he have a pez dispenser on his shoe?? :helpme :Oh crap :1orglaugh fiddy gun nutts

I pray that George Bush is NOT the benchmark that we use to measure a President's actions. :(

Guess again!

Not sure where you are but it is hugely the norm in the USA. If you are in the USA then you are quoting NRA "mis stats".

According to this site about 67% of all murders are committed with guns. might not be an overwhelming majority, but it is five times more than the number two weapon which is a knife/blade

According to the FBI http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8 approx 2/3 of murders in the US are committed with firearms.

In Australia, they appear to have stopped reporting gov stats once stabbing murders became most popular http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html

The odds of being murdered, if you are not personally a violent criminal, are infinitesimal in either country.

According to the FBI stats...firearms are used in most murders.

And just like it has always been...it's HANDGUNS (pistols) that are the huge majority.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offe...me/murder.html

Go down to table 2.9 to see those stats.

Always seems odd that the shouting is all about "assault rifles" when it's pistols that are the real killer.
But I guess the govt. isn't afraid of a bunch of citizens wielding handguns as it would be against a horde of them coming to the WhiteHouse with heavy weapons. lol

If ANY "gun control" were needed in the U.S.A. it's control over cheap and easily concealed handguns.

Remember the old Lynyrd Skynyrd song from the 1970's "Saturday Night Special"?

It's about the .38 handgun. "It ain't good for nothing, but put a man six feet in a hole"

But I guess that the anti-gun movement will just keep screaming about "assault rifles" no matter what the facts are. :(

Sorry, I was confused by the assault rifle stat. I know fists and knives kill more people than assault rifles, obviously handguns are still a big one. I got a little dyslexic there.

For sure. It seems like about the only people killed with assault rifles are victims during mass shootings. Almost all other murders and violent crimes involving guns are committed with handguns.

That brave cop should get an award. Just think what that 40 year old handcuffed woman wearing business attire would have done had that cop who outweighs her by 100 pounds had he not kicked her in the head while she was sitting on the curb. Did I mention she is handcuffed? She must have really deserved it or that cop would hot have been forced to defend his life.

If you're going to kill yourself and don't have a gun, you will probably hurt someone else in the process, like racing down the freeway at 150 mph or jumping off a building and landing on someone!

I say let them have a gun.

You are a fucking idiot. Period.

Hey all...

Ok : Vendzilla : I apologize for calling you names. I'm sure you are a good guy who just happens to have opinions that differ wildly from my own. I don't know who called each other hateful names first (me or you), but I'll be the first one to apologize. I'm sorry.

I obviously started this thread to be a little bit of a Troll, but I was also really interested in knowing what people had to say. And of course I fully expected you to chime-in.

What I was hoping to get you to realize, is that President Obama really is not "coming for your guns", and neither is the Federal Government. In my opinion, the gun laws in the US and even in Canada, are too weak, and should be tightened. This is my opinion and you're free to disagree.

However, even if you dispute all of my claims or all claims of any "liberal", you should know that no matter what, you cannot have your guns taken away: Your gun ownership is protected by the second amendment. Every gun owner should know this. From my point of view, the "Obama is coming for your guns" hysteria was created by the right wing media. Every right-winger, every republican, GOP, Tea Partyer, and even US Democrat should know that your gun rights are protected. The fact that so many people became so upset over something that wasn't even true is what is surprising.

So anyway, enough is enough. I apologize for calling you names. If you ever invite me shooting one day, I'll probably refuse. If I ever buy you a beer, I hope you'll accept it.

Also, the same apology goes out to all Righties and gun enthusiasts. I don't agree with your ideas, but it doesn't mean I get to call you names.

Peace.

I'm more inclined to believe Reuters than some gun nut rag

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9320C720130403

Really...it's hard to believe that article when you look at the slant it's coming from.

Makes sense. If someone uses a knife to kill, it's not because they prefer a knife. It's because they couldn't get their hands on a gun.

Didn't realize you were intentionally trolling, that changes a lot. Thanks for clearing that up. I am always ok with debate and discussion.

He is just used to once again show that the Republican outrage about executive actions is just more pissing in the wind. A whole lot of whining and crying over nothing that is out of the normal.

John F. Kennedy 214

Lyndon B. Johnson 325

Richard Nixon 346

Gerald R. Ford 169

Jimmy Carter 320

Ronald Reagan 381

George Bush 166

William J. Clinton 364

George W. Bush 291

Barack Obama 168

I mean seriously.. It's like every Republican has a stanky ass twat and no cock and balls. All they do is bitch, moan and whine like a bunch of woman non stop. Grow some balls quit whining about everything under the sun, man up and earn your spot at the table.

Well... guns really are a touchy subject. Touchy subjects are easy to generate discussions with.

Can you give me the executive order # i am looking at the federal register and i do not see it....

You never said that YOU were not prejudiced.

First gay person you knew was in the navy? Seems to me, your gay friends and acquaintances were afraid to come out to you until then.

As for me, I was a young Republican Campaigning and knocking on doors to get Carter from being reelected. So your age (and political party assumption) of me is way off base.

My friend does have a "low IQ". He has water on the brain, has had a dozen operations on his brain, and... Isn't all there. It's sad really.

But what's even sadder is the fact that he is allowed to own assault rifles.

My oldest friend I have known for over 53 years, he was in the crib with me. We are going for a ride tomorrow. Are you older than 53? His mother went to JR High school with my mother and his grandfather delivered both of us.

I said openly gay, remember people that were gay back then stayed in the closet.

And I never said anything about your political affiliation.

Carter was a tool , like Obama doesn't know how to handle the middle east.

Please explain if a militia is allow to bear arms why they are allowed to take them home?

Should not the guns be kept at local Militia HQ under guard?

So you can have your armed people, organised, with the guns under collective supervision, ready to take on the standing army and liberate America.

just that no one will have any guns on their own.

You are in the UK and as such are not due an explanation. If it weren't for private guns the US would still be part of the UK, with territories belonging to France, Spain and who knows who else.

I think you're onto something. This is why Western Europeans don't like our guns. Our militias embarrassed them!

:winkwink:

If we had guns could we get you to close your bases and go home?

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

[Chorus:]
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

[Chorus]

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I don't think our govt. is EVER going to pull our military out of Europe. :disgust

Well, at least it's of economic help for those countries where the military bases are (while it costs our country a fortune).

Somebody's gotta hire those toothless whores. Its a dirty job, but the US military is equal to the challenge, I am sure.

Here amongst the intelligent we know that the facts a vastly different than the anti gun hype. Gun violence is down and has been declining for a long time.
Liberals prey upon the least intelligent in pushing to disarm Americans. Our least intelligent forget that in the last 100 years, almost every country in the world beside the US and the sissy countries protected by us because of a common border have been invaded by others with mass casualties. The very least of us think it won't happen again.
whatever. There are those of us who will keep our guns no matter what and those of us who will watch our families die while throwing their hands up in the air and begging for mercy.

oh well.

doubtful since your country sucks at our teat.
All you have to do is offer to defend yourself and say out loud you don't need our protection.
Sadly, you won't.

this is your opinion. Not based in reality or any sort of meaningful experience.

here amongst the intelligent, its not how many, its how much damage they've done.

No one is trying to take your guns

Troll successful

here amongst the intelligent, we know better.

I honestly think millions of paranoid people do believe this.

I will be 53 in days.

Gay people (some not all) have been out to real friends since the beginning of time.

Obama is doing better in the middle east than Bush did - both daddy and retarded son.

I guess if you're part of the muslim hoard

No... But I do sell people on the idea he will as a mainstream business.

Nope.

3/4 Jewish 1/4 Christian.

We are leaving the quagmire, losing less lives, creating fewer enemies and will be spending less. The smart money says dump carbon, concentrate on renewable energy and let them choke on their oil.

Obama +1

Today I learned that somehow a memorandum that's barely worth the paper it's written on is somehow an executive order. I also have more proof that right-wingers have no idea at all how the government works.

Proven fact lower IQs and education on average (the herd not the leaders).

The right also makes fun of people for being the "intellectual elite" :1orglaugh

People prefer a gun because it's quick and can be done without "getting wet" - meaning, getting blood on you.

If someone wants to kill another person with a knife they face the reality that one "quick stab" isn't going to do it, and that the other person will fight back. Most people don't have the courage to do it. With a firearm they can do it at distance and never worry about the struggle.

The Imperialist country rules the World to control the economy in it favour.

This can be seen by the fact that the USA has more wealth than the UK.

The USA and UK don't need protection, they are the aggressors, they start the wars.


An armed people does not mean that the guns are in private hands ( that's just crazy) but that guns would be in held in grass root organisations, able to reflect local opinion against a professional standing army.

I always thought this referred to "the people" at the time they lived in villages and read by oil lamps... you know, the colonies.

The first part of the sentence refers to a "well regulated militia" - of which (as far as I know) most gun owners are not a part of.

The amendment, as blurry as it seems now, more accurately applied to life in the new world as it was back when it was written.

The world is a little more complicated now.

At its simplest, I would see a "well regulated militia" sort of like a volunteer fire department - where members of the community or communities joined together in case a (foreign king, forest fire, or whatever) ever threatened the free State.

Being "well regulated" would mean that those who are part of the "Militia" would be allowed to have guns and be registered and ready to call in case of emergency.

I would assume that the rest of the community would not be necessarily part of the "regulated" militia.

So does the amendment mean only members of the regulated militia have the right to bear arms?

Or does the amendment imply anyone can bear arms in case someone wants to join in the defense effort?

Technically it would seem only members of the Militia would need to be regulated, and the people of the community who are not part of it would be unregulated.

When you're in the militia, or the army, locally or overseas, your guns and ordinance are stored, regulated, controlled.

Now doesn't the National Guard fall under the definition of "well regulated militia"? They're non-regular weekend soldiers available in the event of a situation, like a volunteer fire department.

The "militia" definition shouldn't be applied to the modern world any more, since there really isn't a feasible scenario that would require you and everybody in the 'hood to jump to the defense of the free state.

In a way, since the National Guard is so embedded or coupled with the regular military establishment, they can't really count as a defense against the government, should it decide to turn against the people.

So let's just say every citizen is potentially a member of the militia, or already a part by benefit of being a citizen, one of "the people".

Being one of the people and thus an ad hoc member of the militia, shouldn't they be "well regulated"? Shouldn't their weapons and capacity be registered, remembered and rendered as per their benefit to a defense initiative?

A well-regulated defense can't be deployed without knowing an inventory of resources, or the people's abilities and beneficial contribution to a national resistance, can it?

:D

The SA was a well regulated militia too

I think people just say Obama is coming for their guns so when he leaves office they can say, "it was thanks to your donations that he was not able to go door to door confiscating guns... as he had planned"

It is becoming more difficult to purchase knives here too - mainly for teens as they have been the main culprits in violent attacks on one another. Kind of sad that people would do that to one another really :(

I don't think the problem is private gun ownership, it is all about *who* is allowed to own a gun and how thorough the policiing of it is.

ie A mate has a few hunting rifles.

He had to get a license(whole bunch of bs involved in this), gun has to be locked away in a safe and he is registered with teh police as a gun owner. The police can knock on his door at any time ot *check* that the guns are locked away safely.

Then there are restrictions on the types of guns, and I do not know about you, but I cannot count the number of times i've needed an assault rifle :thumbsup