Let's be serious

[CJ18]

If things keep going the way they are, we wont be the land of the free and home of the brave. We will be land of the scared and home of the oppressed.

[matt402]

Now my take on "assualt rifles". As much as i love to shoot them as a hobbiest, they have no real purpose other than for Military and Police use, and the latter of those is still up in the air as i see more and more police having issues with controlling themselves. So I feel that if you are retired or ex Military you should be able to keep your rifle but to fire it you must go to specific Military branched ranges accross the country instead of your local range with civilians. I dont feel average civilians should have the opportunity to purchase these weapons, but i dont think they should be outlawed completely. They should only be available to active/retired Military or Police.

I personally dont have any "assualt" rifles. I have mainly Pistols and Hunting guns. But I have shot them and enjoy them. But in my thoughts I see that persons with the easy access of these rifles are more likely to cause harm.

I agree with everything you said except this part. And here's my problem with that... One of the main reasons the 2nd amendment is important, in my opinion, is so that we can protect ourselves, not just from criminals, but from the government. Sure you can reason that an assault weapon's only purpose must be for "assault," and that's fine and I agree with that. But as long as military and police are allowed to have these weapons, I think it's only fair that we do too. The more rights they take away from us, the more upper hand the government has on us.

X2!

Just two things real quick:

This.

And this.

X2!

[matt402]

i think the first 3 words to this document are important...

[barney91]

Let's be serious if a ban is made on assault weapons, hi-cap mags, or what ever. How many of us are really going to stand up and do something about it, because to be honest I don't think many of us will.

[Miguels]

well if they ban it there is nothing to do.. if we have to do something now is the time. once the ban goes through its too late for us

[barney91]

What is there to do

[Watch the bass]

As a guy out of America, i support the right to carry weapons. I would prefer it would be allowed in my country too.

My ojection to the situation in america is the permission of gun´s like the AR 15, they have another firepower than a normal handgun like the 1911 or

a normal rifle. And as 2. the hording of the normal weapons. If nothing to say if you have a closet full of rifles for hunting for the diffrent annimals, or real

sportweapons.

I feel the hording of the weapons like i can see here in the "Guns and amo section" as nuthugging gloryfing of weapons.

I meen if you have one @ home (every home you own), one to carry with you and one for the reserve for selfdefence + sport- and huntingweapons

would be in such a good way for the future.

I know it, it makes fun to shoot (reduced if i understand it right) assault riffles, machine-gun´s on the firing range and so on, but that´s over selfdefence

for myself. And if i want to do that i have to join the army and not waiting till my wallet is big enough, to have a arsenal of war weapons at home.

For myself i have no gun, and my shooting as conscript was less (saving amo was one of the major thing´s) and quick sad of cleaning the gun.

[BobbyG2]

"

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

[P]er capita murder

overall

is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where

gun

murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should."

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

[poorfish88]

Let's be serious if a ban is made on assault weapons, hi-cap mags, or what ever. How many of us are really going to stand up and do something about it, because to be honest I don't think many of us will.

NRA Join

[n8ball2013]

im wiating to see what the NRA says this time around before I do. United we stand divided we fall.