The American Revolution was not victorious on account of individuals bearing firearms (despite the illusions of proponents of the Second Amendment). The Revolution was not successful because of armed militias, even. The organized regular army of General George Washington, aided by the land and sea forces of King Louis XVI of France, won the Revolution. Check your history books, if you pro-gun addicts can even read.
Where do you think the militias came from? Do you think they just appeared out of no where? I've checked my history books, you should go check a dictionary and look up militia.
Population of L.A. County is approaching 10,000,000. A recent survey puts gun ownership around 13%. One million, three hundred thousand guns (at one gun per owner) and then you have 2,500 hundred guns turned in for cash.
It appears, there are still a few million guns unaccounted for and I would think at lot of households have more than one gun.
Just saying.
The people turning in guns should not receive a penny for their guns. They should be charged an extra Law Enforcement Fee, because they become a magnet for robberies, and encourage more people to get into crime. They cannot protect themselves, so they rely on other taxpayers to hire a bigger police force to protect them. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
I'll do a gun buy back! Anyone that wants to trade me a firearm for a can of food, please reply immediately!
If all the people that are getting "Obama Bucks"(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw) and "Obama Phones"(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio) were required to turn in a gun, before receiving their welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, WIC, their career unemployment Checks, etc., we not only would have less gun violence but these dead beats would have to do something for what they get. Of course, we could force / require them to get a job, which would give them less time to commit crime.
It's a dilemma. Honest, ethical, law abiding Americans wish, insist, they use their constitutional rights to own and use firearms. Dishonest, evil Americans want to create chaos and notoriety through those same firearms.
How did it begin, this tie between the concept of liberty and guns? With the American Revolution pushing tyranny from our shores and a constitutional amendment written to keep tyranny out of our government.
The argument that we cannot retrieve all the guns and therefore should not try to reduce their numbers ("The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun") seems counter to the logic that we should increase the number of guns (giving them to teachers, firefighters, etc.).
I am not on one side or the other in this debate. I have owned guns. I do not own any guns now. That is my choice. I do not have the right to push that view onto others.
My faith dictates I do not kill, so even if I were in a situation that there was a bad guy hurting others, I might hesitate to kill (Matthew 24). I say hesitate because I really don't know what I would do if my children (my own family or the students I teach) were in danger. But I don't fantasize about doing so. I feel strongly that killing is wrong, period.
I once had a homeowner threaten to shoot me (he was frightened, shaking, pointing a large pistol in my face, convinced I was a burglar and not just the milkman). That man should not have a gun. I almost died that day over the idea he thought I was stealing from him.
I wonder if the fantasy of defending home and family by killing bad guys is so very different from bad guys fantasizing about killing.
What is troubling with this debate is the polarization of views (just as the political debates over the last few years). It used to be people could disagree without name calling. Even if one disliked the president, he was treated with respect (I think that began to change with Nixon).
Can we not seek a balance? Perhaps the NRA can truly listen to the concerns. Is making it difficult to use a machine designed to kill efficiently truly an erosion of our rights? Can we really call gun owners a militia anymore? Perhaps we can look at the motivation behind creating the 2nd Amendment and see if that still makes sense.
Perhaps we can also agree that this is a democracy (or a democratic republic or whatever) and agree that Red or Blue, the people have voted and they desire the government handle certain things (health care, etc.) and stay out of certain things (marijuana), and that some things are too close to call (abortion) and should be left up to states.
Government should provide infrastructure for commerce (roads, the internet, telephones, funded schools, a military, etc.). Some of those priorities are out of whack (we are NOT FUNDING SCHOOLS PROPERLY).
Perhaps we can learn to be kind to each other, listen to each other, seek to find what we can live with and what we can live without.
So... below will be comments that attack my view through name calling and sarcasm. That is fine. I work with middle schoolers and I get that. But... I hope there are some reasonable views out there and an honest DIALOGUE can happen.
While your concerns are understood, let me say too that I'd like to live in a world free of crime and violence. Not all crime is violent and not all violence is criminal. But what we do all know, understand and accept is, that evil, unethical, and immoral actions will never be stopped, even in the most authoritarian system imaginable. Under such systems, crime does not stop, it becomes enshrined in and emanates from those in power. Considering the wide array of "criminal activity" that has befallen mankind, the real question becomes; When actual threats to your life, liberty or property come calling at your doorstep, what means of defense against the aggression should you be deprived or denied by your own government through laws? What tools of aggression do you think the criminals will be denied them because of those same laws? It is unethical of me to deny you your preferred means of defense. Forcibly denying you that, makes me responsible for your full safety. An impossible task. The best way to contain or eliminate all types of crime is the universal collective threat of a bullet between the eyes. US Gun Statistics: http://rense.com/general62/gns.htm
Gun buybacks are a waste of time and taxpayer money. I wonder, of the some 310 million guns in American hands, how many criminals do you think turned in their guns during this politically feel-good, but ineffective event? The reality is that in a free republic, it is never a good trade to trade self-defense, constitutional rights and personal liberties in the name of perceived public safety, and therein lies the rub. Those leading this opportunistic gun grab, in the name of gun control legislation, are spearheaded by the most anti-gun politicians in our ranks, those who would simply take up all the guns, if she "just had the votes". Banning a subset of guns, like "assault weapons" was ineffective at reducing violent crimes (Department of Justice and FBI reports), yet Biden, et al. want to crank up the program again. High capacity magazine bans are ineffective as well. Pre-ban magazines are fine, connected, smaller magazines are fine, or I guess the 7-11 robbers can just use an 18 inch, LEGAL 8-shot shotgun, loaded with magnum 00 buckshot instead. You KNOW how robbers strive to follow all federal and state gun laws. These legislators have spaghetti for brains, these regulations do not work. They DO create the 8,000 or so a day re-upping their NRA memberships and contributing the the NAGR. I agree with the NRA to arm guards, available to all schools who request them. Let local schools and districts make up their minds, they could do no worse than the legislation we have coming out of Washington on the issue.
Using tax payer dollars to "buy" guns. And i bet none of them were very good ones. They were taking in their broken old revolvers and making a few hundred bucks. Their good guns are still at home. And I'm glad we live in the USA where we have a right to bear arms and protect ourselves. My good guns will always stay at home.
With all those guns they didn't have a single fatality! NO WAY. That goes against everything the media has told me. There should have been mass bloodshed with so many guns in a single area!
If 2,500 guns are expected to be "turned in" in this drive and 8,000 guns since 2009 have been turned in, that makes a total of 10,500 guns. Assuming only one gun per person is turned in out of at city with a population of 3,819,702 - the participation rate in this "most successful drive ever" is .002748, or a non-participation rate over 3 years of 99.997251 percent. According to a Gallop Politics article from October 2011, 47% of adult Americans own a firearm. If just 20% of L.A. adults own one gun that's 1,963,940 guns in the city. 10,500 guns is only 1/2 of 1 percent of the total. This media piece makes it sound like the 33% reduction in crime is due to the gun buyback program involving just 8,000 guns. If just turning in 8,000 guns has resulted in a 33% reduction in violent crime then with just another 16,000 turned in it would eliminate the other 67% of violent crime in L.A. Accordingly, to the anti-gun media, just 24,000 guns are responsible for all violent crime. It is mathematically insane to conclude that zero violent crime will only occur if all guns are banned and confiscated when by their own implied logic only 24,000 guns cover all violent crime. The more you slice the media hype the more ridiculous their claims become. What percentage of L.A.'s violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, parolees, early parolees, or criminally bent gangs or gangbangers? Nothing is said about the number of would-be violent acts that are thwarted by a citizen with a gun and what will likely happen when only the unstable and criminally inclined are the only ones with one. The second amendment's purpose is to preserve a "free state" against all enemies, foreign and domestic, against tyrannical agents and authoritarianism emanating from our own government. History shows that authoritarianism is best achieved with a disarmed citizenry. The high degree of non-participation in this "buyback" scheme tells me the collectivist propaganda is largely falling on deaf ears as it should. Just watch out for and defeat local, state and federal infringements that are surely forthcoming!
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
It appears, there are still a few million guns unaccounted for and I would think at lot of households have more than one gun.
Just saying.
If all the people that are getting "Obama Bucks"(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tqH7UrzOw) and "Obama Phones"(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio) were required to turn in a gun, before receiving their welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, WIC, their career unemployment Checks, etc., we not only would have less gun violence but these dead beats would have to do something for what they get. Of course, we could force / require them to get a job, which would give them less time to commit crime.
How did it begin, this tie between the concept of liberty and guns? With the American Revolution pushing tyranny from our shores and a constitutional amendment written to keep tyranny out of our government.
The argument that we cannot retrieve all the guns and therefore should not try to reduce their numbers ("The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun") seems counter to the logic that we should increase the number of guns (giving them to teachers, firefighters, etc.).
I am not on one side or the other in this debate. I have owned guns. I do not own any guns now. That is my choice. I do not have the right to push that view onto others.
My faith dictates I do not kill, so even if I were in a situation that there was a bad guy hurting others, I might hesitate to kill (Matthew 24). I say hesitate because I really don't know what I would do if my children (my own family or the students I teach) were in danger. But I don't fantasize about doing so. I feel strongly that killing is wrong, period.
I once had a homeowner threaten to shoot me (he was frightened, shaking, pointing a large pistol in my face, convinced I was a burglar and not just the milkman). That man should not have a gun. I almost died that day over the idea he thought I was stealing from him.
I wonder if the fantasy of defending home and family by killing bad guys is so very different from bad guys fantasizing about killing.
What is troubling with this debate is the polarization of views (just as the political debates over the last few years). It used to be people could disagree without name calling. Even if one disliked the president, he was treated with respect (I think that began to change with Nixon).
Can we not seek a balance? Perhaps the NRA can truly listen to the concerns. Is making it difficult to use a machine designed to kill efficiently truly an erosion of our rights? Can we really call gun owners a militia anymore? Perhaps we can look at the motivation behind creating the 2nd Amendment and see if that still makes sense.
Perhaps we can also agree that this is a democracy (or a democratic republic or whatever) and agree that Red or Blue, the people have voted and they desire the government handle certain things (health care, etc.) and stay out of certain things (marijuana), and that some things are too close to call (abortion) and should be left up to states.
Government should provide infrastructure for commerce (roads, the internet, telephones, funded schools, a military, etc.). Some of those priorities are out of whack (we are NOT FUNDING SCHOOLS PROPERLY).
Perhaps we can learn to be kind to each other, listen to each other, seek to find what we can live with and what we can live without.
So... below will be comments that attack my view through name calling and sarcasm. That is fine. I work with middle schoolers and I get that. But... I hope there are some reasonable views out there and an honest DIALOGUE can happen.
Considering the wide array of "criminal activity" that has befallen mankind, the real question becomes; When actual threats to your life, liberty or property come calling at your doorstep, what means of defense against the aggression should you be deprived or denied by your own government through laws? What tools of aggression do you think the criminals will be denied them because of those same laws?
It is unethical of me to deny you your preferred means of defense. Forcibly denying you that, makes me responsible for your full safety. An impossible task.
The best way to contain or eliminate all types of crime is the universal collective threat of a bullet between the eyes.
US Gun Statistics: http://rense.com/general62/gns.htm
According to a Gallop Politics article from October 2011, 47% of adult Americans own a firearm. If just 20% of L.A. adults own one gun that's 1,963,940 guns in the city.
10,500 guns is only 1/2 of 1 percent of the total. This media piece makes it sound like the 33% reduction in crime is due to the gun buyback program involving just 8,000 guns. If just turning in 8,000 guns has resulted in a 33% reduction in violent crime then with just another 16,000 turned in it would eliminate the other 67% of violent crime in L.A.
Accordingly, to the anti-gun media, just 24,000 guns are responsible for all violent crime.
It is mathematically insane to conclude that zero violent crime will only occur if all guns are banned and confiscated when by their own implied logic only 24,000 guns cover all violent crime.
The more you slice the media hype the more ridiculous their claims become.
What percentage of L.A.'s violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, parolees, early parolees, or criminally bent gangs or gangbangers? Nothing is said about the number of would-be violent acts that are thwarted by a citizen with a gun and what will likely happen when only the unstable and criminally inclined are the only ones with one.
The second amendment's purpose is to preserve a "free state" against all enemies, foreign and domestic, against tyrannical agents and authoritarianism emanating from our own government.
History shows that authoritarianism is best achieved with a disarmed citizenry.
The high degree of non-participation in this "buyback" scheme tells me the collectivist propaganda is largely falling on deaf ears as it should. Just watch out for and defeat local, state and federal infringements that are surely forthcoming!