I’m glad as fuck I don’t love around a city because apparently it means I have a much much higher chance of getting caught up in gang violence and shot. Why would I want to put up with that?
i know there are cowards out there who need to hide in the country with their guns, it's okay son.. there is still life in the city in spite of your fear.. there's even real people in the city who get along and everything, you should see it..
I live in a very rural area but I’m in the fucking Bronx twice a week. I just don’t like it, not that I’m afraid of it. But what I’m trying to say is there are fundamental problems if there’s so many gangs creating such a high incidence of gun related fatalities. It’s not a problem of law abiding citizens or of not enough gun laws because criminals don’t obey laws in the first place. Gangs wouldn’t have it so easy if the populace didn’t turn a blind eye.
Here’s the solution to Chicago. Start snitching. Defend yourself against criminals. Make the criminals afraid of mugging people or getting sold out by somebody in their group. They need to get back to the FAFO days.
never been any such days.. it's a delusion attached to your precious firearms.. you have an illness..
of course, back in those FAFO days you're talking about, we'd just call you a coward.. yellow.. because you sit around all day pissing your pants about what somebody needs to do about the gangs, and how many guns you need for it..
Colt called the revolver the great equalizer. Women were at a great disadvantage from an attacker, and weaker men untrained in fighting were at a disadvantage to stronger men or those with a weapon. When you have a gun you have a much better chance of not getting raped or mugged and the rapist or mugger has a higher chance of never trying it again. Viola. Better society.
So, what are your opinions on “snitching”? Do you think you should ignore crimes because telling on the criminal isn’t cool? Honestly the fact that you seem to deny high rates of gang violence seems to indicate you’re denying reality because it’s inconvenient.
Just because your political opponents say something is a problem doesn’t mean they’re lying or wrong.
“Chicago’s homicide rate is an outlier among major U.S. cities. At a rate of 29 firearm homicides per 100,000 residents, it is six times higher than New York City’s and three times higher than in Los Angeles.”
Illinois, and Chicago in particular, is the highest gun crime area in the US and guess what city has the most restrictive gun laws.
If you are going to make an argument of correlation equaling causation, you should probably at least establish the order of operations so your argument is clear.
Gun laws vary from state to state. In some U.S. states, there is virtually no gun regulation at all, like Montana and Alaska. On the other hand, some states have stricter gun legislation. Some of these states which have the strictest gun laws tend to be those which are most populous and have a larger urban community, those who are residing in cities compared to those in rural areas. Take California for example, which has the strictest gun laws in the United States and has the seventh lowest rate of death by gun violence despite being the most populous state. Other states with some of the strictest gun laws include New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Connecticut.
Saying "Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws" is something I've heard passed around on FB before. It doesn't surprise me that gang violence and random gun violence happens in more populated areas, and that cities and densely populated states would have crime and laws to match. But I've never seen evidence that Chicago is an outlier for gun laws as a city. I mean, the post here suggests that the "assault weapons ban" is new, so clearly the state hadn't made any laws against semi-auto firearms, large calibre firearms, or large capacity mags until now (recently).
It's only been in the last 50 years or so that people considered that phrase meaningless. It used to mean exactly what it said. Thank the NRA for being a industry-pushing, Russia-money-taking scumbag.
The militia is every able bodied man in the country. That was the definition at the time. And being that a well armed populace is important to the freedom of the nation we shall not infringe on their rights to keep and bare arms.
That’s the actual modern day translation for you. It’s not “exact” because just using colloquial phrasing, but the meaning should be clear.
Interesting. We have the National Guard now to fill the role of militia, which we know because it was created by the Militia Act. Pretty clear intent on that one.
Using the definition at the time, it appears that there's actually not a right for any random person to have a gun. If you want one, join the well-regulated militia.
According to that militia act one half is still basically everyone. Also the militia isn’t guaranteed the right but the people. The comma is there for a reason.
Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, National Guard, or Naval Militia.
The militia act as mentioned by somebody else is a modern redefining and still includes the definition of basically every man. To be clear, the well regulated militia is merely a reason for the people (everyone) to keep and bear arms. Not the qualifier of who should be allowed.
Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, National Guard, or Naval Militia.
You don’t even know what that means. It means “regularized”, as in well trained and supplied. The idea was that having the populace be well armed would make it easier to muster a defense force in case of a conflict. “Because the state needs a well supplied and trained armed force to remain free, the people have the right to own and carry armaments without restriction” would be the correct transliteration using the vocabulary of today.
Add comment