Summations Only

Any, or all, of government possession of guns that are not included in gun control laws. "As circumstances warrant", I assume this means the different circumstances after more gun control laws are passed for the general public. But that's not really important, since you made the blanket statement "too many guns", earlier, I was wondering if you trust different segments of the population with guns more than others, and you obviously do. I DON'T.I'm not a gun nut, haven't fired one in years, so in a small way, my life isn't affected by gun control. But what gun control advocates don't seem to think about is the fact that it's not possible for an individual wack-job, or a citizen group of wack-jobs, to issue orders that cause massive gun carnage. It IS possible for government wack-jobs (including the military, which you trust) to issue orders that cause massive gun carnage. History is full of examples.

You don't get the opposite effect in Switzerland.

quote:

---

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

​

SWITZERLAND’S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

​

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

---

Gun Grab World History — Enablement of Tyranny & Genocide - Decrypted MatrixI can't find any evidence of an unusual number of accidental gun deaths there either.

quote:

---

The majority of Swiss voters appear to agree that gun control is not the way forward. In February 2011, nearly 57 percent of them voted against storing military-issued guns in armories rather than at home. The reason? Suter says they saw it as undermining trust in Swiss soldiers.

---

What's Worked, And What Hasn't, In Gun-Loving Switzerland : NPR

How about a government whose handout-wielding credit card just ran out? How about a global warming wack-job?

So you don't believe what they claim about Switzerland? If I showed you other sources that said the same thing, would you still not believe it? Did you believe the other link that said that the 57%of the Swede vote was against gun control?

The U.S. is in financial trouble. I see you didn't listen to Trump the other day. I know. And even the most belligerent of evolutionists has yet to shoot up a church. Or have they? Nobody screams like Al Gore

I don't need to revise it, I just need to make what I was saying clearer to you. I said individuals, or citizen groups not POLITICAL LEADERS like you named. Political leaders in the U.S. aren't included in any gun control laws. Neither are the vast armies of police or military that take orders from them.

The Washington Post? Quoting from an assistant professor of epidemiology at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York? Certainly these must be unbiased sources!So there is conflicting information on what Switzerland does. You believe yours, and I'll believe mine.

You're showing a lot of misunderstanding of what I'm saying, and that is partially my fault, I tend not to be careful enough in choosing my words when communicating with those on the extreme left. I'll try to be more clear. You, (in the above quote) brought up unstable people with guns. Psychotics, religious fanatics, right wing militia, etc. I was referring to people who receive handouts from a money borrowing government. I would consider those who depend on government for basic necessities, food and shelter, etc. like welfare, social security etc to become unstable if their checks stopped coming. I don't consider the "already rich" to be as unstable as the type of people who always commit these types of mass shootings. But some of them are very frustrated that more, quicker growth of government and destruction of liberty isn't happening as fast as they would like. Their unstability could be comparable to any right winger that you mistrust. No, not in the way I was referring to it. A political leader is the commander of a military. If there's one thing that every military has in common, whether past or present, foreign or domestic, is that they FOLLOW ORDERS from their commander, without question. That's how the tyrants you named were able to carry out their mass murders. Some people believe that this couldn't possibly happen in the U.S. Others aren't so sure, considering current economic instability. Considering the U.S. government's recent purchase of large amounts of hollow point bullets. Considering many things that liberals don't understand. Again, my fault for not being more clear. Like any conservative, I have a lot of respect for the military. But no matter how respected they are, they don't stop to discuss, debate, or consider the wisdom behind the leader who orders them to kill. They just follow orders. That those of you who are so afraid of a general public with guns, yet are not afraid of a military that could cut loose on you from the orders of one man, or one small group, is something that I can't understand.Now go ahead and further sputter with rage if you want. I'm going to get something to eat, then I'm going to address the calm, reasoned questions that my ol buddy Larni asked me. You may want to cool down and wait for that.

That is true from both sides. I'm getting straw manned to death here. It's utterly obvious to me that any gun control won't do one thing about the widespread and readily available access to devices of mass killing that governments, criminals, and U.S. enemies have. How anyone could think that restriction of such weapons from law abiding citizens ONLY could be any kind of answer to the problem is unfathomable to me.

WHERE DO YOU GET THAT FROM? Whether they're "parasites" or not, they're going to be equally desperate if they don't get what they're used to getting to survive. Sheesh, one thing's for sure, gun control advocates seem to fly into uncontrollable rages much more than gun rights advocates. Yes, atheists and liberals don't like guns in the hands of anyone but government and criminals, I get that.

Hi Larni, thanks for a few civil questions. Have you ever done a search on "world history of gun control"? If you do, here's a list you'll find word for word on many different websites, and I don't think it's because it's copied and repeated, it's because it's basically true;

quote:

---

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

------------------------------

​

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

​

-----------------------------

​

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

---

Now do you believe the citizens of all those countries fully understood what can happen when their government imposes gun control, when it begun each time? Everything seems fine in your country so far. The U.S. government buys billions of rounds of hollow point ammo they say they're using for target practice. The U.S. borrows billions of dollars per day to pay its bills, including the bill of keeping food on the table of millions of welfare and social security recipients. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? If those entitlement checks stopped coming, it would only be a few days before there was enough unrest in every U.S. city to make Ferguson and Baltimore look like elementary school playground skirmishes.I realize that there are countless liberal websites that do some pretty clever dances to downplay all of this. I don't trust them, and when reading U.S. founding documents, I don't think our founders would have trusted them either.If the public has guns, without fear of being locked up just for possession, the government is nervous. If the government bans guns, (as in the examples of past world history) the government can.....persuade rioters much more peaceably.

Uh no, those numbers represented people, not "guns". Not necessarily. The only differences is that the government either knew they were not armed, or didn't know who, or how many of them, were armed. It's a big connection, the difference between the government fearing/respecting the people, or the government not being afraid of the people. To most Americans who don't think very hard. A lot of Americans thought, 35? years ago, that smoking restrictions meant no smoking on airline flights of 2 hours or less. They know how incrementalism works. They've seen victories for gun control, and a constant appetite by gun control advocates for more and more. And you're telling me you don't think that's the goal of the Democrat party today?

Seriously, you're saying that no matter how much written history is correlated. you'll never believe it if you don't want to?

I was expecting to see a "summary only" requirement by this time, and I wouldn't mind that, but this phase is still fun, for me anyway, for all my frantic opponents, I'm not so sure. If the government decided on a complete Hiroshima style destruction from the air, it's true that an armed citizenry wouldn't have much of a chance. But a government probably wouldn't want to destroy that much of its own nation's property.But ground warfare, the automatic weapons, the bazookas, the tanks, the military wouldn't have a chance, unless they had a significant percentage of the population on their side. If they didn't, they'd have a little problem when they exhausted their immediate supply of ammo, or maybe got just a little bit hungry. The general public could outlast them with 6 guns, when it came to long-term survival. Hundreds of millions of 6 guns is better than thousands of tanks and bazookas. But that's not a likely scenario, what's more likely is your next question. At this time, it's not so much the actual event, it's an anticipation of it by the government. Did you notice how some governors, mayors, congressmen etc were a little nervous, seemed to have a genuine desire to address problems with some police officer actions, during the riots of Ferguson and Baltimore? Do you think they'd have been that nervous, if it were a CRIME for any citizen to legally possess a gun? They probably would. If it were a crime for any citizen to possess a gun, they'd probably call out the National Guard, then smile and go to bed and check out how things went the next day. Make the government think really hard before they do something so careless to make an armed populace so angry. Again, you probably noticed how nervous government reps were during Ferguson and Baltimore. They can make for themselves a determination of just what the National Guard is trying to do, "restore order", or just follow orders from self serving politicians and bureaucrats.

I can understand how the rest of the world may not understand. The U.S. really is the policeman of the world, and much of the world does appreciate it. The U.S. is a melting pot of diversity, so much more than other countries. And, for whatever reason, the U.S. citizenry and government loves its guns and ammo. I don't fully understand it, and like me, I'll bet you can't understand why the U.S. government needs billions of rounds of hollow point ammo for target practice. I guess vaporizing a target would be much more fun than just punching holes in it like conventional ammo would, but it wouldn't be as accurate in determining the skill of the shooter. I sincerely hope you never have the experience of hijacked planes flying into your buildings and killing 3000 innocent people. I'm sure you won't - your country isn't hated like the U.S. is. It will always be that way, and it's no crime, different cultures often don't understand each other. But it does make some Americans nervous when those from other countries take such a keen interest in gun control in the U.S. NOT ON MESSAGE BOARDS SUCH AS THESE, let me hasten to add, but more so when foreign countries show enough fondness to the gun-controlling Democrat party that it appears in any way that they may be monetarily supporting them. I understand, the U.S. is a scary place to a lot of people. But we like it.