All Hail the Second Amendment

[JohnDG]

Removing gun's does absolutely nothing to stop violent crime, somebody who want's to kill you out of hate, fear or fun will kill you regardless. At least with a gun you might die quicker and with all civilians guns being limited or completely taken away other countries who want a piece of us will come and get it. The government doesn't give a fuck about protecting anyone just assets like natural resources and territory.

[Brian37]

Removing gun's does absolutely nothing to stop violent crime, somebody who want's to kill you out of hate, fear or fun will kill you regardless. At least with a gun you might die quicker and with all civilians guns being limited or completely taken away other countries who want a piece of us will come and get it. The government doesn't give a fuck about protecting anyone just assets like natural resources and territory.

So? What does reducing any and all crime have to do with the amount of gun death?

Crime wont go away, true. But a gun is much easier to use than other weapons. Again "other shit happens so do nothing". Nope, not this time, not anymore.

Sane gun owners will work with us. But the nutters wont.

[A Theist]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...oting.html


643 bodies since Sandy Hook.

In The News: Leftist nutters demand Hammer control legislation...An FBI report which reveals that more people are killed annually with blunt instruments, like hammers, than with rifles and shotguns has sparked new outcries from the left for stiff hammer control legislation....

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/0...-shotguns/

[jonb]

Being a boy of the fifties, and from a working class London, what people don't seem to realise was that it was a very violent society. Fights were common, street brawls, fights in Pubs, etc were part of everyday experience. I was trained that to be a man I had to stand my corner, and not take crap from anyone. This daily violence never entered any statistics, because unless it started to affect the none combatants, the police would not see it as part of their duties to interfere. It was only when the groups involved got so large that it could affect trade in a town. Such as the Mods and rocker seaside fights of the Sixties, or bystanders were being hurt that the government became involved.
The interesting aspect of this though, was that even amid all of that violence, there were rules.
A man must stand up for himself.
You don't use weapons.
You don't kick a man when he is down, etc.
What is interesting is that, in that violent society, although there were a few bruises, very few people got seriously hurt. And 'A theist' would tell me the sanction of no weapons is some sort of lefty plot.
And that as I come from such a background, when I hear a man say I need a weapon to protect myself, I know the guy is a whoose.
That is also it seems born out in practice. I heard on the radio that an American woman is asking for her list of incidents of a gun killing, to be matched by the pro gun side with incidents where the use of a gun has stopped a killing, she said the pro gun lobby has still yet to make an entry.

[A Theist]

Being a boy of the fifties, and from a working class London, what people don't seem to realise was that it was a very violent society. Fights were common, street brawls, fights in Pubs, etc were part of everyday experience. I was trained that to be a man I had to stand my corner, and not take crap from anyone. This daily violence never entered any statistics, because unless it started to affect the none combatants, the police would not see it as part of their duties to interfere. It was only when the groups involved got so large that it could affect trade in a town. Such as the Mods and rocker seaside fights of the Sixties, or bystanders were being hurt that the government became involved.
The interesting aspect of this though, was that even amid all of that violence, there were rules.
A man must stand up for himself.
You don't use weapons.
You don't kick a man when he is down, etc.
What is interesting is that, in that violent society, although there were a few bruises, very few people got seriously hurt. And 'A theist' would tell me the sanction of no weapons is some sort of lefty plot.
And that as I come from such a background, when I hear a man say I need a weapon to protect myself, I know the guy is a whoose.
That is also it seems born out in practice. I heard on the radio that an American woman is asking for her list of incidents of a gun killing, to be matched by the pro gun side with incidents where the use of a gun has stopped a killing, she said the pro gun lobby has still yet to make an entry.

I wouldn't need a gun to put you on your back, sonny buck...

[jonb]

I wouldn't need a gun to put you on your back, sonny buck...

Is that it, your thought through coherent response? Twat.

[LastPoet]

Now, this is a wrater productive talk, gentlemen.

[jonb]

I doubt there is anything productive in this conversation at all. Like smoking it is not just by telling somebody it is statistically harmful that makes them question their addiction.
I just get fed up with others who have never lived where I live telling me, I have to be an addict as well. and I am pissed off with the smell of second hand smoke, so I vent it out.

[A Theist]

I wouldn't need a gun to put you on your back, sonny buck...

Is that it, your thought through coherent response? Twat.

Yeah well, if you didn't like the response, you shouldn't have tried to provoke it. Twat.

And that as I come from such a background, when I hear a man say I need a weapon to protect myself, I know the guy is a whoose.

[jonb]

I know, you see everything in confrontational terms, that my line was an explanation of the culture I come from, would be an idea alien to you.
Since one of the main motivations you say you stand for is a protection of what you take to be your traditional culture, which you seem to think is being threatened by other cultures: It seems odd you are unable to identify that talking about a different culture is not a personal attack on yourself.
When I did mention you, it was with reference that you describe those in opposition to you as left wingers, liberals, and in doing so you miss the truth there are those on the right who would also disagree with your position.
To me the debate is about more than a simple right left issue.
For instance my position that personal self control, is more important than 'I want a gun cos it makes me feel cool', would be hard to reconcile with a liberal agenda.