Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

    Originally posted by Danny View Post
    The UK data proves my point. The gun death rate is nil. As for your gun free Zones they make no sense as I pointed out. May as well start having gun free rooms.
    Really? And what point is that?

    We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
    Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.

    The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.

    Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.

    At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.

    With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.

    To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.

    According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.

    In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
    So what was your point, Danny? That strict gun laws in GB and Australia made their people safer? They haven't... mass killings continued... gun crime and deaths... continued. Guns used... bought illegally.

    Hardly a surprise... to anyone not on the left.


    Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

      Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
      I know conservatives hate that word, because it reeks of equality, which is not a tenet of conservatism. Conservatism throughout history works to undermine democracy and equality and create some form of an aristocracy and hierarchy. In today's culture it is the 'job creators', the 'makers', and the corporations who the ultra-conservative Supreme Court majority deemed a person. And for the underlings who are not among the elite it is crucial to conservatism that those people must literally love the order that dominates them.

      It truly is the antithesis of liberalism.

      Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
      James M. Buchanan
      Modern Progressives are the antithesis of liberalism. I AM a Classic Liberal and in fact if you actually read my posts on this forum for the past year and a half, you would know that. I oppose Republicans just as much as Democrats. Equality is just fine with me; democracy does not equal equality. How the hell does 51% decide everything while the other 49% are just screwed "equality". A Republic is designed to protect the minority from the dictates of the majority, far more "equal" than 51% running over everyone else.

      Modern conservatives are as authoritarian as modern liberals are. Neither are Classic Liberals. I am, again, a Classic Liberal. Don't assume everyone who makes a pro-gun argument on here is a Bush loving - neo-con - Fox News-watching "conservative".

      I have no love for corporate welfare, illegitimate wars like Iraq, Bush's dictatorial agenda, or enriching already ridiculously rich international bankers.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

        Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge

        (NaturalNews) The reports are absolutely true. Facebook suspended the Natural News account earlier today after we posted an historical quote from Mohandas Gandhi. The quote reads:

        "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.
        Learn more: Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

          California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall

          Read more here: California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall - Data Center - The Sacramento Bee

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

            Originally posted by Danny View Post
            I don't care if you want to keep your guns. It's appalling but as you said its your right. Just don't convince me guns make your country safer because they haven't and they don't.
            What's "appalling" is how willing people are to give up their rights for supposed "safety".

            I'll never convince you of anything that you don't want to believe, no matter how true it is.

            My gun makes me extremely safe, and those around me safer, but I can't be everywhere at once.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

              Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
              Since Obama took office, here is the bills he signed relating to the 2nd amendment:

              The President has signed separate pieces of legislation that expanded gun rights. These rights include the ability of citizens to carry firearms in national parks as long as they comply with state laws, and the ability of certain passengers to carry unloaded firearms in the luggage on Amtrak trains.
              which has dick to do with what i asked danny.... wow obama said something about it and now the poster in question is interested... thus my point....

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                Originally posted by CharlesD View Post
                That is because guns are available and easier to use. Without guns bombs may become the murder/suicide weapon of choice.

                Using your numbers, about half (according to the various sites I searched) of all gun deaths are suicides. People who wanted to kill themselves and if not for a gun, could have used any of several other methods. That leaves 6,450+-. According to even the most pro-gun control study of recent times say 3,000 are killed by victims killing criminals. (No stats on how many criminals are chased off just by the sight of the gun, or fired at and missed, or wounded) That leaves 3,450 people killed by other than suicide or victims. George F. Cole, Christopher E. Smith Estimates show that the police shoot about 3,600 people each year.

                Obviously the more recent estimates of gun deaths is very under estimated because this doesn't include gang related and drug related events.
                Honestly couldn't be research before talking to adults...


                Start with a Wikipage...

                Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003-2009 - Statistical Tables

                Stop pulling stats out of your asss....

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                  Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                  I know conservatives hate that word, because it reeks of equality, which is not a tenet of conservatism. Conservatism throughout history works to undermine democracy and equality and create some form of an aristocracy and hierarchy. In today's culture it is the 'job creators', the 'makers', and the corporations who the ultra-conservative Supreme Court majority deemed a person. And for the underlings who are not among the elite it is crucial to conservatism that those people must literally love the order that dominates them.

                  It truly is the antithesis of liberalism.

                  Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
                  James M. Buchanan
                  Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Nothing more, nothing less.

                  It is interesting that liberals scream about the benefits of democracy when they have a slight majority, but scream even louder about the rights of the minority when they are out of power.

                  Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                    Originally posted by smurf View Post
                    Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Nothing more, nothing less.

                    It is interesting that liberals scream about the benefits of democracy when they have a slight majority, but scream even louder about the rights of the minority when they are out of power.

                    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal.
                    You are confused. Our nation was founded on democratic principles. Our form of government is a representative republic.

                    "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                      I thought this was particularly pertinent to this thread. I often wonder why people don't question why the government is so afraid of citizens with guns. The question is always phrased "why are you afraid of the government?" My question is this

                      ammo.jpg

                      And I think it's a pretty damn good question. And it's not just the DHS buying up ammo. Just recently, the Social Security Administration bought up something like 100 million + rounds of hollow point ammo. Why is the Federal government doing that, but wanting to take away "assault weapons".

                      Again, I pose this question as well: If you want to save some children, why not ban drone bombing?

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                        Originally posted by Bfgrn View Post
                        You are confused. Our nation was founded on democratic principles. Our form of government is a representative republic.

                        "The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482
                        I see what you are trying to say, but this very quote is talking about Republicanism, not democracy. Nothing in that quote is about democratic principles.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                          people kill not guns.jpg

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                            An inconvenient truth for the gun ban crowd:

                            64081_10151262551467740_209577863_n.jpeg

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                              Interesting article published in 2007 on a town where everyone is required to own a firearm vs. a town with a gun ban:

                              25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’

                              In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

                              The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

                              Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

                              But compare it to this:

                              By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.
                              /In before the source is attacked rather than the stats or the argument being made. Logical fallacies here we come!

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: Here it comes - federal registration of gun owners

                                Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                                Interesting article published in 2007 on a town where everyone is required to own a firearm vs. a town with a gun ban:

                                25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’



                                But compare it to this:



                                /In before the source is attacked rather than the stats or the argument being made. Logical fallacies here we come!
                                Irrelevant. The logical fallacy is your examples. No one is calling for a ban on all guns. Why is this so impossible to understand? Are you any less safe because you don't have a bazooka? The ban being talked about is for a specific type of weapon ONLY and over a certain capacity clip.

                                This debate has really exposed the gun crowd as extreme, insecure, unable to understand even moderate ideas or proposals.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X