Death by Gun Control...The truth about gun control laws...

...they don't work. The end result is usually death of millions of people, usually at the hands of their own tyrannical governments.

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.

jpfo.org...


"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

"The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press."


Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Thomas Jefferson "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

truer words have never been spoken...

Also I under stand its not Jefferson, but it fits perfectly.

This thread will probably die because the gun-control advocates have no counter argument for it. They tend to ignore any and all points that they can't counter. That's just how ignorant people are. They ignore/deflect and instead try to steer the debate towards more trivial/subjective matters to make themselves feel like they won. sad

reply to post by thehoneycomb


We do not need more gun control to decrease gun violence.

One word: Canada.

I posted this in another thread earlier.
I hope the Mods don't see it as spamming but I want to say it again because I am so eager to have these questions answerd by those who are proponents of gun control.


It all really comes down to one or two questions which people who are against guns will never point blank answer.

Who do YOU want in charge of YOUR safety?

A. YOU

B. Police


If you choose "B" then at least you are consistant.
STUPID, and consistant.

The police didn't do a whole hell of alot for the people in that theater did they?

If you choose "A" then you have another question to answer.

Do you suppose that the best way to defend yourself from a gun weilding maniac is with

A. A GUN!

or

B. Your fists.

If you coose B then at least you are consistant.
STUPID, but consistant nonetheless.


If a gun weilding maniac kicks in your door while you and your family are playing scrabble at the dinner table and demands that you all get down on the ground except for your pretty young daughter whom he intends on taking into the bathroom after he hogties the rest of the family you really wish you had......

A. A .45 1911 with hollow point rounds.

or

B. A spatula.





If you choose A. then congratulations, you are a crazy gun nut who supports the second ammendment of that worthless piece of paper called
"The Constitution of the United States of America".

If you choose B then.....Welll..... at least you are consistant. Consistantly stupid, but.....consistant nonetheless.

I think MORE people need to, if not own guns, at least become familiar with them. In other words, gun control is not the answer, but Gun Education could accomplish a lot. People who are afraid of guns, usually see differently after they've actually gone out shooting. Target practice out in the woods was some of the most fun I had as a kid with my parents. Unfortunately we just did it the one time when I was 10 or 11. But it brought us closer and reinforced the idea of safety and of protecting your family. We had a serious talk about gun safety, and about how there are some people in the world who are sick and try to hurt other people so its important to learn how to defend yourself and your family against such people.

Gun education is important. It would reduce the amount of accidental shootings, by children and otherwise.

reply to post by theroguelion


Hey what do you know you are right.

But you can use this thread as reference, next time some asswagon tells you that the Constitution is out of date, you can remind them why the US has lasted over 200+ years and has been the most prosperous nation on earth.

Not that I'm against guns but this argument is kind of silly. The government could drone attack us all, non-stop, till we just surrendered. Either that or hire some mercenaries to fight us. A couple of machine guns isn't going to save you from the US military's power. Half of the US is fat and can't even run.

[

reply to post by benrl




Please referance this link and my signature.

jefferson quotes

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by theroguelion

 

you can remind them why the US has lasted over 200+ years and has been the most prosperous nation on earth.

This is very true, that is, until the elitist globalists starting taking our rights away. Our prosperity is eroding right along with our rights, and historically this has been true of all countries.

Like the undeniable relationship between gun control and increased violence, some people just refuse to see, because it might upset their government-ingrained world view.

Try this one on for size: en.wikipedia.org...

Seems to me the countries with the most lax/permissive gun regulations tend to be at the top of the list, with the ones with the most restrictive regulations being right near the bottom.

Admittedly the situation isn't quite as simple as that and you have to take into account culture and social attitudes towards violence (ie: make love not war). From my limited experience alot of the countries high up in that list have populations that tend to be overly assertive and are quick to become aggressive. Solve the ingrained cultural problem(s) and you'll likely see gun deaths halve overnight...

Take Switzerland for example, large rate of gun ownership but relatively few deaths because their the swiss simply don't get as aggressive as quickly as say South Africans, El Salvador(ians?) etc. The whole uber-machoism, alpha-male mentally isn't as strong and as a result there's less violence.

reply to post by thehoneycomb


Flag and star, the theorized grand total number of ppl killed by their governments
is north of 262 million.

Democide

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

The 2nd amendment is the answer to evil megalomaniacs, sociopaths, and psychopaths
who killed those millions of ppl.

I hope we never have to use it, but as JFK said.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

I will not be part of the revolution, I will be hiding, but I can smell the smoke already.

I don't think you people realize this, but you are scaring yourselves into believing the government is actively trying to kill you and your family. This is really weird, you are fear-mongering each other from within this pro-gun stance while claiming anyone who is pro gun control is afraid of guns. I have no words for it. But as stated above, if the US government really wanted you gone, your little guns would not save you.

So by your reasoning OP, the following countries should have had millions killed, if not the entire countries completely wiped out:-

Austalia
New Zealand
Japan
England
Greece
Italy
The Phillipines
Iceland
Sweden
Norway

Do you want me to keep going on listing countries that have supposedly "extreme" Gun restrictions, that haven't had millions of people exterminated? GG OP, GG.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

– Thomas Jefferson –

reply to post by acmpnsfal


So we should give up the one piece of deadly self defense that we have because the government has bigger guns?

This is my mantra. Gun control ONLY benefits criminals and government. It does not benefit those whom it professes to and leaves the common man at the mercy of those that it does.

All you gun control nuts need to start screaming from the roof tops for governments around the world to give up ALL of their weapons and stop ALL wars. Once we have a decade or so of peace and the governments of the world stop desiring to send my kids off as cannon fodder, you can come back and have this discussion. At that point in time, I might be willing to discuss.

As for the picture posted, look at the people in charge at the time that the Genocide happened:-

Soviet Russia - Stalin, an A Grade Homocidal maniac
Nazi Germany - Hitler, Himmler, Rudolph Hess, et al - another bunch of A Grade Psycho's
Cambodia - Pol Pot - hey, look, another nutcase dictatorial leader...........

Can people see the pattern emerging here? Well, for the people struggling, it's this - The majority, if not all, of the leaders who were in charge, were A Grade psychotic fools. If they could do what they did, do you really think they would have given a crap if the people were armed or not? Hell no, they would have just sent the Army in to clean up the problem. In which case, it would just turn into Civil War, just like in Uganda, Rwanda, etc.........

The Genocide Chart shows just how prescient out forefathers were in establishing the Second Amendment. Protection from potential government tyranny is the rationale for "the right to keep and bare arms." Gun deaths are unfortunate but must be viewed the same as car or truck accidents. IF the government wants to stop needless deaths it should consider outlawing tobacco smoking in public (my right to clean air free from second hand smoke trumps your right to smoke in enclosed public places).