when it appears few other citizens of developed countries, are?
Many of those on the right verbalize a fear of Nazi Germany being replicated here, or our government taking away all our rights and freedoms if gun ownership is in any way made more restrictive. Why aren't those fears expressed by citizens of developed countries that have much more restrictive gun laws? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/Why does our government want to give people their basic human rights back, in exchange for taking back rights that Americans are granted under the constitution?ese
I'll answer part of your question from my point of view.
Those other developed countries never had the right to bear arms. You can't take away, what you never had.
"Those other developed countries never had the right to bear arms. You can't take away, what you never had."
Those other developed countries had the right to bear arms?
Australia is not an exceptable answer.
constitute evidence of: "Those other developed countries never had the right to bear arms. You can't take away, what you never had." Remember, you said: "never had the right to bear arms." Never is a long long time.
Never would be the point where those countries became developed, and had some kind of constitution or what have you.
What we call America today didn't exist until 1776.
Russia- lenin 1919- stalin after
Germany- nazi party 1930-45
England- governmental votes started with the first restrictions in the 50's
Australia- 1990's after a mass
Many parts of europe since 1910 have enacted firearm restrictions. Better, safer is debateable.
No one is mandating Amendment 2 be exchanged if that's what you're teaching your constitutional law class. No proposed bill is foreclosing Heller. And on planet earth in the real world, nothing meaningful is going to be passed by Congress.
The Conneticut law that is passing doesn't foreclose Amendment 2 or Heller so clue us in Big V
You wouldn't understand, as you have a deficencie of gray matter between your ears.
Maybe I should of said the illusion of---
You do understand the same is true about abortion rights?
Just at background checks? Do you include provisions to prosecute firearms offenders and follow through with it? If you have laws now that in 50+% of cases arent enforced why ask for more?
Background checks for all purchases should be done as well as a mental health list, if you are getting drugs for ADHD, depression and anxiety disorders maybe you shouldnt be buying guns and ammo.
In 2010 there were 88,000 rejected federal purchase applications. 89 were prosecuted and 44 ended up in convictions. In many cases these rejections were crimes (felonies in many cases) and should have been prosecuted. Explain why they werent? Than ask again for a law abiding citizen to have their constitutionally protected rights limitted and more laws put on the books.
Mafia turncoat, Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, expressed his love for gun control in an interview with Vanity Fair: "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun."
-- Modified on 4/5/2013 4:04:25 PM
Russia and mexico both have very restrictive gun laws and much higher murder rates than the US. Australian women are 3 times as likely to be raped as American women and they have no firearms. You cant say because a country has a low firearms murder rate they are safer than the US. It makes sense that a counrty with restrictive firearms laws would have a low firearm murder rate. It doesnt mean it has a low overall murder rate or a low rate for violent crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Russia and mexico both have very restrictive gun laws and much higher murder rates than the US. Australian women are 3 times as likely to be raped as American women and they have no firearms. You cant say because a country has a low firearms murder rate they are safer than the US. It makes sense that a counrty with restrictive firearms laws would have a low firearm murder rate. It doesnt mean it has a low overall murder rate or a low rate for violent crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
using the technical term "gray matter." You're sharp as ever.
You also are schitzing around tangentially to abortion, guns, and rape making a nexus of zero among them.
First thing you should do is actually reply to me.
I should have asked, why do people have to fight for equal rights from the government of a free country? Especially when these rights are the most basic in human nature, and should have never been taken away.
Then when the climate is right for people to be granted these most basic of civil rights, government gives the impression, that they want to limit the American people's constitutional rights?
Like I said, this gives the illusion of trading one group of peoples rights, for the others.
even come close to addressing it!
And, really??? "Australian women are 3 times as likely to be raped as American women and they have no firearms."
See linked article!
Simply doing math based on UN stats for rape in australia and the US. 19000 plus in australia in 2009 and 89,000 in the US.
That's not true! Read the article that I attached to my post!
you can get a permit for a rimfire rifle and double barrel shotgun with reason. You cant get a firearm for self defense, something that the supreme court has upheld in the US, you cant get a semi auto rifle with out a very specific reason, cant own a handgun (some thing the supreme court has ruled is protected too) pretty much and their gun stats bear that out. They have 5% firearms ownership, the US is conservatively estimated at 36% today. Australias firearms ownership rate before 96 was at about 7.5%. To think that their policies are going to work or be effective here is really rather nieve.
Why do you think I am afraid of my government? Many feel the need for self protection that is immaterial to our governmental concerns. Many live more than 20 minutes from police stations, many are concerned by shorter and shorter prison sentences for violent offenders and the fact that 66% reoffend in less than 3 years. Many believe the second amendment meant more than just a gun to deer hunt. Maybe many of the laws they were originally proposing effectively made many semi auto handguns illegal until manufactures make clip that hold 7 rounds.
Hope this helps. Me myself I dont believe the numbers make sense to take away my rights. I have the right to vote and write my politicians on this.
But, Huckabee, the NRA and others seem to claim that you and I should be. That was what my question was about, and why is it citizens of other developed nations don't seem to be as concerned about totalitarianism originating from their own governments, as what Huckabee, Hannity, Limbaugh, and others from the far right think we should be. You seems to want to change my question to be about crime. Why? How about staying on topic?!?
Ok their thought process is rather convoluted. They want to stir up anything to try to win the whitehouse.
That said its rather ironic that it could be argued that we have had more rights and personal freedoms since 9/11 than in the previous 225 yrs. The patriot act was pretty all encompassing, there are more federal agents on US soil than ever before, they are spending more on arming said agents than ever before, buying ammo at rates that really dont make sense unless they are stockpiling for 10yrs, saying that drones might be used against US citizens on US soil without due process. There were promises of a more transparent whitehouse in the future and many in liberal media say its actually gotten worse. I've tried to answer your question a few times. Not sure waht else I can do.
about how much tax you pay, because a good portion of it is for incarcerating those who have committed crimes. And, the one of the NRA's justifications for no gun restrictions is that it's suppose to reduce crime; particularly violent crime. It seems we would want to look around to world and see if that theory holds true, if we want to reduce our tax burden for prisons and jails.
Perosnally I believe we dont pay enough taxes now and are mortgaging our childrens futures to enrich a few and allow some who have never worked or dont want to work to live comfortably.
Our prision system is as broken as anything else, but to use the cost as an excuse to release violent offenders early is a joke. The way crimes are sentenced and what they are sentenced to needs to be reevaluated. A man arested with 3oz of drugs and no firearm maybe should recieve treatment, regular drug testing and a suspended sentence. Add a firearm to the equation and maybe he should have the 7yr federal statute actually applied and prosecuted. It isn't prosecuted more often than it is right now.
Passing laws to protect us and not prosecuting them because we choose not to is a joke.
Gun stats from around the world dont and cant translate to us. Its a proven fact. Switzerland has the second highest gun ownership rate per capitia in the world but their firearms murder stats are lower than all neighboring nations with full gun bans.
Violent crime comes from an uneducated populance and socio-economics. Its a proven fact. Tie firearms purchases to having a high school diploma and you'd see gun crimes drop. Parents being responsible and teaching their children about firearms, firearms safety should be required if you want to buy a gun. Maybe firearms should be covered in school at a young age if you want to keep accidental shootings from happening, pretending that they dont exist or children will never see them is wrong.
The military and LE worst nightmare is to go door to door asking for firearms. The 2nd amendment is well ingrained and trying to change it will be very hard. Even if you believe 1-1000 will die protecting it and thats a very realistic number its not worth the cost is it? Thats not even considering the fact that many in the military and some in LE feel the same way.