# Honore: America's in denial about gun culture



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

This one is making the rounds on facebook right now. It's probably going to be a prairie fire in this place but, I think it's worth reading what the guy has to say. 

http://www.wzzm13.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/27/honore-americas-denial-gun-culture/30764255/



> Retired U.S. Army Gen. Russel Honore, Louisiana's most well-known 21st century military hero, said America is mired in a state of denial about its gun culture and that's harming the country. "As a country we're in a state of denial because we've confused the right to bear arms with the right to carry arms all the time anywhere or anyplace you want," Honore told Gannett Louisiana on Monday. "We have to have a different kind of conversation in America and be prepared to speak about the politically unspeakable."
> 
> Honore said the string of recent mass gun murders &#8212; culminating with the tragic movie theater shooting in Lafayette Thursday in which two victims died &#8212; should provide a wake up call. "It breaks my heart to see that happen in my home state or anywhere in America," he said. "We've got a problem in this country, and at some point the politicians have to get down into the community and find some answers to this problem."
> 
> ...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

IMHO it is a mental health problem, nobody wants to go there either.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Much in the same way that Americans decided that their right to privacy wasn't worth terror threats like 9/11, Americans will eventually decide that their second Amendment rights aren't worth the mass shootings we see. I can't say what the timing will be, but I'm confident that it will happen sooner or later.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Much in the same way that Americans decided that their right to privacy wasn't worth terror threats like 9/11, Americans will eventually decide that their second Amendment rights aren't worth the mass shootings we see. I can't say what the timing will be, but I'm confident that it will happen sooner or later.


You've been confident about a lot of things that didn't / aren't happening too! But you won't see what you wish for in your lifetime!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I suspect that will be far into the future if at all, Nevada. Anyone who rises to that level in the military has to know how to suck ass. It's all about the politics to become a flag officer. He's just proven he excels in that regard.

That doesn't make the man a sociologist, historian, psychologist or anything relevant to explaining the level of crime in this country. Until anyone, anywhere in this country can go to sleep at night with their doors unlocked and walk anywhere at any time of the day or night, the so-called gun culture isn't going away particularly given the increasingly predatory government we have.

What we're reading is the equivalent of a celebrity endorsement. Neither I nor a lot of other Americans are buying what he's selling.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> You've been confident about a lot of things that didn't / aren't happening too! But you won't see what you wish for in your lifetime!


Of course getting around the privacy provisions of the constitution was easy, since the Bush administration's position was that his duty to keep Americans safe superseded all other provisions of the constitution. Whether he was right or wrong on that, he had the blessing of both congress (the Patriot Act) and the American people. That was particularly true for conservatives, who trusted that GWB would never abuse extra-constitutional powers.

You might say that 9/11 was an extraordinary event, but it only takes one event to turn the whole thing around. I don't know if I'll see blanket gun bans in my lifetime, but it will happen.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

You would think a military man would "get it" more than that. sigh.

So, they lock up the small arms when the troops aren't using them. But what he fails to mention, there are armed guards on duty at all times to protect the base and the troops. That's what makes them safe enough to secure the small arms away from the soldiers in the first place. For us civilians, our "armed guards" are the cops, and they aren't exactly standing guard duty over our neighborhoods and shopping/entertainment districts, now are they? They respond after the fact and take a report and process a crime scene. 

And the tired old comparison to the UK and Europe. The UK disarmed not only its subjects but its cops. So logic would dictate their gun violence rate is zero...but somehow I don't think that's the case.

Here in the US we are only a few generations away from the pioneers, the real homesteaders. Their guns were very important to them. A means to hunt food, protection from dangerous wild animals, people with bad intentions, etc. But by the time gun technology had advanced to where they were really practical to use, the UK and most of Europe were already "tamed". The alpha predator in the UK is a fox for Pete's sake. So there is a good reason guns are so ingrained into the American culture, it wasn't that long ago when most people really needed them for survival.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I wonder how many mental hospitals could be built and maintained with a 1/2 cent tax per bullet? I'm normally against any new or increased tax, but would shooters mind paying a very small amount extra to get these liberal gun-grabbers of our backs every time a mentally deranged person gives them fodder for their cause?

It's a pipe dream, I know. Like the "SS Trust Fund", the politicians would squander it on more solar panel and ethanol subsidies, and the ACLU would scream bloody murder (as they did to close the hospitals in the first place), but at least it's an option.

Sometimes I wonder if the anti-gun people don't look forward to the next batch of innocents being mowed down to push their agenda further.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Delete double post


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I wonder how many mental hospitals could be built and maintained with a 1/2 cent tax per bullet? I'm normally against any new or increased tax, but would shooters mind paying a very small amount extra to get these liberal gun-grabbers of our backs every time a mentally deranged person gives them fodder for their cause?


As long as guns remain in private hands, you won't get them off anyone's back.
Building hospitals won't make any difference


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> I suspect that will be far into the future if at all, Nevada.


Fifteen years ago I might have agreed with you, but after hearing Americans say, "Go ahead and take my constitutional rights, I don't care just as long as I don't get hurt." What makes you think Americans will be any different about their guns?

Also keep in mind that only about 1/3rd of American households have a gun. The other 2/3rds without a gun don't have anything to lose by banning guns. Logically, giving up privacy rights should have been a more difficult fight, since all Americans have a stake in privacy.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I wonder how many mental hospitals could be built and maintained with a 1/2 cent tax per bullet? I'm normally against any new or increased tax, but would shooters mind paying a very small amount extra to get these liberal gun-grabbers of our backs every time a mentally deranged person gives them fodder for their cause?
> 
> It's a pipe dream, I know. Like the "SS Trust Fund", the politicians would squander it on more solar panel and ethanol subsidies, and the ACLU would scream bloody murder (as they did to close the hospitals in the first place), but at least it's an option.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if the anti-gun people don't look forward to the next batch of innocents being mowed down to push their agenda further.


Now that's thinking outside the box. 

There are all kinds of "self funded" or creatively funded programs. Like the beef checkoff, $1 per head sold and *poof* they have a multi million dollar budget every year to do research and promotion. I believe the honey board has a similar "tax" for their industry. 

However I would want it to be handled by the private sector and not the govt. Give them a 50 cent tax and it will soon be a $5 tax just like all the other "sin taxes". Whereas the beef checkoff hasn't gone up in over 20 years....


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> 1/3rd of American households have a gun


That data comes from polls, and I suspect many just say no when asked if they own guns.
There have been increasing numbers of guns sold each year since BO was elected

I wouldn't put much faith in the "household" figures

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx



> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

If this crazy wild west behavior; shooting up the town, school, theater or whatever was dealt swiftly with wild west type justice, these crimes would go down in a hurry.

Example ..... the Boston marathon bomber. Why is that SOB still sucking air? They knew he was guilty days after the crime, yet he's not yet been punished. If and when he ever gets executed, most will have forgotten about the crime.
That dude should have been in court, charged and executed within two weeks, while fresh in everyone's mind, then maybe the next nutcase would be less likely to try something like that, knowing there will be swift and dire consequences.

This country has always had a lot of guns. Problem is, we are now more tolerant of nutjobs than ever.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I wonder how many mental hospitals could be built and maintained with a 1/2 cent tax per bullet? I'm normally against any new or increased tax, but would shooters mind paying a very small amount extra to get these liberal gun-grabbers of our backs every time a mentally deranged person gives them fodder for their cause?
> 
> It's a pipe dream, I know. Like the "SS Trust Fund", the politicians would squander it on more solar panel and ethanol subsidies, and the ACLU would scream bloody murder (as they did to close the hospitals in the first place), but at least it's an option.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder if the anti-gun people don't look forward to the next batch of innocents being mowed down to push their agenda further.


Actually, did you know that shooters already pay a national tax on ammo?

11%, to be exact, a lot more than 1/2 cent per bullet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

And did you know us gun nuts have fought to *keep* that tax?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The percentage of Americans who believe having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be (63%) has nearly doubled since 2000, when about one in three agreed with this. Three in 10 Americans say having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place.


It's not what people think about guns, it's how many have them.









http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...aphics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's not what people think about guns, it's how many have them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, it relies on people giving 100% honest answers to "Do you own a gun?" when many aren't going to divulge that information to a stranger.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> It's not what people think about guns, it's how many have them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is absolutely no way I would give any poll that kind of info.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Amazing what's left after so many losses.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Fishindude said:


> If this crazy wild west behavior; shooting up the town, school, theater or whatever was dealt swiftly with wild west type justice, these crimes would go down in a hurry.
> 
> Example ..... the Boston marathon bomber. Why is that SOB still sucking air? They knew he was guilty days after the crime, yet he's not yet been punished. If and when he ever gets executed, most will have forgotten about the crime.
> That dude should have been in court, charged and executed within two weeks, while fresh in everyone's mind, then maybe the next nutcase would be less likely to try something like that, knowing there will be swift and dire consequences.
> ...


Couldn't have said it better. Spot on.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> You would think a military man would "get it" more than that. sigh.
> 
> So, they lock up the small arms when the troops aren't using them. But what he fails to mention, there are armed guards on duty at all times to protect the base and the troops. That's what makes them safe enough to secure the small arms away from the soldiers in the first place.  For us civilians, our "armed guards" are the cops, and they aren't exactly standing guard duty over our neighborhoods and shopping/entertainment districts, now are they? They respond after the fact and take a report and process a crime scene.
> 
> ...


It takes at least 30 minuets to get a cop if they are available. Our county sheriff wants to make sure we have a gun to protect ourselves and the cops will right up a report.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

The downside of being an American. It's the downside of the Constitution too.

You can buy guns, 1 or 100. You can be crazy. You can live long enough to lose your mind. You can take mood altering substances. You can hate your neighbor and your government.

No free lunch and now its getting time to pay.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Fishindude said:


> If this crazy wild west behavior; shooting up the town, school, theater or whatever was dealt swiftly with wild west type justice, these crimes would go down in a hurry.
> 
> Example ..... the Boston marathon bomber. Why is that SOB still sucking air? They knew he was guilty days after the crime, yet he's not yet been punished. If and when he ever gets executed, most will have forgotten about the crime.
> That dude should have been in court, charged and executed within two weeks, while fresh in everyone's mind, then maybe the next nutcase would be less likely to try something like that, knowing there will be swift and dire consequences.
> ...


Actually, studies have shown that the death penalty isn't the deterrent that proponents suggest that it is. There is no credible evidence to support that contention.

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23374844/no-credible-evidence-whether-death-penalty-deters-experts


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Actually, studies have shown that the death penalty isn't the deterrent that proponents suggest that it is. There is no credible evidence to support that contention.


It's certainly deterred those who had the sentence carried out


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

We have to ask ourselves, why are certain government officials so bent on disarming innocent people?
Why aren't they going after the gangs, the thugs, the crazies?
They arrest them, then turn them loose to prey an normal people.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> We have to ask ourselves, why are certain government officials so bent on disarming innocent people?
> Why aren't they going after the gangs, the thugs, the crazies?
> They arrest them, then turn them loose to prey an normal people.


Can you say control? Once we are disarmed they have the control at no cost.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Old Vet said:


> Can you say control? Once we are disarmed they have the control at no cost.


And there are people stupid enough to back them


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Fifteen years ago I might have agreed with you, but after hearing Americans say, "Go ahead and take my constitutional rights, I don't care just as long as I don't get hurt." What makes you think Americans will be any different about their guns?
> 
> Also keep in mind that only about 1/3rd of American households have a gun. The other 2/3rds without a gun don't have anything to lose by banning guns. Logically, giving up privacy rights should have been a more difficult fight, since all Americans have a stake in privacy.


I maybe wrong but I read the American psyche as gun rights are the line in the sand. They will put up with having their free speech restrained, put up with invasive searches but take away their guns, them is fightin words. Just look at the SAFE act in New York, 95 % of those thought to own "forbidden" guns refused to register them according to the requirement of the law. Those in the cities might want to give up guns but those in small town and rural areas won't. The state troopers at this end of the state said they wouldn't enforce the law, mostly because they know they'd be shot if they tried.

As to 2/3 of the homes have no gun, for the record I have no guns in my house.



Nevada said:


> Actually, studies have shown that the death penalty isn't the deterrent that proponents suggest that it is. There is no credible evidence to support that contention.
> 
> http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23374844/no-credible-evidence-whether-death-penalty-deters-experts


Yep, when they execute them in a closed room with only a priest or minister, a prison warden, a couple of guards and maybe a reporter, that is no deterrent. On the other hand have then dangling from a rope that middle school kids and high school kids can see from the bus on their way to school and that may be a different story. A 30 year old hardened criminal might not be deterred, but a young impressionable mind heading in the wrong moral direction might be.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> It's not what people think about guns, it's how many have them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've lived in my town for 29 years and only know two people who don't own guns. 

Plus myself of course.


I would be interested to see the percentages for rural vs urban ownership.

Do those numbers include illegal guns? Do they include people who figure it's nobodies business?

I don't think I put much faith in those numbers.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Actually, studies have shown that the death penalty isn't the deterrent that proponents suggest that it is. There is no credible evidence to support that contention.
> 
> http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23374844/no-credible-evidence-whether-death-penalty-deters-experts


I question that. I can not think of one executed criminal who has committed another crime. 
Sounds like a deterrent to me.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I actually agree with Nevada, a little. Since the advent of the Federal Department of Education, there has been an effort to dumb down the masses, with horrifying results. As a culture, we have become more dependent on government. We expect them to do things for us that they were never designed to do. Think about it. I cringe when something happens and some yahoo says "D.C. should pass a law to fix this". What ever happen to taking care of things locally? 

Many, in the younger generations, have little idea of what the Constitution says and means. It has been corrupted by power hungry elected officials and appointed judges. Our culture and nation is on a downward spiral and a vast number of people cheer when more of our freedoms are taken. 

So, yes. There will be some tragedy that strikes just the "right" tone and can be used by anti gunners to finally remove the most important right in the Constitution, and, no doubt, it will be met by thunderous applause by the dumbed down masses.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

BlackFeather said:


> Yep, when they execute them in a closed room with only a priest or minister, a prison warden, a couple of guards and maybe a reporter, that is no deterrent. On the other hand have then dangling from a rope that middle school kids and high school kids can see from the bus on their way to school and that may be a different story. A 30 year old hardened criminal might not be deterred, but a young impressionable mind heading in the wrong moral direction might be.


How about making executions part of the super bowl half time show?


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.............Before the laws were finally changed in favor of citizens being able to carry a weapon for personal protection , only the Cops and criminals were packing ! So , even IF a citizen shot an intruder breaking into their home or business , he might be prosecuted for a Crime . 
..............Another injustice is quickly being adjudicated in the court of Public opinion , that being the recording of Cops making illegal arrests , beating on people while being arrested , killing innocent citizens for NO cause , etc . Cops don't like anyone who exercises their constitutional rights to record public servants doing their job in public . They can't hide behind the Blue Veil of silence that protected the good cops from the bad ones . 
..............You can't take away everyone's firearms because the Nutt Case's kill innocent people anymore than you can take away everyone's drivers license because the Drunks cause accidents on the Roads . , fordy


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

His commentary is timely and predictable...

Perhaps it's not the most popular thought out there, but with just a little exercise of memory skills, a pinch of common sense and a few hours of digging around for the inevitable fishy details, it becomes hard not to notice that these incidents are ever so convenient.

Of course they can't fake it all....can they? Sure they can. Oh, you bet they can. The timer just ran out on the last theater incident to remind us that we all need to be disarmed. A reminder was in order.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

There are supposedly over 300 million guns in this country.
If they were really dangerous, if they really caused murder, none of us would be alive.
It doesn't make sense for our supposed _"leaders"_ to be working so hard to disarm the people.
I feel like we as gun owners are being framed every time someone gets shot, it always feels like a setup.
Maybe it's the timing that always seems so convenient for Obama.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Old Vet said:


> Can you say control? Once we are disarmed they have the control at no cost.


I have to agree with that. And I don't think the Republicans are any more interested in protecting the second amendment, overall. I think as soon as they don't need it to get the votes, they'll change their tune, because the corporations want us all working for China's wages. This is not a joke. They know this mass consumption economy can't go on forever, the resources just don't exist, but the rich folk don't want to change their life styles. Some of them haven't even been hiding the fact that they feel that way, telling Americans that we all need to start adjusting to our new reality while they fly around in private jets. They don't want us to have guns. They'd rather we don't have them, just in case we don't agree to the new world order.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Much in the same way that Americans decided that their right to privacy wasn't worth terror threats like 9/11, Americans will eventually decide that their second Amendment rights aren't worth the mass shootings we see. I can't say what the timing will be, but I'm confident that it will happen sooner or later.


So what do you think will happen? All guns will be confiscated? 
Yeah, good luck w/that.
I'd love to see some laws inforced & those w/criminal records stripped of guns. BUT that won't happen. Chaos will ensue w/only the criminals having guns.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Fishindude said:


> If this crazy wild west behavior; shooting up the town, school, theater or whatever was dealt swiftly with wild west type justice, these crimes would go down in a hurry.
> 
> Example ..... the Boston marathon bomber. Why is that SOB still sucking air? They knew he was guilty days after the crime, yet he's not yet been punished. If and when he ever gets executed, most will have forgotten about the crime.
> That dude should have been in court, charged and executed within two weeks, while fresh in everyone's mind, then maybe the next nutcase would be less likely to try something like that, knowing there will be swift and dire consequences.
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Much in the same way that Americans decided that their right to privacy wasn't worth terror threats like 9/11, Americans will eventually decide that their second Amendment rights aren't worth the mass shootings we see. I can't say what the timing will be, but I'm confident that it will happen sooner or later.


"Americans" weren't asked their opinion. The Patriot act was ready to go before 911 occurred.

If Americans were asked, I think...I hope...most might say that freedom is worth more than the so-called "security" the government loves us so much as to provide.

I am not interested in living the life of a fenced sheep.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Woolieface said:


> "Americans" weren't asked their opinion. The Patriot act was ready to go before 911 occurred.
> 
> If Americans were asked, I think...I hope...most might say that freedom is worth more than the so-called "security" the government loves us so much as to provide.
> 
> I am not interested in living the life of a fenced sheep.


I don't want to start a fight but, do you guys remember which Senator was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001? Russ Feingold. That crazy liberal... There is a lot of weird overlapping between liberals and libertarians on certain issues. Russ is about is left as left gets on most issues, but he isn't a huge fan of authority. He's been moderate on guns in the past, but I don't know how that's changed if it has at all. I think to win in my state he's going to need to stay moderate on guns, but until he wins in my state again he really doesn't matter to the rest of you.

I guess the actual point I was trying to make by bringing him up is this... I believe we need to be careful about sticking to party lines. At this point I'm convinced that the good ones are currently either locked out of politics by money, or divided between the parties along lines drawn up by the big business media who intend to distract, confuse, divide, and conquer.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wiscto said:


> I don't want to start a fight but, do you guys remember which Senator was the only one to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001? Russ Feingold. That crazy liberal... There is a lot of weird overlapping between liberals and libertarians on certain issues. Russ is about is left as left gets on most issues, but he isn't a huge fan of authority. He's been moderate on guns in the past, but I don't know how that's changed if it has at all. I think to win in my state he's going to need to stay moderate on guns, but until he wins in my state again he really doesn't matter to the rest of you.
> 
> I guess the actual point I was trying to make by bringing him up is this... I believe we need to be careful about sticking to party lines. At this point I'm convinced that the good ones are currently either locked out of politics by money, or divided between the parties along lines drawn up by the big business media who intend to distract, confuse, divide, and conquer.


I have no party line.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Woolieface said:


> I have no party line.


That's the way it has to be, I think. I'm glad you brought up the Patriot Act, because I've always felt like they slipped that one by us while we were still feeling the effects of 9/11 on purpose.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

wiscto said:


> That's the way it has to be, I think. I'm glad you brought up the Patriot Act, because I've always felt like they slipped that one by us while we were still feeling the effects of 9/11 on purpose.


Yep, you bet it was on purpose...


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Does anyone seriously think we'd still have the few freedoms we enjoy now if the 2nd Amendment weren't in place? Look back at some of the progressive administrations through the years, starting with Wilson. He'd have loved to press his racist, sick to the core ideas on this country. No, the only reason they've moved us toward their utopian socialistic society incrementally is because they know it can't be done all at once.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

fordy said:


> .............Before the laws were finally changed in favor of citizens being able to carry a weapon for personal protection , only the Cops and criminals were packing ! So , even IF a citizen shot an intruder breaking into their home or business , he might be prosecuted for a Crime .
> ..............Another injustice is quickly being adjudicated in the court of Public opinion , that being the recording of Cops making illegal arrests , beating on people while being arrested , killing innocent citizens for NO cause , etc . Cops don't like anyone who exercises their constitutional rights to record public servants doing their job in public . They can't hide behind the Blue Veil of silence that protected the good cops from the bad ones .
> ..............You can't take away everyone's firearms because the Nutt Case's kill innocent people anymore than you can take away everyone's drivers license because the Drunks cause accidents on the Roads . , fordy


All the cops here want to make sure that people that are allowed to carry a firearm can carry with out being harassed. I have been talked to by many cops and if I say I have a concealed carry permit and I am armed they say no problem. To most of them it is a good guy card.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Does anyone seriously think we'd still have the few freedoms we enjoy now if the 2nd Amendment weren't in place? Look back at some of the progressive administrations through the years, starting with Wilson. He'd have loved to press his racist, sick to the core ideas on this country. No, the only reason they've moved us toward their utopian socialistic society incrementally is because they know it can't be done all at once.


Most of the rest of the western world have some sort of gun control and I would guess most have the same freedoms the U.S. Citizens have. Of course the exception is limited gun ownership


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

keenataz said:


> Most of the rest of the western world have some sort of gun control and I would guess most have the same freedoms the U.S. Citizens have. Of course the exception is limited gun ownership


You might find that freedom of speech, among other things, has been taking a big hit lately in those countries...


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

keenataz said:


> Most of the rest of the western world have some sort of gun control and I would guess most have the same freedoms the U.S. Citizens have. Of course the exception is limited gun ownership


Just ask Nigel Farage what he thinks of the leaders of the EU in Brussels. He is always saying that they are dictatorial and anti-democracy.

On a second point, after Britain banned guns the murder rate rose.
http://crimepreventionresearchcente...and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/



> Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether itâs Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.


Criminals didn't give up their guns, the law abiding citizen was then left defenseless.

Of course the reason the founding fathers had the second amendment was that if government got out of control, the people would have the means of over throwing it. Disarm the people and control the food and they will be helpless.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Actually, studies have shown that the death penalty isn't the deterrent that proponents suggest that it is. There is no credible evidence to support that contention.


Yeah, but I have to wonder how much of a deterrent it would be if they knew, once found guilty/convicted, they'd be executed within x number of days than x number of years due to appeals.

Not saying that's how I think it "should" be, only wondering if that knowledge would make it more of a deterrent.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

BlackFeather said:


> Just ask Nigel Farage what he thinks of the leaders of the EU in Brussels. He is always saying that they are dictatorial and anti-democracy.
> 
> On a second point, after Britain banned guns the murder rate rose.
> http://crimepreventionresearchcente...and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
> ...


I want to make sure everyone knows I am not commenting on your gun laws. As a Canadian it is none of my business. 

But what I am saying is I can see no rights that you have in the U.S. That we don't have in Canada that somehow are protected by your second amendment. 

And in my opinion it makes no difference how many guns you have if the government really wants to get you. They gave more and bigger


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Most of the rest of the western world have some sort of gun control and I would guess most have the same freedoms the U.S. Citizens have. Of course the exception is limited gun ownership



What about not to be infringed do you not understand?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

The Countries that have instituted stronger gun control (Britain, Australia) have seen their violent crime rate dramatically increased. Why would someone want that to happen here?

Gun control has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control.
I could not imagine what kind of nightmare scenario would have befallen our Country if not for the citizens protection of the second amendment.

Why did the Japanese not attack the west coast after Pearl Harbor?
"Because behind every blade of grass would be a man with a rifle".
It is the same reason we still have any semblance of freedom today.
Think about what the federal government would have done, especially under the Obama administration, if we did not have this protection.

No matter how you down play it, a man with a rifle is a powerful political force.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

keenataz said:


> Most of the rest of the western world have some sort of gun control and I would guess most have the same freedoms the U.S. Citizens have. Of course the exception is limited gun ownership


Lucky for us, it's in our Constitution, it's the law of the land, and no matter how hard the corruption in government tries, it can only fool the very weak and gullible into thinking guns are a bad thing.
Like they say about Obamacare, it's been the law of the land for (x) years, get used to it.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> The Countries that have instituted stronger gun control (Britain, Australia) have seen their violent crime rate dramatically increased. Why would someone want that to happen here?
> 
> Gun control has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with control.
> I could not imagine what kind of nightmare scenario would have befallen our Country if not for the citizens protection of the second amendment.
> ...


The thugs of the left are getting shot, they don't like that.
They like being able to use 10 guys to beat a young couple to death, but it only really works if the couple isn't armed.
Old people defending themselves? Obama is fixing that isn't he?
After all, thieves, looters, rapists, all gotta make a living right?
If we shoot them all, who will vote for Hillary?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Old Vet said:


> What about not to be infringed do you not understand?


They just believes whut Obama telz em


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

keenataz said:


> But what I am saying is I can see no rights that you have in the U.S. That we don't have in Canada that somehow are protected by your second amendment.


I don't know Canadian law, but from just a brief perusal of a couple websites it appears you've got some serious restrictions on ownership and transfer of firearms. Even noticed "3rd party references" to get a license, and every gun must be licensed. It appears to me, since you've no Constitutional gun rights, there's no stopping your government from instituting whatever laws they want.

All those restrictions in this country would be called "infringements", and specifically forbidden by the 2nd Amendment. Many cities and states have restrictive laws, but most have been shown to be unconstitutional and abolished. Overall, there are quite a few major differences between your rights and ours.

By the way, do you still have hate speech tribunals?


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Darren said:


> I suspect that will be far into the future if at all, Nevada. Anyone who rises to that level in the military has to know how to suck ass. It's all about the politics to become a flag officer. He's just proven he excels in that regard.
> 
> That doesn't make the man a sociologist, historian, psychologist or anything relevant to explaining the level of crime in this country. Until anyone, anywhere in this country can go to sleep at night with their doors unlocked and walk anywhere at any time of the day or night, the so-called gun culture isn't going away particularly given the increasingly predatory government we have.
> 
> What we're reading is the equivalent of a celebrity endorsement. Neither I nor a lot of other Americans are buying what he's selling.


...going to bed with the doors unlocked? 
Yep, twenty years ago they were doing that right here. And everybody had a gun or two. But that is not why they did not bother to lock the door. 
People were more decent, less crazy. 
They went to town and left the door open. I went over to some folks house once, they were gone, the door was not locked, the keys were sticking in the pick up, the windows were open. It started to rain heavy so I closed the windows on the truck.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Tabitha said:


> ...going to bed with the doors unlocked?
> Yep, twenty years ago they were doing that right here. And everybody had a gun or two. But that is not why they did not bother to lock the door.
> People were more decent, less crazy.
> They went to town and left the door open. I went over to some folks house once, they were gone, the door was not locked, the keys were sticking in the pick up, the windows were open. It started to rain heavy so I closed the windows on the truck.


So what changed?
We are forced to tolerate all kinds of nastiness, no matter what.
Our government is importing criminals and infesting our home towns with thugs and thieves.
Drugs, another of our government's pets are rampant.
Dealers should be shot, Obama turns them loose.
In short, the left is what's wrong with this country, the corruption, the evil, the bullies, all ruined this country.


----------

