Why do many pro 2ndA just default between all guns v no guns

Are you allowed to carry a firearm in public for self defense?

No?

Ok then, now you see why we don't want what you want. See how that works?

 

The NRA has supported 100% of the gun control we have. This is a fact.
They do nothing positive for gun rights these days, that's on orgs like FPC and NAGR etc.
Mostly they serve to embezzle money for the board members running them.


So shocking, that a manufacturer targeted by half the political apparatus of the nation for chopping might contribute to a lobbying group trying to lobby for its interest!

Those dastardly fiends should just bend over and allow themselves to be ****ed up the ass right out of business!!! Anything else is fascism!!!! REEEEEEEE!!!

 

Embezzlement deprives people of their rights.

 

These stats are public.

The number of deaths by gun hardly tops 30k and more than half of those are self inflicted either on purpose or on accident.
The number of intentional deaths of another person by firearm include justified homicides by civilians and police shootings ruled acceptable.
There are more than 400 million registered firearms in the US. Since not every firearm must be registered, and there is a MASSIVE cottage industry of 3d printing or otherwise self producing firearms of all types, the actual number of firearms is likely far higher than 400 million. The LEGAL number. The illegal number will add still more.
The population of gun owners is around half the population (again, registered when not all must do so legally, not to mention illegally, so the real number is higher ).

You can do a simple ratio. Assume each gun death is a separate hei-n-ous crime (pronounced 'hi anus' as per the prosecutor in "my cousin vinnie"). That's something like 33k/ variously 400m (guns total) or 150m (gun owners).

What's that ratio equate to bower?

 

lol
Are you seriously saying that the number of somethings that DIDN'T do a bad thing has no relevance to determining how likely it is that a bad thing will occur in that something's presence?

 

AH so THAT'S why self defense with a weapon is illegal in Australia.

 

Yes, the NRA of today is one of the best friends the anti gun lobby could have at this point. Too much corruption. The best thing that could happen for firearms rights would be dissolution of the NRA. Any positive they do now could be done better by other existing organizations with more integrity.

 

About the only positive we get is the karens concentrate on the NRA and simply don't understand that FPC etc exists so they tend to not be there to oppose them.

Even when you explicitly TELL them about it, 20 seconds later they've forgotten it

 

God forbid an unwilling woman pepper spray a rapist! Sex is his right!

 

I guess that’s true. Good point.

 

No, because only an idiot would do that to create a dangerous society.

 

In other words... you have no rational, reasoned, factual argument against it.
Just as we all supposed.

 

The reason is obvious to anyone with average IQ and above.

I can see why some struggle in gun debates.

 

Thank you for confirming you have no rational, reasoned, factual argument against it.

 

@TOG 6 cars have regulations, food has regulations, buildings have regulations. Cars aren't banned, food isn't banned, and neither are houses.

So when "Gun Regulations" is said, why do Americans hear "Gun Ban"?

 

I already addressed this.
BUT, as I -am- the guiding light to the misbegotten, I shall address it again.
I don't
Most of us don't.
Thus, you argue a strawman.
Those few of us who do, however, do so because those seeking those regulations almost always include... banning guns.

You shall now demonstrate you have no rational, reasoned, factual argument against my response.

 

I mean maybe she shouldn't have been dressed that way, or without a male relative accompanying her if she wasn't a whore deserving of such treatment.

Which is sort of the emotional thrust I get from that part of Australian culture. Makes sense when you think about it, founded as a penal colony and all. Also explains their love for guards vs being able to defend yourself.

 

Plus the lapierre memes are off the chain

 

For the low IQ, if a society's orientation towards weapons is to wander around in public with said implements, they will and do experience high incidents and deaths.

If those have a safe police record, a good medical background, their referee checks out, and you have a secure gun safe at home, then you enjoy guns. Your orientation towards guns then becomes vermin control on a farm/farm land, clay pigeon shooting, pheasant shoots, shoot on your own property; also, your orientation makes you not stupid to carry them in public.

If you have good reason; gamekeeper, part of a gun club etc.. and two referees check out, go buy a firearm.

But in the UK, most can't be bothered, there's no excitement over guns. We experience low knife crime compared to the US, and America's gun stats blow our problems out of the water. Anyone thinking they need a gun to shoot someone else for protection is dangerous and they live in a broken society.

The difference between the UK and the US -

1. Keeps guns out of public areas

2. Safe people are welcome to own guns as opposed to allowing anyone have them

3. Having a culture with a different gun mentality, to view, use, and own guns with respect

America fails on all three points, hence their high gun crime, mass shootings, and needless deaths.

On the plus side, it does lower the American population slightly.

 

So you ban the chief use of firearms which our right revolves around: that of carrying arms on one's person for the purpose of self defense or defense of others.

Hence why we call it a ban. Because you want to ban what I've done essentially every day and every where I went since I turned 21. What my wife and my mother do to be able to defend themselves.

Thanks for admitting that. That only took you sixteen ****ing pages and several days to admit.

 

Thank you for confirming you have no rational, reasoned, factual argument against my response.

If fact, your post isn't even RELATED to my response.

 

Oops, I am making another of your so called claims. LOL.

Second Amendment


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.

 

Yep.
And?

 

Just making constitution law, as the poster I responded to keep telling me I'm doing whenever I post the words of the 2A.

 

Yes and since you won't read the cases, your opinion is and should be disregarded. Because you're speaking on a constitutional law topic, but refuse to actually engage with the subject matter.