after reviewing report after report of the BILLIONS of rounds of ammunition purchased in the last year (more than the entire amount of ammunition spent in 6yrs of conflict in Iraq) for agencies like the NOAA and Social Security Administration, I would not be in the least surprised to hear that this proposed spending increase was yet another way to buy and arm more federal branches of the government while doing nothing to the status quot of the functionality of the departments themselves. Increasing spending to a branch of government isnt the same thing as actually doing something productive, not anymore it seems. Ever wonder how, after having 3x the amount of IRS employees we did in 2008, for the first time in my living history the federal government has failed to get all the tax forms approved by jan 31st? Now all federal refunds depending on some of these forms are delayed until mid march. Included in this group is the amortization of mortgage interest.. thats no small percentage of population getting affected.
"this country and its institutions belong to those that inhabit it. Should they ever grow weary of if they should exercise their constitutional right to amend it or their revolutionary right to dismember and over throw it."
but you are correct about a continental army of militia. Thats also, on record, what prevented a Japanese invasion on US soil during WWII. The idea that an invasion on US soil would result in the entire citizenship taking up cause to repel borders is something of significant value. The founding fathers wanted both a continental army and an armed citizen population. Yes its to prevent foreign invasion, it is also a check and balance to prevent the government from growing to the point where it abuses its power and returns to the type of life they had under king george.
thats because while they work tirelessly to remove your legal rights to protect yourself, they wrap themselves up in the very blanket of freedoms they want to deny you. They hire for themselves several armed security guards, often paid for by you and me. Translation: only the rich and powerful deserve to live. Everyone else is food for the rich and powerful.
do you even know what a machine gun is? Since 1984 no civilian can own or purchase an automatic weapon manufactured since 1984. Those manufactured before 1984 cost tens of thousands of dollars and hadn't been used in crimes even before the ban. In fact it was Reagan's stupid ass than banned them. 98% of all gun crime is committed with weapons that cost less than $300. If you wanted to do something about public safety, ban the models of guns that cost less than $500.
so your saying that at Sandy Hook Elementary that more kids would be alive if he had 10 round magazines? BULLSHIT
pro-mags kinda suck. Often you have to take an exacto knife and trim some of the excess plastic that didnt get cut in the molding process to get the ammo to feed out the front correctly. I think your thinking of the Pmag's by Magpul. Those things are tough as hell. You can find video on youtube where they drove over them with a truck repeatedly and they still performed flawlessly.
thats bullshit.. In many states the high schools Already have armed police, they are constantly arresting and busting people for drugs. Its only the stupid granola states that ever have these problems. Ive never been in a gun-free-zone school except elementary schools and thats not a matter of policy as much as they felt no threat from a student body of 10yr olds.
nor will they be able to kick in doors and take them. Most people still serving in the military have told them they simply wont show up to work if that order comes down the chain of command. I would not have done it while I was in the service. I took and oath upon entry into the military that swore to defend THE CONSTITUTION from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. Giving me an order to disarm the public is a violation of the constitution and an unlawful order subject to punishment by the uniform code of military justice
"I ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
when the duly elected government decides that they have no chance of garnering a majority vote, and instead take extra-judicial means to sign an executive order to make a law that does not pass majority vote, then yes, that is called imperialism. We have an elected republic for a reason and we have a series of checks and balances for a reason. This sitting president also signed an executive order for the extra-judicial assassination of a US citizen on foreign soil without any trial or due process. He suspended habeas corpus by signing into law the NDAA not to mention the continued reinstatement of the Patriot Act time and time again. Anyone who voted for or signed the patriot act should be tried and hung for treason. Anyone responsible for the NDAA should be tried and beheaded for treason when found guilty. if this horse shit had ANYTHING to do with public safety they would not go targeting weapons that are responsible for less than 0.2 percent of all annual gun deaths. They would target weapons responsible for more than 90% of all gun homicides. Thats like deciding to do something about drunk driving by banning the expensive cognacs and top dollar bourbons.
but you have not indicated in any way how getting rid of a gun will in any way reduce the 4.6 criminal homicides or 37 suicides. I do agree that the accidental death rate would probably go away but the other two statistics are not going to change. Someone committing suicide isn't going to say "oh damn, there's no gun so i guess i cant kill myself." They'll use some other method. A gun really wouldn't be my first choice anyway, it seems so messy and painful. Did they use a gun? Nope, they are just as dead in the end though. So I cant even give the 37 suicide statistic any credit what so ever. Playing the statistics game is akin to that school district in Texas that was expelling the low test scorers to increase their state testing scores to comply with the No Child Left Behind benchmarks. Did they really increase the education level of the student populace? No, they just played a numbers game, the dumb kids are just as dumb as ever.
As far as the gun related homicides, as I've pointed out many times, a gun is used only as a matter of convenience. Most gun related homicides are done in a fit of rage and denied a gun its just as likely that fit of rage would have resulted in homicide by any other instrument available. We have plenty of non-gun related homicides to back this theory up also. Did you know there were more homes with unsecured guns, per capita, in the first 150 years of the USA's history than in the last 50 years? The number of homes with guns, per capita, had fallen sharply in the last 50 years yet the gun-related incidents are soaring through the roof. I don't think its the guns that are at the heart of the problem. In fact our gun related crimes are often committed by gangs who are in the business of selling illegal drugs. Drugs that, ever since the 1980s war-on-drugs, has become astronomically expensive in price. Given the consequences of losing millions in 'product' it is understandable why these criminals are carrying guns in the first place. They are likely to be killed by their employers anyway if they lose that kind of profit. Just like the alcohol prohibition of the 1930s resulted in a wave of crime, the war on drugs as had a horrible side effective of an alarming amount of violent crime as a result. If I were to single out any one major recent change that contributed to the new increase in crime, gun and non-gun related, I would say the war on drugs probably has had the biggest hand in this increase.
Home protection is a helpful side-effect of the 2nd amendment, however, the 2nd amendment had absolutely nothing to do with home defense when it was drafted. While home defense is a good reason to have a gun, its got nothing to do with the reason it was in the constitution to begin with. It has some to do with preventing another tyranny but mostly it has to do with securing the country from invasion. What happened in the the late 1930s in France would and could never happen here. Did you know that Japan, after having leveled our entire pacific fleet, consider a US invasion? We didnt have a large military force at the time and with the war in Europe tying up our troops they could have easily come in and laid siege to our nation, save for one issue. When Admiral Yamamoto was ask why they didn't press for invasion of the USA, he responded that they would face a barrel of a rifle hiding from behind every blade of grass. The 2nd amendment does more for this country to insure against invasion than any amount of military might the government could ever hope to financially maintain. Instantly and all at once your citizens suddenly become a militia to protect against invasion.
you're missing the bigger picture. the USA doesnt have a major gun violence problem. It has a major violence problem. The statistics of non-gun-related violence is just as obscene as gun related violence. Its not that the non-gun violent offenders preferred another instrument of violence, it was that a gun simply wasn't available to them. Had they had access to a gun they would have used it, many admit as much. Its absurd to think banning guns will somehow lower these statistics. They choose to use a gun because its convenient and effective. Denied a gun, a bad person is still going to do bad things. Most of the crimes committed by guns are done so by people ineligible to legally obtain one in the first place. A lot of gang-bangers are getting their hands on stolen police service weapons sold to them by crooked cops who steal them from co-workers and sell them on the street. The rest are buying them out of pawn shops where that whole private sale clause applies since the pawn dealer usually isnt an FFL.
Look, I am all for doing something about the crazy's but not at the expense of millions of normal everyday people who have done nothing wrong. That's like suggesting a ban on the sale of automobiles because there is just too much drunk driving. No one would ever dare suggest that. Its time to look deeper than the instrument in order to get traction on the problem. We've had guns in households longer than we've even been a country. At one point during our colonial history it was a standing order that every house in the colony maintain 2 flint-lock rifles and a bag of powder and balls of ammo. Fewer homes have guns now, per capita, than any other time in our history. Yet the crime rate is increasing despite this statistical fact. So if guns in the homes are nothing new, then its time to put those debugging tools to good use and look at what has changed recently. Its time to figure out what HAS changed recently to result in this new spree of crime, because mass gun ownership predates all of that.
If this was really about public safety then why do they always single out the kinds of weapons that statistically account for less than 0.2 percent of all gun homicides? According to our FBI crime reports, more homicides were committed with bare hands in 2012 than homicides committed by rifles of all make and model and style including shot guns and breech-loaders. The same comparison holds true for blunt object homicides (bludgeoning). 99% of gun homicides are committed with small, inexpensive, small caliber, concealable handguns. If it were really about public safety why not have a bill banning small
you do realize they make make-shift firearms in prisons right? im pretty sure they wont build that part into the make-shift weapon.
does it solve the problem? you cant think of any other way to kill a classroom of defenseless children other than a firearm? How about the guy in china back in october that killed 6 childen with an Axe? what about using a sword? or knife? Or baracading a single classroom and lighting it on fire.. there's 20 or so dead right there. Or how about doing what Hamas does.. blow the school straight to hell with IEDs. You simply cant legislate crazy. Why is it that out of all the big spree killing of the last 20 years every one of them was on some sort of psychiatric drug including anti-depressants. All the columbine kids were on anti-depressants. Did you know that these medications list very strong homicide and suidicidal thoughts in their 'very rare' side effects? The FDA defines 'very rare' as 1 in 1000. Considering there are estimated 6.4 million people alone taking Zoloft, do you know how many thousands of people are experiencing strong homicidal thoughts? Why isnt there a push to look at this source of problem? If medication is to blame, do you really think the lack of a gun will wash that kind of crazy off?
so you think that without a gun, they wouldnt commit suicide? If I ban straws will you die of dehydration? Or will you get off your fat lazy ass and lift that glass to your mouth? More drunk driving incidents involve SUV's than any other make of vehicle. Does baning SUVs stop the problem or just shift the vehicle? Its a stupid statistic quoted by a narrow minded person who cannot think outside the box. When you really want something you will do it. Do you think death only happened after the invention of the firearm? What about that 100 year war?
not sure where you live that 75yr old equals frail and full of arthritis. I've seen plenty of 70yr olds at the gym walking and running laps around younger people. However it wont matter if your 75 or 25 if you only weigh 90-110 lb (not uncommon for a skinny 5'8" woman) against a 300lb man. Unless she has trained in TaiChi or Judo for years and years the guy with more mass is going to win that conflict. Recently a 90yr old man fired a shotgun (more kick than a handgun) killing a teen trying to break into house. He had to use the armrest of his chair to stabalize it, but he did manage to kill one kid and cause the other one to flee. When they caught the other one he confessed that they likely would have beaten the man to death had they discovered him during the course of the break-in.