Summations Only

70% of blacks are not on welfare.And there are more whites on welfare than blacks, so your assessment should end in a conclusion that murders are predominantly done by the hands of whites.But, I suppose that if you begin with a dataset that you make up rather than being fact based, you can come to whatever conclusion you want regardless of the truth.Glas to see we can all agree that you are an idiot, at least.

Bullshit. Oh, welfare is what causes people to murder. More bullshit. Yet more bullshit. Now this is something we can agree on.No, wait..... yet even more bullshit. You apparently have no idea what this chart is about, despite the fact that it says it is an analysis on age, not a comparison of quantity of murders in cities to suburbs.Also, bullshit.btw, namecalling is also a whitewash that offers no solution to the problem.

NARPAC is two guys in a basement who are self appointed "neighborhood watch."Their data mining and interpretation is not worth considering, let alone sourcing. They are not an authority.As far as your claim that "very, very few murders happen outside of inner cites" with all your prejudices against women and blacks made explicit?Trends in violent and property crime are nearly identical in urban and suburban areas. Rural areas are less densely populated and are expected to have less crime. Compounded with the fact that the quantity of rural poplations is less (only 20% of the entire population lives in rural areas), yes, there is less crime in rural areas, but your laying blame to single mothers and blacks ignores a very simple fact:Single mothers and blacks are not confined to inner cities.You haven't even shown correlation, let alone causation.Anarchy and rule by force? Did you get your view from watching post apocalypse genre movies? You don't know shit.

For legal and valid reasons, state officers may confiscate your car.Nothing wrong with that.What does that have to do with federal tyranny?

Which is why you should never register your kids for school.The entire purpose of school is so that the government knows that your children exist so that they can be confiscated at will.Of course registration=confiscation. DUH! Eveybody knows that.I got my dog registered. 2 weeks later he went missing. I shit you not!Ask my best friend Alex Jones.Or we could just not make all these excuses and actively and willfully participate within the framework of society. I expect cars to be registered, pets, sex offenders, places that sell liquor, and guns.The only reason to have fear about registering one of these is if you intend on doing something that would be against the social contract.What's the big deal? If you know you are going to use your weapon as it OUGHT TO BE USED, stop crying and pussyfooting around. Just do it.It isn't about YOU. It isn't about confiscation. It is about setting a precedent for others to follow for the safety of all. Just like insurancing your car.Do I want to do it? NO.Do I want everyone else to do it? YES.This confiscation talk is just a strawman in order for a whole subset of society to skirt a responsibility that must not be overlooked. If you are going to possess a weapon, you have a responsibility owed to society that is due us because we allow you to have that weapon in the first place.All we ask is that you perform your due dilligence to help keep us safe.If it inconveniences you, too fucking bad.And we're adults. Stop making up boogeymen. That obviously is not the issue or the government's intent.

That's the aspect of what I wrote that you want to challenge?I'll give it to you.Car incurance does not intrinsically make anyone safer.Now what? Care to address the point?

I don't know why people appeal to the founders but overlook the actual law that they wrote."A well-regulated militia..."I think registration falls under both categories..."well-regulated" and any formation worthy of being accounted for as a "militia would both require some sort of registration for accounting and accountibility purposes.

...Bear arms in militia statutes and official reports represents a very broad context of military obligation and compulsory military service. On the other hand, the term was rarely used in acts for raising voluntary provincial forces and then only to describe the manpower pool from which to draw. Therefore, "bear arms" represented the broadest conception of military (mostly militia) service. Some of the militia acts and other documents contained explanatory language defining at least in part what they meant by "bear arms." All refer to some aspect of military service. For example: 1665: "to bear Armes or wage war by sea or Land."(111) 1669: "to bear arms, and serve as soldiers."(112) 1676: "to beare armes in martiall or millitary manner."(113) 1730: "to bear Arms, or learn or exercise himself in the Art of War."(114) 1731: "bearing arms or attending musters and training."(115) 1755: "the bearing of arms or Military Service."(116) 1775: "bear Arms, nor be concerned in warlike Preparations."(117) 1775: "bearing arms in the militia."(118) 1780: "Bairing Arms or Doing Duty" in the militia (119) 1787: "principled against fighting or bearing arms."(120 ...The definition for "bear arms" found in the Oxford English Dictionary is stated clearly: " ‘to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight,’ dating to about the year 1330. And, defines the term to bear arms against as: to be engaged in hostilities with." dating the usage back to about the year 1000.The Oxford dictionary, however, it not a legal document. So the definition of the terms of the second amendment should be further elucidated within the American laws and most influential legal documents. In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, the powers of Congress are given.
The Congress shall have the power to . . . provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.The militia itself is not defined in the constitution, but it is clear, because the Constitution is a federal document that it is a federal, not a state or private matter. As well, reserving to the states the appointment of officers and granting authority of training fall under the category of "well-regulation."The original purpose for such an amendment was solely to remove any authority Congress had to abolish a sanctioned well regulated Militia. In other words, the "well regulated Militia" of the second amendment is the same state militia of Articles I and II of the Constitution. It is very clear that the founding fathers (1) gave Congress power to organize, arm, discipline, and govern the state militias (2) made the president Commander in Chief of the Militia and 3) ensured that as long as the militia was well maintained it could not be subject to disunion by Congress. The purpose was to keep the military well-organized and accountable for proper training instead of a bunch of good ole boys without any discipline, training, or mandatory allegiance. They were addressing the same lone wolf lawless issues that have recently developed into random public shootings.

I know plenty about what the founders meant.We can look to their works, letters, debates and public discourse.Thomas Jefferson, during his sixth annual message in 1806 said, "The criminal attempts of private individuals to decide for their country the question of peace or war, by commencing active and unauthorized hostilities , should be promptly and efficaciously suppressed."Again in 1808 in his eighth annual message, he reiterated this idea: "for a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us, at every meeting to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion."In the Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Madison is noted as saying, The state governments are to govern the militia when not called forth for general purposes; and Congress is to govern such part only as may be in the actual service of the union. Nothing can be more certain and positive than this. It expressly empowers Congress to govern them when in the service of the United States . It is, then, clear that the states govern them when they are not.If we believe that it is our right, granted to us by the second amendment to the United States Constitution, to own guns without any restriction or regulation to such a right and without military allegiance on our part, then our belief is wrong.

The provision actually impled that the citizenry be armed by the state. Basically the state was required to train, provide boots and ammo, and administer the militia while the union was not in wartime.As long as the militia was well-maintained there was a prohibition for the union to absolve the militia.It is more than the right to own arms. It is about the right to participate in a collective army even in peacetime and to have access to training and equipment.In turn, the expectation in the transaction of providing training and weapons is that those resources can be called upon when needed.

"of the people" is a prepositional phrase, not the subject.The subject of the 2nd amendment literally is "a militia."Reduced to its most redimentary form, the second amendment would read "A militia shall be."Further modification reads "A militia shall not be infringed." "A well regulated militia shall not be infringed""A well regulated militia being necessary, the right shall not be infringed.'Finally, adding the prepositional modifers to "the right" and "being necessary" gives us the full scope of what is meant by "a militia shall be," namely: for security of the state, the ability to keep and bear arms.""Keep and bear aarms" as I already explained is slang for military service.Such duty should and does come with the privelige of being able to put such training and weapons to private use.I don't think it is right to pin the issue in the false dichotomy of whether the 2nd amendment applies as an individual right or a collective right. The direct implication of collective rights cannot preclude individual rights. There are no collective rights without the individual right to actively pursue collective endeavors.

It's legally documented.

I see a very valid point in all this and that is one of a self contradcting agenda.Now, I admit I am about to make a sweeping generalization and have no stats to back this up, but from what I am hearing from a certain large group of individuals is 2 things:1) A need for guns in case of government tyranny.2) An outcry against cutting spending on Defense.Can someone explain how these two positions can rationally occupy the same worldview?

Your chart implies nothing about welfare or single parents.

Well, it failed.The average age of an adult offender convicted of homicide is 35 years.