Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Despite all the glorification of the Scandanavian "social democracies" by the left, 40% of the population lives year-round on government income (1/3 being pensioners and the rest being working age). Most of those who are actually employed work for the state. Of course these are old stats from 2003, so it has probably changed a bit.

The effective tax level in Denmark is around 70%.

I suppose if you love handing most of your earned money over to the state, and want the government involved in every aspect of your life, then maybe Denmark would be an ideal place to live. But, as always, with more government comes less freedoms and eventually totalitarianism, which is beginning to emerge under the EU.

 

No, there is not. And that's because the US is no longer the remotely free enterprise system it one time was years ago. Under that system average people were allowed to prosper to a much greater extent. Under the current crony capitalist system that has since emerged, the the super wealthy are finding it easier to prosper while the average person struggles to makes ends meat.

The US has been following the European model for years. If you cannot see this, then you're blind.

 

Government requires taxes. Good government requires high taxes.

Guns are disgusting. People who love guns are disgusting. I want the government to punish them by taking their guns and raising their taxes. :smash:

 

And conversely, free and independent people who believe in personal responsibility and freedom, believe that increasing government is the antithesis to all these things.

Also, I don't think everyone who owns guns and believe in the right to own them necessarily "loves" them. I personally am not a big fan of guns (nor do I think they're bad). It just so happens I am even less of a fan of tyrannical governments that want to disarm the public for a particular purpose.

If you had any clue as to how the system works, then you would not be saying the things you are. It's not a matter of left or right. It's a matter of believing in the truth vs. just a lot of bullshit.

 

What you believe is not the truth. It is nothing more than a lot of prejudices and cliches. Your opinions are out of date. Eight years from now the United States will have moved so far to the left that you will not recognize it.

 

I have no doubt about that. Things have been moving in that direction for the past 60 years. The goal of the elite is world communism.

Heck, I would be surprised if the US even exists in eight years. Now it exists in name only. Every other aspect of this country has been sucked down the drain by the elite.

 

You are right about everything being sucked down by the elite. Only it is the capitalist elite. Their goal is global capitalism, that is to say, low wages and high profits.

 

I can't wait for 10-15 years to come so everyone can see just how horribly the European system fails. People always talk about baby boomers retiring here, and what's going to happen because of the skyrocketing costs of social security, medicaid and what not as the boomers begin to retire. Well our problems are near nothing compared to Europe. Our systems are strained, Europe's are going to collapse.

 

I fully agree with that.--And yes if the US wants to start doing things right 'again' they should copy how alot of things are done in Europe.Ironically when the US was one of the premier(top) countries in the world it used to be alot more like Western Europe than it is now.----BTW since the US spends(wastes) so much money on the military which is a government program,doesn't that make the US one of the biggest socialist countries in the world now a days?

 

Not really, since the government must purchase all military arms from private companies

 

Still the US military is a government program whether they buy from private companies or not.--Government programs in Western European nations for example deal with private companies too.The only difference being,in Western European countries those programs benefit their citizens,contribute to a higher and better standard of living and more,yes more freedoms than most Americans have now a days.--The US used to do alot of things right,it just does not anymore.

 

I find it amusing that everyone ignores the first half of the ammendment, which is the only reason given for the right to bear arms. The kind of state militia being talked about is now what we call the National Guard.

You may feel safer with a gun in your house, but statistics show that the gun is far more likely to be used to shoot a family member than an intruder.

 

actually when it was written the word "militia" meant every able bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45.

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....

 

More evidence that the entire concept is obsolete and not relevant to modern life. When was the last time you heard about a National Guard unit requiring its members to provide their own weapons?

I'm not saying that a total ban on gun ownership is in order, only that the Second Ammendment has become obsolete. I think that the state of Virginia is on the right track. Their gun laws are more liberal in the rural, mountain counties, and more restrictive in the eastern, urban counties.

 

I find it funny people ignore the fact the bill of rights covers individual rights, why would the 2nd suddenly switch to a collective state right. Combined with the fact calling it a collective right completely ignores the history of the time.

 

It was individuals who were responsible for owning guns and making them available whenever called upon to serve the common good. That is why the point brought up by pittsspass is so important.

 

Wow, just fucking WOW at the people in this thread that want the federal government to pass MORE laws that contradict the constitution...Seriously, anyone with that kind of mindset scares me a helluva lot more than any single responsible gun owner out there. The other issues discussed here be damned for now; how can anyone seriously think that an individual should be denied the right to defend themselves and their property against aggression? That is NOT the governments job. It's YOURS.

Thanks to that kind of thinking, the day may soon come when the citizen has to defend himself against the government. I'm not promoting violence; I'll leave before it gets to that point.

Problems with gun violence are exaggerated in most reports by fear mongers who have an agenda that has nothing to do with reducing violence. It's about control, as in you giving up your control over your life to the almighty state.

Those of you in this thread that are awake, thank you for making some excellent points. The rest of you have a LOT of learning to do about the country you live in and the history of our government, as well as the rights you have as a human, which are inalienable. Nevermind for now the ones you're guaranteed by a document or a ruler. To the informed among us, you sound like ignorant fools.

 

Then why, in your opinion, does your local police or sheriff's department exist? To write parking tickets?

 

according to a supreme court ruling back in 2005:
The police have no constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm.
so if the govt admits they have no duty to protect you, who's job is it?

 

That's a liability issue only. In other words, if the police don't get to your house in time to prevent a crime, you can't sue them. That's just common sense. To guarantee results, they would have to provide everyone with a full-time officer to follow you around and hang out in your living room. It's an impossible task. Unlimited civil liability would turn every law enforcement agency into an insurance company, with premiums paid by the taxpayers.

There is no way to guarantee anyone a crime-free existance. If you wore a gun everywhere you went, like in the old Western movies, there is no guarantee against someone coming up behind you, grabbing your gun, and shooting you in the back with it. In that scenario, you would also be out on the streets with a lot of idiots and drunks with instant access to guns. The death rate would be outrageous, like it was in frontier towns of the Old West.