people without access to firearms. The one factor in your scenario you're not acknowledging is if there were armed civilians, they could have fought back. But no. They were lambs at a slaughter. People like to think its some sort of vigilantism fetish, when in reality, people just dont want their right to be responsible for their owns lives to be stripped. At the mercy of criminals and response times of police. Civilization has us so far removed from the realities of nature. Guns are not the problem. Bad people are the problem. Removing peoples ability to take care of themselves is not going to make bad guys stop doing bad shit. Remove one option, they'll find another. Even if they have to make it, which prison shanks prove. Its easy to safely sit in your moral arm chair and deny that right to other people, but look in the eyes of a person whos life is in danger and tell them "no, you cant have a gun".
imdartson thank you for proving my arguement. during 2005-2015 71 people in your country were killed by terrorist activity. yet in that same period over 300,000 died due to gun deaths. You say if there were armed civilians they would have fought back. Well some people did fight back and as they were faced by enemies without assault weapons had a chance. Now tell me this. You seriously telling me if those fucks had guns and automatic weapons the death toll wouldn't have been higher? Ever heard of paris? As regards armed civilians firing at the "bad guys" that's just laughable. over there you have many shootings, and they are not stopped by "good guys" pulling guns on the street but by swat teams. if that's not true explain to me how nearly a third of a million of your citizens lost their lives to gun violence during 2005-2015. Where were the armed "good guys" then? And as for sitting in my moral arm chair when did I say Americans should not be allowed to bear arms? I think its ingrained in your culture and will never be removed. But I (and 99%) of british citizens do NOT want the ability to bear arms. quite simply it will never happen over here (thank god). Many years ago I was in new York and got lost. I stopped and went to knock on a door to ask the way. I had a gun shoved in my face and was nearly shot by a "good guy" for asking the fucking way! Guns make killing easy, its that simple. You don't need a gun to defend yourself over here. we don't shoot and ask questions later. Guns make that easy to do. Ive no doubt that in some rare circumstance its conceivable that being armed MIGHT give you a chance in a terror attack. But the price for that (by your own countries statistics) is another 4,000 or so civilians dying by gun violence for every terrorist felled. Is that truelly a price you are willing to pay? I`m not. a society that lives under the shadow of the gun is already lost.
Your figures sound way off. Are you including suicides and accidents in with your gun deaths or something? That would make more since because around 2/3rds of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. Although pointing out that when 2 out of 3 Americans decide to shoot someone, the person they are aiming at, is themselves, probably wouldn't go well with the theme of your arguement, and saying 10th of a million probably doesn't sound as cool as 3rd of a million, so I guess I can see why it might sound better to leave that stuff out. However, if could lead to pointing out some other interesting things, like how the Population of the US increased during the last 10 years by about 9 million people, that the population of New York city is also around 9 million, and that the population of Whales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland combined, is just a bit more, around 10 million. England's pop is around 55 mill, and the US is somewhere around 320 mill. That is just to give a bit of prespective on scale for reference, because that isn't always obvious when trying to directly compare numbers of things in various locations. Like, hearing that 600,000 people were killed in *one year* by heart disease in the US, compared to only 120,000 in the UK might make it *sound* like our heart problems are comparitively out of hand over here, until you factor in the population difference of 320mill vs 65mill. But back to suicides and interesting statistics. In the US, guns are the top method in the US, and the favored choice by men, but the second highest choice for suicide is hanging/suffocation. Which means that, other than his gun, the two most dangerous things he could have brought to the door to threaten you with, would probably have been a pillow, or a rope. Don't laugh now, if you are lost in a bad part of town and knock on somebodies house, and the guy answers the door holding a noose, that's some hard ass shit right there. lol :D Of course, I *am* sorry you had a bad experience in this country. But I hope that you can understand that not everywhere is like that. For example, I moved to a new place last year, but in my previous home, I didn't lock the front door for 17 years, other than a few times when I was going to be out of town for a couple of days. Violent crime simply is not distributed consistantly and evenly in either one of our countries. Probably because the criminals aren't. So one part of town may be a garden spot, and another part (especially in such a densely populated and vast "city" like New York) might be more like a war zone. So rules and activities, *for survival* will differ greatly. Heck, I live a couple of miles from a forest, which isn't really huge, but it's big enough a person could *literally* get lost in there and die of exposure. My point being, even that close to civilization, even without preditors, if a person doesn't know what to do or how to act in thier surroundings, and/or isn't prepared for the environment, the environment can potentially kill them. Anyway, back to suicides, poison was the number 3 method of choice in the US, as was the primary choice for women. Now, you may have already guessed that in the UK, the leading suicide method wasn't a gun. It was suicide/suffication, followed by poison, same as the US methods, just without the gun category. However... Although it might seem like, well, if they didn't have that gun, they wouldn't kill themselves, it just doesn't really work like that. The percentages just moved up to balance out about the same. For example, the US would tend to have about 50% gun suicides, then halfish (around 20%) would be hanging/suffocation, then cut it down again, around 7% poisoning. Without the gun category, the other's just moved up in the UK, and it ends up with around 50% hanging/suffocation suicides, then take it down by about half, into the 20% area for poisoning, and something else ends up in the 7% ish range. It's really weird actually that these *ratios* actually end up remaing about the same. And, unfortunately, not having the guns, doesn't really make the deaths from that category go away completely, because the numbers per 100,000 people, just end up increasing in the other categories. Of course, there *are* less suicides in the UK, but again, there's almost 5 times the amount of people in the US, so the numbers can't be correctly compared straight across. It's a bit better going by numbers of things *per 100,000 people*. And when you do that, it ends up being that the number of suicides isn't really all that much different between the countries. It tends to follow a weird sort of ratio that, to me, points out that a fair amount of people in *both* our societies, are falling through the cracks, and simply self destructing. The mere fact that more people are killing themselves with guns in our country, than other people, should point out that our biggest problem here, isn't the guns. Ironically, when you hear arguments about why people would even need a gun anymore, and answers are things like, for home defense, or for sport/fun/target-shooting, or hunting, and people argue either for or against those things... Nobody ever seems to say they want to keep a gun around in case they want/need to commit suicide. But considering that's the leading method of choice here, it should probably be mentioned. At which point, well, I guess people would argue against that being a viable reason to have a gun as well, but statistics *will* show that it is very effective for that use.
Look at what happened in Australia. I remember during the debates HRC said that she preferred to do a gun "Buy Back" program like they did in Australia.....which wasn't a "Buy Back" program it was flat out CONFISCATION. ALL kings of violent crime skyrocketed....robbery, rape, murders, you name it. Even here in this country, all of the mass shootings have happened in gun-free zones.... a nightclub, schools, army base (where there were not guns at the site). When that guy gunned down those Congressmen on the baseball field, had one of the Senators there not had a Capitol Police officer security detail there, it would have been a massacre. The areas where more citizens have guns, the less violent crime occurs. Areas with strict gun control laws, the more violent crime. It's NOT rocket surgery to figure this out.
ImpalaMama yes exactly. The problem is people believe all this fake news and "terrorism" and it's all to instill fear into people and get them thinking guns are bad. Do they take vehicles away? How many accidents a year do people die by vehicle or cigarettes and alcohol or drugs that our government supports and brings into this country? They don't care because you can't fight back with all that, but guns you can. That shows they have a different agenda. They claim murder rates and all go down because of gun control. Bullshit. Notice how it went "down" but didn't seize. That's because THE SAME PEOPLE KILLING BEFORE GUN CONTROL ARE THE SAME AFTER! How are we to defend ourselves?? Our police and government turn their guns in then I'll think about it. Until then.... COME GET ME!
Yes it is a race issue. Every race is involved. It effects us all. We're all the same and its much bigger than race. People need to stopping dividing themselves racially and start separating from the people that are above us getting away with much more severe crimes than mostly all of us and we're being incarcerated for the smallest Petty shit.
"That's been proven. If you reduce the guns and the ammo, you'll reduce the murders." Name one source please, I'd love to hear it. The only time that has worked was when there has simultaneously been an increase in police presence along with DAs that look the other way at unconstitutional policing. Looking at you, Giuliani
