Gun owners: It's time for us to stand up against the Second Amendment death culture

[Trippy]

2 hours ago, 2baht said:

No and no! Pretty obvious you are wrong! 

Aussie?

[KhunLA]

42 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Outlawing certain classes of gun and implementing a gun buy back has been shown to work elsewhere. The second amendment rights to own a firearm is already limited. It's quite a lot more difficult to own a tommy gun than an ar-15, for example.

Please click on a country, and show me where firearm laws have worked stopping people getting killed by firearms.  I can't be bothered, but I'll wait for you to finish searching.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

[VocalNeal]

This is not a "world news" subject it is a US  knee jerk article and most people reading it in Thailand cannot own a gun here.????

[Tug]

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Please click on a country, and show me where firearm laws have worked stopping people getting killed by firearms.  I can't be bothered, but I'll wait for you to finish searching.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

Australia/New Zealand/England/Japan heck just about everywhere not 100% effective but much much much less slaughter 

[KhunLA]

8 minutes ago, Tug said:

Australia/New Zealand/England/Japan heck just about everywhere not 100% effective but much much much less slaughter 

Islands that don't have an open southern border , and yet, they still can't stop firearm killings.  So nothing is working there either.

 

Kids getting kill in school by firearms, is less likely than getting hit by lightening.  Just accept it, as it's never going to change.

 

Unless my suggestions are taken seriously, and that's not going to happen, as profits rule, and death is very profitable.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by KhunLA

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Islands that don't have an open southern border , and yet, they still can't stop firearm killings.  So nothing is working there either.

 

Kids getting kill in school by firearms, is less likely than getting hit by lightening.  Just accept it, as it's never going to change.

 

Unless my suggestions are taken seriously, and that's not going to happen, as profits rule, and death is very profitable.

 

 

 

 

 

I’ll leave it to you to tell the next batch of grieving parents following the next school gun massacre that ‘at least the lightning didn’t get them’.

 

 

[CharlieKo]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That has nothing to do with the statement you quoted. Your reply has nothing to do with preventing a totalitarian government.

What makes you think armed citizens can stop a totalitarian government? Who organises such citizens into a fighting force. You are out gunned before you even start. Your only hope is that the armed services come out in defence of the citizens. But that will never happen. 

 

The American constitution needs updating to deal with modern times. Again that will never happen. 

[thaibeachlovers]

25 minutes ago, CharlieKo said:

What makes you think armed citizens can stop a totalitarian government? Who organises such citizens into a fighting force. You are out gunned before you even start. Your only hope is that the armed services come out in defence of the citizens. But that will never happen. 

 

The American constitution needs updating to deal with modern times. Again that will never happen. 

Errr, how do you think the USA came into being? Was it not an armed population in rebellion against a totalitarian government?

 

The constitution can be updated if enough people want to do that ( amendments ). Apparently not enough do.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I had a friend whose son joy rode his car and ran someone over. So using your logic, let's ban cars.

I'm pretty sure cars kill more people in the US than guns, but they don't ban them...............................................I wonder why, NOT.

 

The usual talk talk is about disarming the population, and some of us know why they want to do that. Unfortunately the sheeple tend to believe everything Big Brother tells them to believe.

[JeffersLos]

Why is this World News, and not American News, or Americans and their guns news?

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, Thailand said:

I guess the second amendment could be amended at some time in the future?

No need to change the 2nd Amendment, even if that would be a good idea.

 

What needs to be done is ban more weapons. You cannot keep "home nukes" or bazookas of RPG-7s or SAM-7s. It is hardly the stretch to add AR-15s, semi-auto AK-47s, etc. Yes, handguns can kill, but several things mitigate the damage one can do with a 9mm Glock or a shotgun or hunting rifle.

 

---AR-15 type weapons have large, easily replaced mags, even upwards of 100-rd mags are readily available

---It's easier to hit a target with an AR-15 than a handgun

---Handguns are generally max'd out at 15-17 rounds, shotguns maybe 7 shells, most hunting rifles 5 rds

---Handguns muzzle velocity is a fraction of an AR-15 ~800 fps for a .45ACP, maybe 1200 fps for a 9mm, vs 3200 fps for an AR-15. Since E=mc^2, that "c" has much more impact on hitting power

 

It's no surprise AR-15s have become the weapon of choice in most mass shootings, and certainly in the mass shootings that result in death. They holds lots of rounds, are easy to aim and hit a target, mag replacement takes a second, victims struck by a round are unlikely to be able to attack the gunman, and the weapon itself is intimidating to law enforcement when they finally arrive. In the Uvalde school mass murder, the cops sat outside for 20 minutes when they knew the killer was armed with an AR-15. If it had been a 9mm, likely at least one cop would have had the courage to enter the school.

[Walker88]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Errr, how do you think the USA came into being? Was it not an armed population in rebellion against a totalitarian government?

 

 

I guess you're referring to how trump said that the revolutionary army 'controlled the skies and secured the airports'.

 

Of course, in 1776 the Brits weren't flying Spitfires, much less Typhoons or Harriers or F-35s, so securing airports (sic) must have been pretty easy. Even Orville and Wilbur were 127 years away..

 

Only in Call of Duty fantasy lives can a bunch of fat trumpers take on a SEAL Team or Apache attack helicopters.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

The 'right to bear arms' is not unlimited. It would be well within the power and authority of Congress to ban the sale and possession of AR-15s and the like. Though I can afford it, I cannot own an A-10 Warthog with a GAU-8 nosegun that fires depleted U-238 bullets, despite how effective it would be at 'home security'. Neither Jeff Bezos nor Elon Musk, despite being able to afford it, could not commission and control their own Carrier Group, or have a Trident Sub with missiles firing multiple nuke warheads. Nobody can own a drone firing the modified Hellfire "Flying Ginsu" that turned Ayman al-Zawahiri into mince meat.

 

The 2nd Amendment was penned under entirely different circumstances than today. Standing armies---like the Brits---were hardly superior to a 'well-armed militia'. That is not the case today. A bunch of chubby trumpers with AR-15s would be no match to the 101st Airborne, so the 'battle against tyranny' has an obvious winner.

 

The Founders could not conceive of a readily available weapon like the AR-15. With its typical 30-rd mag, it fires (usually) a 55 grain round with a muzzle velocity of 3200 feet per second. A user can likely run through 3-4 mags in under two minutes, provided the barrel doesn't heat up too much. A shooter like Stephen Paddock, understanding the 'problem' of an over-heated barrel, toted 14 AR-15s into his hotel room in Las Vegas, so that he could keep killing.

 

An AR-15 has no possible use except killing and killing quickly. It is effectively a weapon of war. While not fully automatic, it is still as effective as the weapons soldiers used in Iraq and Afghanistan, since soldiers do not usually have their weapons set on full auto.

 

An American can buy as many AR-15s as his wealth or credit allows. He can walk into a gun show and leave with 100 or more AR-15s and tens of thousands of rounds of ammo. An American can even buy a .50 cal sniper rifle, like a Barrett M82A1, whose hitting power from 2000 yards is greater than Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum from point blank range. Home security?

 

Even an AR-15 has more hitting power than a 9mm or a .45ACP handgun, despite those handguns having a much heavier round (anywhere from 124 grain to 230 grain), because the muzzle velocity is so much higher, and E=mc^2 (so velocity is squared).

When a majority of the US adult population decide to stop citizens having access to weapons they can pass an amendment to the constitution. They managed to ban alcohol by such means and we know how that worked, NOT.

Apparently, despite the desire to ban gun ownership by a certain section of the population, obviously most do not.

IMO part of the reason is what I stated previously on this thread, ie they don't trust the government.

 

Another very valid reason for wanting to keep the right to possess weapons is that the criminals will never be deprived of weapons, despite any laws against it. Some of us would rather criminals died breaking into one's house than one's family and self.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Walker88 said:

I guess you're referring to how trump said that the revolutionary army 'controlled the skies and secured the airports'.

 

Of course, in 1776 the Brits weren't flying Spitfires, much less Typhoons or Harriers or F-35s, so securing airports (sic) must have been pretty easy. Even Orville and Wilbur were 127 years away..

 

Only in Call of Duty fantasy lives can a bunch of fat trumpers take on a SEAL Team or Apache attack helicopters.

You're assuming that the SEAL team don't agree with the rebels, and join them.

 

As for the usual anti Trump diatribe, deflecting.

[2baht]

1 hour ago, Trippy said:

Aussie?

International! 

[2baht]

15 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Why is this World News, and not American News, or Americans and their guns news?

Spread the joke around! Laughing stock!

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, JeffersLos said:

Why is this World News, and not American News, or Americans and their guns news?

Because apparently only the US is worthy of most of the threads on "world news". I don't see much about Sudan, Mali, Congo or any other countries currently in  strife.

Ukraine has it's own thread, so you have a point, IMO.

[James105]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm pretty sure cars kill more people in the US than guns, but they don't ban them...............................................I wonder why, NOT.

 

The usual talk talk is about disarming the population, and some of us know why they want to do that. Unfortunately the sheeple tend to believe everything Big Brother tells them to believe.

Cars probably do kill more people than guns but since the primary purpose of a car is transport and not killing humans no-one is asking for them to be banned.   Also, it is not easy to drive a car inside a school building to carry out a massacre as it clearly is with a semi automatic rifle.

 

Even then the car is more regulated than a gun as far as I know.   Do you even need the equivalent amount of training and proof of competence in it's safe use to use and own a gun in the USA as you do with a car?

[HappyExpat57]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A well armed populace is the best defense against a totalitarian government.

 

When the founding fathers created the constitution, IMO they desired to prevent the rise of "kings" in the US, and took measures to ensure it would not happen.

 

Given what I've been seeing happen in the US the last 6 or so years I wouldn't be giving up my guns, for sure.

This ridiculous bunk has been brought up and made obviously BEYOND ridiculous time and time again.

 

By your logic, we should all be allowed equal weaponry as has the gubmint, but last I checked, Walmart don't carry no nukes.

[Walker88]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You're assuming that the SEAL team don't agree with the rebels, and join them.

 

As for the usual anti Trump diatribe, deflecting.

If the tyrannical govt was led by trump, then I would be on the front lines going after him and his goobers. I took the oath against "all enemies, foreign and domestic", and have lived it.

 

trump is the fascist who claims he will jail his political opponents, and he did not caveat that statement with 'after a fair trial and a conviction'. Sounds like tyranny to me. Lock and load.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, James105 said:

Cars probably do kill more people than guns but since the primary purpose of a car is transport and not killing humans no-one is asking for them to be banned.   Also, it is not easy to drive a car inside a school building to carry out a massacre as it clearly is with a semi automatic rifle.

 

Even then the car is more regulated than a gun as far as I know.   Do you even need the equivalent amount of training and proof of competence in it's safe use to use and own a gun in the USA as you do with a car?

IMO the primary purpose of guns owned by a majority of US citizens would be self defense. Compared to the number of weapons owned that are never used in mass shootings etc the number that are would be infinitesimal.

Bit hard to use a car inside one's house for self defense.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Walker88 said:

trump is the fascist who claims he will jail his political opponents, and he did not caveat that statement with 'after a fair trial and a conviction'. Sounds like tyranny to me. Lock and load.

Prove he said that without a caveat.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ll leave it to you to tell the next batch of grieving parents following the next school gun massacre that ‘at least the lightning didn’t get them’.

Not sure if I have any sympathy for people anymore, that complain about firearms, but keep re-electing the same politicians who obviously don't care.

 

Not rep or dem party issue, as both have controlled Congress, and nothing changed.

 

Here's one for you, make owning a firearm outrageously expensive.  2nd Amendment can't restrict you from, but can regulate the ownership.  

 

ALL firearms owners must have a license to buy, cost of license to buy/permit to own, $10k a year.  Problem solved again.

 

Simple solutions to simple problems.

 

Except for one thing, not enough people want to change the laws.  THAT'S A FACT.

 

Y'all can quote all the surveys & polls you want, stating everyone wants to ban or limit firearms, BUT, that obviously isn't true, or it would have happen.

 

They wanted to ban alcohol ... they did.

They wanted to drink alcohol ... they repealed it.

 

They wanted to make Ganga illegal ... they did.

They want to smoke Ganga ... well, nuff said

 

When enough people want something, they get it.  Now someone tell me again, they don't want access to firearms in USA.

 

Raised kids in the USA, never worried about them get killed by firearms in school, or anywhere for that matter.  Or getting hit by lightening.  The chance are so miniscule, it's not worth worrying about.

[KhunLA]

Every new administration taking more rights away from businesses and citizens.  Covid silliness pointed that out.

 

Keep your firearms close, why the 2nd Amendment was put in place to begin with.

 

The world on the brink of WW3... 350 million gun toting Yanks, good luck invading & occupying the USA.

 

Keep your firearms close.

Edited September 6, 2023 by KhunLA

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Here's one for you, make owning a firearm outrageously expensive.  2nd Amendment can't restrict you from, but can regulate the ownership.  

 

ALL firearms owners must have a license to buy, cost of license to buy/permit to own, $10k a year.  Problem solved again.

Unfortunately, criminals will have no problems owning as many guns as they want. As usual, laws only impact law abiding citizens.

 

Do I need to remind anyone that America is apparently swamped with illegal firearms.

Also, can't see any problem getting them smuggled in across the southern border.

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unfortunately, criminals will have no problems owning as many guns as they want. As usual, laws only impact law abiding citizens.

 

Do I need to remind anyone that America is apparently swamped with illegal firearms.

Also, can't see any problem getting them smuggled in across the southern border.

Yep, that's all people talk about, taking guns away from legal owners.  As silly as having helmet laws in the TH.  

 

Gang banger don't buy their firearms from FFL'd gun dealers.  

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, 2baht said:

Against who? Mexicans? Chinese? Noooooooo...........................Americans!  Yee Haw!

"The Crime Clock represents the annual ratio of crime to fixed time intervals.) A violent crime was committed every 26.3 seconds. A murder occurred every 32.1 minutes, a rape every 3.8 minutes, a robbery every 2.0 minutes, and an aggravated assault every 38.5 seconds."  

 

... nuff said

Edited September 6, 2023 by KhunLA

[Tug]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the primary purpose of guns owned by a majority of US citizens would be self defense. Compared to the number of weapons owned that are never used in mass shootings etc the number that are would be infinitesimal.

Bit hard to use a car inside one's house for self defense.

I seem to remember your prime minister banned assault weapons after that nutter shot up that mosque we all admired her courage and leadership.note I said banned assault type rifles not all guns.personally I’d leave semi auto handguns alone just because they DO have a legitimate use for home defense assault rifles are generally used to reach out and (touch) someone 

[2baht]

Just now, KhunLA said:

Now you're simply trolling ...

"The Crime Clock represents the annual ratio of crime to fixed time intervals.) A violent crime was committed every 26.3 seconds. A murder occurred every 32.1 minutes, a rape every 3.8 minutes, a robbery every 2.0 minutes, and an aggravated assault every 38.5 seconds."  

 

... nuff said

Savages! ????

[2baht]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently some are so <deleted> that they don't know that it's for self defense against violent criminals.

But school kids ARE NOT violent criminals! Why do they get killed???