The next time someone tells you England has less crime then the U.S. make them read this article
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
About Assault Weapons
Very good video for the uninformed about Assault Weapons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&mode=related&search=
Some facts.
Motorized vehicles are the most controlled things in America. We license the drivers after they study and test showing an aptitude for safe driving. But yet some 50,000 people are killed each year in America in auto accidents and 2+ million are permantly maimed or crippled. Roughly 65% or those killed were due to drinking/drugs and driving.
Contraire to popular opinion no one is guaranteed the right to drive under the constitution or even own a car. So I say take away all autos sense they evidently cause a hell of a lot more deaths each year then Guns do. You can walk or ride a horse.
The use of a gun to stop crime in America is 1.6-2.5 million times a year.80% of the crimes were of a violent nature with the possibility of severe injury and or death. If guns are banned then we can convert it to a form of genocide.
In the state of Kentucky we have issued over 300,000 Carry Concealed Weapons permits and have yet to have our streets run red with blood. There are no gunfights at the OK coral for the anti-gunners to point at and say see we told you so.
Out of 80 million gun owners in the U.S. they account for over 125 million known guns that is around 1.5 guns per person. There are a number of guns that are unaccounted for in the U.S.
80 million gun owners counts for close to 65% of legal voters, but yet cannot agree on who should be in congress and the Presidency.
Close to 20% will give up their guns without even a bad word being said if the Government bans ownership of them. Still leaving a citizen army of +/- 64 million.
Of the 64 million gun owners left, well over 20 million will submit to search and seizure of weapons but may voice opposition to the illegal action. Leaving 44 million to fight the tyrannies of our Government. 44 million gun owners resisting, will be one hell of an army to face.
Contrary to popular mythology 85-91% of the rank and file law enforcement does not support Gun control to include the assault weapons ban.
The Senate, The House, nor Congress has any given authority by our Constitution to ban the private ownership, purchase, use, or selling of any firearms. However they may legally tax them and can restrict the importation of weapons.
The last assault weapons ban was illegal, but people did not stand up to them and demand they repeal the law.
Assault weapons only account for 2% of the guns confiscated by L.E.A.’s in the U.S.
Less then .01% of crime in the U.S. actually is committed with Assault weapons.
Banning private ownership of guns has lead to Genocide and a suppression of personal freedoms in such nations as Darfur, Uganda, The Congo republic, and other African nations, Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Burundi. Well hell just look for yourself.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable2006.htm
Contraire to popular opinion no one is guaranteed the right to drive under the constitution or even own a car. So I say take away all autos sense they evidently cause a hell of a lot more deaths each year then Guns do. You can walk or ride a horse.
The use of a gun to stop crime in America is 1.6-2.5 million times a year.80% of the crimes were of a violent nature with the possibility of severe injury and or death. If guns are banned then we can convert it to a form of genocide.
In the state of Kentucky we have issued over 300,000 Carry Concealed Weapons permits and have yet to have our streets run red with blood. There are no gunfights at the OK coral for the anti-gunners to point at and say see we told you so.
Out of 80 million gun owners in the U.S. they account for over 125 million known guns that is around 1.5 guns per person. There are a number of guns that are unaccounted for in the U.S.
80 million gun owners counts for close to 65% of legal voters, but yet cannot agree on who should be in congress and the Presidency.
Close to 20% will give up their guns without even a bad word being said if the Government bans ownership of them. Still leaving a citizen army of +/- 64 million.
Of the 64 million gun owners left, well over 20 million will submit to search and seizure of weapons but may voice opposition to the illegal action. Leaving 44 million to fight the tyrannies of our Government. 44 million gun owners resisting, will be one hell of an army to face.
Contrary to popular mythology 85-91% of the rank and file law enforcement does not support Gun control to include the assault weapons ban.
The Senate, The House, nor Congress has any given authority by our Constitution to ban the private ownership, purchase, use, or selling of any firearms. However they may legally tax them and can restrict the importation of weapons.
The last assault weapons ban was illegal, but people did not stand up to them and demand they repeal the law.
Assault weapons only account for 2% of the guns confiscated by L.E.A.’s in the U.S.
Less then .01% of crime in the U.S. actually is committed with Assault weapons.
Banning private ownership of guns has lead to Genocide and a suppression of personal freedoms in such nations as Darfur, Uganda, The Congo republic, and other African nations, Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire, Nigeria, Burundi. Well hell just look for yourself.
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocidetable2006.htm
Leaders in America?
As I see our Government officials, they are nothing more then a representative of the people that elect them to their JOB.
America has no leaders as per say, from the President of the United States to the local city counsel. All are elected to be our representatives and voice, nothing more. We Americans do not have leaders above us. Nowhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights do we have, appoint, elect, leaders, but rather we appoint representatives who must speak on the behalf of those that elect them.
Other countries have leaders, many of whom are not elected to an office but rather assume this roll by Bloodline, or through Military coups. Leaders are assumed to be totally in charge of everyone under them. They make rules, and laws for governing their nation, citizens, and/or tribes. Many times leaders of other countries must be deposed by a dissenting party or disgruntled want to be leader. Which some times ends in a blood bath coup, or the leader just passing away from an unknown illness.
A leader tend to believe that what they choose is what the People under them need as apposed to letting the people decide for their selves. A leader will almost always choose governing of the masses by assuming that only they themselves have the knowledge and foresight to know the needs of the peoples. In many nations of the world the people just go along with what they are told is for their own good sense a leading body has decided for them.
Little input from the citizenry on issues that affect them is almost never sought. Most times a law is passed without the peoples even having fore knowledge of it. They wake up in the morning only to find that they are lawbreakers sometimes when they were not the night before.
In America the way our system is made, allows the people to decide for them self’s rather then just assume someone else should do it for us. No person in America is above or below anyone else. According to our Constitution and Bill of Rights all are equal in standing with every one else. America does not recognize, bestow, or appoint Royalty upon anyone. We do not recognize absolute power of a person, and/or a governing body.
All power of Government is granted by the people, to the elected to act on our behalf, as we demand by majority vote. Nothing in our structure allows for a leader who can speak for us based on his or her beliefs as to what we should want. America was designed as a truly leaderless nation. An elected official such as Nancy Pelosi from San commiecisco can only speak for the constituents who elected her to office and not the rest of the nation. In perspective, President Bush can only speak for the people who elected him to office and they both must follow the demands of the electric.
All power and authority reverts back to the people as a whole, as is in the laws of the Constitution. The Constitution was written as rules to govern the jobs of our elected.
opaww
America has no leaders as per say, from the President of the United States to the local city counsel. All are elected to be our representatives and voice, nothing more. We Americans do not have leaders above us. Nowhere in our Constitution or Bill of Rights do we have, appoint, elect, leaders, but rather we appoint representatives who must speak on the behalf of those that elect them.
Other countries have leaders, many of whom are not elected to an office but rather assume this roll by Bloodline, or through Military coups. Leaders are assumed to be totally in charge of everyone under them. They make rules, and laws for governing their nation, citizens, and/or tribes. Many times leaders of other countries must be deposed by a dissenting party or disgruntled want to be leader. Which some times ends in a blood bath coup, or the leader just passing away from an unknown illness.
A leader tend to believe that what they choose is what the People under them need as apposed to letting the people decide for their selves. A leader will almost always choose governing of the masses by assuming that only they themselves have the knowledge and foresight to know the needs of the peoples. In many nations of the world the people just go along with what they are told is for their own good sense a leading body has decided for them.
Little input from the citizenry on issues that affect them is almost never sought. Most times a law is passed without the peoples even having fore knowledge of it. They wake up in the morning only to find that they are lawbreakers sometimes when they were not the night before.
In America the way our system is made, allows the people to decide for them self’s rather then just assume someone else should do it for us. No person in America is above or below anyone else. According to our Constitution and Bill of Rights all are equal in standing with every one else. America does not recognize, bestow, or appoint Royalty upon anyone. We do not recognize absolute power of a person, and/or a governing body.
All power of Government is granted by the people, to the elected to act on our behalf, as we demand by majority vote. Nothing in our structure allows for a leader who can speak for us based on his or her beliefs as to what we should want. America was designed as a truly leaderless nation. An elected official such as Nancy Pelosi from San commiecisco can only speak for the constituents who elected her to office and not the rest of the nation. In perspective, President Bush can only speak for the people who elected him to office and they both must follow the demands of the electric.
All power and authority reverts back to the people as a whole, as is in the laws of the Constitution. The Constitution was written as rules to govern the jobs of our elected.
opaww
Common sense
Let us look at the term common sense,
Main Entry: common sense Function: noun: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
Whos simple perception yours or mine? Common sense is not absolute and can never be absolute sense it relies on a personal perception as to what qualifies.
Common sense gun laws, just what are common sense gun laws? My perception of common sense gun laws is;
Backgrounds check on any perches of a gun.
A eligibility age for owning a gun, 21 for hand guns, and 18 for rifles and shot guns
No restrictions on magazine capacity
No restriction on cosmetic appearances or functionality of a given weapon
Open purchases between states. If your qualified in one state then you are qualified on another.
Mandatory Gun safety classes for anyone not trained by our Law Enforcement Agencies, The NRA and/or Military.
Every citizen of legal age, clean record and sound mind must own a gun
Guns that fire an explosive round must come under other training and license.
Open license for CCWP, if you qualify to own a gun then you can carry one.
Extreme penatalies for miss-use of a weapon or the possession of a weapon while committing a crime
Are these common sense laws to everyone? No they are not, there just my perception of common sense laws. Being as valid as any other perception of laws.
opaww
Main Entry: common sense Function: noun: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
Whos simple perception yours or mine? Common sense is not absolute and can never be absolute sense it relies on a personal perception as to what qualifies.
Common sense gun laws, just what are common sense gun laws? My perception of common sense gun laws is;
Backgrounds check on any perches of a gun.
A eligibility age for owning a gun, 21 for hand guns, and 18 for rifles and shot guns
No restrictions on magazine capacity
No restriction on cosmetic appearances or functionality of a given weapon
Open purchases between states. If your qualified in one state then you are qualified on another.
Mandatory Gun safety classes for anyone not trained by our Law Enforcement Agencies, The NRA and/or Military.
Every citizen of legal age, clean record and sound mind must own a gun
Guns that fire an explosive round must come under other training and license.
Open license for CCWP, if you qualify to own a gun then you can carry one.
Extreme penatalies for miss-use of a weapon or the possession of a weapon while committing a crime
Are these common sense laws to everyone? No they are not, there just my perception of common sense laws. Being as valid as any other perception of laws.
opaww
Another angle to the anti gun issue Nobel Privilege
Many anti gunners who wish to restrict the private possession of guns, believe that it is the little person who needs the restrictions imposed on them and not the rich and/or famous. It has been held in many circles that the privileged/elite should be allowed their right to ownership of guns for their protection.
We have seen in recent times where a city, county, or state has attempted to ban private gun ownership for the general populist under the guise of for our own good. But yet these same city, county, and states held that the rich and important should be armed. Effectively placing a value to people, based on wealth, power, or political standing in life. San commiecisco is one such city. Banning the handgun for its citizens except for political people like Diane Feinstein (1) who acquired a concealed carry weapons permit under the guise that she was worth more then the average citizen.
This kind of exclusionary belief is referred to as Nobel Privilege. Oft times seen in countries with nobility as important persons. Usually believed that the cause of nobility was a direct proof of intelligence. Though America has no nobility nor recognizes nobility with in our own country the process still remains the same. We have replaced the nobility with famous people, the rich, and the political liches. Many people in America believe that a movie star is an automatic right of intelligence and what they say must be true sense they are famous.
Nobel Privilege has its roots in the monarchy of England for the most part; sense it was believed that the nobility should still be allowed their ownership of firearms. At the same time outlawing the private ownership or possession by the common people. Even today the rich, and or nobles in England can and oft times do own firearms. The common person can by law acquire a firearm by legal means in England but the cost and legal challenges make it almost impossible.
Many of the people that believe in the concept of Nobel Privilege assert that the privileged are the only ones who have the judgment to own and carry guns. Some how this prestigious title makes them far more responsible and knowledgeable then the normal citizen. If they were far more knowledgeable then the average citizen then they would know that Congress has not authority to ban any law abiding citizen from buying, possessing, and using weapons for there own purpose. They would also know that Congress could only by law control the commerce of weapons and not the right to bare arms. As is seen with the tax stamp on full auto weapons this does not restrict a law abiding citizen from owning one but places a tax on each sales and transfer to help curb unwanted people from having them. The amount of forms to fill out and the $200 for the transfer plus the back round check by the F.B.I. prohibits felons and criminals from legally obtaining one.
The issues of Nobel Privilege, and there elitist right to self protection only leads to the belief that the common citizen is little more then meet on the hoof not worth much in ways of self preservation. Sense the courts have ruled that law enforcement is under no obligation to protect the individual citizen, but only the citizenry as a whole. The responsibility of self-protection falls to ones own self and in order for you to effectively do so you must be armed.
Don’t be fooled by the Nobel Privilege, they will always be exempt from many things that other wise would put you and I in jail. Money and fame talks and every one else dies or goes to jail.
Notes
(1) http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/Diane_Feinstein.htm
http://www.zpub.com/un/un-df.html
When the handgun ban in San commiecisco took effect the news media filmed Diane Feinstein turning in her pistol. But after the cameras stopped rolling her bodyguard retrieved it and gave it back to her. (End of note 1)
opaww
We have seen in recent times where a city, county, or state has attempted to ban private gun ownership for the general populist under the guise of for our own good. But yet these same city, county, and states held that the rich and important should be armed. Effectively placing a value to people, based on wealth, power, or political standing in life. San commiecisco is one such city. Banning the handgun for its citizens except for political people like Diane Feinstein (1) who acquired a concealed carry weapons permit under the guise that she was worth more then the average citizen.
This kind of exclusionary belief is referred to as Nobel Privilege. Oft times seen in countries with nobility as important persons. Usually believed that the cause of nobility was a direct proof of intelligence. Though America has no nobility nor recognizes nobility with in our own country the process still remains the same. We have replaced the nobility with famous people, the rich, and the political liches. Many people in America believe that a movie star is an automatic right of intelligence and what they say must be true sense they are famous.
Nobel Privilege has its roots in the monarchy of England for the most part; sense it was believed that the nobility should still be allowed their ownership of firearms. At the same time outlawing the private ownership or possession by the common people. Even today the rich, and or nobles in England can and oft times do own firearms. The common person can by law acquire a firearm by legal means in England but the cost and legal challenges make it almost impossible.
Many of the people that believe in the concept of Nobel Privilege assert that the privileged are the only ones who have the judgment to own and carry guns. Some how this prestigious title makes them far more responsible and knowledgeable then the normal citizen. If they were far more knowledgeable then the average citizen then they would know that Congress has not authority to ban any law abiding citizen from buying, possessing, and using weapons for there own purpose. They would also know that Congress could only by law control the commerce of weapons and not the right to bare arms. As is seen with the tax stamp on full auto weapons this does not restrict a law abiding citizen from owning one but places a tax on each sales and transfer to help curb unwanted people from having them. The amount of forms to fill out and the $200 for the transfer plus the back round check by the F.B.I. prohibits felons and criminals from legally obtaining one.
The issues of Nobel Privilege, and there elitist right to self protection only leads to the belief that the common citizen is little more then meet on the hoof not worth much in ways of self preservation. Sense the courts have ruled that law enforcement is under no obligation to protect the individual citizen, but only the citizenry as a whole. The responsibility of self-protection falls to ones own self and in order for you to effectively do so you must be armed.
Don’t be fooled by the Nobel Privilege, they will always be exempt from many things that other wise would put you and I in jail. Money and fame talks and every one else dies or goes to jail.
Notes
(1) http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/Diane_Feinstein.htm
http://www.zpub.com/un/un-df.html
When the handgun ban in San commiecisco took effect the news media filmed Diane Feinstein turning in her pistol. But after the cameras stopped rolling her bodyguard retrieved it and gave it back to her. (End of note 1)
opaww
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)