@CarbineKingClassic Oh look, another person who doesn't understand either American or human history. When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no army, national guard or police and, there were no nuclear bombs or bio weapons. Perhaps you should go back to elementary logic 1-A school and start over.
I understand it better than u.What weapons did and did not exist is irrelevant.The purpose of the second amendment is to allow the populace to defend themselves from a well-armed military force,more specifically from that of their own government.So yes,the founders WOULD want the ppl to hav grenades,bioweapons,and automatic small arms.So suck on that dick, u smug, uppity, self-righteous fake liberal ass.Your tired,stupid-ass argument is getting old,but not any truer.
@CarbineKingClassic You are drawing an artificial line down the 2nd Amendment where none exists. Jefferson owned a private canon, which was the largest weapon of his day, just as nuclear bombs are the largest weapon today. The 2nd Amendment uses the term "arms", not guns and thus, any attempt to insert "guns" or "small arms" into it is an obvious contradiction in basic logic, unless you are going to limit the 2nd Amendment, which is what all sane and rational people want in the 21st Century.
As I said, the founders would want the ppl to b at least as well-armed the military, if not better. Those that r familiar with the history of totalitarianism knows that arms control is the essential precursor to open fascism. The purpose of gun control, despite what the government says, is NEVER to stop crime. Gun control doesn't lower crime, it just disarms non-criminals and creates black markets. It also creates a government monopoly of force. In fact, that's it's only purpose
@CarbineKingClassic This is nonsense. The United States has a higher murder per capita rate than any other nation in the developed world. Canada, which allows some guns and restricts others, has a far lower murder rate than we do, as does EVERY European nation. The Second Amendment does not address "guns"; but rather "Arms", a much bigger reality. Either we are going to have sane weapons control or we are not going to survive as a society. Your position has no historical or rational merit.
Really, it doesn't? There's about 6 million Jews that would disagree with u on that, were they alive to speak. Then there's about 40 million dead Soviets, all of the Palestinians murdered in cold blood by the modern Israeli state, as many as 100 million victims of Chinese gun control, 1.5 million dead Armenian Turks, the Tutsis of Rwanda, and many others. U hav a right to choose to allow yourself to b brainwashed n murdered, but don't ask me to die with you.
@CarbineKingClassic Nonsense, many other strict gun control govenments do not have such track records; you are just picking & choosing and pretending gun control is responsible when very clearly it is not, or else the same scenario would be true today in UK, Canada and France. Either we have sane “arms” regulation in the 21st Century or, we have to apply what the what the 2nd Amendment literally says and, allow unregulated sale and ownership of WMDs and bio weapons. NRA = hypocritical nonsense.
Canada has like 12 ppl in it, and they don't outlaw gun ownership. Plus Canadians r REALLY stupid, so maybe u should pick a different country to idolize. The UK and France r both socialist totalitarian regimes. And yes, gun control is responsible. Tyrants know they hav to disarm their victims. U don't really get the idea of a free society, do u?
Also, Switzerland, the nation that our second amendment was inspired by, has the lowest crime rate in the world. Switzerland also, purely coincidentally i'm sure, issues a military-grade fully-automatic rifle to every household. They require, by federal law, firearm ownership. They also run drills where they actually teach the ppl to hide their guns from the government, and teach that if the government ever tries to confiscate guns that the ppl should react with deadly force
@CarbineKingClassic I noticed you ignored the fact that Canada and EVERY European nation, including the UK which allows no guns, has a lower murder per capita rate than our own. Your position has no merit. Police officers in droves oppose allowing unlimited gun ownership, because doing so allows criminals to outgun the police. The position of modern day "gun nuts" is simply that, totally nuts.
@CarbineKingClassic The purpose of the ENTIRE Constitution, according to the pre-amble, among other things, is to " insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence". There was no "common defence" when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. You continue to draw an artificial line down the 2nd Amendment, pretending ALL guns are permissible, while other "Arms" like nuclear bombs are not. Survival in the 21st Century is a matter of implementing "Arms" control, including guns.
@ richard aberdeen You jackass. There was a continental army, the Constitution itself IMPLIES that there should be a allowed funding for a standing national army provided for every two years under congressional control, Alexander Hamilton and founding father Supreme Court judge Joseph Story both Support the fact that in Detail of the intention for there to be a national army, and YOU are misinterpreting and twisting founding fathers quotes to create a false premise they never intended ANY army.
@atteki1 I have never said I am in favor of outlawing guns. I'm in favor of people going through extensive training, certification, back ground checks and training in order to own a gun for hunting or protection and, for making all weapons that are not rationally needed for hunting or personal protection, such as assualt weapons, illegal. Sane people are in favor of sane gun regulations, just as sane people are in favor of sane motor vehicle, truck driver and airplane pilot regulations.
The NRA has done more of the fighting for our gun rights then you & all the rest of those who smear the NRA in one way or another. Is the NRA perfect? Well NO...but I'm sure you are. The NRA rocks & what I've discovered is that when someone attacks the NRA their reasons usually hide a more sinister agenda. Like taking gun rights away for example. Soooo....nice try but I'll support the NRA because they support me.
@paomtep Sorry, I don't own a gun, so the NRA hasn't done a damn thing for me, other than to make my life more dangerous due to the gun-toting nuts who do own a gun.
The NRA doesn't care about the 2nd amendment or gun safety. They hide behind those curtains so they can justify donating $10m to John McCain. The NRA is a sales representative group for firearms manufacturers. They came to power about 82 years after the Constitution was ratified. Now they are the single most effective lobby. Each state interprets the 2nd amendment differently. AZ AK & VT are the most unregulated states. Did TJ intend for the 2nd amendment to become a states' rights issue? hmmmm?
@eqsmooth This is true. If the NRA really supported the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution in general, they would be calling for a new amendment that addresses the 21st Century reality, which is extremely different than the reality when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, when cannons were the largest weapon known and, when there was no federal army, national guard and mostly no police power at all. These people are obviously playing historical looney tunes, to be kind.
I have to add one more thing. If the police being out gunned as you say is your driving force for your fear, what about the people who asked the police for their help, did the right thing and called 911 instead of buying guns, but are now dead since the police cannot protect them? See the book "Dial 911 and Die" by Richard Stevens. Real cases here in the USA where people chose to not exercise their 2nd amend. rights, trust the police, yet paid for it with their lives.
@eoaroadshow It is not me who is afraid. It is people who arm themselves who are afraid. Jesus didn't carry either a sword or a gun. It is the naive and immature who pretend that guns will protect them.
@richardaberdeen Afraid etc. is not the point. Legality of guns is. Main reason I have guns is they are fun to shoot. Self defense is secondary only as a last resort after all else fails. Cops claim they carry only to use as a last resort, and use pepper spray, tasers, etc first right? 911 cannot bring police quick enough to stop a criminal, so why are we condemned if we want to try and defend ourself? Many die while on with 911. If they had time to dial, they had time to shoot.
@richardaberdeen Anyway, I really don't wanna turn your video into an endless argument session. I just don't see why the "antis" are afraid of us lawful owners. We all have deadly weapons of one form or another. Murder by car for example. In Canada the gun laws dropped the number of suicides by firearm, but total of suicides rose. They find other ways if there's no gun around. The weapon's not the problem, the problem is the user. I'm sure you've heard that from "us" but it's true isn't it?
@richardaberdeen The 2nd amendment is very clear, even if you really REALLY dislike it.
Further, in Mathew, Luke, and John, Jesus in fact told his followers to even sell the clothes off of their backs to get swords to defend themselves with.
Finally, those of us who truly believe in personal responsibility apply it to all things, not just protection of self. We take responsibility for our bills, our actions and our lives.
PS
Please Google the "No Duty" cases in the US. You may have a new view
@UrbanCombatSurvivor The 2nd amendment very clearly says "arms", not guns and Jesus, in the instance you were talking about, said "two swords" were "sufficient" for a group of people, very clearly aluding to self-defense. Unlike today, in the day of Jesus, there were no police and his followers often traveled on roads open to highway robbers. It was common practice in his day to openly display a sword to scare off such highway robbers, the same as today we have car alarms to scare off thieves.
I personally think the NRA only does the bare minimum to keep gun owners happy. Their primary objective is revenue. Gun Owners of America (IMO) are in the business to protect rights first, and make money second.
What's sad is how confusing and emotional this topic gets. Arguing if one can own this type or that type of weapon is fruitless. Fact is, a law abiding person will never use any weapon illegally, but the unlawful will obtain and use weapons to commit crimes regardless of the law.
@eoaroadshow I agree, The NRA is all about protecting it's own existence and otherwise, enriching itself and corporate backers. The AARP is all about protecting it's own existence and otherwise, enriching itself and corporate sponsors. That is the trouble with such organizations, they don't given a damn how many mothers and fathers lose their chidren or how many children lose their mothers and fathers to gun violence or, as is the case of the AARP, lose them to lack of affordable health care.
@richardaberdeen As to the Police being against them; many of the Chiefs are opposed to them, but for no higher purpose than for political reasons. I also know quite a few Law Enforcement Officers. Police, Sheriff’s Deputies, and MP's. Most of them have a superiority complex, and don't think that anyone but them should have a gun. They simply don't trust anyone who is not a cop. To them, you are a cop, you are a family member of a cop, or you are a criminal.
@Magman454 Several police associations, including in Los Angeles where I grew up, have strongly opposed the NRA because according to them, the insane positions of the NRA have allowed criminals to out gun the police. No police officer want to be out gunned by the bad guys, which has consistently been true in Los Angeles even before Reagan was governor of Calif, of which I have personal experience. That is why police in general, myself in particular and the Brady Organization, oppose the NRA.
@richardaberdeen Can you please site even one case or instance, specifically, where the NRA supported even arming criminals, let alone insuring that they had better weapons than the police?
@Magman454 Well, most police officers can add two plus two. When you want to allow unlimited ownership of machine guns and bazookas, don't want any background checks, want to allow guns to be sold out of the back of trunks, traded and bartered freely at tent shows and you don't want any licenses and passing of tests to own one, like say a drivers license for example, then most cops can add up the score, in the real world of LA bankrobbing and gang banging, that equals police being out-gunned.
@richardaberdeen Given that LA has some of the strictest gun control laws of any city in the County, the fact that the police are outgunned has nothing to do with restrictions on law-abiding citizens. The fully automatic firearms that were used in that LA bank robbery were smuggled in along with drugs from Mexico. They were not legal for anyone to own. Can you point to even one single gun control law that has been proven to reduce crime, or make the streets safer?
@Magman454 This was not always the case. LA has developed strict gun control laws over time from experience of a great many police officers losing their lives and a great many widows and children being left fatherless. I feel sorry for you, because you think a perceived "right" to own a gun is more important then the lives of police officers, their wives and their children. As I noted, I have both friends and family who were police officers and they do not share your twisted view.
@richardaberdeen You've made several statements about the NRA's positions. You've made other statements that would suggest that gun control laws save lives. I've asked you several times for specific examples and all you can do is give opinions, anecdotes, and insults. I can give you specific cases where gun control laws have COST LIVES.
@Magman454 Gun control is more lax in the United States than in any Western European nation, Australia, Canada and Japan. The murder per capita rate, according to the conservative Bush justice department, is higher in the United States than any Western European nation, Australia, Canada or Japan. You keep digging yourself a deeper hole with each contradictory response. Gun control does not stop murder, but it reduces it on a demonstrateably statistical global level. YOU ARE PLAINLY WRONG.
@Magman454 Right, every police chief and all of the millions of police officers who favor gun control and oppose the wicked agenda of the NRA are all "politically motivated". Yeah, sure.
richardaberdeen Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. I said people LIKE the Brady's. As to their track record of supporting criminals; They provided legal help to Heller in the recent case in D.C.. They provide such help to their members in self defense cases as well, after review of the case to insure that it was legitimate self defense. Can you cite even 1 specific case in which they provided such help to an armed robber, or a murderer?
It almost pains me to admit it, but since the GCA of '34 (A.K.A. the National Firearms Act) that required that fully automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and "Any other weapons" (I.E. palm guns, pen guns, and cane guns.) had to be registered with the BATF, not a single one of those registered weapons have been used in the commission of a crime. Facts are facts, and that just happens to be one of them.
I no longer have to rely on the kindness of a predator or the lucky happenstance of a passing Cop. I have the ability to meet force with force. You may be satisfied with hope and prayer. You may think, "just giving them what and they'll just leave.". I gave them what they wanted. I did nothing to provoke them, and they shot me anyway. I guess they also wanted to know what it was like to shoot someone.
I do not carry a gun to be macho. I do not carry it in hopes of some day being able to shoot someone. In fact, I hope to never have to use it. Much like the spare tire I keep in the trunk of my car: I know that the likelihood of my needing to use it is low. However, I know how to use it and will not hesitate to do so if need be, but it is not something that I am looking forward to.
I now legally carry a concealed weapon. Although the law that allows me to do so now was in existence then, I was only 20 years old. Because some Politician made an arbitrary decision to limit Handgun sales to those 21 years and older, I could not qualify to carry one then.
There were several points during the engagement at which I would have been able to use a concealed weapon had I had one, but a politician decided that I did not need one. I swore that I would NEVER be that helpless again.
I am assuming that you state that Jim & Sarah Brady have a right to argue in favor of gun control because Jim was a victim of gun violence. I would say that they have that right due to the First Amendment, just as any other American.
Now, let's say that their voices carry more weight because of their status as victims. Then what about mine? Not all victims of gun violence blame the gun. I blame that asshole that shot me.
@Magman454 Your position contains two obvious fallacies. 1) The 2nd Amendment is about "Arms", not guns. 2) The same "logic" can be applied to selling nuclear bombs and bio weapons; after all, it's not the weapon but the "asshole" who releases the bio germ that kills everybody. There is no rational or logic to the NRA position. Either we are going to have sane weapons regulation or, we aren't going to have a civilization left at all. The debate isn't about guns, nor is the 2nd Amendment.
@richardaberdeen You are the one who broaught up Jim and Sarah Brady. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall either of them arguing for more NBC Weapons controls. I can only remember them arguing for more restrictions on firearms, and handguns in particular.
@Magman454 My video is focusing on the foolish NRA position, which draws an artificial line down the 2nd Amendment and pretends it says "guns" when in fact, it is referring to a much larger issue. Jefferson owned a private canon, the "nuclear bomb" of his day and I have no doubt he would strongly oppose the NRA hypocritical position today. The purpose of the Constitution, as stated in the pre-amble, is to "preserve domestic tranquility", not to protect gun ownership. The word "gun" is absent.
@richardaberdeen "For the record, if any living Americans have the right to argue in favor of restricting the 2nd Amendment, it is Jim and Sarah Brady." Those were your words, not mine. Follow your own "logic"; if the NRA is not legitimate because they only stand against restrictions on firearms, then the Brady's must be equally as illegitimate because they only try to get more restrictions on firearms. Or did I miss their speech in Congress about the dangers of privately owned NBC weapons?
@Magman454 No, that is exactly backwards. Jim and Sarah Brady would be arguing for control of other "Arms" if the NRA was trying to say otherwise. The NRA is limiting the debate to control or not control of guns and other small hand held weapons, such as knives. It is the NRA that is presenting a twisted view of the 2nd Amendment. The Brady Campaign is merely re-acting to their twisted view. They didn't invent this fiasco, the NRA existed long before the Brady Campaign.
@richardaberdeen actually it is you who have it backwards. The NRA did not used to be a political body. They became a lobbying organization to counter the gun control lobby in Washington. Were it not for people like the Brady's campaigning Congress for more, and more, and more gun control laws, the NRA would still be a civilian marksmanship program.
@Magman454 No I don't. Many police and other organizations actively opposed the positions of the NRA before Ronald Reagan became president, which is long before the Brady organization was formed. The NRA has a sorry-ass track record of supporting violent criminals so-called "rights" to out-gun the police dating way back into before I was even born. I have both friends and family who were police officers and none of them support the NRA's sorry-ass position.
@richardaberdeen Once again, I will ask you to cite even one instance in which the NRA supported a criminal's rights. Just one. As to your friends and family members who are police officers; I know a few myself, and to a man, they have a superiority complex. They believe that only they and possibly their family members should be able to own guns. Everyone else is either a criminal or too stupid to be able to handle them.
@Magman454 The NRA has consistently opposed gun regulation of any and every kind; they have given in out of political expediency in several instances, but they continue to consistently oppose any type of restrictions on gun sale or usage as much as is politically expedient, even after the recent shootings at Virginia Tech and more recently in Arizona. According to several police associations, NRA positions play right into the hands of the worst and most vicious and violent criminal elements.
@kingVillien This is a "bad example" of how to spell the definition of the NRA correctly. That's "dumb" as in dumbshit, not "dunb", which is pretty much like "dung", which literally means "shit".
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns
The above is actually true in Great Britain as since we have had a handgun ban the only people to have them are the criminals ( police dont count ) so stopping the legal ownership of guns simply aids the illegal activity in them
@antipike When nuclear bombs and bio weapons are outlawed, only criminal corportaions and terrorists will own them. So, I suppose, we should all be allowed to manufactue Anthrax and freely sell it at "Bio-WeaponTent Shows" or out of the backs of our cars. The per capita murder rate is far higher in the U.S. than in any developed nation with gun control. Your absurd position has been weighed in the balances and found severely wanting.
@richardaberdeen Your anaology is flawed i can work from real statistics can you
Gun crime in the uk has went through the roof so why did they ban handguns ? , some of us still have them tucked away seeing as the compensation was a joke for handing in a fully working handgun
Interesting strategy. You throw out some perverted logic and then have to run up a list of defenses against anyone who doesn't share your view. Are you going to continue to waste your time fending off everyone with these inane retorts?
When you said you had read a little history, you were correct.
I hope you didn't stay up to late putting this together. What a bleeding heart liberal.
The reason our system doesn't work has nothing to do with guns; it's because of the rampant abuse of political authority that has driven people to become so disenfranchised with their government and members of their fellow population. That's all driven by uncontrolled corporate greed.
Tell us the truth ..... you really go around sniffing Nancy Pelosi's office chair after she leaves the office. don't you?
@BR549guy "All driven by corporate greed"? Sounds to me like it is you who are "the bleeding heart liberal". I've read a little history and happen to know that people were being murdered, raped and plundered long before the existence of corporations. Apparently, you haven't thought through your position very carefully.
Germany has pretty strict gun control, but while I was living there in the 80s a NATO General had an RPG fired into the trunk of his Mercedes(luckily it was armored). England has even stricter laws but the IRA and other criminals never have problems getting all sorts of weapons. Gun control laws only take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law leaving them unable to defend themselves against the criminal element. PS:I am a Democrat, Union and Athiest not a right wing loony toon
I suppose one can just ignore the statistics agreed to by both the conservative Bush U.S. justice department and the international community, clearly demonstrating that the per capita murder rate is much higher in the United States than in any Western nation with gun control. And for the record, I pretty-much equate "loony tunes" with atheism, as well as with the conservative right. There is no evidence that God is a conservative or, that the universe just magically appeared on it's own.
my make believe diety is better than your make believe diety and if we don't make them happy they will punish us....yeah, right. that's sanity for ya. and then there are the cretins who want to teach creationism as science in school, ha!, not to my kid.
@WBFD125 And, your statement reminds me of the "Dawkinites" who pretend to be "scientific" but who in reality, believe in the Grand Baseless Superstition of spontaneously appearing universes filled with intelligent beings. Atheism has no more value than astrology and arguably, considerably less.
Its not difficult to dismiss your statistics when those statistics were about the same rank 20 years ago and have stayed pretty consistent ever since. What it clearly demonstrates is that we have a more violent society than most "western civilizations". Its not because we have easier access to firearms, its cultural.
Well, that's two out of three I wouldn't brag about. Being union is smart, the other two pretty much balance against your sanity. Both Germany and England have lower per capita mruder rates than the U.S.
Very good, you can look at number and accurately compare. Now look at the numbers of murder per capita pre and post gun ban/ gun control for each respective country. You'll see little to no change, making the legislation ineffective. Due to different definitions of laws its difficult to get an accurate measure of crimes committed in separate countries. Which is why I generally separate them. You should check the per capita murder rates for Estonia, and Poland while you're at it.
@siradon2000 Some SANE and I emphasize the word SANE European nations have had gun control in place since long before you were even born. Gun control is "new" in the United States, as is most everything else that represents social sanity, such as AFFORDABLE QUALITY HEALTH CARE, for example.
I guess that depends on YOUR definition of SANE. If you're saying that regular people (not in law enforcement, or military) are more prone to be insane you might want to look into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and see what professions top the list. Yes many have had "gun control" in Europe for a long time, but not gun bans. That also doesn't change the fact that it does little to nothing.
I understand what is trying to be said in this video BUT you can bet that if we didn't have our right to bear Arms we wouldn't have the right to do anything else... The right to bear Arms guarantees all other rights.
I have never been against the right to bear arms. I am against the irrational interpretation of the 2nd Amendment promoted by the NRA and right-wing radio. Such a position would never be held by the framers, who wrote the Constitution specifically to quell violent uprisings such as Shay's Rebellion, as it says, to "insure domestic tranquility". No rational human being believes in the unlimited "right" to bear arms in the modern 21st Century reality and neither would any of the framers.
Yeah, right, like people in England, Canada, France, The Netherlands and Germany have zero rights, except for of course, the right to quality affordable health care, free college education and many other perks of more sane governments that we lack. Your argument sucks, to say the least.
The Constitution also guarantees the right to keep silent, an imporant part of freedom of speech ignored by McCarthy and modern right-wing radio clones, who we in the sane world only wish would keep silent. Freedom of speech very clearly applies to the pen and the press, as very clearly agreed to by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine and others. There is no such agreement among thme of unlimited right to bear arms, which in the modern 21st Century includes nuclear bombs and bio weapons.
When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no national army, no state guard and no police force. Thus, the amendment makes rational sense in the light of the reality of the times, while an unlimited right to bear arms makes no rational sense in the modern 21st Century reality. As the Constitution clearly states, the purpose of of the entire document is to "... insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..." Today we have police, guard & army.
These are good examples of why our own nation is crazy. Murder per capita rates are much higher in the United States than they were in Canada and Europe where they have much tougher gun regulation laws.
That is not true at all--source nationmaster and put the com after and w's in front; youtube doesnt allow links: Murder per capita: U.S. #22, Finland #30, France #40, Australia #43, Canada #44, U.K. #46, Germany #49, Netherlands #51. All Western European nations with stricter gun control have lower per capita murder rate than U.S. Canada, which allows guns for hunting, has 1/4 as much, U.K., which allows very little private ownership, also has 1/4 as many per capita murders (approx numbers).
Didn't you just say that statistics can be " tricky." Would you like me to put stats here? I have a library of books directly in front of me regarding many issues, this being one of them... but most importantly, FREEDOM!
I can go to Google and type in per capita murder rates country comparison and find many different polls who all agree that the U.S. per capita murder rate is about 4 times higher than it is in either the U.K. or Canada. As I noted, it doesn't surprise me that a Fox and NRA defender doesn't agree with all known legitimate non-partisan polls.
1) We the people are the government and of course, we should care if everybody has healthcare--haven't you ever heard of contagious diseases? 2) Why should private insurance compaines be taking billions of dollars of our money? 3) Healthcare in sane nations is better than ours and costs way less because private enterprise is either capped or not involved. We rank 37th in global health statistics, yet we pay twice per capita as people in Japan, who have far better care and insure everybody.
Healthcare in other nations IS NO WHER NEAR OURS! We have MUCH better HC than anyone else in the world... hence the reason why they come here!
You quote absolute BULLSHIT stats in comparison.
34 thousand people a year die in the UK each year WAITING for HC. 20 thou die each year in the US due to lack of HC. With the HUGE population difference, that would skyrocket for us. STOP TAKING MY FREEDOMS AWAY! You want it, MOVE!
Get the friggin government out of healthcare completely and you have competition, which lowers prices.
Fortunately, the idiots at Brady and you will never take my freedoms away. Remember, we're the ones with the guns! You will have one hell of a fight on your hands fighting with things like....... words and spoons!
Our country was founded on the Constitution and we will stand by it!
You keep lying about well-established statistics. We have worse national health statistics than every European nation, Austrialia, Japan and Canada, not to mention several former Soviet block nations and others. There are literally thousands of both national and global health statistics that document this. Even educated conservatives agree. You keep talking out your ass and have yet to provide any statistics to back up your inventions. My claims are well documented on my website.
It's pretty sad that you accuse other of providing skewed facts or downright lies and you proclaim yours as fact.
We all know liberals don't lie! lol
If you want to check the stats like rationing, because they don't spend a lot on their care, go for it. Research your clearly biased numbers. As I have said, just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's true. But you go ahead and believe what you see, I'm going on vaca for several days. If you want, we can continue in several days.
World Health Org Ratings--approx same as many other: 1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan 11 Norway 12 Portugal 13 Monaco
14 Greece 15 Iceland 16 Luxembourg 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland 20 Switzerland 21 Belgium 22 Colombia 23 Sweden 24 Cyprus 25 Germany 26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates 28 Israel 29 Morocco 30 Canada 31 Finland 32 Australia 33 Chile 34 Denmark 35 Dominica 36 Costa Rica United States #37
Anyone can type "international health rankings" in Google and find many different organizations that all agree with WHO--the best ranking the U.S. has managed on any legitimate chart is #33; both the conservative Wall Street Journal and Fox News agree that the U.S. ranks significantlyw worse than any other Western nation. YOU ARE JUST INVENTING FICTION THAT NO ORGANIZATION CAN DOCUMENT. You have failed repeatedly to supply any documention for your fictious assertions.
That's my point of what you're doing. You believe what you read just beacuse some organization, you believe is accredited, says so. Guess what, with the bullshit and bias that come from the WHO, it's not! I could easily quote information and you will use the typical liberal line and say it's biased like you do with Fox. Do you understand why even many liberals are turning to Fox for news? Because that's the only place they get it!
I gave you something to look up in Google, where a great many organizations all agree with WHO. You have yet to supply any supporting documentation for any of your claims. EVERY SOURCE AGREES THAT THE U.S. RANKS LOWER THAN OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS WITH UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEMS. EVERY SINGLE SOURCE. YOUR NUTS !!!
Regarding global warming, there are thousands of square miles of brown earth that used to be covered by ice pack in Greenland, South America and northern cities are melting into the sea. Islands on a global level are "falling into the ocean". This is impossible to happen if the earth was not warming up. YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. California is one of the several states in severe danger of diminishing fresh water supplies due to Rocky Mountain snow pack melting.
Greenland... GREENland! Maybe we're coming back to where we should be! 30 years ago, you wackos were telling everyone that another ice-age was coming. 10 years ago you said it was global warming. Now you're saying it's "climate change." WOW can't go wrong there!
Your information has already been debunked, why should I say anymore. If you choose not to listen, then you choose not to listen. You can view many debates, argunments, videos, whatever, on here proving your lunacy of GW.
I'VE SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS. AGAIN, YOUR NUTS !!! You have no documentation whatsoever to support your absurd position. Ice is melting all over the earth and the ocean level is rising. There is no way this would be happening if the earth was not warming up. AGAIN, YOU ARE NUTS !!!
I HAVE NO MORE PATIENCE WITH YOU. YOU JUST REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE. THIS IS MY FINAL POST TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST RANTING AND RAVING INVENTED FICTION--YOU HAVE NO DOCUMENTATION.
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said. A "glitch," they said. lol
New ground measurements made by the West Antarctic GPS Network (WAGN) project, composed of researchers from The University of Texas at Austin, The Ohio State University, and The University of Memphis, suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been.. overestimated."
Well, at least you finally attempted to provide some evidence. Unfortuantely, these same scientists who you quote out of context believe that overall, the earth is losing significant quantities of ice and, the rise in ocean levels, clearly documented by island measurements on a global basis, most definitely proves this to be true. What has been learned by fairly recent research is that some parts of Antartica have gained in ice but that Antartical as a whole, has greatly lost total ice.
Well that was fun. All the evidence I provided is gone! All the web sites and videos I posted are gone! Oh joy!
How about this, try the MIT professor who single handily debunks your claims. I'm not going back and repoting the links for that since it's clear they won't get through.
I'll repost the crime stats though since they are still up.
As I suspected, you dismiss the evidence of blatant bias. You're right, there's no point in debating anymore. The crime stats are gone too. All I did is one simple thing, googled "problem with crime stats."
I hit the 2nd 3rd and 4th. You do what you want. It's clear that you don't listen to anyone but who you support. Try reading a book that challenges you for a change.
How about this? Try growing up and admitting you are wrong. There are several bought and paid for scientists who deny global warming. Try reading the Britannica and doing your own research. The WEIGHT OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDNECE IS APPROXIMATLEY 99% TO 1% IN FAVOR OF GLOBAL WARMING. If you want to believe the bought and paid for one precent, that's your business.
My last post. You just blew your whole argument by stating 99-1 lie.
I've done my research which is why I don't take this at face value. The FACT is you DO NOT research the other side.You are that closed minded. You are scared of what you may find... that this is a hoax. As I've said already (and you have not responded) in the 70s, your ilk told us about a new ice age. The 90s was about GW and now it's climate change.
You friggin people can't get it right! It's you who needs to grow up.
Much more so because there is much less ice, the Artic regions of the earth have experienced dramatic reductions in total ice. Greenland is a good case in point, which has thousands of square miles of revealed brown land that was under ice a generation ago. South America also has huge amounts of snow pack loss. If the planet is warming up, "perimeter" ice would be the first to go, which is what ALL of the scientific evidence demonstrates on a global basis.
And again, you claimed that "crime" is much less in the U.S., yet the conservative Dept of Justice under the Bush Administration, which routinely lied to Congress, published otherwise, which can be found by Googling the data. You remind me of the right-wing radio DJ Phil Valentine here in Nashville, who cherry-picked a section of a lengthy article on global warming, pretending that the scientist writing the article concluded the opposite of what he was actually claiming in whole context.
And, I notice that you didn't challenge the U.S. Department of Justice crime statistics, which clearly agree with what I stated and don't agree at all with your absurd claims of crime being lower in the U.S. than the UK, Canada and other nations with gun control. You are really making yourself look bad. Why would the U.S. Department of Justice under Bush lie about crime statistics not in their favor? Or, why would the conservative Wall Street Journal do the same regarding health statistics?
U.S. Dept. of Justice Burglary & Robbery 2008 comparison between Austrialia,
Canada, England, Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, & United States: U.S. #2 highest rate in Burglary, #3 highest rate in Robbery. Nationmaster Homicide Statistical Survey: United States homicide rate double or more than than homicied rate of every Western European nation, over 3 times higher than UK, Canada and Australia, over 10 times higher than Japan, Saudia Arabia, Quatar. Other sources approx same.
GLOBALWARMING: The U.S. town of Pt. Barrow, Alaska is literally melting into the sea and the population is literally moving inward, every ocean island is losing land, ice sheets in antartic and artic are significantly diminishing, Greenland has lost thousands of square miles of ice, South America has lost significant glacier pack, as has North America. What causes warming is a combination of things, fossil fuel burning among other. THE FACT OF GLOBAL WARMING IS SCIENTIFICALLY INDISPUTABLE.
You need to do some research on the lies you read! Like the California size ice-sheets they "missed." Like the temperature gauges that were placed on asphalt to increase the temp... WOW Some people will believe anything!
richardaberdeen is all wrong when it comes to gun control and you are just as wrong when it comes to health care. my brother in law is English and no one in his family has any problems with their health care system. I was born in Germany, spent half my life there, have had a couple of major health issues which were well taken care of and didn't miss any paychecks while I was in the hospital. How many die here because they have no insurance??
@WBFD125 Well, it's nice to see that someone besides me has the right information about health care. EVERY European nation has a better health care system at 1/3 or more less the cost. And, anyone who has checked out the facts already knows this.
Absolutely right on about the health care. Problem is we have self serving politicians that look to make money as much as possible.
Obama's health care bill however won't lower costs to the working people, in fact just the opposite. It steals money from "Cafeteria" programs, taxes everyone more, and includes a Fine if you don't have insurance and are above the "poverty level".
You might wanna check into that. I don't have health insurance and haven't for quite some time. I had an accident involving a tooth and an extreme abscess. At any rate I had to go in for surgery and I was well taken care of. One hospital had me for 8 hours in an Emergency room, when after tests came back they decided to send me via Ambulance to another hospital to a specialist in Otalaryngology, at that hospital I spent 4 days after surgery. (continued)
I received all the help I needed and at no charge. Granted I had to follow through on the paper work (that took all but 10 minutes), but at no charge. Do you people honestly think that doctors, (given the reason that most of them become doctors is to help people) are going to simply deny a person due to financial or insurance status? We have medicare and medicaid as well. They do help.
@siradon2000 There are several people who have died in Tennessee here because they didn't have health care and were refused medicine. I went to one of their funerals. Well over 50,000 Americans die each year from lack of health care. Somebody here obviously doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. Many other Americans choose daily between pain medication, foor or rent--try getting by without your pain medication if you are a paripletic and see how much you enjoy human torture.
The current Bill Obama is proposing also gets rid of insurance companies being able to turn people away who have previous conditions. Creating a further burden on the insurance companies, which means either they'll have to raise rates (which this bill also limits), or get government subsidization. Any way you look at it everyone is getting screwed accept those under the poverty line. Which are already the ones who get medicare and medicaid.
The reason health care is out of control here is because of extreme fees from Doctors, and Hospitals seek to draw from those very insurance companies you so hate. Even though a new cat scan takes 15 minutes instead of 45 minutes the price never came down. Even though they use less power, and can fit more patients in due to the cut in time. The problem is greed from Hospitals, Insurance companies just pass the cost along.
@siradon2000 That's a total lie. The reason health care costs so much more in this country than any other nation is because he health care industry is bleeding us dry. Just recently, two of the biggest insurance providers increased rates from 25 - over 50%, inspite of billions in profits. That is pure greed from the insurance industry and has nothing to do with what doctors and hospitals charge.
Its not a total lie, its the truth. I never said that insurance companies weren't out to make a profit. It has a some to do with what doctors, and the hospitals charge. The reason they charge the way they do is to take advantage of insurance companies. FYI doctors and hospitals are looking to make money too, (granted it was a good thing for me).Which is why the Hospital could afford to finance my surgery.
By the way when I was in the emergency room for 8 hours just the time I spent in the room was over $4,000.00 there weren't any special machines in the room with me, that was just for the space I occupied for the time I was waiting for the ambulance to come. There was a separate bill for the administration of the IV, and the CAT scan, etc. You really don't believe doctors and hospitals overcharge?
What you are leaving out is that insurance companies pay doctors and hospitals significantly less for the same services as those who pay out of pocket. Thus, hospitals and doctors charge the uninsured significantly higher for the same services. Large hospitals in Nashville and many other cities have closed due to the fact insurance companies refuse to pay them and when they do, they often shave off significantly what they actually owe.
And who do you think paid your tab for the hospital visit?? We the tax payers did just like we pay for all the illegals who show up there and can't pay. And yes, I have seen people get turned away because they can't pay. A guy I knew got his front teeth smashed in in a bar fight. He went to a Dentist and an Orthodontist who both blew him off. It wasn't till a few weeks later that he found one who was willing to take payments. Needless to say by that time they couldn't be saved.
I see, so you think that it'll change by taxing more people, even people like me who can't afford it? Then penalize me because I don't have it because I don't live under the poverty line?
Seeing as how I'm one of those taxpayers, I guess I helped pay for it then huh? But hey, if the "taxpayers" paid for it, wouldn't that be a sort of socialized health care already?
Much of what the NRA defines as "violent crime" involves robbery where no one is injured, rather than real violent crimes like murder, armed rapes and other armed weapon assaults. I myself would much prefer to be held up with a gun as a convenience store clerk, as I once literally was in Denver, than I prefer to be murdered or violently assaulted. Being held up with a gun is emotionally traumatic, but nothing compared to what happens every day in the U.S. due to armed physical assault.
I would much rather have a gun in a situation where I at least have a chance. There are numerous examples of gun-defense uses everyday and also where they could have helped. And as you may know, a cashier-clerk is the most dangerous job in America.
Ex: A friend of mine recently was 'asked' for five dollars in a P-Lot. He denied. The man said 'no, you're going to give it to me' amd reached into his bucket while my friend reached into his waistband. The robber fled and he called the cops.>>>
Again, your just talking bullshit. The per capita murder rate is much lower in many European nations, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and in a great many other nations that have sane gun control laws. Your not convincing anybody of your brilliance when you deny the well doucmented statistics from a large variety of sources readily available on the internet.
You're talking about murder, I'm talking about crime. When broken down by category, your murder rates are lower in the U.S. I've already said that which is why your argument is now moot since you won't listen to oppsoing facts.
As I've also stated, the cops are NOT there to protect as the SCOTUS has stated.
The number of robberies carried out using a knife rose by 15,000 to 40,400 in 2005-06; muggings involving a knife increased by 17,730 to 42,000 and violent attacks using a knife on a stranger rose 18,300 to 51,700.
Forgive me, but I'm sure glad I get to carry a gun! Fortunately, the government is still on the side of us and not the pansies.
I have never said we should ban guns. For a great many years, I have advocated having a 3-6 months waiting period to purchase a gun (which would solve a lot of problems), requiring a license similar to a drivers license where people have to demonstrate their knowledge of safety issues (similar to a drivers test) and, that adults be punished for whatever crimes children commit if and when a child gets hold of an adult's gun due to lack of proper lock and key and other safety proceedures.
Yea, like 80 year olds driving down the road on the wrong side? Months??? Absolutely not! Never happen, thank God.
The lock is also pointless. Should I ask a home invader to wait til unlock a gun? Shoud you have to ask a mentally screwed up man to stop shooting people until you unlock your gun? Give me a break! There's no point. You might as well as just ban self-defense!
Bullshit !!! I supplied a source backing up what I said. You have supplied nothing backing up what you pretend, because there are no such figures. There is no legitimate source on the web that shows the U.S. has lower per capita murder rates than nations with sane gun control laws. NONE. You have no evidence whatsoever. BULLSHIT !!!
Anybody can be tricky with statistics, as Fox invent the news demonstrates on a nightly basis, but per capita murder rates very much are a fair and accurate barometer of comparative violence from society to society.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider murder a violent crime and the U.S. has a much higer per capita murder rate than either the U.K. or Canada; in fact it is 4 times as high. This same information is available on many national and international statistical charts, which all approximately agree. It doesn't surprise me that someone trying to defend Fox News doesn't believe non-partisan polls unless they agree with them.
This is the same bias that the Brady Campaign asserts. It's plain bullshit!
It doesn't matter if you get it from the net or research it yourself. Try reading some opposing evidence to your presuppositions. There has only been one study that resulted in over a thousand hours and that study contradicts your statistics. See "The Bias Against Guns" by John Lott.
And please don't counter with the typical leftist argument that he was paid by gun companies.
Bullshit !!! I supplied a source backing up what I said. You have supplied nothing backing up what you pretend, because there are no such figures. There is no legitimate source on the web that shows the U.S. has lower per capita murder rates than nations with sane gun control laws. NONE. You have no evidence whatsoever. BULLSHIT !!!
Yeah, I'm sure you are the right "Cream Judge" to come down on Jim Brady, who has paid a very heavy price because of the lax gun control in our nation. That really makes sense, that you would dump all over a former conservative Reagan advisor, who obviously has a very good reason to want wise and sane gun control.
The dumbest thing about gun regulation is the idea that it works. No where on this planet is it proven that it works. Criminals don't go through the proper channels in the first place so instituting ANY laws restricting gun ownership DOES NOT affect criminal activity. It provides the perfect culture for criminals to thrive. Our own DC proved that with a nice little 30+ year case study.
TJ's cannon does NOT mean that's what the framerS intended. "Well-regulated Militia" duty required one to show up with one's own 1790 equivalent of an M16, if possible. And language protecting arms rights only for the militia was soundly rejected.
The framers were NOT stupid and knew the arms race would bring new weapons, just as cannons were unforeseen in ancient Rome. They left specifics for our interpretation.
In the state where Virginia Tech students were slaughtered, anyone remotely looking 14 or so, including any felon, can easily purchase an entire arsonal of sophisticated 21st Century weapons, without any background check whatsoever. In LA, Chicago, Detroit and other urban areas, the police are routinely outgunned by gangs and common street thugs.
This is the legacy of the NRA, which is why the NRA always has been, currently is and will most likely entirely remain, completely full of shit.
The 2nd Amendment says "to keep and bear arms", thus it clearly applies to more than just guns or small arms one can carry. Jefferson very clearly interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean he could own a private canon. As my video clearly demonstrates, the NRA position is unConstitional and completely irrational.
I agree. My point in the video is, that the position of the modern NRA is historically, Constitutionally, legally and logically, entirely irrational.
It is no more rational to allow private citizens to own Uzzi's and machine guns than it is to allow them to own nuclear bombs and manufacture Anthrax. That's the point.
By your rationale you'd have us all protecting ourselves with muskets against a government with unlimited weaponry at their disposal. By your rationale we would still be bearing the same Arms that were available at the time the Constitution was written.
The per capita murder rate in the United States is higher than in every European country that has gun control. What you are saying is well-proven by even U.S. state department statistics to be a lie. You can look them up for yourself by Googling internal crime statistics.
Sweden has gun control that works. Every household is GIVEN an assault weapon and trained, and EVERY young man is trained and is part of their nations "army". Gun crime is EXTREMELY LOW there.
Washington DC had the opposite form of gun control and low and behold they have/had the worst crime in our nation.
The problem with "statistics" is that they cannot be trusted from any source. Both sides will skew the numbers in their favor.
We cannot go back in time and "un-invent" gunpowder or the firearm therefore we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from those that mean harm, whether they be home invaders, rapists... or our own tyrannical government. You've made it quite clear in all of your posts that no one is going to change your mind... I'm not going to try.
The problem with you is, you can't accept reality. When both the conservative Bush Justice Department and international crime statistics agree, then it is clearly you who is the liar.
You are just lying. Both the conservative U.S. Justice Department under Bush and, the international crime statistics compiled by the United Nations and various other organizations all agree. Per capita murder rates in the United States are significantly higher than they are in nations with stronger gun control laws. You are just lying and everybody knows it; the information is readily available under U.S. Justice Department or any of the various international crime data agencies.
You seem to be regurgitating the same old tired arguments the far left has been spewing for decades now. Look up DC vs Heller. You realize you belong to a very tiny minority, right? Poll after poll after poll shows Americans overwhelmingly support the Heller decision, and 9 out of 10 Americans say and believe they have a right to own a firearm. The "NRA's Interpretation" as you call it is shared by the supreme court, and nearly all state legislatures.
I'm not "regurgitating" anything. I'm merely pointing out that the statistics overwhelmingly disagree with you.
Whether or not Americans support something doesn't mean anything; Americans overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq initially under Bush and then a few years later, they overwhelmingly opposed it. The statistics agreed to by both conservatives and liberals definitively prove that per capita murder rates are significantly decreased by sane gun control legislation.
You know nothing about our legal system obviously. The supreme court and it's rulings are the "law of the land." Although these countries you point out have fewer gun deaths they have seen an increase since passing tough gun control in recent years, If you have proven gun control works please share your findings with scientists all over the world, because know one has ever confirmed a case. 2008 was a 3 decade low for gun violence in the US, Vermont with the least gun laws is the safest state .
This is just an obvious lie. Anyone can find the statistics by Googling the U.S. Justice Department and comparing their figures with UN and other international criminal justice figures. They all agree that per capita murder rates and other gun-related crimes are much higher in the U.S. than in nations with sane gun control laws. You can lie all you want, but even the NRA knows better than to try and despute the well-documented statistics.
Hey dumbass, I never said they were not higher in the US. What I said was there is no proof it is the gun laws, learn to read. For example, the UK banned hand guns in 1997, since that time hand gun crimes are up 40% on average, look it up. Australia has seen dramatic increases in violent crime of all types since implementing gun control. The UK is the violent crime capital of the entire world. Like I said, if you have proven the gun laws are responsible for that please share your findings.
You use two examples out of over 100 countries, which is typical of those wishing to distort the truth. The reason for rises in violence in probably every Western country including especially the U.S. is increasing population densities and poverty in large urban centers. The U.S. Justice Department's very conservative figures entirely disagree with your assertion, that gun control increases violence. The U.S. is much more violent than any Western nation with gun control laws.
I do find it interesting that you would say that guns cause more violence in one breath, yet blame population and poverty in the next. Rather contradictory isn't it?
Oh look, another person who doesn't understand the purpose of the second amendment.
CarbineKingClassic 7 months ago
@CarbineKingClassic Oh look, another person who doesn't understand either American or human history. When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no army, national guard or police and, there were no nuclear bombs or bio weapons. Perhaps you should go back to elementary logic 1-A school and start over.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen
I understand it better than u.What weapons did and did not exist is irrelevant.The purpose of the second amendment is to allow the populace to defend themselves from a well-armed military force,more specifically from that of their own government.So yes,the founders WOULD want the ppl to hav grenades,bioweapons,and automatic small arms.So suck on that dick, u smug, uppity, self-righteous fake liberal ass.Your tired,stupid-ass argument is getting old,but not any truer.
CarbineKingClassic 7 months ago
@CarbineKingClassic You are drawing an artificial line down the 2nd Amendment where none exists. Jefferson owned a private canon, which was the largest weapon of his day, just as nuclear bombs are the largest weapon today. The 2nd Amendment uses the term "arms", not guns and thus, any attempt to insert "guns" or "small arms" into it is an obvious contradiction in basic logic, unless you are going to limit the 2nd Amendment, which is what all sane and rational people want in the 21st Century.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen
As I said, the founders would want the ppl to b at least as well-armed the military, if not better. Those that r familiar with the history of totalitarianism knows that arms control is the essential precursor to open fascism. The purpose of gun control, despite what the government says, is NEVER to stop crime. Gun control doesn't lower crime, it just disarms non-criminals and creates black markets. It also creates a government monopoly of force. In fact, that's it's only purpose
CarbineKingClassic 7 months ago
@CarbineKingClassic This is nonsense. The United States has a higher murder per capita rate than any other nation in the developed world. Canada, which allows some guns and restricts others, has a far lower murder rate than we do, as does EVERY European nation. The Second Amendment does not address "guns"; but rather "Arms", a much bigger reality. Either we are going to have sane weapons control or we are not going to survive as a society. Your position has no historical or rational merit.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen
Really, it doesn't? There's about 6 million Jews that would disagree with u on that, were they alive to speak. Then there's about 40 million dead Soviets, all of the Palestinians murdered in cold blood by the modern Israeli state, as many as 100 million victims of Chinese gun control, 1.5 million dead Armenian Turks, the Tutsis of Rwanda, and many others. U hav a right to choose to allow yourself to b brainwashed n murdered, but don't ask me to die with you.
CarbineKingClassic 7 months ago
@CarbineKingClassic Nonsense, many other strict gun control govenments do not have such track records; you are just picking & choosing and pretending gun control is responsible when very clearly it is not, or else the same scenario would be true today in UK, Canada and France. Either we have sane “arms” regulation in the 21st Century or, we have to apply what the what the 2nd Amendment literally says and, allow unregulated sale and ownership of WMDs and bio weapons. NRA = hypocritical nonsense.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen
Canada has like 12 ppl in it, and they don't outlaw gun ownership. Plus Canadians r REALLY stupid, so maybe u should pick a different country to idolize. The UK and France r both socialist totalitarian regimes. And yes, gun control is responsible. Tyrants know they hav to disarm their victims. U don't really get the idea of a free society, do u?
CarbineKingClassic 7 months ago
@richardaberdeen
Also, Switzerland, the nation that our second amendment was inspired by, has the lowest crime rate in the world. Switzerland also, purely coincidentally i'm sure, issues a military-grade fully-automatic rifle to every household. They require, by federal law, firearm ownership. They also run drills where they actually teach the ppl to hide their guns from the government, and teach that if the government ever tries to confiscate guns that the ppl should react with deadly force
CarbineKingClassic 7 months ago
@CarbineKingClassic I noticed you ignored the fact that Canada and EVERY European nation, including the UK which allows no guns, has a lower murder per capita rate than our own. Your position has no merit. Police officers in droves oppose allowing unlimited gun ownership, because doing so allows criminals to outgun the police. The position of modern day "gun nuts" is simply that, totally nuts.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@CarbineKingClassic The purpose of the ENTIRE Constitution, according to the pre-amble, among other things, is to " insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence". There was no "common defence" when the 2nd Amendment was drafted. You continue to draw an artificial line down the 2nd Amendment, pretending ALL guns are permissible, while other "Arms" like nuclear bombs are not. Survival in the 21st Century is a matter of implementing "Arms" control, including guns.
richardaberdeen 7 months ago
@ richard aberdeen You jackass. There was a continental army, the Constitution itself IMPLIES that there should be a allowed funding for a standing national army provided for every two years under congressional control, Alexander Hamilton and founding father Supreme Court judge Joseph Story both Support the fact that in Detail of the intention for there to be a national army, and YOU are misinterpreting and twisting founding fathers quotes to create a false premise they never intended ANY army.
Premier112 6 months ago
molon labe
Premier112 6 months ago
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns.
atteki1 11 months ago
@atteki1 I have never said I am in favor of outlawing guns. I'm in favor of people going through extensive training, certification, back ground checks and training in order to own a gun for hunting or protection and, for making all weapons that are not rationally needed for hunting or personal protection, such as assualt weapons, illegal. Sane people are in favor of sane gun regulations, just as sane people are in favor of sane motor vehicle, truck driver and airplane pilot regulations.
richardaberdeen 11 months ago
The NRA has done more of the fighting for our gun rights then you & all the rest of those who smear the NRA in one way or another. Is the NRA perfect? Well NO...but I'm sure you are. The NRA rocks & what I've discovered is that when someone attacks the NRA their reasons usually hide a more sinister agenda. Like taking gun rights away for example. Soooo....nice try but I'll support the NRA because they support me.
paomtep 11 months ago
@paomtep Sorry, I don't own a gun, so the NRA hasn't done a damn thing for me, other than to make my life more dangerous due to the gun-toting nuts who do own a gun.
richardaberdeen 11 months ago
The NRA doesn't care about the 2nd amendment or gun safety. They hide behind those curtains so they can justify donating $10m to John McCain. The NRA is a sales representative group for firearms manufacturers. They came to power about 82 years after the Constitution was ratified. Now they are the single most effective lobby. Each state interprets the 2nd amendment differently. AZ AK & VT are the most unregulated states. Did TJ intend for the 2nd amendment to become a states' rights issue? hmmmm?
eqsmooth 1 year ago
@eqsmooth This is true. If the NRA really supported the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution in general, they would be calling for a new amendment that addresses the 21st Century reality, which is extremely different than the reality when the 2nd Amendment was drafted, when cannons were the largest weapon known and, when there was no federal army, national guard and mostly no police power at all. These people are obviously playing historical looney tunes, to be kind.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
I have to add one more thing. If the police being out gunned as you say is your driving force for your fear, what about the people who asked the police for their help, did the right thing and called 911 instead of buying guns, but are now dead since the police cannot protect them? See the book "Dial 911 and Die" by Richard Stevens. Real cases here in the USA where people chose to not exercise their 2nd amend. rights, trust the police, yet paid for it with their lives.
eoaroadshow 1 year ago
@eoaroadshow It is not me who is afraid. It is people who arm themselves who are afraid. Jesus didn't carry either a sword or a gun. It is the naive and immature who pretend that guns will protect them.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Afraid etc. is not the point. Legality of guns is. Main reason I have guns is they are fun to shoot. Self defense is secondary only as a last resort after all else fails. Cops claim they carry only to use as a last resort, and use pepper spray, tasers, etc first right? 911 cannot bring police quick enough to stop a criminal, so why are we condemned if we want to try and defend ourself? Many die while on with 911. If they had time to dial, they had time to shoot.
eoaroadshow 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Anyway, I really don't wanna turn your video into an endless argument session. I just don't see why the "antis" are afraid of us lawful owners. We all have deadly weapons of one form or another. Murder by car for example. In Canada the gun laws dropped the number of suicides by firearm, but total of suicides rose. They find other ways if there's no gun around. The weapon's not the problem, the problem is the user. I'm sure you've heard that from "us" but it's true isn't it?
eoaroadshow 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen The 2nd amendment is very clear, even if you really REALLY dislike it.
Further, in Mathew, Luke, and John, Jesus in fact told his followers to even sell the clothes off of their backs to get swords to defend themselves with.
Finally, those of us who truly believe in personal responsibility apply it to all things, not just protection of self. We take responsibility for our bills, our actions and our lives.
PS
Please Google the "No Duty" cases in the US. You may have a new view
UrbanCombatSurvivor 1 year ago
@UrbanCombatSurvivor The 2nd amendment very clearly says "arms", not guns and Jesus, in the instance you were talking about, said "two swords" were "sufficient" for a group of people, very clearly aluding to self-defense. Unlike today, in the day of Jesus, there were no police and his followers often traveled on roads open to highway robbers. It was common practice in his day to openly display a sword to scare off such highway robbers, the same as today we have car alarms to scare off thieves.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
I personally think the NRA only does the bare minimum to keep gun owners happy. Their primary objective is revenue. Gun Owners of America (IMO) are in the business to protect rights first, and make money second.
What's sad is how confusing and emotional this topic gets. Arguing if one can own this type or that type of weapon is fruitless. Fact is, a law abiding person will never use any weapon illegally, but the unlawful will obtain and use weapons to commit crimes regardless of the law.
eoaroadshow 1 year ago
@eoaroadshow I agree, The NRA is all about protecting it's own existence and otherwise, enriching itself and corporate backers. The AARP is all about protecting it's own existence and otherwise, enriching itself and corporate sponsors. That is the trouble with such organizations, they don't given a damn how many mothers and fathers lose their chidren or how many children lose their mothers and fathers to gun violence or, as is the case of the AARP, lose them to lack of affordable health care.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen As to the Police being against them; many of the Chiefs are opposed to them, but for no higher purpose than for political reasons. I also know quite a few Law Enforcement Officers. Police, Sheriff’s Deputies, and MP's. Most of them have a superiority complex, and don't think that anyone but them should have a gun. They simply don't trust anyone who is not a cop. To them, you are a cop, you are a family member of a cop, or you are a criminal.
Magman454 1 year ago
@Magman454 Several police associations, including in Los Angeles where I grew up, have strongly opposed the NRA because according to them, the insane positions of the NRA have allowed criminals to out gun the police. No police officer want to be out gunned by the bad guys, which has consistently been true in Los Angeles even before Reagan was governor of Calif, of which I have personal experience. That is why police in general, myself in particular and the Brady Organization, oppose the NRA.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Can you please site even one case or instance, specifically, where the NRA supported even arming criminals, let alone insuring that they had better weapons than the police?
Magman454 1 year ago
@Magman454 Well, most police officers can add two plus two. When you want to allow unlimited ownership of machine guns and bazookas, don't want any background checks, want to allow guns to be sold out of the back of trunks, traded and bartered freely at tent shows and you don't want any licenses and passing of tests to own one, like say a drivers license for example, then most cops can add up the score, in the real world of LA bankrobbing and gang banging, that equals police being out-gunned.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Given that LA has some of the strictest gun control laws of any city in the County, the fact that the police are outgunned has nothing to do with restrictions on law-abiding citizens. The fully automatic firearms that were used in that LA bank robbery were smuggled in along with drugs from Mexico. They were not legal for anyone to own. Can you point to even one single gun control law that has been proven to reduce crime, or make the streets safer?
Magman454 1 year ago
@Magman454 This was not always the case. LA has developed strict gun control laws over time from experience of a great many police officers losing their lives and a great many widows and children being left fatherless. I feel sorry for you, because you think a perceived "right" to own a gun is more important then the lives of police officers, their wives and their children. As I noted, I have both friends and family who were police officers and they do not share your twisted view.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen You've made several statements about the NRA's positions. You've made other statements that would suggest that gun control laws save lives. I've asked you several times for specific examples and all you can do is give opinions, anecdotes, and insults. I can give you specific cases where gun control laws have COST LIVES.
Magman454 1 year ago
@Magman454 Gun control is more lax in the United States than in any Western European nation, Australia, Canada and Japan. The murder per capita rate, according to the conservative Bush justice department, is higher in the United States than any Western European nation, Australia, Canada or Japan. You keep digging yourself a deeper hole with each contradictory response. Gun control does not stop murder, but it reduces it on a demonstrateably statistical global level. YOU ARE PLAINLY WRONG.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@Magman454 Right, every police chief and all of the millions of police officers who favor gun control and oppose the wicked agenda of the NRA are all "politically motivated". Yeah, sure.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
richardaberdeen Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. I said people LIKE the Brady's. As to their track record of supporting criminals; They provided legal help to Heller in the recent case in D.C.. They provide such help to their members in self defense cases as well, after review of the case to insure that it was legitimate self defense. Can you cite even 1 specific case in which they provided such help to an armed robber, or a murderer?
Magman454 1 year ago
It almost pains me to admit it, but since the GCA of '34 (A.K.A. the National Firearms Act) that required that fully automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and "Any other weapons" (I.E. palm guns, pen guns, and cane guns.) had to be registered with the BATF, not a single one of those registered weapons have been used in the commission of a crime. Facts are facts, and that just happens to be one of them.
Magman454 1 year ago
I no longer have to rely on the kindness of a predator or the lucky happenstance of a passing Cop. I have the ability to meet force with force. You may be satisfied with hope and prayer. You may think, "just giving them what and they'll just leave.". I gave them what they wanted. I did nothing to provoke them, and they shot me anyway. I guess they also wanted to know what it was like to shoot someone.
Magman454 1 year ago
I do not carry a gun to be macho. I do not carry it in hopes of some day being able to shoot someone. In fact, I hope to never have to use it. Much like the spare tire I keep in the trunk of my car: I know that the likelihood of my needing to use it is low. However, I know how to use it and will not hesitate to do so if need be, but it is not something that I am looking forward to.
Magman454 1 year ago
I now legally carry a concealed weapon. Although the law that allows me to do so now was in existence then, I was only 20 years old. Because some Politician made an arbitrary decision to limit Handgun sales to those 21 years and older, I could not qualify to carry one then.
There were several points during the engagement at which I would have been able to use a concealed weapon had I had one, but a politician decided that I did not need one. I swore that I would NEVER be that helpless again.
Magman454 1 year ago
I am assuming that you state that Jim & Sarah Brady have a right to argue in favor of gun control because Jim was a victim of gun violence. I would say that they have that right due to the First Amendment, just as any other American.
Now, let's say that their voices carry more weight because of their status as victims. Then what about mine? Not all victims of gun violence blame the gun. I blame that asshole that shot me.
Magman454 1 year ago
@Magman454 Your position contains two obvious fallacies. 1) The 2nd Amendment is about "Arms", not guns. 2) The same "logic" can be applied to selling nuclear bombs and bio weapons; after all, it's not the weapon but the "asshole" who releases the bio germ that kills everybody. There is no rational or logic to the NRA position. Either we are going to have sane weapons regulation or, we aren't going to have a civilization left at all. The debate isn't about guns, nor is the 2nd Amendment.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen You are the one who broaught up Jim and Sarah Brady. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall either of them arguing for more NBC Weapons controls. I can only remember them arguing for more restrictions on firearms, and handguns in particular.
Magman454 1 year ago
@Magman454 My video is focusing on the foolish NRA position, which draws an artificial line down the 2nd Amendment and pretends it says "guns" when in fact, it is referring to a much larger issue. Jefferson owned a private canon, the "nuclear bomb" of his day and I have no doubt he would strongly oppose the NRA hypocritical position today. The purpose of the Constitution, as stated in the pre-amble, is to "preserve domestic tranquility", not to protect gun ownership. The word "gun" is absent.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen "For the record, if any living Americans have the right to argue in favor of restricting the 2nd Amendment, it is Jim and Sarah Brady." Those were your words, not mine. Follow your own "logic"; if the NRA is not legitimate because they only stand against restrictions on firearms, then the Brady's must be equally as illegitimate because they only try to get more restrictions on firearms. Or did I miss their speech in Congress about the dangers of privately owned NBC weapons?
Magman454 1 year ago
@Magman454 No, that is exactly backwards. Jim and Sarah Brady would be arguing for control of other "Arms" if the NRA was trying to say otherwise. The NRA is limiting the debate to control or not control of guns and other small hand held weapons, such as knives. It is the NRA that is presenting a twisted view of the 2nd Amendment. The Brady Campaign is merely re-acting to their twisted view. They didn't invent this fiasco, the NRA existed long before the Brady Campaign.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen actually it is you who have it backwards. The NRA did not used to be a political body. They became a lobbying organization to counter the gun control lobby in Washington. Were it not for people like the Brady's campaigning Congress for more, and more, and more gun control laws, the NRA would still be a civilian marksmanship program.
Magman454 1 year ago
@Magman454 No I don't. Many police and other organizations actively opposed the positions of the NRA before Ronald Reagan became president, which is long before the Brady organization was formed. The NRA has a sorry-ass track record of supporting violent criminals so-called "rights" to out-gun the police dating way back into before I was even born. I have both friends and family who were police officers and none of them support the NRA's sorry-ass position.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Once again, I will ask you to cite even one instance in which the NRA supported a criminal's rights. Just one. As to your friends and family members who are police officers; I know a few myself, and to a man, they have a superiority complex. They believe that only they and possibly their family members should be able to own guns. Everyone else is either a criminal or too stupid to be able to handle them.
Magman454 9 months ago
@Magman454 The NRA has consistently opposed gun regulation of any and every kind; they have given in out of political expediency in several instances, but they continue to consistently oppose any type of restrictions on gun sale or usage as much as is politically expedient, even after the recent shootings at Virginia Tech and more recently in Arizona. According to several police associations, NRA positions play right into the hands of the worst and most vicious and violent criminal elements.
richardaberdeen 9 months ago
@kingVillien This is a "bad example" of how to spell the definition of the NRA correctly. That's "dumb" as in dumbshit, not "dunb", which is pretty much like "dung", which literally means "shit".
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@kingVillien I agree, EVERY position of the NRA is a "bad example".
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns
The above is actually true in Great Britain as since we have had a handgun ban the only people to have them are the criminals ( police dont count ) so stopping the legal ownership of guns simply aids the illegal activity in them
antipike 1 year ago
@antipike When nuclear bombs and bio weapons are outlawed, only criminal corportaions and terrorists will own them. So, I suppose, we should all be allowed to manufactue Anthrax and freely sell it at "Bio-WeaponTent Shows" or out of the backs of our cars. The per capita murder rate is far higher in the U.S. than in any developed nation with gun control. Your absurd position has been weighed in the balances and found severely wanting.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen Your anaology is flawed i can work from real statistics can you
Gun crime in the uk has went through the roof so why did they ban handguns ? , some of us still have them tucked away seeing as the compensation was a joke for handing in a fully working handgun
antipike 1 year ago
@richardaberdeen
Interesting strategy. You throw out some perverted logic and then have to run up a list of defenses against anyone who doesn't share your view. Are you going to continue to waste your time fending off everyone with these inane retorts?
When you said you had read a little history, you were correct.
BR549guy 1 year ago
@BR549guy You're the one who called me a "bleeding heart liberal", it was not me who cast the first stupid stone.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
I hope you didn't stay up to late putting this together. What a bleeding heart liberal.
The reason our system doesn't work has nothing to do with guns; it's because of the rampant abuse of political authority that has driven people to become so disenfranchised with their government and members of their fellow population. That's all driven by uncontrolled corporate greed.
Tell us the truth ..... you really go around sniffing Nancy Pelosi's office chair after she leaves the office. don't you?
BR549guy 1 year ago
@BR549guy "All driven by corporate greed"? Sounds to me like it is you who are "the bleeding heart liberal". I've read a little history and happen to know that people were being murdered, raped and plundered long before the existence of corporations. Apparently, you haven't thought through your position very carefully.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
the rating of your video speaks volumes about your opinion and those who think like you.
MrM4 2 years ago
Canada's laws are working so well that they're being repealed one by one. Canadian citizens are demanding a safer country. An Armed Country.
dennis4809 2 years ago
Germany has pretty strict gun control, but while I was living there in the 80s a NATO General had an RPG fired into the trunk of his Mercedes(luckily it was armored). England has even stricter laws but the IRA and other criminals never have problems getting all sorts of weapons. Gun control laws only take guns out of the hands of people who follow the law leaving them unable to defend themselves against the criminal element. PS:I am a Democrat, Union and Athiest not a right wing loony toon
WBFD125 2 years ago
I suppose one can just ignore the statistics agreed to by both the conservative Bush U.S. justice department and the international community, clearly demonstrating that the per capita murder rate is much higher in the United States than in any Western nation with gun control. And for the record, I pretty-much equate "loony tunes" with atheism, as well as with the conservative right. There is no evidence that God is a conservative or, that the universe just magically appeared on it's own.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
my make believe diety is better than your make believe diety and if we don't make them happy they will punish us....yeah, right. that's sanity for ya. and then there are the cretins who want to teach creationism as science in school, ha!, not to my kid.
WBFD125 1 year ago
@WBFD125 And, your statement reminds me of the "Dawkinites" who pretend to be "scientific" but who in reality, believe in the Grand Baseless Superstition of spontaneously appearing universes filled with intelligent beings. Atheism has no more value than astrology and arguably, considerably less.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Its not difficult to dismiss your statistics when those statistics were about the same rank 20 years ago and have stayed pretty consistent ever since. What it clearly demonstrates is that we have a more violent society than most "western civilizations". Its not because we have easier access to firearms, its cultural.
siradon2000 1 year ago
Well, that's two out of three I wouldn't brag about. Being union is smart, the other two pretty much balance against your sanity. Both Germany and England have lower per capita mruder rates than the U.S.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Very good, you can look at number and accurately compare. Now look at the numbers of murder per capita pre and post gun ban/ gun control for each respective country. You'll see little to no change, making the legislation ineffective. Due to different definitions of laws its difficult to get an accurate measure of crimes committed in separate countries. Which is why I generally separate them. You should check the per capita murder rates for Estonia, and Poland while you're at it.
siradon2000 1 year ago
@siradon2000 Some SANE and I emphasize the word SANE European nations have had gun control in place since long before you were even born. Gun control is "new" in the United States, as is most everything else that represents social sanity, such as AFFORDABLE QUALITY HEALTH CARE, for example.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
I guess that depends on YOUR definition of SANE. If you're saying that regular people (not in law enforcement, or military) are more prone to be insane you might want to look into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and see what professions top the list. Yes many have had "gun control" in Europe for a long time, but not gun bans. That also doesn't change the fact that it does little to nothing.
siradon2000 1 year ago
I did not know the left wing spelled douchebag, "
richardaberdeen"
Make a note of it.
The government restricts the 2nd way too much as it is.
sledpuller 2 years ago
I understand what is trying to be said in this video BUT you can bet that if we didn't have our right to bear Arms we wouldn't have the right to do anything else... The right to bear Arms guarantees all other rights.
kem1139 2 years ago
I have never been against the right to bear arms. I am against the irrational interpretation of the 2nd Amendment promoted by the NRA and right-wing radio. Such a position would never be held by the framers, who wrote the Constitution specifically to quell violent uprisings such as Shay's Rebellion, as it says, to "insure domestic tranquility". No rational human being believes in the unlimited "right" to bear arms in the modern 21st Century reality and neither would any of the framers.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Yeah, right, like people in England, Canada, France, The Netherlands and Germany have zero rights, except for of course, the right to quality affordable health care, free college education and many other perks of more sane governments that we lack. Your argument sucks, to say the least.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
so is our "freedom of speech" restricted to what comes out of our mouths? @(:54)
dombon6 2 years ago
The Constitution also guarantees the right to keep silent, an imporant part of freedom of speech ignored by McCarthy and modern right-wing radio clones, who we in the sane world only wish would keep silent. Freedom of speech very clearly applies to the pen and the press, as very clearly agreed to by Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine and others. There is no such agreement among thme of unlimited right to bear arms, which in the modern 21st Century includes nuclear bombs and bio weapons.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was no national army, no state guard and no police force. Thus, the amendment makes rational sense in the light of the reality of the times, while an unlimited right to bear arms makes no rational sense in the modern 21st Century reality. As the Constitution clearly states, the purpose of of the entire document is to "... insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..." Today we have police, guard & army.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
And we need armed citizens to keep them in check!
As good examples, look no further to countries that have banned 'arms' and the roads they are following or have followed.
mcoop221 2 years ago
These are good examples of why our own nation is crazy. Murder per capita rates are much higher in the United States than they were in Canada and Europe where they have much tougher gun regulation laws.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Violent crime is much higher in the UK than it is in the US... as much as five times higher.
Additionally, Canada's violent crime is double the US' as of 2006.
Statistics consistently prove that when you take guns away, crime goes up!
mcoop221 2 years ago
That is not true at all--source nationmaster and put the com after and w's in front; youtube doesnt allow links: Murder per capita: U.S. #22, Finland #30, France #40, Australia #43, Canada #44, U.K. #46, Germany #49, Netherlands #51. All Western European nations with stricter gun control have lower per capita murder rate than U.S. Canada, which allows guns for hunting, has 1/4 as much, U.K., which allows very little private ownership, also has 1/4 as many per capita murders (approx numbers).
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Didn't you just say that statistics can be " tricky." Would you like me to put stats here? I have a library of books directly in front of me regarding many issues, this being one of them... but most importantly, FREEDOM!
mcoop221 2 years ago
I can go to Google and type in per capita murder rates country comparison and find many different polls who all agree that the U.S. per capita murder rate is about 4 times higher than it is in either the U.K. or Canada. As I noted, it doesn't surprise me that a Fox and NRA defender doesn't agree with all known legitimate non-partisan polls.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Comment removed
mcoop221 2 years ago
I also ask this, since you're so big on internet stats, so you believe that the gov should take over healthcare, i.e. The public option???
mcoop221 2 years ago
1) We the people are the government and of course, we should care if everybody has healthcare--haven't you ever heard of contagious diseases? 2) Why should private insurance compaines be taking billions of dollars of our money? 3) Healthcare in sane nations is better than ours and costs way less because private enterprise is either capped or not involved. We rank 37th in global health statistics, yet we pay twice per capita as people in Japan, who have far better care and insure everybody.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Because it's a free market, that's why.
Healthcare in other nations IS NO WHER NEAR OURS! We have MUCH better HC than anyone else in the world... hence the reason why they come here!
You quote absolute BULLSHIT stats in comparison.
34 thousand people a year die in the UK each year WAITING for HC. 20 thou die each year in the US due to lack of HC. With the HUGE population difference, that would skyrocket for us. STOP TAKING MY FREEDOMS AWAY! You want it, MOVE!
mcoop221 2 years ago
Get the friggin government out of healthcare completely and you have competition, which lowers prices.
Fortunately, the idiots at Brady and you will never take my freedoms away. Remember, we're the ones with the guns! You will have one hell of a fight on your hands fighting with things like....... words and spoons!
Our country was founded on the Constitution and we will stand by it!
mcoop221 2 years ago
You keep lying about well-established statistics. We have worse national health statistics than every European nation, Austrialia, Japan and Canada, not to mention several former Soviet block nations and others. There are literally thousands of both national and global health statistics that document this. Even educated conservatives agree. You keep talking out your ass and have yet to provide any statistics to back up your inventions. My claims are well documented on my website.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
It's pretty sad that you accuse other of providing skewed facts or downright lies and you proclaim yours as fact.
We all know liberals don't lie! lol
If you want to check the stats like rationing, because they don't spend a lot on their care, go for it. Research your clearly biased numbers. As I have said, just because it's on the internet, doesn't mean it's true. But you go ahead and believe what you see, I'm going on vaca for several days. If you want, we can continue in several days.
mcoop221 2 years ago
World Health Org Ratings--approx same as many other: 1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan 11 Norway 12 Portugal 13 Monaco
14 Greece 15 Iceland 16 Luxembourg 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland 20 Switzerland 21 Belgium 22 Colombia 23 Sweden 24 Cyprus 25 Germany 26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates 28 Israel 29 Morocco 30 Canada 31 Finland 32 Australia 33 Chile 34 Denmark 35 Dominica 36 Costa Rica United States #37
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
You actually believe the WHO????? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
WOW! You are naive!
mcoop221 2 years ago
Anyone can type "international health rankings" in Google and find many different organizations that all agree with WHO--the best ranking the U.S. has managed on any legitimate chart is #33; both the conservative Wall Street Journal and Fox News agree that the U.S. ranks significantlyw worse than any other Western nation. YOU ARE JUST INVENTING FICTION THAT NO ORGANIZATION CAN DOCUMENT. You have failed repeatedly to supply any documention for your fictious assertions.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
That's my point of what you're doing. You believe what you read just beacuse some organization, you believe is accredited, says so. Guess what, with the bullshit and bias that come from the WHO, it's not! I could easily quote information and you will use the typical liberal line and say it's biased like you do with Fox. Do you understand why even many liberals are turning to Fox for news? Because that's the only place they get it!
mcoop221 2 years ago
I gave you something to look up in Google, where a great many organizations all agree with WHO. You have yet to supply any supporting documentation for any of your claims. EVERY SOURCE AGREES THAT THE U.S. RANKS LOWER THAN OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS WITH UNIVERSAL SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEMS. EVERY SINGLE SOURCE. YOUR NUTS !!!
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Regarding global warming, there are thousands of square miles of brown earth that used to be covered by ice pack in Greenland, South America and northern cities are melting into the sea. Islands on a global level are "falling into the ocean". This is impossible to happen if the earth was not warming up. YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. California is one of the several states in severe danger of diminishing fresh water supplies due to Rocky Mountain snow pack melting.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Greenland... GREENland! Maybe we're coming back to where we should be! 30 years ago, you wackos were telling everyone that another ice-age was coming. 10 years ago you said it was global warming. Now you're saying it's "climate change." WOW can't go wrong there!
Your information has already been debunked, why should I say anymore. If you choose not to listen, then you choose not to listen. You can view many debates, argunments, videos, whatever, on here proving your lunacy of GW.
mcoop221 2 years ago
I'VE SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS. AGAIN, YOUR NUTS !!! You have no documentation whatsoever to support your absurd position. Ice is melting all over the earth and the ocean level is rising. There is no way this would be happening if the earth was not warming up. AGAIN, YOU ARE NUTS !!!
I HAVE NO MORE PATIENCE WITH YOU. YOU JUST REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE. THIS IS MY FINAL POST TO YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST RANTING AND RAVING INVENTED FICTION--YOU HAVE NO DOCUMENTATION.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said. A "glitch," they said. lol
mcoop221 2 years ago
From University of Texas, Austin via Eurekalert
New ground measurements made by the West Antarctic GPS Network (WAGN) project, composed of researchers from The University of Texas at Austin, The Ohio State University, and The University of Memphis, suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been.. overestimated."
mcoop221 2 years ago
Well, at least you finally attempted to provide some evidence. Unfortuantely, these same scientists who you quote out of context believe that overall, the earth is losing significant quantities of ice and, the rise in ocean levels, clearly documented by island measurements on a global basis, most definitely proves this to be true. What has been learned by fairly recent research is that some parts of Antartica have gained in ice but that Antartical as a whole, has greatly lost total ice.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Well that was fun. All the evidence I provided is gone! All the web sites and videos I posted are gone! Oh joy!
How about this, try the MIT professor who single handily debunks your claims. I'm not going back and repoting the links for that since it's clear they won't get through.
I'll repost the crime stats though since they are still up.
mcoop221 2 years ago
As I suspected, you dismiss the evidence of blatant bias. You're right, there's no point in debating anymore. The crime stats are gone too. All I did is one simple thing, googled "problem with crime stats."
I hit the 2nd 3rd and 4th. You do what you want. It's clear that you don't listen to anyone but who you support. Try reading a book that challenges you for a change.
Take care.
mcoop221 2 years ago
How about this? Try growing up and admitting you are wrong. There are several bought and paid for scientists who deny global warming. Try reading the Britannica and doing your own research. The WEIGHT OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDNECE IS APPROXIMATLEY 99% TO 1% IN FAVOR OF GLOBAL WARMING. If you want to believe the bought and paid for one precent, that's your business.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
My last post. You just blew your whole argument by stating 99-1 lie.
I've done my research which is why I don't take this at face value. The FACT is you DO NOT research the other side.You are that closed minded. You are scared of what you may find... that this is a hoax. As I've said already (and you have not responded) in the 70s, your ilk told us about a new ice age. The 90s was about GW and now it's climate change.
You friggin people can't get it right! It's you who needs to grow up.
mcoop221 2 years ago
Much more so because there is much less ice, the Artic regions of the earth have experienced dramatic reductions in total ice. Greenland is a good case in point, which has thousands of square miles of revealed brown land that was under ice a generation ago. South America also has huge amounts of snow pack loss. If the planet is warming up, "perimeter" ice would be the first to go, which is what ALL of the scientific evidence demonstrates on a global basis.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
And again, you claimed that "crime" is much less in the U.S., yet the conservative Dept of Justice under the Bush Administration, which routinely lied to Congress, published otherwise, which can be found by Googling the data. You remind me of the right-wing radio DJ Phil Valentine here in Nashville, who cherry-picked a section of a lengthy article on global warming, pretending that the scientist writing the article concluded the opposite of what he was actually claiming in whole context.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
And, I notice that you didn't challenge the U.S. Department of Justice crime statistics, which clearly agree with what I stated and don't agree at all with your absurd claims of crime being lower in the U.S. than the UK, Canada and other nations with gun control. You are really making yourself look bad. Why would the U.S. Department of Justice under Bush lie about crime statistics not in their favor? Or, why would the conservative Wall Street Journal do the same regarding health statistics?
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Once again, SPIN! You spin the numbers. Do yourself a favor and learn how countries break down murder and crime stats and why.
We have a LOWER crime rate than Britain and Canada... PERIOD!
mcoop221 2 years ago
U.S. Dept. of Justice Burglary & Robbery 2008 comparison between Austrialia,
Canada, England, Netherlands, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, & United States: U.S. #2 highest rate in Burglary, #3 highest rate in Robbery. Nationmaster Homicide Statistical Survey: United States homicide rate double or more than than homicied rate of every Western European nation, over 3 times higher than UK, Canada and Australia, over 10 times higher than Japan, Saudia Arabia, Quatar. Other sources approx same.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
GLOBALWARMING: The U.S. town of Pt. Barrow, Alaska is literally melting into the sea and the population is literally moving inward, every ocean island is losing land, ice sheets in antartic and artic are significantly diminishing, Greenland has lost thousands of square miles of ice, South America has lost significant glacier pack, as has North America. What causes warming is a combination of things, fossil fuel burning among other. THE FACT OF GLOBAL WARMING IS SCIENTIFICALLY INDISPUTABLE.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
You need to do some research on the lies you read! Like the California size ice-sheets they "missed." Like the temperature gauges that were placed on asphalt to increase the temp... WOW Some people will believe anything!
mcoop221 2 years ago
richardaberdeen is all wrong when it comes to gun control and you are just as wrong when it comes to health care. my brother in law is English and no one in his family has any problems with their health care system. I was born in Germany, spent half my life there, have had a couple of major health issues which were well taken care of and didn't miss any paychecks while I was in the hospital. How many die here because they have no insurance??
WBFD125 1 year ago
@WBFD125 Well, it's nice to see that someone besides me has the right information about health care. EVERY European nation has a better health care system at 1/3 or more less the cost. And, anyone who has checked out the facts already knows this.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Absolutely right on about the health care. Problem is we have self serving politicians that look to make money as much as possible.
Obama's health care bill however won't lower costs to the working people, in fact just the opposite. It steals money from "Cafeteria" programs, taxes everyone more, and includes a Fine if you don't have insurance and are above the "poverty level".
siradon2000 1 year ago
You might wanna check into that. I don't have health insurance and haven't for quite some time. I had an accident involving a tooth and an extreme abscess. At any rate I had to go in for surgery and I was well taken care of. One hospital had me for 8 hours in an Emergency room, when after tests came back they decided to send me via Ambulance to another hospital to a specialist in Otalaryngology, at that hospital I spent 4 days after surgery. (continued)
siradon2000 1 year ago
I received all the help I needed and at no charge. Granted I had to follow through on the paper work (that took all but 10 minutes), but at no charge. Do you people honestly think that doctors, (given the reason that most of them become doctors is to help people) are going to simply deny a person due to financial or insurance status? We have medicare and medicaid as well. They do help.
siradon2000 1 year ago
@siradon2000 There are several people who have died in Tennessee here because they didn't have health care and were refused medicine. I went to one of their funerals. Well over 50,000 Americans die each year from lack of health care. Somebody here obviously doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. Many other Americans choose daily between pain medication, foor or rent--try getting by without your pain medication if you are a paripletic and see how much you enjoy human torture.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
The current Bill Obama is proposing also gets rid of insurance companies being able to turn people away who have previous conditions. Creating a further burden on the insurance companies, which means either they'll have to raise rates (which this bill also limits), or get government subsidization. Any way you look at it everyone is getting screwed accept those under the poverty line. Which are already the ones who get medicare and medicaid.
siradon2000 1 year ago
The reason health care is out of control here is because of extreme fees from Doctors, and Hospitals seek to draw from those very insurance companies you so hate. Even though a new cat scan takes 15 minutes instead of 45 minutes the price never came down. Even though they use less power, and can fit more patients in due to the cut in time. The problem is greed from Hospitals, Insurance companies just pass the cost along.
siradon2000 1 year ago
@siradon2000 That's a total lie. The reason health care costs so much more in this country than any other nation is because he health care industry is bleeding us dry. Just recently, two of the biggest insurance providers increased rates from 25 - over 50%, inspite of billions in profits. That is pure greed from the insurance industry and has nothing to do with what doctors and hospitals charge.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Its not a total lie, its the truth. I never said that insurance companies weren't out to make a profit. It has a some to do with what doctors, and the hospitals charge. The reason they charge the way they do is to take advantage of insurance companies. FYI doctors and hospitals are looking to make money too, (granted it was a good thing for me).Which is why the Hospital could afford to finance my surgery.
siradon2000 1 year ago
By the way when I was in the emergency room for 8 hours just the time I spent in the room was over $4,000.00 there weren't any special machines in the room with me, that was just for the space I occupied for the time I was waiting for the ambulance to come. There was a separate bill for the administration of the IV, and the CAT scan, etc. You really don't believe doctors and hospitals overcharge?
siradon2000 1 year ago
What you are leaving out is that insurance companies pay doctors and hospitals significantly less for the same services as those who pay out of pocket. Thus, hospitals and doctors charge the uninsured significantly higher for the same services. Large hospitals in Nashville and many other cities have closed due to the fact insurance companies refuse to pay them and when they do, they often shave off significantly what they actually owe.
richardaberdeen 1 year ago
Oh, you mean they negotiate prices? That's a given. However to say significantly, that's just ignorant.
siradon2000 1 year ago
And who do you think paid your tab for the hospital visit?? We the tax payers did just like we pay for all the illegals who show up there and can't pay. And yes, I have seen people get turned away because they can't pay. A guy I knew got his front teeth smashed in in a bar fight. He went to a Dentist and an Orthodontist who both blew him off. It wasn't till a few weeks later that he found one who was willing to take payments. Needless to say by that time they couldn't be saved.
WBFD125 1 year ago
I see, so you think that it'll change by taxing more people, even people like me who can't afford it? Then penalize me because I don't have it because I don't live under the poverty line?
siradon2000 1 year ago
Guess your friend should try a little harder to avoid fights then. That or try a little harder at finding someone to take care of the problem.
siradon2000 1 year ago
Seeing as how I'm one of those taxpayers, I guess I helped pay for it then huh? But hey, if the "taxpayers" paid for it, wouldn't that be a sort of socialized health care already?
siradon2000 1 year ago
Much of what the NRA defines as "violent crime" involves robbery where no one is injured, rather than real violent crimes like murder, armed rapes and other armed weapon assaults. I myself would much prefer to be held up with a gun as a convenience store clerk, as I once literally was in Denver, than I prefer to be murdered or violently assaulted. Being held up with a gun is emotionally traumatic, but nothing compared to what happens every day in the U.S. due to armed physical assault.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
I would much rather have a gun in a situation where I at least have a chance. There are numerous examples of gun-defense uses everyday and also where they could have helped. And as you may know, a cashier-clerk is the most dangerous job in America.
Ex: A friend of mine recently was 'asked' for five dollars in a P-Lot. He denied. The man said 'no, you're going to give it to me' amd reached into his bucket while my friend reached into his waistband. The robber fled and he called the cops.>>>
mcoop221 2 years ago
Whcih brings me to my next point. The cops are NOT there to protect, they are there to investigate and call someone else to clean up the mess.
mcoop221 2 years ago
Again, your just talking bullshit. The per capita murder rate is much lower in many European nations, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and in a great many other nations that have sane gun control laws. Your not convincing anybody of your brilliance when you deny the well doucmented statistics from a large variety of sources readily available on the internet.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
You're talking about murder, I'm talking about crime. When broken down by category, your murder rates are lower in the U.S. I've already said that which is why your argument is now moot since you won't listen to oppsoing facts.
As I've also stated, the cops are NOT there to protect as the SCOTUS has stated.
mcoop221 2 years ago
Should we ban knives too?
The number of robberies carried out using a knife rose by 15,000 to 40,400 in 2005-06; muggings involving a knife increased by 17,730 to 42,000 and violent attacks using a knife on a stranger rose 18,300 to 51,700.
Forgive me, but I'm sure glad I get to carry a gun! Fortunately, the government is still on the side of us and not the pansies.
mcoop221 2 years ago
I have never said we should ban guns. For a great many years, I have advocated having a 3-6 months waiting period to purchase a gun (which would solve a lot of problems), requiring a license similar to a drivers license where people have to demonstrate their knowledge of safety issues (similar to a drivers test) and, that adults be punished for whatever crimes children commit if and when a child gets hold of an adult's gun due to lack of proper lock and key and other safety proceedures.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Yea, like 80 year olds driving down the road on the wrong side? Months??? Absolutely not! Never happen, thank God.
The lock is also pointless. Should I ask a home invader to wait til unlock a gun? Shoud you have to ask a mentally screwed up man to stop shooting people until you unlock your gun? Give me a break! There's no point. You might as well as just ban self-defense!
Too easy!!!
mcoop221 2 years ago
Bullshit !!! I supplied a source backing up what I said. You have supplied nothing backing up what you pretend, because there are no such figures. There is no legitimate source on the web that shows the U.S. has lower per capita murder rates than nations with sane gun control laws. NONE. You have no evidence whatsoever. BULLSHIT !!!
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Anybody can be tricky with statistics, as Fox invent the news demonstrates on a nightly basis, but per capita murder rates very much are a fair and accurate barometer of comparative violence from society to society.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
I didn't get those stats from the NRA. And let me guess, you think that Fox 'invents news' and MSNBC and CNN do not, right? LMAO What a drone!
Furthermore, places like Britain don't consider certain incidents as homicide like the US does i.e. car crashes, suicide.
So to compare "murder" rates is, like you said, "tircky."
mcoop221 2 years ago
I can't speak for anyone else, but I consider murder a violent crime and the U.S. has a much higer per capita murder rate than either the U.K. or Canada; in fact it is 4 times as high. This same information is available on many national and international statistical charts, which all approximately agree. It doesn't surprise me that someone trying to defend Fox News doesn't believe non-partisan polls unless they agree with them.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
This is the same bias that the Brady Campaign asserts. It's plain bullshit!
It doesn't matter if you get it from the net or research it yourself. Try reading some opposing evidence to your presuppositions. There has only been one study that resulted in over a thousand hours and that study contradicts your statistics. See "The Bias Against Guns" by John Lott.
And please don't counter with the typical leftist argument that he was paid by gun companies.
mcoop221 2 years ago
Bullshit !!! I supplied a source backing up what I said. You have supplied nothing backing up what you pretend, because there are no such figures. There is no legitimate source on the web that shows the U.S. has lower per capita murder rates than nations with sane gun control laws. NONE. You have no evidence whatsoever. BULLSHIT !!!
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Yeah, I'm sure you are the right "Cream Judge" to come down on Jim Brady, who has paid a very heavy price because of the lax gun control in our nation. That really makes sense, that you would dump all over a former conservative Reagan advisor, who obviously has a very good reason to want wise and sane gun control.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
The Brady people are nothing but cowards and flat out liars! They say one thing and try another.
They try to ban everything but muzzle-loaders and if they could, they would ban that too!
Thank God we have ok politicians that won't ban guns! A gun possibly saved my life, fuck everyone who wants to ban them!
mcoop221 2 years ago
The dumbest thing about gun regulation is the idea that it works. No where on this planet is it proven that it works. Criminals don't go through the proper channels in the first place so instituting ANY laws restricting gun ownership DOES NOT affect criminal activity. It provides the perfect culture for criminals to thrive. Our own DC proved that with a nice little 30+ year case study.
TheTrental 2 years ago
TJ's cannon does NOT mean that's what the framerS intended. "Well-regulated Militia" duty required one to show up with one's own 1790 equivalent of an M16, if possible. And language protecting arms rights only for the militia was soundly rejected.
The framers were NOT stupid and knew the arms race would bring new weapons, just as cannons were unforeseen in ancient Rome. They left specifics for our interpretation.
Amend it but don't ignore it.
The NRA? I decided; joined two days ago.
48C170 2 years ago
In the state where Virginia Tech students were slaughtered, anyone remotely looking 14 or so, including any felon, can easily purchase an entire arsonal of sophisticated 21st Century weapons, without any background check whatsoever. In LA, Chicago, Detroit and other urban areas, the police are routinely outgunned by gangs and common street thugs.
This is the legacy of the NRA, which is why the NRA always has been, currently is and will most likely entirely remain, completely full of shit.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
The 2nd Amendment says "to keep and bear arms", thus it clearly applies to more than just guns or small arms one can carry. Jefferson very clearly interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean he could own a private canon. As my video clearly demonstrates, the NRA position is unConstitional and completely irrational.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
I agree. My point in the video is, that the position of the modern NRA is historically, Constitutionally, legally and logically, entirely irrational.
It is no more rational to allow private citizens to own Uzzi's and machine guns than it is to allow them to own nuclear bombs and manufacture Anthrax. That's the point.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
By your rationale you'd have us all protecting ourselves with muskets against a government with unlimited weaponry at their disposal. By your rationale we would still be bearing the same Arms that were available at the time the Constitution was written.
TheTrental 2 years ago
The per capita murder rate in the United States is higher than in every European country that has gun control. What you are saying is well-proven by even U.S. state department statistics to be a lie. You can look them up for yourself by Googling internal crime statistics.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Sweden has gun control that works. Every household is GIVEN an assault weapon and trained, and EVERY young man is trained and is part of their nations "army". Gun crime is EXTREMELY LOW there.
Washington DC had the opposite form of gun control and low and behold they have/had the worst crime in our nation.
The problem with "statistics" is that they cannot be trusted from any source. Both sides will skew the numbers in their favor.
TheTrental 2 years ago
We cannot go back in time and "un-invent" gunpowder or the firearm therefore we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves from those that mean harm, whether they be home invaders, rapists... or our own tyrannical government. You've made it quite clear in all of your posts that no one is going to change your mind... I'm not going to try.
TheTrental 2 years ago
The problem with you is, you can't accept reality. When both the conservative Bush Justice Department and international crime statistics agree, then it is clearly you who is the liar.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
"When both the conservative Bush Justice Department and international crime statistics agree, then it is clearly you who is the liar. "
That statement doesn't even make sense at all.
You are a lost cause. I'm done here.
TheTrental 2 years ago
You are just lying. Both the conservative U.S. Justice Department under Bush and, the international crime statistics compiled by the United Nations and various other organizations all agree. Per capita murder rates in the United States are significantly higher than they are in nations with stronger gun control laws. You are just lying and everybody knows it; the information is readily available under U.S. Justice Department or any of the various international crime data agencies.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
You seem to be regurgitating the same old tired arguments the far left has been spewing for decades now. Look up DC vs Heller. You realize you belong to a very tiny minority, right? Poll after poll after poll shows Americans overwhelmingly support the Heller decision, and 9 out of 10 Americans say and believe they have a right to own a firearm. The "NRA's Interpretation" as you call it is shared by the supreme court, and nearly all state legislatures.
icecoldbeerr 2 years ago
I'm not "regurgitating" anything. I'm merely pointing out that the statistics overwhelmingly disagree with you.
Whether or not Americans support something doesn't mean anything; Americans overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq initially under Bush and then a few years later, they overwhelmingly opposed it. The statistics agreed to by both conservatives and liberals definitively prove that per capita murder rates are significantly decreased by sane gun control legislation.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
You know nothing about our legal system obviously. The supreme court and it's rulings are the "law of the land." Although these countries you point out have fewer gun deaths they have seen an increase since passing tough gun control in recent years, If you have proven gun control works please share your findings with scientists all over the world, because know one has ever confirmed a case. 2008 was a 3 decade low for gun violence in the US, Vermont with the least gun laws is the safest state .
icecoldbeerr 2 years ago
This is just an obvious lie. Anyone can find the statistics by Googling the U.S. Justice Department and comparing their figures with UN and other international criminal justice figures. They all agree that per capita murder rates and other gun-related crimes are much higher in the U.S. than in nations with sane gun control laws. You can lie all you want, but even the NRA knows better than to try and despute the well-documented statistics.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
Hey dumbass, I never said they were not higher in the US. What I said was there is no proof it is the gun laws, learn to read. For example, the UK banned hand guns in 1997, since that time hand gun crimes are up 40% on average, look it up. Australia has seen dramatic increases in violent crime of all types since implementing gun control. The UK is the violent crime capital of the entire world. Like I said, if you have proven the gun laws are responsible for that please share your findings.
icecoldbeerr 2 years ago
You use two examples out of over 100 countries, which is typical of those wishing to distort the truth. The reason for rises in violence in probably every Western country including especially the U.S. is increasing population densities and poverty in large urban centers. The U.S. Justice Department's very conservative figures entirely disagree with your assertion, that gun control increases violence. The U.S. is much more violent than any Western nation with gun control laws.
richardaberdeen 2 years ago
I do find it interesting that you would say that guns cause more violence in one breath, yet blame population and poverty in the next. Rather contradictory isn't it?
siradon2000 1 year ago