Thomas Jefferson and guns.

[Granite]

Two thoughts:

1) It is possible to respond to a notion without invective.
2) Allowing for the possibility that someone else has a point is not an actionable offense.

1) yes
2) your "point" is old and ridiculous

Despite what a lot of gun owners would prefer to believe, Uncle Sam isn't coming to vindicate your persecution shoot em up fantasies. Sorry, but the Rambo Barcalounger crowd isn't going to get what they want. No blaze of glory here unless you pick a fight and choose suicide by cop. If anything you need to go looking for trouble--the Bundys are a case in point.

Do they want to get the guns? No. Do they need to? No.

 

[fzappa13]

1) yes
2) your "point" is old and ridiculous

Despite what a lot of gun owners would prefer to believe, Uncle Sam isn't coming to vindicate your persecution shoot em up fantasies. Sorry, but the Rambo Barcalounger crowd isn't going to get what they want. No blaze of glory here unless you pick a fight and choose suicide by cop. If anything you need to go looking for trouble--the Bundys are a case in point.

Do they want to get the guns? No. Do they need to? No.

You are evidently unaware of the treaties our country signed off on decades ago that require our disarmament.

 

[Granite]

Who do you think elects our politicians?

The power elite makes sure the choices are to their liking and gives us the illusion of choice, it's been that way for a long time.

 

[Granite]

You are evidently unaware of the treaties our country signed off on decades ago that require our disarmament.

If you're gullible enough to believe this then there's no point in trying to engage you in any kind of a discussion. You're the kind of sap they rely on.

 

[Jonahdog]

You are evidently unaware of the treaties our country signed off on decades ago that require our disarmament.

Specific citations please.

 

[Granite]

Specific citations please.

There's literally nothing out there--again, nothing--that does this. So frank will probably cite something like:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

 

[fzappa13]

If you're gullible enough to believe this then there's no point in trying to engage you in any kind of a discussion. You're the kind of sap they rely on.

I've been to a federal depository library and read them for myself ... and please feel free to stop engaging me at any time.

 

[fzappa13]

Specific citations please.

I have a life to attend to but I will return and do your research for you in the not too distant future as time and providence permit.

 

[jgarden]

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson

Gun-Related Homicides - by country

Countries - Gun Related Homicides per 100 000
****************************************

Canada 0.51 (2007-2011)

Israel 1.04 (2011)

USA 3.55 (2013)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

How would Thomas Jefferson explain the difference in gun related homicides between Detroit, Michigan and its Canadian counterpart, Windsor Ontario - less than a mile away?

Detroit averages a gun related homicide a day, while Windsor, with its stricter gun laws, went over 26 months between homicides!

Israel, which has major security concerns, also maintains strict gun controls - but still manages to have a gun related homicide rate much lower than the US!

 

[Granite]

I've been to a federal depository library and read them for myself ... and please feel free to stop engaging me at any time.

Ah yes, mythical sources available only to you.:yawn:

I've heard this shtick before.

There are no treaties anywhere that require our disarmament. None.

 

[fzappa13]

Specific citations please.

Here is a start. Older treaties undergo various mutations over the years to accommodate time and circumstance and this one is no exception. More as time permits. If possible I will take you back to the treaties that started all this but it will depend on my ability to access them on the internet as I am many miles away from a federal depository library at this point and the demands of my life are such that my ability to research for those disinclined is limited. Family comes first.

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/att/text

http://rbth.com/articles/2012/10/08..._arms_light_weapons_to_non-governm_18922.html

http://thehill.com/policy/international/266687-us-endorses-un-arms-treaty


http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/148538/act-2-united-nations-arms-trade-treaty-joseph-klein

 

[fzappa13]

Ah yes, mythical sources available only to you.:yawn:

I've heard this shtick before.

There are no treaties anywhere that require our disarmament. None.

You are grossly misinformed or willfully ignorant ... my guess is the latter.

 

[Granite]

You are grossly misinformed or willfully ignorant ... my guess is the latter.

There is no plan for confiscation of firearms. They don't want or need them. Owning a gun doesn't make you special or a threat to the powers that be. They prefer us to remain armed and paranoid. Nothing in these treaties applies to personal firearms.

 

[Zeke]

The "takeover" will be from within by those who are offering us the Muslim as a "bogeyman."

Done been taken, no more waiting required for the Public Citizen, a resident of the evil they where deceived into supporting through governed-Mentalist programming, Courtesy of the Bloodlines and their Bankster sidekicks.