Scalise was bulletproof

How does banning guns stop terrorism, in your mind? No guns were used in these recent EU attacks.

Also, you are never going to get the constitution, or ANY of the bill of rights amendments to go away. You can harp on that all you want but, it's NEVER going to change. EVER. You will NEVER get 75% of the state legislatures, of which only SIX are controlled in both houses by Democrats.

Being anti-constitution does NOT help your party, FYI.

You don't need substantiation. Just look at crime statistics. It's factually safer to live in conceal carry and open carry states. The states that used to not have this, have seen crime go down dramatically since adopting these policies.

You can't outlaw crime. It's already illegal. Yet, darn it, folks keep doing it! The notion that a criminal says to himself, "I was thinking about shooting up this joint, but guns are illegal so I can't", is flat ****ing ridiculous. We have half a BILLION guns in this country. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube now.

 

Ya know, inane rhetoric and hyperbole makes for a lousy argument.

In light of the rash of terror attacks in Britain, perhaps you should mind your own business and start banning automobiles and cutlery in your country. While we're dealing in unsolicited advice, you can walk to work and eat with plastic sporks.

PS. Do you know why we have a 2nd Amendment? Because of the British government that once oppressed and murdered our citizens.

 

He was able to purchase a firearm, again, because he was never charged for his violent behavior, which clearly should have happened.

Well then let's take the guns away from your police and military. Then when some drooling lunatic starts slipping a 12" knife between your ribs over and over you can know you did your part to stop the killing.

You can come up with all the hypotheticals you want, but in the US we have well over 15 million people with legal CCWs, and a growing list of states where the CCW license isn't even necessary.

In close to 40 years of CCW data, none of your hypotheticals have ever happened.

 

It's kind of hard to prove when he was never even charged, don't ya think?

Self defense is an unalienable right, not a popularity contest.

 

You mean like in France? How's that workin out?

And yes, there are many cases of armed civilians stopping attackers, but that's not the point of a CCW.

The point of a CCW is to protect YOU and the people you care about.

 

This is why we arm ourselves:

Do you think the two guys with AR15's that captured these violent criminals have 12 years of Gun School?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...captured-in-tennessee/?utm_term=.470522b9935c

 

Absolutely fine for the most part. France has difficulties that would be frankly insurmountable with broad gun ownership or access.
There is noone in Europe supporting the idea that more guns is the answer to domestic terror, and with good reason. It would be a complete disaster.

I think i mentioned earlier that if there is a generally loose gun ownership regime, CCW should be allowed. I don't really understand the logic behind banning concealment but not banning guns generally.

 

Do you think the Muslims who captured the white terrorist in London needed guns? Do you think it would have helped to have a shoot-out after the van was stopped?

 

If he wasn't even charged then that is even more indicative of the inadequacy of current gun control based on felony conviction.

Self defense has got nothing to do with gun ownership. Guns are offensive weapons that are incapable of defending anyone. There is no natural right to gun ownership.

 

Why?

 

Things that have other uses, economic uses, are important to retain. Guns have no use other than to escalate violence and kill.

So what?

 

This opinion again. Like a broken record.

Self defense is self defense. A gun is simply a tool to be utilized. They can be offensive or defensive. The more good people that are trained in their responsible use the better.. Concealed weapon carry permits are being issued at a rate of 100s of thousands a year atm

Men, women, right wing, left wing, even gay applications are way way up. Historically far left and anti gun. Pulse woke them up.

So it appears your all alone on your soap box. No one cares.

 

Indeed. Which is good, because the death tolls were lower.

It is possible that the 2A will be reinterpreted, especially if the pendulum swings too far in your direction. Its not logical to simultaneously deny the militia purpose but also to have any restrictions on arms at all.

• This states' stats are still well above developed country averages.
• I cannot link CCW with any particular benefit for crime reduction and personally believe that CCW is good if there are lots of guns about already anyway,
• Having said that, is it possible that states with low gun crime anyway have been more willing to open up to CCW, rather than CCW driving low gun crime? Correlation does not mean causation.

This doesn't explain why homicide rates are so much lower in countries with good gun control.
But yes, the de-arming of the United States would be a generational effort that would require attrition through control of disposals, in my view.

 

Its a fact. A gun cannot defend you. Scalise was shot, even with trained, armed people around him. That's the point of the OP. If he was carrying a gun, he would still have been shot.
The problem here was giving the shooter a gun in the first place.

 

You said the only purpose of a gun is to kill, and that we don't need them.

If the police are responding to deal with our requests for assistance, and we don't need them to stop the threat we are facing, then clearly police do not need them either.

 

No, it's indicative of a legal system that fails to identify violent people and hold them accountable.

Self defense has everything to do with gun ownership, both at the micro and macro. Every country has a military, the stated purpose of which is self defense. Some nations, like Japan, are mandated by law to be only a self defense force....yet all are armed with weapons for the purpose.

At the micro level this holds true for the individual as well. How does one adequately defend threats against their life from mulitple attackers? How do the disabled, elderly, or physically weak defend their own lives? Clearly, a firearm is, and always has been, the best self defense equalizer ever built.

Guns are demonstrably capable of defending people, as we have records of thousands upon thousands of self defense cases where a firearm was entirely responsible for saving the lives of would-be victims.

Defense of ones one life is absolutely a natural right, and all living creatures will defend themselves with the best tool they have available. In the United States, that right is clearly recognized in our Bill of Rights as both natural and unalienable.

There is certainly no natural right for a government to demand or regulate how or why you defend your own life.

 

I don't care what you do in your country, it's none of my business really.

If you want to be helpless in the face of lunatics trying to kill you, that's up to you.

I wouldn't depend much on the police, since there are records of those armed with sticks running away. You know, like what happened during the London riots.

Quite frankly, the only reason it wasn't 10 times worse, is that you were already on high alert from the Manchester bombing.

 

Actually the police forces themselves are saying more guns is the answer to domestic terror.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/european-police-push-for-guns-after-terror-attacks-threats/

That might have something to do with why France, and now the UK, are stationing military troops on your streets.

 

Actually the death tolls where vehicles were used were much higher than any mass shooting.

The countries that have low murder rates are highly homogeneous societies, and the more that changes, the more strife.

Europe is learning this lesson now.

 

Sorry, your trucks are far too dangerous so they must be taken away from you. The truck attack in Nice killed 86 people and injured 434 which is far worse than any shooting we've had in the United States. You'll have to figure out a safer way to transport goods and people - perhaps you can be trusted with rickshaws...

Evidently, the irony of Brits telling Americans they shouldn't have guns escapes you. We have a 2nd Amendment precisely because of the British, and we're no more interested in listening to your calls to disarm today than we were in 1775.

 

Yeah?

How was the attacker stopped?

If he hadn't been stopped in the manner which occurred, how would they have stopped him, and how many do you think would have died?

 

At some point we'll have to re-arm them a la Dunkirk.

You'd think they'd learn.

 

Humans have an inherent right to self defense. My little old mother cannot factually defend herself from a large man, with any other weapon than a gun, with any reasonable reliability. It's not any more complicated than that.

Also arguing against the 2nd amendment is futile. It's widely supported; you will never get it to go away.

 

That's not a fact - a gun can defend you:

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-...s/news-story/d8dbe7bd19775ba207f6513064cef8b4

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605

These are but two examples of why guns are called "the great equalizer", but one of our former presidents expanded on that:

“The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, too. It insures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed. When the British forgot that they got a revolution. And, as a result, we Americans got a Constitution; a Constitution that, as those who wrote it were determined, would keep men free. If we give up part of that Constitution we give up part of our freedom and increase the chance that we will lose it all.” ~Ronald Reagan

 

What's up with these dudes?:





Evidently, someone across The Pond thinks guns protect people, but don't let the peasants find out...