Fact- Humans have the ability to kill. FACT- Humans have the ability to break the law and be criminals. FACT- Gun laws are broken by criminals most of which allready break the law. Fact- Stricter gun laws equals empowering criminals. One more free lesson for the day, Fact- When marijuana became illegal it still grew and has never been hard for any person to get their hands on.
@nik00000011 Did you even hear the story? There was a gun control law in her state. If you carry a gun, you had to leave it in your car when you get out of it. The person who shot of the restaurant had guns in his car. Did he obey the law? NO. He took the guns out of his car and shot many innocent people. The women had to leave her gun in the car. If she had her gun with her, she could have stopped the criminal. Gun control helps criminals, and hurts the law-abiding.
@nik00000011 The thing she is pissed off about was she had a gun but laws and policies prevented her from bringing it into public places which was were her parents were gunned down. I'll bet you don't have a gun? What are you going to do when some who does have one kicks in your door to have their way with you? Would you rather have a phone or a gun? Go a head and call the police so they can come and take pictures of your dead body for the time it will take them to get there to "save" you.
Perhaps idiots like yourself can't handle responsibility, but don't drag the rest of the country down to your level. If you doubt you can handle a gun, do the rest of us a favor and refrain from touching the scary metal object that goes bang.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Perhaps if there was more gun control and less guns produced, maniacs like the shooter she describes would not have had such an easy time getting a gun. She's seems to be gloating by the fact that she was victim of a random bizarre crime and conveniently using her horrific experience to promote guns. It will be a sad day when we have to arm ourselves just to go out and take a walk. This is exactly what will happen without strict gun control.
Yeah, and next we can have knife control to eliminate all sharp pointy objects. Finally we can enact blunt object control. Only in a pillow-padded world can we feel safe to walk out of our homes.
@Aleowiciuos Wow.. you're an idiot. Gun Control doesn't work. The average criminal doesn't go to his local gun store to buy his weapon. He buys it on the street, black market style. Banning guns, takes guns out of the law abiding citizen's hands not the criminals.
Fact:Violence involving guns has been out of control there lately.
And despite the claims (lies) about those guns coming from the US,anyone with half a brain (not YOU) knows that fully automatic AK47s,hand grenades, and RPG7s aren't being sold to Mexican drug cartels by people getting them from US gun dealers.They get them on the same market that they get the drugs they sell,'strict gun control' or not,people will buy what they want.
You know what, you are right. . . we should have strict gun control. . . I mean. . . drugs are illegal and are not supposed to be produced (legally). . . oh wait. . . even with all those laws. . . there are still drug lords, drug related gang violence, etc.
But we have all these laws against drugs? DOES NOT COMPUTE. . .oh wait. It's called REAL LIFE; not some fantasy realm.
Bad guys acquire drugs off-the-market... so they will get guns the same way with/without gun control.
I do not follow any "political religion." But, one of the principals I do follow is the right for free human beings to bear arms. This video wipes clean the myths of gun control. Gun grabbers like to spew hypothetical nonsense when they state "people will start shoot each other. Or strut around, acting tough." This laughable considering the police do this on a daily basis. But, what about the situation in the video? The hypothetical danger of not having a gun became a reality.
You should check out Poraic Nally, or the death of John Ward. A scumbag and his son gang-up on an elderly man. The elderly man killed John Ward and was imprisoned for it.
chucky shummer is a smug little prick. I knew a little shit like him growing up, every time we played ball and the game wasn't going his way he would start crying and pick up his ball run home like a little pussy.
The entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment." On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolph Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack & THE REST IS HISTORY
a man in england who lived alone on his farm defended himself againts 2 robbers that broke into his house, he shot and killed one..the other one lived, he sued the farmer with the states money and the farmer is now in prison, they claim the farmer could of yelled for help...in the middle of a unpopulated area where the neigbors where not close to him.
is that justice? Laws are to restrict the law bidding, criminals dont care.
@zoddie Tony martins story is a sad one, and he never should have served a day in jail, but just so you know, he has been out of jail since 2003, and the law suit brought against him by the surviving robber was thrown out.
According to the USDOJ 80+% of gun crimes are commited by people who obtained a firearm illegaly. This proves that gun control WILL NOT work. Why can't Liberals just read the damn facts. England tried it and crime went up, Duh Libs read the facts. Think about how many bullets are fired in one day in the US. Now what % of that crazy number is involved in a crime.
If guns kill people, mattresses cause pregnancy. FROM MY COLD, GUN SHOT RESIDUE COVERED HANDS. I obey the law, when it becomes illegal for me to defend myself, I will become a criminal.
fuck democracts and brady...he's a pussy...my friend was shot with a .22 pistol in the gut at 14 years old and he walked a mile to my house to get help....
_____Here's the great thing about gun control from the perspective of gangsters. Gun control takes firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens--or makes it such a prolonged bureaucratic mess that they can't get 'em for a while. That way, all the dudes who DON'T follow the laws can take over towns like nobody's business. So speaking on behalf of crooks, criminals, gangsters and other forms of grass-roots politicans everywhere, THANK YOU, GUN-CONTROL ADVOCATES!
Dear WastedWhiteGuy: I agree w/ & support all your points. Please speak up to everyone - politicians, family, neighbors, strangers - EVERYONE. Health care takeover is 'soon come'. I'm a disabled vet & started going to VA less than a year ago even though eligible for last 30 years. The medical care is atrocious and level of service is almost as bad. Unprofessional. Impersonal. Error-filled on all levels. Uncaring. The psychologist (PhD) is excellent b/c, as she told me, she cares about people.
Good points, WastedWhiteGuy! What is a "gun nut" anyway? For some, guns are hobby. For others, guns are the job (cops, soldiers, security, Mafia). For many (myself included), guns are merely one layer of self-defense and a visible expression of one RIGHT we have under our U.S. Constitution, of which RIGHTS were won & articulated after many loss of life by our founding fathers. They died so we could protect our families & protect these RIGHTS, our hard-won freedoms.
According to my extensive research & involvement with education for the last 25 years, the states have not managed education for at least that long, probably longer. State actors in the education process are merely ceremonial. DC is calling the shots. Have you read Charlotte Iserbyt's
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America??
It should be required reading for every American.
What I meant was self defense at home, after what Dr Gracia Hupp said.
When people say 'gun control' the vast majority thinks 'gun ban'.
A gun ban would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. Who would enforce it?
The question is; who would disarm the people? Not the politicians in Washington. They'd need the police, the armed forces to enforce it. This would have serious implications.
You are thinking too short term. It's easy to disarm the people - just shut down the gun stores and wait 50 - 100 years whilst stepping up the efforts of the police to confiscate guns from felons. Increase the output and stop the input, so to speak.
I see 2 extremes; gun nuts on one hand and gun grabbers on the other.
There's nothing wrong with guns. There's only issues with certain people that own them, and that believe they have the right to have them without the responsibilities.
What is wrong with a fed education system? Where standards are uniform across ONE nation?
Also, denying people to be pro choice is an intrusion of gov't, whether you disagree with the issue at hand or not, in your private decisions.
Wrong with fed education? 1. Unconstitutional - no authority for feds to conduct education. It's up to the states to provide education, if the citizens of that state want it.; 2. Common sense - the larger the organization, (a) more difficult to manage; (b) more prone to cronyism/corruption; (c) distance from people increases difficulty of getting excellent results - which is absolutely what we should have. EXCELLENT RESULTS, nothing less. 3. It doesn't work, US ranked 27th in the world. WTF???
U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Dear RareMonster: Besides, the fed gov has failed entirely at the only job they're supposed to undertake, according to our Declaration of Independence ...to secure our unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness. They've also failed at all other unconstitutional acts, actions, programs; why would anyone want them to be in charge of anything, especially education of children?
Because, if the ruling class cannot get along in a bi polar political system that holds the advancement in check, then if each and every couple had to decide on a curriculum, there'd be one for each family.
Also, people being 'in pursuit of happiness' - material wealth, leisure, making a living have hardly the time to educate their children. Or just don't consider it their responsibility.
Dear RareMonster: There is no constitutional authority for fed gov to be involved with education, especially for children. But, people these days (especially those in DC) don't believe in the U.S. Constitution. However, I believe in the Constitution & I believe that parents have the responsibility to educate their children. If they want to band with other like-minded families, to teach reading, writing, math, art, music, literature & critical thinking, then even better.
See previous answer - parent's are too busy - and in this case unqualified to teach them about History, math, biology, physics, literature, arts, music, languages and especially CRITICAL THINKING.
Show me a parent qualified enough to teach their kids all these subjects....!
Dear RareMonster: State & local governments, can provide education as directed by the citizens of those jurisdictions. This is sub-optimal, though, to parents responsibility. AND, I didn't say you said "conduct." I said conduct. I believe conducting education includes the entire process: setting curriculae, defining standards, testing for standards-compliance, etc. An orchestra conductor arranges the music, decides when each instrument plays & listens for compliance w/ the arrangement.
Schools should focus on secular and scientific aspects of kids' education, making and government "should" keep partisanship and politics aside in this regard.
Let a panel of teachers nationwide set up the curriculae for each grade and update it each year, submit it and have the government enforce it and delegate states authorities to enforce it, all the way down to local authorities.
Most importantly, keep the political 'garbage' out of it.
Defense against the gov't is not self-defense on an individual basis.
Government controlled health care - at least the way people from both sides see it, as the gov't should not provide it but rather find ways to contract privates businesses to offer to ALL - is at least as viable as private health care. The private sector has FAILED to provide affordable health care, let alone healthcare for all.
Private has failed, and you accuse the gov't of having a failed plan??
Hey. I didn't say the population wasn't deceived! Anybody we elect might deceive us! There is no safety net for that! But the "Minority" did all have popular support of the "Majority", expressed either through election or revolution.
So very True.. The right to bare arms is for Americans to protect themselves against governments that have gone Bad.. hmmm I wonder how out current government is doing ?
No government in history has ever "enslaved" their population. Dictators can only do the things they do with the popular support from the population. If the US government is going to go "bad", then the US people will be responsible.
Nope. Germans gave Hitler his popular support. Stalin didn't have the Russian revolution on his own. Mao had the cultural revolution. I cannot think of a single dictator who didn't come to power without popular support. You want to install a puppet government - don't try to rig an election and install an unpopular government - have a legit election and make your own preferred candidate popular. It's what the CIA did.
If you vote an individual into office that curtails your civil liberties and targets you for not aligning with administration policy, eavesdropping your phone calls, now aren't you partially guilty?
Also, if there are people who support gun control - not gun BAN - you would assume it would be for everybody, and not just for a certain group of people. The law should be valid for everyone.
I am glad she told those idiots that bought there political positions where to go. I disagree with her stance on hunting but I agree with much of what she said.
It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to frame laws based upon the experiences of a handful of individuals, however horrific those experiences are. She has my sympathy, she really does, but her logic would have us banning airplane flight because one individual survived a horrific plane crash.
Sure I would. But the same law that puts a gun in my back pocket will also be the same law that puts the gun into the hand of the guy holding me at gun point in the first place ...
so... you're implying that he got the gun legally? trust me if there were a ban on guns criminals would still have them. don't you get it? if they install a gun ban they will go door to door of all the LEGAL gun owners. all the people who have them illegally will still have them. then it wouldn't be a handful of individuals people would die on a regular basis
1. No I did not imply that he got the gun legally. But he may have done. If he had no criminal record, and was of sound mind, then there was nothing to stop him.
2. There are gun bans in most developed nations, and the criminals there rarely use guns. This contradicts your assertion that criminals would have guns anyway. 3. In a gun ban, nobody would go "door-to-door" confiscating guns - that's just ridiculous. Just shut down the gun stores.
well first of all they confiscated guns during Katrina. if North Korea or Iran drops a nuclear bomb(very possible) if the tea parties get too out of hand(also very possible) or if Hezbollah makes good on their threat to attack D.C.(we all know how possible that is) they'll do it again. and actually there's a gun ban in Britain and i've heard from numeral sources(including interviews with police officers) that gun crimes have actually increased.
1. Hezbollah, North Korea, Iran are completely off topic. Nothing to do with gu control. 2. SOME guns were consfiscated from SOME people during Katrina. 3. The 1997 gun ban in the UK had no effect. There were no guns to ban in the first place. 4. The personal opinions of police officers are also irrelevant. 5. According to the gold standard, the British Crime Survey 2008, gun crimes are going down. Last year the UK had only 40 gun deaths in total - murders, accidents and suicides.
The US has 10,000 to 12,000 gun homicides each year. 16,000+ suicides. So if gun crme in the UK is going up, then it is still nowhere close to the levels seen in the US.
well we're going by crime rates not by number of deaths. there are a lot more people here than in England. also look up south africa gun ban. their crime rate is extremely high and they almost have a full ban on guns installed
But even if you take into account the different populations of the UK and the US, (approx US:UK = 5:1), the gun death rate in the US is still 2 orders of magnitude greater than for the UK.
As for SA, you must remember that gun laws themselves only have an indirect influence on crime rate. What counts is the gun ownership rate. In SA they have a high GO rate - a hangover from years of low gun control laws. The gun laws will take decades to reduce the GO rate, and likewise the crime rate.
like i said if you look up the South Africa gun policy you'll see what i'm saying. the police there are cowards and they're trying to take away a citizens only form of self defense against guns. if they took the guns away from their law abiding citizens it would be a massacre. i honestly believe the same would happen in the US too
It's bit rich to tar all the police in SA as "cowards" ! But as I said before, they are not taking guns away from the law abiding. They are trying to take guns away from the criminals. This is what gun registration is for.
well that's what gun control is isn't it? taking away everybody's guns? and since only the law abiding citizens register their guns then that's the ones they will take first because that's the ones they know are there. gun control doesn't work man. it's common sense.
Gun control is NOT about "taking guns away". Registering guns serves to identify those who are legally holding guns. The police then know from who they can take guns from. Nobody is going to knock on doors demanding the surrender of guns - simply shut down the guns stores !
Are you saying that it's OK to violate the inalienable rights guaranteed to US Citizens by the Constitution and BoR, so long as it only happens to people you don't know, belong to a demographic you dislike, or think differently than you do?
How was it blown out of proportion? I saw plenty of videos that told the story. Besides, one instance is enough. But this was policy & orders - police, military & mercenary troops went door to door, disarming citizens who might need their guns for self protection during crisis & chaos. Why would the gov want to render the Citizens & People helpless? Why did they treat Citizens like criminals? Their ONLY job: secure & protect our RIGHTS. They do the opposite. Why don't people see this truth?
I think the police went door to door disarming people because they were frightened that people would go looting using their guns. But to answer your question, this was not as widespread as has been made out.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You misunderstand. Gun registration is used by police to know who can and cannot legally have a gun. Gun registration does not take guns away from anybody. Gun registration keeps guns in the hands of the law abiding. How can you have a problem with that ?
Police dont use gun registration for anything. Its so the government can keep track of the guns. When police run gun info it only shows if it was reported stolen. Police find out who can or can not have a gun by running their criminal history and making that criminal history, or lack there of; applicable to a charge for illegally possessing a firearm.
Gun registration is so that when a gun is found - possibly at the scene of a crime - the police can track down who the owner was. If the gun was used in a crime, then the police have a suspect.
Even if it was reported stolen, then the police can investigate the theft, giving them another lead in a crime investigation.
Gun registration is a tool used by police to track down criminals. What's the problem ?
Imagine this: A group of people planning a robbery, and one of the members interrupting, saying this: Hey, wait a minute! I gotta pull outta this! Ain't got no legal gun!
Do you really think that this kinda people think along those terms?? That they're willing to rob or even kill, but they're NOT willing to possess a gun illegally owned?? DUUH??
I deeply respect your idealism, but still think you're kinda naîve. Seems well meant, but ill advised. Or?
You example is valid, but ignores the fact that the vast majority of gun crimes are impulsive. You are also ignoring the fact that whilst they may have robbed or killed in the past, they have not been caught, nor do they wish to get caught. So why risk the attentions of the law by carrying a gun?
With all do respect to you, your comments don't make any sence. Guns are outlawed in the UK and yet there is still gun crime. So what is your point? So crime hasn't really dropped just the amount of victoms has just gone up.
Gun crime in the UK will never disappear. There will always be some "gun crime";. Note that "gun crime" covers a lot of crimes - including replica weapons converted to live weapons, imitation fiearms used in crime, etc. But even so, the level of gun crime in the UK is two orders of magnitude less than that of the US.
I have posted several links, as requested, but the seem to have disappeared.
But to say it's a myth is crap. There are innumerable reports reports about replica firearms being converted and used in crime. For example, look up "Jury convicts man who sold converted replica guns to gangsters"
also South Africa is on the verge of a total gun ban yet that is one of the most crime infested areas of the world. so actually every single point you just told me is false
... and as you say yourself - SA is on the verge of a total gun ban - because of the high levels of gun ownership.
As for my points being false - you still need to explain why gun crime in particular, and the murder rate in general, is in most other developed nations, less than the US.
Toothbrush: 1. According to US-Israeli citizen/chief of staff Immanuel: "no guns if on no-fly list" (it's never been disclosed who's on the list or how you get there); what does "sound mind" mean? That's very ambiguous, and who decides that? 2. Gun ban in Wash DC ... they have plenty gun crimes. 3. In NOLA, after hurricane & in IOWA, after floods, police, military & mercenary troops went home to home (crashing windows & doors to get in) confiscating guns, removing People from their homes.
... I agree that the no-gun if on the no-fly list rule is daft. It's an arbitrary classification. But "sound-mind" has various definitions - but a definition MUST be made somehow. Otherwise you'd have psychopaths and suicidally depressives with handguns. Not good.
As for DC - this is reverse logic. The gun ban was introduced AFTER the high violence (in an attempt to reduce the high murder rate). But now you are saying that the gun ban caused the high violence.
anyone who wants a gun will get one, law or no law. So, the criminals & no-so-sound minds will get a gun if they want one. Only law-abiders follow laws. You can see in D.C. that even w/ gun ban, many gun crimes. And crimes. So gun laws won't stop crime or criminals or psycho's.They get guns anyhow & anyway. makes no sense to disarm americans, except to render helpless. Find the cause of poverty & violence then fix it. That fixes crime. but gov makes $ from crime & guns, so the game continues.
The gun violence from gangs is over territory. The gangs don't have the luxury of settling disputes in courts. The same thing happened when they banned alcohol. Instead of spending tax dollars to fight marajuana, we could spend that money on good things, like feeding and housing the homeless. $3.8mil in '09 plus the cost of court and imprisonmen ...add in the possible tax revenue and that is a nice chunk of change. Also it will help the economy and put people to work.
When your income is less than your outgo your up keep will be your downfall.
When a family is in debt, they have to go thru the budget and cut everything that is not essential for life. Congress should too. Cut funding for the farmers who are making millions. Cut funding for abortion clinics and use their clinics for free government health programs. Of the 192 nations in the UN America pays 75% of all the expence. There are way too many thing we can cut but lobbys bribe legislaters so we don't
Hillary Clintoon, Chuck Schumer and nearlhy all the other Democraps feel the need to LIE about their reasons for wanting to ban/confiscate OUR weapons... LMFAO @ "90% of mexican drug cartels use weapons that come from America ... BULLSHIT ... the facts tell a different story.
Regardless of what our government will become or has failed to achieve, we the people need both integrity and innovation to survive and succeed the effects of it.
Guys your both pretty Capatalism is in my opinion best for the US you make what you earn. At the same time Socialism (if done right, I know of no where it has?) is not as bad as most think. Our form of Capatalism has spun out of whack and needs adjusting. Ther problem is not our system of governmetn it is the people whom run it, Most of which are as dirty as a movie theater floor.
Agreed but for #1 the same could be said about any government including ours. Every president has used the last ones ceiling as a floor. building more power. They infringe our rights that I'm not happy about.
yeah well i dont know about you but i think the government has shown they no longer work for us by implementing things such as the patriot bill or the proposed fairness act in congress. all of their actions continually show they can care less what the people think and more what their fellow politicians think.
if bakathirteen wants be an idiot, let him, he obviously is not going to be convinced otherwise. Let him be a fascist, because thats what socialism turns into, look and NAzi Germany, Fascist Italy,
Fascist Spain, they were all socialist, and then turned to Fascist which there is not much of a difference between anyway.
We need to begin protecting ourselves from our politicians now. Those who wish to disarm the honest law abiding citizens are the sworn enemy or law abiding citizens and they need to be removed from office by whatever means it takes to do so.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, quoting criminologist Cesare Beccaria
Hitler banned guns so that his people could NOT uprise against him. Gun control any for of gun control is exactly what Hitler did. Our constitution left us able to have guns incase our leader went nuts. Because our leader has control over the armed forces, how would we fight back if Obama takes away our guns. Not many people will tell you this. Politicians use the "evil of guns" to get you to do and believe what they want This is just facts I'm not bullshitting anyone look it up Do some research
I am a liberal that believes to my core that I should be allowed to not just own weapons but carry them on me at all times. ONLY FOOLS WOULD GIVE UP THEIR GUNS.
Then you are not a liberal , you don't fit the definition of a liberal if you want the right to bear arms. That's like saying you are a Jewish Nazi or a black KKK member....you can't be both.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. It needs to be outlawed until we find a cure.
That actually depends. Though don't get me wrong, liberalism can be both a good thing and a bad thing, it can provide to peace but lead to death. But I know many liberals who would give their lives for freedom and rights. Especially gun rights, as it allows them to know they're the real ones in control of both themselves and the government like it's meant to by as our forefathers had predicted. Of course you have the libs you're talking about who hate guns and freedom for security.
libralism, small l, it's root word being the true definition of "liberal" which is freedom, is not the same as Liberalism with a capital L, or AKA modern day Liberalism, which is nothing more/less than communism. That was it's design by it's founders such as Norman Thomas, Roger Baldwin, Elizabeth Flynn, and other founders of the ALCU, who formed the ALCU for one purpose and one puropse only, to usher America into Communism. That is Liberalism, what it is, always was, and what it always will be.
There is no modern day Liberal who is a patriot, who loves America or freedom, or who stands for anything right, righteous, holy or pure. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and Liberals are my enemy, including Harry Reid, the scum POS Ted Kennedy, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi and Obamonation. They are more dangerous to freedom and America than any Nazi ever was, than any Soviet ever was. Those are the Libs I am speaking of, which does not sound the same as the 'libs' you speak of.
I admit, I'm a Socialist only because I believe we need to actually unite as a nation and get rid of the damn rich fascists and replace it with the people. But at the same time I love the right to vote and the right to bear arms, socialism and capitalism has nothing to do with the rights of people, just their political beliefs. Ultimately I think though war should cease but how's that going to happen unless people truly learn to trust each other. That will never happen though.
Thus the idiocy of your position. Socialism has never gotten rid of the rich, and the gap between the rich and poor is always greater in socialism and communism. And socialism has never stopped war, far more people die and are oppressed in socialist societies.
Capatilism always has, and always will provide the highest standard of living for all, the lowest level of racism and oppression of any other type of system. The second Amendment is there to protect us from people like you. Lock and load.
Like I said, don't get me wrong. If I find a better system then I'll jump on it. The problem is that those socialist countries weren't a true socialism. Do you even know what it's about? All socialism is, is where all people are treated equally, and have the same paycheck as everybody else. But the problem is with that is "if I'm getting paid the same as a neurology doctor when I'm only a ditch digger then why should I even give my all?" That's the only problem.
Jump on, it's called capitalism. In this system right now, 40% of those living under the poverty level own their own homes. That is unheard of in any other country, in any other system in the history of the world, bar none. Everyone has the chance to be rich, achieve, fulfill their dreams and destiny, and enjoy the fruits of their own labor. That's impossible in socialism. The only equality in socialism is everyone is equally poor, equally oppressed.
You're referring to communism and I'm referring to socialism. In socialism you have the right to own your own property, in communism that's basically going ten steps above socialism because nothing is privately owned. And look at the middle east, oh shit they all have AK-47s, RPG-7vs, and other weapons. Believe it or not gun rights in places like that are a lot better than here and most of those places believe in socialism. In politics it's not a matter of freedom it's a matter of system.
Well you have proven you have no idea of what you are talking about. Socialism is Marxism, and Marx was for the abolition of private property. Socialism is "From everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need".
State control or ownership of all means of production is socialism. You want to be a socialist? Take 90% of your paycheck every week and send it to those who refuse to work. It is killing this society. It is slavery to the state. I prefer to be free.
Marx was a Communist and THAT is what you're talking about. Yes I support the ability to take care of the weak, are you by chance interested in Darwinism, because that's survival of the fittest and only the rich can survive. Oh but shit that contradicts the use for our guns and our ability to rise, sorry. Besides the problem with capitalism is that it focuses on expansionism, we can't expand forever or we'll only collapse faster then the Soviets did at the end of the Cold War.
I'm not sure where you get your information, but you're as screwed up as a football bat. Marx was a socialist who hated pure communism. Here are his words
"We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse."
The problem is socialism is a stepping stone to communism. But your constant barrage of words is so wrong, against basic simple knowledge, I don't have the space to correct all your error
Well, nobody's perfect. Of course as he himself said "personal liberty" what does that mean do you wonder? Besides at least this isn't a pitiful discussion from an idiot if you could call one of those a discussion. I admit I have lost this end of the debate. Ultimately though I do agree gun rights should be protected.
You lost the debate when you said you knew socialism will never work, yet you still desire it.
As far as gun rights, they come from our creator, the one mentioned in our founding documents. No government has the authority to take them away, and we are free to fight, shoot and kill any who would try, be they socialists, communists, republicans or Liberal demoncrats. As the lady said, it's about our right to protect ourselves from those politicians. Shakespeare got it right, kill all the lawyers
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
I just bought an AK47 and it is probably the greatest thing I own. Why would anyone in their right mind surrender their rights so that the corRpt system can make descions for us? Its OUR RIGHT TO OWN THESE GREAT TOOLS! The 2ND amnd. was written so that the common man
COULD UNDERSTAND IT. ABC123 MOFO'S. When shit goes bad and you need help, protection, etc, stay the fuck away from me you mind fucked left wingers."when they outlaw guns the only people that will own them is criminals"
I would have deleted this comment for it's sheer stupidity, but I think it's better to leave it up and demonstrate the ignorance and downright willful stupidity of those who would take away our 2nd amendment rights.
"Guns do not kill: CRIMINALS do!" someone said. "With a hammer, if no gun at reach." , someone else added.
rodriguescaiogmail 1 week ago
The Virginia Tech shooter methodically killed 32 and wounded 25 because there was no one armed to stop him. . .
dobravery 8 months ago 3
Fact- Humans have the ability to kill. FACT- Humans have the ability to break the law and be criminals. FACT- Gun laws are broken by criminals most of which allready break the law. Fact- Stricter gun laws equals empowering criminals. One more free lesson for the day, Fact- When marijuana became illegal it still grew and has never been hard for any person to get their hands on.
wilsonmademe 8 months ago
@nik00000011 Did you even hear the story? There was a gun control law in her state. If you carry a gun, you had to leave it in your car when you get out of it. The person who shot of the restaurant had guns in his car. Did he obey the law? NO. He took the guns out of his car and shot many innocent people. The women had to leave her gun in the car. If she had her gun with her, she could have stopped the criminal. Gun control helps criminals, and hurts the law-abiding.
Patriot3332 8 months ago
@nik00000011 of course a gun control advocate would believe in evoloution. By the way thanks for speaking for every human on earth
chandlerricebox 9 months ago
@nik00000011 The thing she is pissed off about was she had a gun but laws and policies prevented her from bringing it into public places which was were her parents were gunned down. I'll bet you don't have a gun? What are you going to do when some who does have one kicks in your door to have their way with you? Would you rather have a phone or a gun? Go a head and call the police so they can come and take pictures of your dead body for the time it will take them to get there to "save" you.
TheMPB 9 months ago 2
@nik00000011
Perhaps idiots like yourself can't handle responsibility, but don't drag the rest of the country down to your level. If you doubt you can handle a gun, do the rest of us a favor and refrain from touching the scary metal object that goes bang.
MadMonk67 9 months ago 11
@gape2011
Judging from your post, a more pressing concern for you should be the state of education in our country.
MadMonk67 10 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Perhaps if there was more gun control and less guns produced, maniacs like the shooter she describes would not have had such an easy time getting a gun. She's seems to be gloating by the fact that she was victim of a random bizarre crime and conveniently using her horrific experience to promote guns. It will be a sad day when we have to arm ourselves just to go out and take a walk. This is exactly what will happen without strict gun control.
Aleowiciuos 11 months ago
@Aleowiciuos
Yeah, and next we can have knife control to eliminate all sharp pointy objects. Finally we can enact blunt object control. Only in a pillow-padded world can we feel safe to walk out of our homes.
MadMonk67 11 months ago 5
@Aleowiciuos Wow.. you're an idiot. Gun Control doesn't work. The average criminal doesn't go to his local gun store to buy his weapon. He buys it on the street, black market style. Banning guns, takes guns out of the law abiding citizen's hands not the criminals.
kbuddha420 11 months ago 2
@Aleowiciuos
Fact: Mexico has 'strict gun control'.
Fact:Violence involving guns has been out of control there lately.
And despite the claims (lies) about those guns coming from the US,anyone with half a brain (not YOU) knows that fully automatic AK47s,hand grenades, and RPG7s aren't being sold to Mexican drug cartels by people getting them from US gun dealers.They get them on the same market that they get the drugs they sell,'strict gun control' or not,people will buy what they want.
Partisandissident 11 months ago 2
@Aleowiciuos
You know what, you are right. . . we should have strict gun control. . . I mean. . . drugs are illegal and are not supposed to be produced (legally). . . oh wait. . . even with all those laws. . . there are still drug lords, drug related gang violence, etc.
But we have all these laws against drugs? DOES NOT COMPUTE. . .oh wait. It's called REAL LIFE; not some fantasy realm.
Bad guys acquire drugs off-the-market... so they will get guns the same way with/without gun control.
AlesandrosX 9 months ago
The 2nd Amendment is about "all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of YOU GUYS up there."
Ouuuch...
wannawatchu66 1 year ago 9
I do not follow any "political religion." But, one of the principals I do follow is the right for free human beings to bear arms. This video wipes clean the myths of gun control. Gun grabbers like to spew hypothetical nonsense when they state "people will start shoot each other. Or strut around, acting tough." This laughable considering the police do this on a daily basis. But, what about the situation in the video? The hypothetical danger of not having a gun became a reality.
biped19 1 year ago 2
@biped19 " The hypothetical danger of not having a gun became a reality."
Exactly!
crazypants88 1 year ago
You should check out Poraic Nally, or the death of John Ward. A scumbag and his son gang-up on an elderly man. The elderly man killed John Ward and was imprisoned for it.
Total fucking disgrace.
ParamoreWorshipper 1 year ago 4
chucky shummer is a smug little prick. I knew a little shit like him growing up, every time we played ball and the game wasn't going his way he would start crying and pick up his ball run home like a little pussy.
manorhillww 1 year ago 2
isnt this women a senator for texas now
madmatt454 1 year ago
@madmatt454, No longer. She was the Texas State Representative from District 54 until 2007. Now she is a Chiropractor.
ClassicFIHD 1 year ago
good on you
98461872 1 year ago
AMEN!!!!! ITS NOT ABOUT DUCK HUNTING ITS ABOUT THE GUNS PROTECTING US FROM YOU GUYS!!!
p.s. caps lock kicks ass
AmerikaKontrolliert 1 year ago 2
cool chick, think she's single?
oddmojo 2 years ago
Amen sister. That IS it.
realitycheck4freedom 2 years ago 2
This woman is one of the greatest American Patriots of this century.I pity the fools that do not heed her words.
jenkywhooptie 2 years ago
She is great patriot. I wish there were more people like her.
MrLuvtofly 1 year ago 5
Great speech! Her final point is IT. too bad the quality of the footage is so poor.
ObiWanShinobi1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment." On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolph Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack & THE REST IS HISTORY
soar8hours 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Well at the TNP we hope for kids to kill or at least hurt themselfs so that tighter gun control laws can be passed
RichardHewittSUCKS 2 years ago
gun control is people control short sweet and simple and fear the government that fears your guns
skinnyman1423 2 years ago 6
great body language chuck. patiently bored...........until the end. without the second, the others disappear.
piecarbob 2 years ago 6
Great video!
joyousplatapus 2 years ago 4
a man in england who lived alone on his farm defended himself againts 2 robbers that broke into his house, he shot and killed one..the other one lived, he sued the farmer with the states money and the farmer is now in prison, they claim the farmer could of yelled for help...in the middle of a unpopulated area where the neigbors where not close to him.
is that justice? Laws are to restrict the law bidding, criminals dont care.
solution...Give power to the righteous.
zoddie 2 years ago 39
@zoddie Tony martins story is a sad one, and he never should have served a day in jail, but just so you know, he has been out of jail since 2003, and the law suit brought against him by the surviving robber was thrown out.
slsslc 6 months ago
Love conservative women, this woman should be a role model for women instead of skanks like paris hilton.
zoddie 2 years ago 37
AMEN to that !
Ever see the South Park episode with Paris Hilton???
Too funny !!!
They have the S.P. girls playing with the "Stupid Spioled Whore Play Set".
kyowakokunobenkai 2 years ago 2
if assault weapons have no use as a defensive weapons, they why does every soldier DEFENDING our country carry one?
WisdomVendor 2 years ago 7
This woman is outstanding!!!!!
DOGLUV007 2 years ago 10
According to the USDOJ 80+% of gun crimes are commited by people who obtained a firearm illegaly. This proves that gun control WILL NOT work. Why can't Liberals just read the damn facts. England tried it and crime went up, Duh Libs read the facts. Think about how many bullets are fired in one day in the US. Now what % of that crazy number is involved in a crime.
wixmixb 2 years ago 7
englands message to america was...Hold on to your rights, we (england) was wrong.
zoddie 2 years ago 6
Congress needs to wash their mouths out with buckshot.
chimonkey123 2 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
If guns kill people, mattresses cause pregnancy. FROM MY COLD, GUN SHOT RESIDUE COVERED HANDS. I obey the law, when it becomes illegal for me to defend myself, I will become a criminal.
stabbyronnie 2 years ago
That comment she made just before the clip ended is the best thing anyone could have said during that incident.
Arelak 2 years ago 2
and japs, chinese, austrailians, french, germans, russians, etc. All countries ruled by psychotic dictatorships at one time or another, even today.
Arelak 2 years ago 2
fuck democracts and brady...he's a pussy...my friend was shot with a .22 pistol in the gut at 14 years old and he walked a mile to my house to get help....
jparish62 2 years ago
I love her!
packetscan 2 years ago 4
_____Here's the great thing about gun control from the perspective of gangsters. Gun control takes firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens--or makes it such a prolonged bureaucratic mess that they can't get 'em for a while. That way, all the dudes who DON'T follow the laws can take over towns like nobody's business. So speaking on behalf of crooks, criminals, gangsters and other forms of grass-roots politicans everywhere, THANK YOU, GUN-CONTROL ADVOCATES!
Egglesplork 2 years ago 2
Chuck is an arrogant motherfucken asshole Nazi!!! Demonazis have cause more death in America then any group. Thanks Chuck you murder!!!!!
fullauto1911 2 years ago
Dear WastedWhiteGuy: I agree w/ & support all your points. Please speak up to everyone - politicians, family, neighbors, strangers - EVERYONE. Health care takeover is 'soon come'. I'm a disabled vet & started going to VA less than a year ago even though eligible for last 30 years. The medical care is atrocious and level of service is almost as bad. Unprofessional. Impersonal. Error-filled on all levels. Uncaring. The psychologist (PhD) is excellent b/c, as she told me, she cares about people.
Marleyites 2 years ago
Good points, WastedWhiteGuy! What is a "gun nut" anyway? For some, guns are hobby. For others, guns are the job (cops, soldiers, security, Mafia). For many (myself included), guns are merely one layer of self-defense and a visible expression of one RIGHT we have under our U.S. Constitution, of which RIGHTS were won & articulated after many loss of life by our founding fathers. They died so we could protect our families & protect these RIGHTS, our hard-won freedoms.
Marleyites 2 years ago
According to my extensive research & involvement with education for the last 25 years, the states have not managed education for at least that long, probably longer. State actors in the education process are merely ceremonial. DC is calling the shots. Have you read Charlotte Iserbyt's
Deliberate Dumbing Down of America??
It should be required reading for every American.
Marleyites 2 years ago
The US should not be so proud - read arrogant - to look at those countries that succeed and try to apply it to the US.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
I didn't get the message across, right.
What I meant was self defense at home, after what Dr Gracia Hupp said.
When people say 'gun control' the vast majority thinks 'gun ban'.
A gun ban would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. Who would enforce it?
The question is; who would disarm the people? Not the politicians in Washington. They'd need the police, the armed forces to enforce it. This would have serious implications.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
You are thinking too short term. It's easy to disarm the people - just shut down the gun stores and wait 50 - 100 years whilst stepping up the efforts of the police to confiscate guns from felons. Increase the output and stop the input, so to speak.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Because, there is no 'indoctrination' at this time???
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
And you think the private sector will come to your rescue? Just because the gov't failed?
Gov'ts fail because their priorities are wrong.
The head honchos should find ways to vote practical laws, and see that they are enforced.
Maybe there should be severe penalties for all those who failed the people for promising and failing.
But if you pander to businesses, and put the people 2nd then there will even less of a chance for people to be served adequatly.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
I see 2 extremes; gun nuts on one hand and gun grabbers on the other.
There's nothing wrong with guns. There's only issues with certain people that own them, and that believe they have the right to have them without the responsibilities.
What is wrong with a fed education system? Where standards are uniform across ONE nation?
Also, denying people to be pro choice is an intrusion of gov't, whether you disagree with the issue at hand or not, in your private decisions.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
Wrong with fed education? 1. Unconstitutional - no authority for feds to conduct education. It's up to the states to provide education, if the citizens of that state want it.; 2. Common sense - the larger the organization, (a) more difficult to manage; (b) more prone to cronyism/corruption; (c) distance from people increases difficulty of getting excellent results - which is absolutely what we should have. EXCELLENT RESULTS, nothing less. 3. It doesn't work, US ranked 27th in the world. WTF???
Marleyites 2 years ago
I didn't say 'conduct', I said 'defining' the standards, and agree on the curriculae. Not have one set for each state.
Other than that the states should 'CONDUCT' it according to a set standard; the states should manage it individually.
As far as cronyism is concerned, it is simply due to the fact that there are way to many grey zones in the system that allow people to be dealt money.
If the US ranks 27th, it's because of its present system of education's structure, i.e. managed by the states.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Marleyites 2 years ago
That sounds like an ideal premise, however, this - like you pointed out - has hardly been seen in the last 100 years.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
Dear RareMonster: Besides, the fed gov has failed entirely at the only job they're supposed to undertake, according to our Declaration of Independence ...to secure our unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness. They've also failed at all other unconstitutional acts, actions, programs; why would anyone want them to be in charge of anything, especially education of children?
Marleyites 2 years ago
Because, if the ruling class cannot get along in a bi polar political system that holds the advancement in check, then if each and every couple had to decide on a curriculum, there'd be one for each family.
Also, people being 'in pursuit of happiness' - material wealth, leisure, making a living have hardly the time to educate their children. Or just don't consider it their responsibility.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
Dear RareMonster: There is no constitutional authority for fed gov to be involved with education, especially for children. But, people these days (especially those in DC) don't believe in the U.S. Constitution. However, I believe in the Constitution & I believe that parents have the responsibility to educate their children. If they want to band with other like-minded families, to teach reading, writing, math, art, music, literature & critical thinking, then even better.
Marleyites 2 years ago
See previous answer - parent's are too busy - and in this case unqualified to teach them about History, math, biology, physics, literature, arts, music, languages and especially CRITICAL THINKING.
Show me a parent qualified enough to teach their kids all these subjects....!
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
Dear RareMonster: State & local governments, can provide education as directed by the citizens of those jurisdictions. This is sub-optimal, though, to parents responsibility. AND, I didn't say you said "conduct." I said conduct. I believe conducting education includes the entire process: setting curriculae, defining standards, testing for standards-compliance, etc. An orchestra conductor arranges the music, decides when each instrument plays & listens for compliance w/ the arrangement.
Marleyites 2 years ago
Schools should focus on secular and scientific aspects of kids' education, making and government "should" keep partisanship and politics aside in this regard.
Let a panel of teachers nationwide set up the curriculae for each grade and update it each year, submit it and have the government enforce it and delegate states authorities to enforce it, all the way down to local authorities.
Most importantly, keep the political 'garbage' out of it.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
Defense against the gov't is not self-defense on an individual basis.
Government controlled health care - at least the way people from both sides see it, as the gov't should not provide it but rather find ways to contract privates businesses to offer to ALL - is at least as viable as private health care. The private sector has FAILED to provide affordable health care, let alone healthcare for all.
Private has failed, and you accuse the gov't of having a failed plan??
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
Hey. I didn't say the population wasn't deceived! Anybody we elect might deceive us! There is no safety net for that! But the "Minority" did all have popular support of the "Majority", expressed either through election or revolution.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
So, according to her, if the 2nd amendment is not for hunting purposes, then it's just invalid for self defense.
I have yet to see the legislative branch being the ones to have the right to bear arms.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
Amen!
Curtis1551 2 years ago
I would like to hear her say " Will the Honorable Mr Schumer wipe that smug grin off his face before I come up there and do it for him ? "
What an insufferable asshole .
Kerogas 2 years ago
So very True.. The right to bare arms is for Americans to protect themselves against governments that have gone Bad.. hmmm I wonder how out current government is doing ?
2xtream 2 years ago
No government in history has ever "enslaved" their population. Dictators can only do the things they do with the popular support from the population. If the US government is going to go "bad", then the US people will be responsible.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
TothbrushMan: You have to be kidding right?
2xtream 2 years ago
Nope. Germans gave Hitler his popular support. Stalin didn't have the Russian revolution on his own. Mao had the cultural revolution. I cannot think of a single dictator who didn't come to power without popular support. You want to install a puppet government - don't try to rig an election and install an unpopular government - have a legit election and make your own preferred candidate popular. It's what the CIA did.
Is there any example that counters this ?
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
No, actually it makes sense.
If you vote an individual into office that curtails your civil liberties and targets you for not aligning with administration policy, eavesdropping your phone calls, now aren't you partially guilty?
Also, if there are people who support gun control - not gun BAN - you would assume it would be for everybody, and not just for a certain group of people. The law should be valid for everyone.
aRareKindOfMonster 2 years ago
I am glad she told those idiots that bought there political positions where to go. I disagree with her stance on hunting but I agree with much of what she said.
buckmark23 2 years ago 2
She makes me so proud to be a Texan. She is so well spoken, correct and determined.
guamsst 2 years ago 7
It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to frame laws based upon the experiences of a handful of individuals, however horrific those experiences are. She has my sympathy, she really does, but her logic would have us banning airplane flight because one individual survived a horrific plane crash.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
yes but it's about self defense. if someone held you at gun point i'll bet you'd like the comfort of a 9 mm in your back pocket wouldn't you?
glramer2007 2 years ago
Sure I would. But the same law that puts a gun in my back pocket will also be the same law that puts the gun into the hand of the guy holding me at gun point in the first place ...
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
so... you're implying that he got the gun legally? trust me if there were a ban on guns criminals would still have them. don't you get it? if they install a gun ban they will go door to door of all the LEGAL gun owners. all the people who have them illegally will still have them. then it wouldn't be a handful of individuals people would die on a regular basis
glramer2007 2 years ago
1. No I did not imply that he got the gun legally. But he may have done. If he had no criminal record, and was of sound mind, then there was nothing to stop him.
2. There are gun bans in most developed nations, and the criminals there rarely use guns. This contradicts your assertion that criminals would have guns anyway. 3. In a gun ban, nobody would go "door-to-door" confiscating guns - that's just ridiculous. Just shut down the gun stores.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
well first of all they confiscated guns during Katrina. if North Korea or Iran drops a nuclear bomb(very possible) if the tea parties get too out of hand(also very possible) or if Hezbollah makes good on their threat to attack D.C.(we all know how possible that is) they'll do it again. and actually there's a gun ban in Britain and i've heard from numeral sources(including interviews with police officers) that gun crimes have actually increased.
glramer2007 2 years ago
1. Hezbollah, North Korea, Iran are completely off topic. Nothing to do with gu control. 2. SOME guns were consfiscated from SOME people during Katrina. 3. The 1997 gun ban in the UK had no effect. There were no guns to ban in the first place. 4. The personal opinions of police officers are also irrelevant. 5. According to the gold standard, the British Crime Survey 2008, gun crimes are going down. Last year the UK had only 40 gun deaths in total - murders, accidents and suicides.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
The US has 10,000 to 12,000 gun homicides each year. 16,000+ suicides. So if gun crme in the UK is going up, then it is still nowhere close to the levels seen in the US.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
well we're going by crime rates not by number of deaths. there are a lot more people here than in England. also look up south africa gun ban. their crime rate is extremely high and they almost have a full ban on guns installed
glramer2007 2 years ago
But even if you take into account the different populations of the UK and the US, (approx US:UK = 5:1), the gun death rate in the US is still 2 orders of magnitude greater than for the UK.
As for SA, you must remember that gun laws themselves only have an indirect influence on crime rate. What counts is the gun ownership rate. In SA they have a high GO rate - a hangover from years of low gun control laws. The gun laws will take decades to reduce the GO rate, and likewise the crime rate.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
like i said if you look up the South Africa gun policy you'll see what i'm saying. the police there are cowards and they're trying to take away a citizens only form of self defense against guns. if they took the guns away from their law abiding citizens it would be a massacre. i honestly believe the same would happen in the US too
glramer2007 2 years ago
It's bit rich to tar all the police in SA as "cowards" ! But as I said before, they are not taking guns away from the law abiding. They are trying to take guns away from the criminals. This is what gun registration is for.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
well that's what gun control is isn't it? taking away everybody's guns? and since only the law abiding citizens register their guns then that's the ones they will take first because that's the ones they know are there. gun control doesn't work man. it's common sense.
glramer2007 2 years ago 2
Gun control is NOT about "taking guns away". Registering guns serves to identify those who are legally holding guns. The police then know from who they can take guns from. Nobody is going to knock on doors demanding the surrender of guns - simply shut down the guns stores !
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
yeah that's a great idea. then anyone who's not already a gun owner is screwed. also walmart cant supply all the gun owners out there with ammunition
glramer2007 2 years ago
"Nobody is going to knock on doors demanding the surrender of guns"
That's exactly what they did in New Orleans.
Dosbomber 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That whole New Orleans gun confiscation story was blown out of all proportion.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Are you saying that it's OK to violate the inalienable rights guaranteed to US Citizens by the Constitution and BoR, so long as it only happens to people you don't know, belong to a demographic you dislike, or think differently than you do?
MIT1369 2 years ago
How was it blown out of proportion? I saw plenty of videos that told the story. Besides, one instance is enough. But this was policy & orders - police, military & mercenary troops went door to door, disarming citizens who might need their guns for self protection during crisis & chaos. Why would the gov want to render the Citizens & People helpless? Why did they treat Citizens like criminals? Their ONLY job: secure & protect our RIGHTS. They do the opposite. Why don't people see this truth?
Marleyites 2 years ago
I think the police went door to door disarming people because they were frightened that people would go looting using their guns. But to answer your question, this was not as widespread as has been made out.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Gun control is the first step in taking away guns for law abiding citizens. No law can take away guns from criminals.
XCritonX 2 years ago 4
"They are trying to take guns away from the criminals. This is what gun registration is for. "
This will of course work because as we all know, all criminals register their guns.
Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn? Cheap?
Dosbomber 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You misunderstand. Gun registration is used by police to know who can and cannot legally have a gun. Gun registration does not take guns away from anybody. Gun registration keeps guns in the hands of the law abiding. How can you have a problem with that ?
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Gun registration doesn't effect criminals.
TheManWithTVEyes 2 years ago 8
Police dont use gun registration for anything. Its so the government can keep track of the guns. When police run gun info it only shows if it was reported stolen. Police find out who can or can not have a gun by running their criminal history and making that criminal history, or lack there of; applicable to a charge for illegally possessing a firearm.
vffemt83 2 years ago
Gun registration is so that when a gun is found - possibly at the scene of a crime - the police can track down who the owner was. If the gun was used in a crime, then the police have a suspect.
Even if it was reported stolen, then the police can investigate the theft, giving them another lead in a crime investigation.
Gun registration is a tool used by police to track down criminals. What's the problem ?
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
No, Sir - I don't think it is that simple!
Imagine this: A group of people planning a robbery, and one of the members interrupting, saying this: Hey, wait a minute! I gotta pull outta this! Ain't got no legal gun!
Do you really think that this kinda people think along those terms?? That they're willing to rob or even kill, but they're NOT willing to possess a gun illegally owned?? DUUH??
I deeply respect your idealism, but still think you're kinda naîve. Seems well meant, but ill advised. Or?
elmerexpress 2 years ago
You example is valid, but ignores the fact that the vast majority of gun crimes are impulsive. You are also ignoring the fact that whilst they may have robbed or killed in the past, they have not been caught, nor do they wish to get caught. So why risk the attentions of the law by carrying a gun?
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
With all do respect to you, your comments don't make any sence. Guns are outlawed in the UK and yet there is still gun crime. So what is your point? So crime hasn't really dropped just the amount of victoms has just gone up.
Springr1911 2 years ago
Gun crime in the UK will never disappear. There will always be some "gun crime";. Note that "gun crime" covers a lot of crimes - including replica weapons converted to live weapons, imitation fiearms used in crime, etc. But even so, the level of gun crime in the UK is two orders of magnitude less than that of the US.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Can you please show one actual case where a replica weapon was converted to a real weapon?
It is a myth.
XCritonX 2 years ago 2
I have posted several links, as requested, but the seem to have disappeared.
But to say it's a myth is crap. There are innumerable reports reports about replica firearms being converted and used in crime. For example, look up "Jury convicts man who sold converted replica guns to gangsters"
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
also South Africa is on the verge of a total gun ban yet that is one of the most crime infested areas of the world. so actually every single point you just told me is false
glramer2007 2 years ago
... and as you say yourself - SA is on the verge of a total gun ban - because of the high levels of gun ownership.
As for my points being false - you still need to explain why gun crime in particular, and the murder rate in general, is in most other developed nations, less than the US.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Toothbrush: 1. According to US-Israeli citizen/chief of staff Immanuel: "no guns if on no-fly list" (it's never been disclosed who's on the list or how you get there); what does "sound mind" mean? That's very ambiguous, and who decides that? 2. Gun ban in Wash DC ... they have plenty gun crimes. 3. In NOLA, after hurricane & in IOWA, after floods, police, military & mercenary troops went home to home (crashing windows & doors to get in) confiscating guns, removing People from their homes.
Marleyites 2 years ago
... I agree that the no-gun if on the no-fly list rule is daft. It's an arbitrary classification. But "sound-mind" has various definitions - but a definition MUST be made somehow. Otherwise you'd have psychopaths and suicidally depressives with handguns. Not good.
As for DC - this is reverse logic. The gun ban was introduced AFTER the high violence (in an attempt to reduce the high murder rate). But now you are saying that the gun ban caused the high violence.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
anyone who wants a gun will get one, law or no law. So, the criminals & no-so-sound minds will get a gun if they want one. Only law-abiders follow laws. You can see in D.C. that even w/ gun ban, many gun crimes. And crimes. So gun laws won't stop crime or criminals or psycho's.They get guns anyhow & anyway. makes no sense to disarm americans, except to render helpless. Find the cause of poverty & violence then fix it. That fixes crime. but gov makes $ from crime & guns, so the game continues.
Marleyites 2 years ago
Pot is illegal. Criminals still have it.
How come?
Criminal gets his illegal weapon and guns are banned in the country. How come?
Captainlewa8 2 years ago 3
The gun violence from gangs is over territory. The gangs don't have the luxury of settling disputes in courts. The same thing happened when they banned alcohol. Instead of spending tax dollars to fight marajuana, we could spend that money on good things, like feeding and housing the homeless. $3.8mil in '09 plus the cost of court and imprisonmen ...add in the possible tax revenue and that is a nice chunk of change. Also it will help the economy and put people to work.
kyowakokunobenkai 2 years ago 4
how about we use the money to pay for the programs we already have and idealy pay off the debt
upyr1 2 years ago 3
When your income is less than your outgo your up keep will be your downfall.
When a family is in debt, they have to go thru the budget and cut everything that is not essential for life. Congress should too. Cut funding for the farmers who are making millions. Cut funding for abortion clinics and use their clinics for free government health programs. Of the 192 nations in the UN America pays 75% of all the expence. There are way too many thing we can cut but lobbys bribe legislaters so we don't
kyowakokunobenkai 2 years ago 2
Hillary Clintoon, Chuck Schumer and nearlhy all the other Democraps feel the need to LIE about their reasons for wanting to ban/confiscate OUR weapons... LMFAO @ "90% of mexican drug cartels use weapons that come from America ... BULLSHIT ... the facts tell a different story.
roscoe85cj 2 years ago 2
What do the mexicans say ? Hell, what do the mexican drug cartels say ?
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
I despise that look of contempt from that asshole Schumer. What a despicable contemptious bastard.
ThunderAppeal 3 years ago 3
Regardless of what our government will become or has failed to achieve, we the people need both integrity and innovation to survive and succeed the effects of it.
gcalayne 3 years ago 2
This woman is exactly right.
RogueAssassin23 3 years ago 6
Guys your both pretty Capatalism is in my opinion best for the US you make what you earn. At the same time Socialism (if done right, I know of no where it has?) is not as bad as most think. Our form of Capatalism has spun out of whack and needs adjusting. Ther problem is not our system of governmetn it is the people whom run it, Most of which are as dirty as a movie theater floor.
jsh78mang 3 years ago
The problems with socialism are,
1) it relies on a big powerful govt, which inherently will become corrupt and whose motive strays from productivity toward reelection...
2) it motivates entitlement mentality and outsources basic self dependency to others.
sailcats77 3 years ago
Agreed but for #1 the same could be said about any government including ours. Every president has used the last ones ceiling as a floor. building more power. They infringe our rights that I'm not happy about.
jsh78mang 3 years ago 2
yeah but thats why our forefathers put into the constitution that we have the right to overthrow the government.
disturbedone5009 3 years ago
Yes, but only should be used as a last resort.
jsh78mang 3 years ago
yeah well i dont know about you but i think the government has shown they no longer work for us by implementing things such as the patriot bill or the proposed fairness act in congress. all of their actions continually show they can care less what the people think and more what their fellow politicians think.
disturbedone5009 3 years ago
Could not agree with her more. Arm the public, stop the crime
funnystuff123d3 3 years ago 5
if bakathirteen wants be an idiot, let him, he obviously is not going to be convinced otherwise. Let him be a fascist, because thats what socialism turns into, look and NAzi Germany, Fascist Italy,
Fascist Spain, they were all socialist, and then turned to Fascist which there is not much of a difference between anyway.
septawn 3 years ago 2
We need to begin protecting ourselves from our politicians now. Those who wish to disarm the honest law abiding citizens are the sworn enemy or law abiding citizens and they need to be removed from office by whatever means it takes to do so.
Eric5923 3 years ago 2
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, quoting criminologist Cesare Beccaria
GunOwnerDan 3 years ago
Hitler banned guns so that his people could NOT uprise against him. Gun control any for of gun control is exactly what Hitler did. Our constitution left us able to have guns incase our leader went nuts. Because our leader has control over the armed forces, how would we fight back if Obama takes away our guns. Not many people will tell you this. Politicians use the "evil of guns" to get you to do and believe what they want This is just facts I'm not bullshitting anyone look it up Do some research
Shadyac21 3 years ago 5
Gun control? Hey, why not have control for our other freedoms the Bill of Rights gives us?
Sure, you have a right to an attorney when accused of a crime, there's a two week waiting period for him while you sit in jail.
Oh, you forgot to renew your registration giving you the right to a fair trial? Sorry, you can't have one.
Scotty7617 3 years ago 3
Actually, she was in the Texas state House of Representatives for ten years.
Scotty7617 3 years ago
I love that last statement, "Our right to protect ourselves from you guys up there."
JR042083 3 years ago 4
I am a liberal that believes to my core that I should be allowed to not just own weapons but carry them on me at all times. ONLY FOOLS WOULD GIVE UP THEIR GUNS.
Eagledaletiger 3 years ago 5
Then you are not a liberal , you don't fit the definition of a liberal if you want the right to bear arms. That's like saying you are a Jewish Nazi or a black KKK member....you can't be both.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. It needs to be outlawed until we find a cure.
Eric5923 3 years ago
That actually depends. Though don't get me wrong, liberalism can be both a good thing and a bad thing, it can provide to peace but lead to death. But I know many liberals who would give their lives for freedom and rights. Especially gun rights, as it allows them to know they're the real ones in control of both themselves and the government like it's meant to by as our forefathers had predicted. Of course you have the libs you're talking about who hate guns and freedom for security.
bakathirteen 3 years ago
libralism, small l, it's root word being the true definition of "liberal" which is freedom, is not the same as Liberalism with a capital L, or AKA modern day Liberalism, which is nothing more/less than communism. That was it's design by it's founders such as Norman Thomas, Roger Baldwin, Elizabeth Flynn, and other founders of the ALCU, who formed the ALCU for one purpose and one puropse only, to usher America into Communism. That is Liberalism, what it is, always was, and what it always will be.
Eric5923 3 years ago
There is no modern day Liberal who is a patriot, who loves America or freedom, or who stands for anything right, righteous, holy or pure. Liberalism is a mental disorder, and Liberals are my enemy, including Harry Reid, the scum POS Ted Kennedy, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi and Obamonation. They are more dangerous to freedom and America than any Nazi ever was, than any Soviet ever was. Those are the Libs I am speaking of, which does not sound the same as the 'libs' you speak of.
Eric5923 3 years ago
I admit, I'm a Socialist only because I believe we need to actually unite as a nation and get rid of the damn rich fascists and replace it with the people. But at the same time I love the right to vote and the right to bear arms, socialism and capitalism has nothing to do with the rights of people, just their political beliefs. Ultimately I think though war should cease but how's that going to happen unless people truly learn to trust each other. That will never happen though.
bakathirteen 3 years ago
Thus the idiocy of your position. Socialism has never gotten rid of the rich, and the gap between the rich and poor is always greater in socialism and communism. And socialism has never stopped war, far more people die and are oppressed in socialist societies.
Capatilism always has, and always will provide the highest standard of living for all, the lowest level of racism and oppression of any other type of system. The second Amendment is there to protect us from people like you. Lock and load.
Eric5923 3 years ago
Like I said, don't get me wrong. If I find a better system then I'll jump on it. The problem is that those socialist countries weren't a true socialism. Do you even know what it's about? All socialism is, is where all people are treated equally, and have the same paycheck as everybody else. But the problem is with that is "if I'm getting paid the same as a neurology doctor when I'm only a ditch digger then why should I even give my all?" That's the only problem.
bakathirteen 3 years ago
"If I find a better system I'll jump on it"
Jump on, it's called capitalism. In this system right now, 40% of those living under the poverty level own their own homes. That is unheard of in any other country, in any other system in the history of the world, bar none. Everyone has the chance to be rich, achieve, fulfill their dreams and destiny, and enjoy the fruits of their own labor. That's impossible in socialism. The only equality in socialism is everyone is equally poor, equally oppressed.
Eric5923 3 years ago
You're referring to communism and I'm referring to socialism. In socialism you have the right to own your own property, in communism that's basically going ten steps above socialism because nothing is privately owned. And look at the middle east, oh shit they all have AK-47s, RPG-7vs, and other weapons. Believe it or not gun rights in places like that are a lot better than here and most of those places believe in socialism. In politics it's not a matter of freedom it's a matter of system.
bakathirteen 3 years ago
Well you have proven you have no idea of what you are talking about. Socialism is Marxism, and Marx was for the abolition of private property. Socialism is "From everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need".
State control or ownership of all means of production is socialism. You want to be a socialist? Take 90% of your paycheck every week and send it to those who refuse to work. It is killing this society. It is slavery to the state. I prefer to be free.
Eric5923 3 years ago
Marx was a Communist and THAT is what you're talking about. Yes I support the ability to take care of the weak, are you by chance interested in Darwinism, because that's survival of the fittest and only the rich can survive. Oh but shit that contradicts the use for our guns and our ability to rise, sorry. Besides the problem with capitalism is that it focuses on expansionism, we can't expand forever or we'll only collapse faster then the Soviets did at the end of the Cold War.
bakathirteen 3 years ago
I'm not sure where you get your information, but you're as screwed up as a football bat. Marx was a socialist who hated pure communism. Here are his words
"We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse."
The problem is socialism is a stepping stone to communism. But your constant barrage of words is so wrong, against basic simple knowledge, I don't have the space to correct all your error
Eric5923 3 years ago
Well, nobody's perfect. Of course as he himself said "personal liberty" what does that mean do you wonder? Besides at least this isn't a pitiful discussion from an idiot if you could call one of those a discussion. I admit I have lost this end of the debate. Ultimately though I do agree gun rights should be protected.
bakathirteen 3 years ago
You lost the debate when you said you knew socialism will never work, yet you still desire it.
As far as gun rights, they come from our creator, the one mentioned in our founding documents. No government has the authority to take them away, and we are free to fight, shoot and kill any who would try, be they socialists, communists, republicans or Liberal demoncrats. As the lady said, it's about our right to protect ourselves from those politicians. Shakespeare got it right, kill all the lawyers
Eric5923 3 years ago 2
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson
Scotty7617 3 years ago 8
What a great quote, as well as it's use of combating a fascist govt!
Elmeromero1 3 years ago 4
Awesome quote!!!
vette0812 3 years ago 2
I just bought an AK47 and it is probably the greatest thing I own. Why would anyone in their right mind surrender their rights so that the corRpt system can make descions for us? Its OUR RIGHT TO OWN THESE GREAT TOOLS! The 2ND amnd. was written so that the common man
COULD UNDERSTAND IT. ABC123 MOFO'S. When shit goes bad and you need help, protection, etc, stay the fuck away from me you mind fucked left wingers."when they outlaw guns the only people that will own them is criminals"
fyerwatirs 3 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This woman is also of no respect to the members of the congress who are elected by the peoples of America who are held hostage by her.
This woman is DEVIL/SATAN.
BanGunsNow 3 years ago
I would have deleted this comment for it's sheer stupidity, but I think it's better to leave it up and demonstrate the ignorance and downright willful stupidity of those who would take away our 2nd amendment rights.
MadMonk67 3 years ago
what a fuckin moron
DoctorRobertBobby 3 years ago
How can you say "This woman is DEVIL/SATAN"?
What if someone was there with a gun? That man would have been shot before he had a chance to kill anyone.
vette0812 3 years ago 3