Right so firearm sales are still surging to what could be on pace for what was a record year last year, or a new record this year. I agree I wish it broke down the long rifle area and I'm sure it does somewhere. I just wonder how many of those 19 million guns won't be used in a crime, something tells me the overwhelming majority.
Another shooting... California Disability Centre
- Thread starter The Midnight
- Start date
Right so firearm sales are still surging to what could be on pace for what was a record year last year, or a new record this year. I agree I wish it broke down the long rifle area and I'm sure it does somewhere. I just wonder how many of those 19 million guns won't be used in a crime, something tells me the overwhelming majority.
I was not trying to prove one way or the other. Just what I found real fast on my phone.
I recently read that Americans have bought enough guns this year to completely arm the Marine Corp. Not sure if that is true or not.
well, collectivists agree on one thing at a time. When they are in the majority they agree to have their way. When they are in the minority they agree to have their way anyway, if the majority will let them.
Franklin is bored with this stupidity. Collectivism under any name. . . socialism, communism, progressivism, whatever. . . . is the theory that minorities actually have no rights. Since collectivists believe they are a higher breed of human, they disparage the minorities so long as they have the majority, in their opinion, or for so long as the newspapers and media will honk their horn for them.
"Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for lunch. Liberty is some well-armed sheep.
I know you are not actually a free human, OL, the concept is unknown to you as a contented subject of the Queen. Throughout the British Commonwealth there is a stable order in society, but it was achieved by the nobles putting a few hobbles on the King/Queen. The Magna Carta guarantees some basic human rights, and trials in courts before juries of their peers. But it is principally still standing, so far as it is, because the lesser nobles are protecting their own dominions through their seats in The House of Lords. Not elected officials there.
An actual free human with a sense of liberty expects to have a say in his government.
The elites would not give a damn about little people shooting one another, or some lunatic shooting up a little public gathering. The idea of reducing the population overburden on earth resources is a larger consideration today. The only reason they pay their media lapdogs to snarl about the shootings is because "Fortress America" is the biggest nuisance to their unfettered dominions over the whole earth.
They don't mind having armies with guns, or planes with bombs, or drones with bombs, are nuclear aircraft carriers or any other weapon of mass destruction. But a rag-tag populace with little pea shooters annoys the hell outta them.
I know a lot of pretty nice folks like OL are impressed with the pretended humanitarianism and the jacked-up statistics that say a gun buyback will make the world safe for elite governance. But the idea of superior management classes is repugnant to traditional. . . that is to say, "real" Americans, the Americans who hold individual liberty up as a higher value than a well-managed community. Human Liberty has a price: Tolerance of imperfection, respect for individual choice.
A lot of folks rely on guns for their safety. A hungry cougar in an isolated place is a threat to human life. A good dog will be some deterrent, two or three makes you pretty safe. But some people can't keep dogs, and they have a right to carry the weapon of their choice.
It is not something we can allow "collectivists" to regulate. It's none of your business.
FalseFlagg K
Well-Known Member
dude .. you do know Australia and New Zealand completely elect all their own representatives and that the British Monarchy is merely a figurehead probably to be abandoned before too long ??
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" — Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
If you don't know who this individual is please do some research.
FalseFlagg K
Well-Known Member
If you have a point please feel free to make it
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Babe hit the nail on this subject, we're back to the pre Independece War years, except it's an economical invasion. To be honest I don't see any short term solution to this. As babe stated very accurately America is the last stand for fighting back against the powers that want to end the concept of 'sovereign nations'. It amazes me how people think that a revolution of the People cannot happen in this day and age. People in the 30's thought that World War II was crazy talk, yet it happened.
Let's not be so frivolous about this subject. The notion of banning guns in America is not a game for kids, it's irresponsible, it has the potential of putting the lives of many people in danger and it would have ugly consequences.
Let's not be so frivolous about this subject. The notion of banning guns in America is not a game for kids, it's irresponsible, it has the potential of putting the lives of many people in danger and it would have ugly consequences.
FalseFlagg K
Well-Known Member
ok so let me see if i understand you ...Foreign powers who control financing are threatening the independence of the United States or any other sovereign nation by stealth. Any kind of measures relating to gun control would covertly weaken the independence of such countries, the gun bearing citizens of said countries being the only real free people who would represent the last stand of free willed people on the earth. Taking away the guns of these good folk would lead to bloodshed and mass slaughter of such citizens attempting to fight for their rights as free people. Kindof like you're Sector 13 fighting to maintain freedom from the ruthless dictators of Panem who control not only the financial system and therefore control everyones lives but god forbid impose their awful fashion sense ??
Jamezz
Well-Known Member
Exactly! You described it better than me, kudos.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....good question....and excellent point! Police estimate that if a household gun is ever used, “it is six times as likely to be fired at a member of the family or a friend as at an intruder,” reported Time magazine. “A wife or mother thinks she hears a burglar and ends up shooting a husband or son coming home late,” said one public-safety commissioner. ‘How, then, should people protect their homes?’ he was asked. “Perhaps the best way to protect yourself is by risking your property rather than your life. Most robbers and burglars are there to steal, not to kill. Most firearms deaths in homes are committed with the homeowner’s gun.
Now consider some overwhelming facts. In the “relatively rare shoot-outs between householders and burglars that do occur, it might easily be the burglar who proves more skilled in handling his gun and the householder who winds up in the morgue,” reported Time magazine. Whatever deterrence a gun might be in the prevention of a crime, it is more than offset by other devastating factors. Consider, for example, suicides. In the United States alone, in one 12-month period, over 18,000 people shot themselves to death!
“THEY have this illusion,” said one prominent police official, “that they’re going to point the gun at someone and they’ll be in control and when it doesn’t work out that way, they hesitate, just as many police officers will hesitate a split second, and they pay for that with their lives. Many people don’t come to grips with the fact that owning a handgun means being prepared to live with the aftermath of killing another human being. If you don’t actually shoot and a criminal fires at you, it is more dangerous to own a weapon than not to have it at all.”
I know that's what you've been told.
Even in Great Britain there is an air of unimportance, politically, around the Royals.
uhhhhmmmm. . . . the fact is, they can if it is their prerogative, insist on some things you might not be told about.
well, it is one layer better "democracy" than say an outright dictatorship. You don't get to vote for the Queen, or the House of Lords in England. In the commonwealth states, Canada, NZ, and AUS there is home rule, except in some "emergency". But that ignores all the fine lines of influence and "connections" where real power flows. Perhaps of more concern is the UN, which I consider a Brit implement for continued leverage in the world. So who decided the "elite" set of nations, say on the Security Council. For that matter name one UN official subject to election, and maybe see if you can research the important figures in the UN. . . . like say the Queens Consort, Prince Phillip, with his influence in the environmental side of things, laying vast tracts of almost every nation aside for "conservancy" or whatever. The King's Forest, man, The King's Forest. All the land is theirs, and the peasantry better not poach a mouse.
If all you know is what you've been told in school, you probably don't know what's important about the way the world works.
FalseFlagg K
Well-Known Member
lol
I know how you feel.. LOL .. we're both pretty lucky to live in a place where civilians don't need to carry guns to feel safe. One Eye is right about the difference between US and NZ, Aus, Canada..etc. Not sure what Babe is talking about with the Queen, etc, she has 0% power over NZ and Aus.. pretty sure she doesn't give a damn what we do or don't do neither. It's really only a formality at this point. Wouldn't be surprised if both NZ and Aus become a republic within the next 10 years.
FalseFlagg K
Well-Known Member
when's the vote on changing your flag ??
the queen's head is on our 50 cent piece !! ooooohhhhhh
Haha.. the first vote finishes tomorrow deciding the contender, then we have another in Feb for the contender vs Current flag.
Still a lot of old/conservative people here just wanting the status quo though.. it's probably going to end up with us keeping the current flag.
Kinda amazing that this is the most we have to worry about right now considering what else is going on around the world.. LOL..
If a trend lasts for more than 4 years, it's not a surge. It's just what is.
His point was "HURRRR!!!! 'MERICA!"
You're a relatively new poster around here. I'd like to introduce you to babe. He's the second biggest conspiracy theorist we have.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I'll ask again, because it doesn't seem like anybody has brought it up...but why don't we promote gun safety and education in our schools. Owning guns is a right, not a privilege, but a right. So why wouldn't we educate our youth (and adults for that matter) on how to use them, what they should be used for, and how to make sure accidents don't happen? But instead of education people wanna go right to gun grabbing. That's not logical to me.
I mean, we've had "assault rifles" (they're really just semi-automatics, but again, no gun education here) with the same current ability of today for over 60 years. We didn't have as many issues with this crap 60 years ago (or it doesn't seem like it). So what's the real issue? Availability? The states with the strictest gun laws have the most gun killings. Mental health? People don't wanna touch it.
What I see is too many people that want guns, for a myriad of reasons, but don't have very much knowledge about them. As a gun proponent, that saddens me. So I'll ask again, why don't we run gun education the same way we run sex education? Mandatory in all schools. How would it not help?
I mean, we've had "assault rifles" (they're really just semi-automatics, but again, no gun education here) with the same current ability of today for over 60 years. We didn't have as many issues with this crap 60 years ago (or it doesn't seem like it). So what's the real issue? Availability? The states with the strictest gun laws have the most gun killings. Mental health? People don't wanna touch it.
What I see is too many people that want guns, for a myriad of reasons, but don't have very much knowledge about them. As a gun proponent, that saddens me. So I'll ask again, why don't we run gun education the same way we run sex education? Mandatory in all schools. How would it not help?
Ignoring the blanket collective right/individual right argument, I don't believe there's any evidence that it would actually help. The 2009 Fort Hood shooter was an Army Psychiatrist. Being in the military at all infers firearm safety. That, and 40% of shooters in this link here committed suicide. Most at the scene.
I'm not sure of what a "Gun Safety" course you're imagining entails, but if you draw it up I'd entertain the concept.