Ammo has about doubled since then so they didn't exactly mess up. Guns have gone up as well but mostly from inflation and market demand.
Doesn't make much sense because the NRA has probably seen more of an increase in revenue than any american gun manufacture.
An armed society is a polite society. As long as the criminals have guns (and ignore the laws), there's a need to be armed. Just ask Washington DC. GUN FREE ZONES ARE VICTIM RICH ENVIRONMENTS School shootings regards,
Since we are flattening issues, here's my attempt. Japan is not armed. The Japanese are also exceedingly polite - much more so than Americans. Japan also has a much lower crime rate than the United States. Does this mean we should follow their model and work to keep guns out of everyone's hands? Or is it just too late for us since we have too many guns in too many peoples' hands? GUN-FULL ZONES ARE VICTIM RICH ENVIRONMENTS!
They are also crazy and highly suicidal. Kinda the way I felt before the first time I shot machine guns. Happiness is a warm gun.
I'm going to just be dumb on this topic... But can anyone explain to me how Obama is going to take away this person handgun?? Or why this person "thinks" his right to gun ownership will be taken away? I'm talking a simple hand gun and not some G.I. Joe super automatic .45 cal that can penetrate armor hull plating... :grin:
Obama didn't even bother to consult the Constitution when he forced all Americans to have or purchase healthcare, what makes you confident he'll pay attention to the bill of rights?
nobody was forced to buy health care. Everyone is free to not buy it, and pay the penalty instead. It's the same as those that choose not to buy a home, but have to pay higher tax because they can't write off the interest payment. Nobody is forced to buy a home, or healthcare. But people who don't buy those things are required to pay some additional tax.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say anything about healthcare. This is the problem. We are holding onto codifications of law that existed three hundred years ago. The world has changed a LOT in the past three hundred years. All these Republicans love to talk about reforming or cutting programs that are outdated, then why don't we reform and modernize the constitution? Oh btw, all you conservatives that love the founding fathers? Even Thomas Jefferson, who believed in absolutely strict adherence to the Constitution, proposed that we tear up the constitution every 19 years or so and write a new one to account for the changes experienced during that period. Not to mention this guy was willing to go against his entire system of beliefs, his own political ideology to benefit the country. The Louisiana Purchase; benefited his country. Nowadays we have politicians who love the founding fathers to death, but not enough to sacrifice power to benefit the country; after which they have the audacity to call themselves patriots. Also not to confuse you, I don't support Obamacare either. Single payer seems to the be the most popular system there is out there since it eliminates greedy middlemen from dabbling in something they shouldn't be dabbling in. (Seriously, one of you conservatives try to debate with me how snubbing people for profit and essentially killing them is ethical)
For your sake, I guess I hope that guns are never completely banned. Though I'm a bit troubled that you were so easily able to get a hold of a gun in that mental state. Is such a belief, that a gun is a substitute for happiness and a panacea for all ills, common among gun-owners?
The Second Amendment wasn't not written for the freedom to hunt, or target shooting, or even personal self-defense. It was so the the populace could protect themselves from collectivist tyranny. The founding fathers understood the true threat.
In that case there is no reason to have citizens arm themselves today. Because citizens armed with rifles, shotguns, pistols, even assault rifles, with bomb shelters aren't going to be able to stand up to tanks, bunker busting missles, bombs, a cut off of water and power supply, etc. The govt. has advanced beyond what citizens can defend against with weaponry. Oddly enough unarmed resistance could prove to be the end of a tyrranical govt. If the whole populace went on strike, there govt. wouldn't have enough manpower to continue any sort of productivity. Of course the other solution would be to allow private citizens to have military jets, nuclear weapons, tanks, missiles and the like. Are you in favor of that?
