just to make sure Im getting everything right . . . .Originally Posted by Fresh
you are saying that i should not be allowed to own guns because im willing to die or kill to protect my Constitutional right to own them?
just to make sure Im getting everything right . . . .
you are saying that i should not be allowed to own guns because im willing to die or kill to protect my Constitutional right to own them?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
An armed man is a citizen,
An unarmed man is a victim.
Let's delve further into this before I answer that.
What if certain types of guns became illegal and you were still allowed to keep half of the guns you own. How would that make you feel if they came only for the guns that had been deemed illegal?
I am saying that i am not willing to compromise. Someone will have to try to forcibly take any fire arm i own.
I do not own assault rifles or any automatic rifles. They should never be deemed illegal.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
An armed man is a citizen,
An unarmed man is a victim.
Then my answer is yes. You're willing to take a persons life over an inanimate object and words written on a piece of paper.
How do you think slave owners felt when that amendment was altered? I'm sure some of them fought to the death as well. you're an extremist.
yet. . . its o.k. for someone to try to take my life because im not willing to hand over a gun?
slavery was never written into the constitution lol the constitution abolished slavery and gave people rights lolHow do you think slave owners felt when that amendment was altered? I'm sure some of them fought to the death as well. you're an extremist.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
An armed man is a citizen,
An unarmed man is a victim.
lmao I actually clicked on the link and guess what it says
funny shit you proved my point lolSummary of eRumor:
Crime rates in Australia have shot up since a gun ban took effect there in the 1990s.
The Truth:
Claims that Australia’s gun ban caused crime rates to shoot up don’t check out.
Australia rolled out strict gun laws in 1996. Ever since, Australia’s crime rates have been used to argue points on both sides of the gun control debate. Some believe Australia’s crime rates have gone up, others believe they’ve gone down.
An email that was supposedly written by an Australian police officer named Ed Chenel cites crime statistics in Australia after stricter gun laws were approved there.
The email, which first went viral in 2011, still pops up in many inboxes. We took a look at a number of its specific claims about crime in Australia and found them to be mostly false.
First, let’s look at Australia’s gun laws.
Before 1996, the states and territories that make up Australia each set their own gun laws. After what became known as the “Port Arthur Massacre” in which a gunman killed 35 people and injured 18 others with a semi-automatic rifle, state and federal governments teamed up on gun reform, according to the Library of Congress:
In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.
The National Firearms Agreement also implemented a gun buyback program that led to 700,000 weapons being voluntarily surrendered. These stats can be difficult to fact check because they say specific crime rates are up by a certain percentage — but they don’t say over what period. We took a look at how the crime rates have changed since the gun laws took effect using the most recent data we could find.
Homicides Are Up 3.2%-Fiction!
The number of homicides in Australia has been trending downward since 2001. The Australian Institute of Criminology reports that the homicide rate decreased from 1.8 homicides per 100,000 people in 2002 to 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people in 2012 (the most recent year stats were available). One in 10 homicides in Australia during that time involved a gun.
Assaults Are Up 8.6%-Fiction! & Misleading!
The number of assaults in Australia has actually increased more than 8.6% since the 1990s. In 1996, there were 789 assaults, and by 2010 there were 972. Over that time, the number of assaults jumped about 19%, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology.
Armed Robberies Are Up 45%-Fiction!
The number of armed robberies in Australia began to increase in the 1990s and peaked in 2001. Forty armed robberies were recorded per 100,000 people that year. Since then, the number of armed robberies in the country has trended downward. There were 5,628 armed robberies in the country in 2013, a 9.6% decrease from the year before.
Gun Deaths have climbed 300% in Victoria-Unproven!
We weren’t able to find recent statistics on the number of gun deaths in Victoria.
However, we do know that the number of gun deaths decreased from 4.2 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 1979 to 1.5 per 100,000 people in 2000, the British Medical Journal reports.
The Victoria Police also reported that the number of overall homicides in the city decreased by 11.8% from 2013 to 2014.
You think it's okay to take someone elses life for doing their job. Other countries with stricter gun laws have shown that stricter gun laws prevent deaths. And you say it raises crimes but you know what I'd rather be a victim of a crime than be dead lol.
"Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. - Source: www.usconstitution.netslavery was never written into the constitution lol the constitution abolished slavery and gave people rights lol
ah lol
well, it was my intention to post another link because it was going to compare to both sides, but apparently the full intended post never made it haha. regardless, im sure at this point that any article or raw numbers i post will be written off by you as right wing propaganda
it is every Americans responsibility to fight against threats foreign or domestic. To infringe on any amendment is unconstitutional, and therefore, unlawful. If someone tries to unlawfully take my property, then i am afforded the right as an American to defend myself, my property.
and im not a pussy. So honestly, im not o.k. with allowing myself to be a victim lmao. the fuck kind of shit is that lmao. . .
the word slavery is not in the constitution. you just wont find it there. this really just looks like someone trying to interpret 'other persons' as slaves. . when in it more then likely refers to people who are simply not naturalized"Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. - Source: www.usconstitution.net
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
An armed man is a citizen,
An unarmed man is a victim.
I think you misunderstand the definition of amendment.
a·mend·ment
əˈmen(d)mənt/
noun
noun: amendment; plural noun: amendments
a minor change in a document.
a change or addition to a legal or statutory document.
"an amendment to existing bail laws"
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is pretty damn final to me.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
An armed man is a citizen,
An unarmed man is a victim.
yeah that is the amendment right now, but the amendment can change lol.
and if they do it will start a civil war.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
An armed man is a citizen,
An unarmed man is a victim.
so maybe you should start a petition to have them changed from amendment to a keeper lmao
Don't you change that thing that's synonymous with change!!! lmao wow
That amendment was created in 1791, when the guns were much different. You can all get saome muskets and keep your second amendment.
you do realize thats the first counter argument that gets ripped to shreds in every gun control debate right?
- - - Updated - - -
sure. Lets change an amendment that the MAJORITY of Americans are for
makes sense
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 50 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
An armed man is a citizen,
An unarmed man is a victim.
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote