Fknrepublicans

[Norby]

Do a little research on guns laws in Canada and the UK, then please do come back and tell us what you found. 

 

In 2013, the USA had about 20 times more gun deaths per capita than the UK.

 

In Canada, they had about 1/7th the number of gun deaths per capita compared to the USA.

 

The phrase, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is catchy for the uninformed.  But when you put that phrase up against reality, it fails.

I'll tell you what, you get the guns out of the hands of the CRIMINALS, all of them, and then I'll give up my guns willingly.  Should be about as easy as outlawing drugs, they should be able to round em up and get rid of them for good.  Wait drugs just got more expensive when we outlawed them and anybody could still get them who wanted them.  It just made the price higher and incentivised dealing in illegal drugs.  But who would want drugs if their illegal?  Criminals I guess.

[cristinew]

The problem is  they want to label  everyone a criminal.    

 

1. Louisiana
2. Alaska
3. Alabama
4. Arizona
5. Mississippi
6. South Carolina
7. New Mexico
8. Missouri
9. Arkansas
10. Georgia     Red states.  with lack of education,   Education is the key to a safer  USA  not a militarized police force kicking in doors,

Edited March 22, 2014 by cristinew

[Highlander]

Canada is not the US.  They don't have the drug crime we do.  You can also lower gun crime by legalizing drugs.

 

Maybe Canada has lower drug crime because they have tighter control of their guns.

[cristinew]

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.

Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment's "militia" reference as applying only to the military.

To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.

And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound "down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.

Unfortunately, as I document in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, while these three divergent viewpoints continue to jockey for supremacy, the U.S. government has adopted a "do what I say, not what I do" mindset when it comes to Americans' rights overall. Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government's attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while viewing as suspect anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one.

Indeed, while it still technically remains legal to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner ofsurveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at andkilled. (This same rule does not apply to law enforcement officials, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrists for using their weapons against unarmed individuals.)

Meanwhile, the government's efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as theDepartment of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets, and local police agencies being "gifted" with military-grade weaponry and equipment from the Defense Department.

Ironically, while the Obama administration continues its efforts to "pass the broadest gun control legislation in a generation," the U.S. military boasts some weapons the rest of the world doesn't have. Included in its arsenal are an AA12 Atchisson Assault Shotgun that can shoot five 12-gauge shells per second and "can fire up to 9,000 rounds without being cleaned or jamming"; a Taser shockwave that can electrocute a crowd of people at the touch of a button; an XM2010 enhanced sniper rifle with built-in sound and flash suppressors that can hit a man-sized target nine out of ten times from over a third of a mile away; and an XM25 "Punisher" grenade launcher that can be programmed to accurately shoot grenades at a target up to 500 meters away.

Talk about a double standard. The government's arsenal of weapons makes the average American's handgun look like a Tinker Toy.

It's no laughing matter, and yet the joke is on us. "We the people" have been so focused on debating whether the Second Amendment "allows" us to own guns that we've overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government's powers.

As such, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry's gun ownership. It is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well. "The Constitution is not neutral," he remarked, "It was designed to take the government off the backs of people." In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state. Without any one of these freedoms, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.

When all is said and done, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game. In other words, it's that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.

The Constitution is clear on this particular point, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach. As 20th century libertarian Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964, "No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."

In a nutshell, then, the Second Amendment's right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one's personal defense, but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one's freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property. As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship.

As George Orwell noted, "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

[solabeirtan]

Here is just one example:

 The the key indicators of gun violence that we analyzed, the 10 states with the weakest

gun laws collectively have an aggregate level of gun violence that is more than twice as

high—104 percent higher, in fact—than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws.

 

...

 

Our analysis determined that the following are the 10 states, by rank, that suffer

the highest levels of gun violence:

1. Louisiana

2. Alaska

3. Alabama

4. Arizona

5. Mississippi

6. South Carolina

7. New Mexico

8. Missouri

9. Arkansas

10. Georgia

Heres the graphic:

[Norby]

Maybe Canada has lower drug crime because they have tighter control of their guns.

Maybe, but i doubt it.  If they get out of control the US will smack them down because the US want control.  If the US gets out of control we as US citizens are the only ones to do anything about it.  Guns are the only things keeping politicians in check from doing whatever they want, well relatively speaking.  You can see it in the MJ laws.  They just want control.  They'll go against what 70% + of the public wants just to keep control over the public.  They'll confuse you with the "issues"(which gay marriage, drugs and the like aren't political issues) to get you to vote for them so they can have their spin at controlling things.  Basically by pitting us against each other by using emotional arguments.  Divide and conquer by getting in everyones business.  Cops are their to sweep up after the crime is done.  You are responsible for protecting yourself.  Most cops will tell you that.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Norby

[Chauncy Gardner]

Maybe, but i doubt it.  If they get out of control the US will smack them down because the US want control.  If the US gets out of control we as US citizens are the only ones to do anything about it.  Guns are the only things keeping politicians in check from doing whatever they want, well relatively speaking.  You can see it in the MJ laws.  They just want control.  They'll go against what 70% + of the public wants just to keep control over the public.  They'll confuse you with the "issues"(which gay marriage, drugs and the like aren't political issues) to get you to vote for them so they can have their spin at controlling things.  Basically by pitting us against each other by using emotional arguments.  Divide and conquer by getting in everyones business.  Cops are their to sweep up after the crime is done.  You are responsible for protecting yourself.  Most cops will tell you that.

Well put.

[pic book]

Start their own country, Dumfugistan.

funny one....but to darn all to one flame is too broad and so unfair.  needlessly alienate those repubs who are our allies?

[t-pain]

yes, we have republican allies and democrat enemies, even libertarian enemies.

got to work together somehow.

[phaquetoo]

It appears if you dont vote dem you are just a phaq head! I totaly think people who think they can tell me how to vote dont get it! My voice is as good as anyone elses, and I dont believe I ever told people how to vote or who to vote for! We most def need more than 2 main partys, we could have a smaller government and have 8 partys! I like Isreal's political process! Im sure there are many who dont, so does that make me wrong because some one dont agree with me? When it comes to politics in this site, alot of people make it clear to me how and why I vote for who and what I vote for lol! Peace comrads!

Edited March 22, 2014 by phaquetoo

[Norby]

I'm not telling anyone how to vote, just what I've experienced.  With 2 parties it may never matter how anyone votes, we may be damned no matter what, if both parties keep in power or if one or the other takes power.  I like the idea of more parties, political and otherwise

[phaquetoo]

I wasnt talking about you norby lol, yes for sure more political party's and more partys also! 

 

Peace

[Norby]

 

You can largely determine where a person will fall in the debate over gun control and the Second Amendment based on their view of government and the role it should play in our lives.

Those who want to see government as a benevolent parent looking out for our best interests tend to interpret the Second Amendment's "militia" reference as applying only to the military.

To those who see the government as inherently corrupt, the Second Amendment is a means of ensuring that the populace will always have a way of defending themselves against threats to their freedoms.

And then there are those who view the government as neither good nor evil, but merely a powerful entity that, as Thomas Jefferson recognized, must be bound "down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." To this group, the right to bear arms is no different from any other right enshrined in the Constitution, to be safeguarded, exercised prudently and maintained.

Unfortunately, as I document in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, while these three divergent viewpoints continue to jockey for supremacy, the U.S. government has adopted a "do what I say, not what I do" mindset when it comes to Americans' rights overall. Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government's attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while viewing as suspect anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one.

Indeed, while it still technically remains legal to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner ofsurveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at andkilled. (This same rule does not apply to law enforcement officials, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrists for using their weapons against unarmed individuals.)

Meanwhile, the government's efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as theDepartment of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration placing orders for hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow point bullets, and local police agencies being "gifted" with military-grade weaponry and equipment from the Defense Department.

Ironically, while the Obama administration continues its efforts to "pass the broadest gun control legislation in a generation," the U.S. military boasts some weapons the rest of the world doesn't have. Included in its arsenal are an AA12 Atchisson Assault Shotgun that can shoot five 12-gauge shells per second and "can fire up to 9,000 rounds without being cleaned or jamming"; a Taser shockwave that can electrocute a crowd of people at the touch of a button; an XM2010 enhanced sniper rifle with built-in sound and flash suppressors that can hit a man-sized target nine out of ten times from over a third of a mile away; and an XM25 "Punisher" grenade launcher that can be programmed to accurately shoot grenades at a target up to 500 meters away.

Talk about a double standard. The government's arsenal of weapons makes the average American's handgun look like a Tinker Toy.

It's no laughing matter, and yet the joke is on us. "We the people" have been so focused on debating whether the Second Amendment "allows" us to own guns that we've overlooked the most important and most consistent theme throughout the Constitution: the fact that it is not merely an enumeration of our rights but was intended to be a clear shackle on the government's powers.

As such, the Second Amendment reads as a clear rebuke against any attempt to restrict the citizenry's gun ownership. It is as necessary an ingredient for maintaining that tenuous balance between the citizenry and their republic as any of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, especially the right to freedom of speech, assembly, press, petition, security, and due process.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas understood this tension well. "The Constitution is not neutral," he remarked, "It was designed to take the government off the backs of people." In this way, the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights in their entirety stand as a bulwark against a police state. Without any one of these freedoms, including the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms, we are that much more vulnerable to the vagaries of out-of-control policemen, benevolent dictators, genuflecting politicians, and overly ambitious bureaucrats.

When all is said and done, the debate over gun ownership in America is really a debate over who gets to call the shots and control the game. In other words, it's that same tug-of-war that keeps getting played out in every confrontation between the government and the citizenry over who gets to be the master and who is relegated to the part of the servant.

The Constitution is clear on this particular point, with its multitude of prohibitions on government overreach. As 20th century libertarian Edmund A. Opitz observed in 1964, "No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words 'no' and 'not' employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."

In a nutshell, then, the Second Amendment's right to bear arms reflects not only a concern for one's personal defense, but serves as a check on the political power of the ruling authorities. It represents an implicit warning against governmental encroachments on one's freedoms, the warning shot over the bow to discourage any unlawful violations of our persons or property. As such, it reinforces that necessary balance in the citizen-state relationship.

As George Orwell noted, "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."

I've told the story over and over of the off duty cop who went into a friends hippie bar and got thrown out for trying to get the owners to sell him pot.  He came back drunk as he was when he went there, and fired a gun 2 x thru a carpet set up to block the bands noise.  Didn't know what was behind the curtain and shot thru a display case outside the mens room and one thru the exit sign.  He sped off and the cops took the guns they knew he had and let him sleep it off at home.  No charges because the hippies would've been targetted had charges been filed and his business would've failed.  My Aunt had to leave a note with me that if anything happened to her it was xxx who lived at whatever address because she was being stalked by a cop and couldn't file charges.  A cop who was later shot by a jealous husband for screwing his wife.  I imagine it came to that because he knew nothing good would've come from filing charges against a cop.  Is it right?  No but neither is using your position to do whatever you want without repercussion.  I bet that cop will eventually kill someone because there were no repercussions when he went over the edge the first time.

[Highlander]

Guns are the only things keeping politicians in check from doing whatever they want, well relatively speaking.  You can see it in the MJ laws.

 

 

 

Are you joking? You really think that legislators like Rick Jones lie awake at night and worry that MMJ folks are going to storm his office with firearms? This is silly. Please stop. If you think that such rhetoric influences legislators then you are beyond a

point where any of us can help you.

[Norby]

No I don't that's the problem.

 

That's what i mean.  Non violent non gun owning citizens don't get justice.  The cops go after them because they don't fear anything while targeting them.  You see the gangs getting raided by anything other than special forces type teams?  You see them shaking down gang hides as much as your common person walking down the street for a stop and frisk?  Thousands and thousands of stop and frisks and very few gang raids.  You know who doesn't want drugs legal?  Drug gangs and networks.

 

  How do you see it?  I don't see any politicians trying to legalize drugs like cocaine and heroin like they are in Spain, Mexico and other places.  Why are the politicians working for the people in those places?  Not because they have guns but our politicians are different here.

 

I'm not saying I'm or anyone is going to shoot a politician I'm saying they act differently if there were no way it could ever happen.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Norby

[beourbud]

repubs are going to be unhappy about anything and everything as long as there is a black man ( that's not the word they use in private) in the white house.

 

It is not about guns, that's just the distraction from their campaign of fear and hate and bigotry and homophobia and sexism and greed and general distain for this country.

 

You can't believe a word the repubs say after the lies of WMD, The Patrit Act, NSA spying and the subsequent toll on our military.

 

Patroits, job creators......yeah right

 

Remember repeal oobamacare 51 times, the sequester, shutting down the gov....the repubs hate this country and want slavery back. Do You?

Edited March 23, 2014 by beourbud

[AmishRnot4ganja]

repubs are going to be unhappy about anything and everything as long as there is a black man ( that's not the word they use in private) in the white house.

 

It is not about guns, that's just the distraction from their campaign of fear and hate and bigotry and homophobia and sexism and greed and general distain for this country.

 

You can't believe a word the repubs say after the lies of WMD, The Patrit Act, NSA spying and the subsequent toll on our military.

 

Patroits, job creators......yeah right

 

Remember repeal oobamacare 51 times, the sequester, shutting down the gov....the repubs hate this country and want slavery back. Do You?

I don't understand how so many people vote for Republicans. I suppose it is just denial on my part. I don't want to believe that there are obviously a lot of people who agree with the Republicans. Scary stuff.

[t-pain]

i think thats something a lot of people dont realize. there is a two party system and its just about 50-50%

 

heres the popular vote of 2012 presidential election. 120million voters in the usa.

 

Popular vote 65,915,796 60,933,500
Percentage 51.1% 47.2%

 

51% democrat , 47% republican.

 

that 5million "swing vote" chooses between dem and repub each election.

 

about half of the voting public is republicans. you really have to hammer this fact into your brains because everyone i've told about this does not believe it at first. thems the facts jack.

 

also it really shows how unequal the electoral college is.

Edited March 24, 2014 by t-pain

[+Malamute]

That's why I said it is easier to get a republican to vote for a better republican than it is to get them to vote for some democrat.

 

Shift the paradigm.

[Wild Bill]

Popular vote 65,915,796 60,933,500

Percentage 51.1% 47.2%

 

51% democrat , 47% republican.

 

Same crap, different piles.

[t-pain]

now if we could just get 60 million people to vote green party...

[phaquetoo]

beourbud you seriously need help dude, maybe go back under that rock for a few more yrs!

 

Its nice and peaceful and you can let all of them storys in your head work them selves out.

 

Peace

[I wood]

beourbud you seriously need help dude, maybe go back under that rock for a few more yrs!

 

Its nice and peaceful and you can let all of them storys in your head work them selves out.

 

Peace

 

 

But there is no sun under there, so he would no longer be organic.

[Wild Bill]

My problem with the Democrats is that they seem to think we are all children and need the nanny state to tell us what to eat, drink, and how to live our lives.

 

My problem with the Republicans is that they seem to base everything they do on fear and hatred. The bills they introduce are all anti something, workers, poor people, blacks, gays, drug users etc. (Sorry, some of them are pro big business at the expense of the rest of us.) If you're not Ward Cleaver you're a bad person and should be punished for it.

 

 

[beourbud]

beourbud you seriously need help dude, maybe go back under that rock for a few more yrs!

 

Its nice and peaceful and you can let all of them storys in your head work them selves out.

 

Peace

Lol..Jim you have been inhaling too much butane.

But keep posting, it keeps the topic alive and proves my point.

Edited March 25, 2014 by beourbud