Bullet makers can't keep up with demand

[Ahura Mazda]

The 2nd Amendment is EXTREMELY relevant today. The Founders didn't include the 2nd Amendment JUST for hunters back then, they believed that all rights belong to the Individual and the Government is a Representation of the Individual. If the Government has the right to Protect the Nation, those rights are derived from the People. Government has no rights the People do not give them. You have a right to protect yourself, just like the Government has powers to Protect the Nation.

Why can't or shouldn't people be able to arm themselves against Murderers, Muggers, and Rapists?

EDIT: And Zombies?

I was not referring to hunters back then but to hunters now.

Back then, the right of the individually was heavily infringed upon by the colonial governments. That amendment was in answer to that 'tyranny'.

Today, making guns easy does not make people safer. It actually increases the risk of death by gunshot. In a lawful nation, there should be no need to carry a gun. You seem to be indicating by your post that in the US you are never safe and not protected by the agents of law enforcement. I would then suggest something has to be done to create more safety rather then addfing on to the danger by allowing every person to go buy a gun.

 

[SuBe]

The Supreme Court Ruled that it is not the Job of a Police Officer to protect the Lives, but enforce the Laws. A Police Officer has no duty to jump infront of a bullet to protect someone, but to make sure that the person who caused the harm is apprehended. It is no one's duty to protect themselves other than the individual.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I was not referring to hunters back then but to hunters now.

Back then, the right of the individually was heavily infringed upon by the colonial governments. That amendment was in answer to that 'tyranny'.

Today, making guns easy does not make people safer. It actually increases the risk of death by gunshot.

Prove your statements.

In a lawful nation, there should be no need to carry a gun. You seem to be indicating by your post that in the US you are never safe and not protected by the agents of law enforcement. I would then suggest something has to be done to create more safety rather then addfing on to the danger by allowing every person to go buy a gun.

There's no such thing as a "lawful" nation which would be a nation where everyone follows all of the laws. And there is a limit to the amount of protection and safety law enforcement can provide before it becomes a militant state.

I support second amendment because historically removal of gun ownership rights is a step towards fascist tyranny. As long as Americans are armed and the government knows that I feel that the threat of tyranny is abated. It's not so much about preventing violent crimes as it it is about preventing tyranny.

 

[Majic Walrus]

The Supreme Court Ruled that it is not the Job of a Police Officer to protect the Lives, but enforce the Laws. A Police Officer has no duty to jump infront of a bullet to protect someone, but to make sure that the person who caused the harm is apprehended. It is no one's duty to protect themselves other than the individual.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Pie fights don't break out unless there are pies in the room.

 

[SuBe]

Pies don't throw themselves, people throw pies.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Idiots shouldn't have access to pies. Pies are everywhere.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Pie fights don't break out unless there are pies in the room.

People don't drown when there's no water. I vote we ban pies, guns, and water.

 

[Franklin Richards]

It's alot harder for someone to drown a person than to throw a pie at someone.

 

[NotAHenchwench]

People don't drown when there's no water. I vote we ban pies, guns, and water.

Way to take all the fun outta life.

 

[Suirou]

I see someone was alseep during Indy and the Crystal Skull.

I rest my case.

*SLAPS!*
OBJECTION!, I say!

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=3280181

 

[Majic Walrus]

It's alot harder for someone to drown a person than to throw a pie at someone.

Pfft. You must not leave near a body of water.

Way to take all the fun outta life.

It's called safety and security! You'll be safe from everything at home in your olive drab jumpsuit smoking your liberty cigarettes and drinking your liberty gin!

 

[NotAHenchwench]

It's called safety and security! You'll be safe from everything at home in your olive drab jumpsuit smoking your liberty cigarettes and drinking your liberty gin!

D: What an awful excuse for an existence...

 

[chaseter]

My dad possibly saved his life and his property when he was jumped by some men at his construction site after hours. He had some trouble of people stealing his equipment so he went to check on it one night and some guys jumped him in his truck and told him to get out. He pulled out his hand gun he keeps in his truck because of **** like that and voila.

Guns aren't dangerous, people are dangerous. However, I do agree that civilians should not be able to buy military grade equipment like assault rifles. Having a hand gun or a couple of hunting rifles is a lot different than owning a closet full of AK's and SMG's

 

[Majic Walrus]

D: What an awful excuse for an existence...

I agree.

Vote Libertarian or this could be your life.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Pfft. You must not leave near a body of water.

Drowning someone is alot harder than pressing a button.

 

[SuBe]

Pfft. You must not leave near a body of water.



It's called safety and security! You'll be safe from everything at home in your olive drab jumpsuit smoking your liberty cigarettes and drinking your liberty gin!

MW, I have a book for you to read:
The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism


You might like it.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Check out

My Life With Bonnie & Clyde


I know you'll like it.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

Prove your statements.

I will not be able to completely prove my statement but certain statistics on gun shot deaths (I cannot verify the source as they come from a Micheal Moore movie and I find he is a very big hypocrite) from 2002 cite the following numbers:


Germany - 381 (0.000% of the population)

France - 255 (0.000% of the population)

Canada - 165 (0.001% of the population)

United Kingdom - 68 (0.000% of the population)

Australia - 65 (0.000% of the population)

Japan - 39 (0.000% of the population)

United States - 11,127 (0.004% of the population)


This seems to me that if the above is true there must be a correlation between gun ownership rights and gun deaths.

There's no such thing as a "lawful" nation which would be a nation where everyone follows all of the laws. And there is a limit to the amount of protection and safety law enforcement can provide before it becomes a militant state.

I support second amendment because historically removal of gun ownership rights is a step towards fascist tyranny. As long as Americans are armed and the government knows that I feel that the threat of tyranny is abated. It's not so much about preventing violent crimes as it it is about preventing tyranny.

There is no nation where everybody will be absolutely lawful and you do have a point regarding a militant state but making it extremely difficult to obtan firearms would limit the amount of firearms out there. This would still not eliminate gun shot deaths. I am not suggesting all firearms should be disallowed. I lived in a household with more then one rifle for a long time and my stepfather was an avid hunter. However, I do not see what the need is for certain firearms to be sold commercially (machine guns for one).

Now, regarding your statement about fascist tyranny, do you really think if the government was to truly attack people that the guns people own would stop that. Do you think the US armed forces and all their military equipment be put in danger by individuals who hold guns? I do not believe that and therefore find that point idealistic.

 

[Franklin Richards]

It really helped the Branch Davidians.

 

[chaseter]

Ahura, I don't think that correctly correlates between country and crime rates. The US is a border country with Mexico and we have a lot of drug wars going on around border towns. We also have a lot of gang violence. If private citizens could not carry guns, those drug runners and the gang members are still going to get weapons anyways.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

*slaps!*
objection!, i say!

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=3280181

no u!!

 

[ChickenScratch]

I've got guns and never killed anyone. Desert Eagle and a Glock, thinking of getting an H&K soon. Some sort of sub-machine gun.

My mom always says "Pity on the guy who tries to break into your house."

 

[Majic Walrus]

MW, I have a book for you to read:
The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism


You might like it.

...Winston, is that you?

 

[Majic Walrus]

I will not be able to completely prove my statement but certain statistics on gun shot deaths (I cannot verify the source as they come from a Micheal Moore movie and I find he is a very big hypocrite) from 2002 cite the following numbers:


Germany - 381 (0.000% of the population)

France - 255 (0.000% of the population)

Canada - 165 (0.001% of the population)

United Kingdom - 68 (0.000% of the population)

Australia - 65 (0.000% of the population)

Japan - 39 (0.000% of the population)

United States - 11,127 (0.004% of the population)


This seems to me that if the above is true there must be a correlation between gun ownership rights and gun deaths.

But you're supposing that the above is true. We can't verify from a credible source that it is. Bowling for Columbine all made us cry, but it's not evidence it a movie.

There is no nation where everybody will be absolutely lawful and you do have a point regarding a militant state but making it extremely difficult to obtan firearms would limit the amount of firearms out there. This would still not eliminate gun shot deaths. I am not suggesting all firearms should be disallowed. I lived in a household with more then one rifle for a long time and my stepfather was an avid hunter. However, I do not see what the need is for certain firearms to be sold commercially (machine guns for one).

There are plenty of restrictions making it difficult for a person to legally purchase certain kinds of guns and plenty of red tape to put someone through to get guns.

However. If you are a criminal and wish to use a gun in a violent crime you do not go to Jerry's Gun Store to buy guns like I do. You have to go to Jerry "The Weasel" Smith in his underground den of AK-47s.

Criminals are notorious for not following laws, why would they follow gun laws?

Now, regarding your statement about fascist tyranny, do you really think if the government was to truly attack people that the guns people own would stop that. Do you think the US armed forces and all their military equipment be put in danger by individuals who hold guns? I do not believe that and therefore find that point idealistic.

Absolutely! It's called the American Revolutionary War. We were able to defeat the British ****ing Empire because enough armed patriots wanted it to happen.