Mark Levin & Gallup - 2nd Amendment

People who are willing to trade freedom for security will wind up with neither.



So what you are saying is the families' loss and suffering from Sandy Hook is greater and worth preventing than the thousands of families' loss and suffering from alcohol and driving related deaths. Got it.

cornhole153 wrote:

..... Ban guns and ..... make extremists feel more insecure about the gov taking over.

Extremists? So, the Founding Fathers that specifically crafted the 2nd Amendment with thoughtful purpose, are extremists? And the people that exercise their lawful right, to own a gun, are extremists?



Why don't you also label folks that exercise another Constitutional right - exercising their right of religion. Are religious people of faith extremists too in your opinion? Many on the left think people of faith are religious kooks. As long as you're getting rid of parts of the Constitution, why stop with the 2nd Amendment - go after the 1st Amendment too. Ban religion, and then free speech.



Why are you branding millions of law abiding citizens that have broken zero laws as extremists? It appears that you are the shallow, knee jerk extremist. A serious discussion, and some thoughtful proposals from you about how to solve criminal violence would be refreshing. But then again, that would require intelligent thought on your part, and it appears that's asking too much.

cornhole153 wrote:



...... We give up ..... some percieved protection from criminals .....

That's an interesting perspective. "Perceived protection" - not real protection. What we are talking about is protection from criminal violence.



Let's look at the UK across the pond. They have no guns, even the police don't carry guns. In the UK, they have an average of 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000. Did you know the UK has the 2nd highest overall crime rate in Europe? Those British citizens have their hands to protect themselves. Of note, in the USA, we have 466 violent crimes per 100,000. Quite a bit lower, because U.S. citizens can protect themselves.

Is there any benefit to alcohol use? I suppose some people like the taste, but the costs far outweigh any benefit. The government is foolish for not banning it.

Ddawg wrote:

..... Ban guns and ..... make extremists feel more insecure about the gov taking over.

Extremists? So, the Founding Fathers that specifically crafted the 2nd Amendment with thoughtful purpose, are extremists? And the people that exercise their lawful right, to own a gun, are extremists?



Why don't you also label folks that exercise another Constitutional right - exercising their right of religion. Are religious people of faith extremists too in your opinion? Many on the left think people of faith are religious kooks. As long as you're getting rid of parts of the Constitution, why stop with the 2nd Amendment - go after the 1st Amendment too. Ban religion, and then free speech.



Why are you branding millions of law abiding citizens that have broken zero laws as extremists? It appears that you are the shallow, knee jerk extremist. A serious discussion, and some thoughtful proposals from you about how to solve criminal violence would be refreshing. But then again, that would require intelligent thought on your part, and it appears that's asking too much.

The founding fathers lived in a time of revolutions. We don't. They also lived in a time where guns could defend against the gov. Today they wouldn't. So, mainstream then, extremists today.



I wasn't talking about all gun owners, just those who have guns as a protection from the government



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

..... Ban guns and ..... make extremists feel more insecure about the gov taking over.

Extremists? So, the Founding Fathers that specifically crafted the 2nd Amendment with thoughtful purpose, are extremists? And the people that exercise their lawful right, to own a gun, are extremists?



Why don't you also label folks that exercise another Constitutional right - exercising their right of religion. Are religious people of faith extremists too in your opinion? Many on the left think people of faith are religious kooks. As long as you're getting rid of parts of the Constitution, why stop with the 2nd Amendment - go after the 1st Amendment too. Ban religion, and then free speech.



Why are you branding millions of law abiding citizens that have broken zero laws as extremists? It appears that you are the shallow, knee jerk extremist. A serious discussion, and some thoughtful proposals from you about how to solve criminal violence would be refreshing. But then again, that would require intelligent thought on your part, and it appears that's asking too much.

The founding fathers lived in a time of revolutions. We don't. They also lived in a time where guns could defend against the gov. Today they wouldn't. So, mainstream then, extremists today.



I wasn't talking about all gun owners, just those who have guns as a protection from the government



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

And the only way to find out who is which would be for a tyranical government to ban guns and then try to confiscate those already out there - which would thereby prove those who have them for protection from the government were correct to have them for such a purpose.



Your position is unteneble and wrong.

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

..... Ban guns and ..... make extremists feel more insecure about the gov taking over.

Extremists? So, the Founding Fathers that specifically crafted the 2nd Amendment with thoughtful purpose, are extremists? And the people that exercise their lawful right, to own a gun, are extremists?



Why don't you also label folks that exercise another Constitutional right - exercising their right of religion. Are religious people of faith extremists too in your opinion? Many on the left think people of faith are religious kooks. As long as you're getting rid of parts of the Constitution, why stop with the 2nd Amendment - go after the 1st Amendment too. Ban religion, and then free speech.



Why are you branding millions of law abiding citizens that have broken zero laws as extremists? It appears that you are the shallow, knee jerk extremist. A serious discussion, and some thoughtful proposals from you about how to solve criminal violence would be refreshing. But then again, that would require intelligent thought on your part, and it appears that's asking too much.

The founding fathers lived in a time of revolutions. We don't. They also lived in a time where guns could defend against the gov. Today they wouldn't. So, mainstream then, extremists today.



I wasn't talking about all gun owners, just those who have guns as a protection from the government



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

The reality is, you don't need a gun to protect yourself from the govt. because the mismatch is so one sided. There is no way an armed citizenry can stand up against todays modern army. When you take into account the combined arms that a modern army can bring to bear - armored vehicles, mortars, helicopter support, artillery, tanks, anti-tank missile systems, laser guided bombs and missiles. The firepower is truly awesome. It's like being hit by a tsunami. Unstoppable.



However, having an armed citizenry - to protect themselves against lawless, criminal citizens - that's the real deal. Me personally, I own guns. I mostly target shoot. But, I own guns to protect myself and my family against a lawless society - other citizens.



I saw what happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina - I was there. There was a total govt. collapse. An evaporation of govt. and law. The criminal elements ran wild there. I saw it first hand. The only protection people had was themselves. The reality is, what happened in Katrina and recent Hurricane Sandy is just a warm up for the social up-heavel that is in store for this nation. If you cannot defend yourself, and your family, you will become a victim of violent thugs. Believe it.

Ddawg wrote:

...... We give up ..... some percieved protection from criminals .....

That's an interesting perspective. "Perceived protection" - not real protection. What we are talking about is protection from criminal violence.



Let's look at the UK across the pond. They have no guns, even the police don't carry guns. In the UK, they have an average of 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000. Did you know the UK has the 2nd highest overall crime rate in Europe? Those British citizens have their hands to protect themselves. Of note, in the USA, we have 466 violent crimes per 100,000. Quite a bit lower, because U.S. citizens can protect themselves.

Seems way too simplistic of a comparison. And I'm sure I can find countries with gun bans with much lower violent crime rates than the US.



I was actually referring to the notion that having a gun in your home provides you safety, which just isn't true as studies have shown that even in the case of a break in the family is more at risk of injury or death if they own guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So if we stage a revolution we'd make the movement mainstream again?

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



...... We give up ..... some percieved protection from criminals .....

That's an interesting perspective. "Perceived protection" - not real protection. What we are talking about is protection from criminal violence.



Let's look at the UK across the pond. They have no guns, even the police don't carry guns. In the UK, they have an average of 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000. Did you know the UK has the 2nd highest overall crime rate in Europe? Those British citizens have their hands to protect themselves. Of note, in the USA, we have 466 violent crimes per 100,000. Quite a bit lower, because U.S. citizens can protect themselves.

Seems way too simplistic of a comparison. And I'm sure I can find countries with gun bans with much lower violent crime rates than the US.



I was actually referring to the notion that having a gun in your home provides you safety, which just isn't true as studies have shown that even in the case of a break in the family is more at risk of injury or death if they own guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If you choose to have no guns in your home - go for it. You can use a baseball bat, kitchen knife, of a chair to defend yourself. I hope your wife is quick and strong, and able to wrestle an intruder effectively when you are away at work.



If that is your choice - go for it. As for me, we choose to be responsible, law abiding gun owners that prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Don't impose your choice on me, and I won't impose my choice on you. But, quit trying to de-arm my family, and leave us defenseless. Why do you lefties always want to tell everyone else how to live?

snoscythe wrote:
So if we stage a revolution we'd make the movement mainstream again?

If most of the most civilized countries were in various stages of revolution, then yes, we'd be living in a time of revolution. Sure.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Ddawg wrote:

Ddawg wrote:

...... We give up ..... some percieved protection from criminals .....

That's an interesting perspective. "Perceived protection" - not real protection. What we are talking about is protection from criminal violence.



Let's look at the UK across the pond. They have no guns, even the police don't carry guns. In the UK, they have an average of 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000. Did you know the UK has the 2nd highest overall crime rate in Europe? Those British citizens have their hands to protect themselves. Of note, in the USA, we have 466 violent crimes per 100,000. Quite a bit lower, because U.S. citizens can protect themselves.

Seems way too simplistic of a comparison. And I'm sure I can find countries with gun bans with much lower violent crime rates than the US.



I was actually referring to the notion that having a gun in your home provides you safety, which just isn't true as studies have shown that even in the case of a break in the family is more at risk of injury or death if they own guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If you choose to have no guns in your home - go for it. You can use a baseball bat, kitchen knife, of a chair to defend yourself. I hope your wife is quick and strong, and able to wrestle an intruder effectively when you are away at work.



If that is your choice - go for it. As for me, we choose to be responsible, law abiding gun owners that prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Don't impose your choice on me, and I won't impose my choice on you. But, quit trying to de-arm my family, and leave us defenseless. Why do you lefties always want to tell everyone else how to live?

Defenseless but much safer, according to the statistics.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

Seems way too simplistic of a comparison. And I'm sure I can find countries with gun bans with much lower violent crime rates than the US.



I was actually referring to the notion that having a gun in your home provides you safety, which just isn't true as studies have shown that even in the case of a break in the family is more at risk of injury or death if they own guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

It's not a simplistic comparison. We are talking about the mother country of the USA. The UK and the USA have a lot in common culturally. The reason they UK govt. outlawed gun is because they could - they have no 2nd Amendment.



The bottom line is, US citizens, by law, have a right to arm and protect themselves. You lefties don't like that. Just like you don't like the Constitution. Really. The lefties view the Constitution as "living document.' Meaning, they can change it to say what they want. Isn't that convenient. Very self serving.

snoscythe wrote:
So if we stage a revolution we'd make the movement mainstream again?

Viva la revolucion!

Ddawg wrote:

Seems way too simplistic of a comparison. And I'm sure I can find countries with gun bans with much lower violent crime rates than the US.



I was actually referring to the notion that having a gun in your home provides you safety, which just isn't true as studies have shown that even in the case of a break in the family is more at risk of injury or death if they own guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

It's not a simplistic comparison. We are talking about the mother country of the USA. The UK and the USA have a lot in common culturally. The reason they UK govt. outlawed gun is because they could - they have no 2nd Amendment.



The bottom line is, US citizens, by law, have a right to arm and protect themselves. You lefties don't like that. Just like you don't like the Constitution. Really. The lefties view the Constitution as "living document.' Meaning, they can change it to say what they want. Isn't that convenient. Very self serving.

Given that most violent crime in the US occurs in urban, i.e., densely populated areas, wouldn't the fact that the UK is almost 8 times more densely populated than the US also be a factor?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I am sure that most Americans would be quite willing to give up their "perceived protection" if the police and the president gave up their "perceived protection."



If it is good for the some why is it not good for all? Are not all lives valuable or is it just some?

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



...... We give up ..... some percieved protection from criminals .....

That's an interesting perspective. "Perceived protection" - not real protection. What we are talking about is protection from criminal violence.



Let's look at the UK across the pond. They have no guns, even the police don't carry guns. In the UK, they have an average of 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000. Did you know the UK has the 2nd highest overall crime rate in Europe? Those British citizens have their hands to protect themselves. Of note, in the USA, we have 466 violent crimes per 100,000. Quite a bit lower, because U.S. citizens can protect themselves.

Seems way too simplistic of a comparison. And I'm sure I can find countries with gun bans with much lower violent crime rates than the US.



I was actually referring to the notion that having a gun in your home provides you safety, which just isn't true as studies have shown that even in the case of a break in the family is more at risk of injury or death if they own guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If you choose to have no guns in your home - go for it. You can use a baseball bat, kitchen knife, of a chair to defend yourself. I hope your wife is quick and strong, and able to wrestle an intruder effectively when you are away at work.



If that is your choice - go for it. As for me, we choose to be responsible, law abiding gun owners that prepare for the worst, and hope for the best. Don't impose your choice on me, and I won't impose my choice on you. But, quit trying to de-arm my family, and leave us defenseless. Why do you lefties always want to tell everyone else how to live?

Defenseless but much safer, according to the statistics.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Did you not read the part about 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 compared to 466? So if by "Safer" you mean "four times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime" then I can agree with you

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

Seems way too simplistic of a comparison. And I'm sure I can find countries with gun bans with much lower violent crime rates than the US.



I was actually referring to the notion that having a gun in your home provides you safety, which just isn't true as studies have shown that even in the case of a break in the family is more at risk of injury or death if they own guns.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

It's not a simplistic comparison. We are talking about the mother country of the USA. The UK and the USA have a lot in common culturally. The reason they UK govt. outlawed gun is because they could - they have no 2nd Amendment.



The bottom line is, US citizens, by law, have a right to arm and protect themselves. You lefties don't like that. Just like you don't like the Constitution. Really. The lefties view the Constitution as "living document.' Meaning, they can change it to say what they want. Isn't that convenient. Very self serving.

Given that most violent crime in the US occurs in urban, i.e., densely populated areas, wouldn't the fact that the UK is almost 8 times more densely populated than the US also be a factor?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Hmm, ar e you saying guns are a foctor, or density is a foctor/ If density is the major factor, if we were really worried about safety, we'd get rid of the urban areas right? That seems to be a bigger factor in violent crime than guns....

As has been stated else where countries with the best, most accessible gun laws have the least amount of crime, while those with the strictest have the most crime. Even in the United States, states with oppressive gun laws are several times more likely to have more murders, rapes, and violent crime than states that allow their citizens to follow the constitution.



It is undeniable and indisputable.

hawkwing wrote:
As has been stated else where countries with the best, most accessible gun laws have the least amount of crime, while those with the strictest have the most crime. Even in the United States, states with oppressive gun laws are several times more likely to have more murders, rapes, and violent crime than states that allow their citizens to follow the constitution.



It is undeniable and indisputable.

Not sure why I'm even responding as Hawk views all his opinions as undeniable and indisputable. Anyway, where has this been posted as clearly the US has higher crimes that pretty much all other developed countries with restricted gun laws.



e.g.,



http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3231" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">