90 guns per 100 people

[kpete]

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
By Laura MacInnis

GENEVA | Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:57pm EDT

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2834893820070828

...not that it has anything to do with anything, BUT....

[dmallind]

1. and about 3 gun murders per 100 THOUSAND people. Looks like most guns not used to kill. NT

[tridim]

2. What does that have to do with the number in the OP?

Do you want that ratio to go up or down? Do you want guns to outnumber our population? If so, why?

Do you think more gun deaths would be acceptable? If so, at what rate?

[William769]

24. Just goes to show how numbers work depending on what side of the arguement you are on.

Seeing how defensive you got by the post you responded to, all's fair in love and war.

[tridim]

30. I get defensive when people think our guns per capita number is just too low.

It's embarassing and disgusting.

I just don't get it, I never will.

[dmallind]

49. Then you erred - I just think it's an irrelevant red herring

I could not care less if it is 10/100 or 1000/100. I care about what is done with them, not how many there are.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

61. Who said or stated "our guns per capita number is just too low" ?

If your going to "get defensive when people think our guns per capita number is just too low" perhaps you should ensure that the comments you respond to actually state that our guns per capita number is just too low.

You're jumpy, as of late. Simma down now.

[SteveM]

98. Straw. Who said "our guns per capita number is just too low?" Cites? nt

[RSillsbee]

163. It's about 10 people too low NT

[svsuman23]

29. as long as deaths don't skyrocket, I'm fine with the sale of guns.I own 4 myself :)

[tridim]

31. Gun deaths skyrocketed in this country long ago.

Why? Because we have always had too many fucking guns.

[svsuman23]

37. so when is a good time period that has the right amount of guns that should be out in the world?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

99. Corrections to your post...

As has been provided here many, many times, the number of firearms deaths in this country has been going down since the mid-1990s, even as the number of firearms in civilian hands has gone markedly up.

BTW, my guns don't "fuck." If you have info to the contrary, please provide.

[YllwFvr]

133. gun ownership way up

crime at a low. doesnt sound to bad to me. Its all in how you state the facts. my 6 firearms is def not enough for me

[DainBramaged]

53. one death is too many, but that's not important is it?

[svsuman23]

55. ANY death is a tragedy.

[DainBramaged]

56. your quote is "as long as deaths don't skyrocket"

Are you retracting it?

[svsuman23]

63. no.

Every death is a tragedy, but deaths are going to happen no matter what.

[DainBramaged]

64. As long as you can keep your precious guns people can die from them

sad but expected.

[svsuman23]

65. that's the problem with freedoms, huh?

[DainBramaged]

67. Freedom to kill? You know what website you are on?

[svsuman23]

68. you are putting words in my mouth.

I meant that with freedoms come consequences. Like the first amendment and that god awful westborro church. I will not give up my first amendment right or even hinder it a little to get them to be quiet.

[DainBramaged]

69. Nice diversion, we're talking about guns........

[svsuman23]

71. its an analogy... in case you didn't catch that..

[DainBramaged]

72. Your original quote and insensitivity stands, we're done

I choose life and to NOT want people to die from guns, purposely or accidentally...

[shadowrider]

73. I don't want people to die from drunk drivers, purposely or accidentally

so let's ban cars.

[DainBramaged]

75. Jump to his defence, in spite of his insensitiity, of course, you agree...

:eyes:

[PavePusher]

97. You put words in his mouth...

and claim insensitivity?

Really....:eyes:

[svsuman23]

76. don't want anyone to die!! I want people to be free and I understand that

Accidents will happen.

Believe what you will, we are done here.

[rrneck]

94. How do you feel about

people dying from knives, clubs fists and feet?

[SteveM]

103. Whenever you say "we're done," it's a signal that you can't get enough! nt

[SteveM]

102. Specious and illogical, sad but expected. nt

[dmallind]

84. And all you have to do to back that up as a case for gun control is demonstrate one thing

Deaths enabled by guns that otherwise would not have occurred > lives saved by guns that would otherwise have been lost.

After all I was once an ardent gun control advocate, and the clear inductive arguments supporting the reverse are what changed my mind.

[DainBramaged]

86. Sure whatever............

And I was convinced Ramalamadingdong,the god of dingdongs, is the real god because you can eat him....

[spin]

113. You haven't presented any convincing arguments ...

just emotional statements unsupported by data.

[spin]

114. You mean logic, data and facts can change minds ...

and that the pro-RKBA posters here are not just wasting our time?

Good!

[Euromutt]

148. Nobody actually believes that "one death is too many"

That line invariably only gets applied to items and activities of which the speaker disapproves, while for everything else, the fact that it can be fatal is accepted. Oh sure, we may try to find ways to minimize the body count, but there are very few people who seriously advocate banning motor vehicles, or mountain climbing, or whatnot, even though the risk remains of someone getting killed.

[dmallind]

47. That's the point - it doesn't,.

Unless people imhabit a fairy-tale land where 0 guns/100 people is possible, the number of guns per person is irrelevant to the damage perceived to be done by guns, which is of course in truth damage done by people using an effective tool for their nefarious intent. The only even anecdotal reduction you could hope for by the near-impossible feat of making guns nearly impossible to get in the US would be those murders done by otherwise non-criminally inclined people (it is impossible to keep guns from the opposite segment, as the armed organized crime groups in Japan and the UK demonstrate) who could not possibly murder in any other way. Not by poison or club or knife or strangulation. So by disarming almost an entire country somehow and leaving everyone relying on physical prowess alone for self-defense, you would stop the handful of murders committed on the spur of the moment by very weak or infirm people killing very strong or skilled people who can block knives or absorb baseball bat strikes. Not a good trade-off IMO.

We have seen a combination of skyrocketing gun ownersghip both in pure numbers of gun sand in percentage who own guns, and a steep drop in homicides and violent crime. Even ignoring a very tempting cum hoc ergo propter hoc, we can definitively conclude that more guns, or more guns/persons, do not cause an INcrease in gun deaths, therefore if we are concerned with reducing gun deaths (I suspect everyone is) we can ignore the non-zero number of guns as a factor. The two do not go in the same direction. They are not positively correlated at all, and may even have a weak negative correlation. Reducing that 90 to 70 or 40 won't stop or reduce gun deaths.

Instead we should focus on drug policy, poverty concentration, racial disparities, sentencing, rehabilitation, mental health availability and education. Any one of those will do much more to reduce gun deaths (that's what you want right - less gun violence as opposed to fewer guns for its own sake?) than worrying about reducingthe guns/people count.

[DainBramaged]

51. Yup, get that point in, that's an acceptable death count yep....

[Renew Deal]

3. I'm ready for Red Dawn.

Bring it on Brezhnev!

[WCGreen]

27. Wolverines...

Oh wait, I'm a buckeye...

Never mind....

[SteveM]

104. Ve-l-Iy interesting. I thought that guy on the right was in a German tank. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

110. Boyevaya Mashina Pekhoty or BMP

Look at the rail mounted Sagger missile above the 73mm main gun.



Based on the track it looks like movie mockup is mounted on an M110 howitzer carriage.

[michreject]

4. I'm doing my part

I have 50 people covered.

[-..__...]

5. I hope you bring enough ammo for everyone.

B-)

[michreject]

12. I try and keep up.

I have a Dillon Square Deal, 450, 550 and a Redding turret press. :)

[notesdev]

6. Clearly that's a problem

that means on average, one out of ten people is defenseless!

[NewMoonTherian]

91. It's much worse than that...

considering how many individuals own more than one gun.

[notesdev]

164. yeah I know, but shhhh

the mathematically correct version isn't quite as nifty-sounding a quip ;)

[Statistical]

7. I think I should help out and buy a new gun. Maybe XD-M in .40S&W?

[X_Digger]

9. Nah, go for the 45acp. n/t

[Statistical]

10. Yeah that is a contender

I just looked it up, it does have a 13 round "assault high capacity mass murder" magazine so maybe that would do a a protest buy.

[Cid_B]

36. That's my next buy...

Looking forward to it... Good reviews...

[tridim]

18. Will that really make you feel better?

Addiction is no joke.

[beevul]

115. Any chance you could mention...

Any chance you could mention that to the gun control addicts?

You know, the ones that there will never be enough gun control for?

Seems to me they fit the definition of addict far more aptly than gun owners of any kind.

[L0oniX]

46. S&W MP9 .40 45 ...all good.

[yellowcanine]

8. Useless statistic because it doesn't account for multiple gun ownership.

A more useful statistic might be % of households with a gun but even that statistic might not say a whole lot, because it doesn't say anything about how accessible the gun is or what kind of gun is in the households. For example, an unloaded target pistol locked up in a cabinet sans ammunition hardly makes the residents of a household "armed" even though theoretically someone could get the gun and use it.

[Statistical]

11. Here is households stats ... pretty constant.

[michreject]

14. I take that with a grain of salt

I would never tell a pollster that I owned guns. I bet I'm not alone either. I'd say ownership is higher.

[yellowcanine]

15. And likewise there are plenty of people who would say they HAD a gun when they didn't.

So the numbers are pretty useless if it is all self reported.

[Xithras]

20. Absolutely true.

I've been asked by pollsters, and I've been in public rooms where people have asked, and I never discuss owning them. I talk about it on DU because there's SOME degree of anonymity, but that's about it.

Of course, considering the amount of NRA literature I receive in the mail, I apparently made it onto someone's list anyway.

[snooper2]

16. Or the 10/22 ruger I've got that needs a firing pin

pretty useless :P

[Gormy Cuss]

34. The point of this useful statistic is a comparative per capita measure.

In that context it is useful.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies....

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.


I find this statistic interesting too:

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

[beevul]

116. Interestingly...

Last year, Americans bought 14 million guns.

Theres a thread somewhere in the guns forum.

[Zephie]

13. My husband used to own four guns.

after we got engaged and started talking about the places where we didn't agree on things, he sold his guns to the local gun shop and used the cash to put a pet deposit on a pair of kittens for me :rofl:

[K8-EEE]

25. Your husband sounds cool!

I fucking HATE GUNS.

[Threedifferentones]

39. I hate them too. Just like I hate people, we are so violent and selfish.

But I am still aware that I must depend on other people, and on guns, to live in this world.

Without guns, we couldn't have stolen this land hundreds of years ago.

Without guns, our country would not be a rich empire.

If your PD didn't have guns, you'd be scared to walk down your street.

Even if citizens don't own guns, every society is based on them.

But of course if the govt. has ALL the guns, we must then worry even more about them being turned on us.

Banning private gun ownership would make these murdering sprees somewhat more difficult and less frequent...doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Personally, I am for people's right to own guns, and generally against their decisions to use them. Getting rid of private guns won't make the world any less mean, and even with all these guns your chances of being killed by one are tiny.

[SteveM]

106. Just don't "hate" the people who have them. Thanks. nt

[YllwFvr]

134. now thats love

[one-eyed fat man]

141. Swap four guns for a cat?

3 Lorcins and an RG revolver?

[fascisthunter]

17. but, but.... we are infringing on gun enthusiasts' rights...

it's just unfair I say.

[FredStembottom]

19. Of course the point of the statistic is the "most heavily armed" part.

Why America?
Does it make a bit of sense to be the most heavily armed?
All armed up for ???????
All armed up because of what dire conditions?

[progressoid]

23. To keep the Rooskies out!

And it worked too!

[Fla_Democrat]

21. Somebody better tighten up

C'mon guys, we can do better than that. I say we try for 95 per 100 by the end of 2012.




:smoke:

[rrneck]

95. Best sig line I've seen in months. nt

[K8-EEE]

22. The gun fixation is the most depressing thing about the US

I'm not one of those people who's all, OK I'M LEAVING! but really the one thing that makes me want to move to Canada or Costa Rica or Spain or WHEREEVER is the gun mania. I just hate it. It's a sickness in our culture.

[svsuman23]

32. well because of the 2nd amendment, this love affair will remain.

[tridim]

35. That, is pathetic and sick reasoning.

[Upton]

40. Yeah that messy Constitution always seems to get in the way

of those that would restrict our rights..

[tridim]

43. Can I see your "well regulated militia" membership card?

[Recursion]

48. US Code Title 10, Sub A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Sec 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

No card needed.

[provis99]

90. holy smokes! Does that mean women can't own guns?

Well, I learn a new thing every day.

[Recursion]

92. It says women who are not in the National Guard or Naval Militia are not in the unorganized militia

Denying women on that basis the right to own guns would be a stretch.

[one-eyed fat man]

128. No, it means women are not obligated.

It does not mean they cannot volunteer.

The only place it makes any difference is that the Militia requirement on able-bodied males is the basis for Selective Service, aka the "Draft"

That is why your eighteen year old son has to register at the Post Office and your daughter does not.

Before 1970, when the military still used service numbers and not SSAN, you could tell a draftee because his number began with AUS or after Korea, US while a Regular was RA.

The Army of the United States no longer exists. The Army Reserve and National Guard of the United States have never been incorporated into the Army of the United States, and have always been separate components.

My ID card states, "US Army, retired" which is different from either "AUS Retired," or "Army of the United States, Retired."

[NewMoonTherian]

93. Certainly not...

the reason being that the right to own guns isn't predicated upon membership in the militia, and was never meant to be so.

[krispos42]

153. It means you have revokable priviledge, not an inherent right

At least if you follow the "you need to be a militiaman to own guns" logic.

Also applies to the over-45 crowd.

[Statistical]

70. A well educated electorate being necessary for free elections,...

A well educated electorate being necessary for free election, the people have the right to keep and read books.

Who has the right to keep and read books?
a) the people
b) the electorate
c) free elections

It is settled law and universally accepted by historians. Only the people have rights. The people have right to keep and bear arms. This facilitates effective militias, but there is no requirement to be in a militia.

[one-eyed fat man]

80. Mine looks like this

[one-eyed fat man]

112. Well?

I showed you what my retired military ID card looks like. I did 26 years on active duty. Retired the first time in 1988. Was ordered back to active duty in 1991 for Desert Storm.

How have you fulfilled your militia obligation? Were you content to let others stand in your stead?

[beevul]

117. No, but you can see this...

No, but you can see this:

The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. Plain and simple. The preamble to the bill of rights clearly plainly and explicitly states it. Thats not opinion. Thats fact:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Thats right from the document in question, itself.

Into a restriction on governmental power, which is the second in a list of ten restrictions on governmental power, you read some sort of restriction on people. While doing so might seem nifty, slick, and trendy, it is incorrect, and no amount of repetition will change that.

Have you proof to the contrary, or just a contrary opinion?

[YllwFvr]

136. from the Heller decision

the court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia

[svsuman23]

44. so anyone owning a gun is wrong is your eyes?

Or just those who own multiple guns?

[tridim]

45. No. I support the second amendment with reasonable restrictions.

[svsuman23]

50. (I don't agree with this statement but I'm making it for an argument reason.)

I support the first amendment with reasonable restrictions.

Do restrictions work on all amendments or only the 2nd?

[GreenStormCloud]

81. Translation: Restricted out of existance, as in Pre-Donald Chicago. N/T

[michreject]

111. Would that be Donald Duck? nt

[Straw Man]

161. Reasonable restrictions?

Like your view on magazine capacity?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=360374&mesg_id=360502

[K8-EEE]

52. 2nd amendment says well-regulated not de-regulated or un-regulated

So I really don't see it as a guarantee of people having personal WMD stashes.....don't even understand that interpretation of it.

[svsuman23]

58. who is talking WMD's?

I'm talking about purchasing and owning guns.

[K8-EEE]

123. Assault weapons such as in this instance are for

Mass shootings.......or is it super important that you have to like shoot 30 targets at one of those galleries or something. Come on. Obviously there's a difference between a sports rifle and a military assault weapon, correct?

[Fla_Democrat]

60. Is that the current interpretation?

Do current firearm regulations allow individuals to stock pile WMD's? How about machine guns? Does current regulations allow any random citizen to purchase them over the counter, from a pawn shop.. or in the dreaded gun show loophole? :scared:

Is there no regulations covering sales? Is it un-regulated or even de-regulated? Perhaps, what some view as regulated others see as Over-regulated. How ever one views it, the claim that it isn't regulated now seems kinda weaksause.





:smoke:

[K8-EEE]

124. Current regulations allow a flaming psycho to buy an assault weapon

and ammo that can kill several people in a minute or so, and they can buy it At WalMart. You know, to Live Better.

I don't suppose you see anything wrong with that.

[one-eyed fat man]

131. You are mistaken

It is against the law for a flaming psycho to buy any kind of gun.

Your problem might stem from the fact that everyone, friends, family, classmates, girlfriends who are talking NOW about how this particular flaming psycho was nuts, did not think he was NUTS ENOUGH for them to DO anything or TELL anyone.

If any, some or all of those people who say they knew he was crazy had DONE something, none of this would have happened. He would either still be in a psych ward someplace, or on medications and his name would have been on file with the FBI for being crazy.

Then when the clerk called in the background check he would have been stopped.

Why aren't you blaming them?

[YllwFvr]

137. assault weapons

as you call them are to fight back against the gov
the supreme court says so ;)
the court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", saying that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

Hard to fight back with pistolas and a deer rifle.

[K8-EEE]

144. Oh please like a private citizen is going fight off

a government army. ANY government army. That is all just so ridiculous.

[YllwFvr]

145. it worked ok in nam

besides, how many are in our armed forces? around 2,475,900 Vs 80 million armed gun owners? Plus, mortars, bombs, nukes, artillery.. none of that means much when you risk innocent lives. How many american soldiers will stick around when they are shooting other americans? Desertions galore. 50,000 marines vs 5 million pissed off dudes with comparable rifles. Of course chances would be slim if we just had pistols, so lets get rid of all the rifles, right?

[K8-EEE]

146. Oh we all need guns to be in a guerilla war with the US government?

When the US government invades us, or something?

So, the little militia skinhead guys you see getting arrested in Idaho with a basement full of ammo and 200 guns or whatever. WTF army are they gonna fight off, Bolivia? NOT EVEN!!

Delusions of grandeur with the "I'll fight off the US army with my gun store swag!" stuff. It's 2011!! It's not the same situation as King-George-Is-Taking-Up-The-Muskets! I think "originalism" is pretty stupid. What did they want to do about biological and chemical weapons, DUH, they didn't even exist. These are issues we have to regulate with the current reality in mind.

[one-eyed fat man]

150. Biological weapons didn't exist?

Who was it now that gave Indians blankets infected with smallpox during the French and Indian Wars?

[K8-EEE]

155. So we all have a right to be armed with Smallpox virus or

Muskets and cannons! I'm fresh out of cannonballs myself...

[one-eyed fat man]

162. I don't know if you are or not.

Depending on how old you are you may never have been immunized against smallpox. It's been well over thirty years since it was routine in the US. Unlike most vaccines in use today smallpox used a live virus. It left a distinctive scar.

You said biological weapons were unknown in Colonial times, I merely gave one example you might not have considered. Poisoning wells, throwing dead diseased or rotting corpses of people or animals over castle and city walls were pretty common ways to disease as a weapon for centuries.

However,no, you don't have a right to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The United States has signed treaties concerning those. An international treaty ratified by Congress has equal status to the Constitution

Article VI of the Constitution, paragraph 2:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

As far as cannon go, this one is not even considered a gun under Federal law. It does attract attention going down the highway. (yes it does shoot, it will throw a 12 pound steel ball about a mile.)

[YllwFvr]

165. I know some people with cannons

pretty terrible weapons really. Youd never hit anything with them. They do make a lot of noise though, and can toss a golf ball a long ways. I have seen people with howitzers though.

Do you have any smallpox left on your blankets? I washed mine last year :(

[YllwFvr]

151. the skin heads seem to be discontent

I see no reason to war with our government. But our country saw reason to hit the reset button once, and they gave us the means to do it again. Of course, even though the 2a technically makes it legal to do so, anyone trying it surely wouldnt be toasted as a patriot. I'd bed my bottom dollar they would be seen as a domestic terrorist.

Didnt some fella try a few years ago to secede from the union? Im sure that went well.

[one-eyed fat man]

101. Do you define an extended magazine as an WMD?

If you do, then you owe Bush an apology! They found MILLIONS of thirty round magazines in Iraq.

[K8-EEE]

125. Yeah and aren't things just peachy over there.

All those guns, a real gun lover's paradise!

[one-eyed fat man]

142. When was your last tour? nt

[K8-EEE]

147. Oh I guess I should have no opinion on Iraq

unless I had some tours! LOL, whatever.

[one-eyed fat man]

154. Based on your other "first hand" expertise

"Current regulations allow a flaming psycho to buy an assault weapon and ammo that can kill several people in a minute or so, and they can buy it At WalMart."

"For "WMD" I mean, as an example, selling military assault rifles and gear at WalMart. Weapons that can made for mass killing.

If what you know about about the law or what you can buy at Wal-Mart are any indication, your knowledge about Iraq will be equally impressive.

Last year, someone here said, "Ok, so I will TEST this myself. I will go to my local Walmart and buy one myself. See how "difficult" it is...If I have to "waste" $100 to prove a point; so be it." after claiming that she could buy a handgun, no questions asked, in any Wal-Mart in Florida.

People tried to explain the law and that Wal-Mart doesn't sell handguns, but she wasn't having any.

So she was going to go shopping, and promised to report back. Been going on seven months. I suspect if she was going to post a triumphant "Told you so!" she'd have done it by now.

[SteveM]

108. Definitions unclear...

"well-regulated :" What do you mean by this? Can you be specific, esp. with regards to this historical record of what is meant by the term?

"WMD stashes:" while I am aware of the expression "weapons of mass destruction," the context is usually in terms of large bombs (usually nuclear), poison gas, chemical warfare, etc. If this context is your understanding, how does that relate to the ownership of non-automatic small arms?

[K8-EEE]

129. OK by "well regulated" I mean to regulate in a proper manner

Kind of like everywhere else in the world that's decent. For instance they do not have "well-regulated" guns in Somalia, they just have lots and lots of guns. Somewhere like Japan, where somebody who seems totally psycho can't walk into a drug store and buy ammo that could kill a dozen people in one minute, would seem to be better regulated than AZ.

For "WMD" I mean, as an example, selling military assault rifles and gear at WalMart. Weapons that can made for mass killing. That does not seem Well-Regulated. That sounds C-R-A-Z-Y. That's why most countries don't do that. And no, I don't think there is any correlation between tons of guns in a society and it being "free" or controlled. The goddamned banks, credit cards, global big biz and corporations etc. etc. are what is a threat to our freedom and guns aren't going to help.

[YllwFvr]

138. I can buy military assault rifles at walmart?

holy craps! Im grabbing my coat! Wait I just checked online. They dont show fully automatic firearms in the gun section. Where did you buy yours? Have a link? How much?
;)

[one-eyed fat man]

143. You have choices

[beevul]

156. Do you really think they sell military assault rifles at walmart?

Seriously?

[beevul]

118. Allow me to assist you.

The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. Plain and simple. The preamble to the bill of rights clearly plainly and explicitly states it. Thats not opinion. Thats fact:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Thats right from the document in question, itself.

Into a restriction on governmental power, which is the second in a list of ten restrictions on governmental power, you read some sort of restriction on people. While doing so might seem nifty, slick, and trendy, it is incorrect, and no amount of repetition will change that.

[K8-EEE]

122. So what did they mean by "well regulated?"

Regulations are not a government power? Who was gonna regulate the muskets or whatever...And yes I do think these instruments of war such as this killer had are not really for "sports" purposes, what is the point of them but mass shootings? ven if you are going to shoot animals in that way doesn't seem very "sporting" it's more like "psycho."

[beevul]

127. Taking it out of context, it could mean anything.

"Regulations are not a government power? Who was gonna regulate the muskets or whatever...And yes I do think these instruments of war such as this killer had are not really for "sports" purposes, what is the point of them but mass shootings? ven if you are going to shoot animals in that way doesn't seem very "sporting" it's more like "psycho."


First, a glock handgun is NOT an instrument of war.

Second, yes, regulation IS a governmental power, however, the bill of rights itself, is a list of restrictions upon governmental power.

The second amendment reads "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".

Worded differently, but exactly the same meaning :

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Heres the preamble again:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution




As I said, the preamble explicitly states that the bill of right itself is a list of restrictions upon the power of government, the purpose of those restrictions being to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers", which is would "best insure the beneficent ends of its institution".

AKA keep the gov friendly and subservient to we the people.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

And the last bit of it, is that only people have rights. Governments have powers. that makes clear two things:

One, that it wasn't government that they were talking about having the right to keep and bear arms.

And two, it WAS government they were talking about in the preamble when they declared "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers."

Government does regulate, yes, but they have rules they must follow in doing so. When you hear something found unconstitutional in court, your hearing a case of the government not following the regulations imposed on it by we the people.

The second amendment is just one such regulation, and the preamble to the bill of rights itself, establishes quite clearly, the context that the first ten amendments are to be read in, including the second.

[K8-EEE]

130. Governments have NO POWER to regulate deadly weapons?

Well if that's what they meant it's pretty stupid to keep it up with the modern technology we have now.

Is it not something that should be revisited now that our "arms" are concealable and so much more deadly?

If you want to look at it "IN CONTEXT" shouldn't that context be what the weapons and situation they were concerned with at that time in colonial America, and shouldn't we be able to have some regulation IN CONTEXT with the reality of 2011?

[beevul]

132. Applied differently...

"Governments have NO POWER to regulate deadly weapons?"

Governments have no power to regulate speech?

Well if that's what they meant it's pretty stupid to keep it up with the modern technology we have now.

See how that works?


Actually they DO have limited power to regulate speech, and weapons, however, since it is a constitutionally protected civil right were talking about, they have to apply whats known in legal circles as strict scrutiny:


Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law. Along with the lower standards of rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny is part of a hierarchy of standards employed by courts to weigh an asserted government interest against a constitutional right or principle that conflicts with the manner in which the interest is being pursued. Strict scrutiny is applied based on the constitutional conflict at issue regardless of whether a law or action of the U.S. federal government, a state government, or a local municipality is at issue.

A government action or statute subject to strict scrutiny must be done in furtherance of a compelling state interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court will apply the strictest scrutiny to the state or federal action when it impacts or targets a specially protected class (e.g., a racial or ethnic group) or when a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right is involved (e.g. freedom of speech or the right to vote). The compelling state interest test is distinguishable from the rational basis test, which involves claims that do not involve a suspect class and involve a liberty interest rather than a fundamental right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny#Compelling_state_interest_test

"Is it not something that should be revisited now that our "arms" are concealable and so much more deadly?"

No, I don't think so. Semi automatic weapons are WAY over a hundred years old in design. Weapons that were concealable were available at the time of the framers writing the constitution.

"If you want to look at it "IN CONTEXT" shouldn't that context be what the weapons and situation they were concerned with at that time in colonial America, and shouldn't we be able to have some regulation IN CONTEXT with the reality of 2011?"

Are you willing to apply those same standards to voting (before you say votes never killed anyone, think of a few million dead iraqis due to some votes), speech (need I even make an example of the hatred going on over the airwaves and internet?),
Press (mein kamph anyone?) and on and on? Dangerous ground there, going that direction.

Overall, it wasn't weapons they were concerned with at that time in colonial America, it was principles of freedom, and liberty. Thats why they enumerated protections against governmental interference with principles, rather than specifically hand cranked printing presses, quill pens and parchment, and muskets. Read the entire bill of rights for yourself, and see for yourself that its concepts of liberty they were protecting when they wrote it.

[K8-EEE]

152. Well then try NOT applying it differently

And just answering the questions like weapons are weapons, rather than speech, homosexuals, votes or puppies or whatever. What types of regulations on today's weapons are needed for the general health and welfare? For instance is it our RIGHT to have plastic guns that don't show up in metal detectors? Or is that detrimental to the safety of the general public? Individual rights are always weighed against the potential harm it could cause others, which is why I don't have a right to dump poison down the sink or smoke in a restaurant. Why should a product as deadly as a gun be unregulated?
I

[beevul]

157. Jesus johnson.

"For instance is it our RIGHT to have plastic guns that don't show up in metal detectors?"

Do you really believe there is a such thing as a plastic gun that doesn't show up on metal detectors? Really?

I'd sure like to know how and why you believe such a thing, because THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

I SAY AGAIN, THERE IS NO SUCH THING. The do not exist, anywhere other than in the imagination.


"Why should a product as deadly as a gun be unregulated?"

Whom exactly is making an argument for no regulation what so ever? It wasn't me. its not the nra, since they support background checks on all retail gun purchases, and prohibition of gun ownership for the violent, the felons, and the insane. So who is it thats making these arguments?

My stance is no FURTHER regulation. Which is quite a different thing that no regulations at all.

"What types of regulations on today's weapons are needed for the general health and welfare?"

First, one must come to terms with what is permissable, and not, in terms of regulation.

If government can not be bothered to follow the rules imposed on its governance by we the people, why should there be any discussion of laws at all...they become meaningless. If government doesn't have to follow the rules that apply to it, why should anyone in society feel the need to follow any rules handed down from government?

Its a two way street.

[FredStembottom]

33. it's another type of drug problem.

Guns are intoxicants (among other things) and America has turned out to be the country that will die of it's own addictions and fetishes.

[SteveM]

109. I thought my old Ruger Police Service Six was cocaine in disguise...

Maybe if I change my ammunition. BTW, do you favor banning drugs?

[friendly_iconoclast]

159. Yeah, let's try Prohibition again! Third time's the charm, amirite?

It's bound to work this time out- for our strength is as the strength of ten, and our hearts are pure...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

54. I agree --

I think it is a sign of some seriously deep sickness as a culture and society. :puke: I think the 2nd Amendment as it stands and interpreted is probably the biggest Constitutional mistake the FF every made.

My own Dad has a gun fetish and he is fear-based, slightly paranoid, and exactly the kind of person that thinks the Feds is coming for his weapons. And he frankly kind of freaks me out sometimes.

[lawodevolution]

85. "I think it is a sign of some seriously deep sickness as a culture and society"

And some think homosexuality is a "great sickness". For every freedom and every topic there are bigots who hate those who enjoy their interest and there are many bigots who like to make jokes about, and personal attacks against me because I was born into a culture of gun ownership and we have pride in owning and having the right to own firearms.

[beevul]

119. Have an open mind?

The current interpretation of the second amendment is in line with the preamble to the bill of rights:

The second amendment is a restriction on governmental power. Plain and simple. The preamble to the bill of rights clearly plainly and explicitly states it. Thats not opinion. Thats fact:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org

Thats right from the document in question, itself.

"My own Dad has a gun fetish and he is fear-based, slightly paranoid, and exactly the kind of person that thinks the Feds is coming for his weapons."


Maybe your dad is aware of the following:

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein


"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993


Do you deny that people, legislators and special interest groups have advocated and in some cases even tried to go after peoples guns, in the face of all those quotes?

Does that change your view on his "paranoia" at all?

[SteveM]

107. Why is having guns a "sickness in our culture?"

[K8-EEE]

126. Gun LOVE is sick.

We have so many hard-core gun worshipers in this country, that literally worship guns. For such people there's no such thing as common sense regulations about guns. Plastic guns that can pass through a metal detector? SURE!! Military assault weapons? OOOH I WANT ONE! It's gross. These things cause so much devastation. I have to say that my Dr. cousin from small town Nevada definitely changed his mind on the guns when he was doing a residency in an IL city ER. By the end of the year he had seen so much tragedy he was like, I don't want one in my house. He's an ex-GOPer too btw, voted for Obama in 2008 after voting GOP his whole life. I loved seeing him fall out of love with guns.

[beevul]

135. Wow, thats a list of red herrings right there.

Wow, thats a list of red herrings right there. And I mean no offense when I say that.



"Plastic guns that can pass through a metal detector?"

Are you aware that theres simply no such thing, anywhere on planet earth, and that the concept originally came from the movie die hard 2?

"Military assault weapons?"

The military doesn't use assault weapons, because they don't fire automatic, or 3 round burst mode. Theyre civilian legal semi automatic weapons (that means hen you pull the trigger it shoots once) in "military clothing" (they LOOK military but function just like any other semi-automatic wapon).

An ASSAULT RIFLE on the other hand, is a fully automatic or burst mode weapon of war.

They are two entirely diffrent things. In spit of looking similar.

I don't mean this negatively, but how did you come to believe there were actually plastic handguns that could make it through a metal detector?

And I have to ask, were you under the impression the "assault weapons" (not assault rifles) were fully automatic? if so, how did you come to believe that?

In closing, you and I are clearly on ...I wont say completely opposite sides of this issue, but close. Yet were having a rational discussion. As rational as can be expected given our positions, our geography (this IS the gungeon after all, home of all the hottest flame wars - or at least the final destination/home of many of them, anyway) ,and the climate re:guns at the moment.

I appreciate that, welcome its continuance, and look forward to your reply.

[YllwFvr]

139. "These things cause so much devastation"

Really? They are used so little in crimes as to barely count as a percentage point or two. If you take the people I know who own them, and count them all, I can probably account for several thousand of them. One man I know owns nearly 800 of them. Not a single one has ever been used by them to injure anyone. Devastating news Im sure.

[Upton]

26. Actually I should think everybody would want to own at least one

for home defense. I mean, when it gets down to it, you and you alone are responsible for your own safety..

[FredStembottom]

38. That would be resonable.

And a few for hunting - like it used to be when I was growing up.

But this gun stock-piling we have today is just another symptom of the overwhelming problem with addictions of all types that Americans now have.

[Taitertots]

57. "Stock-piling"? Also known as hunters, sport shooters, and enthusiasts have different guns...

That they use for different reasons. So they don't want arbitrary and capricious laws creating an undue hindrance to them.

Since you have determined for yourself that there is an issue with "this gun stock-piling", why don't you tell us the reasonable amount of guns to own. Then let us know how you determined this, and how you determined that owning multiple guns is somehow harmful and/or an addiction.

[FredStembottom]

59. It's too late to do anything now.

I don't want new laws - I just want Americans to become aware of the intoxicating power of guns.
I believe that is what drives all the weird, American gun excesses.

[PavePusher]

100. Dodge. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

105. Intoxicating power?

Seriously?

Sounds like you're projecting something here.

[beevul]

120. No thats not it.

"But this gun stock-piling we have today is just another symptom of the overwhelming problem with addictions of all types that Americans now have."

No, thats not it.

The stockpiling you refer to is mainly due to two reasons.

Reason number one, collectors and enthusaiasts will own a lot of guns, just like collectors and enthusaiasts in other interests will own alot of whatever that interest is.

Reason number two:

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. those other ten need to step up, they are slacking.

[fascisthunter]

42. Kick and Rec (nt)

[Cali_Democrat]

62. WOW.....that's a lot of guns

:scared:

[DainBramaged]

66. This is a lot of guns

[TheCowsCameHome]

74. Great pic. What are they doing there?

Oh wait - I know.:rofl:

[svsuman23]

77. no one person had that amount.

[one-eyed fat man]

78. Explain, if you can

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-28/states-with-the-most-guns/?cid">Most Armed States

#1, Kentucky

Population: 4,314,113

NICS background checks per 100,000 residents (Dec. 2008 – May 2010): 134,028

2, Utah

Population: 2,784,572

NICS background checks per 100,000 residents (Dec. 2008 – May 2010): 30,315

The reporter claims Kentucky to be the most heavily armed state in the country. Want to hazard a guess as to why this bit of "journalism" adds to the stereotype that liberal arts majors are mathematically challenged? Does the disparity in numbers between first and second arouse any curiosity?

[X_Digger]

82. Ooh, ooh, I know, I know.. but I'll remain quiet :)

[GreenStormCloud]

79. Soon we will have those other ten armed too.

Those ten people probably live in prohibitive states. In some cities we have more guns than people. An examply would be El Paso, TX. They are so crime ridden that they had only TWO murders in all of 2010. City has about 750,00 people.

[lawodevolution]

83. The "assault rifle" is also very popular here in El Paso

Most people I see at the range have them.

Most if the people I get into shooting end up buying one

[beevul]

121. I assume...

You mean so called "assault weapon", right?

[DonP]

96. Most of them are here in Chicago. ntxt

[onehandle]

87. And after Republicans destroyed the economy for 8 years, we put them back in charge.

'mericans aren't know for being rational.

[YllwFvr]

140. nice mag on that ak

is that a krink? :)

[spin]

88. The United States also has the oldest written Constitution ...

Only about 7,000 words long, the U.S. Constitution is one of the shortest constitutions in the world. It is also the oldest written constitution still in effect.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/constitution/index.cfm

..not that it has anything to do with anything, BUT....

[K8-EEE]

149. Yeah we are using Musket Law from the 1700's war for

to apply to these damn things that can kill 20 people in a minute or whatever. Yeah no reason to ever revise THAT.....wooohooo gun luv! GUNZ ARE FREEDUMB!

[beevul]

158. Then attempt to...

Then attempt to amend the constitution.

The process to amend it was included for a reason, in the document itself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

160. The First Amendment was also written in the 1700's . Please log off and use quill pens from now on.

By your own standards, the First Amendment shouldn't apply to your computer....

[ileus]

89. 90:100 almost the golden ratio...