The NFL and Gun Control

[Rams]

NFL PLANTS A KNEE TO THE THROAT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1101634704315&ca=01327e12-9232-4d8a-8afc-4612b0686325

IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR GUNS, YOU'LL BOYCOTT THE NFL AND ITS SPONSORS
If you're not boycotting the NFL and its sponsors already, you really should be - especially in light of the league's latest assault on our Constitution and our liberty.  First, the NFL provides tacit approval of its players' belittlement and desecration of our flag and our national anthem.  Now, the NFL has announced it has paid its first $500,000 installment to gun control groups to fund a program designed to take your guns away from you.

Many of us remember the days when the NFL provided wholesome Sunday afternoon entertainment.  Players were humble heroes who inspired children and adults alike to give it their all - whether it be on the playing field, in the classroom, or on the job.  In contrast, the ranks of players in today's NFL are a loathsome collection of sociopaths to include animal abusers, sex-perverts, wife beaters, rape artists, drunks and drug addicts.  Greed and self-indulgence have plunged the NFL into a cesspool of debauchery.

Now the NFL wants to drag you and your guns down into that same cesspool.

The NFL is clearly an enemy of our national anthem, an enemy of our flag, and has now committed itself as an enemy of your gun rights.  The best way to fight back against the anti-American, anti-liberty stance of the NFL is to shut the league out of your life.  Don't watch their games, don't buy their licensed retail items, and boycott the league's sponsors.  Stay true to your American ideals and hold tight to your self-respect.  Boycott the NFL.

Copy and Pasted from the website.   So far, the only source I've found to confirm this.

[northernvalk]

As a proud owner of "many" guns, I agree that gun ownership needs to be protected!  I was VERY happy the previous government here got rid of our long gun registration, eliminating one of the 5 pieces of paper we needed to carry just to go hunting! I must say however, I don't understand the fixation on handguns and assault rifles? There is no weapon available to the general public that can actually protect you from the government, (psstt, they have tanks and war planes). The negative simply out weighs the positive.  In Canada, we can own hand guns, we can even own "assault" rifles with the correct license, but they are extremely hard to get and the numbers "out there" are very small.  I believe, as an outsider looking in, that the principles behind the second amendment did not and could not take weapons, capable of killing multiple people per minute, into consideration when written.  They also could not have know that the government would have weapons that make ANY rifle redundant.  Civilians should only NEED guns for hunting and nobody NEEDS an assault rifle to hunt, unless you suck! Leave the military weapon to the military, no matter how much fun they are to shoot (I'll never forget the first belt I fed through a C6 (m60) unreal!!!!).  The risk to innocent people outweighs whatever reward you are thinking about.

[Jess from VA]

I'd like to know exactly who they are funding. 

[The emperor has no clothes]

As a proud owner of "many" guns, I agree that gun ownership needs to be protected!  I was VERY happy the previous government here got rid of our long gun registration, eliminating one of the 5 pieces of paper we needed to carry just to go hunting! I must say however, I don't understand the fixation on handguns and assault rifles? There is no weapon available to the general public that can actually protect you from the government, (psstt, they have tanks and war planes). The negative simply out weighs the positive.  In Canada, we can own hand guns, we can even own "assault" rifles with the correct license, but they are extremely hard to get and the numbers "out there" are very small.  I believe, as an outsider looking in, that the principles behind the second amendment did not and could not take weapons, capable of killing multiple people per minute, into consideration when written.  They also could not have know that the government would have weapons that make ANY rifle redundant.  Civilians should only NEED guns for hunting and nobody NEEDS an assault rifle to hunt, unless you suck! Leave the military weapon to the military, no matter how much fun they are to shoot (I'll never forget the first belt I fed through a C6 (m60) unreal!!!!).  The risk to innocent people outweighs whatever reward you are thinking about.

uhoh....walk softly my northern neighbor. That kind of talk isn't appreciated around these parts. 

[northernvalk]

uhoh....walk softly my northern neighbor. That kind of talk isn't appreciated around these parts.  

I am open minded about a lot of things, and I am certainly open to hearing a rebuttal of intelligence but I have not received one to this date on this subject.  I have heard a lot of "you don't understand" or "Your Canadian, you could never understand" WTF? No matter how much we both like to think we are SO different, we really aren't.  Selfishness is the root of this problem, selfishness of people who think their 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance they need a hand gun outweighs all the innocent death that is a result of being able to own one.  DO I want a hand gun? HELL YA! do I NEED one...HELL NO! The problem is beyond repair, I believe, because there are just WAY to many military style guns already in public hands, there is no reasonable way to remove them efficiently.  Now you are stuck, let the criminals be the only one to carry weapons, or continue to allow "innocent" people to carry, thus allowing MORE to get into the hands of criminals!  I'm just glad we don't have this problem to deal with, I have no envy for the person tasked with the solution!!!!!

[Jess from VA]

It's simple really.  My (our) 2d Amendment guarantees us the right to the same infantry man-portable weapons (commonly referred to as small arms) available to both our police and military;  In 1776, and today, and forever (until and unless repealed).  The G shall make no law infringing this right.

The 2d Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Need has nothing to do with it either. 

And there is no balancing of interests.  Our right is not unlimited in scope, but what we have is absolute.

People who don't want or like firearms, should not own any.  That's their right too. 

[hubcapsc]

Canadians have restricted firearms to the extent that
tons of illegal guns are flowing there from the US. Law
abiding citizens up there have nothing to worry about.

-Mike

[Valker]

uhoh....walk softly my northern neighbor. That kind of talk isn't appreciated around these parts.  

I am open minded about a lot of things, and I am certainly open to hearing a rebuttal of intelligence but I have not received one to this date on this subject.  I have heard a lot of "you don't understand" or "Your Canadian, you could never understand" WTF? No matter how much we both like to think we are SO different, we really aren't.  Selfishness is the root of this problem, selfishness of people who think their 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance they need a hand gun outweighs all the innocent death that is a result of being able to own one.  DO I want a hand gun? HELL YA! do I NEED one...HELL NO! The problem is beyond repair, I believe, because there are just WAY to many military style guns already in public hands, there is no reasonable way to remove them efficiently.  Now you are stuck, let the criminals be the only one to carry weapons, or continue to allow "innocent" people to carry, thus allowing MORE to get into the hands of criminals!  I'm just glad we don't have this problem to deal with, I have no envy for the person tasked with the solution!!!!!

Just one article from 2016:
"If Canada were included as part of the 31 countries that make up the wider European region, it would rank fourth in terms of gun-homicide rates. In terms of sheer numbers, only France, Germany and Italy have more gun deaths a year. Suddenly it seems as if Canada isn't the haven of peace and gun harmony that people might think. And this is just homicides we're talking about."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-canada-has-a-gun-problem/article29642837/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

[Rams]

Our northern friend is more than welcome to his opinion.   I won't even try to debate the point.   He has every right to help decide how Canada handles this and any other issues but, this is our  (American) rights we're talking about.   I wouldn't even think of getting into a debate about Canadian Gun Control, it's not my issue nor is it my concern.

I don't even own a weapon but, I sure as hell will not give up my rights to do so.

[The emperor has no clothes]

uhoh....walk softly my northern neighbor. That kind of talk isn't appreciated around these parts.  

I am open minded about a lot of things, and I am certainly open to hearing a rebuttal of intelligence but I have not received one to this date on this subject.  I have heard a lot of "you don't understand" or "Your Canadian, you could never understand" WTF? No matter how much we both like to think we are SO different, we really aren't.  Selfishness is the root of this problem, selfishness of people who think their 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance they need a hand gun outweighs all the innocent death that is a result of being able to own one.  DO I want a hand gun? HELL YA! do I NEED one...HELL NO! The problem is beyond repair, I believe, because there are just WAY to many military style guns already in public hands, there is no reasonable way to remove them efficiently.  Now you are stuck, let the criminals be the only one to carry weapons, or continue to allow "innocent" people to carry, thus allowing MORE to get into the hands of criminals!  I'm just glad we don't have this problem to deal with, I have no envy for the person tasked with the solution!!!!!

Just one article from 2016:
"If Canada were included as part of the 31 countries that make up the wider European region, it would rank fourth in terms of gun-homicide rates. In terms of sheer numbers, only France, Germany and Italy have more gun deaths a year. Suddenly it seems as if Canada isn't the haven of peace and gun harmony that people might think. And this is just homicides we're talking about."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-canada-has-a-gun-problem/article29642837/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Per capita gun deaths : USA 10.54
                                   Canada 1.93 seems pretty nonviolent when compared that way. 

[Rams]

uhoh....walk softly my northern neighbor. That kind of talk isn't appreciated around these parts.  

I am open minded about a lot of things, and I am certainly open to hearing a rebuttal of intelligence but I have not received one to this date on this subject.  I have heard a lot of "you don't understand" or "Your Canadian, you could never understand" WTF? No matter how much we both like to think we are SO different, we really aren't.  Selfishness is the root of this problem, selfishness of people who think their 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance they need a hand gun outweighs all the innocent death that is a result of being able to own one.  DO I want a hand gun? HELL YA! do I NEED one...HELL NO! The problem is beyond repair, I believe, because there are just WAY to many military style guns already in public hands, there is no reasonable way to remove them efficiently.  Now you are stuck, let the criminals be the only one to carry weapons, or continue to allow "innocent" people to carry, thus allowing MORE to get into the hands of criminals!  I'm just glad we don't have this problem to deal with, I have no envy for the person tasked with the solution!!!!!

Just one article from 2016:
"If Canada were included as part of the 31 countries that make up the wider European region, it would rank fourth in terms of gun-homicide rates. In terms of sheer numbers, only France, Germany and Italy have more gun deaths a year. Suddenly it seems as if Canada isn't the haven of peace and gun harmony that people might think. And this is just homicides we're talking about."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-canada-has-a-gun-problem/article29642837/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Per capita gun deaths : USA 10.54
                                   Canada 1.93 seems pretty nonviolent when compared that way. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority of the states to change the Constitution.   Personally, I think you've got some work to do but, by all means, go for it.
BTW, don't waste yer time knocking on my door, you'd be wasting your breath and my time.

[Hook#3287]

Selfishness is the root of this problem, selfishness of people who think their 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance they need a hand gun outweighs all the innocent death that is a result of being able to own one

Just trying to figure where you got this statement?  That's One in One Hundred Billion?  Seeing as there's only about 7.6 billion of us presently on the planet, I'm guessing you're trying to make some kind of point?

Here's one website where some of the people are glad they were armed.  Not all are from USA.

https://activeselfprotection.com/?doing_wp_cron=1487486456.3057379722595214843750#av-layout-grid-1

Here's a website with many stories of armed people that were glad they were.  I don't believe they were being selfish.

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

[Hook#3287]

uhoh....walk softly my northern neighbor. That kind of talk isn't appreciated around these parts.  

I am open minded about a lot of things, and I am certainly open to hearing a rebuttal of intelligence but I have not received one to this date on this subject.  I have heard a lot of "you don't understand" or "Your Canadian, you could never understand" WTF? No matter how much we both like to think we are SO different, we really aren't.  Selfishness is the root of this problem, selfishness of people who think their 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance they need a hand gun outweighs all the innocent death that is a result of being able to own one.  DO I want a hand gun? HELL YA! do I NEED one...HELL NO! The problem is beyond repair, I believe, because there are just WAY to many military style guns already in public hands, there is no reasonable way to remove them efficiently.  Now you are stuck, let the criminals be the only one to carry weapons, or continue to allow "innocent" people to carry, thus allowing MORE to get into the hands of criminals!  I'm just glad we don't have this problem to deal with, I have no envy for the person tasked with the solution!!!!!

Just one article from 2016:
"If Canada were included as part of the 31 countries that make up the wider European region, it would rank fourth in terms of gun-homicide rates. In terms of sheer numbers, only France, Germany and Italy have more gun deaths a year. Suddenly it seems as if Canada isn't the haven of peace and gun harmony that people might think. And this is just homicides we're talking about."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-canada-has-a-gun-problem/article29642837/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Per capita gun deaths : USA 10.54
                                   Canada 1.93 seems pretty nonviolent when compared that way. 

  Rob, is there some way to do a per capita gang member to not gang member?  Bet it follows those numbers pretty closely. 

[northernvalk]

Man, I was really hoping for something new on this subject but it appears to be the same back and forth.

It's obvious that the lives of many are worth less than the wants of others....

Let's get real for a minute and ask ourselves one question. Given that sane and reasonable people understand that modern armies cannot be beaten by small arms.

If the reason  an honest citizen needs to carry a gun is because criminals have guns, and the reason criminals have guns is because the honest citizens insist on having guns, doesn't that leave you in a state of perpetual Mexican standoff, for lack of a better term? 

hand guns and assault rifles have one purpose, to kill people, to say anything else is ignorant unless you live in serious wild game territory.  ignorance is bliss to many so it's easy to understand why so many people blindly flow a line on a document created before the devices it permits were even concieved. What if that line had said explosives devices instead of arms....would the same people be selling nuclear weapons to citizens because it said so? Or would someone have had the foresight to understand that the document and it's principles cannot logically be blindly applied for the duration of time? 
Someone can be a proud gun owner and stand up against the death of innocent people at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive.......

[Robert]

abortions 2013  664,635    

33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms

Cigarette smoking causes about one of every five deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:

    More than 480,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
    278,544 deaths annually among men (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
    201,773 deaths annually among women (including deaths from secondhand smoke)

Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010,

If you view each life as precious and see the staggering amount of babies killed compared to gun deaths I would like to know is that considered selfish, or a non value of human life. If we take the most important issue in the amount of deaths and handle that first which one would it be?

Honestly there is no argument to anyone who thinks the reason not to give up guns is selfish and says it with bravado.

 Besides when the constitution was written at a time when anyone who owned a firearm had one that the military more than likely used. So the idea of separate firearms for separate events was not even a thought regardless of capacity or firepower.

That put John Doe on an even playing field with John Military. It was at this time that the Constitution was written giving men the power and authority that God gave them to protect their land, family and country and regarded each man with respect to their ability to do it in a peaceful way. Plus keep a watchful eye on government that with legislative control was always usurping power of the common man, the one who was supposed to run government. A far cry from what we see today.

I will remember this conversation if anyone comes to play knockout or make a home invasion or just tries to take my rights and disrespect my ability to control my guns or attitude. To them that thinks they have the right answer to limit me. If you want to do that then I want the ability to see and investigate your life and see what are you doing that I think you cannot handle and stop you from doing that. Maybe driving or any of the other supposed liberties you are entrusted with. I personally think we need to cut off all alcohol use since it has more deaths than guns. I would also like to include cigarettes and narcotics just to name 2 more. I also want research on how many people Dr's kill and maybe limit their practice based on success and failures. Im sure there are so many more causes of death that are more prevalent than guns that we are not covering here but the idea has been made.

I dont want to address your hot button issue just because you say its a hot button. I have respect for most of my friends and people some who I dont know that carry, use and have all sorts of weapons. Quite honestly I feel sometimes safer knowing them.

And now a statistic we seldom hear about

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig

So 33,636 deaths and 1.5 million saved by guns, now that is fascinating, what a plus. I wonder if abortions or alcohol or cigarettes have that kind of plus side.
 

[MarkT]

When I go to Canada - I check my guns before I get to the border.  I don't care what you do up there.  I won't do things there that I would only do with my "security blanket."  Namely, camp in bear country.  Or walk some of your bad neighborhoods at night. Yes you have them too.  And since you are mostly disarmed, that makes those places "gun-free zones"  aka shooting galleries for the criminally insane and criminals who ARE NOT disarmed.  As I said - I don't care what you do and I'll stay out of your business.  STAY OUT OF OURS.

Secondly - don't assume that the military would take up arms against the citizens.  Many or most of us ARE VETERANS. Only the youngest brainwashed (new recruits, boot camp graduates) E1's & 2's could potentially follow what would be illegal orders.  Older military troops have a brain and use it.  And know they are empowered and in fact obligated to refuse and question orders contrary to their oaths and the Constitution.  More likely they would fight alongside those citizens armed against a tyrannical government here.

[northernvalk]

Come on guys you just keep barfing out the same crap and ignoring the real facts, Comparing abortion to murder really.....Killing someone else with a gun is not the same as getting cancer from a cigarette, I can't believe you even said that!!!! it's nonsense like that, that makes responsible and purposeful gun owner like myself look like lunatics! A couple of instances of people "saving" themselves by having a gun is supposed to make up for thousands of deaths! And, We have a EVERY right to say something because the VAST majority of illegal weapons in my country, come from the complete lack of responsibility in yours.....

[Rams]

Come on guys you just keep barfing out the same crap and ignoring the real facts, Comparing abortion to murder really.....Killing someone else with a gun is not the same as getting cancer from a cigarette, I can't believe you even said that!!!! it's nonsense like that, that makes responsible and purposeful gun owner like myself look like lunatics! A couple of instances of people "saving" themselves by having a gun is supposed to make up for thousands of deaths! And, We have a EVERY right to say something because the VAST majority of illegal weapons in my country, come from the complete lack of responsibility in yours.....

All I can say is, I strongly recommend you tighten up security at the border.   

The Constitution guarantees my right to own a gun, I won't give up that right.   
Do I own one, nope but, I like having the right to do so.   I also like having options.

[The emperor has no clothes]

uhoh....walk softly my northern neighbor. That kind of talk isn't appreciated around these parts.  

I am open minded about a lot of things, and I am certainly open to hearing a rebuttal of intelligence but I have not received one to this date on this subject.  I have heard a lot of "you don't understand" or "Your Canadian, you could never understand" WTF? No matter how much we both like to think we are SO different, we really aren't.  Selfishness is the root of this problem, selfishness of people who think their 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance they need a hand gun outweighs all the innocent death that is a result of being able to own one.  DO I want a hand gun? HELL YA! do I NEED one...HELL NO! The problem is beyond repair, I believe, because there are just WAY to many military style guns already in public hands, there is no reasonable way to remove them efficiently.  Now you are stuck, let the criminals be the only one to carry weapons, or continue to allow "innocent" people to carry, thus allowing MORE to get into the hands of criminals!  I'm just glad we don't have this problem to deal with, I have no envy for the person tasked with the solution!!!!!

Just one article from 2016:
"If Canada were included as part of the 31 countries that make up the wider European region, it would rank fourth in terms of gun-homicide rates. In terms of sheer numbers, only France, Germany and Italy have more gun deaths a year. Suddenly it seems as if Canada isn't the haven of peace and gun harmony that people might think. And this is just homicides we're talking about."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-canada-has-a-gun-problem/article29642837/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Per capita gun deaths : USA 10.54
                                   Canada 1.93 seems pretty nonviolent when compared that way. 

  Rob, is there some way to do a per capita gang member to not gang member?  Bet it follows those numbers pretty closely. 

Bill, maybe. But it would take someone much smarter than me. I have no doubt there are many factors in the differences in those numbers. Gang violence, societal norms, poverty, etc. being some of them. The point I was trying to make was that Valker tried to make it out that Canada was not as non violent as it seemed. In comparison to us they are very non violent.

[Jess from VA]

Come on guys you just keep barfing out the same crap and ignoring the real facts, Comparing abortion to murder really.....Killing someone else with a gun is not the same as getting cancer from a cigarette, I can't believe you even said that!!!! it's nonsense like that, that makes responsible and purposeful gun owner like myself look like lunatics! A couple of instances of people "saving" themselves by having a gun is supposed to make up for thousands of deaths! And, We have a EVERY right to say something because the VAST majority of illegal weapons in my country, come from the complete lack of responsibility in yours.....

That's a pretty broad paintbrush there.  We have thousands of firearm laws here.

The same criminals we arm ourselves against are those that deal stolen/unlawful firearms in Canada (and here).

We law abiding gun owners do not do that.  We work very hard to follow the thousands of our gun laws.

Please catch them and hang them for us.  We'll happily buy the rope.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

uhoh....walk softly my northern neighbor. That kind of talk isn't appreciated around these parts.  

I am open minded about a lot of things, and I am certainly open to hearing a rebuttal of intelligence but I have not received one to this date on this subject.  I have heard a lot of "you don't understand" or "Your Canadian, you could never understand" WTF? No matter how much we both like to think we are SO different, we really aren't.  Selfishness is the root of this problem, selfishness of people who think their 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance they need a hand gun outweighs all the innocent death that is a result of being able to own one.  DO I want a hand gun? HELL YA! do I NEED one...HELL NO! The problem is beyond repair, I believe, because there are just WAY to many military style guns already in public hands, there is no reasonable way to remove them efficiently.  Now you are stuck, let the criminals be the only one to carry weapons, or continue to allow "innocent" people to carry, thus allowing MORE to get into the hands of criminals!  I'm just glad we don't have this problem to deal with, I have no envy for the person tasked with the solution!!!!!

Just one article from 2016:
"If Canada were included as part of the 31 countries that make up the wider European region, it would rank fourth in terms of gun-homicide rates. In terms of sheer numbers, only France, Germany and Italy have more gun deaths a year. Suddenly it seems as if Canada isn't the haven of peace and gun harmony that people might think. And this is just homicides we're talking about."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-canada-has-a-gun-problem/article29642837/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Per capita gun deaths : USA 10.54
                                   Canada 1.93 seems pretty nonviolent when compared that way. 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe it takes a 2/3rds majority of the states to change the Constitution.   Personally, I think you've got some work to do but, by all means, go for it.
BTW, don't waste yer time knocking on my door, you'd be wasting your breath and my time.

You took my post as saying I want to change the Constitution ? Now who is assuming much ?

[DirtyDan]

Comparing abortion to murder ?

Whats the difference ?

Dan

[northernvalk]

Rams, please take a second and read my posts......I OWN GUNS, I SUPPORT GUN OWNERSHIP.   I don't support carrying a side arm, I don't support military rifles in the hands of civilians. There is a difference. If you have one, ONE intelligent and logical argument for side arms or military rifles, please share.......

[northernvalk]

Dan......im not touching that one.  I am NOT going to bring Christianity into a firearm conversation. Guns didn't exist when Jesus was alive.

[sandy]

One argument for citizen assault ownership: The Japanese had a plan to attack the West coast after Pearl Harbor. They dropped it when they considered fighting house to house throughout the whole country.

[Robert]

Come on guys you just keep barfing out the same crap and ignoring the real facts, Comparing abortion to murder really.....Killing someone else with a gun is not the same as getting cancer from a cigarette, I can't believe you even said that!!!! it's nonsense like that, that makes responsible and purposeful gun owner like myself look like lunatics! A couple of instances of people "saving" themselves by having a gun is supposed to make up for thousands of deaths! And, We have a EVERY right to say something because the VAST majority of illegal weapons in my country, come from the complete lack of responsibility in yours.....

So why is abortion the choice to cut up a living being even late term abortion different from the choice of owning a gun. I like how you jumped over a possible 1.5 million lives saved as compared to 33k lost from this gun choice as compared to the abortion total loss.

So actually we could have a net gain in lives saved of 1.4 million people by owning guns.  

I would also much more question the mental status of a mother to do this to her own child or use it as a form of birth control as compared to a person owning guns.

I would also definitely question the thinking of someone who owns guns saying they want to infringe on my rights to own the gun of my choice with no negative actions on my part, preaching caring of the saving of lives who doesn't think abortion is killing or important or even relevant to us as a society today.  

[The emperor has no clothes]

Lovely politics, gun rights, abortion all in one thread.  this is going to go to crap real quick. 

[northernvalk]

Sandy....none of those citizen owned fully auto weapons with the exception of the very odd person who may have had a Thompson. They would have been fighting with the weapons I SUPPORT. In Switzerland, households have military rifles in most homes BUT they are locked up and are only to be used when the country is in jeopardy, by the citizens who have served in the military as a requirement of citizenship. this is a system I support.

[Rams]

Rams, please take a second and read my posts......I OWN GUNS, I SUPPORT GUN OWNERSHIP.   I don't support carrying a side arm, I don't support military rifles in the hands of civilians. There is a difference. If you have one, ONE intelligent and logical argument for side arms or military rifles, please share.......

Well, I did read your previous posts.   It's my opinion that it's an American issue, Canada can do whatever they wish.   You don't have to support carrying a side arm or any kind of rifle, that's your issue, not mine.   I'm not trying to make you support any thing, you're Canadian.  

One needs to look at the Constitution from the framers perspective and what they had experienced.    Those weapons are guaranteed so that the average American citizen can protect him/herself from many different forms of violence or violations of themselves by whomever.    There may be a time coming you feel differently.   Society is crumbling and we're watching it unfold in front of us.    Some things hold us together, some things separate us.   The bad guys are armed better than the police in some cases, I want to right to protect my family and property with as much fire power as necessary.    I happen to think good strong Castle Laws are something every State should have.

But, as much as anything else, the one reason (for me) is because it's my right and no one can take that away from me.   If, that's not good enough then, I can't help you.   This is a pretty divisive issue, there are very few neutral people on it.   As I said, I don't currently own a weapon but, no one has a legal right to say I can't.   Whether that's a side arm (which I prefer) or something that can reach out and touch a target at long range.

[northernvalk]

Robert, I'll assume you don't masturbate...given that you are killing millions of potential lives in the process.  I see your another person who believes his interpretation of a 200 year old document is more important than the lives of innocent people.  Legal weapons become illegal weapons when a LEGAL gun owner chooses to use them in that fashion. NAME ME ONE situation that requires an assault rifle that ISN'T  "the other guy has one?" Your "right" isn't nearly as important as the lives of the people who were killed because those weapons were available due to your right.

[northernvalk]

Rams, another rights over life supporter? What difference would it make if people could only own "hunting" weapons? these weapons can serve the full purpose of your "right" without allowing people to kill en mass. the benefit is miniscule and the draw backs are exponential.

[Rams]

I see your another person who believes his interpretation of a 200 year old document is more important than the lives of innocent people.

Won't speak for Robert but, I fall into that category.   Yes, that document and those rights are that important.  

Rams, another rights over life supporter? What difference would it make if people could only own "hunting" weapons? these weapons can serve the full purpose of your "right" without allowing people to kill en mass. the benefit is miniscule and the draw backs are exponential.

I think I've already answered that question.   You don't have to agree.   I surely don't have to agree with you either.    I spent the majority of my life in the military and in the defense of this nation and those documents.    Debating with me over this is silly, I've responded to you because you addressed me specifically.    I've never advocated anything in reference to automatic weapons.    I also don't hunt.   So, ask yourself, why would I be interested in the protection of my rights to own/possess a firearm.   I'm very serious about protecting my family and property from whomever is a danger to me, my family, property and or rights.   That may require more firepower that I currently possess.

As I said previously, you need to put yourself in the position of the framers of the Constitution, such a situation could happen again.

[old2soon]

Chicago and new York have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the books here in the Lower 48. And without going into detail-look at a news story-take a gander at year to date deaths by firearms. And if at all possible sort out those deaths to illegally owned firearms versus legally owned firearms. I had to jump thru a few hoops to not only purchase my weapons but also to obtain my C C W. The criminals don't bother with legalities. Far as anyone from another country wanting me to give up my arms-well you are free to try. When and IF I visit Canada I intend to comply with their laws. When you come to The United States of America please comply with our laws. RIDE SAFE.

[northernvalk]

Well it appears this conversation is over, you gentlemen have refused to address the simple points I put forth and refer back to the constitution. I welcome anyone to respond to the questions I put forth, is love to hear some actual reasons that civilians need military weapons.

[Jess from VA]

If we have a catastrophic loss of the power grid (for any of a number of reasons) for weeks on end (this is really not some far fetched possibility), or if there are riots (in urban areas like where I live) due to natural disaster or because of some court acquittal, and 50 men come down the street looting and burning houses, I cannot kill all 50 with a bolt action rifle.  We have never lost power for more than 3-4 days, but the occasions of mass rioting, burning, and looting in this country have happened plenty of times.  

If we get a leftist government bent on disarmament in violation of the constitution, and 50 policemen come for my guns, same deal.  (And understand, I am very law and order and pro police, unless they decide to try and come for my firearms.  If they decide to follow orders instead of the constitution, then they are no better than looters.)

[Moonshot_1]

Ok, let’s get “real”.
The US Constitution is not a document that provides its citizen’s rights.

It is a document that establishes the obligation of the government to protect the rights we already have as well as the prohibitions levied against the government to insure our liberties.

The 2nd amendment recognizes the obligation of the government in the “well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a Free State” and the prohibition of the government to infringe on individual rights to bear arms.

The reason an Honest Citizen needs to carry a gun is because they have things of great value to defend. Including their life, the lives of their family, their home.

We are a land of Free People. Not subjects of a King. If we were subjects of a King, anything of value we would have would belong to the King. I would not care much if you took it.
But for a Free Person, those things of value are ours.

As to modern armies, they use small arms too so small arms have value and great value in the hands of the populace. Much more difficult to overrun an armed populace than a defenseless one. And this tends to lead to the “government tyranny argument. That the populace can never defend itself against Government jack booted thugs so it would be pointless to try and defend against it.

But Government tyranny comes in many forms. A great model, on a small scale, is the Antifa riot at Berkley. The Government had a Constitutional duty to stop them and they just gave Antifa a preverbal pass and got out of their way. When the government decides to let your neighborhoods and businesses be undefended because it is politically correct or convenient, who is left to defend them?

I remember the days after the Officers were acquitted in the Rodney King case. The riots in LA. I remember the Korean shopkeepers on the roofs of their buildings keeping the rioters at bay with their guns.

There are times when the government, even the best and most prepared, cannot protect or support you. Hurricanes, major earthquakes, and other situations where lawlessness becomes rampant. In this country you have the right to defend yourself.

What you are telling us is that you can predict that we will never have to face such peril. And if we do, it’ll just be a convenient few people who will suffer and who cares about them and you have decided to make that call and judge.

It is also quite telling that your perspective seems to equate the law abiding and the criminal.

In my garage I have a hammer. I don’t build things, I don’t have much use for it. But I have it. And there are times when a situation comes up where it is the tool I need for the situation.
The gun is a tool as well. And in the hands of a good and free people, a righteous one.

[Willow]

Basically have "not addressed" because the points were assumptive and not terribly well informed.

The best answer to bad guys with guns continues to be good guys with guns.

As for the diatribe about assault weapons (a meaningless term invented by anti-gunners) any gun that is capable of killing a deer is capable of killing a human.  Conversely not every gun capable of killing a human is capable of killing a deer.

One argument I'll give you.  If you were somehow able to remove all the guns in a country, legal and illegal, there would be a very significant drop in gun related deaths.  I am not convinced, though, that homicides would be eliminated.  

[Bighead]

As a proud owner of "many" guns, I agree that gun ownership needs to be protected!  I was VERY happy the previous government here got rid of our long gun registration, eliminating one of the 5 pieces of paper we needed to carry just to go hunting! I must say however, I don't understand the fixation on handguns and assault rifles? There is no weapon available to the general public that can actually protect you from the government, (psstt, they have tanks and war planes). The negative simply out weighs the positive.  In Canada, we can own hand guns, we can even own "assault" rifles with the correct license, but they are extremely hard to get and the numbers "out there" are very small.  I believe, as an outsider looking in, that the principles behind the second amendment did not and could not take weapons, capable of killing multiple people per minute, into consideration when written.  They also could not have know that the government would have weapons that make ANY rifle redundant.  Civilians should only NEED guns for hunting and nobody NEEDS an assault rifle to hunt, unless you suck! Leave the military weapon to the military, no matter how much fun they are to shoot (I'll never forget the first belt I fed through a C6 (m60) unreal!!!!).  The risk to innocent people outweighs whatever reward you are thinking about.

Tell me exactly what an assault rifle is? Big black and scary looking ? ANY rifle used in an assault is an assault rifle correct?

[JimC]

My turn.
When you get a chance watch the 5 minute video linked below.

The numbers will surprise many, especially the gun grabbers. I say that because the left leaning politicians and news media don't talk about "GUN HOMICIDES", they normally refer to them as "GUN DEATHS" gun deaths include suicide with weapons, and that throws the numbers off quite a bit. Most people intent on suicide will do so with or without a gun, so I do not believe that they should be included.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pELwCqz2JfE?rel=0&autoplay=true

We do not have a gun problem, we have a culture problem. We have 2 or 3 generations of inner city people (white and black) that do not respect life, theirs, or others.

Jim

[Pappy!]

From reading your posts, NorthernValk, it almost seems like you believe that our civilian "Assault" rifles are full auto? They are not. Simple semi-autos. Same as a semi-auto that can be used for hunting in this country. Only difference is that the big scary civilian "assault" rifle is dressed in black. We "assault" rifle owners call them "ARs" or AKs". Left wing news organizations and those not familiar with shooting sports or firearms in general are usually the ones that call them "assault" rifles. Here they are normally used for punching holes in paper, they stand at the ready in our homes to protect against those would do us harm, and they stand at the ready to protect our rights as Americans if need be.
As far as being out-gunned by the Government if all Hell breaks loose? Bunches of assumptions would have to come true including the assumption that our military men would be willing to take guns away from fellow Americans for a 2nd Ammendment they themselves believe in and take the lives of those of us who dissent? Same for local police, etc. I have talked to many law enforcement folks, all of which tell me the Government can take a hike if they are ordered to turn their guns on us. They said they will, instead, turn and fight alongside us. Who does that leave? United Nations? I don't think so! In this country we have a long and victorious history of standing up to oppression.
Why are you picking on guns? Why not outlaw pressure cookers, vans (because they can carry fertilizer bombs), Trucks and cars (that drive through crowds), car bombs, commercial aircraft? In the wrong hands all of the above are very capable of taking the lives of many in a very short time.
We 2nd Ammendment supporters are many and strong, with strong beliefs. We do things peacefully unless cornered or provoked. We carry side arms to protect ourselves and our loved ones. We will continue to do so regardless of opinion or "political correctness". We have that right.