Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

[danielpalos]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

why not have anyone who wants a "scary looking rifle", simply be required to muster and present Arms?

they should know their local chain of command.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Correct I keep fixating on the Constitution which I and many believe is part of the problem in the United States, particularly with firearms. In reference to my 'idiotic claim' it is sufficient and evidential claim I make, additionally how is simply stating facts such as the Constitution is 225 years old and the interpretations are inconsistent. Its is not hatred, it is that I disagree that all rights are timeless, don't attempt to portray me as against all rights within the Constitution. What gets old is the inability for the US to address gun crime.

bottom line-I am not giving up my rights because you don't like them. we refuse to address gun crime because it mainly impacts blacks. Liberals pretend harassing honest gun owners addresses gun crime

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Yeup that would be the best way to put your reply.

I was unable to substantiate the subject matter or context of your last sentence. Hence it was misconstrued in meaning and context, thus I alerted you to this. Then you reply with a snaring remark, that is quite clearly attempting to demonise my opinion.

What would you like me to explain, regarding my previous post??

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

bottom line-I am not giving up my rights because you don't like them. we refuse to address gun crime because it mainly impacts blacks. Liberals pretend harassing honest gun owners addresses gun crime

Hold on a second. It is not just me it is millions of Americans and millions from other countries. Additionally it is not simply because we don't like them, there are reasons which I have explained previously. You make the subject and opinions of those against firearms so bland and lacking depth. Great way to make yourself sound better.

How do you refuse to address gun crime when it mainly affects blacks??? the majority killed in the pats 10 mass shootings were white.

Lets clear up your terming. It is not harassment it is what is just and morally right.

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Hold on a second. It is not just me it is millions of Americans and millions from other countries. Additionally it is not simply because we don't like them, there are reasons which I have explained previously. You make the subject and opinions of those against firearms so bland and lacking depth. Great way to make yourself sound better.

How do you refuse to address gun crime when it mainly affects blacks??? the majority killed in the pats 10 mass shootings were white.

Lets clear up your terming. It is not harassment it is what is just and morally right.

that shows how dishonest your argument is-you pretend mass shootings are more important than the 80% of gun shot homicides who are killed by felons with guns-many
of those victims are black and AR 15s are rarely used.

 

[danielpalos]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

bottom line-I am not giving up my rights because you don't like them. we refuse to address gun crime because it mainly impacts blacks. Liberals pretend harassing honest gun owners addresses gun crime

muster gun lovers until crime drops.

 

[Casper]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

I was unable to substantiate the subject matter or context of your last sentence. Hence it was misconstrued in meaning and context, thus I alerted you to this. Then you reply with a snaring remark, that is quite clearly attempting to demonise my opinion.

What would you like me to explain, regarding my previous post??

Not a thing.
I think you said all you need to say on the topic, but hey it is your right to post any nonsense you wish.

 

[Rucker61]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Hold on a second. It is not just me it is millions of Americans and millions from other countries. Additionally it is not simply because we don't like them, there are reasons which I have explained previously. You make the subject and opinions of those against firearms so bland and lacking depth. Great way to make yourself sound better.

How do you refuse to address gun crime when it mainly affects blacks??? the majority killed in the pats 10 mass shootings were white.

Mass shooting victims are a tiny fraction of all homicide victims. In the past 20 years there have been thirty-two K-12 mass shooting victims killed at school by someone with an "assault weapon". In that same time period there were over 8,000 Black kids age 14 and under killed by someone with a gun.

High school kids are matching today because they don't feel safe at school. Why weren't they marching every day last year for those dead Black kids?

 

[Casper]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Mass shooting victims are a tiny fraction of all homicide victims. In the past 20 years there have been thirty-two K-12 mass shooting victims killed at school by someone with an "assault weapon". In that same time period there were over 8,000 Black kids age 14 and under killed by someone with a gun.

High school kids are matching today because they don't feel safe at school. Why weren't they marching every day last year for those dead Black kids?

The strange thing is when asked if they would feel safer if there were armed security in the schools they said no, at that point one tends to stop listening to them.

 

[Tennyson]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Correct I keep fixating on the Constitution which I and many believe is part of the problem in the United States, particularly with firearms. In reference to my 'idiotic claim' it is sufficient and evidential claim I make, additionally how is simply stating facts such as the Constitution is 225 years old and the interpretations are inconsistent. Its is not hatred, it is that I disagree that all rights are timeless, don't attempt to portray me as against all rights within the Constitution. What gets old is the inability for the US to address gun crime.

The problem you are describing is liberalism and the statism that comes with it. The Constitution was not meant to be interpreted.

Gun crime is not a federal government issue; that is one of the problems.

Unalienable rights are timeless as they orginated with mankind. The problem is not respecting those rights.

 

[TobyOne]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

This was the name of my punk rock band back in HS.

The point is the same. People "need" AR-15s, because their primal subconscious is telling them "more killing power, more ***** for daddy." But there's a huge difference between the biological Homo sapiens and the cultural one. It's the old cultures calling for stop to killings, otherwise organised society collapses in all the bloodshed. They have even taken freedom of sex choice away from women for millenia, because ovulating women subconsciously desire to be impregnated by the fraticider. Why do you think sex was even made into a sin by them ol' Hebrews? Because it destroys organised society, when the boys are out slaughtering each other in the biological fight for the mating rights. Every 28 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males

 

[danielpalos]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

The problem you are describing is liberalism and the statism that comes with it. The Constitution was not meant to be interpreted.

Gun crime is not a federal government issue; that is one of the problems.

Unalienable rights are timeless as they orginated with mankind. The problem is not respecting those rights.

muster the militia until crime drops.

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Not a thing.
I think you said all you need to say on the topic, but hey it is your right to post any nonsense you wish.

That is a matter of opinion, just because you don't value someones opinion supported by factual and statistical information does not mean you automatically have to label it as "nonsense". If you perceive it as nonsense why are you continually replying to it??

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Mass shooting victims are a tiny fraction of all homicide victims. In the past 20 years there have been thirty-two K-12 mass shooting victims killed at school by someone with an "assault weapon". In that same time period there were over 8,000 Black kids age 14 and under killed by someone with a gun.

High school kids are matching today because they don't feel safe at school. Why weren't they marching every day last year for those dead Black kids?

That is correct, I am standing to be corrected on that notion.

I agree, gun violence must be addressed and recognised on all facets not simply in schools.

 

[VanceMack]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Hold on a second. It is not just me it is millions of Americans and millions from other countries. Additionally it is not simply because we don't like them, there are reasons which I have explained previously. You make the subject and opinions of those against firearms so bland and lacking depth. Great way to make yourself sound better.

How do you refuse to address gun crime when it mainly affects blacks??? the majority killed in the pats 10 mass shootings were white.

Lets clear up your terming. It is not harassment it is what is just and morally right.

The cumulative total in ALL mass shootings dating back to 1982 is approx 850. thats 850 in 36 years. Meanwhile, approx 9,000 people die from gun violence every year, the majority of those murders are committed by and impact minorities. The fact that you ignore those murders (the 9,000 per year and 324,000+ total during that same time) and focus on the 1-3 mass shootings per year pretty much proves his point.

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

The problem you are describing is liberalism and the statism that comes with it. The Constitution was not meant to be interpreted.

Gun crime is not a federal government issue; that is one of the problems.

Unalienable rights are timeless as they orginated with mankind. The problem is not respecting those rights.

Firstly. The ideological theories and practises are completely irrelevant, categorising such individuals or groups into "liberals" does not enhance or have any sort of benefit. This simply segregates society more and more. On your terming of statism. Statism is the central focal point in many societies today, as the definition goes "the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree" This ideological theory doesn't imply, in the general sense, totalitarianism (there is a type of statism that employs this). Without a government you have an anarchy, with a government riddled with corruption you have North Korea a dictatorship. The government is the voice of the people, and thus makes informed decisions (or at least should) according to the majority of the populous or in some cases the minority.

Secondly. That notion of "interpretation" highlights how a document is so outdated and out of context.

Thirdly. Do you pose it is a singular state issue?? To guide such a decision the federal government must back and support it, the level of enforceability needed will be achieved on a state level.

To your fourth point. I am unsure if you mean't to state "inalienable", if so.....I understand that notion, just as human rights are inalienable and thus continually exist and cannot be removed. If you were referring to "the right to bear arms" as "inalienable" I believe you are very wrong.

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

The cumulative total in ALL mass shootings dating back to 1982 is approx 850. thats 850 in 36 years. Meanwhile, approx 9,000 people die from gun violence every year, the majority of those murders are committed by and impact minorities. The fact that you ignore those murders (the 9,000 per year and 324,000+ total during that same time) and focus on the 1-3 mass shootings per year pretty much proves his point.

I have stated in another post I am incorrect and have withdrawn the statement I made. If you go back through the discussion with that individual, a very different story emerges.

 

[Tennyson]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Firstly. The ideological theories and practises are completely irrelevant, categorising such individuals or groups into "liberals" does not enhance or have any sort of benefit. This simply segregates society more and more. On your terming of statism. Statism is the central focal point in many societies today, as the definition goes "the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree" This ideological theory doesn't imply, in the general sense, totalitarianism (there is a type of statism that employs this). Without a government you have an anarchy, with a government riddled with corruption you have North Korea a dictatorship. The government is the voice of the people, and thus makes informed decisions (or at least should) according to the majority of the populous or in some cases the minority.

Secondly. That notion of "interpretation" highlights how a document is so outdated and out of context.

Thirdly. Do you pose it is a singular state issue?? To guide such a decision the federal government must back and support it, the level of enforceability needed will be achieved on a state level.

To your fourth point. I am unsure if you mean't to state "inalienable", if so.....I understand that notion, just as human rights are inalienable and thus continually exist and cannot be removed. If you were referring to "the right to bear arms" as "inalienable" I believe you are very wrong.

It was liberalism and its statism that created constitutional interpretation rather than interpreting federal law.

If the Constitution is outdated and obsolete, then state what is out dated and obsolete regarding the purpose of the Constitution.

You are proposing a unitary government view, which is antithetical to the Constitution.

Inalienable and unalienable are interchangeable.

 

[VanceMack]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Firstly. The ideological theories and practises are completely irrelevant, categorising such individuals or groups into "liberals" does not enhance or have any sort of benefit. This simply segregates society more and more. On your terming of statism. Statism is the central focal point in many societies today, as the definition goes "the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree" This ideological theory doesn't imply, in the general sense, totalitarianism (there is a type of statism that employs this). Without a government you have an anarchy, with a government riddled with corruption you have North Korea a dictatorship. The government is the voice of the people, and thus makes informed decisions (or at least should) according to the majority of the populous or in some cases the minority.

Secondly. That notion of "interpretation" highlights how a document is so outdated and out of context.

Thirdly. Do you pose it is a singular state issue?? To guide such a decision the federal government must back and support it, the level of enforceability needed will be achieved on a state level.

To your fourth point. I am unsure if you mean't to state "inalienable", if so.....I understand that notion, just as human rights are inalienable and thus continually exist and cannot be removed. If you were referring to "the right to bear arms" as "inalienable" I believe you are very wrong.

Its ironic that people will look at the Constitution and revere the rights to free speech, protections from law enforcement, etc, but when it comes to firearms, they suddenly believe the document is outdated.

The Constitution is not outdated...its timeless. It was an inspired work and it is as relevant today as yesterday. History is a good teacher. In other countries that have sacrificed their individual rights to the government, they have been overwhelmed by fascists. In the UK even now, people that speak out against minorities, religious groups, or on gender related issues face arrest for their very words. We have seen other countires that were first stripped of their rights to own firearms that were then stripped of their very lives. No...the Constitution is not outdated, unless you consider freedom an outdated concept.

 

[zsu2357]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

=goldkam;1068292443]Firstly. That is quite simply your negative opinion. Countries throughout the world have expressed this continually and effectively.

We aren't countries throughout the world. We aren't the UK nor Mexico or Russia for that matter. Those other countries can express until they are blue in the face.

You cannot simply states removing guns won't work (at least putting in stricter legislation)

It won't work. Pretty simple statement. Do you really think all law abiding people will just hand them over? Do you really think ANYONE of the criminal element will? Do you know what stricter legislation is? MORE regulation when the "stricter"ones don't work.

when it has not been tested nor has been thought out and adapted to the US.

Let's hope it never is tested,since crime would skyrocket.

It is like stating I don't like apples, even though you have not even tried or tasted one.

I don't want to be killed in the middle of the night or anyone else in my family,and I don't have to try it to know it.

Secondly. That is false. You could include just assault rifles,

I guess you know(maybe not) assault rifles are regulated to death, you don't go and just buy one at the corner gun store.
certain types of firearms etc...
Have you seen the list for Kalistan what the certain firearms are? Good god they even list the HI-POINT 995 carbine.

Once again a blanket statement which is supported by no evidential notions.

To your third point. The current laws are being enforced to an extent, and quite simply a background check, registration or the restriction of certain types of firearms is not going to limit an individual getting their hands on a firearm.

There's that restriction again. In other words not getting the kind of firearm you would like. I'm not a fan of revolvers,nothing against just not a fan.

It is simply mechanics of thinking, if an individual wants to purchase a firearm in the US, you just have to go to a private firearm show or gain them on the black market.

A private firearm show must be some friends getting together. And yes the criminals by and large do get them via black market.

The inadequacy of protection in most US states underpins this notion.

Not sure what you mean here. It's kinda hard to separate things.

It is quite simply correlated on the state firearm deaths list, the majority of states at the top of the chart have stricter legislation and the you cannot simply claim they are more effective in enforcing the law compared to other states. It comes back to the legislation, to the bans which are inadequate in all US states.

And gov. Brown in Oregon would have people think we are awash in gun deaths. Detroit,Chicago etc. shining examples.

To your mental health point. Mental health no doubt needs to be introduced but when numerous programs have been put in place, and over 1.2 billion dollars in the past 9 years its effectiveness must be considered. Thus far it has proved highly ineffective and must not continue to be primarily blamed for the horrors occurring presently.

At 1.2 billion over 9 years no wonder it's ineffective.It's almost non existent.

Finally your last point is so misconstrued I am unable to understand what you are actually stating.

If you mean guarding the kids what don't you understand? Or do you think that celebs. and politicians are more important that they should have armed bodyguards.

 

[Casper]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

That is a matter of opinion, just because you don't value someones opinion supported by factual and statistical information does not mean you automatically have to label it as "nonsense". If you perceive it as nonsense why are you continually replying to it??

LOL, yes it is and mine is based on Personal Experience and the Real world. It is not that I do not value your opinion but as someone with a strong background in the topic I find your options as unacceptable being that they are not based facts and are more emotion driven than anything else.
Look, I am all for Public Safety, I support our LEO's, they do a job that few would want or could handle, but they are reactionary in nature meaning they most often deal with aftermath of crimes, where I live it is 20 minutes average for the sheriff to respond to a call for help, can you wait that long, would you? Hench some of my firearms, I am well trained and would never want to just shoot someone, did that working for Uncle Sam, but as a Citizen and a Man I am obligated to protect me and mine to do otherwise would negate who I am. Life is full of Choices, living the criminal life is no different than most other than it can involve life and death choices. Is what it is.

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Its ironic that people will look at the Constitution and revere the rights to free speech, protections from law enforcement, etc, but when it comes to firearms, they suddenly believe the document is outdated.

The Constitution is not outdated...its timeless. It was an inspired work and it is as relevant today as yesterday. History is a good teacher. In other countries that have sacrificed their individual rights to the government, they have been overwhelmed by fascists. In the UK even now, people that speak out against minorities, religious groups, or on gender related issues face arrest for their very words. We have seen other countires that were first stripped of their rights to own firearms that were then stripped of their very lives. No...the Constitution is not outdated, unless you consider freedom an outdated concept.

Firstly. I believe the right to free speech and protections from law enforcements to be extremely important but it so happens that those explicit rights themselves are not causing, or at least, opening up exploitation and validating individuals the right to a weapon that is currently causing havoc and deaths throughout the nation. Reverence is show to rights that are not degrading, that are not taking peoples rights explicitly and that are practised worldwide in both domestic law, international law and ethical decision making.

To your next point. So your telling me that a document written in the 1800's over 225 years ago in a completely different context is timeless. This is a document that references slavery as an acceptable punishment, a document that doesn't address modern day issues such as gay marriage, terrorism, technological advancements or child molesting.

History is only a good teacher when you learn and become more informed, the US is yet to learn from the cyclic bipolar imbued in gun crime.

Yes, in some society they have sacrificed rights for the greater good of society, moral and ethics and the greater good of legislation and rules, not to satisfy a minority within a country.

Your next point on the UK, according to who....these people are typically racist or anti gay etc.... Could you provide some examples, instead of just stating your very vague opinion??
There is also good reason for their arrest ie..
1) Breaking legislation
2) Causing violence and fear

(No doubt however some cases do display wrongful arrest, am not denying this)

So lets just clear some facts, that you have distorted here. The right to own a firearm is extremely unpopular throughout the world, with only five countries in the past 350 years have had the "right to bear arms" maintained in legislation or taken away. The US, Mexico, Guatemala and Switzerland (related to conscription so its a slightly different situation). The UK has these removed in 1689 slowly until 1880. So the right to bear arms is hardly a universal concept.

Many countries have removed the firearm legislation or implemented stricter legislation. Can you provide some examples of outraged societies at the removal of this right outside the US??
It was for the greater good of society.

Bit of a stretch. Just because I disagree with one part of the Constitution that automatically assumes I am in denial of freedoms. I support both international and documents relating to freedoms, particularly human rights. Just to clarify as well, the right to own a gun is not a human right, this truely represents its importance (or lack of) and the nature of such a right.

 

[goldkam]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

LOL, yes it is and mine is based on Personal Experience and the Real world. It is not that I do not value your opinion but as someone with a strong background in the topic I find your options as unacceptable being that they are not based facts and are more emotion driven than anything else.
Look, I am all for Public Safety, I support our LEO's, they do a job that few would want or could handle, but they are reactionary in nature meaning they most often deal with aftermath of crimes, where I live it is 20 minutes average for the sheriff to respond to a call for help, can you wait that long, would you? Hench some of my firearms, I am well trained and would never want to just shoot someone, did that working for Uncle Sam, but as a Citizen and a Man I am obligated to protect me and mine to do otherwise would negate who I am. Life is full of Choices, living the criminal life is no different than most other than it can involve life and death choices. Is what it is.

Firstly. Personal experience is the viewing and point of view from one perspective and by one individual. It does to an extent enhance understanding and knowledge but disguises the true nature of the issue because of the personable perception you encountered and have formed. This issue is a rubics cube, not one person in the world could "experience" every expanse of this firearm issue. The terming "real world" is something that you need to experience but there is also something called common sense and common sense is not all that common or practised in the real world. Additionally in the real world the widening or perspective, morals and ethics too get negated far too often.

Now.....facts and statistics have made up a substantial amount of my posts. The last couple with yourself were lacking and generally are not supported so much by facts. However I can supply you with articles and facts that I base my opinion on.

1) My belief in banning firearms or at least automatic and semi-automatic weapons and heavily legislating others.

Evidence- Australia, Japan, UK, New Zealand, China, India are all examples of successful countries.

Australia in 2015 had only 255 gun related deaths the US has 33,000. Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1996 since the bans. Youth suicide and homicide rates have decreased significantly.
Category: | Herald Sun

2) Banning weapons in Japan and its effectiveness-

Evidence- https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...etely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

3) Mental Health as not the primary problem.

Evidence- Mental health treatment won't stop most gun violence | News & Observer
Mental health treatment won't stop most gun violence | News & Observer

It talks about the extensive process involved in mental health identification and actual treatment.

4) Universal Background checks don't necessarily deter firearm crime.

Evidence- Why universal background checks won't work | TheHill
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/4622...kground-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything

Emotionally driven, is not basing your opinion on facts. It is merely a terming attempting to invalidate my views. Your opinion has no weight nor factual support.


To your next point. Law Enforcement Officers don't create or implement laws, they follow laws by relevant states and federal jurisdiction. Thus the level of responsibility on them is minimal compared to governments. The response time is then something that needs to be addressed, so that the crime can be stopped before it escalates. I understand where you are coming from but every other country in the world, excluding very few, have effectively coped without firearms, simply because firearms are not prevalent or other measures are utilised. Why is the US any different, it is isn't, it seems the US has this helplessness syndrome with firearms.

You are speaking from a minority, in terms of firearm owners exercising the 2nd Amendment. In relation to that the possibility of self defence is not a reasonable excuse over the definite 33,000 deaths by firearms each year (or 13,000 homicides excluding injuries). Negation of who you are (which is accept and respect your view), in my perception, is far less important that ensuring that the right to life and in recent times the right to an education. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behaviour. In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide")

 

[VanceMack]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Firstly. I believe the right to free speech and protections from law enforcements to be extremely important but it so happens that those explicit rights themselves are not causing, or at least, opening up exploitation and validating individuals the right to a weapon that is currently causing havoc and deaths throughout the nation. Reverence is show to rights that are not degrading, that are not taking peoples rights explicitly and that are practised worldwide in both domestic law, international law and ethical decision making.

To your next point. So your telling me that a document written in the 1800's over 225 years ago in a completely different context is timeless. This is a document that references slavery as an acceptable punishment, a document that doesn't address modern day issues such as gay marriage, terrorism, technological advancements or child molesting.

History is only a good teacher when you learn and become more informed, the US is yet to learn from the cyclic bipolar imbued in gun crime.

Yes, in some society they have sacrificed rights for the greater good of society, moral and ethics and the greater good of legislation and rules, not to satisfy a minority within a country.

Your next point on the UK, according to who....these people are typically racist or anti gay etc.... Could you provide some examples, instead of just stating your very vague opinion??
There is also good reason for their arrest ie..
1) Breaking legislation
2) Causing violence and fear

(No doubt however some cases do display wrongful arrest, am not denying this)

So lets just clear some facts, that you have distorted here. The right to own a firearm is extremely unpopular throughout the world, with only five countries in the past 350 years have had the "right to bear arms" maintained in legislation or taken away. The US, Mexico, Guatemala and Switzerland (related to conscription so its a slightly different situation). The UK has these removed in 1689 slowly until 1880. So the right to bear arms is hardly a universal concept.

Many countries have removed the firearm legislation or implemented stricter legislation. Can you provide some examples of outraged societies at the removal of this right outside the US??
It was for the greater good of society.

Bit of a stretch. Just because I disagree with one part of the Constitution that automatically assumes I am in denial of freedoms. I support both international and documents relating to freedoms, particularly human rights. Just to clarify as well, the right to own a gun is not a human right, this truly represents its importance (or lack of) and the nature of such a right.

In reverse order...I dont much give a **** about 'the rest of the world'. I spent 20 years in the military and have been in 'the rest of the world'. Im pretty comfortable with them doing them and us doing us and I dont feel the need to log into some site from Sweden and post **** about how they should live their lives. At the same time, I dont much give a **** about their opinions on how we should live our lives.

As for the UK, sorry pal, but if you dont know **** about whats going on there, you probably shouldnt try to make excuses for their stupid laws. And if you dont know how many people there are being arrested for facebook and twitter postings, then you should read up on them. But if you are actually going to justify arresting people because they might be racist, or anti gay, then whats next? Arresting people because they make anti-religious comments? Arresting people because they make comments about political groups? You SERIOUSLY justify arresting people for free speech? Yeah...in that case, probably dont need to be having a discussion on our Constitution.

And indeed...the US Constitution IS timeless. Not only did it not address gay marriage (it also didnt address the ridiculous trend towards self identifying gender, race, species, etc), it doesnt mention marriage AT ALL...which is a pretty good indicator marriage is meant for the states to decide and govern.

You and I obviously have very different beliefs when it comes to the rights of free people. Thats fine...you are entitled tyo your beliefs. I just wish you would go live somewhere where you dont enjoy the rights and protections afforded you by the Constitution for, say, 5 years. Who knows...maybe you will love it and stay there. But more likely you will come back with a greater appreciation for what you actually have. In the meantime...feel free to oppose freedom all you like. God Bless America...aint it great living in a country where you can do that?

 

[TurtleDude]

re: Why do you "need" an AR 15? [W243, 2001]

Firstly. Personal experience is the viewing and point of view from one perspective and by one individual. It does to an extent enhance understanding and knowledge but disguises the true nature of the issue because of the personable perception you encountered and have formed. This issue is a rubics cube, not one person in the world could "experience" every expanse of this firearm issue. The terming "real world" is something that you need to experience but there is also something called common sense and common sense is not all that common or practised in the real world. Additionally in the real world the widening or perspective, morals and ethics too get negated far too often.

Now.....facts and statistics have made up a substantial amount of my posts. The last couple with yourself were lacking and generally are not supported so much by facts. However I can supply you with articles and facts that I base my opinion on.

1) My belief in banning firearms or at least automatic and semi-automatic weapons and heavily legislating others.

Evidence- Australia, Japan, UK, New Zealand, China, India are all examples of successful countries.

Australia in 2015 had only 255 gun related deaths the US has 33,000. Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1996 since the bans. Youth suicide and homicide rates have decreased significantly.
Category: | Herald Sun

2) Banning weapons in Japan and its effectiveness-

Evidence- https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...etely-eliminated-gun-deaths-2017-10?r=US&IR=T

3) Mental Health as not the primary problem.

Evidence- Mental health treatment won't stop most gun violence | News & Observer
Mental health treatment won't stop most gun violence | News & Observer

It talks about the extensive process involved in mental health identification and actual treatment.

4) Universal Background checks don't necessarily deter firearm crime.

Evidence- Why universal background checks won't work | TheHill
https://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/4622...kground-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything

Emotionally driven, is not basing your opinion on facts. It is merely a terming attempting to invalidate my views. Your opinion has no weight nor factual support.


To your next point. Law Enforcement Officers don't create or implement laws, they follow laws by relevant states and federal jurisdiction. Thus the level of responsibility on them is minimal compared to governments. The response time is then something that needs to be addressed, so that the crime can be stopped before it escalates. I understand where you are coming from but every other country in the world, excluding very few, have effectively coped without firearms, simply because firearms are not prevalent or other measures are utilised. Why is the US any different, it is isn't, it seems the US has this helplessness syndrome with firearms.

You are speaking from a minority, in terms of firearm owners exercising the 2nd Amendment. In relation to that the possibility of self defence is not a reasonable excuse over the definite 33,000 deaths by firearms each year (or 13,000 homicides excluding injuries). Negation of who you are (which is accept and respect your view), in my perception, is far less important that ensuring that the right to life and in recent times the right to an education. Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims (235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least-employed protective behaviour. In 2010 there were 230 "justifiable homicides" in which a private citizen used a firearm to kill a felon, compared to 8,275 criminal gun homicides (or, 36 criminal homicides for every "justifiable homicide")

a value judgement that fails for two major reasons

it ignores the hundreds of thousands of cases where lawful owners stop a crime each year and
it ignores the fact that most gun homicides are committed by those who cannot legally own guns

therefore you opinion is rejected. Suicides has no bearing on rights