By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Obama Admin Caves: ATF Halts Assault on Inalienable Rights

starcraft on 12 March 2015
SocialistSlayer said:
starcraft said:

The bolded is one of the main reasons I avoid engaging in this debate on forums more often than note.

One side presents evidence, the other promotes unsubstantiated myths to try and defend the indefensible.

Hell, even if you were right, the lack of morality associated with apparently not giving a shit because supposedly someone that got shot was a criminal (of some kind????) is astounding.

you said, innocent, they arent. its that simple. also you were creating a straw man, claiming people argue that the 2A protects 10,000 murders.

furthermore, they arent myths they are cold hard facts, something hoplophobes dont have on their side.

  • 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
  • 64% had been convicted of a crime.
  • Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.
  • 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant
most of those 10,000 murders are from gangs killing rival gangs/thugs. crime on crime. does that fact dismiss those murders? no, but it puts them into perspective. 

then add to that, guns are used defensively 1-2.5+million times a year in the US.
and add that 5.56 isnt large caliber, nor are rifles used in much crime, let alone rifles chambered in that caliber.
you are just flat out wrong on all counts. but it is hard defending a point of view which is countrary to facts.

Link?



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
WolfpackN64 on 12 March 2015

The 2nd amendment really should be severely restricted



thranx on 12 March 2015
Hiku said:

The 2nd amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed a lot since then. They could not have foreseen how things would look today.
Gun control in the US is a discussion that needs to be ongoing.

The 'human rights' argument sounds pretty inappropriate though.


I don't fear the Army. I do fear the multitude of armed federal agencies. They just keep getting more and more weapons



Normchacho on 12 March 2015
starcraft said:
SocialistSlayer said:

you said, innocent, they arent. its that simple. also you were creating a straw man, claiming people argue that the 2A protects 10,000 murders.

furthermore, they arent myths they are cold hard facts, something hoplophobes dont have on their side.

  • 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
  • 64% had been convicted of a crime.
  • Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.
  • 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant
most of those 10,000 murders are from gangs killing rival gangs/thugs. crime on crime. does that fact dismiss those murders? no, but it puts them into perspective. 

then add to that, guns are used defensively 1-2.5+million times a year in the US.
and add that 5.56 isnt large caliber, nor are rifles used in much crime, let alone rifles chambered in that caliber.
you are just flat out wrong on all counts. but it is hard defending a point of view which is countrary to facts.

Link?

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/#note-93-1

I warn you though, most of the "facts" on that site are woefully out of date, and/or use local studies as representative of the entire country.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Mr Khan on 12 March 2015
Hiku said:
thranx said:
Hiku said:

The 2nd amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed a lot since then. They could not have foreseen how things would look today.
Gun control in the US is a discussion that needs to be ongoing.

The 'human rights' argument sounds pretty inappropriate though.

I don't fear the Army. I do fear the multitude of armed federal agencies. They just keep getting more and more weapons

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you'd like to have a firearm to defend yourself with against some kind of federal agency?

The militiaman's dream seems to be to go out like David Koresh.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
SocialistSlayer on 12 March 2015
Normchacho said:
SocialistSlayer said:

you said, innocent, they arent. its that simple. also you were creating a straw man, claiming people argue that the 2A protects 10,000 murders.

furthermore, they arent myths they are cold hard facts, something hoplophobes dont have on their side.

  • 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records.
  • 64% had been convicted of a crime.
  • Each had an average of 11 prior arrests.
  • 63% of victims have criminal histories and 73% of the time they know their assailant
most of those 10,000 murders are from gangs killing rival gangs/thugs. crime on crime. does that fact dismiss those murders? no, but it puts them into perspective. 

then add to that, guns are used defensively 1-2.5+million times a year in the US.
and add that 5.56 isnt large caliber, nor are rifles used in much crime, let alone rifles chambered in that caliber.
you are just flat out wrong on all counts. but it is hard defending a point of view which is countrary to facts.

The bold is an absolute bogus statistic. Between 2007 and 2011, there only 338,700 cases of firearms being used defensivley. The NRA loves to tote that 2 million number based on what is obviously an unreliable study taken in the mid 90's.

only 338,700? even if that was true which it isnt, thats a lot, more than homicides. but anyway the vast majority of defensive gun uses does result in any shots fired. just the mere presentation or threat of the weapon.



 

Normchacho on 12 March 2015
SocialistSlayer said:
Normchacho said:

The bold is an absolute bogus statistic. Between 2007 and 2011, there only 338,700 cases of firearms being used defensivley. The NRA loves to tote that 2 million number based on what is obviously an unreliable study taken in the mid 90's.

only 338,700? even if that was true which it isnt, thats a lot, more than homicides. but anyway the vast majority of defensive gun uses does result in any shots fired. just the mere presentation or threat of the weapon.

It's absolutely true, and considering that the NRAs bogus numbers would make the total between 15 and 37 times higher, only seems pretty reasonable.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

thranx on 14 March 2015
Hiku said:
thranx said:
Hiku said:

The 2nd amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed a lot since then. They could not have foreseen how things would look today.
Gun control in the US is a discussion that needs to be ongoing.

The 'human rights' argument sounds pretty inappropriate though.

I don't fear the Army. I do fear the multitude of armed federal agencies. They just keep getting more and more weapons

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you'd like to have a firearm to defend yourself with against some kind of federal agency?

Yes. Much easier to trample on my rights when I have no way to defend my self. But given a chance to defend, forces them to back down. I dont want to shoot them and they dont want to shoot me, but if i have no way to defend myself than they win by default. The Bundy show down is a good example of this. Having a way to defend, and a way to easily get your message acroos, film and internet, is the only deterent to the overreaching federal agencies in the US. Let us also not forget how easily a certain world leader was able to bypass their national army and use what was similar to our federal agencies to take control of a country. It has happened before, and will most likely happen again. As the saying goes if you dont learn from history you are destined to repeat it. Well, I have learned, but unfortunalty not all of my country men have. Hopefully it never comes to that, but with every federal agency I know of not following the law and being used to bash opposing views, or as local thugs for corrupt politions I feel it is a valid fear. So valid our founding fathers not only saw it coming, but warned us about it, and tried their best to set up a constitition that would stop it. But who am I to think this, perhaps its best to put my head in the sand, and just think everything is OK becuase I'm in America and it can't happen hear, right?



alabtrosMyster on 14 March 2015

Only in the USA would your opinion be considered anything else than freaky... And no, you are not more free because you have a big gun.



thranx on 14 March 2015
Hiku said:
thranx said:
Hiku said:
thranx said:
Hiku said:

The 2nd amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed a lot since then. They could not have foreseen how things would look today.
Gun control in the US is a discussion that needs to be ongoing.

The 'human rights' argument sounds pretty inappropriate though.

I don't fear the Army. I do fear the multitude of armed federal agencies. They just keep getting more and more weapons

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you'd like to have a firearm to defend yourself with against some kind of federal agency?

Yes. Much easier to trample on my rights when I have no way to defend my self. But given a chance to defend, forces them to back down. I dont want to shoot them and they dont want to shoot me, but if i have no way to defend myself than they win by default. The Bundy show down is a good example of this. Having a way to defend, and a way to easily get your message acroos, film and internet, is the only deterent to the overreaching federal agencies in the US. Let us also not forget how easily a certain world leader was able to bypass their national army and use what was similar to our federal agencies to take control of a country. It has happened before, and will most likely happen again. As the saying goes if you dont learn from history you are destined to repeat it. Well, I have learned, but unfortunalty not all of my country men have. Hopefully it never comes to that, but with every federal agency I know of not following the law and being used to bash opposing views, or as local thugs for corrupt politions I feel it is a valid fear. So valid our founding fathers not only saw it coming, but warned us about it, and tried their best to set up a constitition that would stop it. But who am I to think this, perhaps its best to put my head in the sand, and just think everything is OK becuase I'm in America and it can't happen hear, right?

While I'm aware that some US government agencies do some shady and illegal stuff, that tends to go down behind the scenesd. Like the black site torture that was recently reported. Pulling a gun on them does not seem like a choice that would lead you anywhere other than in jail or in a coffin. In those situations, you're "supposed to" defend your rights in court. Pulling a gun on them is deemed resisting arrest, and can give them authority to open fire.


No they do plenty of home in vasion type entering from the BLM, from the FDA. Not to mention DHS, a fully armed, on us soil army, that does not see its main goal as protection its people, but as protectiong the government. The EPA, etc. Why do they all need to be armed police forces? Why can't they just ask for local assistance from local law enforcement? Because, local law enforcement is more likely to say no, because local law enforcement is closer to the poelp, just like the army is of the people. But these federal agncies are for the government. We are still in the middle of an IRS investigation on how they abused their powers to squash beliefs they did not approve of. So I no longer have a trust of the government, and would most certainly feel safer with a means to defend my self if things keep getting worse.