• Advertisement

A ban on all guns would save lives

Topics about guns

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Permafrost » Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:55 am

Photon Guy wrote:
Permafrost wrote:.


So what do you do that you live out in the wilderness for a portion of the year? That sounds like something I would like to try. I could sure pick up some useful skills doing that. Anyway, the anti gun crowd would say that for somebody like you living out in the middle of nowhere might need guns but not most people who don't live like that. Also, they could argue that all you need for protection from wild animals is to put up a fence, a girl once used that argument when I mentioned stuff such as bears and snakes, she claimed to live in such an area where they were more common and said a fence works just fine.

Like most Alaskans, I live a partially subsistence lifestyle. I am married in town but I leave to hunt/fish/trap/ext for months at a time. Not that I am a fan of TV or Reality TV, most is fake, but watch some of the interior Alaska shows and it might give you a small frame of reference, if nothing else you will see some nice scenery. At this point I know quite a few people who have made TV appearances up here.

There is a reason that former democratic senator Mark Bagich rallied so hard (and much more vocally than his republican counterpart) against gun control, people who do not live here just do not understand. I will say that electrified fences do work for the most part, but as with any non-lethal deterrent there are times they do not work, and you still have to leave the fenced area to get firewood & food. I put a fenced area in this year about a 1/2 acre big (cabin/woodshed/outhouse) for when I am not at the cabin, it has been destroyed once. I think the bear did not get a good ground when it initially hit the fence, after it pushed it's way through the fence it must have made good contact between the ground & hot because it didn't touch anything & took out the fence on the outer side, literally must have scared the $hit out of him because there was a big streak in the clearing (he must have been running fairly fast to leave a pile that looked like that) between the two fences. There effectiveness is dependent on weather conditions and the ability for the animal to connect between the negative (ground) and the positive (fence) before they get all the way through the fence wires.
Permafrost
Alaska Preppers Network
Alaska Preppers Network
 
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:33 pm
Location: Interior Alaska
Karma: 95

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby orangetom1999 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:44 am

Be that as it may, supposedly there are at least far fewer deaths that result from violent crime in those places. Why? Because guns are much more easier to kill with than the other methods that they use. I could be wrong, I would like to be wrong, but this is what the anti-gun side claims. Since guns kill much more easily than other methods of killing, by removing them there will be far less deaths. Supposedly around the same time that Adam Lanza shot up the school there was a school stabbing in China where a madman with a knife went after children in school. Some of the children were hurt quite badly, some had to go to the hospital but at least they all lived since all he had was a knife since guns are practically impossible to get in China unless you use them in your job such as if you're in the Army. So that's why, the anti-gun side claims, that guns should be banned or severely restricted. There still will be violent crime but there will be far fewer deaths and the anti-gun side loves to use examples such as the school stabbing in China. Im not saying I agree with them, but those are the methods and claims of the anti-gun side.


None of this circumvents the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of the United States. When someone takes an oath to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States..it does not mean only the parts with which one agrees.

And the first ten amendments to the constitution were clearly a limit on government ...not on the people.

There is a religious concept back into history which I call a Talmud. What a Talmud is ..is a series of commentaries...a set of rules which allows one to get around the rules. You can break the rules..but you must follow the rules to break the rules.

The are also often called...rules...The Exclusionary Rule...this is how they get around Amendment One. The do not go to the Constitution ..they go to this new rule they have made up. The new rule allows you to newly interpret Amendment One to say something it never was intended to say.

Remember I stated that when you read them as a whole...the first ten amendments are clearly a limit on government..not on the people.

The Exclusionary Rule...which even the famous Fox News and Bill O riley like to quote as gospel allows for exactly the opposite of Amendment One...for the people to be limited in their ability to worship...and the government to be sovereign. A 180 degree turn about.

But you have to know this about "Limited Government." And it is no longer taught. We are to be like the world..to the worlds standards..which is limits on the people..not on the government.

You see??

There has to date...never been anything like the US Constitution among a major nation ..in this world.

And government and do gooders ..feel gooders have been trying to get around it since the founding of this country.

To get our guns they are going to come up with a rule...in similitude to the Exclusionary Rule...particularly under an Emergency ..and it will allow them to get around Amendment 2. Buckle up.

Nonetheless..the first ten amendments ..if one knows and has been taught...are all limits on government..not on the people.

Government shall not..
Shall make no law...
Shall not be infringed....
No soldier shall....
Shall not be violated...
No person shall...
Shall not be construed...
Shall not be required..
Nor shall any person be subject...

All limits on government.

Once you know this ..in particular about the first ten amendments...you can see government gaslighting by rules..by rules designed to break the rules.
You can see the media shilling for government by quoting what common sense says is not so...because they quote the rule..not the Constitution.

They were and still are limits on government...not on the people.

If anything ..heller verses DC and then later...McDonald vs Chicago affirmed that these were limits on government..not on the people.
But both Washington DC and Chicago put in rules to get around this ruling....to limit the people.

Watch what Chicago did in rule changing ..or Talmudic practice..rules to get around the rules..from Wiki..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller

In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional. The Chicago law required firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit, but also banned shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. The City had argued that applicants could obtain their training at gun ranges in the suburbs. The opinion noted that Chicago could not infringe Second Amendment rights on the grounds that they could be exercised elsewhere, any more than it could infringe the right to freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens could speak elsewhere.


Sneaky aren't they??? Rules to get around the rules. Does it look to the thinking public as if it is saving lives in Chicago today??? Even with all the rule bans on guns...Chicago is becoming legend in its people killing each other.

But this is a Northern city..a civilized city. Everyone knows this only happens among Southerners...who fly Confederate flags...
The important thing about Chicago..is that they are not racist when they kill each other off at staggering rates ...daily..weekly ..et al.
They can feel good about themselves. Detroit too.

I cant help it...because it really is ignorant what they are trying to do right in front of us.



Remember this because you are going to see this again and again..not just on Amendment 2 but in other arenas as well. Rules to get around the Rules.

Orangetom
orangetom1999
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:06 pm
Karma: 60

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby RockinB » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:02 am

Disarmed Americans. Shirking their duty of being armed to protect themselves, their family, their property, their community and their way of life wherever they may be. If one freely hands over the basic duties of defending these things to the State, what else will he hand over? His wife and daughter? A pathetic and cowardly act of demanding safety be provided by a real man (or woman) with a gun. They surely wouldn't call a doctor, dentist, teacher or political representative if someone were breaking down their door. The State justifies its existence with disarmed Americans and wishes to disarm everyone by doctrine. Disarmed Societies are much easier to Plunder.

Millions of Americans will never be disarmed so a ban on all guns would not end well for the State. Our founders were very intelligent men. They charted a collision with any rouge State long ago...
There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works.
User avatar
RockinB
 
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:19 pm
Location: Texas
Karma: 23

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Illini Warrior » Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:38 am

orangetom1999 wrote:
Be that as it may, supposedly there are at least far fewer deaths that result from violent crime in those places. Why? Because guns are much more easier to kill with than the other methods that they use. I could be wrong, I would like to be wrong, but this is what the anti-gun side claims. Since guns kill much more easily than other methods of killing, by removing them there will be far less deaths. Supposedly around the same time that Adam Lanza shot up the school there was a school stabbing in China where a madman with a knife went after children in school. Some of the children were hurt quite badly, some had to go to the hospital but at least they all lived since all he had was a knife since guns are practically impossible to get in China unless you use them in your job such as if you're in the Army. So that's why, the anti-gun side claims, that guns should be banned or severely restricted. There still will be violent crime but there will be far fewer deaths and the anti-gun side loves to use examples such as the school stabbing in China. Im not saying I agree with them, but those are the methods and claims of the anti-gun side.


None of this circumvents the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of the United States. When someone takes an oath to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States..it does not mean only the parts with which one agrees.

And the first ten amendments to the constitution were clearly a limit on government ...not on the people.

There is a religious concept back into history which I call a Talmud. What a Talmud is ..is a series of commentaries...a set of rules which allows one to get around the rules. You can break the rules..but you must follow the rules to break the rules.

The are also often called...rules...The Exclusionary Rule...this is how they get around Amendment One. The do not go to the Constitution ..they go to this new rule they have made up. The new rule allows you to newly interpret Amendment One to say something it never was intended to say.

Remember I stated that when you read them as a whole...the first ten amendments are clearly a limit on government..not on the people.

The Exclusionary Rule...which even the famous Fox News and Bill O riley like to quote as gospel allows for exactly the opposite of Amendment One...for the people to be limited in their ability to worship...and the government to be sovereign. A 180 degree turn about.

But you have to know this about "Limited Government." And it is no longer taught. We are to be like the world..to the worlds standards..which is limits on the people..not on the government.

You see??

There has to date...never been anything like the US Constitution among a major nation ..in this world.

And government and do gooders ..feel gooders have been trying to get around it since the founding of this country.

To get our guns they are going to come up with a rule...in similitude to the Exclusionary Rule...particularly under an Emergency ..and it will allow them to get around Amendment 2. Buckle up.

Nonetheless..the first ten amendments ..if one knows and has been taught...are all limits on government..not on the people.

Government shall not..
Shall make no law...
Shall not be infringed....
No soldier shall....
Shall not be violated...
No person shall...
Shall not be construed...
Shall not be required..
Nor shall any person be subject...

All limits on government.

Once you know this ..in particular about the first ten amendments...you can see government gaslighting by rules..by rules designed to break the rules.
You can see the media shilling for government by quoting what common sense says is not so...because they quote the rule..not the Constitution.

They were and still are limits on government...not on the people.

If anything ..heller verses DC and then later...McDonald vs Chicago affirmed that these were limits on government..not on the people.
But both Washington DC and Chicago put in rules to get around this ruling....to limit the people.

Watch what Chicago did in rule changing ..or Talmudic practice..rules to get around the rules..from Wiki..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller

In Ezell v. Chicago, decided July 6, 2011, the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision that the post-McDonald measures adopted by the City of Chicago were constitutional. The Chicago law required firearms training in a shooting range in order to obtain a gun permit, but also banned shooting ranges within the City of Chicago. The City had argued that applicants could obtain their training at gun ranges in the suburbs. The opinion noted that Chicago could not infringe Second Amendment rights on the grounds that they could be exercised elsewhere, any more than it could infringe the right to freedom of speech on the grounds that citizens could speak elsewhere.


Sneaky aren't they??? Rules to get around the rules. Does it look to the thinking public as if it is saving lives in Chicago today??? Even with all the rule bans on guns...Chicago is becoming legend in its people killing each other.

But this is a Northern city..a civilized city. Everyone knows this only happens among Southerners...who fly Confederate flags...
The important thing about Chicago..is that they are not racist when they kill each other off at staggering rates ...daily..weekly ..et al.
They can feel good about themselves. Detroit too.

I cant help it...because it really is ignorant what they are trying to do right in front of us.



Remember this because you are going to see this again and again..not just on Amendment 2 but in other arenas as well. Rules to get around the Rules.

Orangetom



your argument would have more teeth ....

Chicago and other "Northern cities" being civilized? .... it's the blacks killing each other .... it's the blacks committing most of the crime .... it's the blacks overcrowding the prisons ....

where did these civilized Northern blacks come from? .... vast majority migrated north during the 1940s to take war production jobs .... even after generations and generations - not that different than the barefoot southern black that came north .... there's hardly a single black living in the north that doesn't have family still living in the south ....

not even going to touch on where the entire problem originated ...
Illini Warrior
User avatar
Illini Warrior
 
Posts: 2291
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:40 pm
Karma: 49

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby AuntBee » Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:19 am

Photon Guy -- you won't "win if you make them look stupid." You're trying to use logic and data against a group whose response is based on emotional triggers. Anti-gun people have a knee jerk reaction, and a lot people just parrot what they hear. I don't think they even realize it.

The only tactic I can think of is to say, yes, there is a big problem here. In other words, get past that argument and move on. Don't keep chewing on past unending argumentsThese mass shootings and killing children are horrific. No one wants these mass shootings, or any criminal shooting. That would be crazy. Crazy is the issue we need to fix. If we agree n that, we have common ground annd can work on fixing the core problem first.

I think by agreeing there is a problem, we might be able to redirect their emotionsl response to another emotional minefield of mental illness. I might be dreaming, but I think the old slogans (Guns don'r kill people, people kill people) don't work. They only elicit the same emotional result and we're back to square one.

Aunt Befuddled
AuntBee
New York Preppers Network
New York Preppers Network
 
Posts: 4319
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 12:01 pm
Location: Dilligaf, NY
Karma: 223

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby terrapin » Thu Oct 15, 2015 10:44 am

AuntBee wrote:Photon Guy -- you won't "win if you make them look stupid." You're trying to use logic and data against a group whose response is based on emotional triggers. Anti-gun people have a knee jerk reaction, and a lot people just parrot what they hear. I don't think they even realize it.

The only tactic I can think of is to say, yes, there is a big problem here. In other words, get past that argument and move on. Don't keep chewing on past unending argumentsThese mass shootings and killing children are horrific. No one wants these mass shootings, or any criminal shooting. That would be crazy. Crazy is the issue we need to fix. If we agree n that, we have common ground annd can work on fixing the core problem first.

I think by agreeing there is a problem, we might be able to redirect their emotionsl response to another emotional minefield of mental illness. I might be dreaming, but I think the old slogans (Guns don'r kill people, people kill people) don't work. They only elicit the same emotional result and we're back to square one.

Aunt Befuddled
:thumbup:
User avatar
terrapin
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:42 am
Location: Texas; West of Ft. Worth, North of Abilene
Karma: 55

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Lance » Thu Oct 15, 2015 8:13 pm

Best 7 minutes on gun control I have ever seen!


https://youtu.be/B5ELyG9V1SY



.
Make America Great Again........!!!
User avatar
Lance
 
Posts: 663
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:20 pm
Karma: 23

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Photon Guy » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:13 pm

Well I found another article that pushes for more gun control. These are some of the strategies that the anti-gun side uses so I will post the link so we can see where they're coming from.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/17787-ho ... s-debunked
Photon Guy
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:53 am
Karma: 5

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby blue fox » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:26 pm

This has been an interesting read Photonguy , you have put forth a logical, reasonable discussion. The biggest thing to remember here is that we can NOT get as emotional as the gun control whack a doodles. We have to remain clam a collected even as we continue to besiege them with facts. Eventually some will (maybe) begin to see the logic from our side. We cannot just walk away from such discussions. We must engage and do our best to make others understand what we know as fact.
blue fox
Kansas Preppers Network
Kansas Preppers Network
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:38 pm
Karma: 1

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Photon Guy » Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:57 pm

blue fox wrote:This has been an interesting read Photonguy , you have put forth a logical, reasonable discussion. The biggest thing to remember here is that we can NOT get as emotional as the gun control whack a doodles. We have to remain clam a collected even as we continue to besiege them with facts. Eventually some will (maybe) begin to see the logic from our side. We cannot just walk away from such discussions. We must engage and do our best to make others understand what we know as fact.


We do need some emotion, as long as that emotion is kept in control. Its when people let their emotions control them and not the other way around that they make themselves look like complete dingbats which you see all too often with the anti gun side. Logic is important but it does have its limits. You really do need both.
Photon Guy
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:53 am
Karma: 5

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby blue fox » Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:52 pm

Photon Guy wrote:
blue fox wrote:This has been an interesting read Photonguy , you have put forth a logical, reasonable discussion. The biggest thing to remember here is that we can NOT get as emotional as the gun control whack a doodles. We have to remain clam a collected even as we continue to besiege them with facts. Eventually some will (maybe) begin to see the logic from our side. We cannot just walk away from such discussions. We must engage and do our best to make others understand what we know as fact.


We do need some emotion, as long as that emotion is kept in control. Its when people let their emotions control them and not the other way around that they make themselves look like complete dingbats which you see all too often with the anti gun side. Logic is important but it does have its limits. You really do need both.


I agree. You put that a little clearer than I did I guess.
blue fox
Kansas Preppers Network
Kansas Preppers Network
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:38 pm
Karma: 1

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Photon Guy » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:00 am

Well with the anti-gun side, if all they have is emotion, they aren't going to get anywhere. Lots of the people on the anti-gun side they don't want to learn about guns, they say you shouldn't have knowledge on guns, the different types of guns, how they work, they say you shouldn't know anything about guns except that they're used for killing and that they're bad and consequently, that's usually all they know about guns, or not much more because they don't want to know anything more. But really, they're just hurting their own cause by doing that. To make an argument of any sort, the first thing you need is information, you've got to know all about what you're arguing whether you're for something or against it. Whether your for or against guns you've got to know all about the different types of guns, you've got to have detailed information on how they work and so forth. That is crucial whether you're going to argue for guns or against them. When the anti-gun crowd rants and raves about how we should have more controls on guns and yet they don't know much about guns themselves, they just make themselves look like idiots and they don't get anywhere. Diana DeGette made a speech on the ban of high capacity magazines and made an absolute fool out of herself when she thought that magazines are disposable and that you can't reload them.

"What's the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you these are ammunition, they're bullets, so the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them. And so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available" - Diana DeGette
Photon Guy
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:53 am
Karma: 5

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby DVC JACK » Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:01 am

RubyAbigail wrote:I am in the middle ground of this. I do own guns, but I don't want to carry them around where ever I go. I also think that there needs some type of restrictions in place to keep people safe. I am not worried about the people here in this forum shooting places up, but there are a whole lot of other people who might.

I worry about people who have mental health issues that do not have the money or access to proper care snapping and because of the 24 hour news cycle they have a reason to go down shooting and live in infamy.

There are people who might have access to good healthcare, but choose not to use it because of people who like to name call and put down other people because they do not fit the proper mold.

I find some of your arguments legit and reasonable, but I have to say that every time I read a person calling President Obama a rude name, my respect dwindles for you and your arguments. If you can not be respectful of the Office of President, I find it difficult that you would be respectful of anybody else, and therefore I can choose to ignore your arguments for different arguments.

That being said, I am not for a total ban of guns. I believe guns have their place, but I do think that you have to respectful of the people who are scared of them. You need to be an example of a good guy owning guns, not as a self righteous gun nut.

Ruby Abigail
And you plainly just need to shuttup. :p And who called that lousy America hating closet muslim embarrassment socialistic tyrannic ninkapoop in our WH a rude name?
DVC JACK
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:33 pm
Karma: 0

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby 295linda » Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:20 pm

Remember your American history about Prohibition? A ban on personal firearms would work just as well in this country as a ban on liquor did. We really don't need to create yet another source of revenue for criminal gangs who would be very willing to sell banded guns at high prices. Government can not make the majority population do anything that population does not want to do -- but a government can try to enforce an unpopular order and in the process turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into outlaws and rebels. It didn't take a large segment of the population to get rid of a tyrannical government in the 1770s -- U.S. politicians would do well to remember this.
295linda
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:49 pm
Karma: 19

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Photon Guy » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:03 pm

295linda wrote:Remember your American history about Prohibition? A ban on personal firearms would work just as well in this country as a ban on liquor did. We really don't need to create yet another source of revenue for criminal gangs who would be very willing to sell banded guns at high prices. Government can not make the majority population do anything that population does not want to do -- but a government can try to enforce an unpopular order and in the process turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into outlaws and rebels. It didn't take a large segment of the population to get rid of a tyrannical government in the 1770s -- U.S. politicians would do well to remember this.


The thing is, alcohol is much easier to produce. All you need is the proper tools and ingredients to ferment your own batch which isn't hard to come by. Guns, aside from zip guns, can't be produced as easily. To make a good gun you need factory machinery which most people don't have. That is what the anti gun crowd likes to say, that since guns are harder to produce than alcohol or most drugs that prohibition and the war on drugs is not a good analogy.
Photon Guy
 
Posts: 1419
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:53 am
Karma: 5

PreviousNext

Return to Guns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for the APN Email Newsletter - Enter your e-mail address below


  Links and Resources
  -Links
  -Podcasts
  -Free Ebooks



Trusted Sponsors












Copyright
For Notices of Copyright infringement and to contact our DMCA Agent please follow the link below:
Copyright Policy

For terms of use, rules, and policies please read our Disclaimer