From a social perspective, I'd be curious to see what would happen if every Mexican citizen were armed with a couple of pistols and an M-16 overnight and given training on how to use them. Would the cartels get wiped out in short order? Would the reverse happen, and we'd see a huge increase in civilian deaths? I don't know, but I suspect it would hurt the cartels a lot. Pretty easy to kill 150 unarmed people.

I would agree with you Roland. Check out Switzerland, nearly every man in the country has an "assault rifle" at home and is very well trained in using them, and yet they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world.



If the citizens of Mexico were armed and had been through militia training, I have a feeling that gun violence would spark and then die down rather quickly. That couldn't be proven at all however, and it won't ever happen.

By recognizing that removing that right would be even more harmful.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

I'll leave these here too. I've been on a political and gun control youtube binge since I started posting in this thread, I am actually holding back a lot lol.




This one really got to me, its just awesome to see someone who is truly invested in an issue speak on it. You can feel the difference even through video.

Also, I don't own an assault rifle or a pistol, just a little .22 my dad got me when I was 13. I just believe VERY strongly in my right to own one if I ever feel the need, and if a gun ban was put into affect I would most likely purchase one illegally. (Even though unconstitutional laws aren't laws...)

America doesn't require any stringent training, though. If it did this would be a worthy discussion. People can go to Walmart and have a gun within a week, then a kid finds it loaded in the closet and shoots himself or his sister. Its a tragedy, but not worthy of passing any legislation.

You've got to be kidding me? I mean you can't honestly think that the problem in Mexico with violence is gun control? And you think that the reason that Switzerland isn't so bad is lack of gun control? You're obviously a god damn moron.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

What?

I'm really confused by your questions. I never said the problem with violence in Mexico is gun control, I was just saying that if the majority of the men in the country had militia training and assault rifles, the cartels would have a LOT more troubles.

I think that the reason Switzerland isn't so bad is lack of gun control... uh I never even came close to saying that. What I was inferring was that a large majority of people in Switzerland own assault rifles, and are very well trained in using them, and yet they have one of the lowest murder rates in the world.

I never advocate gun control, but gun education and training? abso friggin lutely. If more people learned to respect the firearms they bought, and were required to go through training in how to handle them, then I think people would have a more healthy understanding of how dangerous they can be. Also, I already said earlier in the thread that I believe we should try and address the issue of VIOLENCE rather than focus on GUNS.

Also, where did you learn to question people? The media?

I don't believe I insulted you when you expressed your opinions, but maybe I should have.

Stop with the Switzerland shit. There ammo is held at the armory and is only distributed in case of emergency. Up until 2007 50 round were sealed in a container that was checked regularly by the government. However, that was discontinued and now the only people who have ammo are the government. So yes, Swiss has assault rifles...with no ammo. Pretty much like having a assault rifle shaped club in your house. But please keep making more arguments based on swiss gun policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... witzerland

rofl. You're a disingenuous dumbass. This only applies to ammunition issued by the government. Swiss citizens are allowed to buy and shoot as much as they would like. The only caveat is that they are not allowed to own expanding ammunition in pistol calibers. This does not prohibit them from purchasing military surplus or newly manufactured ammunition for their service rifle.

Care to espouse any more half truths?

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

The Switzerland story...again?

Here's my question: Doesn't anyone here have a problem with the Gov. demanding you keep an assault rifle at home? What about being drafted into the Militia? No problem with that? You guys want to get drafted? LOL!

There are lots of holes in the Switzerland scenario; not the least of which is, how does, "The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30...", morph into, "nearly every man in the country has an "assault rifle" at home..."?

_________________
If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom

He's trying to come up with some as we type.

Nobody was advocating their system in the USA, we were merely pointing out the discrepancy which exists between gun proliferation and the incidence of violent crime. No matter how you choose to look at it, there is a notable lack of gun violence in a country with a very high rate of gun proliferation.

I feel it's more a product of the socioeconomic climate (everyone is wealthy) than anything else. When you remove that element of human desperation, you will see fewer people getting shot during a robbery as robberies become less commonplace.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

Careful, you might be giving the liberals some ammo, here. Redistribute all the rich people's money so everyone's wealthy and we'll have no crime.

Hell has frozen over! I agree.

_________________
If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom

Glad we can agree on something!

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

Tax the FU out of anyone that wants an assault rifle. FU if you don't comply.. I want a rocket launcher ok sir but it's going to cost you!

2nd amendment rule yes.. but with that right belongs responsibility. You MotherFU... yes you ... need to ensure my kids are safe!

We gun owners need to own up to it.. With this right to own any gun we need pay what ever cost to protect our children. period..

If it cost 10,000 TAX per person, every year.. SO WELLL.. Protect our children since there is no other option!!!

....

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start. Because I can't afford a 50% tax on an assault rifles I do not have the right to own one? First off, go F yourself for saying that to any law-abiding American, just because I am poor does not make me a criminal. Second off, responsibility does not equal money. Money is paper. Money cannot feed my family, clothe them, protect them, or allow them opportunities in life. Money is a UNIT OF EXCHANGE which allows me to get those things that I need.

People really need to learn this fact. If every economic system in the world failed, and the dollar, euro, and any other currency was worthless, everyone would panic, rebel, riot, and otherwise make fools of themselves. Yet, if everyone still went to work, still obeyed the law, and still went to the grocery store to get groceries and even went to get a new car when they actually needed it, then everything would be fine. The only thing that gives money ANY value whatsoever, is our belief in it. If no one believes money is worth anything, then it is worthless. I don't believe money is worth a damned thing, but everyone else does so I use it to buy the things I need, and help my family.

As much as I had disagreed with redeye your response was ...

If you can't afford the 50% tax you can't afford the assault rifle. Doesn't change your right to own it. Just because you can't afford a ferrari doesn't mean you don't have a right to own one.

Money is not a unit of exchange, money is a good just as anything else. Just because you don't see a specific use out of it besides it's trade value doesn't mean it's not a good in itself.

I don't really understand the point of your rant? If no one sees the value in a cow it makes it worthless too. I'm starting to see that your posts aren't worth anything either.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

You don't seem to understand what I am actually saying in any of my posts. My post was in response to his, which means that specifically, any statements I make were in response to statements he was making. I didn't feel the need to extrapolate on money more, but I guess I have too. Yes, technically money is a good, but only because people believe it is a good. That was my point. Most other goods have value outside of merely being a currency of exchange. If you have gas, you can run your car, if you have water you can drink it. You can't do anything with money if no one believes it is worth anything.

He was infering that having higher taxes on guns would make it so murderers cannot afford them. I responded saying that just because I am poor, does not mean that I don't have a right to own an assault rifle. I gave an example of that by saying that if the government put a 50% tax on assault rifles and I couldn't afford one, it didn't mean anything about my rights to have it. You pretty much repeated my exact statement with your argument (effectively implying that I am an idiot with your bs ferrari line). He was inferring that people who could not afford to pay more in taxes to own an assault rifle, did not deserve to own one. I replied that just because someone cannot afford an increase in taxes on an assault rifle, it does not mean they don't have the right to own own. Which means that increasing taxes on assault rifles in an effort to stop gun violence is offensive to poor Americans, and a horrible precedent to set by our government. (restricting things by increasing their cost)

Its probably a good idea to stop reading my posts, I've had a beer or 3, so I would normally be a little more clear, but feel free not to respond to my posts anymore if you want to insult me without trying to understand my perspective.

So tax the 99.9% of gun owners who are responsible and never have any safety issues with their guns in order to stop the .1% who aren't responsible. Right, and after that we can start taxing free speech as well to keep people from saying offensive things, because we all know that people's "stupid" mouth's are what lead to disagreements, which of course leads to violence, which leads to......

_________________
That's weak sauce!