# Gun registration...yes, the democrats want it, yes, they want to use it to ban and confiscate guns....



## 2aguy (Feb 4, 2022)

A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...

*Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.*
*
Conducting background checks to see if someone can legally buy a gun is different from the government keeping a searchable record of those who own guns. Indeed, federal law has always required that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System erase background check information within 24 hours of its completion.


Gun control activists push for registration as a way to solve crime. In theory, if criminals leave registered guns at a crime scene, they can then be traced back to the perpetrator. But in real life, a gun is usually left at the scene of a crime only when the gunman has been seriously injured or killed. Also, guns used in crimes are rarely registered. In the exceedingly unusual instances that they are, they aren't registered to the person who committed the crime. However, with both the criminal and weapon present at the scene, police can solve these crimes even without registration.

In a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify any crimes solved by their registration system from 1901 to 2001; however they did claim that it had "assisted" in a total of four cases, for which they could provide no details.

In a 2013 deposition for District of Columbia v. Heller II, the plaintiffs recorded that the Washington, D.C. police chief could not "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime, except for possession offenses."

During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, Honolulu’s police chief stated that he couldn't find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours to registering and licensing guns each year. This is time that could have been spent on traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.


New York and Maryland spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a computer database on all new guns sold in the past 15 years, even recording the ballistic fingerprint of each gun. But even these states, which strongly favor gun control, eventually abolished their systems because they never solved a single crime.
*
*In 2010, Canada conducted a detailed examination of its program. It found that, from 2003 to 2009, 1,314 out of 4,257 Canadian homicides involved firearms. Of the identified weapons, about three-quarters were not registered. Among registered weapons, the registered owner was rarely the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases – only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides – was the gun registered to the accused, and an unknown number of these homicide cases involve instances of self-defense. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police failed to identify any cases where registration was integral to solving the crime. *



			https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/04/democrats_pushing_gun_registry_as_precursor_to_gun_ban_147139.html


----------



## night_son (Feb 4, 2022)

In the hive mind of the State the State is GOD. Also, in the hive mind of the State might makes right and use of lethal force is the ultimate proof the State really is GOD. We can't have lowly citizens armed with the ability to use might to make things right, now can we? That is what guns represent to demagogue democrats and the State in general: a real chance for citizens to not have to worship their government.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

The left wants the state to have a monopoly on force,
They know they cannot have this while the citizenry remains armed.
Thus, anti-gun loons.


----------



## Tax Man (Feb 4, 2022)

Did not you see the warehouses full of confiscated guns Obama took? You guys crack me up!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Did not you see the warehouses full of confiscated guns Obama took? You guys crack me up!


Obama, like Biden, promised a ban on handguns, rifles and shotguns.
Both had a congress controlled by Democrats.
Why did those bans not materialize?


----------



## Donald H (Feb 4, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...


Limitations on where guns can be carried and limitations on the type of guns, are the two specific reasons why gun crime and murder by gun is lower in Canada.

Don't name Canada in your comparisons but if you persist, you will hear objections from me.

Otherwise, go ahead and promote your dogma!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Limitations on where guns can be carried and limitations on the type of guns, are the two specific reasons why gun crime and murder by gun is lower in Canada.


You sure about that?
REALLY Sure about that?
POSITIVE?
Yes?
Good.
Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between thoise restrictions and the lower rates of gun violence in Canada.


----------



## Donald H (Feb 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You sure about that?
> REALLY Sure about that?
> POSITIVE?
> Yes?
> ...


Better that you name some other reason! And do it quickly because I'll write you off as a nuisance in about 10 minutes if you can't.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Better that you name some other reason!


It's your claim,. onus is on you to support it.
Get busy.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 4, 2022)

Ronald Reagan supported the Brady bill as did many Republicans and Democrats.


----------



## Donald H (Feb 4, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Better that you name some other reason! And do it quickly because I'll write you off as a nuisance in about 10 minutes if you can't.


No, you're copping out, just like you always accuse me of doing.
I gotcha flatfooted with that question and so now we're finished for today.
Stew in your own juices for a while and better leave the gun alone too, just in case!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 4, 2022)

Donald H said:


> No, you're copping out,...


You made a claim.  Onus is on you to support it.
(This is your cue to tuck tail and run, as you always do.)


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 4, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...
> 
> *Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.*
> 
> ...


There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority.  I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.

Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime.  I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC.  If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place.  Maybe.

What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths.  Probably the number of suicides is what was affected.  I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority.  I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.
> 
> Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime.  I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC.  If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place.  Maybe.
> 
> What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths.  Probably the number of suicides is what was affected.  I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.




No......why is it that New York and Chicago have more gun crime than the states where these criminals go to buy the guns?    Wouldn't it seem logical that if guns are easier to get in those states, then, according to the anti-gun logic, those states should have higher gun crime rates...since their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get the guns........

A deeper look shows that the concept that criminals getting guns from out of state is the problem is just wrong......

The Chicago Gun Myth | National Review

*Lightfoot claims that 60 percent of the guns used in Chicago murders are bought from out of state. I assume she is relying on 2017’s suspect “gun trace report,” which looked at guns confiscated in criminal acts from 2013 and 2016. Even if we trusted the city’s data, most guns used in Illinois crimes are bought in-state. If gun laws in Illinois — which earns a grade of “A-“ from the pro-gun-control Gifford Law Center, tied for second highest in the country after New Jersey — are more effective than gun laws in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Indiana, why is it that FFL dealers in suburban Cook County are the origin point for a third of the crime guns recovered in Chicago, and home to “seven of the top ten source dealers”? According to the trace study, 11.2 percent of all crime guns recovered in Chicago could be tracked to just two gun shops.*
*
The only reason, it seems, criminals take the drive to Indiana is because local gun shops are tapped out. There is a tremendous demand for weapons in Chicago. That’s not Mississippi’s fault. And Lightfoot’s contention only proves that criminals in her city can get their hands on guns rather easily, while most law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves.
*
*Lightfoot may also be surprised to learn that California borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon. Yet no big city in California has quite the murder and criminality of Chicago. New York borders on states with liberal gun laws, such as Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire. Yet NYC’s murder rate is only fraction of Chicago’s. Texas gets an “F” from Gifford Law Center, yet Houston and Dallas have murder rates that are half of that in Chicago. The rates in Austin and El Paso are tiny when compared to Chicago.*


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority.  I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.
> 
> Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime.  I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC.  If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place.  Maybe.
> 
> What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths.  Probably the number of suicides is what was affected.  I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.




More on fun with numbers by anti-gunners...

No, states with higher gun ownership don't have more gun murders

*That looks a lot like a shotgun blast, because at least in 2014, the statistical case that high state gun ownership translates to more gun homicides was non-existent. This is what happens when you just look at the relevant numbers instead of cherrypicking whatever numbers tell the story you want. There's no significant statistical correlation here, whether or not you choose to include D.C. (the outlier, way up above the others). And in fact, when you just look at last year's gun homicide rate by state (calculated from FBI and Census data), you see that many of the states that they claim have low "gun death" rates actually have comparatively high rates of gun murders. New Jersey, for example, had a much higher gun murder rate than Idaho and Vermont.*
*
So now you see why Vox, Mother Jones and others deliberately confuse the issue of gun violence by including gun deaths that don't involve violence: because their cherrypicking makes it seem like people in states with high gun ownership are more likely to shoot other people, when in fact it just isn't so. Perhaps there's another argument to be had about suicide, but it's a very different sort of debate. When most people think about gun control, they're worried about whether it can help stop them from being shot, not about whether it will prevent them from having a gun in case they become incredibly depressed and decide to end it all.


Obama Claims Other Countries With No Guns Safer; Here's Truth

The National Journal disproportionately excluded low-crime, pro-gun states such as Vermont, South Dakota, and Maine from its chart of homicide rates precisely because their homicide rate was low. These states have few gun laws (Vermont has the least of any state) and very low homicide rates. If you disproportionately exclude unregulated states that are safest from the calculation of which states have the lowest homicide rates, that will create the false impression that states with the most gun laws have the fewest gun deaths.

These “pro-gun” states have low homicide rates (for example, Vermont had the third lowest homicide rate in 2013, the lowest gun murder rate in 2010, and the second-lowest gun murder rate in 2007-2010. South Dakota had the fourth-lowest gun-homicide rate in 2007-2010).
But in its discussions of “Concealed Carry” and “Background Checks,” the National Journal deletes these states from its charts comparing pro-gun and anti-gun states by “Gun-related homicides per 100,000 people, by state (2013).” It deletes Vermont, South Dakota, Maine, and 8 other states (6 of which have few gun regulations) from each chart, claiming that these states had “too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate.” 9 of the 11 states excluded broadly allow concealed carry and do not impose additional background-check requirements beyond those contained in federal law. But the National Journal deliberately excluded those states, writing, “In 2013, Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides to calculate a reliable rate.”

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

It is truly bizarre to exclude the states with the fewest gun deaths from an article about what states have “the fewest gun deaths.” This is an egregious act of cherry-picking.*
*But that was apparently how the National Journal managed to claim that “the states that impose the most restrictions on gun users also have the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, while states with fewer regulations typically have a much higher death rate from guns.” (In 2013, the state with the nation’s lowest murder rate and lowest rate of gun-related homicides was Iowa, which is middling in terms of the number of gun laws. In 2007-2010, it ranked fifth-lowest in number of gun-related homicides. It does not have the “most gun laws.” It broadly permits concealed carry but also requires certain background checks. For some reason, the National Journal left Iowa in, while excluding other low-homicide, low-crime states like Vermont that have even fewer gun laws.).*


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority.  I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.
> 
> Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime.  I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC.  If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place.  Maybe.
> 
> What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths.  Probably the number of suicides is what was affected.  I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.




The anti-gun....fun with numbers and the claim that more gun control = less gun crime game....

One of the ways the anti-gunners get their number is by including suicide into the mix.....suicide is the only way they get the numbers they do......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/

*In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. *After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference

.
Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.


Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.

******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

*Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. *


New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, _National Journal_ (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. 


*Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.*


According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

*Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer. *

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the _National Journal_ post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies _cause _lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis.

 Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.


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

The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

 But that is of course not at all what it means.

*In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing. *


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.


 And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate | National Review


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The anti-gun....fun with numbers and the claim that more gun control = less gun crime game....
> 
> One of the ways the anti-gunners get their number is by including suicide into the mix.....suicide is the only way they get the numbers they do......
> 
> ...


The only thing I disagree with you is that I care about reducing gun suicides.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No......why is it that New York and Chicago have more gun crime than the states where these criminals go to buy the guns?    Wouldn't it seem logical that if guns are easier to get in those states, then, according to the anti-gun logic, those states should have higher gun crime rates...since their criminals don't even have to leave the state to get the guns........
> 
> A deeper look shows that the concept that criminals getting guns from out of state is the problem is just wrong......
> 
> ...


I don't know Indiana laws, but I do seem to recall that for a long time, the illegal guns in NYC came from VA, not NY state.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> More on fun with numbers by anti-gunners...
> 
> No, states with higher gun ownership don't have more gun murders
> 
> ...


More on fun with numbers by pro-gunners?

States with higher gun ownership do have more gun suicides.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...
> 
> *Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.*
> 
> ...


Hey retard, go to 7.10 in the video. Amanda Rae is an American living in the UK, she will explain to you about UK guns -


She will highlight what a fucking prick you are.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 5, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Did not you see the warehouses full of confiscated guns Obama took? You guys crack me up!


So you saying Obama's home town of chicago didn't ban guns for over a decade?


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Hey retard, go to 7.10 in the video. Amanda Rae is an American living in the UK, she will explain to you about UK guns -
> 
> 
> She will highlight what a fucking prick you are.




So, you guys keep telling us that Brits have guns......and yet their loonies aren't going into public places to shoot people.....which means access to guns doesn't drive mass public shootings....

Also, dumb shit.......British criminals have access to guns as well, they simply do not choose to murder each other or their victims.....at least for now....that is changing.....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> More on fun with numbers by pro-gunners?
> 
> States with higher gun ownership do have more gun suicides.




And yet Japan, South Korea, China, and a vast number of European countries have extreme gun control and higher suicide rates than the U.S.......

What is your point trying to confuse the issue of guns by adding suicide into the debate?

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jea/14/6/14_6_187/_pdf







And yet Scotland has a higher suicide rate than the U.S......Japan, where only criminals and cops have guns, has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Sweden has a higher suicide rate than the U.S....Denmark has a higher suicide rate than the u.S.....



France

Germany,

Hungary

Iceland

New Zealand

Poland

Norway

Japan

South Korea



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



Scotland..



15.7 suicides per 100,000

In 2019?

16.7 suicides per 100,000.

And in the U.S.?

13.93 per 100,000



Suicide facts and figures



Changes in Suicide Rates — United States, ...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html



South Korea 24.7

Hungary 21

Japan 19.4

Belgium 18.4

Finland 16.5

France 14.6

Austria 13.8

Poland 13.8

Czec Republic 12.7

New Zealand 11.9

Denmark 11.3

Sweden  11.1

Norway 10.9

Slovac Republic 10.9

Iceland 10.3

Germany 10.3

Canada 10.2

United States 10.1



A new report by Unicef contains a shocking statistic - New Zealand has by far the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world.
A shock but no surprise - it's not the first time the country tops that table.
The Unicef report found New Zealand's youth suicide rate - teenagers between 15 and 19 - to be the highest of a long list of 41 OECD and EU countries.
The rate of 15.6 suicides per 100,000 people is twice as high as the US rate and almost five times that of Britain.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40284130



Another year...Japan and 20 other countries with higher suicide rates than U.S....



https://www.nli-


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Hey retard, go to 7.10 in the video. Amanda Rae is an American living in the UK, she will explain to you about UK guns -
> 
> 
> She will highlight what a fucking prick you are.




Cops.....?    They have guns......in Britain...are you a fucking moron?

Special units of cops have guns....

Gun crime murder is low....because their criminals do not commit murder with them.....

Police struggle to stop flood of firearms into UK


Police and border officials are struggling to stop a rising supply of illegal firearms being smuggled into Britain, a senior police chief has warned.

Chief constable Andy Cooke, the national police lead for serious and organised crime, said law enforcement had seen an increased supply of guns over the past year, and feared that it would continue in 2019

The Guardian has learned that the situation is so serious that the National Crime Agency has taken the rare step of using its legal powers to direct every single police force to step up the fight against illegal guns.

The NCA has used tasking powers to direct greater intelligence about firearms to be gathered by all 43 forces in England and Wales.

Another senior law enforcement official said that “new and clean” weapons were now being used in the majority of shootings, as opposed to guns once being so difficult to obtain that they would be “rented out” to be used in multiple crimes.

*Cooke, the Merseyside chief constable, told the Guardian: “We in law enforcement expect the rise in new firearms to continue. We are doing all we can. We are not in a position to stop it anytime soon.*

“Law enforcement is more joined up now than before, but the scale of the problem is such that despite a number of excellent firearms seizures, I expect the rise in supply to be a continuing issue.”

The increasing supply of guns belies problems with UK border security and innovations by organised crime gangs. Smugglers have increasingly found new ways and innovative routes to get guns past border defences.


*Cooke said that the dynamics of the streets of British cities had changed and that criminals were more willing to use guns: “If they bring them in people will buy them. It’s a kudos thing for organised criminals.”

Simon Brough, head of firearms at the NCA, said: “The majority of guns being used are new, clean firearms ... which indicates a relatively fluid supply.”*

He said shotguns were 40% of the total, with an increase in burglaries to try and steal them.

*Handguns are the next biggest category,* most often smuggled in from overseas, with ferry ports such as Dover being a popular entry point into the UK for organised crime groups:

“We’re doing a lot to fight back against it,” Brough said, adding that compared to other European countries, the availability in the UK was relatively lower.


==========

10/13/21

Powerful automatic guns are being smuggled into Britain for use by organised crime gangs.
The National Crime Agency and police seized weapons in raids on the homes of previously untouchable “Mr Big”s after receiving intelligence from European detectives who broke an encrypted phone network used by drug dealers and gun traffickers.
Gangs bring rapid‑fire guns to Britain’s streets


2/29/21
Matt Perfect, the crime agency’s firearms threat lead, said that new Skorpion and G9A automatic pistols, which fire at a speed comparable to an AK47 assault rifle, were found.

=====

cotland Yard today said police are seizing more deadly automatic weapons from criminals in London as detectives revealed that an innocent bystander was gunned down with a suspected Skorpion sub-machine gun last month .
Rise in sub-machine guns on London streets
Revealed - The deadly cache of guns taken off West Midlands streets
A former undercover cop who snared members of the Burger Bar Boys has warned violent gangs are in an “arms race” to control the West Midlands’ illegal drugs trade.
Neil Woods, now a campaigner to legalise recreational drugs for rehabilitation benefits, said criminals are willing to use “extreme violence” to gain an upper hand on their competitors.
That includes “importing” illegal firearms from places like the “Balkans” region of south eastern Europe onto the streets of the West Midlands, ready for combat.
UK Gangs In "Arms Race" Despite Gun Control Laws

Illegal weapons in the city have been increasing over the last few years, figures show.
Diana Fawcett, the charity's chief executive, told Sky News: "At a time when the number of homicides has been falling, deaths related to gun crime are showing significant increases which is incredibly concerning.More than 600 children in the UK were arrested for suspected firearm offences last year amid the coronavirus pandemic, new figures reveal.
A Sky News investigation has found children as young as 11 were among more than 2,000 youths detained for alleged crimes involving guns, imitation firearms and air weapons between 2018 and January 2021.
-----
Simeon Moore, who carried a gun aged 15 when he was a member of a notorious Birmingham gang, said young people arming themselves often believe they are doing "the right thing".
---
"From knives, we started to carry guns. For me, at the time it was a means of protection.
"I was walking around and at any point I could get beat up, stabbed or have my head blown off.
Hundreds of children arrested for suspected gun crimes during COVID pandemic
=========


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> So, you guys keep telling us that Brits have guns......and yet their loonies aren't going into public places to shoot people.....which means access to guns doesn't drive mass public shootings....
> 
> Also, dumb shit.......British criminals have access to guns as well, they simply do not choose to murder each other or their victims.....at least for now....that is changing.....


Did you watch the video, Amanda (average American) was amazed at the disinformation you guys spout. One day you'll wake up. If you can just get past Rights, protection and Independence, suddenly guns will be a whole different subject, you will be amazed.

Conclusion, you guys are in the dark ages, the days when people thought the world was flat.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And yet Japan, South Korea, China, and a vast number of European countries have extreme gun control and higher suicide rates than the U.S.......
> 
> What is your point trying to confuse the issue of guns by adding suicide into the debate?


Are you trying to make the case that the US suicide rate would go UP if we banned guns or that the rate in other countries would go DOWN if there were more guns available?

My father got some bad health news and tried and failed to kill himself with pills.  Turns out he lived for another 10 good years.  I think if he had access to a gun he might have been successful.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Did you watch the video, Amanda (average American) was amazed at the disinformation you guys spout. One day you'll wake up. If you can just get past Rights, protection and Independence, suddenly guns will be a whole different subject, you will be amazed.
> 
> Conclusion, you guys are in the dark ages, the days when people thought the world was flat.




Again.......they are allowed a limited selection of hunting shotguns.....and with the restrictions, the rich and politically connected get most of those permits to hunt quail on their estates....

Here, genius...answer these questions...

A woman is grabbed by a violent serial rapist at a bus stop, a train platform or in her apartment...he plans on beating, raping and murdering her. She has a gun, and can stop the rape with the gun......

Do you want her to use that gun to stop the rape?

A woman stops an attack with a gun, a brutal rape, torture and murder...in a public space....if you had the ability to go back in time, and prevent her from having that gun...would you?
=====
*The British government will not allow a woman to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped in a London park.....saying she does not have "good reason," to own the gun.*
*
A member of the House of Lords wants to quail hunt with his rich friends on his private country estate, and the British government gives him the gun....because he has "good reason."*
*Does this make sense to you?*


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Are you trying to make the case that the US suicide rate would go UP if we banned guns or that the rate in other countries would go DOWN if there were more guns available?
> 
> My father got some bad health news and tried and failed to kill himself with pills.  Turns out he lived for another 10 good years.  I think if he had access to a gun he might have been successful.




Neither....I am pointing out that the gun is irrelevant to suicide, so using suicide as part of the debate in gun control is dumb.....as all of those countries with extreme gun control....Japan, South Korea and China show.....as well as the rest of Europe....

If he really wanted to commit suicide, that wouldn't have stopped him....ask the Japanese and South Koreans...


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Neither....I am pointing out that the gun is irrelevant to suicide, so using suicide as part of the debate in gun control is dumb.....as all of those countries with extreme gun control....Japan, South Korea and China show.....as well as the rest of Europe....


In the US, firearms are used in half of all suicide deaths.



2aguy said:


> If he really wanted to commit suicide, that wouldn't have stopped him....ask the Japanese and South Koreans...


Except it did.  Suicide by firearm is almost always deadly — 9 out of 10 firearm suicide attempts result in death


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> In the US, firearms are used in half of all suicide deaths.
> 
> 
> Except it did.  Suicide by firearm is almost always deadly — 9 out of 10 firearm suicide attempts result in death




So?

In Japan, they have extreme gun control, and more suicides than we do...

In South Korea, they have extreme gun control, and lead the world in suicide...

guns are not the issue, you idiot.

If you want to kill yourself, a tall building is just as lethal, as are pills, rope, razors, plastic bags, bridges...........

You guys throw in suicide into the gun debate to fool uninformed Americans....you are vile morons...


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 5, 2022)

2aguy said:


> So?
> 
> In Japan, they have extreme gun control, and more suicides than we do...
> 
> ...


So is your answer?  I may be a vile moron but I care about other peoples lives.  I guess you having to fill out some paperwork is more important than the lives of people you don't know.  Got it.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 5, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So is your answer?  I may be a vile moron but I care about other peoples lives.  I guess you having to fill out some paperwork is more important than the lives of people you don't know.  Got it.




Again....guns have nothing to do with suicide...but idiots like you have to include them in order to fool uninformed Americans.......


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Again.......they are allowed a limited selection of hunting shotguns.....and with the restrictions, the rich and politically connected get most of those permits to hunt quail on their estates....
> 
> Here, genius...answer these questions...
> 
> ...


She would get raped and murdered.

To carry on your hypothetical question, she shoots at the rapist, misses and kills your wife/daughter/husband/son. Will you shake her hand?


----------



## Quasar44 (Feb 6, 2022)

Appears the Khmer Rouge Dems are illegally storing a federal database on gun users 
 This is illegal 
 F the ATF !! ATF should be terminated


----------



## Quasar44 (Feb 6, 2022)

Dems 

Great for thugs , cartels and gangs to have guns 

Law abiding Americans- no way


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Again....guns have nothing to do with suicide...but idiots like you have to include them in order to fool uninformed Americans.......


Except in the US, firearms are used in half of all suicide deaths.  It is you who want to keep Americans uninformed to promote your ideology.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 6, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> She would get raped and murdered.
> 
> To carry on your hypothetical question, she shoots at the rapist, misses and kills your wife/daughter/husband/son. Will you shake her hand?




No......likely not.......

Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

*The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face. 

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.*

There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

*Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.*

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

*What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered. *

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


*Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.*

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save yours too.
===============


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 6, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Except in the US, firearms are used in half of all suicide deaths.  It is you who want to keep Americans uninformed to promote your ideology.




Nope.......for that issue you need to address suicide, not guns....you and the other anti-gun extremists lie about suicide so that you can increase the numbers you can use to fool uninformed Americans about gun ownership in this country.....


----------



## Captain Caveman (Feb 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No......likely not.......
> 
> Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them
> 
> ...


I just ignore the shite you post because it's copied and pasted crap. You have no individual input, just copied and pasted shite.

If there's a yearly forum award,  you will win the, "Biggest shite poster" trophy.


----------



## alang1216 (Feb 6, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope.......for that issue you need to address suicide, not guns....you and the other anti-gun extremists lie about suicide so that you can increase the numbers you can use to fool uninformed Americans about gun ownership in this country.....


So I want to save lives and that makes me an anti-gun extremist?  What exactly is the lie I told about suicides?

I think it is you who is the extremist and you who is the liar.


----------



## Tax Man (Feb 6, 2022)

Thinking of buying a gun  for self-defense? Don’t do it      
  By Steven J. Sainsbury 
 During my more than 25 years as an emergency medicine physician, I treated hundreds  of patients with gunshot  wounds. I treated criminals who shot each other.  
I treated gun owners who killed their family members in drunken  rages. 
  I pronounced dead suicide victims who shot  themselves with an easily accessible handgun in  their home.  
 Yet in all those years  of emergency medicine,  I never treated a single  patient who was shot  by a law-abiding citizen in self-protection. Not one.  
 Multiple reputable studies and surveys bolster what I observed:  Choosing to have a gun  in your home, because it will keep you safe, is a  myth. And a deadly one  at that.  
Yet surveys of gun  owners show they consistently cite self-protection as the primary reason for 67% of gun purchases. Suppose you have  the same fears and obtain a handgun. Which  of these two scenarios is  more likely?  
Choice one: That gun  you just bought will save  your life from criminals  or home invaders. This is  known as defensive gun  use. 
 Choice two: That gun  will be used to kill you  or a family member,  whether that means the  murder of a family member, an accidental shooting or suicide.   It’s choice No. 2 by a  landslide. In 2017, for example, according to FBI  reports, for every justifiable homicide — a defensive gun-use death —  there were 35 criminal  homicides.  And that doesn’t even  include the thousands of  deaths each year by suicide or the accidental  deaths that occur when  there is a handgun in the  home.  Where did this “a gun  will keep you safe” myth  originate? In my estimation, it began with the  powerful U.S. gun lobby.  Criminologist Gary Kleck  and economist and gun  rights advocate John R.  Lott Jr. are often quoted  on the subject. Both rely  on surveys regarded as  highly flawed to claim  that more than 2 million gun-use deaths occur  each year. Yet reputable  analysis put such deaths  at around 2,000 a year,  not 2 million.  Kleck also suggests  that hundreds of thou-  sands of criminals are  shot annually by law-  abiding citizens. Not surprisingly, there appears  to be an absence of hospital records to validate  this figure.  The Harvard School  of Public Health reports  that guns are not used  millions of times in self defense, most purported  self-defense uses are to  intimidate and frighten  intimates — not to thwart  crime — and few criminals are shot by law abiding-  On its website the school refers to a survey in which five criminal court judges from different states were asked  to examine 146 self-reported accounts of defensive gun use. The judges  determined more than  half of the gun usages  were illegal, even assuming that the respondent  described the event  honestly and that the  person had a legally  owned gun.  In an analysis of victims of gun violence from  2007 to 2011, the Department of Justice found  that people were nine  times as likely to be injured or killed by a fire-  arm rather than protected by them.  But enough of statistics. Let’s just use some  common sense. What's  more likely? That someone will break into your  home and threaten your  family, or that a member of your family, in  a moment of anger or  drunkenness, will resort  to wielding that same  weapon against you? Or  that in a moment of despair, a loved one will  turn that easily accessible  gun on themselves?  Or that your 5-year-old,  who knows exactly where  you keep your gun, will  accidentally shoot himself?  Be responsible and be  wise.  Don’t buy into the  myth of owning a gun  for self-defense. The life  you save may be your  own.
Steven J. Sainsbury is a hospice and geriatric physician in San Louis Obispo


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So I want to save lives and that makes me an anti-gun extremist?  What exactly is the lie I told about suicides?
> 
> I think it is you who is the extremist and you who is the liar.




You don't want to save lives...you are exploiting suicides to push gun control.....you have been shown over and over that countries with extreme gun control, Japan, South Korea, China, and countries with more extreme gun control than the U.S. have higher suicide rates than the U.S........that would mean that guns are not the issue with suicide.......

You don't care....mixing suicide into the gun control debate helps you lie to uninformed Americans....


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 7, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Thinking of buying a gun  for self-defense? Don’t do it
> By Steven J. Sainsbury
> During my more than 25 years as an emergency medicine physician, I treated hundreds  of patients with gunshot  wounds. I treated criminals who shot each other.
> I treated gun owners who killed their family members in drunken  rages.
> ...




And that is a lie..........

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,*
*----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.*
*https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145*


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 7, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Thinking of buying a gun  for self-defense? Don’t do it
> By Steven J. Sainsbury
> During my more than 25 years as an emergency medicine physician, I treated hundreds  of patients with gunshot  wounds. I treated criminals who shot each other.
> I treated gun owners who killed their family members in drunken  rages.
> ...




Using extreme, anti-gun researchers at Harvard is dumb.........and this guy has no idea about the actual research conducted on gun self defense, since he only goes to Kleck, and Lott......showing he is getting his information from extreme anti-gun sources......I gave you a list of 17 studies....both private and government funded and created research..........supporting what Gary Kleck found...........one study from the Centers for Disease Control....one from the Department of Justice.....nothing to do with Kleck, and that research was done to refute Kleck...and they failed......

He treated criminals, who are the victims of 70-80% of the gun murder attacks....and the vast majority of the rest of the victims are the friends and family of those criminals who are shot when their criminal friend or family member is targeted....

So.....he wants to ban guns that save lives from these criminals, because criminals shoot each other at high rates with guns that are already illegal for them to buy, own or carry.......

Again.....the over 17 actual studies on using guns for self defense, only one of them is by Kleck...and his methods have never been actually proven to be wrong....they have been constantly attacked by anti-gun loons...but never shown to be wrong....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....

The name of the group doing the study, the year of the study, the number of defensive gun uses and if police and military defensive gun uses are included.....notice the bill clinton and obama defensive gun use research is highlighted.....

GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense 

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, no military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, no military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, no military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, no military)

2021 national firearm survey, Prof. William English, PhD. designed by Deborah Azrael of Harvard T. Chan School of public policy, and  Mathew Miller, Northeastern university.......1.67 million defensive uses annually.

CDC...1996-1998... 1.1 million  averaged over  those years.( no cops, no military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

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


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, no military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, no military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops,no military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, no military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. _Journal of Quantitative Criminology_, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


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

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, no military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*2021 national firearms survey..*

The survey was designed by Deborah Azrael of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University,
----
The survey further finds that approximately a third of gun owners (31.1%) have used a firearm to defend themselves or their property, often on more than one occasion, and it estimates that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents per year. Handguns are the most common firearm employed for self-defense (used in 65.9% of defensive incidents), and in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired. Approximately a quarter (25.2%) of defensive incidents occurred within the gun owner's home, and approximately half (53.9%) occurred outside their home, but on their property. About one out of ten (9.1%) defensive gun uses occurred in public, and about one out of twenty (4.8%) occurred at work.
2021 National Firearms Survey


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 7, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Thinking of buying a gun  for self-defense? Don’t do it
> By Steven J. Sainsbury
> During my more than 25 years as an emergency medicine physician, I treated hundreds  of patients with gunshot  wounds. I treated criminals who shot each other.
> I treated gun owners who killed their family members in drunken  rages.
> ...




Tell us these did not happen....

Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
========
What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day | Fox News

What I want you to know on Gun Violence Awareness Day

I correctly listened to my instincts; I had a feeling that my life was in danger in that elevator and prepared myself mentally for what was potentially to come.

I ran to my car in an attempt to escape and, before I could even get my entire body in my car, I was tackled by my attacker.

This man quickly overpowered me, stabbed at me with a knife, clamped his hand over my mouth multiple times, and repeatedly tried forcing me in the passenger seat of my car while telling me, “We’re going.”

*The entire time this was happening, a rusted, serrated knife was being stabbed towards my abdomen and held at my face. 

I had been hit in the face, thrown over my driver’s side console, and had rips in my tights from his hands trying to force my legs up and over into the passenger seat.*

There are some individuals that think gun owners are “trigger happy” and wanting to pull their weapons out at the first opportunity. There is nothing further from the truth.

The night I was attacked, I fought like hell for my life before reaching for my gun. I kicked, I screamed, I had all ten fingernails ripped off and bloodied from scratching and trying to fight my way out of a literal life and death situation.

*Ultimately, I accessed my gun, shot my attacker multiple times, and saved my life. He will be spending years in prison for what he did to me.*

Using a gun in self-protection is not a decision one makes lightly; in fact, I never dreamed that I would be forced into a situation where I would have to do so. However, I also never imagined such evil existing in the world so that I would be powerless, wounded, on my back and unable to physically force my attacker off of me.

I owned a gun and had been trained on how to use it. I know how to safely carry and that a gun is a serious and significant weapon; it is not to be used carelessly. Naysayers and people with opposing opinions may try to undermine my situation with hypotheticals. I cannot answer these questions. All I can do is tell the facts of my story and the true account of how I saved my own life.

*What I want you to know on Gun Awareness Day is that a gun in the hands of a potential victim is not improperly placed; it can be the only thing keeping her from being brutally raped and murdered. *

Without my gun, I would not be alive today.


*Guns are not the problem in America; men like my attacker -- who are willing to violently change one person’s life for no reason except for pure evil – are the problem.*

Be safe at all times. Be aware of your surroundings. Trust your instincts. Always be able to protect yourself. Refuse to be a victim, and instead be a fighter and a survivor. Live to tell your tale and make a criminal regret the day he chose you as a “soft target.” My gun saved my life, and one could save yours too.
===============

Waking up to an armed intruder in your house would be any home owner’s worst nightmare. If you’re a single mother with two young kids in the house, finding a man wielding a machete in your bedroom closet immediately kicks you into “momma bear” mode.

That’s what happened to a California woman who woke up to the sound of a man rummaging through her walk-in closet. The thief — Ocean Burger (his name, not a restaurant) — was armed with a number of knives and a machete when the un-named woman grabbed a handgun and confronted him.

From ksbw.com . . .


_[Investigators] say Burger ignored orders to leave and when the homeowner fired several warning shots he allegedly advanced towards her, that’s when the mother fired at the accused burglar hitting him in the leg. And California law may be on her side._

Warning shots are never a good idea and could even put you in legal jeopardy in many jurisdictions. In this case, they not only wasted perfectly good (and expensive) ammunition, but probably led Burger to believe she wasn’t serious about actually shooting him.

After advancing on the woman, the round in his leg apparently convinced Burger that he was wrong.

The good news is California actually has a castle doctrine law on the books. The woman had no duty to retreat and was legally justified in using deadly force to defend herself and her children.

_“There is a presumption that favors the homeowner they’re presumed that the person is in imminent fear of either death or great bodily injury,” said Ellen Campos, assistant district attorney for San Benito county. …

California Woman Shoots Machete-Wielding Burglar She Found in Her Closet - The Truth About Guns
=============_
LANCASTER, Ohio - It happened along a walking path in Lancaster.

Dinah Burns is licensed to carry a concealed gun, but she'd only recently started taking her weapon while walking her dog.

Based on what happened, it looks like she'll make a point of carrying from now on.

"I think if they'd gotten any closer, I probably would have fired,” said Burns.

It was Monday when Burns was on a footpath near Sanderson Elementary School.

"Two gentlemen came out of the woods, one holding a baseball bat, and said 'You're coming with us'."

The men weren't deterred by Dinah's dog Gracie.

"I said, 'Well, what do you want?,' and as I was saying that I reached in to my pocket and slipped my gun out, slipped the safety off as I pulled it out. As I was doing that the other gentleman came toward me and raised the baseball bat. And, I pointed the gun at them and said, 'I have this and I'm not afraid to use it.'"

The men took off and so far have eluded police. Dinah posted about the incident on Facebook to alert friends and neighbors, to criticism by some.

"Most of the males' opinion was, 'Why didn't you shoot them?'"

Easy to second-guess a decision made under pressure, based on her concealed carry training, and police agree.

"To get out of a situation, back out, get out of it as much as you can without having to discharge your firearm."

"I will say it's a good thing to go from a place of danger to a place of safety, however you get that done,” said Sgt. Matt Chambers, Lancaster Police.

"Very thankful that it turned out the way it did, and hope it doesn't happen again, but I will be prepared."
======

Mother Shoots Intruder 'Multiple Times' to Save Baby - Breitbart

*An Indianapolis mother shot a man “multiple times” after he allegedly broke into the home through the window in the baby’s room.*

According to CBS 4, family members said that around noon on March 24, the woman “heard the window get busted and she called her husband and said I think somebody’s breaking in the house.”

She grabbed her pistol and ran toward the sound of breaking glass, only to be confronted by the alleged intruder who shot at her, but missed.

The mother then opened fire and struck the suspect “multiple times.” He was transported to a hospital for treatment.

In addition to being armed, a 911 dispatcher said the suspect was “carrying zip ties and a walkie-talkie.”
======
CCW IN ACTION: Armed 22-Year-Old Woman Stops Three Men Attempting To Rob Her In Store Parking Lot – Concealed Nation

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA — A concealed carrier successfully thwarted the efforts of three men to rob her late at night outside a Dollar Tree. According to police reports from the scene, the woman was exiting the Dollar Tree and heading to her car when she was approached by a man and asked to walk with him. When she refused, he point-blank told her he was going to rob her of her purse.

At this point, according to KOCO, she was presented by two other men backing up the first. She withdrew her concealed carry pistol from her purse and threatened to use it to protect herself. All three men quickly exited and fled the scene.
===========
Woman Scares off Assailant With Stick. Just Kidding, it was a gun.

Just before 7pm on Wednesday night, a 29 year-old woman had gathered up her dog and headed outside to… well, to let her dog do what dogs do.

Upon her first step outside her Minot, North Dakota home, she was hit solidly in the face with a blunt object, knocking her backward down the stairs and into her home.

Her assailant followed her into her home and started to approach her, but the woman had made it to a cabinet where she retrieved a handgun to protect herself and her home.

When confronted with the firearm, the violent intruder and would-be robber/rapist/murderer fled the scene.

The smart, independent, gun-owning woman did not require medical attention, most likely due to the fact that she was able to pull a weapon on her assailant to end the attack.
==============
DGU of the Day: Trotwood Ohio Woman Defeats Three Home Invaders - The Truth About Guns

Three men break into a home in Trotwood, Ohio. [Click here to watch the video.] They’re all armed. It is before 6 am, just three days after Christmas. One of the men is armed with a Tec-9 pistol. He enters last. The other two hold what appear to be conventional semi-auto pistols. They bypass two sleeping children to find the mother. The surveillance video shows the three following the mother after they pistol whipped her in the laundry room.

The man directly behind her has the Tec-9. Presumably holds her at gunpoint while the other two attempt to drag off a safe, in a room with two more children. While the two men are occupied with the safe, the woman breaks free from her captor, accesses a hidden pistol, and starts to fire.

All three run, but the Tec-9 gunman, Azikiwe Presley, is mortally wounded. His body is found 100 yards from the house. From wdtn.com:

“I got my gun and I started shooting and they ran,” the female caller told dispatchers. “They all three had guns, I’m confused … they must not have had bullets because after I pulled the trigger they just took off, instead of firing back. I don’t know if I hit one or not, I don’t see blood anywhere.”

In this case, the recipient of female dedication to protecting innocent life ran a hundred yards and died. It is not uncommon for a man who is fatally shot to run that far, even with a heart/lung shot. As he was likely the one holding the woman at gunpoint, and the closest, greatest, threat with the Tec-9, it is not surprising that he drew the lethal ticket. Whether through choice or happenstance, the mother made the right tactical decision.
=========
Concealed Carrier Holds Burglar At Gunpoint With Her FNX .45

CLEVELAND, TENNESSEE — A woman successfully subdued a would-be burglar outside her home using her FNX .45. The suspect, James Jeffrey Dunn, was allegedly trying to break in through her front door late at night. She got her handgun and confronted the burglar, according to WRCB. Once at the doorway, she yelled through the door for him to stay put and not move. Moments later, she confronted him head-on — handgun drawn and ready to go.

via WRCB

“I tried to order him to stay right where he was at and I pointed the gun at him and I came running off the porch and I came within 10 feet of him and he laid the bicycle down and he crumpled on top of the bicycle,” she says.

She held him at gunpoint until Cleveland Police arrived and arrested Dunn, 35, on charges of aggravated burglary, theft, and burglary of a motor vehicle. Police note that Dunn had an arrest sheet tallying over 40 charges — the most recent being only 6 hours prior to his attempted burglary of this concealed carrier.

“We went over this when we got my concealed carry permit, these types of scenarios. But I had already put that gun up and ever taken it out since, you know?” she says. “Maybe to go the range once.”

When we talk about the new generation of concealed carriers, let’s take a good long look at the realities these people are facing: hardened, career criminals unafraid to bust through the door or do damage to private property and persons. It’s a good thing this woman had the proper training she needed and the right equipment.
======

Armed South Carolina Woman Chases Off Daytime Home Invader - The Truth About Guns

When Ms. Reeves ran across Ralph Goss slithering around inside her home yesterday in the middle of the afternoon, she drew her firearm. Staring down that barrel was enough to change Goss’s mind about whatever it was he had planned.

“I’m one of those people that can go from zero to a hundred in 2.5 seconds and I’m not a nice person normally, but as soon as I got on the phone with the sheriff’s department he was out of sight. The severity of it hit me, and I was in hysterics. I was crying, I was scared, I was very shaken.”

Oconee County deputies tracked Goss down within hours of Ms. Reeves’ call. And surprise! He already had several outstanding warrants for his arrest.
===============


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 7, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Thinking of buying a gun  for self-defense? Don’t do it
> By Steven J. Sainsbury
> During my more than 25 years as an emergency medicine physician, I treated hundreds  of patients with gunshot  wounds. I treated criminals who shot each other.
> I treated gun owners who killed their family members in drunken  rages.
> ...




Do you understand that this guy doesn't understand the issue.......he simply parrots the anti-gun loons?  Kleck and Lott didn't do the same research...that he doesn't understand that shows he is simply repeating whatever he reads from the anti-gun loons...

Kleck, an anti-gunner,  did the research into defensive gun use....which was then done by over 17 others trying to refute him....and they failed...as you have been shown...

Lott, as an economist, and general anti-gun individual, was tired of the two sides of the debate cherry picking information about crime and concealed carry laws....so he did a study that looked at the crime stats in every single county in the U.S. before they had concealed carry and after concealed carry........

That this Doctor doesn't understand the difference in their research should make you less likely to believe this guy.....but I doubt it....


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> There are certainly Dems that want to ban all guns but I doubt they are in the majority.  I think most Dems, including me, just want something that will reduce gun deaths while allowing people access to guns for fun or protection.
> 
> Some quick research by me seems to indicate no relationship between gun control laws and gun crime.  I think one problem with these numbers is that most guns used for crime in NYC are not purchased legally in NYC.  If states like mine, VA, had stricter laws, NYC might be a safer place.  Maybe.
> 
> What I did find is that places with stricter gun laws had fewer gun deaths.  Probably the number of suicides is what was affected.  I think fewer gun deaths is a worthy goal.



People serious about suicide will kill themselves by other means if they can't get a gun.  Suicide deaths prove nothing.

But if reducing deaths is important, let's reduce Fentanyl deaths and close the border and complete the wall.  That will save more lives that banning both guns and cars.

More restrictive gun laws don't lead to reduced gun murders; consider Chicago, NYC, Baltimore, Washington, D.C.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 7, 2022)

I thought the Democrats believed in right-to-die and assisted suicide.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 7, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> In the US, firearms are used in half of all suicide deaths.
> 
> 
> Except it did.  Suicide by firearm is almost always deadly — 9 out of 10 firearm suicide attempts result in death


You understand that, without the availability of a gun, the suicidal would simply choose other options, right?









						Former Miss USA Jumps to Her Death From New York City Skyscraper
					

Jemal Countess/GettyCheslie Kryst, who won the Miss USA sash in 2019, has died after a fall from her high-rise Manhattan apartment building. She was 30.Her family confirmed Kryst’s death in a Sunday statement. “Her great light was one that inspired others around the world with her beauty and...




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 7, 2022)

Three different people in my life or my wife's life have died of suicide - that we know of.  None did it with a gun.  There's a good possibility that others we know died from suicide, as well, because families don't generally shout it out.  But what we do know is that no one we know has died from a gunshot.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 8, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So is your answer?  I may be a vile moron but I care about other peoples lives.  I guess you having to fill out some paperwork is more important than the lives of people you don't know.  Got it.


How is paperwork a gun-safety plan?  Does paperwork stop people from using a gun to commit suicide? There are about 1500 to 1600 gun suicides a year in California out of about 4100 suicides a year.  There are about 11 suicides per 100K in population compared to about 13 suicides per 100K in population nationwide.  Not a big difference in rates yet fewer gun suicides because guns are more difficult to come by.  Yet people are still killing themselves; they're just not using guns to do it.


----------



## miketx (Feb 17, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Did not you see the warehouses full of confiscated guns Obama took? You guys crack me up!


Why do you have a nude image of trump as your avatar? You must be an orange cock gobbler! The gov. wants to confiscate guns, you want to be an orange cocksman!


----------



## miketx (Feb 17, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Thinking of buying a gun  for self-defense? Don’t do it
> By Steven J. Sainsbury
> During my more than 25 years as an emergency medicine physician, I treated hundreds  of patients with gunshot  wounds. I treated criminals who shot each other.
> I treated gun owners who killed their family members in drunken  rages.
> ...


Lol, fake news mr. cock merchant. You are a filthy liar


----------



## whitehall (Feb 25, 2022)

Confiscation is the goal of radical democrats. What more evidence do you need than arrogant Beto O'rourke ..."hell yes we will take your AR15's". Later he said that he was only kidding.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 25, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Gun registration...yes, the democrats want it, yes, they want to use it to ban and confiscate guns....


This is a lie.

Democrats do not want to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 25, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Obama, like Biden, promised a ban on handguns, rifles and shotguns.
> Both had a congress controlled by Democrats.
> Why did those bans not materialize?


For eight years conservatives lied about President Obama ‘banning’ and ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened.

Conservatives have resorted to those same lies and demagoguery now that President Biden is in office – and again it will never happen.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For eight years conservatives lied about President Obama ‘banning’ and ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened.
> 
> Conservatives have resorted to those same lies and demagoguery now that President Biden is in office – and again it will never happen.



Moron…..the Bill “the rapist” Clinton 1994 Assault weapon ban was one of the reasons the democrats lost control of congress after 40 years of control…….Obama realized two things…..

1). He needed to pass and then protect Obama care…..so he didnt want to lose congress to gun control votes……

2). He knows that you can effectively pass gun control at the local level much easier and with less political cost ……….and then democrat party judges at the lower court level can rule them Constitutional….so he packed the lower courts with anti-gun extremists and let them do the heavy lifting…

You moron…


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> For eight years conservatives lied about President Obama ‘banning’ and ‘confiscating’ guns – it never happened.


Not because He didn't want it to - which was the claim conservatives made.
And thus, another lie from Clayton.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Democrats do not want to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns.


^^^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Mar 10, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> I just ignore the shite you post because it's copied and pasted crap. You have no individual input, just copied and pasted shite.
> 
> If there's a yearly forum award,  you will win the, "Biggest shite poster" trophy.


Translation: "Being unable to refute the facts, I will attack the source."

Look, we all understand: you believe that a woman who has been raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman whose attacker acquired a sucking chest wound.


----------



## miketx (Mar 10, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^^
> This is a lie.


Jones is a liar.


----------



## badbob85037 (Mar 10, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...
> 
> *Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.*
> 
> ...


What those democRats are going to get is genocide.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 11, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Translation: "Being unable to refute the facts, I will attack the source."
> 
> Look, we all understand: you believe that a woman who has been raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman whose attacker acquired a sucking chest wound.


Nope, just copied and pasted shite. Most of his useless posts are just copied and pasted shite. It's part of the deflection process from the real issue of guns in the US.


----------



## woodwork201 (Mar 15, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Nope, just copied and pasted shite. Most of his useless posts are just copied and pasted shite. It's part of the deflection process from the real issue of guns in the US.



What is shite?


----------



## Batcat (Mar 15, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Did not you see the warehouses full of confiscated guns Obama took? You guys crack me up!


It’s my bet it will take a Republican President to pass legislation to confiscate firearms. Someone like Mitt Romney. All the dems would vote for confiscation and enough RINO Republicans would vote so the legislation would pass.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> What is shite?


Same as shit with an E.

Shit and Shite, still just anal crap.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 15, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> What is shite?


Shi'ite.
One of the majors sects of Islam.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Apr 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Ronald Reagan supported the Brady bill as did many Republicans and Democrats.


And they where spectacularly wrong the Brady Bill did nothing to lower gun homicides.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 4, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> And they where spectacularly wrong the Brady Bill did nothing to lower gun homicides.


Nothing stops humans from killing.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Apr 4, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Nothing stops humans from killing.


So why take guns away from law abiding citizens ?


----------



## Canon Shooter (Apr 12, 2022)

Libs always talk about gun violence and how they want society to be safer, and then they trot gun registration out as a means to that end.

The problem is that registration doesn't impact safety at all.

So, yeah, that's just another example of how libs lie...


----------



## basquebromance (May 1, 2022)

/thread


----------



## MisterBeale (May 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...
> 
> *Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.*
> 
> ...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

Tax Man said:


> Did not you see the warehouses full of confiscated guns Obama took? You guys crack me up!


Nice red herring how much does it weigh? 20 25 pounds?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Limitations on where guns can be carried and limitations on the type of guns, are the two specific reasons why gun crime and murder by gun is lower in Canada.
> 
> Don't name Canada in your comparisons but if you persist, you will hear objections from me.
> 
> Otherwise, go ahead and promote your dogma!


Strawman fallcy since America is not Canada it's irrelevant to mention


----------



## Donald H (May 22, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


>


21 months later our Canadian government upheld the rights of all law-abiding Canadians by bringing the law to bear against a few trouble makers in Ottawa. 

And fwiw, gained the respect of the Canadian people for taking a stand.

It's worth mentioning too that there were no deaths and it was permitted to go on for two months.

Compare that to America's similar protest that was stopped by police on the first day, and resulted in deaths on both sides.

Maybe there's something wrong with your pictures! We should discuss if further!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2022)

Donald H said:


> 21 months later our Canadian government upheld the rights of all law-abiding Canadians by bringing the law to bear against a few trouble makers in Ottawa.
> 
> And fwiw, gained the respect of the Canadian people for taking a stand.
> 
> ...


Move to Canada you'll be better off.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Sep 26, 2022)

Read This-----------------

*Second Amendment*
_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._
U.S. Constitution - Second Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

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

*"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. 
*
“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
-


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 26, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Read This-----------------
> 
> *Second Amendment*
> _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 guys keep rotting out the old west…….and you are just wrong….at the famous town of Tombstone, gun control worked so well one Earp was murdered, another maimed and both the Cowboys and Doc Holiday, as well as everyone else just ignored the laws….


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 26, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Read This-----------------
> 
> *Second Amendment*
> _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._
> ...




This is the truth......

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.


----------



## miketx (Sep 26, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Read This-----------------
> 
> *Second Amendment*
> _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._
> ...


Total leftist bullshit. But hey, I saw that movie too.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 26, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Read This-----------------
> 
> *Second Amendment*
> _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._
> ...




How did those laws actually work?

Tombstone...

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
T*he 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
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Subscribe to Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on 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
============


Here you go...read up on the actual Tombstone situation and how the criminals actually ignored the gun control laws....killing land wounding the Earps....


Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

*Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe*

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'...

------

*Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.

--------

Tom McLaury's concealed weapo*n[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. *When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants*

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

*By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190

--------*

Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges
Hmmmmmmmm...doesn't seem like the Tombstone gun control laws worked so far...

*Virgil initially avoided a confrontation with the newly arrived Frank McLaury and Billy Clanton, who had not yet deposited their weapons at a hotel or stable as the law required. 

------------*

At about 2:30 pm he saw Ike, Frank, Tom, and Billy gathered off Fremont street. Behan attempted to persuade Frank McLaury to give up his weapons, but Frank insisted that he would only give up his guns after City Marshal Virgil Earp and his brothers were disarmed.[81]

-----------
Citizens reported to Virgil on the Cowboys' movements that Ike and Tom had left their livery stable and returned to town while armed,* in violation of the city ordinance.*

Gun control only works for those who will obey the laws...law abiding citizens....so any gun control will completely fail at disarming criminals and mass shooters.


----------



## 2aguy (Sep 26, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Read This-----------------
> 
> *Second Amendment*
> _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._
> ...




And when people ask me why I respond to people like you...those too dumb to understand that gun control never works.....

I find things like this to respond to your posts....

*Claims it did are partial truth political narratives intended to deceive. Truth is, the oft mentioned Dodge City and Tombstone laws were selectively enforced because they had far more to do with disarming political, business and crime rivals than protecting public safety.
----

That is why the real reason for Tombstone’s anti-weapon carry ordinance was to disarm those who wanted to muscle in on the gambling, prostitution, liquor, extortion and robbery profits from which those in power got a cut,*









						Did the Wild West Really have More Gun Control than We Do? - CRPA
					

California Rifle & Pistol Association




					crpa.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Read This-----------------
> “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



When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.  The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.  Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

Re:  "checking your gun when you enter town" and "keep your gun at home":
Demonstrate this is is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Hint:  The court just ruled the 2nd protects the right to carry a gun outside the home.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Sep 28, 2022)

2aguy said:


> as well as everyone else just ignored the laws….


The point is, there were “laws” which seem to have vanished
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Sep 28, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Hint: The court just ruled the 2nd protects the right to carry a gun outside the home.


I was not aware of that court ruling.
The point is, there were “laws” which seem to have vanished
Please provide some support to your claim.

Thanks in advance.

-


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 28, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> I was not aware of that court ruling.
> The point is, there were “laws” which seem to have vanished


What laws?


watchingfromafar said:


> Please provide some support to your claim.


I did.  








						New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## Jarlaxle (Oct 1, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And when people ask me why I respond to people like you...those too dumb to understand that gun control never works.....
> 
> I find things like this to respond to your posts....
> 
> ...


The same reason NY passed the Sullivan Act.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 1, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> I did.


No you did not
_The State of New York makes it* a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home.* An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver”* if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so.*
An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement *only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community*.








						New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., INC. v. BRUEN
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				



_
*Claiming the second amendment does not fly here*
_-_


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 1, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> No you did not
> _The State of New York makes it* a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home.* An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver”* if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so.*
> An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement *only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community*.
> 
> ...



Hey, dipstick, the Supreme Court just wrecked that with Bruen…


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 1, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> No you did not
> _The State of New York makes it* a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home.* An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver”* if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so.*
> An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement *only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community*.
> 
> ...


I said:
_The court just ruled the 2nd protects the right to carry a gun outside the home.        _
You said:
_Please provide some support to your claim._
I responded:
_I did.
(citation for v Bruen)_

v _Bruen_:
_Held_: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

There you go.


----------



## The Duke (Oct 1, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Limitations on where guns can be carried and limitations on the type of guns, are the two specific reasons why gun crime and murder by gun is lower in Canada.
> 
> Don't name Canada in your comparisons but if you persist, you will hear objections from me.
> 
> Otherwise, go ahead and promote your dogma!


Actually I think it's Low T., bruh. No ball juice. Some Canadians have balls, but not many.

Castro's son that runs Canada for now, does. Hopefully the Canucks have learned enough to get that tyrant out of there.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You guys keep rotting out the old west…….and you are just wrong….at the famous town of Tombstone, gun control worked so well one* Earp was murdered*, another maimed and both the Cowboys and Doc Holiday, as well as everyone else just ignored the laws….


You watch to many cowboy shows
Wyatt Earp was not murdered






Description​Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp was an American lawman and gambler in the American West, including Dodge City, Deadwood, and Tombstone. Earp took part in the famous gunfight at the O.K. Corral, during which lawmen killed three outlaw Cochise County Cowboys. Wikipedia

*Born: *March 19, 1848, Monmouth, IL
*Died: *January 13, 1929, Los Angeles, CA
*Spouse: *Josephine Earp (m. 1882–1929), Mattie Blaylock (m. 1878–1881), Urilla Sutherland (m. 1870–1870)
*Siblings: *Virgil Earp, Morgan Earp, Warren Earp, James Earp, MORE
*Full name: *Wyatt Berry Stapp Earp
*Height: *6′ 0″
*Place of burial: *Hills of Eternity Memorial Park, Colma, CA
*Wyatt Earp*_ was the last surviving Earp brother and the last surviving participant of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral when *he died at home in the Earps' small rented bungalow at 4004 W 17th Street, in Los Angeles, of chronic cystitis on January 13, 1929*, at the age of 80.: 327  The Los Angeles Times reported that he had been ill with liver disease for three years. His brother Newton had died almost a month prior on December 18, 1928. Wyatt was survived by Josephine and sister Adelia Earp Edwards. He had no children. Charlie Welsh's daughter Grace Spolidora and his daughter-in-law Alma were the only witnesses to Wyatt's body's cremation. Josephine was apparently too grief-stricken to assist._
Wyatt Earp - Wikipedia


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

*Doc Holliday

John Henry* *Holliday* (August 14, 1851 – November 8, 1887), better known as *Doc Holliday*, was an American gambler, gunfighter, and dentist. A close friend and associate of lawman Wyatt Earp, Holliday is best known for his role in the events leading up to and following the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. He developed a reputation as having killed more than a dozen men in various altercations, but modern researchers have concluded that, contrary to popular myth-making, Holliday killed only one to three men.
*Holliday died at 10 a.m. on November 8, 1887. He was 36


*

-


----------



## Hollie (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Doc Holliday
> 
> John Henry* *Holliday* (August 14, 1851 – November 8, 1887), better known as *Doc Holliday*, was an American gambler, gunfighter, and dentist. A close friend and associate of lawman Wyatt Earp, Holliday is best known for his role in the events leading up to and following the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. He developed a reputation as having killed more than a dozen men in various altercations, but modern researchers have concluded that, contrary to popular myth-making, Holliday killed only one to three men.
> *Holliday died at 10 a.m. on November 8, 1887. He was 36*
> -


I guess when your cutting and pasting from wiki is dismantled, dump more cutting and pasting from wiki into the thread.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Better that you name some other reason! And do it quickly because I'll write you off as a nuisance in about 10 minutes if you can't.


The US murder rate is about the same as it was in 1950.  Since then we have passed literally thousands of gun laws had a 10 year "assault" weapon ban and more people than ever owning guns and getting concealed carry permits. 


In the UK their murder rate is about what it was in 1950 despite draconian gun laws, outright bans on handguns and many center fired rifle calibers.

What can one conclude from these facts?

Guns and gun laws have no effect on the murder rate


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

Hollie said:


> I guess when your cutting and pasting from wiki is dismantled, dump more cutting and pasting from wiki into the thread.


What I posted is the truth
-


----------



## Hollie (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> What I posted is the truth
> -


You're the hero of wiki'ites.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> You watch to many cowboy shows
> Wyatt Earp was not murdered
> 
> 
> ...




Are you really this stupid...does my quote say it was Wyatt?

*In December, Virgil was shot and seriously wounded by unknown attackers; the following March, Morgan was killed when unknown gunmen attacked him and Wyatt at a Tombstone saloon.
*








						Wyatt Earp
					

Wyatt Earp, one of the most famous figures to emerge from the colorful 19th-century history of the American West, is best remembered known for his




					www.history.com
				




Gee,.........unknown gunmen in Tombstone?  How were they "Gunmen," if your claim that their gun control worked, worked?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> *Doc Holliday
> 
> John Henry* *Holliday* (August 14, 1851 – November 8, 1887), better known as *Doc Holliday*, was an American gambler, gunfighter, and dentist. A close friend and associate of lawman Wyatt Earp, Holliday is best known for his role in the events leading up to and following the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. He developed a reputation as having killed more than a dozen men in various altercations, but modern researchers have concluded that, contrary to popular myth-making, Holliday killed only one to three men.
> *Holliday died at 10 a.m. on November 8, 1887. He was 36
> ...




Doc Holliday completely ignored the gun control laws in Tombstone....you idiot.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> What can one conclude from these facts?
> Guns and gun laws have no effect on the murder rate


Gun laws work. If gun laws can save one life it is worth it.
Only a *republicon* would say otherwise.

*Definition of renegade (Republicon)*
_1: a deserter from one faith, cause, or allegiance to another
2: an individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior_
-


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Gun laws work. If gun laws can save one life it is worth it.
> Only a *republicon* would say otherwise.
> 
> -


I'm not a republican

If the defensive use of guns saves one life then guns are worth it.

And gun laws only work if they are enforced.

We do not enforce the gun laws we have on the books because the real goal of new gun laws is not to lower crime and murder rates but to make it harder for law abiding people to own guns.  In fact there are cities where 70% of gun charges are dropped in plea deals and despite the fact that every incident of the illegal possession of firearms is a federal crime we do not prosecute these crimes in federal court.

So what's the end game of all you people who want more and more and more gun laws but then refuse to hold the government and law enforcement responsible for enforcing those laws?  The end game is to flood the books with gun laws that are never meant to be enforced so that you can justify repealing the second amendment with the flawed reasoning that all the gun laws on the books haven't worked


----------



## Donald H (Oct 2, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The US murder rate is about the same as it was in 1950.  Since then we have passed literally thousands of gun laws has a 10 year "assault" weapon ban and more people than ever owning guns and getting concealed carry permits.


I'm sure Americans consider everything to be fine with the guns.

Normal becomes that which is accepted by the majority of the country's people to be normal.

Ten foot high fences around the children's schools and armed guards posted in the hallways can become normal too.

Other countries may choose a different 'normal'.

Each country will need to make it's own rules, according to what the country's people decide is normal behaviour.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I'm sure Americans consider everything to be fine with the guns.
> 
> Normal becomes that which is accepted by the majority of the country's people to be normal.
> 
> ...



Our murder rate is what it was in 1950

That's normal

And  you people that think locking the doors of a school is somehow reprehensible aren't normal


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Gun laws work. If gun laws can save one life it is worth it.
> Only a *republicon* would say otherwise.
> 
> *Definition of renegade (Republicon)*
> ...




Normal people carrying guns in public works better......over 21.5 million Americans now carry guns legally for self defense.......Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies, murders, beatings, stabbings, and mass public shootings.....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> I'm sure Americans consider everything to be fine with the guns.
> 
> Normal becomes that which is accepted by the majority of the country's people to be normal.
> 
> ...




You mean like Jewish schools in Europe, where they have security with guns?  Like that?


----------



## Donald H (Oct 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You mean like Jewish schools in Europe, where they have security with guns?  Like that?


Yes, very similar in that Israel's policy of vicious apartheid has created the need for armed guards, fences, and walls, very similar to America.

This can therefore become the 'normal' for both cases, while the rest of the world's countries' people have a right to choose a different 'normal'.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Doc Holliday completely ignored the gun control laws in Tombstone....you idiot.


If this is what you believe, go for it. Having said that----
I wish you and yours a great day and beyond
-


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> If this is what you believe, go for it. Having said that----
> I wish you and yours a great day and beyond
> -




It doesn't matter what I believe, that is the historical truth....Holliday completely ignored Tombstone's gun laws as did the various criminals, especially the ones who maimed one Earp and murdered the other one....


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Yes, very similar in that Israel's policy of vicious apartheid has created the need for armed guards, fences, and walls, very similar to America.
> 
> This can therefore become the 'normal' for both cases, while the rest of the world's countries' people have a right to choose a different 'normal'.




There is no Apartheid in Israel...that you would post that shows you are a dishonest asshole.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

Dodge City had a gun law that forbid carrying a gun while in town.
Those who disobeyed this law were shot.

Maybe we should return to that principle today.

-


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Dodge City had a gun law that forbid carrying a gun while in town.
> Those who disobeyed this law were shot.
> 
> Maybe we should install that principle today.
> ...




In democrat party controlled cities, actual criminals, captured with illegal guns that they can't buy, own or carry, are released over and over again, even if they are convicted felons caught in possession of the gun.....

Maybe if the democrat obeyed the gun laws we already have, our gun crime in the cities they control would be lower....


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> Yes, very similar in that Israel's policy of vicious apartheid has created the need for armed guards, fences, and walls, very similar to America.


Israel’s policy is to murder the Palestinian children before they can grow up and defend themselves.

This is not the American way.

I Googled “Israelis killing children”
About 537,000 results (0.39 seconds)
*Search Results*
Jun 1, 2017 - *Israel has killed more than 3,000 children since 28 September 2000* when the Second Intifada began until the end of April 2017, a new report ...
Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia
_Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia_

*These are the Palestinian children killed by Israel in 2016* | The ...
_https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/.../these-are-palestinian-children-killed-israel-2016_

Jan 27, 2017 - *Thirty-five Palestinian* *children* were *killed* by *Israeli* soldiers, police and armed civilians during the year, all but four of the deadly incidents ...
Invisible killings: Israel's daily toll of Palestinian children | The ...
_https://electronicintifada.net/content/invisible-killings-israels-daily-toll...children/4263_

Convincing the *Israeli* adults in control of this weaponry in civilian areas that they should not be using it to *kill children* who are merely stone throwers should not ...
Israel 'killed 25 Palestinian children' in three months | News | Al Jazeera
_www.aljazeera.com/.../israel-killed-25-palestinian-children-months-16051414083314__..._

May 14, 2016 - *Twenty-five Palestinian* *children* were *killed* in the last three months of 2015 during a wave of anti-*Israeli* attacks and the number detained was ...
One Palestinian child killed every 3 days by Israel for 13 years ...

-


----------



## Donald H (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Israel’s policy is to murder the Palestinian children before they can grow up and defend themselves.
> 
> This is not the American way.


You miss the point. You shouldn't have, as it was clearly stated.
In any case comparisons aside, America has chosen it's path on high fences around it's schools and armed guards. That is coincidentally similar to Israel on the point raised by our gun nut.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Israel’s policy is to murder the Palestinian children before they can grow up and defend themselves.
> 
> This is not the American way.
> 
> ...




Wow.......the actual terrorists hide behind children and get them killed and you blame the victims, the Israelis?   You really are a piece of trash.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 2, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Gun laws work. If gun laws can save one life it is worth it.


And so, you support concealed carry.
Good to know.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

Donald H said:


> America has chosen it's path on high fences around it's schools and armed guards.


No, 98% of Americans are civilized, law abiding citizens of the USA.
The “_higher fences and added security_” is a new con, i.e. phenomenon in America that doesn't really exists.

We do not fear our neighbor’s.
we, i.e. USA  do not fear the "stranger"
We are not building higher fences.
We, in America are one.

United to honor our constitution, bill of rights and the rule of law.

So help me God -


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wow.......the actual terrorists hide behind children and get them killed and you blame the victims, the Israelis? You really are a piece of trash.


To one who was once a friend of mine,
It seems you no longer are
Lying is forbidden in the KJV of the holy bible.
in a verse In the Ten Commandments.

Guess which one.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 12, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Doc Holliday completely ignored the gun control laws in Tombstone....you idiot.


Oh, poor baby, if I have hurt your feelings please forgive me, my sweet plump dumpling
-


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Oh, poor baby, if I have hurt your feelings please forgive me, my sweet plump dumpling
> -



Hurt my feelings?  Are you mixing your meds with booze?  You should really stop doing that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

Moonglow said:


> Ronald Reagan supported the Brady bill as did many Republicans and Democrats.


Reagan had dementia at the time


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> More on fun with numbers by pro-gunners?
> 
> States with higher gun ownership do have more gun suicides.


Fuck'em if they don't care to live I don't give a fuck. So dumb ass if someone is going to kill themselves they will do it


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The only thing I disagree with you is that I care about reducing gun suicides.


How about drug od? People jumping from buildings, bridges, drownings? Driving a car in the wrong lane? Suicide by cop? No shit for brains with you it's all about the gun and fascist control


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Hey retard, go to 7.10 in the video. Amanda Rae is an American living in the UK, she will explain to you about UK guns -
> 
> 
> She will highlight what a fucking prick you are.


Fuck her


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I don't know Indiana laws, but I do seem to recall that for a long time, the illegal guns in NYC came from VA, not NY state.


How can legally purchased guns become illegal?


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> More on fun with numbers by pro-gunners?
> 
> States with higher gun ownership do have more gun suicides.


Suicide is a choice not a crime and everyone has the absolute right to choose if they live or die


----------



## AZrailwhale (Oct 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You sure about that?
> REALLY Sure about that?
> POSITIVE?
> Yes?
> ...


Then why is gun crime skyrocketing in Canada now?  Between 2009- and 2019-gun crimes have risen 81%.  Between 2019- and 2020-gun crime rate went up 15%.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fuck'em if they don't care to live I don't give a fuck. So dumb ass if someone is going to kill themselves they will do it


You're certainly welcome to your values, me I value the lives of all people, even the ones that are ill.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How about drug od? People jumping from buildings, bridges, drownings? Driving a car in the wrong lane? Suicide by cop? No shit for brains with you it's all about the gun and fascist control


I'm not in favor of any of those, excepting reasonable gun regulations.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How can legally purchased guns become illegal?


They were not generally purchased legally or they were purchased in a state with different laws than NY.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Suicide is a choice not a crime and everyone has the absolute right to choose if they live or die


If a friend came to you and said they were depressed because their wife left them would you loan them your gun?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You're certainly welcome to your values, me I value the lives of all people, even the ones that are ill.


Fuck'em and fuck you


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I'm not in favor of any of those, excepting reasonable gun regulations.


You don't care about the act of suicide all you care about is guns you gun nut


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> They were not generally purchased legally or they were purchased in a state with different laws than NY.


So a legally purchased gun goes into a fascist state and you're fine with tha


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Fuck'em and fuck you


Cogent argument, I'm convinced.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You don't care about the act of suicide all you care about is guns you gun nut


Of course you are the one who doesn't care about the act of suicide (I believe your quote was "Fuck'em") all you care about is guns.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 13, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So a legally purchased gun goes into a fascist state and you're fine with tha


If you go to any state you're required to follow the laws of that state.  Seems simple to me.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Of course you are the one who doesn't care about the act of suicide (I believe your quote was "Fuck'em") all you care about is guns.




No...you don't care about suicide, you simply want to exploit it as a way to ban and confiscate guns.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Of course you are the one who doesn't care about the act of suicide (I believe your quote was "Fuck'em") all you care about is guns.


You're right I don't give a fuck about it. Neither do you. All you care about is the gun.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> If you go to any state you're required to follow the laws of that state.  Seems simple to me.


Show me the word require to meet a state requirement in the second amendment? Also the US supreme court has ruled that poll taxes are illegal


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 13, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...you don't care about suicide, you simply want to exploit it as a way to ban and confiscate guns.


Exactly it's all about the gun.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> If a friend came to you and said they were depressed because their wife left them would you loan them your gun?


I don't loan my guns to anyone ever.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No...you don't care about suicide, you simply want to exploit it as a way to ban and confiscate guns.


Wrong on every point.  Impressive.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're right I don't give a fuck about it. Neither do you. All you care about is the gun.


You're confusing me with you.  You are the one who ONLY cares about guns and does not care about people.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Show me the word require to meet a state requirement in the second amendment? Also the US supreme court has ruled that poll taxes are illegal


Every right comes with restrictions, some restrictions are federal, some are state, and some are local.  If you don't like the restrictions in another state you're more than welcome not to go there.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Every right comes with restrictions, some restrictions are federal, some are state, and some are local.  If you don't like the restrictions in another state you're more than welcome not to go there.




Yes....we already have all the restrictions we need......felons, the dangerously mentally ill...you can't use a gun for rape, robbery, murder, or mass public shootings....

What you morons neglect to point out is that we have all the laws we need to stop criminals....at least arrest them and stop them from future crimes...but you and the democrat party keep releasing the most violent, dangerous criminals over and over again, no matter how many times the police arrest them....

You are the problem....not normal gun owners.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes....we already have all the restrictions we need......felons, the dangerously mentally ill...you can't use a gun for rape, robbery, murder, or mass public shootings....


You know way more about than I do so answer this: If I'm a convicted criminal in one state, how do other states know that I shouldn't be allowed to possess a firearm?



2aguy said:


> You are the problem....not normal gun owners.


I have no issue with 'normal' gun owners.  I just would like to know they are responsible and knowledgeable.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You know way more about than I do so answer this: If I'm a convicted criminal in one state, how do other states know that I shouldn't be allowed to possess a firearm?
> 
> 
> I have no issue with 'normal' gun owners.  I just would like to know they are responsible and knowledgeable.




The NICS background check system.......

If the government actually submits the data.   

Sorry, but if you put mandatory training and other regulations on gun ownership and carrying, then you are allowing the government to increase each to the point that normal Americans can't afford to exercise that Right.....


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The NICS background check system.......





2aguy said:


> Sorry, but if you put mandatory training and other regulations on gun ownership and carrying, then you are allowing the government to increase each to the point that normal Americans can't afford to exercise that Right.....


A valid fear but not inevitable and it would be a valuable service for gun owners and non-gun owners alike.  I suspect most gun owners already get some kind of formal or informal instruction.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You're confusing me with you.  You are the one who ONLY cares about guns and does not care about people.


People kill themselves without guns too.

Like I said suicide is a choice that everyone has the absolute right to make.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> People kill themselves without guns too.


I believe the success rate is way lower than with guns.



Blues Man said:


> Like I said suicide is a choice that everyone has the absolute right to make.


Anyone in their right mind, yes.  My father was depressed about a medical issue and tried suicide by pills but failed.  He ended up living happy and healthy for another 20 years.  If he'd used a gun...


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Hurt my feelings? Are you mixing your meds with booze? You should really stop doing that.


Yes I am and it doesn't hurt my feelings, the meds are doctors order
One good side effect is that I well get a good nights sleep
-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Like I said suicide is a choice that everyone has the absolute right to make.


Suicidal tendencies are a mental illness. If you or someone you know is experiencing suicidal thoughts express your thoughts with a friend who may be able to relieve your friend of these thoughts.

If this is not helping, make an appointment with a Doctor.

Just a friendly suggestion

-


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You're confusing me with you.  You are the one who ONLY cares about guns and does not care about people.


You lying sack of shit.


alang1216 said:


> I'm not in favor of any of those, excepting reasonable gun regulations.


You don't give a fuck about suicides except when it comes to guns  and how do you regulated to prevent a suicide?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Every right comes with restrictions, some restrictions are federal, some are state, and some are local.  If you don't like the restrictions in another state you're more than welcome not to go there.


When a "right" has a restriction it's no longer a right. Do you even know what a right is? States cannot create restriction that hinder rights protected by the federal government.


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 14, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yes....we already have all the restrictions we need......


All guns must be registered with the local police.

You register your gun an get a security permit for the gun
can get a home security permit
You can get a carry permit
If you are caught with a firearm in public without a permit for the gun you are fined $10,000
If you are caught a second time in public with a gun, you are fined $10,000, the gun is confiscated, and you are forbidden to buy a gun for life.

-


----------



## watchingfromafar (Oct 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When a "right" has a restriction it's no longer a right.


Do you have a right to murder someone
-?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 14, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> When a "right" has a restriction it's no longer a right. Do you even know what a right is?


Untrue.  Can you name any other right that has no restrictions on it?  (hint: copyright, libel and slander vs 1st)



bigrebnc1775 said:


> States cannot create restriction that hinder rights protected by the federal government.


Again untrue.  The freedom of assembly is restricted by states and localities when they require permits for concerts and parades.

Do you even know what a right is?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> A valid fear but not inevitable and it would be a valuable service for gun owners and non-gun owners alike.  I suspect most gun owners already get some kind of formal or informal instruction.



New York and other


watchingfromafar said:


> All guns must be registered with the local police.
> 
> You register your gun an get a security permit for the gun
> can get a home security permit
> ...




The fascist posts what?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Untrue.  Can you name any other right that has no restrictions on it?  (hint: copyright, libel and slander vs 1st)
> 
> 
> Again untrue.  The freedom of assembly is restricted by states and localities when they require permits for concerts and parades.
> ...




Nope...those permits are for using a public space where more than one group may want to use the space on the same day, and it also allows the town or city time to get police and public works involved.....

The permit you are talking about is a prior restraint on the exercise of a Right...that is unConstitutional.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 14, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Do you have a right to murder someone
> -?


Talking gibberish you need to translate


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 14, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Untrue.  Can you name any other right that has no restrictions on it?  (hint: copyright, libel and slander vs 1st)
> 
> 
> Again untrue.  The freedom of assembly is restricted by states and localities when they require permits for concerts and parades.
> ...


*A right is something that cannot be legally denied*, such as the rights to free speech, press, religion, and raising a family. A privilege is something that can be given and taken away and is considered to be a special advantage or opportunity that is available only to certain people.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 14, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> All guns must be registered with the local police.
> 
> You register your gun an get a security permit for the gun
> can get a home security permit
> ...


You need to live in a fascist country that fits your life style. Pig.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I believe the success rate is way lower than with guns.
> 
> 
> Anyone in their right mind, yes.  My father was depressed about a medical issue and tried suicide by pills but failed.  He ended up living happy and healthy for another 20 years.  If he'd used a gun...


So you assume everyone who might choose to commit suicide is somehow mentally ill?

That's not necessarily true.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 15, 2022)

watchingfromafar said:


> Suicidal tendencies are a mental illness. If you or someone you know is experiencing suicidal thoughts express your thoughts with a friend who may be able to relieve your friend of these thoughts.
> 
> If this is not helping, make an appointment with a Doctor.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily true.

I would always try to talk someone out of suicide but I realize the choice is ultimately theirs not mine.  But then again the people who are the most serious about committing suicide don't tell anyone.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope...those permits are for using a public space where more than one group may want to use the space on the same day, and it also allows the town or city time to get police and public works involved.....
> 
> The permit you are talking about is a prior restraint on the exercise of a Right...that is unConstitutional.


I fail to see the distinction.  Both require following guidelines for proper use before the right can be exercised.

The right of the people peaceably to assemble can be denied by a locality if there is a valid public safety reason.  Why is bearing arms any different?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> *A right is something that cannot be legally denied*, such as the rights to free speech, press, religion, and raising a family. A privilege is something that can be given and taken away and is considered to be a special advantage or opportunity that is available only to certain people.


You need to go back to law school for a refresher since that is absolutely not true.  The right of the people peaceably to assemble can be denied if it conflicts with the rights of others, namely their safety.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Untrue.  Can you name any other right that has no restrictions on it?  (hint: copyright, libel and slander vs 1st)
> 
> 
> Again untrue.  The freedom of assembly is restricted by states and localities when they require permits for concerts and parades.
> ...


You can assemble on private property with no permits.

The use of public property for any reason may require a permit due to expected crowd sizes and impacts on local traffic and businesses etc but there are no permits required if you and some of your family and friends want to "assemble" at a public park for a picnic.

Can you tell me what other rights enumerated in the Constitution require people to pay for and attend a class, to apply and pay a fee for a permit that has to be renewed annually as people have to do in many states for their guaranteed right to keep and bear firearms?

If your state required you to pay for and attend a class and pay a fee for a permit BEFORE you could exercise your rights to free speech or practice a religion would you be OK with that?

If your state required you to pay for and attend classes and pay fees for a permits BEFORE you could claim protection of your rights under the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments would you be OK with that?

How about a being required to pay for and attend a class and pay for a permit before every single election?  You'd be OK with that too right?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You need to go back to law school for a refresher since that is absolutely not true.  The right of the people peaceably to assemble can be denied if it conflicts with the rights of others, namely their safety.


You need to know the definition of a right and privilege 
Rights are rights and cannot be infringed on privileges are grant by the government.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You need to go back to law school for a refresher since that is absolutely not true.  The right of the people peaceably to assemble can be denied if it conflicts with the rights of others, namely their safety.


And how does it conflict with the rights of others if that assembly is held on private property?

When and how would any assembly conflict with the rights of another person?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You need to know the definition of a right and privilege
> Rights are rights and cannot be infringed on privileges are grant by the government.


You're either very ignorant or very delusional.  There are *no absolute rights* in the constitution, every one comes with restrictions.  That is why we have a SCOTUS.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And how does it conflict with the rights of others if that assembly is held on private property?
> 
> When and how would any assembly conflict with the rights of another person?


The road to Woodstock, 1969:


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 15, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You need to know the definition of a right and privilege
> Rights are rights and cannot be infringed on privileges are grant by the government.


You need to know that the regulation of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence does not constitute ‘infringement.’

The Second Amendment right is not unlimited; it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right consistent with its case law.

Second Amendment ‘absolutism’ is as ignorant as it is wrongheaded.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Gun registration...yes, the democrats want it, yes, they want to use it to ban and confiscate guns....


This is as much a lie now as it was last February – just as wrong, ignorant, and baseless.

Gun registration is perfectly lawful and Constitutional; it fails as a slippery slope fallacy to claim that gun registration results in ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’

And it is a lie to claim that Democrats seek to ‘ban’ or ‘confiscate’ guns.

What is true is that conservatives are liars and demagogues – this thread is further proof of that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You need to know that the regulation of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence does not constitute ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not unlimited; it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> 
> ...


Ok dumbass what does the right to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed mean in context with regulations? 
You do not have any comprehension of the bill of rights


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You're either very ignorant or very delusional.  There are *no absolute rights* in the constitution, every one comes with restrictions.  That is why we have a SCOTUS.


Ok so slavery can be reinstituted? 
Voting rights can be taken away?
The right to redress the government can be taken away? 
The government can create a state mandated religion?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is as much a lie now as it was last February – just as wrong, ignorant, and baseless.
> 
> Gun registration is perfectly lawful and Constitutional; it fails as a slippery slope fallacy to claim that gun registration results in ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’
> 
> ...


Well liar you need to get on the same page as with your fellow gun grabbing sons of a bitch democrats. This way you will not longer look like a horses ass


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The road to Woodstock, 1969:


Private proprety


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I fail to see the distinction.  Both require following guidelines for proper use before the right can be exercised.
> 
> The right of the people peaceably to assemble can be denied by a locality if there is a valid public safety reason.  Why is bearing arms any different?




Not even close........requiring a permit simply to own a gun is an infringement on the Right...requiring a permit to access a community space where competing groups might want to use it is simply time management.....

This would be the same...requiring a permit to print an article, become a journalist or write a book ......that would be the same as requiring a permit to own a gun....

Do you think you should have to get a permit to write a book?  An article in a newspaper or magazine?  to publish a pamphlet?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I fail to see the distinction.  Both require following guidelines for proper use before the right can be exercised.
> 
> The right of the people peaceably to assemble can be denied by a locality if there is a valid public safety reason.  Why is bearing arms any different?




Nope...they allowed Socialists, the nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood here in Illinois.......they have, in the past, allowed democrat party kkk members to march in various locations here in illinois....both were met with counter protestors.....yet they could not be stopped from marching.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You need to know that the regulation of firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence does not constitute ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not unlimited; it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
> 
> ...




The actual restrictions outlined in Heller were keeping felons and the dangerously mentally ill from owning guns, denying carrying guns into courthouses....that was about it.

Everything else was allowed.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 15, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is as much a lie now as it was last February – just as wrong, ignorant, and baseless.
> 
> Gun registration is perfectly lawful and Constitutional; it fails as a slippery slope fallacy to claim that gun registration results in ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations.’
> 
> ...




Gun Registration is not Constitutional.....you do not have to register as a journalist or a priest with the government before exercising your First Amendment Rights....you doofus.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Not even close........requiring a permit simply to own a gun is an infringement on the Right...requiring a permit to access a community space where competing groups might want to use it is simply time management.....
> 
> This would be the same...requiring a permit to print an article, become a journalist or write a book ......that would be the same as requiring a permit to own a gun....
> 
> Do you think you should have to get a permit to write a book?  An article in a newspaper or magazine?  to publish a pamphlet?


It's a poll tax.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Ok so slavery can be reinstituted?
> Voting rights can be taken away?
> The right to redress the government can be taken away?
> The government can create a state mandated religion?


Yes, there are mechanisms in place to allow all those.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Private proprety


Public road.  If you had to get to a hospital you'd be very unhappy.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Not even close........requiring a permit simply to own a gun is an infringement on the Right...requiring a permit to access a community space where competing groups might want to use it is simply time management.....


Or public safety?



2aguy said:


> This would be the same...requiring a permit to print an article, become a journalist or write a book ......that would be the same as requiring a permit to own a gun....


Not in my mind or is there a public safety aspect I'm missing?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope...they allowed Socialists, the nazis to march through a Jewish neighborhood here in Illinois.......they have, in the past, allowed democrat party kkk members to march in various locations here in illinois....both were met with counter protestors.....yet they could not be stopped from marching.


Was there a valid public safety issue?  Did they require the marchers to pay for the police presence?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Yes, there are mechanisms in place to allow all those.


It's called the amendment system and approved by the people not the government


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Public road.  If you had to get to a hospital you'd be very unhappy.


Woodstock was in private property


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's called the amendment system and approved by the people not the government


It's called the amendment system and approved by the people *OR *the government


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Or public safety?
> 
> 
> Not in my mind or is there a public safety aspect I'm missing?


Poll taxes are unconstitutional.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 15, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Woodstock was in private property


Are you claiming there was no effect on anyone else?  Do you have eyes?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> It's called the amendment system and approved by the people *OR *the government


No government cannot deprive citizens of their rights


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Are you claiming there was no effect on anyone else?  Do you have eyes?


You posted a picture of Woodstock when the discussion was about public venues.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 15, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Was there a valid public safety issue?  Did they require the marchers to pay for the police presence?




Yes......the possibility of violence was there.....


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 16, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The road to Woodstock, 1969:


So the best you have is that?
And how are anyone's rights being violated by a traffic jam?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No government cannot deprive citizens of their rights


Every government can and does.  At least here on Earth.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You posted a picture of Woodstock when the discussion was about public venues.


The picture was a public road blocked by people going to Woodstock.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

2aguy said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Was there a valid public safety issue?  Did they require the marchers to pay for the police presence?
> ...


Was that factored in:  Was the route restricted?  Were the times restricted?  Did they require the marchers to pay for the police presence?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So the best you have is that?
> And how are anyone's rights being violated by a traffic jam?


If my wife was about to give birth I'd be very upset if I couldn't drive her to the hospital.  Public roads support ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, and buses and people's jobs, health, and safety depend on them.  What about their rights?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 16, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Every government can and does.  At least here on Earth.


Only fascist Nazi communist controlled countries do that


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 16, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The picture was a public road blocked by people going to Woodstock.


Was it a public road? Are you sure?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Only fascist Nazi communist controlled countries do that


Can you site any country that is different?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Was it a public road? Are you sure?


Yes.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 16, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Can you site any country that is different?


Anerica is not supposed to be if not for fascist democrats we wouldn't be. But we're taking back the loses we had in the 20th century.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 16, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Yes.


What was the name of the road?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Anerica is not supposed to be if not for fascist democrats we wouldn't be. But we're taking back the loses we had in the 20th century.


You're a delusion ideolog.  There was never a time in the US when there were no libel/slander restrictions on the 1st.  Every right has ALWAYS come with restrictions and the Dems are no more responsible than the GOP or the Whigs.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What was the name of the road?


West Shore Road


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 16, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You're a delusion ideolog.  There was never a time in the US when there were no libel/slander restrictions on the 1st.  Every right has ALWAYS come with restrictions and the Dems are no more responsible than the GOP or the Whigs.


So using your dogma voting can be restricted  like showing an ID to vote.
There is no restriction on the first amendment. You can say what ever you want to say nothing to stop you.
So tell me what does infringe mean?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 16, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So using your dogma voting can be restricted  like showing an ID to vote.


Of course it can.  Should it is another issue altogether.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> There is no restriction on the first amendment. You can say what ever you want to say nothing to stop you.
> So tell me what does infringe mean?


Infringe means that if you lie about a tragic event and people get hurt you will have to pay them nearly $1 billion.   I guess Alex Jones' free speech is not so free.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Of course it can.  Should it is another issue altogether.
> 
> 
> Infringe means that if you lie about a tragic event and people get hurt you will have to pay them nearly $1 billion.   I guess Alex Jones' free speech is not so free.


You're really confused infringed is defined as 
Definition of _infringe_​
transitive verb
1*: *to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringe a patent
2obsolete *: *DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE 

So with that said when you have a binding contract that states "shall not be infringed" would mean that any infringement would violate the law and civil rights.


----------



## LuckyDuck (Oct 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> A great column by John Lott on the democrats creating a gun registration list, why they want it, why it doesn't even work when they have it in various states and other countries...
> 
> *Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.*
> 
> ...


The new policy requiring banks to put special codes on purchases of guns via credit cards, is in effect a registration of firearms.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're really confused infringed is defined as
> Definition of _infringe_​
> transitive verb
> 1*: *to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringe a patent
> ...


You may live in your ideological utopia but in the real world EVERY right comes with limitations and SCOTUS has not yet struck them all down since every right infringes on others.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> You may live in your ideological utopia but in the real world EVERY right comes with limitations and SCOTUS has not yet struck them all down since every right infringes on others.


I just gave you the definition of infringed. You're being illogical if you think shall not be infringed means you can infringe on something.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 17, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> If my wife was about to give birth I'd be very upset if I couldn't drive her to the hospital.  Public roads support ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, and buses and people's jobs, health, and safety depend on them.  What about their rights?


Ifs and buts are no different than candy and nuts.

Calling a traffic jam that happened decades ago an example of violation of rights is the mother of all stretches.  I hoped you warmed up before posting that because if you didn't you probably hurt yourself.

And Why have you not responded to this post yet?






						Gun registration...yes, the democrats want it, yes, they want to use it to ban and confiscate guns....
					

Do you have a right to murder someone :)-?  Talking gibberish you need to translate



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 17, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Gun Registration is not Constitutional.....you do not have to register as a journalist or a priest with the government before exercising your First Amendment Rights....you doofus.


He's lying to you.  Like he always does.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> He's lying to you.  Like he always does.


Yes that one is a 100% guarantee liar.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 17, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Untrue.  Can you name any other right that has no restrictions on it?


Every right has restrictions and/or limits on its exercise.
These limits, however, may not violate the protections specified by the constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Every right has restrictions and/or limits on its exercise.
> These limits, however, may not violate the protections specified by the constitution.


I disagree a right can't be taken away without due process.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I disagree a right can't be taken away without due process.


True, but that's not what I'm talking about.
You do not have the right to murder soemone with a gun  <<<  example of a limit on the right to keep and bear arrms.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> True, but that's not what I'm talking about.
> You do not have the right to murder soemone with a gun  <<<  example of a limit on the right to keep and bear arrms.


There is no such right to murder.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> There is no such right to murder.


Correct.  And so the 2nd does not protect the use of a firearm to murder someone.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Correct.  And so the 2nd does not protect the use of a firearm to murder someone.


That is correct it's not a God given right to murder. And it never has been suggested that it was.but the government cannot infringe on the second amendment without due process and only against those who abused the right namely by murdering someone


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> That is correct it's not a God given right to murder. And it never has been suggested that it was.but the government cannot infringe on the second amendment without due process and only against those who abused the right namely by murdering someone


The point is there are limits on what you can do with your firearm and still be protected by the 2nd.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The point is there are limits on what you can do with your firearm and still be protected by the 2nd.


The only limit comes through due process. And it's only limited to individuals who abused that right.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 17, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I just gave you the definition of infringed. You're being illogical if you think shall not be infringed means you can infringe on something.


So logically you should be able to offer a right from the Constitution that has no restrictions on it.  I'll wait...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 17, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So logically you should be able to offer a right from the Constitution that has no restrictions on it.  I'll wait...


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


“Like most rights, *the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited*. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008



bigrebnc1775 said:


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Try and practice animal or human sacrifice and see what happens.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;


slander/libel



bigrebnc1775 said:


> or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You still can't storm and occupy the Capitol.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You can assemble on private property with no permits.


Hosting a concert at home: The ups and downs and permits needed​


Blues Man said:


> The use of public property for any reason may require a permit due to expected crowd sizes and impacts on local traffic and businesses etc but there are no permits required if you and some of your family and friends want to "assemble" at a public park for a picnic.


How many friends?  Do you intend to use a pavilion or other park facility?



Blues Man said:


> Can you tell me what other rights enumerated in the Constitution require people to pay for and attend a class, to apply and pay a fee for a permit that has to be renewed annually as people have to do in many states for their guaranteed right to keep and bear firearms?
> 
> If your state required you to pay for and attend a class and pay a fee for a permit BEFORE you could exercise your rights to free speech or practice a religion would you be OK with that?
> 
> ...


Which of those rights can have an impact on others if exercised improperly?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> “Like most rights, *the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited*. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
> 
> JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008
> 
> ...


"Congress shall make no law."
 You dumbass took out of context what Scalia said. He was talking about those who through due process lost their rights.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Hosting a concert at home: The ups and downs and permits needed​
> 
> How many friends?  Do you intend to use a pavilion or other park facility?
> 
> ...


A concert is subject to town noise ordinances

Pavilions at most state parks usually have to be reserved if they are not reserved then it is first come first served

And no one I know has ever needed a permit to use the rest rooms at a public park.

But you keep trying

And the only way to "improperly " exercise a right is if you violate the law or infringe on the rights of others so obviously this discussion is not about impropriety.

But tell me since you think people should have to pay for classes and permits simply to exercise one particular right why don't you want the same requirements for all rights?

Don;t you want other people to have to pay for and take classes about every religion then pay for a permit to practice a religion?

Don't you want people to have to pay for classes and permits to vote?

If it is acceptable to charge people to exercise one right then surely it is acceptable to charge a person to exercise any right.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> "Congress shall make no law."
> You dumbass took out of context what Scalia said. He was talking about those who through due process lost their rights.


So which is it?  No law or due process?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> So which is it?  No law or due process?


Congress shall make no law creating a state run religion. Only restriction to the second amendment must done through due process, and only against those who abused their second amendment right.  military firearms are protected by the second amendment.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You can assemble on private property with no permits.


Maybe none, maybe 10.


Blues Man said:


> The use of public property for any reason may require a permit due to expected crowd sizes and impacts on local traffic and businesses etc but there are no permits required if you and some of your family and friends want to "assemble" at a public park for a picnic.
> 
> Can you tell me what other rights enumerated in the Constitution require people to pay for and attend a class, to apply and pay a fee for a permit that has to be renewed annually as people have to do in many states for their guaranteed right to keep and bear firearms?
> 
> ...





Blues Man said:


> A concert is subject to town noise ordinances


So we agree that the right to assemble is not absolute?



Blues Man said:


> And the only way to "improperly " exercise a right is if you violate the law


So we agree that laws can restrict the exercise of rights?



Blues Man said:


> But tell me since you think people should have to pay for classes and permits simply to exercise one particular right why don't you want the same requirements for all rights?


The question is, should a right come with restrictions.  I say can should and they do.  What those restictions should be is another question entirely.



Blues Man said:


> Don;t you want other people to have to pay for and take classes about every religion then pay for a permit to practice a religion?


If you intend to build a church you still need to follow local zoning and building codes.  Regardless of which religion.



Blues Man said:


> Don't you want people to have to pay for classes and permits to vote?


Pay?  No.  Attend classes?  That might be a good idea.



Blues Man said:


> If it is acceptable to charge people to exercise one right then surely it is acceptable to charge a person to exercise any right.


Are you talking about a small fee or an undo burden?  Fees are fine by me.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Maybe none, maybe 10.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The right to make noise is not absolute.

Why do you assume an assembly has to have loud music playing?  If I want to invite 200 or 2000 people to a private event and I rent a banquet hall or other venue, I do not need permits.  If  I want to invite 50 people to my home for a cookout I do not need permits



You don't need a church to practice religion

And who pays for the classes?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Why do you assume an assembly has to have loud music playing?  If I want to invite 200 or 2000 people to a private event and I rent a banquet hall or other venue, I do not need permits.


I guarantee the venue has permits.



Blues Man said:


> If  I want to invite 50 people to my home for a cookout I do not need permits


Probably true but, depending on where you live, if you want to invite 500 people you might.



Blues Man said:


> And who pays for the classes?


He who takes the class of course.  If you think a government program to subsidize the poor is warranted, so be it.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I guarantee the venue has permits.
> 
> 
> Probably true but, depending on where you live, if you want to invite 500 people you might.
> ...


All public accommodation sites must have permits to be in business that has nothing to do with me needing a permit to rent the place for any assembly.

And requiring a person to pay for a class as a condition to meet before they can exercise their rights is unconstitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And requiring a person to pay for a class as a condition to meet before they can exercise their rights is unconstitutional.


You have to ask yourself:
If the right to keep and bear arms was not given to you by the state, what standing does the state have to issue, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of same?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And requiring a person to pay for a class as a condition to meet before they can exercise their rights is unconstitutional.


Is that your Constitutional law judgement or has the SCOTUS ruled on it?  Everything is constitutional until they say it isn't.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You have to ask yourself:
> If the right to keep and bear arms was not given to you by the state, what standing does the state have to issue, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of same?


The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution, a integral part of that government.  Protection and enforcement of those rights are often delegated to the States and then delegated in turn to local governments.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution,


Incorrect - at least as far the right mentioned in the bill of rights.
 Nothing in the language found therein constitutes a grant of a right.

In specific reference to the right to keep and bear arms:
_...The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This 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; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,_

And the right to free speech/lawful assembly:
_The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference._









						UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				






alang1216 said:


> Protection and enforcement of those rights are often delegated to the States and then delegated in turn to local governments.


This does not change the fact a state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Incorrect - at least as far the right mentioned in the bill of rights.
> Nothing in the language found therein constitutes a grant of a right.
> ...
> This does not change the fact a state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.


I read it just the opposite.  The Court found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone," thus "for their protection in its enjoyment ... the people must look to the States.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I read it just the opposite.


You cannot honestly do so.
"_This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"_
"_ The right was not created by the amendment;"_
Thus, your claim "The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution", proven false.

A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot honestly do so.
> "_This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"_
> "_ The right was not created by the amendment;"_
> Thus, your claim "The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution", proven false.
> ...


I can and do.  The amendment may not create the 'right' but it restricts the Feds prohibiting your right to it.  So who creates our rights if not our government?  

_*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court[1] ruling that the U.S. Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I can and do.  The amendment may not create the 'right' but it restricts the Feds prohibiting your right to it.


And thus, you _admit_, your claim that "The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution" is false.
Thank you.

A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Is that your Constitutional law judgement or has the SCOTUS ruled on it?  Everything is constitutional until they say it isn't.


It's the Supreme Court's judgement









						Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
					

Murdock v. Pennsylvania: It is unconstitutional for a state to tax people selling religious merchandise.




					supreme.justia.com
				




*4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. *


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Cogent argument, I'm convinced.


I'm not trying to convince you. Your opinion is irrelevant. We all must make our choices. Your choice is to give up your rights and liberty with the hope of government saving you. And that's fine if your weak.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And thus, you _admit_, your claim that "The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution" is false.
> Thank you.


Semantics.  The Federal Government recognizes Americans rights in the constitution.  A distinction without a difference.



M14 Shooter said:


> A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.


Don't localities issue permits for marches?  An assembly enumerated under the Bill of Rights.  Is that legal or not?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Semantics.


If by that you mean the federal government indeed does NOT grant your rights to you, contrary to your claim, then sure.
Your concession, accepted.


alang1216 said:


> Don't localities issue permits for marches?


I said:
_A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.   _ 
The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property - the use of public property is a privilege, not a right.
Feel free to try again.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It's the Supreme Court's judgement
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would advise against reading this ruling too broadly.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I would advise against reading this ruling too broadly.


For no demonstrably factual or rational reason.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> If by that you mean the federal government indeed does NOT grant your rights to you, contrary to your claim, then sure.
> Your concession, accepted.


Who grants these rights?



M14 Shooter said:


> I said:
> _A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.   _
> The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
> Feel free to try again.


So the exercise of a right can be restricted if it conflicts with the public welfare?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 18, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> For no demonstrably factual or rational reason.


Wiki: Murdock does not extend to stand for the broad proposition that a tax can never be imposed upon a missionary and that it necessarily restrains the free exercise of religion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Who grants these rights?


I accepted your concession.
If you want to make the argument that someone or comething grants your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, I suggest you cite the constitution/law which does so and copy/paste the text to that effect.


alang1216 said:


> So the exercise of a right can be restricted if it conflicts with the public welfare?


You do not have the right to use public property,.  Apples/oranges.
The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
Feel free to try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Wiki: Murdock does not extend to stand for the broad proposition that a tax can never be imposed upon a missionary and that it necessarily restrains the free exercise of religion.


Wiki:
_"The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution." The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people. 

Religions are not entirely free from facing financial burdens from the government. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. If the exercise can be taxed, the government is capable of making it prohibitively expensive and could be done only by the wealthy. 

The case also established the preferred position doctrine, which states that "[f]reedom of press, freedom of speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position", indicating that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative. _

v Bruen, in elevating the right to keep and bear arms to the same level of all the other enumerated rights,  adds the right to keep and bear arms to this list.


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 18, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I read it just the opposite.  The Court found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone," thus "for their protection in its enjoyment ... the people must look to the States.





You would have to cite that, since the Bill of Rights now applies to the States.....


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 19, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I would advise against reading this ruling too broadly.


And why would I ever take your advice on anything?


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 19, 2022)

2aguy said:


> You would have to cite that, since the Bill of Rights now applies to the States.....


The Constitution applies to all the states and supersedes state laws


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> I accepted your concession.
> If you want to make the argument that someone or comething grants your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, I suggest you cite the constitution/law which does so and copy/paste the text to that effect.


If you can't answer the question, just say so.  No shame in not knowing.



M14 Shooter said:


> You do not have the right to use public property,.  Apples/oranges.
> The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
> Feel free to try again.


As I said before, you don't have the right to have a picnic on you private property and invite 100,000 of your closest friends.  At least without a permit.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 19, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> If you can't answer the question, just say so.  No shame in not knowing.


As I proved your assertion false, there's no need for me to answer the question.


alang1216 said:


> As I said before, you don't have the right to have a picnic on you private property and invite 100,000 of your closest friends.


Did you just try to move the goalpost?   Why yes, yes you did.  

You do not have the right to use public property,.  Apples/oranges.
The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
Your concession, again, accepted.

But, to your point
There;'s no state law or local ordinance that requires me to get a permit to have a picnic on my property, regardless of the number of people I invite.   Feel free to prove otherwise.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wiki:
> _"The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution." The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people.
> 
> Religions are not entirely free from facing financial burdens from the government. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. If the exercise can be taxed, the government is capable of making it prohibitively expensive and could be done only by the wealthy.
> ...


In my county you can't bring a gun onto school grounds.  Is this constitutional?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 19, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> As I proved your assertion false, there's no need for me to answer the question.


Sure you did.



M14 Shooter said:


> Did you just try to move the goalpost?   Why yes, yes you did.
> 
> You do not have the right to use public property,.  Apples/oranges.
> The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
> Your concession, again, accepted.


If you look you'll see the goal posts were moved by you.  I was not the one who talked about events on public property needing permits.  I noted that events on private property can effect public property (the road to Woodstock as I recall).



M14 Shooter said:


> But, to your point
> There;'s no state law or local ordinance that requires me to get a permit to have a picnic on my property, regardless of the number of people I invite.   Feel free to prove otherwise.


You sure?  I assume you don't live here:

A permit is required on *private* and *public property* if _any_ of the following apply to your event:

The total number of people reasonably expected to attend on private property exceeds 500.


----------



## Flash (Oct 19, 2022)

I would register them if there was a law but unfortunately they were all lost in a tragic boating accident.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 19, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> In my county you can't bring a gun onto school grounds.


Oh look.   You can't address anything I said.
I'd be lying if I said I was surprised.
Concession accepted.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 19, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Sure you did.


I'm sorry you don't like the truth, but there's nothing I can do about it.
The USSC says you;re wrong.   You can believe otherwise, but that means you -choose- to be wrong.


alang1216 said:


> If you look you'll see the goal posts were moved by you.  I was not the one who talked about events on public property needing permits.


Yes.   And as we know, this has nothing to do with the basic exercise of a right because you do not have a right to use public property - the permit is for the use of that property, not the exercise of the right.
Your example is apples and orange - and thus, inapplicable


alang1216 said:


> You sure?


Completely.    Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 20, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> In my county you can't bring a gun onto school grounds.  Is this constitutional?


Oh I didn't realize you were just another idiot foreigner who doesn't know anything about the US.

FYI no American cares what foreigners think about the US.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 20, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Oh I didn't realize you were just another idiot foreigner who doesn't know anything about the US.
> 
> FYI no American cares what foreigners think about the US.


I hope you realized I wrote 'county' NOT 'country' and are just being humorous.  Otherwise that would make you an illiterate, idiot American, and no one cares what they think about anything.


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> I hope you realized I wrote 'county' NOT 'country' and are just being humorous.  Otherwise that would make you an illiterate, idiot American, and no one cares what they think about anything.


That's what I get for trying to read my phone without my glasses

No one is allowed to walk into any school with a gun so your county is no different than any other


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> That's what I get for trying to read my phone without my glasses


Been there, done that.  



Blues Man said:


> No one is allowed to walk into any school with a gun so your county is no different than any other


How is that NOT an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No one is allowed to walk into any school with a gun so your county is no different than any other


That's not true, of course.
Some schools allow teacher/faculty/staff to carry.
Some schools have "guardian" programs where people carry in schools.
And, of course, police/resource officers can carry in schools.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> How is that NOT an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights?


2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment  right is not unlimited.  It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:   For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.  The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
_v  Heller_

To be clear, even if a modern-day regulation is not a dead ringer for historical precursors, it still may be analogous enough to pass constitutional muster.  For example, courts can use analogies to “longstanding” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” to determine whether modern regulations are constitutionally permissible.  Id., at 626.  That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause requirement as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department
v _Bruen_


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 21, 2022)

alang1216 said:


> Been there, done that.
> 
> 
> How is that NOT an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights?


Why would it be?

There is no Constitutionally protected right that you have access to a public school building if you are not a student or do not work there.

What is an infringement is requiring people to pay for classes and permits


----------



## Blues Man (Oct 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> That's not true, of course.
> Some schools allow teacher/faculty/staff to carry.
> Some schools have "guardian" programs where people carry in schools.
> And, of course, police/resource officers can carry in schools.


The general public by law cannot bring firearms into a public school of course state laws may vary which is why talking about state laws here is a waste of time.  Teachers and cops are agents of the state and thus have other privileges granted by the state

The general public cannot bring firearms into any federal building


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Why would it be?
> 
> There is no Constitutionally protected right that you have access to a public school building if you are not a student or do not work there.
> 
> What is an infringement is requiring people to pay for classes and permits


I must be confusing you with someone else.  I thought you were the one who claimed rights cannot be infringed upon.


----------

