Guns Don’t Kill People, People Kill People!

what evidence do you have that "our culture will get more violent when the soldiers come home"?

uhm...by staring at goats? that kind of thing?

where do people get the belief that the second amendment has to do with protecting people from government? here is the text of the amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

if you read Thomas Jefferson's notes, he clearly meant the amendment as a means of preventing standing armies (which he thought was the biggest threat to democracy) by maintaining "well regulated," locally based militias.

where are you getting your theories from? at the eand of the day, what good will guns do against the full force of the military industrial complex?

Remember our fight against non-representative British government? THAT is what the 2nd is all about.

remanns: when did the british try to ban individual ownership of guns in the colonies?

from a larger perspective, we may agree. what country would ever try to invade/occupy the US knowing that every citizen owns/is trained to use a weapon. it's why jefferson pushed so hard for it's inclusion in the bill of rightgs: to negate the need for a standing army (as oposed to the conservative meme that it was written to protect citizens from their own government, especially when that government spends more on it's military than the rest of the world combined)

I don't think Jefferson differentiated in his thinking between "foreign" and "domestic" focused-centralized powers when "militia" was penned; we were just barely/freshly "not Brits" at the time. Arms were/are "the dispersed branch of government". I really think it was along the lines of the rest of the separation of powers bit; the ultimate veto. Jefferson was like that.

upon further review, i'm now going to agree with you. if my reading of history is correct, to jefferson, standing armys were the ultimate physical manifestation of the dangers of centralized power, regardless of whether that power was foreign or domestic.

that being said, i would say that times have changed enough such that no militia could stand up the the massive scale of the current US military industrial complex, which has gotten larger than our founders could ever imagine, both in sheer size as well as destructive capacity (cluster bombs, nuclear weapons, etc).

that being said, where do you draw the semantic line in the sand as far as the amendments reference to "arms." should citizens be able to own military grade weapons? nuclear warheads? nuclear subs/aircraft carriers? etc...

also, why did you put "the dispersed branch of government" in quotations? was that a specific reference to something jefferson wrote about?

@tbowman131---(sorry, posted this the wrong place first time)

The " " were to denote that, while it [the political body] was not expressly listed as such, I was simply coining the designation as a tag for a body/force intended (-perhaps-) to be equivalent in ultimate power to
NAMED branches of government; a populist power check. That whole militia bit implies military grade weapons. It may be that militias are old hat,...(PICK HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PUT THAT),but that is the constitutional intent in my opinion. Bare in mind,...the thing was intended to be amended/evolve! As things CURRENTLY stand in regards to the text,...all sorts of controls, on all sorts of arms,...are possible. IN GENERAL,.....the more lethal the weapon, the longer it should take to get,...the more OFFICIAL the channels should have to be to legally have it in your possession, and the more fully,...totally,...minute to minute surveilled you become. The more heavily armed you are,....the more the "right to privacy" goes out the window. Basically, if you have a 50 cal auto in the garage,...a sniper is watching you a lot. Deal with it. Its the trade off. But yeah,..."militia" means armed people can actually drill,....groups not owned by the fed or even necessarily the state. Townships could do it,perhaps clubs. Its a society always PRIMED to have a revolution. So the democracy has to be inclusive, willing to compromise/ cut deals,....and always stay a little bit ,...........uneasy,.....pretty much all the time.Democracy is not for the lazy, complacent, or faint hearted.

Well said dehydrated !

They wont be getting any of mine either.

I know I am one of those Americans that wouldn't be giving up my guns.

"Well, anybody that wants a gun can go buy one. You still can't carry it on the street without a permit. "
Not true. Many states such as Colorado have Open Carry laws. While some cities (such as Denver) outlaw open carry, a citizen can open carry in many other towns, in of the national forests, and in the National Parks (thanks to recent legislation).

You don't have to be "registered" to carry a firearm. I have a pistol I inherited that I have never "registered" and would not do it even if laws changed and made it required. You only get "registered" when you apply to buy a gun, when they do the background check. Technically it's not gun registration, but I'm sure it's being used by the ever increasingly authoritarian government as a way of tracking gun ownership.

And F- no I wouldn't turn in my guns. That would be the clear sign to me that it's time for revolution.

yeah yeah yeah...people with a pointy stick kill people, people with knives kill people, people with a piece of rope or a plastic bag or a car or a can of rat poison or a fork or a cub scout knife or a rock or a broken bottle or a bad attitude...

repeat after me: they continually try to push the issue.

we have to remain vigilant and push back

I know where to aim them. LOL.

lol go ahead and try using that on an Abrams. good way to get machine gunned or mark-19'ed.

I know EXACTLY where to aim them. I bet our targets are the same. Or at least in the same area.

And with a few of these, that would make them wonder what else I had. Gotta keep em guessing.

nothing like showing the weapon of choice for terrorists to prove that guns don't kill people...

unless you are part of a "well regulated militia" you have no inherent right to own a gun:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

unimatrix: I disagree. If I go buy a gun and am legally elligible to own one, nobody has the right to closely monitor me because I own a gun. That won't fly here in America where we are not members of a collective, but individuals. People don't understand anymore what government is for. Everybody would be much better off to read teh constitution and follow it.
Big government has no place in America. Government is now too big and needs to take on a major down sizing. It is not up to the government to closely monitor gun owners.
That would be like saying Christians who get together for Bible study and own a Bible might decide to blow up something, because of one person who claims to be a Christian going and blowing up something. So, to stop or gain more control, all Christians should be closely monitored, especially those who own a Bible. I think there is enough socialism going on already in America. No thank you. I will not be closely monitored because I own guns.

Unimatrix is a hater of guns and gun owners. You will never change her mind.

I havent had to buy a gun in almost 20 years. None are registered because it wasnt required when I bought them and it still isnt in the state I live in now. Half were left to me from family memebrs who are now deceased. The government isnt even aware I have them. I am sure many folks that have guns aquired some of them in this way. I would hope they are smart enough to never NEVER register them. What the governmnt know about the government cant take away. Thats why I hide money in a coffee can. Fuck them

I was not trying to change her mind. But I do have an opinion on the subject and I was just voicing it. I am not going to argue with people who have no clue what they are talking about or who do know what they want and that being the destruction of freedoms and liberties in America.

Im not saying you shouldnt voice it. Hell, I agree with you and think you should shout it from rooftops. I was just letting you know about UNI.

She hates God, guns and religion in general. Three of the things that made America what it is today. Personally, I cling to them.

Availability is the side of the issue that I support. The "regulated" bit absolutely would not only allow, but perhaps CALL FOR collective social overview; to my fellow "pro gun" compatriots,..I would say "Thats why you bear arms,....so they CAN watch you,....and of course,...YOU can watch them". AND EVERYONE takes everyone as seriously potentially lethal; makes for agreeable personal and collective hierarchic manners.

This is very cool, I had no idea this legislation existed! Quite interesting and convincing- but, it's only one example. Do you think similar results would be seen in other places, like bigger cities with higher average crime rates? Also, while this clearly has has achieved results, I can't imagine every city/town/state would want to legally force it's citizens to own weapons.

Truth: thanks for posting these. I have been gathering links to share with folks on my FB page. I also like to be able to toss them out when needed, but did not have these on hand. I copied the links and know I will be using them in the future. If you have an FB page look me up. I love the "DON'T TREAD ON ME" poster too. My status on FB says that very often.

Ploomis, dead on. Thank you for posting that message. If you are interested, check out http://freeamericamarch.blogspot.com Nice to meet you. If you have a FB page, look me up.

End, we have a tyrant in the WH now with a totalitarian regime behind him. There is but one argument left to get him out. Check out the blog at http://freeamericamarch.blogspot.com

Art, everyone is different. So your response does not apply to everyone who has a gun. You could get attacked from behind and stabbed, does that mean everyone who owns a knife or knows how to knife fight is a coward? It depends on the purpose of the gun by the owner of the gun.

bombs must really piss you off.

rotfl treewolf I almost peed my pants I laughed so hard

Who bombed Hiroshima? The United States or the pilot?

Both. to say the united states you mean the government at the current time truman administration. the public didn't have a choice. and we call that a democracy hahahaha more like a corporatocracy.

Who misspells words?

people or pencils?

Don't be stupid. Do pens misspell words?
Of course not. Same deal with guns.

Gun ownership is good. You are exercising your right. However, it is not for everybody. Some people are scared of them, others just don't know enough about them, and that kind of thing. I was raised practically with a gun in my hand. I went hunting with my grandfather. I did everything just to be with him. He was my hero. We did every kind of hunting there ever was. My boys have been around guns all their lives.
Kind of like stories you hear about kids drowning in the bathtub. Both of my boys loved the water right home from the hospital. They always wanted to be in it. Even at just a couple weeks old. Stories I heard about children drowing came to mind and so while they were babies and so little, I would let them role their heads around in my hand in the water. A little bit at the time, they started rolling their whole face under the water and at a month old, they were both able to hold their breath. My parents had a pool too. So, I wanted them to be able to be around the pool without worrying about them drowning.
I never had to worry about any of that because of teaching them so early on what to do and how to swim. At 6 months old my 10 year old was swimming by himself. At a 1 old, he was swimming in the deep end of pools and jumping off diving boards with no help. My 7 year old was the same way. Parents have to take the initiative.

Excellent comment Sandy. Responsibility belongs to the parent and "reliability crimes" (the belief that they know what's going on and therefore it's safe) among children are bred not from familiarity but lack of sufficient education.

Im so glad someone brought that up. education is key! My father had guns in the house when I was a kid, I knew what they were for and what could happen if the wrong person got ahold of it. I didnt ever fire a gun until I was 20 or so because when I was younger, I just was not interested in learning how to clean and shoot them so I stayed away. There was no curiosity or danger involved with having those guns in the house. I actually liked it because whoever was peeping in my window stopped as soon as my dad went outside and fired a round.

Amen, Van. That is what it's all about. As long as you have someone willing to take responsibility for what guns are and how to use them, it's not a problem. Then of course you get an idiot who decides he wants to buy a gun and go kill people or clean his gun while it is loaded and he is looking down the barrel and he shoots himself. It is sad, but a little common sense and education would go a long long way.

Well said. Bravo !!

Education and familiarity will make guns less of a curiosity, yes, and with that comes more confidence in their safe use. Hunting and sporting with firearms provides wholesome lessons about their safety, use, and care . The security aspects of ownership - personal protection, and home defense - must be instilled through parental influence. That influence should be that dispute resolution does NOT involve lethality, or anything close to it - but also that others may not have been influenced likewise and may resort to lethal means. Also, awareness of ones surroundings and the evaluating the human threat should be done with reason and not paranoia.

these days there are also great locking gun cabinetss to keep them away from kids, and gun cases that are quick-access but require a code or bio-metric (such as fingerprint) to open, so there's no excuse for keeping a gun and not having it safe.

Thanks for posting this I have the full documentary. Unarm the people and the government can walk right over you. This is a must see documentary! = ) thanks again for posting.

You can look it up yourself. I mean study it for yourself. Statistics are not always reflected on honestly either. I have friends and people I know who live in Australia. In several different areas of the country. I talk to them a lot. The statistics did show an increase in crime, but I do not know for sure the margin. Its just fact.

I'm going to have to disagree that it's 'just fact' - all the research I've done shows many opposing viewpoints, all with studies and experts backing them.(I'm not just talking about Australia; most of the studies I've read are in America.) This is why I asked the people making the claims to provide some proof for them; maybe you've read something I haven't or have a good source for this type of info. What's particularly difficult with these types of studies is proving how the gun bans exclusively affect crime rates, as there are many factors that contribute to those numbers.

C'mon, if you present something as a fact, you need to provide some reliable source. Just saying you heard from some people really hurts your argument.

This is how basic critical thinking works...

http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.

"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.

The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.

"I am definitely in favor of what we did," he said. "It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, [but] it is a part."

Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.

"I didn't think it could be written in a constitutional fashion," he said. "Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won."

Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious objectors to the list of those exempt.

Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law's original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before.

"The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said.

According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.

The city's crime rate continues to be far below other metro Atlanta city's with similar populations, like Decatur. In 1998, Decatur recorded 4,049 property crimes per 100,000 residents.

Jones said one motivation for the council passing the ordinance had to do with publicity.

"It was done in response to a law passed by Morton Grove, Ill., outlawing gun ownership within the city limits," he said. "Several council members were upset Morton Grove had gotten a lot of attention with their ordinance so they decided to top them.

"They figured the gun ownership ordinance would knock that city right off the front pages. They were right."

Jones said the ensuing publicity surrounding the law has given Kennesaw worldwide name recognition.

"I have been to Australia and Europe and when I tell people I am from Kennesaw they recognize the name as the place that requires everyone to own a gun," he said.

But Stephenson said the issue was not publicity-driven but issue-driven.

"We believed in the right of people to own guns," he said.

Jones said he has sold 550 copies of a 1994 book about the first-of-its-kind law, "The Law Heard 'Round the World."

He said the law in its final form has many loopholes, so not everyone is required to own a gun.

"There are many outs,"

This has some good info:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/firearms/control.html

You can just google the effects of gun control in Great Britian and/or Australia. In England, the police never had to carry firearms - until guns were "banned".

I completely agree with you, Robert. The Constitution says it all.

Amen. It is the right of the people established by the people. When it comes to American History every child is required to know that in America the Constitution IS the highest power in the land. So where do we get the idea that a minority of politicians get to decide what our rights are?

That pretty much sums it up. The "practicality/functionality" related urban social "crime" issues are not germane to the constitutions letter,....AND its INTENT, which was precisely to have an armed populace. (That "militia" bit and all). I seriously believe that many modern urban Americans just don't have a handle on what militia refers to; basically shit that includes the black panthers, armed "cult" compounds,...and all sorts of scary groups. (Also Blackwater n such). Citizens have the right to defend themselves,....they do not have the right to disarm others to feel safe.

And our government sure is running away! By the definition of the Constitution, Obama is not a natural born citizen and not elligible to be in the White House. I could not use the word president and his name in the same sentance.

Damn right Sandy. I dont ever use those 2 words in the same line.

Me either. That would be a disgrace to what I am. If you have a facebook page check me out. Just use my name. You can check out my blog at FAM Free America March http://freeamericamarch.blogspot.com I just updated it.

he isn't a natural born citizen? why because hawii is an occupied country? his mother is from america. therefore no matter what country he was born in he would be a citizen. you crazies need to get over yourself that a black man is running our country. he's doing a better job than the last few jokesters. he's not doing great but who would with the situation we're all in.

kivol, not if she rescinded her citizenship to become a citizen of another country!