It's not called the "Bill of Needs."

Firearms are necessary to a free society.

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

“@mterry337 "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim" https://t.co/44TCZ0Be9E”

What is it with gun grabbers and not citing statistics?

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

The only solution for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

The Second Amendment

Because you can't fistfight tyranny

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

So you're saying that citizens who undergo a licensing procedure to carry a firearm are by definition law abiding and law respecting. Hmm.

[losttoy]

This is a must watch video! Not only is it a pee your pants funny comedy routine, it is 100% on point and informative about the gun control debate.

Comedian Jim Jeffries tackled one of the most controversial subjects in the U.S. gun control laws. Jeffries was once the victim of a home invasion in which he was tied up and beaten with his girlfriend, who was also threatened with rape. You’d think he’d have some cause for carrying a gun, no? Wrong! He brilliantly nails why Americans need to make a case for more gun control. 

Now, nobody is saying take away all the guns. But seriously, can’t we get common sense regulations in the gun business to help prevent gun violence? Close gun show loopholes, a national registry, and maybe not sell weapons designed for war purposes?

(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZFLk5L70MQ)

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

I’ve watched this bit before and I’ll admit I did laugh. He makes a couple of interesting points, and one egregious error. Which is that, for defensive purposes, your guns are obviously not going to be locked up. 

Additionally, your statement that “nobody is saying take away all the guns.” is demonstrably false.  Here we have a leading politician saying she wants to ban all guns. 

Regarding your ideas for gun control laws: California already has all of those “common sense” gun laws and more. California has a standard capacity magazine ban, a cosmetic features ban, a registry, a safety certification, a 10 day waiting period, a list of banned handgun styles, etcetera etcetera. Alabama has none of those things. Why then, does California have a higher gun murder rate than Alabama? Especially when Alabama has a 3 times higher rate of legal gun ownership? Note that these figures are per capita, and are thus corrected for population.

It’s almost as if gun crime correlates more strongly to population density poverty, than civilian owned guns.

Which is why Washington DC, with the lowest gun ownership rate in the country and strictest laws, has almost 5 times the gun murder rate of even California.

Your point about “maybe not sell weapons designed for war purposes” is especially specious when you consider how few murders are committed with them. According to that link, it looks like that in 2010 the number of people killed(323)  with (what you call assault) modern rifles is less than half of those who died EVERY DAY THAT YEAR from obesity (~891). 

Side note: Even stuff like this was originally made for “war purposes,” which is a nebulous and vague term. Rifles of that variety are in use right now in the United States Military. 

Also, we already tried an “assault weapon ban.” It had no effect on crime and was allowed to expire. 

In short, of course all preventable deaths including murders are heartbreaking tragedies. However, if we turn to the actual data instead of our feelings, we can see how gun control actually doesn’t save lives in the United States. It might, in fact, end them.

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

Murder rates drop as concealed carry permits soar: report

The number of concealed carry handgun permits has skyrocketed since President Obama was first elected, while murder rates have fallen, according to a new report set to be released Wednesday.

We’re at a 20 year low of violent crime, and there are more legally concealed guns than ever. Obviously there is no positive correlation, meaning civilian guns do not cause violent crime. This article makes the case that there is a negative correlation, meaning that more civilians carrying guns means less crime. 

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

Report: 92 Percent of Mass Shootings Since 2009 Occurred in Gun-Free Zones - Breitbart

On October 9, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) released a revised report showing that 92% of mass public shootings between January 2009 and July 2014 took place in gun-free zones.

Wait a second - does this mean that people intent on murder don’t care about laws? 

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

“You can’t stand up to the military might of the United States Government!” Debunking the myth of the weakness of The People.

Note by INCTBON: Please understand we are not advocating violent overthrow of the government. We are advocating for a society where the power dynamic between citizens and government reflects the ability for civilian overthrow of the government, violent or otherwise. In a word; accountability.

Please also understand that there are provisions of the Constitution and other founding documents that EXPLICITLY provide for such an occasion, should the need arise. To wit: “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.“ So we feel comfortable discussing this, as the Right of Revolution literally could not be more foundational of an idea to our country.

There is a long well worn discussion. It goes something like this:

Anti-Gun Person: Why do you “need” guns/standard capacity magazines/modern hunting rifles?

Free Person: “Well, it’s not called the Bill of Needs™ , but accepting your premise: Personal protection and protection against tyrannical governments.

Anti-Gun Person: Actually owning a gun doesn’t make you safer, it makes you less safe (this is disputed and another topic for another time), and there is no way you could stand up to the government if they were coming after you. They have tanks and drones and jets and bombs. Furthermore, the government would never turn on it’s own citizens! (False, Double False)

Free Person: Well, I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Well, we guess it’s pretty clear from the above where my bias lies. But if you’ve engaged across the divide about the gun rights issue you have encountered this discussion, guaranteed.

This is absolutely a point worthy of enunciation. People who don’t believe that all humans have the right to tyranny resistance tools posit that the United States military would outright obliterate any armed opposition to their might within the US due to superior numbers and superior firepower.

This is false for several reasons. Read on:

Outnumbered:

The military absolutely doesn’t have superior numbers. If only 3% of Americans (it is often said that this is the percentage that fought in the American Revolution. Actual participation rates were closer to 6.5% or 20.7 million of today’s population ) opposed an occupying force, that would mean that there would be 9.5 million civilians versus approximately 1.4 million active duty military personnel. This is of course presuming that 100% of active duty soldiers are totally okay with being an occupying force of their own country and depriving their fellow citizens of their liberty.

Even if it was only 3% of gun owners (who made up 32% of the population in 2010) fought that would mean it would be 3 million civilians versus 1.4 million.

Even if 50% of Americans fought (~160 million people!), there would still be enough guns in civilian hands in the United States to arm each. Twice.

Outgunned due to advanced equipment:

This appears to be the stronger point, but immediately crumbles when you consider events of the last 20 years. It’s often said that idea that armed civilians could stand up to a better armed government is ridiculous because of things like drones and tanks and jets.

Well riddle us this: if that’s true, why are we still in Afghanistan and back again in Iraq? Wouldn’t our MASSIVE advantage in firepower and technology have ended those wars a long time ago if indeed it was the deciding factor?

So yeah, the next time this comes up, tell them that if 3% of gun owners (who are only one third of the population anyway) rose up, and the entire active duty military fought, it would still be 2:1 in the citizen’s favor. And that’s the OPTIMISTIC forecast for a tyrannical US government. Worst case (with a 6.5% civilian participation rate) is about 20:1, in favor of the people. With there being enough civilian guns in America to arm each fighting civilian not once, not twice, not three times, but fifteen times over.

[coffeeandspentbrass-deactivated]

[collegearsenalofficial]

#50shadesofraifu

me too thanks

[itsnotcalledthebillofneeds-blog]

This data suggests that the presence of guns is not linked to an increase in crime. In fact, this suggests the opposite. So if gun confiscation and banning does not help make us safer, who benefits? Why would a government want to promote and enact such an agenda? In specific, the government of the UK has rolled out gun bans, internet spying, CCTV cameras everywhere. This has only increased crime. 

The federal government and it’s sympathizers tell us that if we “have nothing to hide” then we don’t need to fear government surveillance and intrusion, in violation of our 4th amendment rights. Now we tell them: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from an informed and armed populace.