# Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today



## watchingfromafar (Apr 11, 2021)

*Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today

The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

In the 2008 _Heller_ decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as _dicta,_ that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.

*Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West*

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
image: https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/7hLl651LYAFdrPD6uJnBbRi1Rj8=/800x600/filters:no_upscale()/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/da/bc/dabc3b99-f221-4392-8e0a-a3b3f3d98af5/wright1913_dodge_city_in_1878_14782835852.jpg

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery, but broadly, the term is used to evoke life among the crusty prospectors, threadbare gold panners, madams of brothels, and six-shooter-packing cowboys in small frontier towns – such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” 

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns, or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business*
image: https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/7hLl651LYAFdrPD6uJnBbRi1Rj8=/800x600/filters:no_upscale()/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/da/bc/dabc3b99-f221-4392-8e0a-a3b3f3d98af5/wright1913_dodge_city_in_1878_14782835852.jpg

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)

It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona
The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, *upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *(Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg

*"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

*Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, *Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary*, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not *allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*.

Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.

*“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West*], for the most part,” says Winkler.

“Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. *But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”*
Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West

*Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

The answer is YES. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public. *

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? *A gun control law*. They declared that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona—the site of the infamous “Shootout at the OK Corral”—also *barred the carrying of guns openly*.

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn’t always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, *the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.*
Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

*Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them*
The town of Deerfield, Ill., has moved to *ban assault weapons, including the AR-15* used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.

*The ordinance was passed unanimously* Monday by the Deerfield Village Board. It states the move is in the best interest of public health and will spur a culture change toward *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."*

It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.
Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them

*Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*

With the future of federal gun control legislation uncertain, an affluent Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.

*Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355

*Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.
Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be *a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.*
The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
Also under the legislation, *it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.

The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up,*
up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm 
and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.
Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law
*What has changed from then to now??
-*​


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

People used to poop in the streets, too.  Doesn't mean it's a good idea.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


Gun control?  Does that work on criminals?  Or only law abiding citizens?  Since when does a criminal ever follow the law?


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Apr 11, 2021)

So on top of the ten thousand are they going to put a million dollar fine for illegal possession of a firearm and not let the person out until the fines are paid?

I might go for that.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


John Wayne did it in Rio Bravo. Common sense.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


Translation...People could own guns and rifles.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> ...






Don't forget the cannons.  Those were okay too.


----------



## Dekster (Apr 11, 2021)

The cowboy/old west days that most people think of as promulgated by Hollywood only existed for about about 25 years between the civil war and the rise of the railroad.


----------



## ColonelAngus (Apr 11, 2021)

Mexico has among the most restrictive gun comtrol laws in the world.

Therefore there is no gun violence in Mexico, huh?

Criminals do not follow laws....you moron lefties.

Is murder illegal?  It still happens.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2021)

ColonelAngus said:


> Mexico has among the most restrictive gun comtrol laws in the world.
> 
> Therefore there is no gun violence in Mexico, huh?
> 
> ...






It's not about crime control.  It's about raw, naked power.   They can't enslave you so long as you're armed.


----------



## surada (Apr 11, 2021)

westwall said:


> ColonelAngus said:
> 
> 
> > Mexico has among the most restrictive gun comtrol laws in the world.
> ...



Who tried to enslave you? Did you shoot em?


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2021)

surada said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > ColonelAngus said:
> ...








The people trying are those trying to take my guns.


----------



## ColonelAngus (Apr 11, 2021)

Hey guys, I have an idea!  Lets make it illegal to murder someone!  There will be no murder.

While we are at it....lets make it illegal to have prescription drugs without a prescription!   Now the Opiate epidemic is over!


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

Someone somewhere said that privateers had privately-owned cannons.  They could not use them offensively without a letter de marque, I believe.  If I am wrong, please correct me.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


Studying the Old West, is a hobby of mine.  Here's the thing about laws regarding the carrying of firearms within city/town limits, in the old west.  The reason for the bans came about because the people carrying them would go into bars/saloons and "get drunk."  As communities arose, the availability of fresh water was reduced.  They had little knowledge of the effect of human and animal waste going into nearby rivers and creeks, upstream.  Hence the problems then with cholera and dysentery.  What they did know, was that if they drank alcohol, rather than the local water, they didn't get sick.  (Trivia:  Some indigenous tribes referred to whites as "yellow eyes," the reason was the deteriorating livers from regular alcohol consumption).  Anyway, over consumption would lead to drunkenness, and thus, lowered inhibitions and when you combine alcohol and firearms being carried among groups, especially with people you are unfamiliar with, or don't like, you have a recipe for disaster.  Most gunfights erupted because of this situation.  This is why the bans on the carrying of firearms in many communities came about.  Even today, there are cities/towns that allow the carrying of firearms, but ordinances against carrying them into bars.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Someone somewhere said that privateers had privately-owned cannons.  They could not use them offensively without a letter de marque, I believe.  If I am wrong, please correct me.







The first artillery unit in America was the Ancient and Honerable Artillery Company of Boston.   Founded in the mid 1600's by wealthy citizens.  Its members have fought in every war we've ever been in.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

That's neat.

The *Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company *of Massachusetts is the oldest chartered military organization in North America *and *the third oldest chartered military organization in the world. Its charter was granted in March 1638 by the Great *and *General Court of Massachusetts Bay *and *signed by Governor John Winthrop as a volunteer militia *company *to train officers enrolled in the local militia companies across Massachusetts. With the professionalization of the US Military preceding World War I i Read More
*Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts ...*








						Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*Ancient*_*and*_*Honorable*_*Artillery*_*Company*_of_Massachusetts


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives,*


While I agree with 99% of what you have posted here, I wonder if you are not attempting to expand gun control with your inclusion of "knives."  I believe that is an embellishment.  Until recently--the last 40-50 years or so, which is not the old west, I have never heard of a prohibition on knives.  The research that you did is commendable--but the inclusion of something as seemingly innocent as knives is a stretch.


----------



## miketx (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


Leftist bullshit.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

miketx said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> ...


Not at all. You can't even begin to prove it.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...


The Seattle law, like Jenny Durkan, isn't worth the powder and lead to blow it to hell.  First of all, it is unenforceable.  Second, it is unconstitutional.  Third, the only people that they will ever charge with this BS law are the poor schmucks that can't afford a safe and were unfortunate enough to have their gun stolen and used.  In that case, who are you going to collect the $10K from--Oh, then you lock them up--with what defunded police dept.  The majority of WA state govt and the entire Seattle municipal government are a bunch of leftist losers that don't think beyond their next meal.


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> People used to poop in the streets, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.


That was just your outhouseless family.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


That's your opinion of 'leftist losers.' OK.


----------



## miketx (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...


Leftist scum don't accept proof if it disagrees with them.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

miketx said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Prove it.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

westwall said:


> ColonelAngus said:
> 
> 
> > Mexico has among the most restrictive gun comtrol laws in the world.
> ...



Armed people don't get on the boxcars.


----------



## 22lcidw (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> People used to poop in the streets, too.  Doesn't mean it's a good idea.


They still do in Frisco.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > People used to poop in the streets, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
> ...


Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

22lcidw said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > People used to poop in the streets, too.  Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
> ...


Frisco is what happens when liberals have complete control.


----------



## 22lcidw (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Arguably one of the most beautiful cities and the Progs who gravitate to these things always seem to mess things up.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > People used to poop in the streets, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
> ...


Or half of the resident population of San Francisco, currently.


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> Frisco is what happens when liberals have complete control.


Frisco is in Texas, about 15 miles from here.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


I suppose you support the ineffective gun legislation that they are pushing?  I fail to see the logic in creating new laws in a feeble effort to control a population.  We have constitutional laws on the books that if enforced the way written would address any need.  The democrat tactic is to make a lot of useless noise and hope no one can think above the cacophony.


----------



## hunarcy (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...



Do you notice that the laws weren't FEDERAL laws?  

I'd say nothing has changed and the Federal Government has no business passing any gun control law.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

22lcidw said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 22lcidw said:
> ...


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Frisco is what happens when liberals have complete control.
> ...


Are you really that ignorant?


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


That would be SAN Francisco--Frisco is in TX.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


they didnt have laws,, they had thug cops that killed you if you didnt do what they said,, wyatt earp was one of them


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

hunarcy said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> ...


And all were strictly UN constitutional.


----------



## Flash (Apr 11, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...




Sooooo your point is that there is a history of the goverment infringing upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?  Government is always oppressive.

These guys must not have got the memo.





People don't how the Bill of Rights is but it is.


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> Are you really that ignorant?


It's San Francisco, SF, or The City. Frisco is in Texas, and there's no such thing as San Fran. I lived near there in the eighties. I'll bet that you, the non-ignorant one, has never even been there.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 22lcidw said:
> ...


Oddly enough, I'll continue to call it what I like.

"Corrupt Leftist Shithole" is more accurate, however.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


No argument on that description, however the fact remains that the place you referenced is in TX.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Are you really that ignorant?
> ...


See my post to Concerned American.

I've been to SoCal, and traveled a bit in northern CA, but never been to Frisco.  And given the amount of biohazards on the sidewalks -- used needles and human shit -- I don't see ever wanting to change that fact.  

The sh**ty streets of San Francisco: Revolting map reveals the staggering amount of human waste found on storied city's streets as homeless crisis spirals out of control

I simply can't imagine why anyone would be proud of their city being an open-air toilet.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...







Don't care.


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> Hidden said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


So I was right, you've never even been there, yet you call me ignorant, while you spout your RW trash that you've seen on the webz. The human waste found on the streets of downtown Dallas could easily give them a run for their money in the turd count. 

I'll bet that you've never been here either.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Someone somewhere said that privateers had privately-owned cannons.  They could not use them offensively without a letter de marque, I believe.  If I am wrong, please correct me.



  I can legally own a cannon today.
The new guy isn't all that smart...but then he is a liberal.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 11, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> ...


When they get arrested and can't get out of it?


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > Someone somewhere said that privateers had privately-owned cannons.  They could not use them offensively without a letter de marque, I believe.  If I am wrong, please correct me.
> ...


That is a fact.  ^^^  I fired a 4 incher off at 11 am on 7/4/76 in cooperation with Gerald Ford's request to make a lot of noise to celebrate the bicentennial.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Hidden said:
> ...


I've been border to border, coast to coast.  45 states.  9 foreign nations.  

You sure you want to go that way?


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> I've been border to border, coast to coast. 45 states. 9 foreign nations.
> 
> You sure you want to go that way?


All 50 states for me. Only 4 other nations. 
It looks like a tie.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I've been border to border, coast to coast. 45 states. 9 foreign nations.
> ...


WTH, 36 states, 18 countries, 12 schools in 12 years.  Not that it means shit--just that you don't have any moss growing underfoot.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

miketx said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


And the strange ones on the far right fit that as well.  Both left and right in America seem to be in a deep hole. It's called confirmation bias.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


You suppose wrongly. I agree that Republicans and Democrats need to enforce the gun laws.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > Someone somewhere said that privateers had privately-owned cannons.  They could not use them offensively without a letter de marque, I believe.  If I am wrong, please correct me.
> ...


Personal attack instead of dealing with the facts reveals a shallow mind. Can the average citizen, without meeting the fed firearms laws etc, own a cannon? I can own a tank if I jump through the legal hoops. Try to understand the difference.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > I've been border to border, coast to coast. 45 states. 9 foreign nations.
> ...


Yeah, but you think SAN FRANCISCO is a great place.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


That is your confused opinion. Explain what you had to go through legally to fire that weapon. Or did you break the law.  This is on you guys to justify your positions. Otherwise you are simply giving assertions without facts and evidence.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


Have you got a lathe?  That is where I got my cannon.  I made it.  It can fire a 4" steel ball.  There are no laws that restrict the mfr. and use of these cannons.  Indeed, I am sure that many civil war replicas are in yards throughout the country.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


Your ignorance is not something I have to deal with.  I made the cannon, I fired the cannon, end of story.  I have never seen a law restricting the use of a single shot firearm of any kind.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


That is merely your ignorant opinion. You are stating it as fact, so get the law book out and prove it. If you can't, there is no need to quarrel with your further.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


There is no Federal law against cannon.
26 USC sec. 5845(g) "Antique firearm.-The term 'antique firearm' means any firearm not designed or redesigned for using rim fire or conventional center fire ignition with fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system or replicas thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1898) and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade." Because our black powder cannons are loaded with propellant separate from the projectile, uses simple cannon fuse for ignition, and is patterned after typicall 19th centrury artillery pieces, it is falls clearly under the federal definition of a replica firearm. 

There may be state laws.  Varies from state to state.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


I am not quarreling with you, I only quarrel with people I care about.  You mean nothing to me.  I stated a FACT.  You think you know more, but you don't know shit.  The proof is on you moron.  I will continue on with my life, on which you have absolutely no effect.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Then you are nothing for me to worry about. You made a statement you can back up, and that will be the truth until you do. You won't.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


How long are you going to pretend Post #61 doesn't exist?


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


You are hiding behind antique cannons, which is not the same as owning a modern cannon. But if you wish, go with it.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


Need some help with the goalposts there, Skippy?


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


I think Daveman did that for me quite well.  Your apology is accepted.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Can't handle it, can you? You are right there with your buddy.


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


I have an idea:

Since you seem to think -- sorry, wrong word -- _feel_ that privately owned cannon are illegal, show us the law.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


You stupid fuck, it was very clear to anyone with a modicum of sense what we were talking about.  Take it down the road rook.  Fucking new morons.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...



   Again....I can own my own cannon with no special license required.
You're obviously ignorant of gun laws.
  I can also own my own tank.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...



  It's always the same with you liberal morons.
You dont know shit about gun laws or what an assault rifle is.


----------



## StormAl (Apr 11, 2021)

Within the law, yes, you can.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...



  Are you out of high school yet?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...



      Moving the goal posts eh?
   What exactly is a modern cannon?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> StormAl said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



  Beat me to it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Within the law, yes, you can.



  Ya need a forklift to move that goal post?


----------



## miketx (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...


Same leftist shill babble, every goddam time! Goodbye broken record!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 11, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > StormAl said:
> ...



  You're the one making the assertion that cannons are illegal so it's up to you to prove it.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > People used to poop in the streets, too. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.
> ...








Yeah, Dave got indoor plumbing pretty quick.  You still stuck with the old one holer, or were you able to step up to a two?


----------



## daveman (Apr 11, 2021)

westwall said:


> Hidden said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


His biggest problem is the Sears catalog is online only now, so he keeps wiping his ass with his phone.


----------



## Lesh (Apr 11, 2021)

In fact the Gunfight at the Ok Corral was about disarming cowboys who were illegally carrying guns within the city limits


----------



## SavannahMann (Apr 11, 2021)

What you have written is true. But there is a lot more truth. If you did not answer questions the cops of the era would beat the confession out of you. Certainly no one would argue that this was acceptable today. The argument that local cops not Feds meant it was constitutional would be laughed at today wouldn’t it?

One of the things I have mentioned before is our journey as a people and a country to truly embrace the ideals of our own founding documents.

Because someone used to do it does not mean it was ever right. Because it used to be done does not mean we should today. Otherwise rights we accept as writ would evaporate in no time. I certainly would not want that.


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> Yeah, but you think SAN FRANCISCO is a great place.


I know it's a great place. You, who has never been there, thinks that it's a lousy place. Ponder that for a moment Dave.


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> Yeah, Dave got indoor plumbing pretty quick. You still stuck with the old one holer, or were you able to step up to a two?


Why would I need two seats. Odd and even days?


----------



## whitehall (Apr 12, 2021)

Back in the 1800's local jurisdictions could make their own laws but in no way were the actual written laws more restrictive. Anyone could own a handgun in the 1800's and brandish it at will and they did. Today's gun laws are far more restrictive than pioneers or cowboys ever envisioned. The problem is that the 2nd Amendment has become such a political football that it has lost it's true meaning.


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2021)

Hidden said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, Dave got indoor plumbing pretty quick. You still stuck with the old one holer, or were you able to step up to a two?
> ...










So more than one can go at the same time.

Duh.


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> So more than one can go at the same time.
> 
> Duh.


So you want to poop beside me. That's weird!


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2021)

Hidden said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So more than one can go at the same time.
> ...








Not me silly, like Dave I have indoor plumbing too, but outhouse users, like you, are......well, limited in your options.

Just sayin...


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> Not me silly, like Dave I have indoor plumbing too, but outhouse users, like you, are......well, limited in your options.
> 
> Just sayin...


Do you have side-by-side toilets in your house?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Apr 12, 2021)

Tommy Tainant said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> ...



"John T. Chance" in Rio Bravo would have been fired and convicted for police brutality.


----------



## San Souci (Apr 12, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> ...


And many of the "Legends" were created by Eastern Media and Dime Novelists.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Apr 12, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...


Some whiny gun nut needledick would have got the nra to sue him.


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2021)

Hidden said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Not me silly, like Dave I have indoor plumbing too, but outhouse users, like you, are......well, limited in your options.
> ...








Of course not.  I have indoor plumbing!

Duh!


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> Of course not. I have indoor plumbing!
> 
> Duh!


What part of "in your house" was too difficult for you to grasp?


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2021)

Hidden said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not. I have indoor plumbing!
> ...



What part of your insult being stupid is too difficult for YOU to grasp?


----------



## d0gbreath (Apr 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> What part of your insult being stupid is too difficult for YOU to grasp?


I made no insult. I just wanted to know if you have any "two-holer" bathrooms in your house. Yes or no will suffice.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Apr 12, 2021)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Some Left wing jerkoffs would have burnt the town down...lol


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 12, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> Translation...People could own guns and rifles.


*When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.*

“Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. *But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”*

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn’t always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, *the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.
-*


----------



## LuckyDuck (Apr 12, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Translation...People could own guns and rifles.
> ...


You're just repeating yourself from the original post.  That doesn't change why the laws were implemented.  A combination of alcohol consumption in bars/saloons while carrying a firearms were a recipe for disaster and their knee-jerk reaction laws were a result of the drunkenness and firearms use.  Also, even in towns that had firearms restrictions, the citizens who actually lived within the city/town limits, could have a firearm in their residence.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 12, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Translation...People could own guns and rifles.
> ...


Translation...
You could own firearms.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> These guys must not have got the memo.


The was photo op

This does not mean they wore guns on a day-to-day bases
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 12, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> You're just repeating yourself from the original post.


There are times when posters go astray and forget the OP. In that case a repeat is required



LuckyDuck said:


> That doesn't change why the laws were implemented. A combination of alcohol consumption in bars/saloons while carrying a firearms were a recipe for disaster and their knee-jerk reaction laws were a result of the drunkenness and firearms use.


The same reasons hold today. 


LuckyDuck said:


> Also, even in towns that had firearms restrictions, the citizens who actually lived within the city/town limits, *could have a firearm in their residence.*


You still can -


----------



## Flash (Apr 12, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > These guys must not have got the memo.
> ...




It doesn't mean they didn't either.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


The point I am trying to make is that gun laws were more restrictive in the old cowboy days than they are today. -


----------



## Flash (Apr 12, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...




I think that is something the despicable uneducated Moon Bats want us to believe in order to have justification for anti Constitutional gun restrictions.  Wouldn't you agree?

Hollywood has pretty well defined the old west but I suspect anybody that could afford a hand gun carried one whenever they wanted to do so.  Maybe some sheriff here or there didn't want drunken cowboys shooting up the town when they came in from the trail and made them turn in their guns but I doubt that was widespread.

Gun control laws suck and are against the Constitution since the BoRs clearly says that the right cannot be infringed.  I think we can agree on that, can't we?


----------



## struth (Apr 12, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


Nothing, lots of towns and cities today still have laws against open carry, and certainly against having a concealed firearm.


----------



## struth (Apr 12, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...


But it's an incorrect point.  You didn't have waiting periods, laws against requiring concealed weapon permits, back ground checks, gun registration, etc. 

Many cities and towns still have laws against open-carry, and every state I know requires a concealed weapon permit if you wish to have a concealed weapon


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 12, 2021)

struth said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


I believe Idaho just passed a law that repealed the concealed permit.  Anyone can carry concealed now in that state.


----------



## struth (Apr 12, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...


Ok...so 49 other states and the District of Columbia


----------



## Flash (Apr 12, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...




It is called Constitutional Carry and several states have it now.  We are trying to get it passed here in Florida.

We will never get open carry in Florida because the filthy Tourist lobby owns the politicians of both parties.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


How do they justify no open carry?  That is bearing arms.  It is specifically addressed in the second amendment.


----------



## daveman (Apr 12, 2021)

Hidden said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but you think SAN FRANCISCO is a great place.
> ...


I don't have to jump off a bridge to know I probably wouldn't enjoy it.  

You disagree with me.  So?  I'm not clear on what you believe your foot-stamping obligates me to do.


----------



## daveman (Apr 12, 2021)

Hidden said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So more than one can go at the same time.
> ...


I bet people in San Francisco poop next to each other on the sidewalk.


----------



## daveman (Apr 12, 2021)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Irrational gun-haters sure do like to talk about gun-owners' penises.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> Hidden said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Upgrade infrastructure to include more restrooms!


----------



## daveman (Apr 12, 2021)

struth said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


All 50 states and DC allow the concealed carry of firearms. 31 states and DC require permits and have may-issue or shall-issue permit laws, 18 states have constitutional carry laws but will also issue permits upon request, and Vermont has constitutional carry but does not issue permits. 









						State-by-State Concealed Carry Permit Laws - ProCon.org
					

Not all states permit open carry. View a map of the US which outlines which states currently permit open carry, those that may, and those that don't.




					concealedguns.procon.org


----------



## daveman (Apr 12, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Hidden said:
> ...


Not my problem.  People don't shit in the street where I come from.  Tell the liberals who run big cities.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


All right-wingers prefer is to try to criminalize poverty while alleging they are for free market Capitalism in socialism threads.


----------



## Flash (Apr 12, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...




I think any gun control law is unconstitutional.

You can take a gun just about any place in Florida and you can conceal carry with an easy to get permit but you can't walk down the street with a six iron strapped on your hip.  You can do it on your own property and while hunting and fishing but those shitheads are afraid you would scare the tourists if you carried a firearm on International Drive in Orlando.

Florida has some very good laws but the filthy ass tourist industry is afraid of open carry and paid off the lawmakers of both parties to not allow it.

What we need is for the sorry ass Supreme Court to get off its ass and declare that the Second Amendment is subject to Strict Scrutiny.  That would prevent all these filthy ass State and Local laws that infringes upon our Constitutional right that says that it can't be infringed.


----------



## Concerned American (Apr 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


I would like to know where Wayne LaPierre  and the NRA/NRAILA are.  There are unconstitutional gun control laws being passed all over the country and I'm hearing crickets from the NRA.  The NRA is fixing to lose a member if they don't become more vocal in fighting these laws.


----------



## struth (Apr 13, 2021)

daveman said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...


Yes, if you get a licence to do so...like I said....that wasn't required in the "Old West" -


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Apr 13, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


And they were wrong back then too......

There should be absolutely no restriction on weapons....

You should be able to own any weapon that is made.....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (Apr 13, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


The NRA is a grift....you should know this by now...

Aside from enriching themselves, they only exist to serve gun manufacturers


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 13, 2021)

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> What we need is for the sorry ass Supreme Court to get off its ass and declare that the Second Amendment is subject to Strict Scrutiny. That would prevent all these filthy ass State and Local laws that infringes upon our Constitutional right that says that it can't be infringed


What we need to do is repeat the above until the vast majority has heard it.
Then repeat it just one more time just to make sure its heard by all of us----

_What we need is for the sorry ass Supreme Court to get off its ass and declare that the Second Amendment is subject to Strict Scrutiny. That would prevent all these filthy ass State and Local laws that infringes upon our Constitutional right that says that it can't be infringed.



-_


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 18, 2021)

Flash said:


> That would prevent all these filthy ass State and Local laws that infringes upon our Constitutional right that says that it can't be infringed.


My mistook your post.

Cities and towns should be allowed to set their own gun laws. In the city I live in I would support large fins for carrying a gun in public places.

*Very large fines !!!!!*

-


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 18, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


In the old west, it was not firearms that was the problem it was the lack of law enforcement infrastructure that would allow criminals to flagrantly loot and murder.   A town such as Tombstone was beset regularly by cowboys coming off cattle drives and generally partying en masse in a town.

The sheriff often would make them check their guns until they were going to leave town.   That being said, the Old West was not nearly as filled with gunfights as Hollywood has depicted for decades.   BTW it was not every law abiding town citizen who could not have guns it was the outside element known to cause trouble.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 18, 2021)

In the 2008 _Heller_ decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as _dicta,_ that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns, or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business*

Our cities and towns need to get back to protecting its citizens from nuts with guns; they have that right.
-

*-*


----------



## Flash (Apr 18, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > That would prevent all these filthy ass State and Local laws that infringes upon our Constitutional right that says that it can't be infringed.
> ...




You may not know this but the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it very clearly says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Do you really think that states and locals have the right to ignore the Bill of Rights?  I don't think so.  

If that is the case then in the town where I live we could make the Negros slaves.


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 18, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> In the 2008 _Heller_ decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as _dicta,_ that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”
> 
> ...


You're still comparing the Old West with today when there is no comparison.   Stop believing Hollywood too.  There are lots and lots of videos in You Tube where the Old West is explain and depicted.   Go get some education before spouting off.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 18, 2021)

And the wittle boy said to his dad, dady, dady I want a gun for Christmas !!!

*Leo123* replies, if you are a good boy, santa will give you a big surprise.
just don't take it to school until you learn how to use it.
-


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 18, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> And the wittle boy said to his dad, dady, dady I want a gun for Christmas !!!
> 
> *Leo123* replies, if you are a good boy, santa will give you a big surprise.
> just don't take it to school until you learn how to use it.
> -


What the fuck are you even talking about, soi boy?   I said you are influenced too much by the Hollywood Old West and I told you why.  You come back with insults and bullshit.  Where the fuck are you from anyway?  China?


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 21, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> Where the fuck are you from anyway? China?


As far from the likes of you as possible and up wind to avoid the stench.

Just kidding, I hope we remain friends -


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 21, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> You're still comparing the Old West with today when there is no comparison.



Sweet pie, this isn’t the old west.

In the 2008 _Heller_ decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as _dicta,_ that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.
-


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 21, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > You're still comparing the Old West with today when there is no comparison.
> ...


Nobody said it was.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 24, 2021)

some things need repeating until heard
*****
*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns, or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business* 

-


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 24, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> some things need repeating until heard
> *****
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”
> 
> ...


News flash!!  It ain't the frontier anymore.   Also, the 'frontier' refers to uninhabited areas.   Frontier towns were another story.  Back then, a gun was part of everyday life in the frontier but the small towns frequently had gun laws for strangers passing through.  Totally different demographic than today, totally different time.  No comparison.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 24, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> News flash!! It ain't the frontier anymore. Also, the 'frontier' refers to uninhabited areas. Frontier towns were another story.


Respectfully I disagree.

In the wild west gun laws were established by the cities and towns.

They still have that same right today.

-


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 24, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Respectfully I disagree.
> 
> In the wild west gun laws were established by the cities and towns.
> 
> They still have that same right today.


'Respectfully'......first off, the West was not 'wild' in fact it was quite boring most of the time.  Folks who farmed were well armed to protect themselves from predatory animals, for shooting game and to protect the homestead from strangers because there was no law enforcement for miles around.  Generally, though, life was just working every day to take care of work animals or domestic animals (cows for milk, chickens, pigs, etc. and gardens for vegetables).

Towns were quite different, cow punchers coming off a long drive and being flush with their pay, would descend upon a town and often times create havoc shooting up the town and generally celebrating.   The other side of the coin is that towns actually depended on these cowboys for the influx of cash they would bring spending it on prostitutes, gambling, hotels, barbers, and, of course dropping scads of dough in the local drinking establishments.  It is little wonder why a Sheriff would confiscate their guns until they left town.

Like I said, totally different times, totally different reason for gun confiscation.   Also, back then, it would be unthinkable to confiscate guns from the entire frontier population and it never happened..Also, in those towns, the Sheriff would never confiscate the trusted townspeople's guns because he would need them in cases where the town may have faced organized outlaws, indians, etc.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Apr 24, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> Towns were quite different, cow punchers coming off a long drive and being flush with their pay, would descend upon a town and often times create havoc shooting up the town and generally celebrating.




In the real world, no such events took place.

.,..,You Are welcome to post something proving me wrong..,.tic.,,,tick.,,,good luck







Leo123 said:


> The other side of the coin is that towns actually depended on these cowboys for the influx of cash they would bring spending it on prostitutes, gambling, hotels, barbers, and, of course dropping scads of dough in the local drinking establishments.


There have been some really good movies showing the make-believe life described in your post.

In the real world, American citizens have learned to distinguish between the two.

Fact or fiction, non-fiction,



Leo123 said:


> It is little wonder why a Sheriff would confiscate their guns until they left town.


Nice of you to admit that there were gun laws in cities and towns way back then. 

Reminding us that Wyatt Earp was a living Sheriff doing his duty to enforce those laws.
-


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 24, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > Towns were quite different, cow punchers coming off a long drive and being flush with their pay, would descend upon a town and often times create havoc shooting up the town and generally celebrating.
> ...


Sorry, 'because I say so' just doesn't cut it.  There's lots of documentaries out there on the Old West, and historical books and accounts.   I suggest you get educated.  Your whole premise is nothing but bullshit.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 25, 2021)

ColonelAngus said:


> Mexico has among the most restrictive gun comtrol laws in the world.
> 
> Therefore there is no gun violence in Mexico, huh?
> 
> ...



Actually, Mexico's constitution has a clause almost identical to the Second Amendment... they just don't have the bizarre intrepretation the National Rampage Association has fostered.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> In the 2008 _Heller_ decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as _dicta,_ that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”
> 
> ...



Right wingers simply prefer to practice the abomination of hypocrisy upon the less fortunate instead of actually being legal to the laws. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 25, 2021)

Flash said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



It says a well regulated militia is a State's sovereign Right.  And, well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment unlike the unorganized militia of the People.

Who are subject to the police power of a State. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> > You're still comparing the Old West with today when there is no comparison.
> ...


Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 25, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > In the 2008 _Heller_ decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as _dicta,_ that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.
> ...


Tell that to the inner city gang bangers.  Apparently they don’t much give a shit about gun laws.  Meanwhile Democrats and the left want to disarm law abiding citizens.  Talk about hypocrisy and laws that don’t work.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 25, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Leo123 (Apr 25, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


MS13 is a well regulated criminal militia apparently because they have all the guns.


----------



## danielpalos (Apr 25, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> ...


Our legislators are not doing their job.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 26, 2021)

daveman said:


> Armed people don't get on the boxcars.



They do when their fellow citizens turn them in.  The reality of the holocaust is that guns didn't make a difference. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising had a shitload of guns...  and managed to kill a whopping 19 Germans before they were all rounded up and killed...


----------



## daveman (Apr 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Armed people don't get on the boxcars.
> ...


And you're more than willing to turn in your fellow citizens.

Do you still believe you'll be given a seat on the Politiburo?  Note to the history-illiterate would-be revolutionary:

Traitors are first against the wall.


----------



## Batcat (May 27, 2021)

Visitors in Thombstone were required to leave their guns, Bowie knives and dirks with a law officer when entering town but the residents could carry if they asked for a permit. The visitors were cowboys who loved to get drunk and the residents knew drunken cowboys and guns was a bad mix.


ORDINANCE №9 OF THE CITY OF TOMBSTONE

To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons

Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.


----------



## Batcat (May 27, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Armed people don't get on the boxcars.
> ...


A shitload of guns?

************

_Being meticulous record keepers, the Nazis provided, and left behind, well-documented reports of the event, this one formulated by Jürgen Stroop, who led the German troops assigned the problem of the Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The following comprised the record of the entirety of the weaponry and materiel that were recovered once the Jewish fighters had been annihilated:

7 Polish rifles
1 Russian rifle
1 German rifle
59 pistols of various caliber
Several hundred hand grenades, including Polish and home made ones
Several hundred incendiary bottles
Home made explosives
Infernal machines with fuses_









						Guns & Politics: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
					

Poland has become a beacon of hope for Western culture




					dailycaller.com


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...




You really don't know what you are talking about.......

In Tombstone, the criminals ignored the law....Doc Holiday ignored the law......one Earp was shot and killed, the other shot and maimed....

And this...

*Most of the gun control laws in the Old West, if they existed at all, had nothing to do with confiscation or restrictions on gun type. They had more to do with gun use by restricting and prohibiting firing pistols in city streets. And, while few opponents of gun control today would object to limitations on discharging firearms in a busy intersection, gun control laws of this extent were largely unheard of in most American cities. In fact, they were even unusual in the Old West, and using the gun control ordinance from Tombstone as an example, they were proven ineffective.
-----

There were other frontier towns with gun control restrictions similar to Tombstone. Most made it unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person any deadly weapon within the limits of said city, without first obtaining a permit in writing. But, in those towns, as in Tombstone, in the closest equivalents to a “gun-free zone” in the 19th century, such gun control measures did little to stem gun violence, and likely provoked the infamous kerfuffle at the O.K. Corral.
----*
Lots of guns, not a lot of crime​Mass violence, like what took place at the O.K. Corral, was actually infrequent. Moreover, the Old West reputation for lawlessness is unwarranted, despite, at times, an elevated number of homicides.

*Crime such as rape and robberies occurred at a much lower rate than in modern America — certainly lower than in the 1970s and 1980s,* when the nation was wracked by a surge in criminality. It is also worth noting that crime and gun violence has fallen steeply since the 1990s, even as gun ownership has increased dramatically.
------
For instance, historian Robert McGrath, who wrote a book about crime in the most notorious Old West towns, found that “robbery, theft, and burglary occurred infrequently,” and that “bank robbery, rape, racial violence, and serious juvenile crime seem not to have occurred at all.” And, “while the homicide rate was high,” McGrath wrote, “the killings were almost always the result of fights between willing combatants.”
The few gun control-type laws that existed were poorly and inconsistently enforced. Additionally, McGrath concluded that it was widespread gun ownership that deterred criminality in these areas in which law enforcement had little authority or ability to combat crime.
------

Leaving that discussion aside for a moment, what’s unquestionable is the fact that gun ownership was nearly universal on the frontier and seen as a vital element for both individual, and importantly, community protection. It wasn’t enough to merely rely on the authorities. One needed to protect himself _and_ the community around him. And that viewpoint still holds true today.


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Visitors in Thombstone were required to leave their guns, Bowie knives and dirks with a law officer when entering town but the residents could carry if they asked for a permit. The visitors were cowboys who loved to get drunk and the residents knew drunken cowboys and guns was a bad mix.
> 
> 
> ORDINANCE №9 OF THE CITY OF TOMBSTONE
> ...




The laws didn't work in Tombstone or anywhere else...criminals ignored those laws even then...

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
*The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman’s office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.) *

*But these cowboys had no intention of doing so as they strolled around town with Colt revolvers and Winchester rifles in plain sight. 

Earlier on this fateful day, Virgil had disarmed one cowboy forcefully, while Wyatt confronted another and county sheriff Johnny Behan failed to persuade two more to turn in their firearms.*


*When the Earps and Holliday met the cowboys on Fremont Street in the early afternoon, Virgil once again called on them to disarm. Nobody knows who fired first. Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne, who were unarmed, ran at the start of the fight and survived. Billy Clanton and the McLaury brothers, who stood and fought, were killed by the lawmen, all of whom walked away.

Read more: Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Twitter

3/8/18

Gun Control, 1881

The ordinance, in this case at least, proved to be almost entirely ineffective. As recounted in the court decision, Sheriff Behan had “demanded of the Clantons and McLaurys that they give up their arms, and … they ‘demurred,’ as he said, and did not do it.”
------------
This reliance is misplaced. A brief filed by historians and legal scholars explains that nineteenth-century prohibitions like the one in Tombstone were “unusual” and imposed “in response to transitory conditions.” Any “supposed distinction between populated and unpopulated areas, offered to justify heavy restrictions on carrying in the District, is not supported by the existence of handgun carry bans in a handful of mostly small towns in the Wild West, when nearly all major cities had no such laws.”
3/5/18

NRA-ILA: The Myth of Effective Wild West Gun Control Exploded - The Truth About Guns*
*============*


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives,*
> ...




They banned concealed carry because of old fashioned ideas that only criminals would hide their guns...meanwhile, open carry of guns was completely and universally  allowed...they never want to focus on that point.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Visitors in Thombstone were required to leave their guns, Bowie knives and dirks with a law officer when entering town but the residents could carry if they asked for a permit. The visitors were cowboys who loved to get drunk and the residents knew drunken cowboys and guns was a bad mix.
> 
> 
> ORDINANCE №9 OF THE CITY OF TOMBSTONE
> ...




And the cowboys and other criminals ignored that law...to the point they murdered one Earp by shooting him, and maimed another Earp...by shooting him...

Doc Holiday completely ignored that law as well...

Please...look deeper than your anti-gun  extremism...


----------



## struth (May 27, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Visitors in Thombstone were required to leave their guns, Bowie knives and dirks with a law officer when entering town but the residents could carry if they asked for a permit. The visitors were cowboys who loved to get drunk and the residents knew drunken cowboys and guns was a bad mix.
> 
> 
> ORDINANCE №9 OF THE CITY OF TOMBSTONE
> ...


and as we all know the bad guys violated the law....and we had the infamous gun fight at the OK Corral


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 27, 2021)

Batcat said:


> Visitors in Thombstone were required to leave their guns, Bowie knives and dirks with a law officer when entering town but the residents could carry if they asked for a permit. The visitors were cowboys who loved to get drunk and the residents knew drunken cowboys and guns was a bad mix.
> 
> 
> ORDINANCE №9 OF THE CITY OF TOMBSTONE
> ...


I visited Tombstone while i was in Arizona, you were allowed to openly carry there, just not in a hipholster as gun slinging was outlawed by Wyatt Earp.


----------



## miketx (May 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > watchingfromafar said:
> ...


But but the movie...


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> ColonelAngus said:
> 
> 
> > Mexico has among the most restrictive gun comtrol laws in the world.
> ...





No.....their country is a corrupt nightmare where the corrupt military owns the only gun store, that is located on a military base, and only the rich and politically connected are allowed to buy from the extremely limited selection of guns...

Meanwhile....

The drug cartels get military weapons from our government, because the corrupt Mexican military sells them to the cartels, or they buy them from Europe and china.........

joe.....you should really stop lying...


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > ColonelAngus said:
> ...







The cartels get the vast majority of their weapons from central and South America.


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2021)

westwall said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...




Them too........but a lot of those militaries get their rifles from the U.S. government as well, then take them and sell them to the cartels.........


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...









The Mexican military is heavily involved in the drug trade.  Many general rank  officers are high up in the cartels.


----------



## Concerned American (May 27, 2021)

miketx said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


And the most germane point is again swept under the rug.  I don't GAF what UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws some podunk wild west movie-enhanced town passed or did not pass.  They are still unconstitutional.  There are towns in the US that prohibit OPEN carry which is clearly a violation of the constitution--that does not make them right.


----------



## Concerned American (May 27, 2021)

2aguy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


hmmm.  Iran-Contra scandal?


----------



## 2aguy (May 27, 2021)

westwall said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




But......that would make them criminals.....and they control the only gun store in the entire country......


----------



## Batcat (May 27, 2021)

andaronjim said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > Visitors in Thombstone were required to leave their guns, Bowie knives and dirks with a law officer when entering town but the residents could carry if they asked for a permit. The visitors were cowboys who loved to get drunk and the residents knew drunken cowboys and guns was a bad mix.
> ...


I live in Florida and while we can carry concealed with a concealed weapons permit we have not legalized open carry in public.

I suspect the reason why Is open carry would scare tourists from the blue Yankee states like New York. One of the reasons Florida does not have a state income tax is tourists.


----------



## Concerned American (May 27, 2021)

Batcat said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Batcat said:
> ...


Prohibitions on "open carry" are unconstitutional on their face.  --the right to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed.  Seems EXTREMELY clear to me.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 27, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


Hey, you forgot to post that old cowboy gun legislation where they banned all the scary-looking guns.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 27, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Armed people don't get on the boxcars.
> ...


Oh, well.  In that case, they should have just surrender without a fight.


----------



## Batcat (May 27, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


It does seem rather clear.


----------



## Resnic (May 27, 2021)

A long time ago is not today. It's a completely different world from what it was even a hundred years. 

The only thing that needs controlled is the problem makers. The vast majority of guns in this country are owned by people who never shot someone and if they did it was purely in self defense, pay their taxes, obey the laws and don't cause problems, go to work, take care of their families, and just everyday ordinary citizens of America. 

You walk by a dozen concealed guns a day and never are aware of it I promise you. I know I'm one of them, so is my mom, dad, grandma and wife. I got my first gun when I was 8 and kept it under my bed.

It's the few people that have guns that make headlines with their crimes. They are the problem, not gun control of lack thereof. They need to be dealt with.

Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership, they also have about the lowest gun related crime in all of Europe. Why? Because they are a happier, more content society with very very high rankings in education, employment, public health, and in general the swiss mind their own business. They also don't let criminals run rampant, or have a society where it's a hodge podge of people from allover the world that don't want to conform to the society of the country they live in.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2021)

Batcat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


That's a shitload to leftist pussies.


----------



## Lesh (May 27, 2021)

Resnic said:


> I got my first gun when I was 8 and kept it under my bed.


Yea. That's safe


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 27, 2021)

Lesh said:


> Resnic said:
> 
> 
> > I got my first gun when I was 8 and kept it under my bed.
> ...


Why would it be dangerous?  Is some boogie man going to crawl under his bed at night and pull the trigger?

You have been conditioned by propaganda to believe that guns shoot by themselves.  It takes quiet a bit of force to cause a gun to fire without pulling the trigger.  99.99999999% of times a gun "accidentally" discharges is because somebody pulled the trigger.   Don't believe the bullshit.

In fact, must gun instructors call it a NEGLIGENT discharge.  Meaning it is foreseeable and preventable, but for a person's neglect.


----------



## watchingfromafar (May 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


You repeated the Illinois gun laws in four (4) posts, good for you



-


----------



## Biff_Poindexter (May 28, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


So what??

Gun control is a horrible concept.....there should be no laws that places restrictions on weapons....

If the military can have all of these weapons with our tax dollars -- we should be able to have those same weapons in case we need to overthrow that government...we can't rely on voting anymore....China owns our voting systems


----------



## Burgermeister (May 28, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


I stopped reading after you got the Heller ruling completely wrong.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 28, 2021)

Biff_Poindexter said:


> watchingfromafar said:
> 
> 
> > *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> ...


If you ever post something without snark and sarcasm, let me know.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 19, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Someone somewhere said that privateers had privately-owned cannons.  They could not use them offensively without a letter de marque, I believe.  If I am wrong, please correct me.



Wrong.
The purpose of the Letter of Marque was so that if captured, you had POW rights instead of being hung as a pirate.
It tied you to a chain of command that ensured you followed the rules of war.
If you did not have a Letter of Marque, then you could still engage in any sort of activity you wanted, but then you did not have any protection under international law.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 19, 2021)

There was zero gun control in the Old West.
Sure cowboys from out of town had to turn in guns while gambling and drinking in the saloon or casinos, but they were given their guns back immediately upon leaving the saloon or casino.
And the residents never turned in anything.


----------



## LeftofLeft (Jul 10, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...



Since the mass shooting at University of Texas in 1965, we have had multiple mass shootings throughout the US. From 1791 to 1965, few if any mass shootings exist on record. What changed? Teachers kept firearms in classrooms. People by and large carried firearms and firearms were in every home.

there was no impulse to got out and commit a mass shooting. And, if there were, there was a deterrent in place.


----------



## Batcat (Jul 10, 2021)

daveman said:


> People used to poop in the streets, too.  Doesn't mean it's a good idea.


I hear they are still pooping in the streets in San Francisco.


----------



## Batcat (Jul 10, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There was zero gun control in the Old West.
> Sure cowboys from out of town had to turn in guns while gambling and drinking in the saloon or casinos, but they were given their guns back immediately upon leaving the saloon or casino.
> And the residents never turned in anything


Exactly. It's called selective enforcement. The locals needed firearms to protect themselves from the rowdy, drunk cowboys.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Someone somewhere said that privateers had privately-owned cannons.  They could not use them offensively without a letter de marque, I believe.  If I am wrong, please correct me.


That's correct;  a Letter of Marque and Reprisal allowed ANY ship to attack, seize and sell any ship registered in the country or countries listed in the Letter of Marque.  Jean Laffite operated under a letter of Marque for years with impunity.  He and many other became pirates when they began to prey upon ship of countries not listed on their Letters of Marque.  However, almost all merchant ships carried cannons of some type or caliber for self-defence.  British East Indiamen for instance, looked like 74 gun battleships, but were armed like medium sized frigates.  In at least one instance a group of East Indiamen pretended to be Royal Navy warships and bluffed a small French raiding squadron into not attacking their convoy.  That's been used in several books, but it really happened.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

daveman said:


> See my post to Concerned American.
> 
> I've been to SoCal, and traveled a bit in northern CA, but never been to Frisco.  And given the amount of biohazards on the sidewalks -- used needles and human shit -- I don't see ever wanting to change that fact.
> 
> ...


I can't imagine anyone being proud to live there today.  I was stationed at Presidio San Francisco in 1971 and San Francisco was a vibrant, exciting, if very crowded, city.  It had everything going for it except weather, as Mark Twain said, "the coldest winter I ever felt was a summer in San Francisco".


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

StormAl said:


> Personal attack instead of dealing with the facts reveals a shallow mind. Can the average citizen, without meeting the fed firearms laws etc, own a cannon? I can own a tank if I jump through the legal hoops. Try to understand the difference.


Actually you don't have to jump through any hoops to on a tank as long as the main gun and machine guns aren't operational.  You do have to license it if you want to drive it on the road.  Normally only tanks with rubber track pads will be licensed since steel tracks tend to destroy asphalt roads in short order.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Have you got a lathe?  That is where I got my cannon.  I made it.  It can fire a 4" steel ball.  There are no laws that restrict the mfr. and use of these cannons.  Indeed, I am sure that many civil war replicas are in yards throughout the country.


Weapons built before a certain date (I think it was 1880 or so) or replicas of such are considered historical artifacts and nut subject to licensing or regulation.  Now some places call cannon "destructive devices" and require registration and licensing.  I knew a guy near Ventura California that owned a Civil War era 12 pound Napolean cannon.  He took it all over and often fired it at historical celebrations or battlefield reenactments.


----------



## Godboy (Jul 26, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


Its was too easy to get away with murder back then. A guy would shoot someone in a tavern and ride off without being brought to justice, let alone identified. Today we have ballistics, cameras, dna test, etc.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

struth said:


> But it's an incorrect point.  You didn't have waiting periods, laws against requiring concealed weapon permits, back ground checks, gun registration, etc.
> 
> Many cities and towns still have laws against open-carry, and every state I know requires a concealed weapon permit if you wish to have a concealed weapon


Arizona doesn't require a permit for concealed carry anymore.  I got one anyway in case I ever feel the need to carry in another state that has reciprocal rights.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

Leo123 said:


> 'Respectfully'......first off, the West was not 'wild' in fact it was quite boring most of the time.  Folks who farmed were well armed to protect themselves from predatory animals, for shooting game and to protect the homestead from strangers because there was no law enforcement for miles around.  Generally, though, life was just working every day to take care of work animals or domestic animals (cows for milk, chickens, pigs, etc. and gardens for vegetables).
> 
> Towns were quite different, cow punchers coming off a long drive and being flush with their pay, would descend upon a town and often times create havoc shooting up the town and generally celebrating.   The other side of the coin is that towns actually depended on these cowboys for the influx of cash they would bring spending it on prostitutes, gambling, hotels, barbers, and, of course dropping scads of dough in the local drinking establishments.  It is little wonder why a Sheriff would confiscate their guns until they left town.
> 
> Like I said, totally different times, totally different reason for gun confiscation.   Also, back then, it would be unthinkable to confiscate guns from the entire frontier population and it never happened..Also, in those towns, the Sheriff would never confiscate the trusted townspeople's guns because he would need them in cases where the town may have faced organized outlaws, indians, etc.


The James gang found out the hard way about armed townies.  The citizens of Northfield Minnesota very nearly wiped out the entire gang when it tried to rob the bank on September 7th 1876,  And even then Minnesota wasn't considered the "wild west".


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, Mexico's constitution has a clause almost identical to the Second Amendment... they just don't have the bizarre intrepretation the National Rampage Association has fostered.


The constitution used to say that, but it was changed,  Here is an excert from an artiocle on the subject:
 The right to keep and bear arms was first recognized as a constitutional right under *Article 10* of the Mexican Constitution of 1857.[8] However, as part of the Mexican Constitution of 1917, Article 10 was changed[9] where-by the _right to keep and bear arms_ was given two separate definitions: the *right to keep* (_derecho a poseer_ in Spanish) and the *right to bear* (_derecho a portar_ in Spanish).[10] The new version of Article 10 specified that citizens were entitled to _keep arms_ (own them) but may only _bear them_ (carry them) among the population in accordance to police regulation.[11] This modification to Article 10 also introduced the so-called _...[arms] for exclusive use of the [military]... _(in Spanish: _...de uso exclusivo del Ejército..._), dictating that the law would stipulate which weapons were reserved for the armed forces, including law enforcement agencies, for being considered _weapons of war_."
In reality only pistols of .380 caliber (9mm short) or smaller, rifles of .22 caliber and shotguns of 12 gauge or smaller are legal for possession by civilians and can only be carried outside the house with a police permit that is almost impossible for anyone not rich or connected to get.  Also there is only ONE STORE in the entire country where guns can be legally purchased and that's AFTER obtaining one of the permits and it's in Mexico D.F.  (Mexico City to us gringos)


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 26, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Weapons built before a certain date (I think it was 1880 or so) or replicas of such are considered historical a19rtifacts and nut subject to licensing or regulation.  Now some places call cannon "destructive devices" and require registration and licensing.  I knew a guy near Ventura California that owned a Civil War era 12 pound Napolean cannon.  He took it all over and often fired it at historical celebrations or battlefield reenactments.


The hodge podge of laws in this country is ridiculous.  In CA they have all of these ignorant laws about assault weapons (not defined), magazine capacity, bayonets, etc.  But you can buy a pre 1960 Russian SKS that has a bayonet, which is considered a "relic" and walk out of the store with it with no waiting period.  How would that operational gun be any different than a new gun.  SMH.  Democrat lawmakers are morons.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

JoeB131 said:


> They do when their fellow citizens turn them in.  The reality of the holocaust is that guns didn't make a difference. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising had a shitload of guns...  and managed to kill a whopping 19 Germans before they were all rounded up and killed...


I don't know where you get your "facts" but here's an excerpt from an article in weapons and Warfare:
_With typical Teutonic efficiency, the SS collected and catalogued all the weapons that they had captured or recovered after the battle. It was not an impressive haul, considering the doggedness of the resistance that the Germans had encountered. Of course, many weapons were not recovered, being buried under collapsed buildings, destroyed by fire or taken out of the ghetto by the surviving fighters. The SS listed just seven Polish, one Russian and one German rifle captured, along with fifty-nine pistols of various makes, several hundred hand grenades, Molotov cocktails and home-made explosives. The SS also recovered 1,240 German uniforms that the resisters often used to travel around the ghetto during the fight or to launch ambushes against the SS._
It's unlikely that the Jews started the uprising with more than a hundred firearms, most were captured from the SS troops themselves.  The Germans CLAIMED to only have lost seventeen killed and a hundred and one wounded.  That's in heavy fighting lasting nearly a full month. The Germans committed at least 3,000 troops, a handful of tank plus, heavy artillery and assault guns to the destruction.  Personally I find that level of casualties for the time and intensity of the combat impossible to believe.  The SS wasn't going to admit that a bunch of Jews were capable of inflicting serious losses on "elite" Waffen SS troops.  The numbers had to be doctored.  The Germans compared the fighting to Stalingrad which was a meatgrinder.


----------



## struth (Jul 26, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> I don't know where you get your "facts" but here's an excerpt from an article in weapons and Warfare:
> _With typical Teutonic efficiency, the SS collected and catalogued all the weapons that they had captured or recovered after the battle. It was not an impressive haul, considering the doggedness of the resistance that the Germans had encountered. Of course, many weapons were not recovered, being buried under collapsed buildings, destroyed by fire or taken out of the ghetto by the surviving fighters. The SS listed just seven Polish, one Russian and one German rifle captured, along with fifty-nine pistols of various makes, several hundred hand grenades, Molotov cocktails and home-made explosives. The SS also recovered 1,240 German uniforms that the resisters often used to travel around the ghetto during the fight or to launch ambushes against the SS._
> It's unlikely that the Jews started the uprising with more than a hundred firearms, most were captured from the SS troops themselves.  The Germans CLAIMED to only have lost seventeen killed and a hundred and one wounded.  That's in heavy fighting lasting nearly a full month. The Germans committed at least 3,000 troops, a handful of tank plus, heavy artillery and assault guns to the destruction.  Personally I find that level of casualties for the time and intensity of the combat impossible to believe.  The SS wasn't going to admit that a bunch of Jews were capable of inflicting serious losses on "elite" Waffen SS troops.  The numbers had to be doctored.  The Germans compared the fighting to Stalingrad which was a meatgrinder.


yea, thanks for the facts and i agree rhe national socialist were not going to admit the real numbers


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 26, 2021)

Lesh said:


> Yea. That's safe


If you're the youngest person in the house, it's perfectly safe.  The idea of locks and gun safes is a very recent one.  Up until recently most guns were kept in cabinets with glass fronts for display or even wall racks.  Kids were trained in gun safety early.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 26, 2021)

*Just a REMINDER*​*"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

*Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, *Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary*, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not *allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*.
-


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 26, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Just a REMINDER*​*"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.
> 
> *Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, *Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary*, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
> 
> ...



Totally wrong.
All states always protected the individual right to be armed.
They only made laws against concealed carry because there was no need for concealed carry, since almost everyone was openly armed, and it was considered that only criminals concealed their firearms.

{...
the several States to have a militia composed of citizens (i.e. the organized, and unorganized militia, as defined by the Efficiency In Militia Act of 1903) remains an issue of public debate. However, the constitutions of 31 states expressly protect an individual right to keep and bear arms (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming). Case law in 9 other states (Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin) protects the individual right, making a total of 40 states that expressly protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The constitutions of Missouri (1875), North Carolina (1875), Colorado (1876), Montana (1889), and New Mexico (1912) explicitly prohibited concealed carry. Further, the constitutions of Kentucky (1850), Louisiana (1879), Mississippi (1890) and Idaho (1978) permitted their respective Legislatures to regulate or prohibit concealed carry. This is because concealing weapons used to be thought of as a practice done exclusively by criminals.[1]
...}








						History of concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 29, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Totally wrong.
> All states always protected the individual right to be armed.
> They only made laws against concealed carry because there was no need for concealed carry, since almost everyone was openly armed, and it was considered that only *criminals* concealed their firearms.


You have a problem in reading, not me. There was no reference to "criminals". You are among the "criminals" & I pray to God that the FBI has YOU on their watch list. 

You and your kind are the problem
-


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 29, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business


If you are a canadian whete gun rights do not exist I know you wont understand what I am going to say

but speaking to my fellow Americans we should allow everyone except convicted felons and children under 18 to own firearms

Each year millions of people are caught with guns who are known criminals or children thst are turned lose back on the streets

and that should stop

impose a manditory 5 years in prison or reform school every time with no exceptions and gun crime will plummet


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 29, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> Each year millions of people are caught with guns who are known criminals or children thst are turned lose back on the streets
> 
> *and that should stop
> 
> impose a manditory 5 years in prison or reform school every time with no exceptions and gun crime will plummet*


I totally agree and your post should be repeated until every one reads it
-


----------



## daveman (Jul 29, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> You have a problem in reading, not me. There was no reference to "criminals". You are among the "criminals" & I pray to God that the FBI has YOU on their watch list.
> 
> You and your kind are the problem
> -


Legal gun owners aren't a problem.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> You have a problem in reading, not me. There was no reference to "criminals". You are among the "criminals" & I pray to God that the FBI has YOU on their watch list.
> 
> You and your kind are the problem
> -



Wrong.
Clearly it said that open carry was legal and it was only concealed carry that was illegal.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 30, 2021)

daveman said:


> People used to poop in the streets, too.  Doesn't mean it's a good idea.


Well, that analogy fails. Banning guns from town obviously was a good idea.

And look, no slippery slope! The NRA LIES! Amazing, isn't it! Not only is the NRA a pack of corrupt grifting thieves, but they're also liars who've pretended to be a 2nd-Amendment advocate when in fact they have been for decades nothing but a lobby for gun manufacturers!

DAMN you white-rights sure are dumb!


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 30, 2021)

daveman said:


> Legal gun owners aren't a problem.


Some are. Many terrorist white-right mass shootings have been perpetrated with legal guns. That's a problem, I'd say.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 30, 2021)

Race Burley said:


> Leftist bullshit.


Yeah, the truth hurts you white-right treasonous ideologues, eh?

No, the narrative is entirely true. Of course we know that facts are allergens to you white-right Qtip heads.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 30, 2021)

ColonelAngus said:


> Hey guys, I have an idea!  Lets make it illegal to murder someone!  There will be no murder.
> 
> While we are at it....lets make it illegal to have prescription drugs without a prescription!   Now the Opiate epidemic is over!


You're actually mocking your own position. Since murder still occurs, then we should simply have no laws? That is your argument?

Well in your defense that's no more stupid than most of the crap uttered by white-right cultist Qtip heads.


----------



## Sinajuavi (Jul 30, 2021)

Indeependent said:


> Translation...People could own guns and rifles.


People still can. So what is your point?

SMH at idiotic white-right cultist nuts.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Clearly it said that open carry was legal and it was only concealed carry that was illegal.


And again.......the only reason they didn't want concealed carry in some places was the idea only dishonorable people would conceal their gun.   Today that is an outdated view since normal today carry their guns concleade all time, since it keeps the actual criminals from knowing who can fight back....

Over 19.4 million Americans carry guns in public for self defense.........


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Well, that analogy fails. Banning guns from town obviously was a good idea.
> 
> And look, no slippery slope! The NRA LIES! Amazing, isn't it! Not only is the NRA a pack of corrupt grifting thieves, but they're also liars who've pretended to be a 2nd-Amendment advocate when in fact they have been for decades nothing but a lobby for gun manufacturers!
> 
> DAMN you white-rights sure are dumb!




You morons are funny when you aren't murdering millions of people and putting them in mass graves....

Do you have any original thoughts or do you just repeat anti-gun extremist silliness as a matter of course.......

But please...keep focusing on the NRA...that way the other 2nd Amendment groups can keep getting their work done in peace.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today


Someone lied to you.
Back in the day, they did not have...

-Permit requirements for purchase
-Firearm registration
-License requirements for ownership
-"Assault weapon" bans
- Magazine capacity restrictions
-License requirements for concealed carry
-Plenary prohibitions on open carry
-Vehicle carry prohibitions
-Waiting periods
-Background checks for private sales
-Red flag laws
-Background checks required for ammunition purchase
-Home-built firearms restriction


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Someone lied to you.
> Back in the day, they did not have...
> 
> -Permit requirements for purchase
> ...




And, then, as now, the criminals ignored those laws.    Tombstone is the town they like to point to, since they saw the movie...........but they ignore the fact that the actual Cowboys, the group opposed to the Earps, routinely ignored the laws on guns and Doc Holiday never followed the law........also, the Cowboy's killed one Earp, with guns, and maimed another.......

They are insane.......they are irrational, and we need to oppose them at every chance we get.


----------



## Indeependent (Jul 30, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> People still can. So what is your point?
> 
> SMH at idiotic white-right cultist nuts.


If LibBots had their way, US citizens wouldn't have kitchen knives.


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 30, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> DAMN you white-rights sure are dumb!


Damn you RACISTS.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Over 19.4 million Americans carry guns in public for self defense.........


 
Self defense from what, another guy carrying a gun-?
If guns were not allowed in public places the problem above would not exists.
-


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Self defense from what, another guy carrying a gun-?
> If guns were not allowed in public places the problem above would not exists.


Ah.  You are ignorant of the fact >70% of violent crime does not involve a gun.
No real surprise.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 30, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Well, that analogy fails. Banning guns from town obviously was a good idea.
> 
> And look, no slippery slope! The NRA LIES! Amazing, isn't it! Not only is the NRA a pack of corrupt grifting thieves, but they're also liars who've pretended to be a 2nd-Amendment advocate when in fact they have been for decades nothing but a lobby for gun manufacturers!
> 
> DAMN you white-rights sure are dumb!



Except it never happened.
Cowboys intending on drinking and gambling in casinos and saloons were the only ones who had to turn in guns, and they usually were turned in AT the casino or saloon, NOT the sheriff's office.

Banning guns from town never happened anywhere at any time, and would obviously be illegal and foolish, since then you would have no guns to counter armed criminals.  The reason police have guns is because all citizens can be armed, so if you ban all guns, the police can not be armed any more.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Self defense from what, another guy carrying a gun-?
> If guns were not allowed in public places the problem above would not exists.
> -



That is ridiculous.
So then according to your logic, no murders occur because murder is illegal?
Obviously laws prohibiting the carrying of arms have no effect on people intent on breaking more serious laws, like armed robbery or murder.
You make no sense at all.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 30, 2021)

Shootings never stopped during the pandemic: 2020 was the deadliest gun violence year in decades​
*In 2020, gun violence killed nearly 20,000 Americans*, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, more than any other year in at least two decades.* An additional 24,000 people died by suicide with a gun.*
2020 gun violence: Even with fewer mass shootings, last year was deadliest in decades - The Washington Post
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 30, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Banning guns from town never happened anywhere at any time, and would obviously be illegal and foolish, since then you would have no guns to counter armed criminals. The reason police have guns is because all citizens can be armed, so if you ban all guns, the police can not be armed any more.


*"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

*Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, *Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary*, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not *allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.
-*


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Shootings never stopped during the pandemic: 2020 was the deadliest gun violence year in decades​
> *In 2020, gun violence killed nearly 20,000 Americans*, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, more than any other year in at least two decades.* An additional 24,000 people died by suicide with a gun.*
> 2020 gun violence: Even with fewer mass shootings, last year was deadliest in decades - The Washington Post
> -



No one is "killed" in a suicide.
If we had a fair and just society, there would be no violence no matter what weapons were available.
Why do you want to prevent making society fair and just?


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.
> 
> *Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, *Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary*, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
> 
> ...



You can quote  liars all you want and it just proves you have low personal ethics.
Dodge City, Tombstone, etc. NEVER had laws against people being armed.
You simply are quoting a lie.
And in fact, where there were attempts to confiscate weapons, like by the Earps in Tombstone, the Earps were eventually run out of town.


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Self defense from what, another guy carrying a gun-?
> If guns were not allowed in public places the problem above would not exists.
> -


Guns are illegal in the UK, Canada and Mexico--how do you explain their gun fatalities.  If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> "Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,”


For how long--a year while the Earps were there?  Cherry pick some more bullshit.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 30, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> For how long--a year while the Earps were there? Cherry pick some more bullshit.


 
You seem to have an excuse for everything. 
At least you are here on a talk board instead of beating the homeless for their shoes.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 30, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> For how long--


 
At least now I know why you have a statue of a child playing with his thingee. 

Cause you do it toooo & do not expect us to guess how long you play with your thingee
This is not a guessing game.

-


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> At least now I know why you have a statue of a child playing with his thingee.


If you weren't so ignorant, you would know that statue is performing a biological function that unless you have a urinary drain, you perform every day multiple times--or maybe you're jerking yourself around like you are trying to jerk us around.  The statue is in Brussels Belgium and is somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 years old.  Investigate Petit Julien or Mannequen Pis then you won't sound so ignorant--maybe


watchingfromafar said:


> At least you are here on a talk board instead of beating the homeless for their shoes.


Only an ignorant fuck such as you would draw a parallel between being called out for cherry picking bullshit to make a point and beating the homeless.  Your problem is obvious, pull your head out of your ass and look around or at least clean your stomach window.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Self defense from what, another guy carrying a gun-?
> If guns were not allowed in public places the problem above would not exists.
> -




Are you this dumb in real life or only when you post..........

92% of violent crime against Americans do not involve the use of guns........that means rapes, beatings, stabbings, robberies and murders committed with everything but a gun...

A male does not need a gun to rape a woman, rape an elderly person, and small groups of attackers can beat and kill single men....

There was a time when guns did not exist.....and the strong murdered, raped, and enslaved the weak....guns changed that......the strong could be defeated with 5-12 pounds of pressure on the trigger of a gun...ending their monopoly over the weak....









						NewsMax’s Chris Salcedo Show: While Biden focuses on gun crime, 92% of violent crimes don’t use guns
					

Dr. John Lott appeared on NewsMax’s Chris Salcedo Show to discuss how Biden’s gun control regulations will disarm law-abiding Americans and how his focus on guns ignores that 92 percent…




					crimeresearch.org


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Shootings never stopped during the pandemic: 2020 was the deadliest gun violence year in decades​
> *In 2020, gun violence killed nearly 20,000 Americans*, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, more than any other year in at least two decades.* An additional 24,000 people died by suicide with a gun.*
> 2020 gun violence: Even with fewer mass shootings, last year was deadliest in decades - The Washington Post
> -




The Gun Violence Archive lies about basic information on gun crime, you idiot.....

The reason more people died by guns in 2020 was idiots like you attacked the police and they stopped doing their jobs.....

Meanwhile, the 27 years before 2015, the year you morons began destroying the police in this country....

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

1) the democrat party keeps releasing violent gun offenders...they have created a revolving door for criminals who use guns, and will release even the most serious gun offenders over and over again....why?   Probably because they realise that normal people don't use their guns for crime, so if they want to push gun control, they need criminals to shoot people.....so they keep releasing them....

2)  The democrat party keeps attacking the police.....driving the officers into not doing pro-active policing, cutting detective forces so that murders go unsolved..........


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Shootings never stopped during the pandemic: 2020 was the deadliest gun violence year in decades​
> *In 2020, gun violence killed nearly 20,000 Americans*, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, more than any other year in at least two decades.* An additional 24,000 people died by suicide with a gun.*
> 2020 gun violence: Even with fewer mass shootings, last year was deadliest in decades - The Washington Post
> -




Media Stokes Fear of Mass Shootings With Misleading Info

GVA defines a “mass shooting” as four fatal or _nonfatal_ injuries (excluding the shooter) which occur anywhere for any reason. This lumps in drive-byes, gang fights, and the occasional domestic incident with the Boulder and Atlanta shootings.
That’s a useful metric — if you want to make mass shootings seem far more prevalent than they actually are.
_Mother Jones _(of all places) actually has a far more useful metric, which is that to be counted the incident needs three or more fatalities (excluding the shooter) must happen in public and must be indiscriminate — meaning it excludes armed robberies, gang or domestic violence, etc.
According to a 2018 RAND study — using those metrics — in 2015, GVA claims there were 332 mass shootings in the us. Using the more restrictive — and more accurate —_ Mother Jones_ criteria there were … seven.
Folks, this is nothing but fear mongering using statistics to lie.
Mass shootings of the sort we’re discussing are vanishingly rare — which is _why_ they’re reported on, note; _no one reports on the millions of flights a day that land safely_, just the ones that _don’t _— but it’s useful to those who would control you to pretend it’s not so. A little dose of reality. 

In 2018 there were 39,740 deaths in which being shot was the proximate cause. Sixty-one percent of those were suicide, 35.1% were homicides, and data from 1982-2018 compiled from CDC and Mother Jones show 0.2% of deaths by firearm were public mass shootings.
You are, generally speaking, safe. Your kids are, generally speaking, safe at school.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.
> 
> *Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, *Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary*, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.
> 
> ...





And again, the criminals ignored those laws........and still murdered people with their guns.....One Earp was murdered the other maimed in Tombstone...and the Shoot Out at the O.K. Corral happened because the Cowboy's refused to surrender their guns....you doofus..

*Most of the gun control laws in the Old West, if they existed at all, had nothing to do with confiscation or restrictions on gun type. They had more to do with gun use by restricting and prohibiting firing pistols in city streets. And, while few opponents of gun control today would object to limitations on discharging firearms in a busy intersection, gun control laws of this extent were largely unheard of in most American cities. In fact, they were even unusual in the Old West, and using the gun control ordinance from Tombstone as an example, they were proven ineffective.*
*-----

There were other frontier towns with gun control restrictions similar to Tombstone. Most made it unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person any deadly weapon within the limits of said city, without first obtaining a permit in writing. But, in those towns, as in Tombstone, in the closest equivalents to a “gun-free zone” in the 19th century, such gun control measures did little to stem gun violence, and likely provoked the infamous kerfuffle at the O.K. Corral.
----*
*Lots of guns, not a lot of crime*​*Mass violence, like what took place at the O.K. Corral, was actually infrequent. Moreover, the Old West reputation for lawlessness is unwarranted, despite, at times, an elevated number of homicides.

Crime such as rape and robberies occurred at a much lower rate than in modern America — certainly lower than in the 1970s and 1980s, when the nation was wracked by a surge in criminality. It is also worth noting that crime and gun violence has fallen steeply since the 1990s, even as gun ownership has increased dramatically.*


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 30, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> For how long--a year while the Earps were there?  Cherry pick some more bullshit.




One Earp was shot to death, after they banned guns in town, the other maimed, and the shoot out at the O.K. corral happened when the Cowboy's refused to surrender their guns..........


----------



## Concerned American (Jul 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> One Earp was shot to death, after they banned guns in town, the other maimed, and the shoot out at the O.K. corral happened when the Cowboy's refused to surrender their guns..........


Preaching to the choir dude, I know.  The lefty  was cherry picking and I wanted to point it out.


----------



## daveman (Jul 30, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Well, that analogy fails. Banning guns from town obviously was a good idea.
> 
> And look, no slippery slope! The NRA LIES! Amazing, isn't it! Not only is the NRA a pack of corrupt grifting thieves, but they're also liars who've pretended to be a 2nd-Amendment advocate when in fact they have been for decades nothing but a lobby for gun manufacturers!
> 
> DAMN you white-rights sure are dumb!


I'm not a member of the NRA.  

You racists sure are dumb.


----------



## daveman (Jul 30, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Some are. Many terrorist white-right mass shootings have been perpetrated with legal guns. That's a problem, I'd say.


Far more people are killed in Chicago by Democrats with illegal guns.

Obviously, Democrats are the problem here.


----------



## daveman (Jul 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Self defense from what, another guy carrying a gun-?
> If guns were not allowed in public places the problem above would not exists.
> -


Maybe you should go to Chicago or Baltimore and confiscate illegal guns yourself.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?


Maybe it is because you live in one of them?
All right, I admit it. I fell into the circle jerk mentality, you defame me, I defame you and around and around it goes.

_Manneken Pis (Dutch: [ˌmɑnəkə(m) ˈpɪs] (About this soundlisten); Dutch for '"Little Pissing Man"') is a landmark 61 cm (24 in) bronze fountain sculpture of a puer mingens in central Brussels (Belgium), depicting a naked little boy urinating into the fountain's basin. It was designed by Jérôme Duquesnoy the Elder (1570–1641), and put in place in 1618 or 1619. The current statue is a replica which dates from 1965. The original is kept in the Brussels City Museum. Manneken Pis is the best-known symbol of the people of Brussels. It also embodies their sense of humour (called zwanze in Brussels' dialect) and their independence of mind._





Manneken Pis - Wikipedia

*2aguy, apart from your foul language you made your point. Now let us get back to the OP

Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home.* *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

-*


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Maybe it is because you live in one of them?
> All right, I admit it. I fell into the circle jerk mentality, you defame me, I defame you and around and around it goes.
> 
> _Manneken Pis (Dutch: [ˌmɑnəkə(m) ˈpɪs] (About this soundlisten); Dutch for '"Little Pissing Man"') is a landmark 61 cm (24 in) bronze fountain sculpture of a puer mingens in central Brussels (Belgium), depicting a naked little boy urinating into the fountain's basin. It was designed by Jérôme Duquesnoy the Elder (1570–1641), and put in place in 1618 or 1619. The current statue is a replica which dates from 1965. The original is kept in the Brussels City Museum. Manneken Pis is the best-known symbol of the people of Brussels. It also embodies their sense of humour (called zwanze in Brussels' dialect) and their independence of mind._
> ...




As you have been shown, you moron.......there was very little gun control back in those days..........you were shown the new gun control laws that did not exist even going into the 1960s......

You were also shown that criminals ignored the few laws that were in place.....as Tombstone demonstrates with the Cowboy's, Doc Holiday and the death and maiming of the Earps...


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> One Earp was shot to death, after they banned guns in town


*You, 2aguy are lying*
_Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp
Born: March 19, 1848
Monmouth, Illinois, U.S.
*Died: January 13, 1929 (aged 80)*
Los Angeles, California, U.S.
Occupation Lawman, buffalo hunter, saloon keeper, miner, boxing referee, gambler,_




*You, 2aguy are lying
-*​


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *You, 2aguy are lying*
> _Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp
> Born: March 19, 1848
> Monmouth, Illinois, U.S.
> ...




Are you really this stupid?

You don't even know the topic you are lying about........

Did I say it was Wyatt that was maimed or killed.......

As I pointed out to Rye Catcher...

1) it would help if you would stop lying...

2) it would help if you knew the information you were lying about....

You idiot....

* On December 28, 1881, Virgil Earp was ambushed and maimed in a murder attempt by the Cowboys. On March 18, 1882, a Cowboy fired from a dark alley through the glass door of Campbell & Hatch's saloon and billiard parlor, killing Morgan Earp.*









						Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Are you really this stupid?


No, but you are


2aguy said:


> You don't even know the topic you are lying about........


You are the one lying, not me,


2aguy said:


> Did I say it was Wyatt that was maimed or killed.......


*Yes, your lying self did--*
_2aguy said in post #233: One Earp was murdered the other maimed in Tombstone...and the Shoot Out at the O.K._



2aguy said:


> As I pointed out to Rye Catcher...
> 1) it would help if you would stop lying...


I have all ready proved it is you who is the liar


2aguy said:


> 2) it would help if you knew the information you were lying about....


Yes it would, grow up or join the children's make-believe forum
*No, wait, do not do that.* You would confuse the minds of these children


2aguy said:


> You idiot....


*I have all ready proved it is you who is the liar*

next -


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> No, but you are
> 
> You are the one lying, not me,
> 
> ...




You need to stop mixing your booze and your meds, and then go back to your room....the nurse needs to keep better track of your movement......

You are an idiot who doesn't realize that the Earp family had 7 children.........one shot and killed in Tombstone, the other maimed in Tombstone..........because the criminals ignored gun control laws.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

In the United States, mass murders committed with guns are so frequent that the vast majority of them are not even mentioned in mainstream media outlets.








						Gun Control in the U.S.
					

Public safety versus individual liberty—what does it mean to control people’s access to firearms?



					www.britannica.com


----------



## watchingfromafar (Jul 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot who doesn't realize that the Earp family had 7 children.........one shot and killed in Tombstone, the other maimed in Tombstone..........because the criminals ignored gun control laws.


*We were talking about *_*Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp*_, I am getting pretty sick and tired of our back and forth. You *2aguy *are a _*pathological liar*_, which is a sickness.

*Pathological lying*_, also known as mythomania and pseudologia fantastica, is a mental disorder in which the person habitually or compulsively lies.

It was first described in the medical literature in 1895 by Anton Delbrück. Although it is a controversial topic, pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime"._
Pathological lying - Wikipedia

*2aguy*, do not feel alone,* Dump has the same illness.*
For your own sake, it would be best for you to stop posting to me

-


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *We were talking about *_*Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp*_, I am getting pretty sick and tired of our back and forth. You *2aguy *are a _*pathological liar*_, which is a sickness.
> 
> *Pathological lying*_, also known as mythomania and pseudologia fantastica, is a mental disorder in which the person habitually or compulsively lies.
> 
> ...


Most of the right-wing is that way; yet, they would try to have us believe they are only for the "gospel Truth".


----------



## Mac-7 (Jul 31, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> Well, that analogy fails. Banning guns from town obviously was a good idea.


It may have worked for Tombstone AZ in 1880 but its been a big failure in Chicago 2021


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *We were talking about *_*Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp*_, I am getting pretty sick and tired of our back and forth. You *2aguy *are a _*pathological liar*_, which is a sickness.
> 
> *Pathological lying*_, also known as mythomania and pseudologia fantastica, is a mental disorder in which the person habitually or compulsively lies.
> 
> ...




Does your nurse know you are out of your room again?


----------



## ColonelAngus (Jul 31, 2021)

Sinajuavi said:


> You're actually mocking your own position. Since murder still occurs, then we should simply have no laws? That is your argument?
> 
> Well in your defense that's no more stupid than most of the crap uttered by white-right cultist Qtip heads.



My point is that murder is already illegal.  You are dull.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

ColonelAngus said:


> My point is that murder is already illegal.  You are dull.


Only illegals commit murder.  Why complain about refugees.


----------



## daveman (Jul 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


There it is, folks.  Leftists' favorite response to anything they don't like:

Mass graves.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

daveman said:


> There it is, folks.  Leftists' favorite response to anything they don't like:
> 
> Mass graves.


There it is folks.  Right-wingers simply making up a narrative and trying to have us believe they are for the "gospel Truth".

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## daveman (Jul 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> There it is folks.  Right-wingers simply making up a narrative and trying to have us believe they are for the "gospel Truth".
> 
> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


You said you want to regulate legal gun owners.  Man up.  Own what you said.


----------



## Peace (Jul 31, 2021)

You have every right not to own or have a gun in your house or vehicle but you do not have the right to tell me I can not own one and have it in my home…


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

daveman said:


> You said you want to regulate legal gun owners.  Man up.  Own what you said.


You need better reading comprehension.  Man up.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> You have every right not to own or have a gun in your house or vehicle but you do not have the right to tell me I can not own one and have it in my home…


Criminals of the People get denied and disparaged all the time.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## daveman (Jul 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You need better reading comprehension.  Man up.


You fucked up, kid.  Now you're angry at me.  

How do you think that's going to work out?


----------



## daveman (Jul 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Criminals of the People get denied and disparaged all the time.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


You call millions of legal gun owners criminals?

How about you go disarm all the criminals in Chicago?


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 31, 2021)

daveman said:


> You call millions of legal gun owners criminals?
> 
> How about you go disarm all the criminals in Chicago?


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## daveman (Jul 31, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


More tantrums.  Nobody's going to give up their legally-owned weapons just because you're a little bitch.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 1, 2021)

daveman said:


> More tantrums.  Nobody's going to give up their legally-owned weapons just because you're a little bitch.


That is right-wingers proving they have no clue and no Cause. 

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. 

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


----------



## daveman (Aug 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> That is right-wingers proving they have no clue and no Cause.
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


How do you suggest gun owners be regulated?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 1, 2021)

daveman said:


> How do you suggest gun owners be regulated?


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;


----------



## daveman (Aug 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> 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;


I didn't ask you to cut and paste, kid.  

Let's try it another way:

What would you do about the gun owners who want no part of your militia?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 3, 2021)

daveman said:


> I didn't ask you to cut and paste, kid.
> 
> Let's try it another way:
> 
> What would you do about the gun owners who want no part of your militia?


Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## daveman (Aug 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


You need to figure out what you believe, kid.  First, you want legal gun owners regulated, then you say their rights shall not be infringed.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 3, 2021)

daveman said:


> You need to figure out what you believe, kid.  First, you want legal gun owners regulated, then you say their rights shall not be infringed.


You are simply being disingenuous; a typical right-wing modus operandi.  Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## daveman (Aug 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> You are simply being disingenuous; a typical right-wing modus operandi.  Only well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


No, boy.  You said you want legal gun owners regulated.  Man up.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 3, 2021)

daveman said:


> No, boy.  You said you want legal gun owners regulated.  Man up.


_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## daveman (Aug 3, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> _A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. *Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!*

Run along now, kid.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 3, 2021)

daveman said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. *Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!*
> 
> Run along now, kid.


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## daveman (Aug 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


Still trying to run away from your call for legal gun owners to be punished by the government, I see.

The internet's forever, kid.  You're never going to cut & paste your way out of this.  

But you'll keep trying, guaranteed.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 4, 2021)

daveman said:


> Still trying to run away from your call for legal gun owners to be punished by the government, I see.
> 
> The internet's forever, kid.  You're never going to cut & paste your way out of this.
> 
> But you'll keep trying, guaranteed.


Thanks.  You merely project since you are the one making that assumption and begging the question.  However did you reach Your conclusion?  Can you show your reasoning?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 5, 2021)

Still feeding the troll?


----------



## daveman (Aug 6, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Thanks.  You merely project since you are the one making that assumption and begging the question.  However did you reach Your conclusion?  Can you show your reasoning?


My reasoning is that's exactly what you said when you said gun owners should be regulated.  

No assumption.  No question-begging.  You said it, and your pathetic denials are indeed pathetic.

Run along, boy.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 6, 2021)

daveman said:


> My reasoning is that's exactly what you said when you said gun owners should be regulated.
> 
> No assumption.  No question-begging.  You said it, and your pathetic denials are indeed pathetic.
> 
> Run along, boy.


Gun lovers are subject to regulation in any State of our Union. 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## daveman (Aug 6, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Gun lovers are subject to regulation in any State of our Union.
> 
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the *individual* citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)


I don't think you're aware of this, but the Illinois State Constitution is only effect in the state of Illinois.  

Maybe try reading the things you're desperately cutting and pasting...?


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 6, 2021)

daveman said:


> I don't think you're aware of this, but the Illinois State Constitution is only effect in the state of Illinois.
> 
> Maybe try reading the things you're desperately cutting and pasting...?


All States have something similar.  I posted that one for its simplicity.  Only right-wingers are habitually ignorant of the law and are hypocritical enough to blame the less fortunate.


----------



## daveman (Aug 6, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> All States have something similar.  I posted that one for its simplicity.  Only right-wingers are habitually ignorant of the law and are hypocritical enough to blame the less fortunate.


See?  "If you don't agree with me ur STOOpid."  I called it.  

Boy, you_ suck _at this.  You really should stop.


----------



## danielpalos (Aug 7, 2021)

daveman said:


> See?  "If you don't agree with me ur STOOpid."  I called it.
> 
> Boy, you_ suck _at this.  You really should stop.


lol.  Didn't understand the concept the second time either?  You are the one appealing to ignorance.  Why should anyone take You seriously about anything serious?


----------



## daveman (Aug 7, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> lol.  Didn't understand the concept the second time either?  You are the one appealing to ignorance.  Why should anyone take You seriously about anything serious?


That's nice.  Run along now.


----------



## justinacolmena (Aug 18, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> * "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"*


The supremes of that commie court system need to be impeached, thrown off the bench, disbarred, and disgraced.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> All States have something similar.  I posted that one for its simplicity.  Only right-wingers are habitually ignorant of the law and are hypocritical enough to blame the less fortunate.



Do you understand what "police powers" are and were?
There were no police back then, so they were not referring to government employees, in blue uniforms.
They were referring to the fact the rights of others are what constrain the rights of any individual.
Which means gun rights can only legally be infringed if necessary in order to make the rights of others more secure.
For example, each state can set a minimum age for being allowed to be armed.
That is set by legislators, but comes from the inherent rights of the other individuals, not the police.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There were no police back then, so they were not referring to government employees, in blue uniforms.


*The first sheriff in America is believed to be Captain William Stone, appointed in 1634 for the Shire of Northampton in the colony of Virginia.*_ The first elected sheriff was William Waters in 1652 in the same shire (shire was used in many of the colonies, before the word county replaced it.)
Office of Sheriff | NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION

Most people would be surprised to know that *the office of sheriff has a proud history that spans well over a thousand years*, from the early Middle Ages to our own “high-tech” era.
History of the Sheriff

*In the United States, a sheriff is an official in a county or independent city responsible for keeping the peace and enforcing the law.* Elected sheriffs are accountable directly to the citizens of their county, the constitution of their state, and ultimately the United States Constitution._
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheriffs_in_the_United_States_
-


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *The first sheriff in America is believed to be Captain William Stone, appointed in 1634 for the Shire of Northampton in the colony of Virginia.*_ The first elected sheriff was William Waters in 1652 in the same shire (shire was used in many of the colonies, before the word county replaced it.)
> Office of Sheriff | NATIONAL SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION
> 
> Most people would be surprised to know that *the office of sheriff has a proud history that spans well over a thousand years*, from the early Middle Ages to our own “high-tech” era.
> ...



Yes, which means there essentially were no police.
There were no telephones, so you could not call on them to come help.
There were no cars, so it could days for someone to ride a horse or wagon out to your house.
You essentially were on your own, and the only thing a sheriff was good for was to run the jail and deputize a posse when there was something big like a bank robbery.

The idea of a house not needing arms because we could make a phone call and help would arrive, was not really possible until around 1900.
And it likely worked much better before, because police are inherently corrupted by who signs their paychecks.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Yes, which means there essentially were no police.


A sheriff is the "police" 


Rigby5 said:


> There were no telephones, so you could not call on them to come help.


A total irrelevant statement.


Rigby5 said:


> There were no cars, so it could days for someone to ride a horse or wagon out to your house.


A total irrelevant statement.


Rigby5 said:


> You essentially were on your own,


You are essentially on your own today. 


Rigby5 said:


> and the only thing a sheriff was good for was to run the jail and deputize a posse when there was something big like a bank robbery.


And your point is-?


Rigby5 said:


> The idea of a house not needing arms because we could make a phone call and help would arrive, was not really possible until around 1900.


Having a gun in your home foe self-defense is not the same thing as carrying a gun into your local mall. 


Rigby5 said:


> And it likely worked much better before, because *police are inherently corrupted by who signs their paychecks.*


The above is just not true, period
-


----------



## miketx (Nov 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> A sheriff is the "police"
> 
> A total irrelevant statement.
> 
> ...


Watch from more afar, commie.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 25, 2021)

miketex said:


> Watch from more afar, commie.


Calling me a commie is shallow & ignorant, but it does fit your profile to a tea. 
But I do like your hair due.

It has that zion twist.

-


----------



## miketx (Nov 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Calling me a commie is shallow & ignorant, but it does fit your profile to a tea.
> But I do like your hair due.
> 
> It has that zion twist.
> ...


Goodbye commie


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 25, 2021)

miketex said:


> Goodbye commie


Good bye to you too 
see you on the other side
-


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> A sheriff is the "police"
> 
> A total irrelevant statement.
> 
> ...



My point is that every home likely should still and forever have a firearm for immediate defense.
So gun control does not make sense to me.

I agree the mall is different because you do not have to put yourself at risk at a mall very often, the rights of the others in the mall counterbalance your rights, and the mall can have.

However, I strongly dislike the idea of paid mercs like police.
I do not think most of the past/current abuses would exist without corrupt police.
Such as Prohibition, the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, sentence mandates, asset forfeiture, police using military training and rules of engagement, etc.
For example, if you are in an argument with someone and they reach into their pocket, you can not shoot them because they could just be moving their keys from stabbing their testicles.  But police often do just shoot 5 or 6 times at anyone who does something like that.
And that is not at all legal.
Legally police have no more right/authority to shoot than any one, and actually have far less, because they deliberately accepted the risks that go along with the pay.
So something is wrong, and it likely is inherent to the built in corruption of centralized government power/money.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

miketex said:


> Watch from more afar, commie.



Actually I am a commie, but totally against centralized power, control, and money.
I think local communities should voluntarily do cooperative, collective, and communal projects to retain independence from big corporations, which to me are inherently corrupting.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> My point is that every home likely should still and forever have a firearm for immediate defense.
> So gun control does not make sense to me.


The right to have a firearm in your home is totally different than carrying a firearm into a public place,
As I see it -


Rigby5 said:


> However, I strongly dislike the idea of paid mercs like police.


Policemen in your community are not paid _*"mercs"*_. 
To say otherwise* is propaganda*, pure and simple.


Rigby5 said:


> _I do not think most of the past/current abuses would exist without corrupt police._


You sound like a propagandist 
_Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda, which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis ... __Wikipedia_


Rigby5 said:


> _Legally police have no more right/authority to shoot than any one, and actually have far less,_


The police are trained public defenders exercising their public duties paid for by community tax dollars whose duties include enforcing the rule of law, nothing less, nothing more
In my view of things
-


Rigby5 said:


> because they deliberately accepted the risks that go along with the pay.


Finally we have something we both can agree on. -


Rigby5 said:


> So something is wrong, and it likely is inherent to the built in corruption of centralized government power/money.


Again, You sound like a propagandist, clearly not an American
-


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> The right to have a firearm in your home is totally different than carrying a firearm into a public place,
> As I see it -
> 
> Policemen in your community are not paid _*"mercs"*_.
> ...



I think you are totally wrong.
Rather than argue this in the abstract, let me give you some examples.

First of all, the hundreds of cases of innocent Blacks murdered by police should be enough to convince you.
There are so many, like Tamir Rice, Breonna Taylor, Daunte Wright, Andre Hill, Manuel Ellis, Brooks, Prude, George Floyde, Atatiana Jefferson, etc.








						Know their names: Black people killed by the police in the US
					

Between 2014 and 2020, police in the United States killed at least 7,680 people. Twenty-five percent of those killed were Black, although Black Americans make up just 13 percent of the population. In most cases, little or no action was taken against the officers involved. Here are some of the...




					interactive.aljazeera.com
				




Should police ever impose a no-knock-warrant?
Only in the case of a hostage.
The busting down the door of a private home, in order to obtain drug evidence, is totally and completely illegal.
If they do not already have sufficient evidence to convict, then they should not able to even get a warrant.
And by the castle doctrine, a home is supposed to be of superior jurisdiction to the owner, than to police.
So why do police illegal bust down doors and murder innocent people?
All because of the War on Drugs, which is inherently illegal.
The source of legal authority in a democratic republic only comes from the delegated authority to defend the rights of others.
Drug laws do not defend the rights of anyone, so are completely and totally illegal.
Police should know that and refuse to carry out illegal acts like that.
They then they would not get paid, so they do it anyway, murdering thousands and kidnapping millions, in the process.

I personally experience police corruption all the time.
If I wear nice clothes and drive the nice car to work, police treat me very well.
But when in the middle of a home remodel, taking debris to the dump in the old pickup, police are entirely different.
Many times now they have pointed guns at me, which is totally illegal.
A gun can easily go off by accident, if one trips, sneezes, etc. so it is a felony, conduct regardless of life, to ever point a gun at someone who does not pose any sort of threat.  

Just switch any of the shooting by police for a normal person instead of a cop, and they would go to jail.
Like the Jacob Blake shooting in Kenosha, where they put 7 bullets in the back of a Black person who was just checking on his kids in the back seat.
He clearly was no threat and could not legally have guns pointed at him, much less shot.
If anyone else had done that, they would be in jail for life.
But the cops were not even arrested.

Obviously the police are being recruited from the military, where the rules of engagement are totally inappropriate for police, and the trainers these days are military as well.  So we effectively are in a war zone, and the police have decided we are the enemy.  That is not tolerable, and police either have to change, be arrested, or killed.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 25, 2021)

Policemen in your community are not paid _*"mercs"*_.
To say otherwise* is propaganda*, pure and simple.

some things just need repeating
--


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> So we effectively are in a war zone, and the police have decided we are the enemy. That is not tolerable, and police either have to change, be arrested, or killed.


May I ask, how much did dump pay you to post this?
This may surprise you but dump has declared bankrupts' three (3) times so if I were you I would want to get paid up front.
just a suggestion between us friends
BTW: I am sure you meant "murder", not kill
-


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> Policemen in your community are not paid _*"mercs"*_.
> To say otherwise* is propaganda*, pure and simple.
> 
> some things just need repeating
> --



If the police were not paid mercs, then they would not be arresting and killing people over a questionable $20 bill, selling single cigarettes, having an ex-boyfriend who might be dealing drugs, etc.

Probably the most outrageous murder by police was Amadou Diallo.

{...
In the early hours of February 4, 1999, an unarmed 23-year-old Guinean immigrant named Amadou Diallo (born September 2, 1975) was fatally shot by four New York City Police Department plainclothes officers: Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon, and Kenneth Boss. Carroll would later claim to have mistaken him for a rape suspect from one year earlier.

The four officers, who were part of the now-defunct Street Crimes Unit, were charged with second-degree murder and acquitted at trial in Albany, New York.[1] A firestorm of controversy erupted after the event, as the circumstances of the shooting prompted outrage both inside and outside of New York City. Issues such as police brutality, racial profiling, and contagious shooting were central to the ensuing controversy.
...
While driving down Wheeler Avenue, the police officer stopped his unidentified car and interrogated Diallo, who was in front of his apartment. When they ordered Diallo to show his hands, he supposedly ran into the apartment and reached into his pocket to show his wallet.[5] Soon afterwards, assuming Diallo was drawing a gun, the four officers fired 41 shots[6] with semi-automatic pistols,[7][1][8] fatally hitting Diallo 19 times. Eyewitness Sherrie Elliott stated that the police continued to shoot even though Diallo was already down.[5][9]

The investigation found no weapons on or near Diallo; what he had pulled out of his jacket was a wallet. 
...}

How can anyone support police when they can and continually do commit these sorts of delibeate murders?
If any civilians had fired 41 shots at an unarmed person, they would never get out of prison.
Just pointing a gun at Diallo is a felony.
No one with any gun knowledge would ever do any of the things police routinely always do.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> May I ask, how much did dump pay you to post this?
> This may surprise you but dump has declared bankrupts' three (3) times so if I were you I would want to get paid up front.
> just a suggestion between us friends
> -



That is silly, as I am very far left of even Bernie Sanders.
Not does Trump ever say much about gun control, either way.
Initially gun control was a right wing position, with the first gun control aimed at Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers, so that the KKK could more easily intimidate them.
Then when Reagan was shot by Hinckley, that was the main round of gun control laws, and were from the right wing.
The Clintons were the first time anyone from the left ever touched gun control, and that still makes no sense.
The left should be the last faction to want government to become totally authoritarian.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly, as I am very far left of even Bernie Sanders.
> Not does Trump ever say much about gun control, either way.
> Initially gun control was a right wing position, with the first gun control aimed at Blacks, immigrants, and labor organizers, so that the KKK could more easily intimidate them.
> Then when Reagan was shot by Hinckley, that was the main round of gun control laws, and were from the right wing.
> ...




No.....you are wrong.....gun control was a democrat party thing....so that they could keep newly freed blacks, freed by the Republican Party after fighting the democrat party in the Civil War....from owning and carrying guns...the members of the democrat party who created the kkk didn't want blacks being able to protect themselves.....

The democrat party in New York created the Sullivan law to protect their brown shirts of the time, the gangs, from getting shot by the people the democrats wanted the gangs to beat up.......you doofus.


----------



## Concerned American (Nov 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No.....you are wrong.....gun control was a democrat party thing....so that they could keep newly freed blacks, freed by the Republican Party after fighting the democrat party in the Civil War....from owning and carrying guns...the members of the democrat party who created the kkk didn't want blacks being able to protect themselves.....
> 
> The democrat party in New York created the Sullivan law to protect their brown shirts of the time, the gangs, from getting shot by the people the democrats wanted the gangs to beat up.......you doofus.


In the days of the cowboy, gun control was "hitting what you aim at"


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No.....you are wrong.....gun control was a democrat party thing....so that they could keep newly freed blacks, freed by the Republican Party after fighting the democrat party in the Civil War....from owning and carrying guns...the members of the democrat party who created the kkk didn't want blacks being able to protect themselves.....
> 
> The democrat party in New York created the Sullivan law to protect their brown shirts of the time, the gangs, from getting shot by the people the democrats wanted the gangs to beat up.......you doofus.



I did not say that gun control was a republican thing.
I said gun control was a right wing thing.

The republicans were originally the party of Lincoln and were left wing progressives.
The republicans did not turn right wing until around the turn of the century.
The southern democrats were right wing after the civil war, and remained right wing until the 1960s.

{...
The *Sullivan Act* is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911.[1] The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a _may issue_ act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a _shall issue_ act, in which state authorities _must_ give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
...}
Tammany Hall was right wing.  The fact it was also democrat, just reflects the fact it was in an urban center with a large population.
They still were not liberal, progressive, or left wing, in any way.  It was the wealthy elite.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I did not say that gun control was a republican thing.
> I said gun control was a right wing thing.
> 
> The republicans were originally the party of Lincoln and were left wing progressives.
> ...




No...it isn't.......it isn't a Right Wing thing in the U.S. since the Right Wing in the U.S. believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights......

Tamany Hall was democrats, you doofus...the democrat party is the party of gun control..........

*corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

They are totalitarian....and power mad....back when they wanted slaves openly, and today when they want slaves without the actual chains...*


----------



## Concerned American (Nov 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...it isn't.......it isn't a Right Wing thing in the U.S. since the Right Wing in the U.S. believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights......
> 
> Tamany Hall was democrats, you doofus...the democrat party is the party of gun control..........
> 
> ...


Not to mention the Daly machine in Chicago.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No...it isn't.......it isn't a Right Wing thing in the U.S. since the Right Wing in the U.S. believes in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights......
> 
> Tamany Hall was democrats, you doofus...the democrat party is the party of gun control..........
> 
> ...



Right wing is wealthy elite, left wing is populist poor.

Tammany Hall was the wealthy elite, so was right wing.  Whether or not they were democrats, does not matter.

{...
right wing
[ˌrīt ˈwiNG]

NOUN
(the right wing)

the section of a political party or system that advocates for free enterprise and private ownership, and typically favors socially traditional ideas; the conservative group or section.
...}


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 25, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Not to mention the Daly machine in Chicago.



Exactly.
Chicago was run by Mayor Daily, who was very right wing.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 25, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Right wing is wealthy elite, left wing is populist poor.
> 
> Tammany Hall was the wealthy elite, so was right wing.  Whether or not they were democrats, does not matter.
> 
> ...




Wrong,, again.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Nov 26, 2021)

People valued life much more.  Suicide and murder were less common.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly, as I am very far left of even Bernie Sanders.
> Not does Trump ever say much about gun control, either way.
> Initially gun control was a right wing position, with the first gun control aimed at Blacks,


I did not know you were such an historian

*Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today

The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

In the 2008 _Heller_ decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as _dicta,_ that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.

*Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West*

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery, but broadly, the term is used to evoke life among the crusty prospectors, threadbare gold panners, madams of brothels, and six-shooter-packing cowboys in small frontier towns – such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns, or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.*

The practice was started in Southern states, which *were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. --* The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms *“is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business*




Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)
Looking east on Dodge City’s Front Street, 1878.
Dodge City, 1878
*The sign warns visitors to check their guns*.




Buffalo Hide Yard in Dodge City, Kansas 1878





Dodge City Kansas 1874, courtesy Ford County Historical Society

_Kansas State Historical Society_


The Long Branch Saloon​

It's *October 26, 1881*, in Tombstone, and Arizona
The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, *upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. *(Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg

*"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” *Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

*Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878*. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the *first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town*, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, *Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary*, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

*Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “*Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places*,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.” *Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not *allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. *When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms*. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the *Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry*.

Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.

*“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West*], for the most part,” says Winkler.

“Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. *But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”*
Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West

*Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

The answer is YES. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff*, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually *barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.*

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? *A gun control law*. They declared that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona—the site of the infamous “Shootout at the OK Corral”—also *barred the carrying of guns openly*.

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn’t always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, *the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.*
Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

*Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them*
The town of Deerfield, Ill., has moved to *ban assault weapons, including the AR-15* used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.

*The ordinance was passed unanimously* Monday by the Deerfield Village Board. It states the move is in the best interest of public health and will spur a culture change toward *"the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."*

It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are *"not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" *or to preserve a well-regulated militia.
Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them

*Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting*

With the future of federal gun control legislation uncertain, an affluent Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of *banning assault weapons within its borders*, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.

*Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. *Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355

*Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms*, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.
Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be *a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.*
The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
Also under the legislation, *it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.*

*The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up,*
*up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm
and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.*
*Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law*​
*What has changed from then to now??
-*


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 26, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...




Black Americans were banned from gun ownership for decades.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 26, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I did not know you were such an historian
> 
> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> ...




You really don't understand the issue......

Tombstone and the other towns?   The criminals carried their guns despite the law....in fact, in Tombstone, one Earp was murdered and the other maimed...and Doc Holiday violated the law on a daily basis.....

Heller was not the first time an individual Right was affirmed......Abatis, another poster, went through quite a bit of the law....as did Justice Scalia in Heller......

_*Most of the gun control laws in the Old West, if they existed at all, had nothing to do with confiscation or restrictions on gun type. They had more to do with gun use by restricting and prohibiting firing pistols in city streets. And, while few opponents of gun control today would object to limitations on discharging firearms in a busy intersection, gun control laws of this extent were largely unheard of in most American cities. In fact, they were even unusual in the Old West, and using the gun control ordinance from Tombstone as an example, they were proven ineffective.*_
_*-----

There were other frontier towns with gun control restrictions similar to Tombstone. Most made it unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person any deadly weapon within the limits of said city, without first obtaining a permit in writing. *__*But, in those towns, as in Tombstone, in the closest equivalents to a “gun-free zone” in the 19th century, such gun control measures did little to stem gun violence, and likely provoked the infamous kerfuffle at the O.K. Corral.*_
_*----*_
_*Lots of guns, not a lot of crime*_​_*Mass violence, like what took place at the O.K. Corral, was actually infrequent. Moreover, the Old West reputation for lawlessness is unwarranted, despite, at times, an elevated number of homicides.
*_
_*Crime such as rape and robberies occurred at a much lower rate than in modern America — certainly lower than in the 1970s and 1980s, when the nation was wracked by a surge in criminality. It is also worth noting that crime and gun violence has fallen steeply since the 1990s, even as gun ownership has increased dramatically.*_


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 26, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I did not know you were such an historian
> 
> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> ...




Deerfield is in violation of the federal Constitution........

As per Heller, and then when Scalia elaborates on Heller in Friedman v Highland Park...

*https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.*
_*
A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.**

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.

*
III_

_
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf_


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 26, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I did not know you were such an historian
> 
> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> ...





watchingfromafar said:


> *What has changed from then to now??
> -*



Heller also stated that mandatory storage laws, like Seattle's...are unConstitutional...

*Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.*



			https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 26, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I did not know you were such an historian
> 
> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> ...




*Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms.*

*What that fails to point out...because it is dishonest....is that while they banned concealed carry, it was only because anyone could carry a gun on their person in a holster.....the idea that someone who concealed a gun was a criminal was simply a belief of the time......because, again, everyone could carry a gun openly....and they believed only a criminal would conceal a gun that should be carried openly.*

*Today, concealed carry is not considered the domain of criminals, and is considered a better way to carry a gun so that criminals do not know who is carrying a gun.......*


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 26, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I did not know you were such an historian
> 
> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> ...




*In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *


This is a lie........

English history

*Part II delves into English history. The first Englishmen to have a written guarantee of arms rights were the settlers of the Virginia Colony in 1607 and the New England Colony in 1620. Their royal charters gave them and all succeeding immigrants the perpetual right to import from the King's dominion's "the Goods, Chattels, Armour, Munition, and Furniture, needful to be used by them, for their said Apparel, Food, Defence or otherwise."*
*------
At the time of the American Founding, English law was clear: "every one is at liberty to keep or carry a gun, if he does not use it for the destruction of game"—as Edward Christian wrote in his 1794 annotated edition of Blackstone. The 1689 English Bill of Rights had not changed the English rule that commoners could not hunt unless a noble gave them permission to hunt on the noble's land. The American colonies never had any class-based limits on hunting.*
*-------*

*In response, the law professor amicus brief shows some of the ways that Americans learned the rule from Knight's Case. First, William Hawkins's Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown cited Knight's Case for the precise point that peaceable defensive carry of ordinary arms is lawful. Published in England in 1716, with eight editions through 1824, Hawkins was the leading criminal law treatise of the eighteenth century, and widely used in America. Hawkins's explanation that arms carrying was generally legal was cited by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1833 (Simpson v. State), and by Justice of the Peace manuals in the Early Republic. William Waller Hening, The New Viriginia Justice 17-18 (1795); James Parker, Conductor Generalis; Or the Office, Duty and Authority of Justices of the Peace 11 (1st ed. 1764).


Peaceable carry in America being universally recognized as lawful, criminal justice officer manuals from early America did not contain instructions to arrest people for peaceably carrying arms. See Isaac Goodwin, New England Sheriff (1830); Charles Hartshorn, New England Sheriff (1844); John Niles, The Connecticut Civil Officer (1823); John Latrobe, The Justices' Practice Under the Laws of Maryland (1826); Henry Potter, The Office and Duty of a Justice of the Peace…According to the Laws of North Carolina (1816). *

*The Heller case cited five antebellum state supreme court cases concealed carry laws. Only one of them asserted that concealed carry was outside the right to bear arms. The main line of the cases indicate that concealed carry can be banned as long as open carry is allowed. Or vice versa. Because New York State prohibits open carry, the statutory system of concealed carry licensing may not be misused so as to prohibit the vast majority of law-abiding, trained adults from obtaining a carry permit.

*









						Second Amendment professors brief in Supreme Court right to bear arms case
					

American and English historical precedents show a robust individual right




					reason.com


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 28, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> People valued life much more.  Suicide and murder were less common.


Murder was relatively common, but thanks to the death penalty recidivism was low.


----------



## Mac-7 (Nov 28, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*.


Carrying guns in public, yes

But ownership of guns?

No

You are dreaming

And, in the good old days they hanged horse thieves

The smash and grab sons of obama would have been shot on sight in the old west


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Murder was relatively common, but thanks to the death penalty recidivism was low.




First time?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 28, 2021)

Relative Ethics said:


> People valued life much more.  Suicide and murder were less common.


Murder was relatively common, but thanks to the death penalty recidivism


2aguy said:


> First time?


yep


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 28, 2021)

When cities and towns had their own gun laws shootings were rare occurrence. Today with the fed making gun ownership open to anyone deaths went on the rise & are still climbing.

What Dodge City was able to accomplish is now just a foot note in our history books. -


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 28, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Murder was relatively common


no, it was not -


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 28, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> When cities and towns had their own gun laws shootings were rare occurrence. Today with the fed making gun ownership open to anyone deaths went on the rise & are still climbing.
> 
> What Dodge City was able to accomplish is now just a foot note in our history books. -



They didn't accomplish anything...normal people with guns weren't shooting people back then, and the criminals still carried their guns no matter what the law said......

We have gun murder now because in democrat party controlled cities, the out of wedlock birthrate among black Americans is over 75%...no fathers in the homes.....young black males make up 7% of the population, but over 50% of the murder rate and are victims of murder over 50% of the time as well....if not more....

We don't have a gun problem, we have a democrat party problem.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> We don't have a gun problem, we have a democrat party problem.


-----------------------------------We have a republicon lying bunch of stupide scumbags
-


----------



## Concerned American (Nov 29, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> -----------------------------------We have a republicon lying bunch of stupide scumbags
> -


We have a fool watchingfromafar.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 29, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> I did not know you were such an historian



Sez the scholar quoting Wikipedia as a source.



watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun control is nothing new. *Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today
> 
> The *Second Amendment* (*Amendment II*) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.



The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution originally only protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- _from the actions of the_ _federal government_ *only*.

In the history you cite, the 2nd Amendment had no impact or effect on gun laws enacted by any state, county, city or town enactments (including laws enacted in territories, before they became states).

IOW, as a matter of law *NOW*, those laws are meaningless.



watchingfromafar said:


> In the 2008 _Heller_ decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as _dicta,_ that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.



Well, that's a pile of crap.



watchingfromafar said:


> *Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West*
> 
> . . .
> 
> *Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms*, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were *passed at a local level rather than by Congress*. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler*. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”*



All true but that says nothing about the 2nd Amendment.



watchingfromafar said:


> *What has changed from then to now??
> -*



Quite a lot.

Biggest of course was _McDonald v Chicago_ in 2010 when SCOTUS held that the right o arms, as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment, is a "fundamental right" and was incorporated against the states under he 14th Amendment.  Essentially that means the belief that all those state and local laws were "permissible" under the 2nd Amendment, was no longer a legitimate presumption.

As is often said, '_see you in court!_'


----------



## watchingfromafar (Nov 29, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Well, that's a pile of crap.


_In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, *exclusively for self-defense in the home*, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those *forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"* or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right._

Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that *the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes*, including self-defense within the home.
Key People: Antonin Scalia
Date: June 26, 2008
Location: United States
District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts

sniff this -


----------



## Abatis (Nov 30, 2021)

watchingfromafar said:


> sniff this -



Your copy and pastey and boldy clicky ability is average, your understandy, thinky and explainy ability is poor.


_Heller_ was not "_the first time_" the Supreme Court affirmed that the RKBA belongs to individuals . . .  Look at _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) where the Court recognized that two former slaves, then US citizens, possessed the right to carry guns for self defense in public, and that right was not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus was not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

_Heller_ re-affirmed _Cruikshank_:

"Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a _pre-existing_ right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”"​​(italics in original)​
Nor did _Heller_ hold that the RKBA was limited, "_exclusively for self-defense in the home_".  The Court wasn't endorsing "in the home" as a limitation on the RKBA, the Court was invalidating the DC law which prohibited the use of “functional firearms within the home”.  Tha enire line of crap was totally buried in the recent oral arguments in the NYSRPA case, both NY state and the US government conceded that _Heller_ affirmed that the 2ndA secures a right to carry guns for self defense outside he home. Please try to keep up . . .

Heller did say "_the right is not unlimited_" but that doesn't mean the government's power to limit gun possession and use is unlimited.

Anti-gunners always herald _Heller_'s mention of "certain long-standing prohibitions" but the Court isn't declaring those exemplary laws to be constitutional or unconstitutional,  only that _Heller_ did not review them.

You anti-gunners always leave off the footnote of that paragraph and that footnote has been the legally significant statement.  Lower courts have been consistent saying that the part you quote and claim, is not a definitive statement of constitutionality . . .

Because SCOTUS said (in Heller's footnote 26) those laws are merely "presumptively lawful", that presumption may be challenged and rebutted, two examples:

"The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is invoke Heller’s language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, felon-dispossession laws. Not so. Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense; the opinion’s reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. . . ." -- _US v. Skoien_, No. 08-3770, (7th Cir. 2009)​​____________________​​"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted." --  _U.S. v. Barton_, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)​

Your copy and paste ends with a bald attempt to deceive and mislead when it says, "_State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right." _

That statement, while legally true, is not from _Heller_ although reading it as the closing of a paragraph *about *_*Heller*_ would lead one to believe that.

The actual nature of the statement is being corrupted here . . .  As presented here, it is intended to be read as endorsing the preceding incorrect and misleading statements about _Heller_ and seeks to extend those statements as _sustaining_ "state and local laws" on guns instead of invalidating them.

The actual effect of _McDonald_ extends the 2nd Amendment's *limits* on government power on the states, not your perverted interpretation of _Heller_ seemingly endorsing gun control.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 30, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Your copy and pastey and boldy clicky ability is average, your understandy, thinky and explainy ability is poor.
> 
> 
> _Heller_ was not "_the first time_" the Supreme Court affirmed that the RKBA belongs to individuals . . .  Look at _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) where the Court recognized that two former slaves, then US citizens, possessed the right to carry guns for self defense in public, and that right was not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus was not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.
> ...




Bravo....Bravo.....

Thank you.....excellent work....


----------

