Our rates have not dropped nearly as much as Australia's and Europe's rates are less than half ours. Europe's rates have been a lot less than ours because they've had gun control a lot longer than we have.
Our amendment pertains to controlling slaves. No amount of gun ownership is going to overwhelm our government's ability to direct our military and law enforcement against any insurrection.
The ammendment says nothing about slaves. But it does give the descendants of slaves the same rights as the rest of us.
I've got my own credible source. Didn't look at yours because of my respected source and yours doesn't make sense. I've also got many more highly credible sources. I think we're going round and round and getting nowhere.
I've not seen your source. I've shared my sources many times, as they are the governments official numbers for each respective country. Yeah. If you insist that strict gun control should be enacted yet can't supply actual evidence of gun control cutting violent crime or murder rates then we'll just go round and round. I've never seen any evidence of gun control which actually did that. Hence strict gun control is just an unnecessary and expensive restriction on our constitutional rights.
I'd have to dig up my sources and that's just not worth my time. I'm sick and tired of how many times this has gone back and forth and back and forth. And I already shared one of my sources. Now I'd like to skip to something productive since you are absolutely are not going to change your mind no matter what and I'm sure as hell not going to change mine no matter what. Let's drop it, okay?
If you aren't interested in the conversation I would suggest not wading into it in the first place. Otherwise it appears you're questioning the validity of my sources and or my motivation for my statements. That you refuse to share sources makes me question your motives and sources. I point this out because it is very typical of the "anti gun" people to do what you just have without being able to support the idea that gun control is a net positive. So it just comes off as more political left vs right BS. Which is frustrating. I don't think asking people to support why they feel every American should have their rights restricted is asking too much. I don't mean to offend you, but it is disappointing... And again, it's not just you who does it.
This is a mere blip in an ocean of good will. Also, i rewpond positively to whatever posts I agree with no matter who they come from. And before anyone asks it, yes, even Maris. You? I like about 99.999 . . .% of your posts.
Gotta love that 2nd amendment because you just never know when we the people will have to fend off the US military
Understood. I'm simply saying this happens often in this particular conversation and it doesn't reflect well on the "pro gun control" perspective. We should be careful not to make the same mistakes as those whose blindly followed manufactured political rhetoric into things like January 6th.
It's not just the US military. And, see Vietnam and Afghanistan regarding fending off the US military.
The U.S. is nothing like Vietnam or Afghanistan. It is more like the United Kingdom, Canada or Australia, at least since the Civil war of over 170 years ago.
The civilians in the US are far better armed than the UK, Canada, or Australia. And we'd have a large portion of the US military and police on our side. And we live with their families. It would be far harder for the US to defeat it's citizens than it would have been to defeat Afghanistan or Vietnam. We could have just carpet bombed those countries with very low US casualties. That's not an option in the US.
The ONLY way citizens in this country would ever remotely come close to going to war versus their own govt would be if gun owners decided to overthrow democrats. That’s it. So it works out really well. You think liberals are gonna band together to overtake republicans? There is 0 chance. But the lunatics on the right are literally talking and thinking about it as I write.
Everyone of my old hunting buddies are liberal democrats and they are all pro 2nd. There are plenty of independent and dems that are pro second. We all favor gun control laws that keep firearms away from wackos.
Yeah, I don't think that's likely. But I also don't think the "citizens with small arms wouldn't stand a chance against the US military" holds water. No, if the US military wanted to glass it's own country it could easily win. Short of that, the population would outlast the US military. However, Trump having a successful coup on January 6th would have severely shaken my confidence that the US military wouldn't attack civilians in some scenerio. And that a significant portion of the military would be willing to break away to defend those civilians. And in that scenerio it would be nice if many of the civilians were comfortable with firearms. Still, not highly likely, but devastating if it did happen. More likely is that our government loses the ability or motivation to defend us and we end up having to defend ourselves. Like has happened in much of Portland, and many other places in the country, where police can take hours to arrive, and that's assuming they do actually show up.
First step in a party trying to overthrow the other is limiting free speech. Second is to disarm them. Which party has been trying to do what?
