Google "Defensive Gun Uses". There are liberal sources who say 750k or so instances per year. There are conservative sources who say up to 2 mil per year. Take the low ball.
When you're armed for your own defense, if a terrorist slips through the unguarded border (or is even welcomed in by border guards opening the ****ing gate for them) and causes an attack, you can defend yourself. If you're disarmed and they do the same: You can't defend yourself. See how that works? Wanting to remain armed because of crime doesn't mean you don't want crime to be curtailed. False equivalency. Silly really. As to what I'm afraid of: Historically speaking I'm afraid of the government confiscating arms and turning the nation into a tyranny.
Wow you mean a law which allows people to self defend with a gun without needing to follow a check box run away seek aid etc form first, meaning they will end up self defending against their assailants more often as they are no longer chilled from doing so, actually increases the rate at which people get shot and therefore die by firearm!!!!!?!?!?!?!? WoW!!!!!! Next you'll tell me removing prohibition of alcohol increased the rate at which people would drink in public. How many of these homicides resulted in 1) criminal charges to the shooter and 2) a criminal CONVICTION of the shooter for homicide? Justifiable homicides are still counted in stats as homicides. You'll need to sift them yourself.
And its essentially impossible for a woman or disabled person to protect themselves from a literally average male who is slightly irritated and willing to initiate violence, unless the victim has a weapon. With a weapon they have a CHANCE at an equal playing field. Without one they are essentially low hanging fruit for any male of average strength. Further: Historically speaking 1) gun control unduly impacts ethnic minorities in enforcement and 2) each time in US history gun control was implemented, lynchings increased. SO the question becomes: Why do you hate ethnic minorities and want them to be denied their rights and lynched? https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/...4517DHafjhk64XHx3VeRHgZeKc5-rrgnio5ILBN73ardg https://reason.com/2022/09/08/a-new...ee estimation strategy,per year, about half a
There is a constitutional right to drink alcohol. Most people in the nation drink. Your logic fails, both conceptually and demonstratively. Further: If YOU want to VOLUNTEER to not exercise your rights, no one is stopping you. I'm not going to come over there and demand you put a gun in your house. Hell: Put up a sign saying you don't own guns and neither should anyone else. See what you get.
Militia mustering should be a thing again too. Just from a public health standpoint, having everyone come in about once a year to get examined, get some exercise and nutrition training etc along with their weapons training and unit tactics training, would do wonders for public health. You'd catch more crazies before they popped and get them help, you'd catch more health issues cropping up people are too lazy to go to the doctor over etc. You'd decrease obesity. You'd increase community, as people would muster within their own communities. To say nothing of the readiness advantage for the nation, and the individual.
So does eating a hamburger. Eating a hamburger isn't illegal, neither is possessing or distributing one. Its asinine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Narcotics_Tax_Act It starts in 1914 with cocaine and opiates. Pot joins the list in 37. The "war on drugs" is just PR rhetoric and more spending on enforcement.
Well yes, but actually no. It was well underway when FDR expanded the coverage and enforcement. You'll need to piss on the graves of both Roosevelts. A bit odd that it seems to be a family project though eh?
I cannot find much support for the federal war on drugs in Article One Section Eight. Now congress most likely has a valid jurisdictional power to prevent the importation of cocaine or heroin from foreign nations or other entities off shore
Preventing import yes. Preventing personal possession? Not so much. Preventing local farmers from growing coca? Not so much.
No it was Nixon, and that's the point. The point was it has been, at least in the past, a conservative priority.
Debateable on both points. Other countries seemed to have okay experiences with it. UK and Australia.
I actually wasn't making an argument from my own perspective, I was trying to help conservatives understand the other side. They clearly don't when they bring up things like disarming people to allow them to be killed or repressed. Though to explore the point, you're quite wrong as it was conservatives who banned alcohol. It's only a "right" in the constitution because people wanted alcohol back and prohibition didn't work. Pity not enough people learned the lesson when it came to other drugs.
Specious. Is there a major increase in female victimization in nations with tighter gun restrictions or fewer civilian guns? Likely not, but go ahead and look. Oh please. Spare me the stuff that's not relevant to the present day.
.... have you never encountered a woman? Have you never encountered a man? The average man can simply overpower the average woman. This is a fact of biology. Its relevant, you just don't like it. Further: Its a FACT. So why do you support laws that WILL lead to more lynchings and WILL disproportionately strip ethnic minorities of their rights? You some kinda hooded figure or something?
Dude I LITERALLY spoon fed you a link with a timeline. Dope becomes illegal in 37. Peruvian marching powder and milk of the poppy were illegal for 20 years prior to that point.
To be like the UK, the US would have to: 1. Repeal the Second and Fourth Amendments 2. Overturn at least six SCOTUS decisions 3. Only allow 1/20 of the current number of lawful gun owners to own guns. 4. Confiscate at least 350 million hugs. Do you see that working okay in the US? We have more gun owners than the entire population of both those countries combined.
