Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums
Sign in to follow this  
WestHardinfan1

💥 Battle over the Second Amendment

Firearms Poll  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support Universal Background Checks for all gun sales and transfers?

  2. 2. Do you support expanded screening for prohibited buyers to include persons with violent mental health history?

  3. 3. Do you support reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban?



Recommended Posts

Does that make Obama responsible for the killings in Orlando?

No... But if you use liberal logic, then yes. But that doesn't fit their agenda since it was Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... I'm pro 2nd amendment. It's an American citizens right to own fire arms to protect them selves and for recreational purposes. I want everyone's views and reasoning as to why. I want to hear more than just the second amendment and the "shall not be infringed" argument. I want to hear reasons as to why there should or should not be stricter gun control laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok... I'm pro 2nd amendment. It's an American citizens right to own fire arms to protect them selves and for recreational purposes. I want everyone's views and reasoning as to why. I want to hear more than just the second amendment and the "shall not be infringed" argument. I want to hear reasons as to why there should or should not be stricter gun control laws.

I, for one am Sick & Tired of politicians & others saying that a person does not "Need" an automatic weapon for hunting or target practice! What I "Need" is for Them to shut the hell up; Guns sre not just for those purposes, & they are doing nothing more that attempting to completely disarm the citizens...When THAT happens, Game OVER.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED you don’t want to hear about shuts down the entire debate...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one am Sick & Tired of politicians & others saying that a person does not "Need" an automatic weapon for hunting or target practice! What I "Need" is for Them to shut the hell up; Guns sre not just for those purposes, & they are doing nothing more that attempting to completely disarm the citizens...When THAT happens, Game OVER.

Unfortunately the people that have brought hunting and recreational use of guns into the conversation have been able to shift most of the public' view of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment had absolutely nothing to do with owning a firearm for hunting anymore than it had to do with recreational shooting. In the 1700s a firearm was a tool and hunting was a necessity of life for most of the country. It was specifically written into the constitution to make sure that the government was never able to disarm the populace. It was as much a check and balance for the government as the three branches of government were except it was a check and balance for the people against the entirety of the government

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED you dont want to hear about shuts down the entire debate...........

I'm aware of that. I'm very pro gun. There has to be more to your argument than just that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one am Sick & Tired of politicians & others saying that a person does not "Need" an automatic weapon for hunting or target practice! What I "Need" is for Them to shut the hell up; Guns sre not just for those purposes, & they are doing nothing more that attempting to completely disarm the citizens...When THAT happens, Game OVER.

I don't feel we need automatic weapons but if we let them take away the class 3 license then they'll come for the rest of our guns so they can #### it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel we need automatic weapons but if we let them take away the class 3 license then they'll come for the rest of our guns so they can #### it up.

 

Suppose we have to face down a tyrannical government? I want all the firepower I can get ...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Suppose we have to face down a tyrannical government? I want all the firepower I can get ...

Which is another reason I feel it should stay untouched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

??????....what's all the fuss over Gun Control?????....I THOUGHT GUN CONTROL.....was a nice 3 inch "cluster" pattern with my 45 at 30 yds!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

 

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons gun violence

3% are accidental discharge deaths

 

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

 

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

 

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

 

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

 

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

 

But what about other deaths each year?

40,000+ die from a drug overdoseTHERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths

34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

 

Now it gets good:

200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

 

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Its time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

 

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:

Taking away guns gives control to governments.

 

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

 

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

 

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

 

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

**** SOURCE: FBI .gov on gun stats. Numerous sources on the other things such as cardiac arrest, etc., easy google searches. Then simply do the math in percentages

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of that. I'm very pro gun. There has to be more to your argument than just that though.

Thats all I need........nothing else is relevant........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

 

65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons gun violence

3% are accidental discharge deaths

 

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

 

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

 

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

 

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

 

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

 

But what about other deaths each year?

40,000+ die from a drug overdoseTHERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths

34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

 

Now it gets good:

200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

 

710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Its time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

 

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:

Taking away guns gives control to governments.

 

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

 

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

 

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

 

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is control," not gun."

**** SOURCE: FBI .gov on gun stats. Numerous sources on the other things such as cardiac arrest, etc., easy google searches. Then simply do the math in percentages

Good post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED you dont want to hear about shuts down the entire debate...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CENTEXFAN said:

I agree. Gun-free school zones need to be a thing of the past. Make government grants available for school districts to hire military vets as campus security. That’s about the best use of federal tax dollars in public education I can think of. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, trueblue82 said:

I agree. Gun-free school zones need to be a thing of the past. Make government grants available for school districts to hire military vets as campus security. That’s about the best use of federal tax dollars in public education I can think of. 

I wouldn't put another person on the pay roll.  I would let qualified teacher conceal carry.  Know one needs to know who carries and who doesn't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CENTEXFAN said:

I wouldn't put another person on the pay roll.  I would let qualified teacher conceal carry.  Know one needs to know who carries and who doesn't.

Some ISDs in Texas are already doing this. I know of at least three. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, trueblue82 said:

Some ISDs in Texas are already doing this. I know of at least three. 

Churches too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...