What Do We Have That They Don’t?

Most people in Israel are armed, and most households in Switzerland have an assault rifle. What makes the US different is that we have Democratic Party hellholes like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington DC, St. Louis and New Orleans where youth involved in drug trade kill each other.

Unless you live in one of their neighborhoods, most Americans are extremely safe – at least until they get on the highway with teenagers and their cell phones.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to What Do We Have That They Don’t?

  1. czechlist says:

    Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns: why would we let them have ideas?
    Those who will trade freedom for safety shall have neither

  2. Gamecock says:

    55% of homicides by firearms discharge are committed by a group representing 6.5% of the U.S. population. Without them, U.S. rate would be under 2 per 100,000, a low rating worldwide.

    I love the juvenile stupidity of the sign, “Guns killed.” No humans involved or responsible; just the guns.

    The sign data is cherry picked. U.S. falls about the middle of worldwide rankings.

    And “West Germany” ?!?! It hasn’t existed for 18 years.

    • Johansen says:

      lol…. “West Germany”, I noticed that too. The girl probably pulled the numbers from an old list

    • Mac says:

      Yep, what you’re saying is true. In commie Venezuela, where you cannot have a gun no matter what, the homicide rate is 45 per 100,000, 9 times higher than the U.S. rate. Cuba’s homicide rate is higher as well, as it is in plenty of other countries that don’t allow firearm ownership.

      Why don’t liberals ever point out that the state of Vermont, which has almost no gun control whatsoever, has a homicide equal to or lower than a lot of the countries in Europe? It’s the same with New Hampshire, Maine, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Utah. All of those states have pretty unrestrictive gun laws, yet their homicide rates are as low as Europe’s.

      The problem, as I see it, is left-wing black ghetto culture, and its devaluing of human life. It isn’t skin color, because black Republicans are not killing each other en masse in the streets. It’s corrupt ghetto culture. So, anyone who wants to call me a racist, please feel free. I couldn’t care less. The fact remains: more leftist African-Americans, more violent crime. Until the black community does something to stop killing each other, and stop pretending that they don’t have a problem, the violence will continue.

    • My wife had a restaurant / bar in inner city Detroit
      for over 15 years.

      You had to be part of the “hood” to understand
      that the large majority of people there are honest
      and actually celebrated when two gang members
      killed each other!

      They practically had a block party to celebrate
      the demise of two violent criminals !

      Because that meant two fewer criminals
      to sell drugs, and otherwise
      terrorize their neighborhood.

      I know this is a very new way
      of thinking about gun violence,
      and far from politically correct,
      (and we certainly don’t want
      innocent bystanders killed),
      but there are a lot of bad guys
      killing each other in
      predominantly black city

      And that can be good news
      for the neighborhood, by keeping
      the criminal population down !

  3. Scott Allen says:

    Gun violence rarely happens in Great Britain, what does happen is KNIFE violence. Over 1,400 people a WEEK are stabbed or slashed with a knife and the average number who die per week is over 7. These knife attacks and resulting deaths are worse than the shooting and killing in Chicago.
    In addition these stabbing are rising at over 10% every year and have for the past 4 years.

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      From that link:
      ‘”The total number of offences involving a knife or bladed instrument that have been recorded by cops in the year to March 2018 rose to 40,147, a seven-year-high.
      There were 1,299 stabbings in London up to the end of April, according to official statistics from the Met Police.”

  4. R Shearer says:

    The sign maker probably couldn’t find the Western hemisphere on a map but is good at cherry picking. Venezuela for example has strict gun laws but more firearm related deaths than the U.S. even though its population is about 10 times lower.

    Brazil, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica and Mexico are just a few other countries that have higher rates of firearm related deaths than the U.S.

    Now Japan has low rates of gun death but ropes and door nobs there kill a lot of people.

    • Japan has a huge suicide rate despite very few guns
      in private hands.

      That strongly suggests that banning / confiscating guns
      in the US would not affect the US suicide rate much
      — there are many other alternative suicide methods
      — and so the two-thirds of US suicides
      currently using guns would just change to
      a different method of suicide,
      if all guns were confiscated.

      • Correction:
        Two thirds of US gun deaths are suicides.
        (not “two thirds of US suicides”)

      • R Shearer says:

        I was on a high speed train there once and a loud thud was heard. It turns out that someone had jumped in front of it to commit suicide. It was such a beautiful sunny day with clear blue sky.

        Anyway, no one jumps in front of a high speed train here.

  5. sunsettommy says:

    The moron with the misleading sign doesn’t realize that USA has more people in than all the rest combined on that list.

    The woman never heard of PER CAPITA statistics or rational thinking or logic.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      But how did she miss Liechtenstein? Homicides by firearm increased from zero in 2007 to one on 2008?

      • Jason Calley says:

        Holy cow! Zero to ONE?! That’s a bajillion percent increase in only ONE YEAR!!

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          It was a bad year in Liechtenstein.

          Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

          In September a member of a special police unit was accused of injuring one person during a raid on an illegal gambling establishment.

          Defeat gambling monopoly! Gambler Lives Matter!

          Societal Abuses and Discrimination

          There were no reports of anti-Semitic acts. The Jewish community in the country is small.

          The Jews left.

          Protection of Refugees

          In principle, the government provided protection against the expulsion or return of refugees to countries where their lives or freedom would be threatened. There were no cases in which asylum was granted during the year.

          In practice, stay out of Liechtenstein.


          Rape, including spousal rape, is a criminal offense, and the government effectively prosecuted those accused of such crimes. Spousal rape has the same penalties as rape under other circumstances. The sentence may be reduced if the victim decides to remain with the abusive spouse. There were four investigations for rape during the year; two were closed without charges being brought, and two remained pending at year’s end.

          The rapists run the system.

          Sexual harassment is illegal and punishable by up to six months in prison or a fine, and the government effectively enforced these prohibitions.

          Did they shoot the perp?

    • Richard Greene says:

      Leftists probably think
      “PER CAPITA”
      has something to do with
      capital punishment.

      Leftists have no time
      to learn math or statistics
      — they are too busy with
      Transgender Studies”.

      • Jason Calley says:

        I am reminded of the pollster who got SJW types to sign a petition calling for an end to women’s suffrage. I mean, who wants women to suffer, right?

  6. Gator says:

    A third of “gun deaths” in the US are suicides. Taking a gun from someone who wants to kill themselves is not going to stop them. The numbers also include police shootings and law abiding citizens who repelled attacks. If we look at just homicides, the real number is much, much lower.

    • Gator,
      the chart in the picture
      has a number for US homicides only
      — it does not include suicides,
      or else the number would triple.

      Two thirds of US gun deaths
      are suicides,
      not one-third
      as you claimed.

      Annual US gun deaths consist of
      about 11,000 homicides,
      21,000 suicides,
      500 deaths due to accidental
      or negligent discharge of a firearm,
      and a few hundred deaths
      with “undetermined intent”
      in a typical year.

      You are extremely confused
      — presenting very wrong data.

      You ought to join the global warmunists
      — they love wrong data!

  7. griff says:

    Well, similar applies to the UK… if you aren’t young and on an inner city housing estate, your chances of being knifed are very small, despite you all banging on about knife crime in the UK. And as for being shot – in particular being shot at a concert, bar, school or university – the chances are pretty much zero

    there is something about the US -the stupid and reckless lack of control on guns

    • arn says:

      The same goes with guns
      and not just that.

      Even Bloomberg stated some years ago that the gun problem in USA is indeed a minority problem.(as the knife problem is in UK-and i can guarant you as minority that this is absolutely true)
      The reason this never reached the mainstream news
      and the usual shitstorm,pretending,hipocrisy,virtue signalling and being so “upset” and all the other fake stuff,
      is because Bloomberg belongs to the right group of people which is the left.

    • Mr GrimNasty says:

      Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria……….

      It’s the will/mentality to carry out the act, not the weaponry. I assure you Griff, high-end weaponry is easily available in the UK.

      The rise in knife crime (mostly black on black) is down to a shift in mentality, not the increased availability of knives.

    • Gator says:

      Ms Griff still cannot make the connection. No wonder she still believes man controls climate, she has absolutely zero reasoning capacity. It is intellects such as hers that are the real problem. Humans that are incapable of determining the cause of their miseries are doomed to be contained by them.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        she has absolutely zero reasoning capacity

        That’s improbable. A box of rocks is assumed to have zero reasoning capacity but if we found a way to query it I doubt it could be absolutely wrong about everything.

        Such results require affirmative effort.

      • Hoe does one know
        that the “Grifter” troll
        is a woman?

        There are men with
        zero reasoning capacity too.

        Just wondering.

        • Gator says:

          I have always seen her addressed as such, and she has never corrected me on that point. Why do you ask?

        • Jason Calley says:

          She always seems to have her panties in a wad. While that does not prove Griff is a “she”, statistically speaking it is by far the most likely inference.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Well, Jason, she does, but I know self-identified progressive males with recurring wadding issues (and it’s not a black powder rifle dud).

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Griff, you ignorant slut.

      Don’t shoot down your own argument in the same post. Wait until we do.

  8. pmc47025 says:

    2016 USA death rate per 100,000:
    840 – All causes
    166 – Heart disease
    156 – Cancer
    20 – Drug overdose
    12 – Firearm (7 by suicide)
    12 – Motor vehicle

    2016 death rate per 100,000 for countries on “that” sign (all causes):
    1120 – Germany (sign says West Germany?)
    1050 – Japan
    920 – Sweden
    910 – UK
    840 – USA
    780 – Switzerland
    750 – Canada
    510 – Israel

  9. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Banning firearms in the US would be a complete failure since most of those deaths are either due to illegal firearms or suicides. Because the firearms are illegal already a ban won’t work since the perps currently thumb their nose at the law anyway. And suicides by firearm will just be replaced by suicides by Fentanyl et al.

    The way to reduce this statistic is vigorous and effective enforcement of the already existing laws. But Democrats are already the lawless party so why would they want to do that? Vigorous enforcement of the law would see most of the party officer holders sent to jail.

    • Banning firearms in the US would be a complete failure
      because the only people who would turn in their guns
      would be honest people, not criminals!

      Leaving all the honest people defenseless.

      Burglars who have high confidence the homeowner
      does not have a defense gun would be much more
      likely to invade the home when someone is home,
      rather than only when they were confident no one
      was home — that’s exactly what happened in England
      after their gun ban.

  10. Gamecock says:

    ‘Gun control’ is juvenile.

    There are 150,000,000 guns in the U.S. Some estimates say 300,000,000. It is farcically fanciful to think you can keep any adult who is not locked up from getting a gun.

    The Leftards latest hot buttons are back ground checks and ending private sales. This will accomplish double ought nothing, except to harass the citizenry. It is the incrementalism of the last 50 years. Should they get these restrictions, they will just DEMAND MORE! Until only the authorities have guns.

  11. Rah says:

    They aren’t getting them. The SCOTUS has already ruled the 2nd an individual right.

    • Snowleopard says:

      You are correct, and a true implementation of that ruling would void ALL US firearms law, and most other US weapons laws as well.

      The second amendment does not just apply to firearms, it says the people have an unrestricted right to Arms.

      Arms are the weapons needed to wage war.

      At the time of the American Revolution, colonists often possessed (usually as a group) privately owned field artillery and a few even owned gunships. The second amendment was written primarily to preserve the rights of potential volunteers to local militias to Arm themselves as they deemed appropriate, and also to allow such militias to exist under their own authority.

      Almost all existing US weapons law is in conflict with the amendment.

      • Phil. says:

        The second amendment does not just apply to firearms, it says the people have an unrestricted right to Arms.

        No it doesn’t, it says they are able to ‘bear arms’ as part of a ‘well regulated militia’. ‘Well regulated’ does not mean ‘unrestricted’.
        Hamilton wrote that a small militias managed by the states were the best way to go. He basically envisioned state run National Guard.

        • Gator says:

          They had just defeated a “state run militia” that was out of control and under control of “the state”, so clearly that was not their goal. They wanted individuals to have the ability to repel government, and government to be subservient to the people. I’m amazed at the ignorance of history displayed by leftists.

          • Phil. says:

            Not according to Hamilton, suggest you read Federalist Papers #29.

          • Gator says:

            Been there, done that. Does not change the fact that our founders were revolutionaries who recognized that individuals needed the ability to challenge the state. Giving the state the ability to limit an individual’s right to defend himself was not in the cards. One passage from one founder does not change the big picture Phil. But love the cherries! LOL

        • Gamecock says:

          “He basically envisioned state run National Guard.”

          Bullshit. The militia is the people. The yeomanry. It’s right there in your Federalist 29.

          • Rah says:

            Definition of the US Militia is found in the US Code. Title 10 section 311. Far be it for leftist morons to actually read the law before spouting off about what the Militia is.

          • Phil. says:

            US Code. Title 10 section 311
            Dating from 1903, not from the second Amendment era.
            Try the Articles of Confederation:
            “.. every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”
            Washington was generally not happy with the training and competence of the militias and favored the founding of a military academy and a standing army. For example: “To place any dependence on the Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly trained, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows”

            The debate surrounding the Second Amendment was centered around the issue of transferring the control of the militias exercised by the states to the Federal government. “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
            In the Federalist Papers Madison argued that a standing army of about 30,000 men could be offset by “a militia amounting to near a half million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves”, the Antifederalists didn’t buy that however.

          • Gator says:

            Nice cherry pick little bitch. Here is what the founders said…

            “…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?”
            — Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888)
            “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
            — Tench Coxe, in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution� under the Pseudonym `A Pennsylvanian� in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1).
            “The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
            — William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
            “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
            — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
            “Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
            — Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
            “The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
            — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
            If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
            — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
            “That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
            — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
            “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
            –James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
            “To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
            –John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
            “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, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
            –Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
            “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
            –Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
            “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
            –Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
            “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
            — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
            “No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
            — Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
            “The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
            — James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
            “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
            — Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
            ” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
            — George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
            ” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
            — Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
            “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
            — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
            “The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
            — Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
            “O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …”
            — Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
            “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
            — Zachariah Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
            “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
            — Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
            “The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
            — Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
            ” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
            — James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
            “The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
            — Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
            “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. ”
            –Samuel Adams

        • Rah says:

          Once again a brain dead leftist intentionally over looks the obvious. The BOL was written in intent and form to in no way define any limit on rights of individuals. Not a single article of the 10 is defined as doing so except by leftist liars in the case of the 2nd.

          Also the Federalists argued there was no need for a BOL since the rights that we’re outlined there in were so fundamental and self evident.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Phil and other progressive morons believe that the Bill of Rights was written to limit the pre-existing rights of Americans and transfer them to the government.

        • Jason Calley says:

          Any good grammarian will tell you that the “militia” is explanatory and not limiting. Consider another sentence with the same structure:
          “A well informed Electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
          Does this say that all the people may keep and read books without infringement, or that only voters may have books?

        • Snowleopard says:

          First off we were talking in the context of the SCOTUS ruling that Second Amendment rights are to be perceived as individual rights, that part is settled. Secondly the Second Amendment says plainly that the right (to keep and bear Arms) shall not be infringed. Infringed means limited just as it did then, thus not infringed means unlimited. Thirdly: The word regulated has changed quite a bit from its late 18th century meaning. Basically the phrase meant “well equipped” at the time. Government regulations and regulating agencies had not even been thought of at the time, and the idea of them would have been abhorrent to those who wrote the Constitution.

          • Snowleopard says:

            OK perhaps I’m still not clear on how “well regulated” means well equipped? Consider “regular” forces vs irregular forces. Regular forces at the time had firearms at least “regulated” to take the same ammunition at a minimum; and it could go on from there. This “regulation” improved logistics. Thus if the militias might have to take on foreign regular forces they should be able to be equipped to do so. Thus Lexington and Concord where the British tried to seize the colonist militia’s stored “regulated” weapons.

      • Gator says:

        In Victorian times, a wealthy and colorful member of our local community owned a used civil war era cannon that he used to fire regularly from his front porch, just blocks from the county courthouse. So far as I know nobody ever tried robbing him, and nobody died.

  12. Spiritus Mundi says:

    Meanwhile, latin america has had 2.5 million murders, almost all of them with guns, since 2000. The same people who demand americans give up their guns want to import millions from these same countries.

  13. Ari says:

    Correction about Israel:

    No, most people don’t have guns.
    Only active duty solders. army, some security personal and people working in the occupied territories.

    • Gator says:

      Gun laws in Israel are comprehensive despite soldiers being allowed to carry their service weapons on or off duty. Civilians must obtain a firearms license to lawfully acquire, possess, sell or transfer firearms and ammunition. In 2018, Israel significantly loosened firearms restrictions, allowing all citizens who had undergone combat training as a combat soldier in the army, to apply for a license. This only applies to those who have passed infantry rifle training.[52]


  14. Earnest T. Bass says:

    What did the Framers have to say regarding The Right to Keep and Bear Arms? I’m glad you asked:


    Keep this handy for the next time some idiot tries to spin what was actually said by the Framers or tries to reinterpret what the 2nd actually means.

  15. Jason Calley says:

    Just for the sake of argument, suppose that the anti-self-defense crowd were correct, and that the Second Amendment really was only designed to allow National Guard members to be armed. (Crazy, sure, but work with me…) The anti-gun people also tend to be the same ones who tell is that original intention is no basis for interpreting the Constitution, that it is “a living, breathing, document” always open to new readings and interpretation. OK…

    It just so happens that the “living, breathing document” woke up this morning and sent me a text message saying that I can own any weapon I want to, all the way up to shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles.

Leave a Reply to Snowleopard Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *