Why do Americans like guns so much?

Well those who aren't smart enough to wear them and get into accidents cost insurance and the government billions per year. Plus children who aren't seatbelted in become flying missiles and in many cases are ejected from the vehicle and suffer severe injuries or death? Ever seen a 5 year old child who only partially went through the windshield and ended up getting decapitated because her parents didn't see the need to belt her in nor have a car seat in the car??? Well I have and you never forget the sight.

The laws are there for a reason; not to make your life miserable, rather to try and save lives. If everyone used common sense, in many cases these laws wouldn't be necessary.

 

Yeah thats why I said natural selection. If youre not smart enough nor care enough to seat belt your child, then its your fault when your insurance rate goes up and its your fault your kid goes through the window, not mine.
Also, why not make smoking illegal since you cited saving lives? Do you agree to make that illegal?

 

Yes, you asked something about "routinely" asking about gun ownership. You'll notice its right in the link you provided for me. Thanks for making my point.

 

It's not a matter of "liking guns." Personally, I've never owned a gun, never (to my recollection) touched a gun, and if I could push a magic button to cause all the guns in the world to disappear and never be reinvented I would. But the guns are here to stay. The question, rather, is who should be allowed to control them. In a world with guns, the right for all citizens to bear them is an equalizer. Gun control doesn't abolish guns; it simply allows the government and wealthy people with hired security to monopolize guns. Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, and all the other gun controllers are surrounded by guns for protection. They simply don't want to allow the serfs to have access to the protection they have. Gun control is an alliberal idea that requires absolute faith in the state and in the power elite.

The fact that weapons have become more powerful only makes its all the more imperative that there is equal opportunity in the ownership--that certain groups aren't allowed to monopolize them. Men like Thomas Jefferson supported the idea of a volunteer militia and opposed the idea of a standing army, fearing that the army would become tyrannical. I suspect if Jefferson knew about the state's new might in nukes, tanks, and drones, he would be all the more fiercely opposed to a standing army and supportive of militias as equalizers with state power.

The Constitution is a piece of paper, and the government violates it all the time. If the Constitution has any teeth at all it lies in the strength of the American people, and they are stronger if they are armed.

I don't see any evidence that the handgun ban has made the UK a less violent society. I've seen all kinds of statistics on the rates of various crimes going up or down in the UK over the years. But not a single statistic has shown a single crime increasing until 1997 or 1998 and then dropping. Not a one has shown a crime rate decreasing more swiftly since the ban than before. Meanwhile, crime in the US has dropped after the overturning of the assault weapon ban and despite increasing gun sales. There is simply no correalation. If the US is a more violent society than the UK (and I've seen contrasting statistics there to), it isn't because of gun laws and probably predates modern gun laws in both societies.

 

Absolute just set you state-elitist worshiping morons ablaze.

 

The crime rate in the U.S. has dropped due to the fact that we initiated harsher penalties for criminals, the three strikes law etc., Why is no one pushing this with the same fervor since we know it works?

 

I'm not sure if vapid water can be set ablaze but the man is eloquant and correct

 

Eloquant and correct is exactly what it was.

 

Jackbooted thugs threw a suburban white woman with a toddler in jail because she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Not only are you happy about this you think it was too lenient. You want the police state to have even more power. All hail the police state!

 

Repeating a thing, does not make it true.

Many of the founding fathers believed that a standing army was the greatest threat to liberty, no doubt. It was their desire that this never happen. Others believed we needed a SMALL standing army, made large and locally focused with citizen soldiers. This is why it is not in the constitution that there shall be no standing army. The anti-federalists will provide volumes of documents opposing standing armies and congressionally controlled militia.

Lets deal with the constitution as it is... not as it was argued it should be. Let us not mince words either... it was determined by the framers of the constitution that there be a means to keep a standing army, which is for the legislature to agree every 2 years for its continuance, believing if the whole of the congress were so corrupt as to keep an army large enough to strip liberties from the people, over and over again with new members, we were already doomed or there was sound reason they could not forsee. ONLY ON CONDITION of the militia, citizen soldiers, which could fight for each state. The people themselves. We are harder today to topple and control, town by town by our own army than they were in 1776 from the british empire.

A good rifle is invaluable when the goal is not destruction, but tyrannical control.

In the face of a standing army is the GREATEST reason to preserve the organized and disorganized militia.

 

It is not the position of the government to protect me from me.

It exists to protect me from you.

Seatbelt laws are gross overreach. I always have worn one. Feel naked without one. NOT the position of the government to enforce that I do so.

 

I don't know if that's true or not, and I'm against legislatures imposing sentencing standards on what should be an independent judiciary. Regardless, one that did not cause it was fewer guns or more gun laws, neither of which came into being during that period. All the gun controllers have is that the US has a higher rate of gun violence than other countries, but there are a dozen other statistics that undermine the whole thing: from higher rates of non-gun murders in the US to gun crime rising after the imposition of laws in some jurisdictions to gun crime falling after their repeal in other jurisdictions. There are many factors that may play a role but legal 30 round mags aren't one of them.

 

For a start read the article to answer your question and the continue with your rebuttal if you have one.

 

Well I did have a rebuttal until you deleted it

You cannot compare crime statistics across countries

 

Isn't that exactly what you're doing when you repeatedly make the claim that the US has a murder rate only bested by third world countries and war zones?

Bit of a double standard, don't you think?

 

Then **** about our guns. It does not work both ways. Oh the UK... and the US... so the UK is better because...

We DO have a lower crime rate and a lower violent crime rate. Yes there are more shootings but blame that on weak enforcement in the liberal utopias. Also please say something about drunk drivers killing people. Please mention that 36% of the US prisoners are in due to alcohol in one way or the other...

 

The volunteers that came to fight for the Republic of Texas were brave Americans. The were not
operating under the Milita clause of the constition. After Texas won it's independence and later joined the union. The Mexican war was actually the first fought without the millita. The milita was used in both Oregon and Alaska during WW II. The history of the militia is very different than most think. The links are
interesting.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/IsTheMilitiaObsolete.htm



This link contains a good history of the use militia in the early days of America.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/15_4/15_4_2.pdf

The reason the militia has become to some outdated, is because the militia can only be used to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. So yes that has very little use for a imperialist nation. When they can instead use the raise armies clause and bypass those restrictions. The constitution is indeed a living document every court decision places a brick in the foundation of America. The potential problem if you remove the bricks at the bottom it can cause the foundation to weaken till it eventually fails. The militia will continue to exist as a defensive protection to the country and the constitution. The supreme court has many times addresed the issue and the militia still survives.

 

Tell that to snakestretcher, but then read the article, the commission reports took those differences into account and they are noted in the article.

 

It did nothing of the sort, what so you think posses's are? What do you think the armed citizens who defended there homes and families and property after Katrina were doing? Using there right to keep and bear arms.

 

this is hilarious

especially the last one

[video=youtube;5fWHFMQ8Wlk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fWHFMQ8Wlk[/video]

 

You see, the Civil War had the support of the majority. So my point stands

Baloney. That is the point, eh?

 

In my opinion, the wealthiest should be paying wartime tax rates for any professional standing armies in modern times.

 

Source?

 

This is not freedom. This is not fair. Punishing the successful to address those who are successful by ill gotten gains is not justice. You are the (*)(*)(*)(*) who punishes me for being black, because some black commit crimes and are in the news.

It has (*)(*)(*)(*) all to do with who I am.

 

So you post videos of a bunch of wanna be thugs, and people who have never fired a weapon before... and pretend that it exemplifies the responsible gun owners of America.


I guess if I show a video of black people raiding a wal-mart in a flash mob, it carries the same weight?

(*)(*)(*)(*) your dishonesty. It stinks, and you belittle humans with its odor.