Biden stimulus checks spark historic surge in gun sales, especially AR-15s

[Willie Orwontee]

Because the goal of a gun free society is completely separate from any constitutional goal

At least you admit you do not consider the Constitution to be any sort of impediment to your goals.

Technically yes, where an amendment is inconsistent with another part of the Constitution
But in practice no, I don't think Congress would pass an amendment (for the states to ratify) if it contradicted other parts of the Constitution

I guess we will just need to pass it to see what's in it, right?

Yes it would be Constitutional

Never read Marbury v Madison huh? It's fine if you want to walk around in a fog of your leftist delusions but you should at least inform yourself to the philosophical and legal realities that crush your fantasies.

Really, what other country grants it's people a right to own guns ?

There have been nearly a dozen, now there are three (excusing for a moment your sloppy "granted" language in the case of the USA).

Red herring, meaning you can't answer it ?

It's a red herring because it is a diversion that is 99% subjective discussing things that have no real impact to the legal realities of US gun policy. It is a useless red herring because there is so much to debate focused on just the issues right in front of us.

Can you give an example of "scrubbing from the consciousness of the people, the most fundamental, foundational principle of the Constitution" ?

Well, what do you consider the most fundamental principle of the Constitution to be, and where did you learn that?

Would the "Patriot Act" qualify as an example ?

Yes, demonstrative that people are not interested in what government does and have abdicated their duty to hold their legislators to their oaths of office.

So banning guns might be a solution ?

I support banning the acquisition, possession and use of guns by those who have demonstrated they have no regard for the rules of society, after due process (if they are ever allowed to return to society).

And he didn't leave, without putting up the most petulant, pathetic and frankly a national embarrassment of a fight containing about 60 lawsuits alleging non existent "voter fraud"....pressuring his own VP to illegally reject the election results and floating the idea of suspending the election entirely (until he deemed it was safe to hold it)
Plus his incitement of an insurrectionist riot on Jan 6th

And if his antics were successful would you be happy just waving dildos and bongs in very emphatic disagreement, as you sip a latte, watching as he made the nation's capitol into a fenced-in, barbed-wire surrounded military encampment to defend his retention of power?

Which one of Newton's laws "explains" gravity ?

Newton's law of universal gravitation . . .

All objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction and that force is universal.

The force that caused the apple's acceleration (gravity) must be dependent upon the mass of the apple. And since the force acting to cause the apple's downward acceleration also causes the earth's upward acceleration (Newton's third law), that force must also depend upon the mass of the earth. So for Newton, the force of gravity acting between the earth and any other object is directly proportional to the mass of the earth, directly proportional to the mass of the object, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates the centers of the earth and the object.

And again, whether the apple falls towards Earth is not dependent on the words explaining the physics.

Scientific laws/theory set out to explain natural phenomena, not create them

Exactly like declarations recognizing the existence of our original, fundamental, retained rights such as we see the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, AKA the "Bill of Rights".

 

[Willie Orwontee]

If the 2nd Amendment didn't exist, a person walking down the street with a gun, would find the law enforcement dealt with him somewhat differently that they do today

You must be talking about state laws since there were no federal laws on firearms until 1934 and since then, the only prohibitions on the carriage of guns is on federal property. In theory and practice the 2nd Amendment didn't exist to impact state laws until 2010 when the 2ndA was incorporated under the 14thA by SCOTUS, see McDonald v Chicago . . . Since then the 2ndA's enforcement has been in virtual suspended animation, chances are good that will change soon.

Yes it is, absolutely, 100% it is

As I said, the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for nearly a century and a half that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not granted by the Constitution thus the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by former slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . .”​

No

Though seemingly your interest in what other nations do is inconsistent to say the least:

My interest is limited to having you admit a universal "natural" right of self defense exists, that the right is so fundamental it can not be legitimately restrained even by the most totalitarian governments. In the USA, we just recognize that the right to self defense includes the right to use certain weapons and the right to own and use weapons (arms) shall not be infringed.

You only have the rights that your government allows

That might be true for a myriad of other nations but for the USA the doctrine is:

Government only has the powers "We the People" granted to it.

To get to the nitty-gritty, "We the People" don't posses the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there or what it says; "We the People" possess the right to arms because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

No express power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen and that silence is the right to arms.

Now, where in all your ramble do you explain why a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and the banning of guns, would be "statist" ?

SMH . . . One of the reasons why the right to arms was secured from government interference is to ensure government is the servant, not the master of the people -- to keep in awe those in power. Your idea, to extinguish the people's power of force by removing arms from the people, is in theory, irredeemably statist and would be in practice, authoritarian and tyrannical (by the founders / framers standards).

 

[Rich2018]

At least you admit you do not consider the Constitution to be any sort of impediment to your goals.

Why would it be an impediment
And you do realize the the Constitution is an 18th century document and it's now the 21st century ?

I guess we will just need to pass it to see what's in it, right?

Or read it first, maybe even enlist a lawyer or two ?

Never read Marbury v Madison huh?

"Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review in the United States, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws, statutes, and some government actions that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States."

You asked:

Would an amendment, as long as it followed the Article V process, be automatically legitimate...

Amendment yes it's constitutional, whereas a law/statute can be struck down

There have been nearly a dozen, now there are three...

Aside from the USA, what would they be ?

It's a red herring because it is a diversion that is 99% subjective discussing things that have no real impact to the legal realities of US gun policy...

But you claimed gun control/bans were "statist" - that is what you can answer

Well, what do you consider the most fundamental principle of the Constitution to be, and where did you learn that?

The rule of law

Yes, demonstrative that people are not interested in what government does...

Nor Congress either it seems
And which party was responsible for the Patriot Act ?

I support banning the acquisition, possession and use of guns by those who have demonstrated they have no regard for the rules of society...

That's called locking the stable door after the horse has bolted

And if his antics were successful would you be happy just waving dildos and bongs in very emphatic disagreemen...

I would have supported the kind of non-violent demonstrations exemplified by the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's

All objects attract each other with a force of gravitational attraction and that force is universal.

Newton's Laws of Motion Tutorial

Newton's Laws of motion describe the connection between the forces that act upon an object and the manner in which the object moves. An understanding of forces and their tendency to balance or not balance each other is crucial to understanding how the object will change or not change its state...

www.physicsclassroom.com

Gravity is not a law, it is a theory - and Newton actually developed equations for it
Much the same as Einstein didn't develop a law on General Relativity, he developed a theory and equations

Exactly like declarations recognizing the existence of our original, fundamental, retained rights such as we see the first ten amendments to the US Constitution, AKA the "Bill of Rights".

Which weren't part of the Constitution as originally ratified.

 

[DebateChallenge]

Really, so an airline will let you fly an on aircraft, bound for a country that you do not have permission to enter ?

No, where did you come up with that idea?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Because they have preached against welfare forever and ever and now they find themselves needing and taking welfare.

They have no integrity.





And once this is all over they'll start preaching against welfare and welfare queens yet again. Just watch.

People who accept welfare have no integrity? Really!? You believe that crap?

You are so far off base here. People who get welfare need that help, no one wants to be on welfare, but taking it is not shameful or showing a lack of integrity. There are no welfare queens driving cadillacs to pick up their welfare checks; that is a myth people like you perpetuate. There is no need to attack people who accept welfare; no doubt most would wish they didn't have to.

 

[DebateChallenge]

I'm looking into Japan as a residence right now actually. It's nice to have options around the world that are a lot safer than America, where you can find a good quality of life. I agree, more people should move out of here to find some peace.

Japan actually is in need of people right now. So, some programs have opened up to allow you to relocate there easily. Plus, you can stay half the year without doing anything.

Japan isn't necessarily safe, they do have lots of violent crime there, including gun crime, even though they've got among the strictest gun control in the world. Its much more violent than what you might think.

I agree, America loves it's gun rights and are totally willing to take the massive casualties every year to have them. Sadly, a lot of people don't feel safe here, so they feel they need a gun for personal protection, I get it.

Guns are also used for hunting and for target shooting, but yes personal protection is a big reason many people get guns. Its just like insurance, you hope to never have to use it and you might never have to use it, but if you're in the situation where you need it you're sure glad you've got it. Having a gun for personal protection is just like having health insurance or fire insurance.

We also have a high rate of suicide, which is understandable in our social climate, and we have little mental healthcare that people can afford. Makes sense. Easy to get a gun, depressed, boom.

Yet Japan has a higher suicide rate than the USA, so there you have it.

As a foreigner in Japan, the living is easier, because you really aren't held to the social standard that Japanese are. Plus, they are actually trying to improve their harsh work environment but to Americans, who are actually the only country that works more hours, and harder, than the Japanese, it should be an easy transition. Especially since we don't make enough to keep up with inflation here.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, the Japanese are among the hardest working people in the world.

I think people should really start thinking more globally, as America starts to deteriorate. There are a ton of options. No need to stay in a country you feel you fit in anymore.

If by globally you're talking about a global world order, that Im absolutely against.

 

[iguanaman]

that's because the media is full of screams to ban them. EVEN if the mass shooting did not involve AR 15s.

The AR sales shoot up because people are buying the 3rd or 4th one of them in the hopes that their values will shoot up if they are banned. It is insane how many guns people are amassing..


For years, Rich, a refinery operator from Wilmington, Delaware, was a typical American gun owner. He had only one or two guns, including a handgun he stashed in a bottom drawer in his bedroom. He never took it out and never fired it.
Then, in December 2012, 20 first-graders were murdered in a school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, sparking renewed calls for a ban on the AR-15 military-style rifle the shooter had used.
Worried that a ban was coming, Rich joined the crowd of people at a local gun store and paid roughly $2,000 in cash for an AR-15 – about twice what the gun is worth today.
“I never really wanted one before,” he said, “but at that time there was the fear that if you don’t buy it now, you may never, ever get one.”
One purchase followed another. Three months after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, Rich owned 10 guns. Today, he says, it’s at least 43, and he asked that his last name not be published, for fear that publicizing too many details might attract thieves.

The 39-year-old is now one of America’s firearms super-owners – part of the 3% of American adults who collectively own 130m firearms, half of the nation’s total stock of civilian guns.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/20/gun-ownership-america-firearms-super-owners

He's right about attracting thieves too. Don't they realize that the more guns they have the more of a target they become?

 

[Rich2018]

You must be talking about state laws...

I specifically mentioned "today"

As I said, the Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for nearly a century and a half that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a pre-existing right, not granted by the Constitution thus the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence....

I would dispute those rulings - I know you've said you have no interest in other countries, but take a walk down a main street in almost any of them, bearing a gun, and you'll be arrested
Try using a "natural rights" defense - you'll be going to jail

So if an amendment was passed declaring that people have no right to a gun, what then ?

My interest is limited to having you admit a universal "natural" right of self defense exists...

It does not, not in all cases
IMO, you do not have a right to use lethal force if the (reasonable) option to retire is open to you

That might be true for a myriad of other nations but for the USA the doctrine is:

Government only has the powers "We the People" granted to it.

That's a flaw in the US system of government. Government exists to govern
But it's a moot point as we are talking about whether a constitutional amendment can be passed to ban guns

You still haven't explained why such a ban who be "statist" Btw

To get to the nitty-gritty, "We the People" don't posses the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there or what it says; "We the People" possess the right to arms because of what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.

Nope, you posses the right to bear arms because of the 2nd Amendment. If it were repealed, you would lose that right.

No express power was ever granted to government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen and that silence is the right to arms.

It's my understanding that the federal government has passed gun controls in the past due to a liberal interpretation of the regulation of commerce

...one of the reasons why the right to arms was secured from government interference is to ensure government is the servant, not the master of the people -- to keep in awe those in power. Your idea, to extinguish the people's power of force by removing arms from the people, is in theory, irredeemably statist and would be in practice, authoritarian and tyrannical (by the founders / framers standards).

Why would liberty and democracy be so fragile in the USA compared to other countries ?

You and your Colt .45 would be of no use should the US government turn tyrannical.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

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

How about that?
If the right already existed, then the 2nd Amendment was superfluous wasn't it ?

Yes, absolutely it was superfluous, which is why the Federalists argued so vehemently against adding a bill of rights to our Constitution. They argued tacking on a bill of rights onto an express, limited bill of powers was dangerous and absurd . . . Hamilton asked, why declare that things shall not be done when no power was granted to government to act against those interests?

Again, yes, the 2nd Amendment was and is superfluous and all it "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

Federalist 84:

• I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

How does it feel fulfilling the fears of Hamilton and Madison, being who they warned us about, misconstructing the Bill of Rights into a plausible pretext to claim powers not granted, to usurp powers and rights from the people?

.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, absolutely it was superfluous, which is why the Federalists argued so vehemently against adding a bill of rights to our Constitution. They argued tacking on a bill of rights onto an express, limited bill of powers was dangerous and absurd . . . Hamilton asked, why declare that things shall not be done when no power was granted to government to act against those interests?

Again, yes, the 2nd Amendment was and is superfluous and all it "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

Federalist 84:

• I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

How does it feel fulfilling the fears of Hamilton and Madison, being who they warned us about, misconstructing the Bill of Rights into a plausible pretext to claim powers not granted, to usurp powers and rights from the people?

Well the Constitution is a restriction on states as well as the federal government.

I reiterate, if it wasn't for the 2nd Amendment, guns could be banned in the USA.

 

[BitterPill]

For the second time in three months, the FBI broke its record for gun sales, concealed carry and other firearms background checks in March.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System conducted 4,691,738 checks, an all time high. It broke the record set in January of 4,317,804.
Biden stimulus checks spark historic surge in gun sales, especially AR-15s (msn.com)

So...it wasn't just me.

It's well known that Trump's stimulus checks were used exclusively for paying rent, buying foodstuffs or buying a Lamborghini.

 

[iguanaman]

[QUOTE="Willie Orwontee, post: 1073770772, member: 4667"

And if his antics were successful would you be happy just waving dildos and bongs in very emphatic disagreement, as you sip a latte, watching as he made the nation's capitol into a fenced-in, barbed-wire surrounded military encampment to defend his retention of power

[/QUOTE]

LOL You think your puny weapons would make a difference in a military coup? That is hilarious. It you truly feared a tyrannical Govt. you would be calling for the disbandment of our military not buying more AR's. We owe our freedom today to our patriotic military who refused to follow orders from a would be dictator.

 

[Rich2018]

It's well known that Trump's stimulus checks were used exclusively for paying rent, buying foodstuffs or buying a Lamborghini.

So basically wasted on Italian built junk ?

 

[BitterPill]

So basically wasted on Italian built junk ?

We can't be using a check emblazoned with Trump's signature to buy a Tesla, can we.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I'm sure there are job opportunities for NASA engineers to work for the Chinese government...

I'm not sure. I've only been looking into Japan and I'm not a NASA engineer.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

most are, foreign makers like FN and SIG have domestic factories making these things. My SIG MCX is made in Exeter NH, and the Fns I have handled were made in South Carolina.

Beretta too...

 

[CaughtInThe]

People who accept welfare have no integrity? Really!? You believe that crap?

you literally didn't read my post.

it's the assholes that have preached against welfare forever, screamed about welfare queens and lazy slackers that find themselves NEEDING welfare now.

they have no integrity for preaching one thing and doing the tidal wave sized flip flop when THEY need the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

 

[SMTA]

So the NRA must secretly be brainwashing alienated individuals to go on a shooting spree ?

Not every gun owner supports those thieving morons in the NRA.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Japan isn't necessarily safe, they do have lots of violent crime there, including gun crime, even though they've got among the strictest gun control in the world. Its much more violent than what you might think.


Guns are also used for hunting and for target shooting, but yes personal protection is a big reason many people get guns. Its just like insurance, you hope to never have to use it and you might never have to use it, but if you're in the situation where you need it you're sure glad you've got it. Having a gun for personal protection is just like having health insurance or fire insurance.


Yet Japan has a higher suicide rate than the USA, so there you have it.


I wouldn't necessarily say that, the Japanese are among the hardest working people in the world.


If by globally you're talking about a global world order, that Im absolutely against.

No, Japan is a lot safer than America, especially when it comes to gun crime. It's in the top ten safest countries in the world. But, every country has crime, I'm not disputing that. I know a few Americans that live there, female, and know a lot about how they feel and the differences between the two countries. They feel safe walking around in the middle of the night, which is hard for me to imagine. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/safest-countries-in-the-world

I wouldn't own a gun for insurance, it's really something I wouldn't feel comfortable doing. I would have a hard time harming someone else. America is a great place to some people, but for some it's not that great. It depends on the person. We are free to explore options. It also depends on where you live in America. We are really like separate countries, not states, and different laws depend on which state you live in. We have some horrible stats on infant mortality, poverty and crime in the world depending on where you live. I don't see us looking to improve.

Like I said, America won the award for the most overworked population on in the world. We are above Japan, but not by much I agree. The only difference is Japan is now working to correct that due to a high suicide rate related to overwork. America doesn't seem to even know we are over worked, and if you talk about it you're weak, whiny, and want too much from life. Therefore, I don't see it changing for the better anytime soon. https://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/

I'm not talking about anything other than looking at the world, instead of just your country, to find a place you feel will bring you a good quality of life, depending on what you see as a good quality of life. For me, America has slowly become a place I no longer see eye to eye with. I don't see it improving, nor do I see many people who want improvement on the things I view as important. I have friends who have left and find it much better, so, why not?

It's worth a try to find a place you feel you fit in better. Rant over. Anyway, back to the gun thread. lol

 

[DebateChallenge]

No, Japan is a lot safer than America, especially when it comes to gun crime. It's in the top ten safest countries in the world.

No that's what you might think but in reality Japan is much more dangerous than what you might think. Japan under reports on their crime so how Japan actually is is different than what you might hear from the media or see on the internet. People buy guns in Japan illegally and use them in crime.

I wouldn't own a gun for insurance, it's really something I wouldn't feel comfortable doing.

Well you don't have to. When you have a right, such as the right to keep and bear arms, you have the option of exercising it or not exercising it.

I would have a hard time harming someone else.

So would I, or at least I would never want to harm an innocent person. A perpetrator on the other hand I don't see as an innocent person or even as a person, period.

America is a great place to some people, but for some it's not that great. It depends on the person. We are free to explore options.

True, the USA isn't for everybody. But one of the beauties of a free country such as the USA is that you're free to leave if you want to, in not all countries do you have that option.

It also depends on where you live in America. We are really like separate countries, not states, and different laws depend on which state you live in. We have some horrible stats on infant mortality, poverty and crime in the world depending on where you live. I don't see us looking to improve.

Yes much of it depends where you are in the USA. Interestingly enough, some of the most violent, crime ridden places in the USA also have the strictest gun control.

Like I said, America won the award for the most overworked population on in the world. We are above Japan, but not by much I agree.The only difference is Japan is now working to correct that due to a high suicide rate related to overwork. America doesn't seem to even know we are over worked, and if you talk about it you're weak, whiny, and want too much from life. Therefore, I don't see it changing for the better anytime soon. https://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/

And yet Japan still has a higher suicide rate than the USA despite having much stricter gun control and despite working to correct it.

I'm not talking about anything other than looking at the world, instead of just your country, to find a place you feel will bring you a good quality of life, depending on what you see as a good quality of life. For me, America has slowly become a place I no longer see eye to eye with. I don't see it improving, nor do I see many people who want improvement on the things I view as important. I have friends who have left and find it much better, so, why not?

It's worth a try to find a place you feel you fit in better. Rant over. Anyway, back to the gun thread. lol

As I said, in the USA you're free to leave and move to another country.

 

[Metric Mouse]

you literally didn't read my post.

it's the assholes that have preached against welfare forever, screamed about welfare queens and lazy slackers that find themselves NEEDING welfare now.

they have no integrity for preaching one thing and doing the tidal wave sized flip flop when THEY need the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Leave welfare recipients alone. You called them welfare queens, and keep attacking them. No need; they're just people who need a little help. It's awesome that they are getting the assistance that they need.

 

[Rich2018]

We can't be using a check emblazoned with Trump's signature to buy a Tesla, can we.

The new checks will have Uncle Joe's signature surely ?

 

[Rich2018]

Not every gun owner supports those thieving morons in the NRA.

If only more gun owners thought like you.

 

[BitterPill]

The new checks will have Uncle Joe's signature surely ?

I think Trump (billion-year-old intergalactic being made of pure starlight) told Joe (i.e. JFK Jr.) not to sign the checks. That's the only way this makes sense:

Joe Biden is really John F. Kennedy Jnr in a CGI mask and Donald Trump is a billion-year-old intergalactic being made of pure starlight who plans to introduce a cure for all disease in his second term.​

​

And on January 20, Trump will magically appear on TV screens around the world via “particle beam” to take over and announce a new world order.​

You've been warned. The New World Order is a-coming, so you'll want to be on the billion-year-old intergalactic alien and JKF Jr's side.

MAGA a thousand times!

Joe Biden is JFK Jr: wild Q conspiracies

Joe Biden is really John F. Kennedy Jnr in a CGI mask and Donald Trump is a billion-year-old intergalactic being made of pure starlight who plans to introduce a cure for all disease in his second term.

www.news.com.au

 

[Ginger Ale]

No that's what you might think but in reality Japan is much more dangerous than what you might think. Japan under reports on their crime so how Japan actually is is different than what you might hear from the media or see on the internet. People buy guns in Japan illegally and use them in crime.


Well you don't have to. When you have a right, such as the right to keep and bear arms, you have the option of exercising it or not exercising it.


So would I, or at least I would never want to harm an innocent person. A perpetrator on the other hand I don't see as an innocent person or even as a person, period.


True, the USA isn't for everybody. But one of the beauties of a free country such as the USA is that you're free to leave if you want to, in not all countries do you have that option.


Yes much of it depends where you are in the USA. Interestingly enough, some of the most violent, crime ridden places in the USA also have the strictest gun control.


And yet Japan still has a higher suicide rate than the USA despite having much stricter gun control and despite working to correct it.


As I said, in the USA you're free to leave and move to another country.

Yeah, I try to stay away from conspiracy theories. I go with regular stats, and like I said, I have a few friends living there.
Japan doesn't have a higher suicide rate than us, we're about equal with the U.S. higher sometimes, and Japan higher sometimes. Like I said, they're at least addressing it.

As far a gun laws and crime goes, I've read the opposite.

Right-to-carry handgun laws trigger a 13% to 15% increase in violent crime a decade after the typical state adopts them, suggests a new statistical analysis of 33 US states.

I can see where you heard that info tho.

This long-running and contentious statistical debate began with the 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott Jr. of the Crime Prevention Research Center. Since its publication, 11 states have loosened right-to-carry laws, and more than 30 states now allow the open carrying of a gun without a permit.

A lot more places allow their citizens freedom than do not. Tons. We aren't the only "free" country out there. I mean, yes, NK, and Cuba are not free but most others are just as free as you and me in America, and can leave if they desire and can afford it. Or, just find another way to leave. (there are some that love it here, and I will easily be replaced)
There are a lot of Americans who'd like to leave but are so poor it's out of the question. We don't pay a living wage, so......I'll save that for a different thread.

But yeah, if I don't like it I can just go right? That's what I hear, and it's a pretty good idea.