# Are knives arms?



## Missourian (Jan 2, 2022)

If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 2, 2022)

Yes and yes.


----------



## miketx (Jan 2, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


In certain cases they are arms. Small hand arms.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 2, 2022)

miketex said:


> In certain cases they are arms. Small hand arms.
> 
> View attachment 582774


I carry both.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 2, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


----------



## miketx (Jan 2, 2022)

Hossfly said:


> I carry both.


You any good at trimming the bush?


----------



## Muhammed (Jan 2, 2022)

miketex said:


> You any good at trimming the bush?



Do you want to find out how good?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 2, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


of course they are,, and considering at the time the 2nd was written they were the main arms of the time,,
not everyone had a gun but it was hard to find someone without a knife of some sort,,


----------



## Bobob (Jan 2, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


I don't believe that the founding fathers had knives alone as arms in mind and were referring to the right to bear arms, like guns or any deadly weapon, in the war with the British.  That was the extent of it, and the issue has morphed into the catastrophe that we have today. I own 3 guns and support gun owner's rights, but not to the extent of the ridiculous. Common sense must be used.


----------



## Hossfly (Jan 2, 2022)

miketex said:


> You any good at trimming the bush?


Like the grim reaper, I am.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 2, 2022)

Bobob said:


> I don't believe that the founding fathers had knives alone as arms in mind and were referring to the right to bear arms, like guns or any deadly weapon, in the war with the British.  That was the extent of it, and the issue has morphed into the catastrophe that we have today. I own 3 guns and support gun owner's rights, but not to the extent of the ridiculous. Common sense must be used.


what common sense should be used??


----------



## miketx (Jan 2, 2022)

Hossfly said:


> Like the grim reaper, I am.


Ya gots ta keep a trim bush!


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 2, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?




*Although Second Amendment cases and scholarship have focused on guns, the Second Amendment does not protect “the right to keep and bear Firearms.” The Amendment protects “arms,” of which firearms are only one category. In this Article, we analyze Second Amendment protection for the most common “arm” in the United States—the knife.



			https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/knives.pdf
		

*

I would say yes.

There's the "National Switchblade Act" that banned switchblades for some reason.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 2, 2022)

"Common" sense is abject naievity, and ignorance. Anyone who looks to "common" sense as foundational grounding, is beneath imperical thought....


----------



## Abatis (Jan 3, 2022)

Mostofcoursely!

In 2016 the Supreme Court held that a state law banning stun guns was a violation of the 2ndA.  The lower court had upheld the law on the primary reasoning that stun guns, "_were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment_".

The Supreme Court (in a *per curiam decision*) vacated the lower court's decision, simply quoting _Heller_ saying that “_the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding_”.

.


----------



## Golfing Gator (Jan 3, 2022)

So, not just knives but also swords, battle axes, maybe a mace or a halberd. 


It would be pretty cool to get on a train with a halberd


----------



## Bobob (Jan 3, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> what common sense should be used??


Certain guns are not necessary for gun owners to possess. For example,  AR15 rifles don't belong in Bobby Joe's arsenal, in my view. Nor do machine guns.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Certain guns are not necessary for gun owners to possess. For example,  AR15 rifles don't belong in Bobby Joe's arsenal, in my view. Nor do machine guns.


who are you to say what another person wants or needs??
and if you look at the true intent of the 2nd you will see its specific to that type of gun/weapon/arms


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Certain guns are not necessary for gun owners to possess. For example,  AR15 rifles don't belong in Bobby Joe's arsenal, in my view. Nor do machine guns.


Your opinion.

Therefore meaningless.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Certain guns are not necessary for gun owners to possess. For example,  AR15 rifles don't belong in Bobby Joe's arsenal, in my view. Nor do machine guns.


this one should really make you run and hide


----------



## Bobob (Jan 3, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> who are you to say what another person wants or needs??
> and if you look at the true intent of the 2nd you will see its specific to that type of gun/weapon/arms


We were at war with England and that is what the 2nd amendment was referring to when the word "militia" was used relative to gun possession. The ownership can be regulated.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> We were at war with England and that is what the 2nd amendment was referring to when the word "militia" was used relative to gun possession. The ownership can be regulated.


not according to the guys that wrote it,,

and when they wrote it the war was over,, it was for future reasons,,

OH and at the time of that war they were our government not a foreign power,,


----------



## Blues Man (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> We were at war with England and that is what the 2nd amendment was referring to when the word "militia" was used relative to gun possession. The ownership can be regulated.


No it was not about the war with England.

the Bill of rights was passed by Congress in 1789 the Revolutionary War ended in 1783


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No it was not about the war with England.
> 
> the Bill of rights was passed by Congress in 1789 the Revolutionary War ended in 1783


not only that but at the time the war started they were our government not a foreign power,,


----------



## Bobob (Jan 3, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> not according to the guys that wrote it,,
> 
> and when they wrote it the war was over,, it was for future reasons,,
> 
> OH and at the time of that war they were our government not a foreign power,,


Yes, for future reasons, such as the reason for the law regarding militias. So who cares that they were our government. Oh, automatic weapons are not necessary for you to own, unless you want to overthrow our Democracy and create anarchy, which may result in an autocracy.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Yes, for future reasons, such as the reason for the law regarding militias. So who cares that they were our government. Oh, automatic weapons are not necessary for you to own, unless you want to overthrow our Democracy and create anarchy, which may result in an autocracy.


or to fend off a threat of tyranny from any direction including our own government,,

and sorry but we are a constitutional republic not a democracy,, that might explain your confusion,,


----------



## Abatis (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> We were at war with England and that is what the 2nd amendment was referring to when the word "militia" was used relative to gun possession. The ownership can be regulated.



The people don't posses the right to keep and bear arms because the 2nd Amendment is there or what it says; the people possess the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to allow it to compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.

To put it another way, we don't have the right to arms because of what the 2nd Amendment says, we have the right to arms because of what the *BODY* of the Constitution _*doesn't say*_.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 3, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> or to fend off a threat of tyranny from any direction including our own government,,
> 
> and sorry but we are a constitutional republic not a democracy,, that might explain your confusion,,


I am hardly confused. The confusion is yours, totally.  Tyranny such as a militia answering only to DeSantis?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> I am hardly confused. The confusion is yours, totally.  Tyranny such as a militia answering only to DeSantis?


what about the 28 other states with them??

and I didnt say your confusion was about militias so I dont know why you spun that issue??
could you explain why??


----------



## Bobob (Jan 3, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> what about the 28 other states with them??
> 
> and I didnt say your confusion was about militias so I dont know why you spun that issue??
> could you explain why??


An example of tyranny within our government.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 3, 2022)

Bobob said:


> An example of tyranny within our government.


how is that tyranny?? what did they do that the other 28 states with them didnt do??

and your confusion was about us being a democracy when we are a constitutional republic,,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Certain guns are not necessary for gun owners to possess.


Your subjective and arbitrary opinion does not change the fact that 2nd protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms" - those in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
This includes the AR15.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 4, 2022)

Bobob said:


> We were at war with England and that is what the 2nd amendment was referring to when the word "militia" was used relative to gun possession. The ownership can be regulated.


How are you unaware of the fact an individual's right to keep and bear arms is not connected to service in the militia?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 10, 2022)

Psychologically, it would be very difficult to kill anyone with a knife.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 10, 2022)

I have cooked many birds from the store.  *I could never kill any live bird.*  I also do not know the laws of kosher slaughter.

Very few people could stab a human.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 19, 2022)

A shoulder arm capable of expelling a projectile. Knives don't make the cut (pun intended).


----------



## Stryder50 (Jan 20, 2022)

What about "Doc Martin boots" or similar heavy footwear used to stomp or kick-in a head or body parts ???

Or a baseball bat or cricket wicket, or even a 2"x4" piece of lumber ???

Many an item can be used to lethal purpose, so how far will we outlaw everyday devices/items ???


----------



## Batcat (Jan 20, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> *Although Second Amendment cases and scholarship have focused on guns, the Second Amendment does not protect “the right to keep and bear Firearms.” The Amendment protects “arms,” of which firearms are only one category. In this Article, we analyze Second Amendment protection for the most common “arm” in the United States—the knife.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Switchblades are illegal in some states but not in others. 

The free state of Florida allows an individual to own and even carry an automatic knife (switchblade). Concealed carry requires a Concealed Weapons Permit which also allows the bearer to carry a concealed firearm. 

I own several switchblade knives but I prefer to carry a fixed blade knife and a legally concealed snub nosed revolver when I am out and about. I use the switch blades to open envelopes. Switchblade knifes are fun to play with. 









						Knife Laws in Florida: Are Switchblades Illegal in Florida?
					

What knives are legal to own in Florida? Are there any restrictions regarding concealed carry? Click here to learn all about knife laws in Florida.



					www.budnealyknifemaker.com


----------



## Batcat (Jan 20, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Yes, for future reasons, such as the reason for the law regarding militias. So who cares that they were our government. Oh, automatic weapons are not necessary for you to own, unless you want to overthrow our Democracy and create anarchy, which may result in an autocracy.


A true Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what to eat for dinner. 









						The U.S. is a Democratic Constitutional Republic, and Yes, It Matters
					

Blurring of the terms democracy and republic fosters ignorance of the crucial reasons why the founders of the US structured the government as they did




					www.intellectualtakeout.org


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2022)

Bobob said:


> We were at war with England and that is what the 2nd amendment was referring to when the word "militia" was used relative to gun possession. The ownership can be regulated.





Well regulated, at the time the 2nd was written, meant " in good working order"
It has zip to do with laws.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 20, 2022)

westwall said:


> Well regulated, at the time the 2nd was written, meant " in good working order"
> It has zip to do with laws.


I meant "regulated" today, rather than prevented today


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 20, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


Why are they called "arms" ? Mine is as big as yer leg


----------



## EvMetro (Jan 20, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


According to lefties, sticks and stones are considered arms.  Just check with the J6 hoaxers what an armed insurrection is.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2022)

Bobob said:


> I meant "regulated" today, rather than prevented today







Yeah, but the 2nd was written for a specific reason.  That is why it was worded as carefully as it was.  Remember, in colonial America the first artillery unit was PRIVATE.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 20, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


Tasers are.  Guns are.  Can't see a rational argument against knives.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 20, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, but the 2nd was written for a specific reason.  That is why it was worded as carefully as it was.  Remember, in colonial America the first artillery unit was PRIVATE.


It was worded that way only for that time in our history. The future, as we know it, was unimaginable.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 20, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?



I would have to say that the protection is _implied. _But I wouldn't expect it to hold up in court.

After all, a militia can be armed with a sword, and what is a sword but a long knife?  If you mount a bayonet onto your rifle, are you more or less or better armed?

Cannot an armory stock knives and swords?  Can you not have an arsenal of weapons?  Isn't a knife a weapon?  So can't you have an arsenal of knives and swords?

Still, I wouldn't expect the argument to easily hold up in court without a fight as gthey already think we are far too much armed.



			http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/knives.pdf#:~:text=Knives%20are%20clearly%20among%20the%20%E2%80%9Carms%E2%80%9D%20which%20are,%20law-abiding%20citizens%20for%20lawful%20purposes%2C%E2%80%9D%20including%20self-defense.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2022)

Bobob said:


> It was worded that way only for that time in our history. The future, as we know it, was unimaginable.






You are categorically wrong.  Any sample reading of the Founders thoughts, as regards the 2nd, is very clear that they meant it for the duration of the country.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 20, 2022)

westwall said:


> You are categorically wrong.  Any sample reading of the Founders thoughts, as regards the 2nd, is very clear that they meant it for the duration of the country.


Absolutely correct....as it existed. Had they known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today,
who knows what their ruling would be. Get real. Muskets vs. AK47s. There has to be changes in the form of regulations, which is perfectly legal and necessary.


----------



## westwall (Jan 20, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Absolutely correct....as it existed. Had they known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today,
> who knows what their ruling would be. Get real. Muskets vs. AK47s. There has to be changes in the form of regulations, which is perfectly legal and necessary.






Cannon were the "assault weapon" of the day.  Normal everyday people had them.  You think an assault weapon is bad, look at the damage a 12 pounder Napoleon loaded with grape shot will do.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 20, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Absolutely correct....as it existed. Had they known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today,
> who knows what their ruling would be. Get real. Muskets vs. AK47s. There has to be changes in the form of regulations, which is perfectly legal and necessary.


George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Change my mind.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 20, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
> Change my mind.



Let's ask George himself:


----------



## Winco (Jan 20, 2022)

Hossfly said:


> I carry both.


Awesome.
As you should and you have that RIGHT.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
> Change my mind.


George Washington ?


----------



## Bobob (Jan 21, 2022)

EvMetro said:


> According to lefties, sticks and stones are considered arms.  Just check with the J6 hoaxers what an armed insurrection is.


Ya mean that they invaded our Capitol with sticks and stones?


----------



## EvMetro (Jan 21, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Ya mean that they invaded our Capitol with sticks and stones?


You do not sound very informed.  Nobody had any guns at the j6 event other than law enforcement, yet lefties promote the notion that j6 was an armed insurrection.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 21, 2022)

Bobob said:


> George Washington ?


Yes.  You know - one of the founders of this country
A person you suggest that, had he "known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today", might heve thought differently about the 2nd.
So...
Change my mind.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  You know - one of the founders of this country
> A person you suggest that, had he "known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today", might heve thought differently about the 2nd.
> So...
> Change my mind.


Today's weapons are a far cry from the muskets used in Washington's America. Nobody in their right mind would approve of the weaponry that is available to today's gun owners. Unnecessary, for sure.
AK47? C'mon man!! I do not care about your mind set. I care that our gun laws are not being enforced and gun ownership not regulated. Guns are readily available to buy and are in the hands of the wrong people, the Menéndez brothers being  prime examples. Can you procure them illegally? Sure, but why do that when you can buy all you want legally.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 22, 2022)

Golfing Gator said:


> So, not just knives but also swords, battle axes, maybe a mace or a halberd.


...and Nunchucks.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  You know - one of the founders of this country
> A person you suggest that, had he "known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today", might heve thought differently about the 2nd.
> So...
> Change my mind.


Also, an American expressing his personal, subjective opinion – and as already correctly noted, an opinion that is meaningless, completely devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘combat’ crime, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ and not to ‘deter’ government tyranny.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that sanctions insurrectionist dogma, nothing that authorizes the people to engage in an act of treason by taking up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people – the Founding Generation did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they had just created.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ...and Nunchucks.


and angry women


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> It was worded that way only for that time in our history. The future, as we know it, was unimaginable.




Oh....you are one of those who think the First Amendment only protects printing presses and Quill pens...........


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 22, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Psychologically, it would be very difficult to kill anyone with a knife.


It happens all the time.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 22, 2022)

Knives were everyday tools in those days.  Have you e


toobfreak said:


> I would have to say that the protection is _implied. _But I wouldn't expect it to hold up in court.
> 
> After all, a militia can be armed with a sword, and what is a sword but a long knife?  If you mount a bayonet onto your rifle, are you more or less or better armed?
> 
> ...


Have you ever thought of the origin of the term “penknife”?  Everyone literate carried a small knife to sharpen the quills people wrote with (quills are bird feathers).  Knives were and are constantly useful in everyday life.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Absolutely correct....as it existed. Had they known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today,
> who knows what their ruling would be. Get real. Muskets vs. AK47s. There has to be changes in the form of regulations, which is perfectly legal and necessary.


A small cannon loaded with grapeshot could do far more damage than an AK-47.  Cannon were legal for any civilian to possess.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 22, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Psychologically, it would be very difficult to kill anyone with a knife.




Actually, you are wrong....in Britain, British teenagers are knifing each other to death at alarming rates.......to the point the British government wants to ban knives that have points on them...........

Back in the 1950s, knives were the weapon of choice of gangs in the U.S......going into the mid  1960s, that changed, and guns became the weapon of choice.....Britain is going to experience this as their young men become more and more violent, and less afraid of the penalties and police...









						Knife offences hit record high in 2019 in England and Wales
					

Police recorded 45,267 crimes, concentrated in big cities, 49% higher than in 2011




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Yes, for future reasons, such as the reason for the law regarding militias. So who cares that they were our government. Oh, automatic weapons are not necessary for you to own, unless you want to overthrow our Democracy and create anarchy, which may result in an autocracy.


AR15 is not automatic ir is semiautomatic just like a ton of other non threatening hunting rifles that arent black.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Today's weapons are a far cry from the muskets used in Washington's America. Nobody in their right mind would approve of the weaponry that is available to today's gun owners. Unnecessary, for sure.
> AK47? C'mon man!! I do not care about your mind set. I care that our gun laws are not being enforced and gun ownership not regulated. Guns are readily available to buy and are in the hands of the wrong people, the Menéndez brothers being  prime examples. Can you procure them illegally? Sure, but why do that when you can buy all you want legally.


There was an automatic fire arm at the time of the Bill of Rights writing. Didnt stop them then.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There was an automatic fire arm at the time of the Bill of Rights writing. Didnt stop them then.


So what?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> So what?


You just tried to argue if they had know they wouldnt have done it,


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 22, 2022)

Vastator said:


> "Common" sense is abject naievity, and ignorance. Anyone who looks to "common" sense as foundational grounding, is beneath imperical thought....


.

Common sense has more of an influence over life expectancy than empirical thought does ... 

.​


----------



## Bobob (Jan 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> AR15 is not automatic ir is semiautomatic just like a ton of other non threatening hunting rifles that arent black.


That is an example. Pick any of today's advanced weapons. You know what I mean.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 22, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Common sense has more of an influence over life expectancy than empirical thought does ...
> 
> .​


I’d love to hear your argument to that point…


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 22, 2022)

Vastator said:


> I’d love to hear your argument to that point…


.

Use your empirical thought to figure it out. 
You can start with idea I wasn't arguing about anything ...   

.​


----------



## Bobob (Jan 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You just tried to argue if they had know they wouldnt have done it,


Wouldn't have done what? What they did was related to what they had, and in no way could they have
anticipated today's destruction.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 22, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Use your empirical thought to figure it out.
> You can start with idea I wasn't arguing about anything ...
> ...


I graciously accept your submission.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Wouldn't have done what? What they did was related to what they had, and in no way could they have
> anticipated today's destruction.


Wrong they had postive PROOF that high capacity auto and semi auto fire firearms were not only POSSIBLE but in reality existed already when they created the amendment.


----------



## Vastator (Jan 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong they had postive PROOF that high capacity auto and semi auto fire firearms were not only POSSIBLE but in reality existed already when they created the amendment.


Additionally… Per such train of thought… Free speech could only be applied to the town crier, gossip, and freedom of the “Press” to the printing press. Sorry Mormons, and Pastafarians… Kick rocks. The protections don’t cover you…


----------



## Bobob (Jan 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong they had postive PROOF that high capacity auto and semi auto fire firearms were not only POSSIBLE but in reality existed already when they created the amendment.


Wrong. They did not and could not anticipate today's weaponry.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 22, 2022)

Vastator said:


> I graciously accept your submission.


.

Shit dude ... You lack the common sense necessary to understand I got extra credit for spelling it correctly ...   

.​


----------



## Vastator (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Wrong. They did not and could not anticipate today's weaponry.


Shocker! This just in… The founding fathers weren’t clairvoyant!

Instead… they authored a constitution founded on something that never changes. Human nature…


----------



## Vastator (Jan 22, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Shit dude ... You lack the common sense necessary to understand I got extra credit for spelling it correctly ...
> 
> .​


I noticed that! Well done. Maybe that makes up for a small portion of the auto-“incorrects” I’ve been subject to…


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Today's weapons are a far cry from the muskets used in Washington's America.


Completely irrelevant.  The 2A says nothing about any of that!  When it was written, it authorized private militias to be fully equipped with the latest available as any other standing army, jackass.  Are you really that stupid to suggest people of that day were not aware that weapons of the future would continually advance?






These people fully intended that citizens be equipted to defend against ALL ENEMIES, foreign OR domestic, otherwise, there was no point of it.



Bobob said:


> Nobody in their right mind would approve of the weaponry that is available to today's gun owners. Unnecessary, for sure.


  Fuck off, tulip.  You have an awful lot to learn about real Americans, not the kind of dog shit you hang out with that can't light a match because your mommy would yell at you.




Bobob said:


> AK47? C'mon man!!





 You are free to choose not to buy one. Don't even think about trying to decide what the other 300 million of us ought to buy or have the right to choose!



Bobob said:


> I do not care about your mind set. I care that our gun laws are not being enforced and gun ownership not regulated. Guns are readily available to buy and are in the hands of the wrong people, the Menéndez brothers being  prime examples. Can you procure them illegally? Sure, but why do that when you can buy all you want legally.



Fearmongering BONEHEADS like you inevitably lead every country to regulation which inevitably leads to confiscation.  Lawful private citizens get disarmed while the actual criminals go right on using guns in robberies and murder, in every case actually resulting in THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what little commie gun grabbers like you set out to accomplish, because you always wrongly identify the GUN as the problem, instead of the socioeconomic policies you progs set forth which force people INTO crime.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Today's weapons are a far cry from the muskets used in Washington's America.


And yet...
George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30rd magazines.
Change my mind.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Also, an American expressing his personal, subjective opinion – and as already correctly noted, an opinion that is meaningless, completely devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.


And yet...
George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Tell us why you disagree.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 22, 2022)

Bobob said:


> That is an example. Pick any of today's advanced weapons. You know what I mean.


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the _Second Amendment_ .  We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.  Just as the First Amendment  protects modern forms of communications, _e.g._, _Reno_ v. _American Civil Liberties Union_, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment  applies to modern forms of search, _e.g._, _Kyllo_ v. _United States_, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , *the Second Amendment  extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*





						DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 22, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Actually, you are wrong....in Britain, British teenagers are knifing each other to death at alarming rates.......to the point the British government wants to ban knives that have points on them...........


Nevertheless, murder rates in places where guns are banned are generally lower then murder rates in places that have guns.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 22, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> It happens all the time.


Most murder and suicide attempts with knives fail.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most murder and suicide attempts with knives fail.


No they dont.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No they dont.


Most suicide attempts without guns fail.  Here.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most suicide attempts without guns fail.  Here.


That doesnt say what you think it says. Only 5 percent of all suicide attempts use firearms. So a hell of a lot of people kill themselves with out firearms.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That doesnt say what you think it says. Only 5 percent of all suicide attempts use firearms. So a hell of a lot of people kill themselves with out firearms.


Over half "successful" suicides in USA are by guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 22, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Nevertheless, murder rates in places where guns are banned are generally lower then murder rates in places that have guns.




And that has no relationship to guns........their criminal cultures are different with less emphasis on murder......because their criminals have all the access to guns they want, they simply choose not to commit murder with them.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 22, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Over half "successful" suicides in USA are by guns.




And all of the successful suicides in China, South Korea, and Japan are not by guns.....and they commit suicide at rates higher than our people do...so the facts show that guns are not the issue.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 22, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Nevertheless, murder rates in places where guns are banned are generally lower then murder rates in places that have guns.


Really.
Compare and contrast California and New Hampshire.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Jan 22, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And all of the successful suicides in China, South Korea, and Japan are not by guns.....and they commit suicide at rates higher than our people do...so the facts show that guns are not the issue.


Sadly they do not view Suicide as a sin.

As a Jew I believe the suffering of those who commit suicide will be millennia long but not eternal.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 22, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Sadly they do not view Suicide as a sin.
> 
> As a Jew I believe the suffering of those who commit suicide will be millennia long but not eternal.




Since we are made in God's image, I and he has forgiven us for our sins already...and he knows our most intimate thoughts, I think he will forgive them........he knows that which drove them to that desperate act....but only he knows what he will do with them...


----------



## Bobob (Jan 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the _Second Amendment_ .  We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.  Just as the First Amendment  protects modern forms of communications, _e.g._, _Reno_ v. _American Civil Liberties Union_, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment  applies to modern forms of search, _e.g._, _Kyllo_ v. _United States_, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , *the Second Amendment  extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You may have 2nd amendment protection, but that does not negate the intention of the founding fathers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 23, 2022)

Bobob said:


> You may have 2nd amendment protection, but that does not negate the intention of the founding fathers.


  
The intention of the founding fathers was, in part, that the people had access to firearms in a sufficinnt number and of a sufficient type, to create and maintain an effective militia.
Today, that means AR15s, not muskets.

Thus:
George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Tell us why you disagree.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The intention of the founding fathers was, in part, that the people had access to firearms in a sufficinnt number and of a sufficient type, to create and maintain an effective militia.
> Today, that means AR15s, not muskets.
> 
> Thus:
> ...



People with AR15s don't stand much of a chance against people with M4s.

Plus, all the other crap the US military has. 

Did you know the US military has a machinegun that fires grenades?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The intention of the founding fathers was, in part, that the people had access to firearms in a sufficinnt number and of a sufficient type, to create and maintain an effective militia.
> Today, that means AR15s, not muskets.
> 
> Thus:
> ...


to hell with ar15's,, that mean full auto and every other arm a soldier would carry,,


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 23, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> People with AR15s don't stand much of a chance against people with M4s.
> 
> Plus, all the other crap the US military has.
> 
> Did you know the US military has a machinegun that fires grenades?


.

Great ... Then he wouldn't mind them having M4's.
Thanks for cooperating and offering better ideas.

Did you know that the fighting part of our Revolutionary War was started, 
when the British were on their way to confiscate guns and ammo in Concord?

Look it up ... It's called the Shot Heard Around the World

.​


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 23, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Great ... Then he wouldn't mind them having M4's.
> Thanks for cooperating and offering better ideas.
> ...



During the Revolutionary war, civilians are military had comparable arms.

The British let state militias have cannon.

And muskets are muskets. One isn't much better than another as long as it shoots when you pull the trigger.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 23, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> During the Revolutionary war, civilians are military had comparable arms.
> 
> The British let state militias have cannon.
> 
> And muskets are muskets. One isn't much better than another as long as it shoots when you pull the trigger.


.

Which is completely irrelevant to anything I posted ...
I am also pretty sure you didn't look it up and don't know who was fighting, and who ended up retreating back to Boston.

It certainly didn't turn out the way you might want to suggest it should have.

.​


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 23, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> People with AR15s don't stand much of a chance against people with M4s.
> 
> Plus, all the other crap the US military has.
> 
> Did you know the US military has a machinegun that fires grenades?


And yet Afghanistan and Vietnam stand as examples of that simply not being true.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet Afghanistan and Vietnam stand as examples of that simply not being true.



Both Afghanistan and Vietnam had full auto weapons.

You don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 23, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Both Afghanistan and Vietnam had full auto weapons.
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about.


LOL insurgents in the US would have that also numbnuts


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL insurgents in the US would have that also numbnuts



Dipshit, 

how?


----------



## Crepitus (Jan 23, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


Of course not, you have to have a gun to be properly armed.  Preferably a big one.  At least one, maybe two.  Probably should have  pistol and a rifle just in case.  Semiautomatic of course, and gotta have tacti-cool rail with lotsa attachments and at least a 30 round mag.  you should have a back-up pistol, just in case.  You know in ankle holster.  Don't forget the extra mags!  You can never be too careful!!  And if you want to carry a knife, get one of these:


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 23, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Dipshit,
> 
> how?


Easy , convert some buy some use the thousands already in private hands steal some and use the ones from deserting army units. same as Afghanistan and Vietnam. You of course are aware that fully auto weapons are legal in most states in the US and are owned by a lot of civilians RIGHT?


----------



## evenflow1969 (Jan 23, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


Should be. I use the shit out of mine every day. With out the knife kinda renders my gun useless. How the fuck am I going to clean what I kill? Makes my fishing pole useless also. Go buy something at the store. How the fuck you gunna get through all that packaging? Need the damn thing for day to day survival. I know y'all don't like some of those butch lesbians but if I forget my knife I am looking for one they always have a knife. Also don't hurt my feelings as much that they are playing for the other team.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The intention of the founding fathers was, in part, that the people had access to firearms in a sufficinnt number and of a sufficient type, to create and maintain an effective militia.
> Today, that means AR15s, not muskets.
> 
> Thus:
> ...


The founding fathers were referring to militias formed to fight the British, and not to kill students in schools or go to riots with an AK47 in tow, or have them lying around the house. A firearm to fight the British. No way did they foresee today's disaster. You simply are determined to have any weapon you desire, the devil be damned.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 23, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


No, a knife is considered a weapon. An armed person has a gun.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 23, 2022)

Bobob said:


> The founding fathers were referring to militias formed to fight the British, and not to kill students in schools or go to riots with an AK47 in tow, or have them lying around the house. A firearm to fight the British. No way did they foresee today's disaster. You simply are determined to have any weapon you desire, the devil be damned.




No way did they foresee the governments of Europe murdering 15 million innocent men, women and children........that number is greater than the number of all violent gun murder in the U.S. for the last 87 years....and those 15 million innocent men, women and children were murdered in a 6 year time span..

Had Washington and the Founder known that governments would become that evil...in modern times of science, universities, the rule of law, and democracies....they would have mandated that all homes have more than one AR-15 or M-4 Rifle............and that the government couldn't have any guns...


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 23, 2022)

Bobob said:


> The founding fathers were referring to militias formed to fight the British, and not to kill students in schools or go to riots with an AK47 in tow, or have them lying around the house. A firearm to fight the British. No way did they foresee today's disaster. You simply are determined to have any weapon you desire, the devil be damned.


there is so much wrong in that statement its hard to know where to begin,,

the 2nd A is for any threat foreign or domestic and why those words are in every oath taken by  soldiers and those elected to government,,,


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 23, 2022)

Bobob said:


> and angry women


What’s interesting is that prior to _McDonald,_ the lower courts held that New York’s law banning Nunchucks was Constitutional since the Second Amendment didn’t apply to the states and lower jurisdictions.

After _McDonald,_ the Supreme Court returned the case to the lower courts to reconsider the issue; with the Second Amendment now incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions, the New York law was invalidated as in violation of the Second Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 23, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Wrong. They did not and could not anticipate today's weaponry.


True but legally irrelevant – just as the Founding Generation couldn’t anticipate radio and television, which are entitled to First Amendment protections.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 23, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> True but legally irrelevant – just as the Founding Generation couldn’t anticipate radio and television, which are entitled to First Amendment protections.


thats not true you stupid fuck,,
are you saying the founders were couldnt see advancements in tech??

in their lifetimes firearms had advanced a lot and were on the edge of even greater advancements,,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 23, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> People with AR15s don't stand much of a chance against people with M4s.


You're right.
The 2nd Amendment -should- cover the right of the people to own and use M4s, M240s and Mk19 AGLs as well.
Glad you agree.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 23, 2022)

Bobob said:


> The founding fathers were referring to militias formed to fight the British....


Thus:
George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
Tell us why you disagree.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 24, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Thus:
> George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
> Tell us why you disagree.


If so, his approval would include strict controls. You make a statement that can't be supported.
The rule was for guns to be in the hands of militia fighting in that conflict, and you are stretching it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> If so, his approval would include strict controls. You make a statement that can't be supported.
> The rule was for guns to be in the hands of militia fighting in that conflict, and you are stretching it.


how about you back up your claim??


----------



## Bobob (Jan 24, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> how about you back up your claim??


Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.


got a link to back up your opinion??

I think youre forgetting in their lifetime they had seen advancements equal to what we see today,,
they had multi barrel and rifled barrels that were worlds ahead of what existed 20 yrs before,,

so again are you going to back up your claims like you wanted others to do or are you going to just keep giving you uneducated opinions??


----------



## Bobob (Jan 24, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> got a link to back up your opinion??
> 
> I think youre forgetting in their lifetime they had seen advancements equal to what we see today,,
> they had multi barrel and rifled barrels that were worlds ahead of what existed 20 yrs before,,
> ...


Give it up, lamb chop. You cannot be that ignorant. Look what the hell is going on in our country today.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Give it up, lamb chop. You cannot be that ignorant. Look what the hell is going on in our country today.


we arent talking about today dumbass,,,

you said the founders couldnt imagine something they were actually watching happen,,

everything form guns to artillery were advancing by leaps and bounds right in front of them,,


----------



## Abatis (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.



Madison specifically discussed the armed citizenry and the ratio of armed citizens to "official" soldiers of the government's "standing army". 

Madison said that each soldier would be "opposed" (his word) by 17 armed citizens.

Now, Madison's ratio has widened to about 30 armed citizens opposing each "soldier" (LOL) of today's active and reserve armed forces.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 24, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> we arent talking about today dumbass,,,
> 
> you said the founders couldnt imagine something they were actually watching happen,,
> 
> everything form guns to artillery were advancing by leaps and bounds right in front of them,,


You aren't talking about today, cupcake. I am. We know that the founding fathers were referring to their situation. What was being developed is a far cry from what we are discussing.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 24, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Madison specifically discussed the armed citizenry and the ratio of armed citizens to "official" soldiers of the government's "standing army".
> 
> Madison said that each soldier would be "opposed" (his word) by 17 armed citizens.
> 
> Now, Madison's ratio has widened to about 30 armed citizens opposing each "soldier" (LOL) of today's active and reserve armed forces.


Armed citizens in their world at that time. Get real.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> You aren't talking about today, cupcake. I am. We know that the founding fathers were referring to their situation. What was being developed is a far cry from what we are discussing.


no we are not referring to the founders situation,, you are just making shit up and refuse to back it up with proof,,

now on the other hand we know what youre claiming is wrong because they wrote down exactly what they intended,,

and as I said before in every oath taken by soldiers and elected politicians it says,,
" from enemies both foreign or domestic"


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.


.

They understood the nature of the government attempting to disarm you ... And started a war over it among other things.

.​


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 24, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Thus:
> George Washington would have,  unquestionably, fully approved of every potential militiaman, and every frontier family, being in possession of an AR15 and a cartridge box full of loaded 30-rd magazines.
> Tell us why you disagree.



That's a tough one.

If George were here today, he'd see that we no longer had muskets.

If some maniac is going to shoot up a school with a musket, he'd shoot one child, reload over 30 seconds to a minute, and then shoot another kid.

My guess is that the kids would run off after one shot.

Compare that to AR15s with 30 round mags. You could shoot 30 kids without pause.

I would like to get Washington's opinion on all this.

I assume he'd say that an AR15 is too much firepower to put in the hands of idiots.


----------



## Bobob (Jan 24, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> no we are not referring to the founders situation,, you are just making shit up and refuse to back it up with proof,,
> 
> now on the other hand we know what youre claiming is wrong because they wrote down exactly what they intended,,
> 
> ...


The bottom line is that I don't like to read that a 16yr old shot up his school with an AR15, or a 17 yr old marching into a violent protest, gun in hand. They should not be readily available, and should be regulated. I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 24, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> I would like to get Washington's opinion on all this.


.

He'd probably tell you that you should have beat that kid's ass a long time before he ever thought about shooting up a school.
Send that little fella's rear end out into the wilderness and we have a job for him that he isn't going to like.

.​


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> The bottom line is that I don't like to read that a 16yr old shot up his school with an AR15, or a 17 yr old marching into a violent protest, gun in hand. They should not be readily available, and should be regulated. I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.


I dont like to read about those things either,, but they have nothing to do with what the founders thought or intended and I am positive they wouldnt be for any gun control because of those things because they knew freedom and life has its risks,,

are you still whining about kyle rittenhouse?? he didnt march into a violent protest gun in hand,, he stepped up to protect his community when the government refused to do their job,,


----------



## Bobob (Jan 24, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> They understood the nature of the government attempting to disarm you ... And started a war over it among other things.
> 
> .​


They understood the nature of the war they were fighting. It was a war with another country over our Maritime rights. Nothing to do with our government disarming you. It was specific as to who could
carry weapons and for what purpose. 
I own guns and do not want to lose that right, but there should be enforced regulations.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> They understood the nature of the war they were fighting. It was a war with another country over our Maritime rights. Nothing to do with our government disarming you. It was specific as to who could
> carry weapons and for what purpose.
> I own guns and do not want to lose that right, but there should be enforced regulations.


where is it specific as to who could carry weapons??

what I am reading is it says 
THE PEOPLE",,


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> They understood the nature of the war they were fighting. It was a war with another country over our Maritime rights.


.

Sweetie ... I wasn't talking about your nonsense.

I was talking about when the British were on their way to Concord to confiscate guns and ammo ...
And ran into the Minutemen at the North Bridge outside of Lexington before figuring out we weren't playing games and retreating back to Boston.

.​


----------



## Abatis (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Armed citizens in their world at that time. Get real.



Madison's numbers were the specifics that explain a principle that has no expiration.

The principle was, if the national forces ever become under the power of a tyrant, the largest national standing army that could possibly be maintained would face overwhelming and insurmountable armed citizen opposition.

*Madison said*:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, . . .​​
Why would you think that principle would have an (unwritten) expiration date?

That this explanation is in a Federalist Paper, #46 of *85 which were written to explain the powers that would be conferred if the Constitution were ratified*, what makes you think a power would ever be surrendered by the people, to allow the government to extinguish this principle?

.


----------



## Abatis (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> They should not be readily available, and should be regulated. I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.



Of all guns available to citizens right now, an AR-15 and its standard capacity (30 round) magazine, have the greatest level of constitutional protection under the 2nd Amendment.

There are three 'prongs' of the Supreme Court's protection criteria, used to decide if the citizen possession and use of a gun is beyond the regulatory powers of government.

The Court asks the following questions:

Is the gun of a type that is _part of the ordinary military equipment_​and/or​Is the gun of a type that could be _used advantageously in the common defense_ and/or​Is the gun of a type _in common use by the citizens at the time_ (which means, at the current time and/or at the time of the Court's evaluation).​
Any YES, if a gun meets *any* of those criteria, the power being claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled (or invalidated if the law is already in force).

In _Heller_, the Court only used the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes on handguns . . . When an "assault weapon" ban comes before them, *ALL* criteria will be employed to invalidate that law because "assault weapons" meet *ALL* the criteria..

.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> If so, his approval would include strict controls.


Prove this to be true.


Bobob said:


> You make a statement that can't be supported.


And yet, you know it is true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Just common sense.


^^^^
Concession of the point.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Give it up, lamb chop. You cannot be that ignorant.


Says the guy who does not believe George Washington would-fully- approve of his militiamane and frontier families having an AR15 and a crate box full of loaded 30rd magazines.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 24, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> That's a tough one.
> If George were here today, he'd see that we no longer had muskets.


We're not talking about today.   We're talking about in his time.


Otis Mayfield said:


> If some maniac is going to shoot up a school with a musket, he'd shoot one child, reload over 30 seconds to a minute, and then shoot another kid.


In his day ';school shootings' were called 'indian raids'
Thus, Washington would approve of his frontiersmens' possession of AR15 - to stop these raids.
And...  no one wuld use a musket to kill a bunch of kids- they'd use a tomahark or hatchet


Otis Mayfield said:


> I assume he'd say that an AR15 is too much firepower to put in the hands of idiots.


For no rational reason whatsoever.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> The bottom line is that I don't like to read that a 16yr old shot up his school with an AR15, or a 17 yr old marching into a violent protest, gun in hand.


Sometimes, people abuse freedom.
The only way to prevent this is to take away freedom.
Why should people have their freedoms removed because of your irrational fears?


Bobob said:


> They should not be readily available, and should be regulated.


You cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, the above.


Bobob said:


> I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.


You have no rational basis for this position.


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> People with AR15s don't stand much of a chance against people with M4s.
> 
> Plus, all the other crap the US military has.
> 
> Did you know the US military has a machinegun that fires grenades?





Tell that to the Afghans.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 24, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> There's the "National Switchblade Act" that banned switchblades for some reason.



That's very much relaxed these days.

Here in Florida, you can open carry a switchblade (or "automatic"), but can't slip it into your pocket to conceal it unless you have a concealed carry permit...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 24, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Certain guns are not necessary for gun owners to possess. For example,  AR15 rifles don't belong in Bobby Joe's arsenal, in my view. Nor do machine guns.



Would you be agreeable to someone owning a Mini-14; what is commonly referred to as a "ranch rifle". It's what I learned to shoot with in Boy Scouts. Would that be okay?

This is the Mini-14:


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 24, 2022)

westwall said:


> Tell that to the Afghans.


.

He might be able to tell it the crocheted afghan hanging over the back of his couch ...
I doubt he could find an Afghan to talk to if you gave him a map.

.​


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 26, 2022)

Bobob said:


> They understood the nature of the war they were fighting. It was a war with another country over our Maritime rights. Nothing to do with our government disarming you. It was specific as to who could
> carry weapons and for what purpose.
> I own guns and do not want to lose that right, but there should be enforced regulations.


Do you know any history at all?  The Revolution was a revolt against a government that we felt was denying us our god-given rights as Englishmen.  It had nothing to do with maritime rights.


----------



## Batcat (Jan 26, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> Would you be agreeable to someone owning a Mini-14; what is commonly referred to as a "ranch rifle". It's what I learned to shoot with in Boy Scouts. Would that be okay?
> 
> This is the Mini-14:


Nice weapon. Semi-auto just like the AR-15. The Mini-14 has a nice wooden stock. The Ar-15 is easier to modify. 









						AR-15 vs Mini-14 – 2020 Comparison - The Prepper Insider
					

The Prepper Insider is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. You’re trekking. The sky above begins to darken. The stars give ... Read more




					theprepperinsider.com


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Do you know any history at all?  The Revolution was a revolt against a government that we felt was denying us our god-given rights as Englishmen.  It had nothing to do with maritime rights.





He's confusing the war of 1812 with the revolution


----------



## BlackSand (Jan 26, 2022)

westwall said:


> He's confusing the war of 1812 with the revolution


.

In the War of 1812 ... The British Regulars bit off more than they could chew in the Battle of New Orleans as well.

They got their rear ends completely ruined, by militia for the most part.
A reporter at the time described the British lines on the battlefield as being a solid carpet of red and dead bodies.
They had 5000 more experience British troops offshore and decided to turn tail and run before getting them killed too.

It took the troops and militia under Gen. Jackson and the Privateer Jean Lafitte, 45 minutes to win that one ... 
Suffering 13 dead and 39 wounded to the British with 291 dead and 1216 wounded.

Some credit can also be given to the Choctaw who were simply listed as "Belligerents" in the fight ... 

.​


----------



## Bobob (Jan 26, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Do you know any history at all?  The Revolution was a revolt against a government that we felt was denying us our god-given rights as Englishmen.  It had nothing to do with maritime rights.


Wrong. My comment was in response to the gun rights thingy.

James Madison and Gun Control - History Mash​https://historymash.com › 2018/06/07 › james-madison...


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 26, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Nice weapon. Semi-auto just like the AR-15. The Mini-14 has a nice wooden stock. The Ar-15 is easier to modify.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So is the Mini-14 more acceptable for personal ownership than an AR-15?


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Says the guy who does not believe George Washington would-fully- approve of his militiamane and frontier families having an AR15 and a crate box full of loaded 30rd magazines.



George Washington might just as well say, "AR15s are too much fire power to put into the hands of one man."

It took a minute to 30 seconds to reload a musket.


----------



## westwall (Jan 26, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> George Washington might just as well say, "AR15s are too much fire power to put into the hands of one man."
> 
> It took a minute to 30 seconds to reload a musket.





No, he would have said that whatever the military is using the PEOPLE  should have too.

He was VERY clear on that.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 26, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> George Washington might just as well say, "AR15s are too much fire power to put into the hands of one man.


Unsupportable nonsense.


----------



## Likkmee (Jan 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unsupportable nonsense.


That was stated   by Jorge Washingtonito Torrez. Get your "facts" dercha,,,


----------



## Batcat (Jan 26, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> So is the Mini-14 more acceptable for personal ownership than an AR-15?


I don’t own either. If I ever decide I have a need for such a weapon I would likely buy the AR-15 as it can be modified to suit my purposes easier than the Ruger. For example  I might want to change to a more powerful round if I planed to use it for hunting. 









						A Guide for AR-15 Calibers: Different Options in 2020 – GunBacker.com
					

Check out this guide on the various types of AR-15 calibers and find out for yourself which caliber will best fit your needs in 2020




					www.gunbacker.com


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 26, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I don’t own either. If I ever decide I have a need for such a weapon I would likely buy the AR-15 as it can be modified to suit my purposes easier than the Ruger. For example  I might want to change to a more powerful round if I planed to use it for hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't ask what you would be.

As a rule, would prefer someone that you _don't _know own an AR-15 or the ranch gun?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 26, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I don’t own either. If I ever decide I have a need for such a weapon I would likely buy the AR-15 as it can be modified to suit my purposes easier than the Ruger. For example  I might want to change to a more powerful round if I planed to use it for hunting.


The AR platforms are Legos for adults.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 26, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The AR platforms are Legos for adults.


barbie dolls for men is a more accurate description,,,

you can dress them up for any occasion,,


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 26, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> barbie dolls for men is a more accurate description,,,


Tinkertoys!


----------



## Batcat (Jan 26, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I didn't ask what you would be.
> 
> As a rule, would prefer someone that you _don't _know own an AR-15 or the ranch gun?


Most of the regular shooters at the pistol range I used to shoot at in the Tampa Bay Area owned AR-15s. I have no problems with people owning either AR-15s or Ruger Mini 14s. 

Are you insinuating the AR-15 is an evil rifle while the Ruger Mini 14 is a nice rife or that Ar-15 owners are evil while Ruger Mini 14 owners are the nice guys in white hats?


----------



## percysunshine (Jan 26, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?



Knives are protected by the CUA...the Cutlery Union of America.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 26, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Most of the regular shooters at the pistol range I used to shoot at in the Tampa Bay Area owned AR-15s. I have no problems with people owning either AR-15s or Ruger Mini 14s.
> 
> Are you insinuating the AR-15 is an evil rifle while the Ruger Mini 14 is a nice rife or that Ar-15 owners are evil while Ruger Mini 14 owners are the nice guys in white hats?



I'm not insinuating anything. I simply asked you a very simple question for which you seem challenged to provide a coherent answer...


----------



## Batcat (Jan 26, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I'm not insinuating anything. I simply asked you a very simple question for which you seem challenged to provide a coherent answer...


You asked. _“As a rule, would prefer someone that you don't know own an AR-15 or the ranch gun?”_

I answered your question by posting. …

_Most of the regular shooters at the pistol range I used to shoot at in the Tampa Bay Area owned AR-15s. * I have no problems with people owning either AR-15s or Ruger Mini 14s.*_ … emphasis added.

It should be clear to any person that I don’t care which weapon a person I know or don’t know chooses. I am far more concerned that honest citizens have the right to purchase whatever legal firearms they choose. If someone legally purchases a Barrett 50 caliber rifle it wouldn’t bother me in the least. 







​


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 27, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I don’t own either. If I ever decide I have a need for such a weapon I would likely buy the AR-15 as it can be modified to suit my purposes easier than the Ruger. For example  I might want to change to a more powerful round if I planed to use it for hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Mini-14 comes in 7.62mm X 39 Russian as well as .223 (5.56mm).


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jan 27, 2022)

Batcat said:


> You asked. _“As a rule, would prefer someone that you don't know own an AR-15 or the ranch gun?”_
> 
> I answered your question by posting. …
> 
> ...


At $3.00 a round, I couldn't afford to shoot a Barret.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jan 27, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> The Mini-14 comes in 7.62mm X 39 Russian as well as .223 (5.56mm).


that would be the mini 30 not the mini 14,,


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> At $3.00 a round, I couldn't afford to shoot a Barret.




Three?  More like 8.50 now.


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> I didn't ask what you would be.
> 
> As a rule, would prefer someone that you _don't _know own an AR-15 or the ranch gun?







Sure.  The law of averages says that far more good people will have them than bad.  I want GOOD people to be as well armed as they can be, because the bad people don't give a tinkers damn about gun laws so they ARE armed as well as they can be.


----------



## Canon Shooter (Jan 27, 2022)

westwall said:


> Sure.  The law of averages says that far more good people will have them than bad.  I want GOOD people to be as well armed as they can be, because the bad people don't give a tinkers damn about gun laws so they ARE armed as well as they can be.


So, if you want them to be "armed as well as they can be", should they have the AR-15 or the ranch gun?


----------



## westwall (Jan 27, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> So, if you want them to be "armed as well as they can be", should they have the AR-15 or the ranch gun?






Whichever one they want, I don't care.  I own FN's, HK's, and a couple of AR's.  Whatever floats their boat.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Bobob said:


> I don't believe that the founding fathers had knives alone as arms in mind and were referring to the right to bear arms, like guns or any deadly weapon, in the war with the British.  That was the extent of it, and the issue has morphed into the catastrophe that we have today. I own 3 guns and support gun owner's rights, but not to the extent of the ridiculous. Common sense must be used.


Many of the writings of the time discuss swords in the same terms as firearms.

And, no, you don't support gun owners' rights; you clearly only support your rights.  If three guns fill all your needs or interests then that's all anyone should own?  Do you have three hands or arms?  Why the hell do you need 3 guns?  And if you can only use one at a time, assuming that at least two of your three guns are Fudd guns, why have even more than one?  I might own a thousand guns but if I can only carry one then I have guns I can't use just as you have guns you can't use.  1 extra, 2 extra, 999 extra, makes no difference.  My 999 extra aren't hurting you or anyone else.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Abatis said:


> The people don't posses the right to keep and bear arms because the 2nd Amendment is there or what it says; the people possess the right to arms because no power was ever granted to government to allow it to compose a thought about the personal arms of the private citizen.
> 
> To put it another way, we don't have the right to arms because of what the 2nd Amendment says, we have the right to arms because of what the *BODY* of the Constitution _*doesn't say*_.


That's close but it misses the mark.  We have a right to keep and bear arms because we live.  The government is forbidden from infringing on that right both because of what the Constitution explicitly says and, good point, what it doesn't say. 

The Federal Government has only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution and whether or not there was a 2nd, 9th, or 10th Amendment, the government would not have the authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.  But if the Constitution explicitly granted them the authority, the right would still exist.  The right to life, the first right, is the most basic of all human rights and the right to keep and bear arms is the most basic protector of the first right.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Bobob said:


> I am hardly confused. The confusion is yours, totally.  Tyranny such as a militia answering only to DeSantis?



You, like most on the left, misunderstand the nature of our Republic.  We are a republic of sovereign states.  The states agreed to team up, work together, and create a republic to help each other.  Thus the militias are, in fact, state militaries to be utilized, controlled, and maintained by the governors.  Congress has the power to call up the militias in times of insurrection and invasion.  The militias are not the standing army and are not the National Guard or Reserves.  Unless called up by Congress, the Florida militia does, in fact, answer to DeSantis within the framework of laws created by Congress designed to regulate (as in standardize) the militias across all states.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> what about the 28 other states with them??
> 
> and I didnt say your confusion was about militias so I dont know why you spun that issue??
> could you explain why??


All 50 states have militias whether or not the Governors choose to accept their responsibility in leading the militias.  All 50 states have men between 16 and 60.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Absolutely correct....as it existed. Had they known the horrors of today and gun capacity of today,
> who knows what their ruling would be. Get real. Muskets vs. AK47s. There has to be changes in the form of regulations, which is perfectly legal and necessary.


They gave an option for changing the Constitution for changing times.  If you think it needs changing then change it.  

You can't eliminate the right but you could potentially get an amendment passed to authorize the government to infringe.  Then the discussion will change.  Today, it's that the government has no right to infringe.  If that is changed the discussion would be how or whether they can enforce a ban and whether gunowners comply.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

EvMetro said:


> You do not sound very informed.  Nobody had any guns at the j6 event other than law enforcement, yet lefties promote the notion that j6 was an armed insurrection.


As much as it was an armed insurrection, it was a legged insurrection.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> They gave an option for changing the Constitution for changing times.  If you think it needs changing then change it.
> 
> You can't eliminate the right but you could potentially get an amendment passed to authorize the government to infringe.  Then the discussion will change.  Today, it's that the government has no right to infringe.  If that is changed the discussion would be how or whether they can enforce a ban and whether gunowners comply.


Unfortunately, it takes, I believe, two thirds of the stated to approve a change, so that won't happen. However, regulations can be enacted to control gun usage.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You, like most on the left, misunderstand the nature of our Republic.  We are a republic of sovereign states.  The states agreed to team up, work together, and create a republic to help each other.  Thus the militias are, in fact, state militaries to be utilized, controlled, and maintained by the governors.  Congress has the power to call up the militias in times of insurrection and invasion.  The militias are not the standing army and are not the National Guard or Reserves.  Unless called up by Congress, the Florida militia does, in fact, answer to DeSantis within the framework of laws created by Congress designed to regulate (as in standardize) the militias across all states.


Then why does he want to enact a law that would enable a special militia that answers only to him?
No, lamb chop, I fully understand the nature of a republic.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Many of the writings of the time discuss swords in the same terms as firearms.
> 
> And, no, you don't support gun owners' rights; you clearly only support your rights.  If three guns fill all your needs or interests then that's all anyone should own?  Do you have three hands or arms?  Why the hell do you need 3 guns?  And if you can only use one at a time, assuming that at least two of your three guns are Fudd guns, why have even more than one?  I might own a thousand guns but if I can only carry one then I have guns I can't use just as you have guns you can't use.  1 extra, 2 extra, 999 extra, makes no difference.  My 999 extra aren't hurting you or anyone else.


Yours may not, but obviously not the case for some gun owners. I do not question the numbers of guns owned, but I do question the type of fire arm owned. No, I support the right to own guns for you too.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Also, an American expressing his personal, subjective opinion – and as already correctly noted, an opinion that is meaningless, completely devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.
> 
> The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense – not to ‘combat’ crime, not to act in the capacity of ‘law enforcement,’ and not to ‘deter’ government tyranny.
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that sanctions insurrectionist dogma, nothing that authorizes the people to engage in an act of treason by taking up arms against a lawfully elected government reflecting the will of the people – the Founding Generation did not amend the Constitution to facilitate the destruction of the Republic they had just created.



That's absolutely correct.  If government becomes so tyrannical that taking up arms becomes the only choice for those who love freedom and liberty, there will not be a restoration of the Constitution, there will be an overturning of it.  And that's why it is not a thing to be undertaken lightly - any more so than the revolution in 1776 was undertaken lightly.  But in between defending ourselves from tyranny and overthrowing the government is a huge abyss with unpredictable situations and scenarios.

Read the Declaration of Independence.  It talks about the need to endure a lot of burden and suffering before taking up arms against an existing government.  We are in that stage - and have been since the day after the Constitution was ratified.  And we'll likely be in that stage for many, many, years to come.  But it's not certain; it's possible that government could become so tyrannical tomorrow that things change.

As toobfreak posted, though, it was the recognized intent that the people have the arms necessary to defend against their own government's tyranny.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Nevertheless, murder rates in places where guns are banned are generally lower then murder rates in places that have guns.


That's the stupidest statement you've made.  Chicago and NYC have fewer murders than cities with guns?  Mexico has fewer murders than the US?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most suicide attempts without guns fail.  Here.


From your own lin*k:*​​*Of more than 3.6 million suicidal acts recorded in several U.S. government databases from 2007 to 2014, only 4.8% involved firearms, reported Andrew Conner, BS, of Quinnipiac University in North Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues.*​


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 9, 2022)

Bobob said:


> If so, his approval would include strict controls. You make a statement that can't be supported.
> The rule was for guns to be in the hands of militia fighting in that conflict, and you are stretching it.


It's been explained to you before that the Revolutionary War ended in 1783 and the Constitution was ratified in 1789, six years later.  The bill of rights, including the 2nd Amendment, was ratified in 1791.  Washington's support for the right to keep and bear arms was not related to the war.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 9, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> From your own lin*k:*​​Of more than 3.6 million suicidal acts recorded in several U.S. government databases from 2007 to 2014, only 4.8% involved firearms, reported Andrew Conner, BS, of Quinnipiac University in North Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues.​


3.6 million suicidal acts in 2007-2014 are clearly *attempts*.  Only about 40,000 suicides per year take place in USA.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 10, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> 3.6 million suicidal acts in 2007-2014 are clearly *attempts*.  Only about 40,000 suicides per year take place in USA.


Suicide is a choice


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 10, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Suicide is a choice


Items enabling suicide like opioids and guns should be harder to obtain.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Items enabling suicide like opioids and guns should be harder to obtain.


what about rooftops, bridges  and cars??


----------



## AZrailwhale (Feb 10, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Items enabling suicide like opioids and guns should be harder to obtain.


How about cars, natural gas and propane?  All are popular for suffocation suicide.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Feb 10, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


Are spoons legs?


----------



## skye (Feb 10, 2022)

I don't  know  the answer to the OP's question....all I know is that in Crime Investigation....... that series that I watch in cable,....

80% of the women ....some men..... who were murdered .....were murdered  with a steak knife.... you know...... taken from the kitchen drawer.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


Automatic and OTF knives are banned in about 10 states.  Have these bans ever been challenged in court, do you know?

Some municipalities also ban blades over a certain length.

I have a gazillion automatics and OTFs, but they are legal in my state.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Missourian said:


> If yes...is the right to carry a knife protected by the Second Amendment?


I don't think our Founders were thinking about knives when they wrote the Second Amendment.  It was probably inconceivable to them that anyone would regulate knives.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> There's the "National Switchblade Act" that banned switchblades for some reason.


That Act regulates interstate commerce of automatics.

It must not be very restrictive because I have bought automatics off the web.  I have not read the Act, though.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Certain guns are not necessary for gun owners to possess. For example,  AR15 rifles don't belong in Bobby Joe's arsenal, in my view. Nor do machine guns.


Our God-given rights are not determined by NEED.

You don't NEED midget porn, either.  But it is protected by the First Amendment.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Bobob said:


> We were at war with England and that is what the 2nd amendment was referring to when the word "militia" was used relative to gun possession. The ownership can be regulated.


Um, no.  We were not at war with England when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Likkmee said:


> Why are they called "arms" ? Mine is as big as yer leg


Armaments.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

EvMetro said:


> You do not sound very informed.  Nobody had any guns at the j6 event other than law enforcement, yet lefties promote the notion that j6 was an armed insurrection.


I have not heard anyone call it an armed insurrection.  Just an insurrection.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> A small cannon loaded with grapeshot could do far more damage than an AK-47.


I don't buy that for one second.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Tasers are.  Guns are.  Can't see a rational argument against knives.


Why can't I have a nuke?


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> People with AR15s don't stand much of a chance against people with M4s.
> 
> Plus, all the other crap the US military has.
> 
> Did you know the US military has a machinegun that fires grenades?


Ever since I saw the Dogs of War with Christopher Walken, I've wanted a Second Model 26.5mm Manville Machine-Projector.

And a Tommy gun.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Just common sense. There is no way that the founding fathers could have imagined the extent of the gun situation today.


Perhaps you have heard of the Whiskey Rebellion?


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Bobob said:


> The bottom line is that I don't like to read that a 16yr old shot up his school with an AR15, or a 17 yr old marching into a violent protest, gun in hand. They should not be readily available, and should be regulated. I also do not believe that the founding fathers would support today's gun activity, which has evolved due to a lack of enforced regulation.


Mass shootings are tragic.  Because of their nature, they get all the press.

However, they make up only about 3/10 of one percent of all gun deaths.

We lose about 20,000 people a year to gun violence.  A little over half of those are suicides.  Someone who really wants to kill themselves will still do so even if you magically eliminate all guns.

So let's focus on the 10,000 annual gun deaths each year which are not the result of mass shootings or suicide.  I would venture to say that almost none of them are death by AR-15.  AR-15s get a bad rep the same way pit bulls do.  They get all the press while the vast majority of deaths are by handgun.

We have a handgun problem, not an "assault weapon" problem.

Handguns are way easier to conceal and thus the preferred means of murder and mayhem.

Your obsession with weapons like AR-15s which "did not exist" when the Bill of Rights was written is misguided.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> That's the stupidest statement you've made.  Chicago and NYC have fewer murders than cities with guns?  Mexico has fewer murders than the US?


The firearm-related death rate in Mexico is actually lower than in the United States.









						List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Items enabling suicide like opioids and guns should be harder to obtain.


Then they will resort to jumping off bridges.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> what about rooftops, bridges  and cars??


Ah.  You beat me to it.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 10, 2022)

Bobob said:


> The bottom line is that I don't like to read that a 16yr old shot up his school with an AR15


I don't know how old you are, but I am of an age that it was normal to see kids coming to school with rifles in gun racks in the back windows of their pickup trucks.

It's not the weapons that have changed.

It's us.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

skye said:


> I don't  know  the answer to the OP's question....all I know is that in Crime Investigation....... that series that I watch in cable,....
> 
> 80% of the women ....some men..... who were murdered .....were murdered  with a steak knife.... you know...... taken from the kitchen drawer.


So not only murdered with steak knives but with cheap steak knives.  I would never put my steak knives in a drawer.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 11, 2022)

g5000 said:


> Mass shootings are tragic.  Because of their nature, they get all the press.
> 
> However, they make up only about 3/10 of one percent of all gun deaths.
> 
> ...


We don't have a handgun problem.  We have social problems created by the left's destruction of the black family structure, courts letting violent criminals loose on the streets, a culture of thug behavior celebrated, in an attempt to look cool, by the very families harmed the most by that behavior.

Most handguns will never be fired at another human being, legally or otherwise.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 11, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> At $3.00 a round, I couldn't afford to shoot a Barret.


It would be worth it to take up reloading if you had a Barrett in 50 BMG. 









						Loading the .50 BMG: Fun and Penny-Wise
					

Save time and get more bang for your buck by handloading the big .50 BMG.




					gundigest.com


----------



## Batcat (Feb 11, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The AR platforms are Legos for adults.


Some call it the Swiss knife of rifles.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 11, 2022)

Are knives arms?

I dunno. But my arms are guns!  💪


----------



## Colin norris (Feb 11, 2022)

Hossfly said:


> I carry both.


You are a tough guy.  Scared  big.pussy.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 11, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> How about cars, natural gas and propane?  All are popular for suffocation suicide.


These items can not be banned.  Motorcycles -- possibly due to very high fatal accident rate.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 11, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Items enabling suicide like opioids and guns should be harder to obtain.


Wrong again.

If you want that to happen then you better ban all knives, razor blades, ropes and cords, tall buildings, cars and large bodies of water too

Suicide is a choice that everyone has the absolute right to make.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> We don't have a handgun problem.  We have social problems created by the left's destruction of the black family structure, courts letting violent criminals loose on the streets, a culture of thug behavior celebrated, in an attempt to look cool, by the very families harmed the most by that behavior.
> 
> Most handguns will never be fired at another human being, legally or otherwise.


I agree that your points are all valid.  However, I also think we do have a handgun problem for the same reason we have an opioid crisis.

Like all publicly traded corporations, drug manufacturers and gun makers need to make higher and higher profits each quarter to keep their stockholders happy.  This results in them flooding the country with their product.  And when that happens, they are knowingly producing drugs and guns they know will end up in the wrong hands.

And they just don't give a fuck.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 11, 2022)

g5000 said:


> I agree that your points are all valid.  However, I also think we do have a handgun problem for the same reason we have an opioid crisis.
> 
> Like all publicly traded corporations, drug manufacturers and gun makers need to make higher and higher profits each quarter to keep their stockholders happy.  This results in them flooding the country with their product.  And when that happens, they are knowingly producing drugs and guns they know will end up in the wrong hands.
> 
> And they just don't give a fuck.



America's opioid crisis is not from  legally manufactured, legally obtained, opioids.  It's from back alley, made in Mexico and China, opioids and fentanyl.   Kind of sounds like the gun crisis; those who use them legally are not the problem.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> America's opioid crisis is not from  legally manufactured, legally obtained, opioids.  It's from back alley, made in Mexico and China, opioids and fentanyl.   Kind of sounds like the gun crisis; those who use them legally are not the problem.


There's a reason why good old American pharma companies lost their asses in lawsuits.  Because it was they who caused the opioid crisis.  Not Mexicans or Muslims or homos or the Chinese or Democrats or the commies.

US companies created the problem and were stupid enough to document it.  Third parties got involved to get in on the action.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 11, 2022)

g5000 said:


> There's a reason why good old American pharma companies lost their asses in lawsuits.  Because it was they who caused the opioid crisis.  Not Mexicans or Muslims or homos or the Chinese or Democrats or the commies.
> 
> They created the problem.  Third parties got involved to get in on the action.


No they lost because US Juries hate the big guys and always award against them.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No they lost because US Juries hate the big guys and always award against them.


No, they lost because there is a mountain of evidence against them which they documented themselves.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 11, 2022)

g5000 said:


> No, they lost because there is a mountain of evidence against them which they documented themselves.


No there isnt what a doctor proscribes is not the fault of pharma companies. And Doctors should have been prosecuted.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> No there isnt what a doctor proscribes is not the fault of pharma companies. And Doctors should have been prosecuted.


Doctors were misled.  They were told by the pharma companies the opioids were not addictive.

Drugs which were designed for terminally ill cancer patients were being prescribed for tooth aches.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2022)

Opioid Manufacturer Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Fraud and Kickback Conspiracies
					

Opioid manufacturer Purdue Pharma LP (Purdue) pleaded guilty today in federal court in Newark, New Jersey, to conspiracies to defraud the United States and violate the anti-kickback statute.




					www.justice.gov


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2022)

Anyway, I do not want to hijack this topic.  Let's stick to knives.

As I said earlier, I don't think knives were on the minds of the Founders when writing the Second Amendment.  It would have been totally inconceivable to them that anyone would want to regulate knives.

And yet here we are, with 10 states banning automatics and OTFs.  I am asking if anyone knows if those bans have been challenged in court.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Suicide is a choice that everyone has the absolute *right* to make.


NO!

It is a crime.  Perpetrators will suffer extremely for centuries.  As a Jew I do not believe they will suffer forever.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 11, 2022)

g5000 said:


> I don't know how old you are, but I am of an age that it was normal to see kids coming to school with rifles in gun racks in the back windows of their pickup trucks.
> 
> It's not the weapons that have changed.
> 
> It's us.


I also remember those days. Both have changed


----------



## Bobob (Feb 11, 2022)

g5000 said:


> Um, no.  We were not at war with England when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.


I was referring to the time when James Madison was President.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 11, 2022)

g5000 said:


> Our God-given rights are not determined by NEED.
> 
> You don't NEED midget porn, either.  But it is protected by the First Amendment.


You don't need much of anything, if you don't mind the unintended consequences. We have a situation in our country that needs to be corrected. Regulation is on the horizon.


----------



## g5000 (Feb 11, 2022)

Bobob said:


> I was referring to the time when James Madison was President.


That's not when the Bill of Rights was written by Madison and the others.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 12, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> NO!
> 
> It is a crime.  Perpetrators will suffer extremely for centuries.  As a Jew I do not believe they will suffer forever.


Suicide is not a crime and your beliefs are yours and you have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 12, 2022)

g5000 said:


> That's not when the Bill of Rights was written by Madison and the others.


I was speaking to his comments. Regardless, there is so much gun violence in our country, and I believe that there will be new regulations.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Feb 12, 2022)

g5000 said:


> I don't buy that for one second.


Then you are ignorant.  Grapeshot are small projectiles often the size of grapes (hence the name) that turn a cannon into a large shotgun.  Depending on the caliber of the gun, there can be anywhere from a hundred to over a thousand individual projectiles in one round.  They were also famous for over-penetration meaning that each shot could kill or main multiple people.  In the case of land-based artillery, the rounds were also designed for quick loading, being crude fixed rounds where the bag of shot came strapped to the bag of propellant.  This was because the rounds were intended to be used at close range to defend the gun from attacking infantry, so rate of fire was an issue. Smooth bore cannon used ball or shell at long range, canister at medium range and grapeshot at close range.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 12, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Regulation is on the horizon.


Not likely.

There’s no political will for more regulation; there might be a very small number of outliers and exceptions, such as San Jose, but don’t expect Congress to act.

And what few regulations enacted at the local level should be eventually invalidated by the courts.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> and you have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else.


Unfortunately, conservatives are inconsistent in following this rule.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unfortunately, conservatives are inconsistent in following this rule.


LOL the people forcing others is the progressives.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 12, 2022)

Bobob said:


> You don't need much of anything, if you don't mind the unintended consequences. We have a situation in our country that needs to be corrected. Regulation is on the horizon.



Murder is already illegal.  What more regulation do you want?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unfortunately, conservatives are inconsistent in following this rule.


How so?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2022)

Bobob said:


> I was speaking to his comments. Regardless, there is so much gun violence in our country, and I believe that there will be new regulations.



Like what, and from whom?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unfortunately, conservatives are inconsistent in following this rule.


Says the guy who believes the TX abortion law is constitutional.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 12, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Like what, and from whom?


Education, waiting periods


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Suicide is not a crime and your beliefs are yours and you have no right to force your beliefs on anyone else.


Most Christians believe that suicides will suffer for eternity.  As a Jew, I believe that they will suffer only a few centuries or millennia.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 12, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Education, waiting periods


I'm all for government funded safety, self defense and tactical training.  But, that isn't "regulation".  Gun ownership can't legally be regulated.  Just like speech can't be regulated.  Actions taken with a gun like assault, or murder are the only regulations that are constitutional.  Just like you can engage in public speech that could invite a riot, or murder; you can't use a gun to injure, or kill another person.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Education, waiting periods


What kind?   At what level?
How are these things necessary?   How will they be effective?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 12, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most Christians believe that suicides will suffer for eternity.  As a Jew, I believe that they will suffer only a few centuries or millennia.


So?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 12, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> I'm all for government funded safety, self defense and tactical training.  But, that isn't "regulation".  Gun ownership can't legally be regulated.  Just like speech can't be regulated.  Actions taken with a gun like assault, or murder are the only regulations that are constitutional.  Just like you can engage in public speech that could invite a riot, or murder; you can't use a gun to injure, or kill another person.



Actually such training is regulation, as intended by the Founders.  It is perfectly reasonable, even desirable, for the government to make sure that the masses are not only armed but are trained in arms.  Firearm use and safety should be taught in every high school in the country.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 12, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most Christians believe that suicides will suffer for eternity.  As a Jew, I believe that they will suffer only a few centuries or millennia.


You’re entitled to your belief – regardless how wrong and ridiculous.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 12, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> How so?


Seeking to ‘ban’ abortion is among the more glaring examples.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 12, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL the people forcing others is the progressives.


Another example of conservatives forcing their beliefs on others through force of law:









						Five things to know about Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' gender discussions at schools bill
					

Governor Ron DeSantis supports the "Parental Rights in Education" bill but LGBTQ advocates are worried.




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Another example of conservatives forcing their beliefs on others through force of law:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL what you mean is preventing progressives from forcing THEIR crap on kids.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unfortunately, conservatives are inconsistent in following this rule.


good thing I'm not a conservatiive


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 13, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Most Christians believe that suicides will suffer for eternity.  As a Jew, I believe that they will suffer only a few centuries or millennia.


So what?  Not everyone is a Christian or a Jew

Your beliefs are yours you have no right to force others to live by your beliefs


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Seeking to ‘ban’ abortion is among the more glaring examples.


Banning murder is bad?  Is that the best you can do?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Another example of conservatives forcing their beliefs on others through force of law:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really?  Not letting  homosexuals force homosexuality on toddlers is forcing a belief?  You really have this one backwards, don't you?


----------



## Bobob (Feb 13, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> What kind?   At what level?
> How are these things necessary?   How will they be effective?


I am not the person to ask, as you and I are not educated  on this matter. 
Also, in early times, schools and concerts were not shot up like today.  We are in different times, and the right to own does not come with the right to abuse the privilege. So we need changes in the rules.
What are they? I don't know.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 13, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> I'm all for government funded safety, self defense and tactical training.  But, that isn't "regulation".  Gun ownership can't legally be regulated.  Just like speech can't be regulated.  Actions taken with a gun like assault, or murder are the only regulations that are constitutional.  Just like you can engage in public speech that could invite a riot, or murder; you can't use a gun to injure, or kill another person.


Um, I think that those are regulations, and a waiting period must be adhered to before any license to own is permitted, in my view. I think that the government should share in the funding.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Um, I think that those are regulations, and a waiting period must be adhered to before any license to own is permitted, in my view. I think that the government should share in the funding.


Licenses are unconstitutional and so are mandatory classes that the citizens have to pay out of pocket.

You want mandatory training?  Fine, you can help pay for it.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 13, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Licenses are unconstitutional and so are mandatory classes that the citizens have to pay out of pocket.
> 
> You want mandatory training?  Fine, you can help pay for it.


No, classes are not unconstitutional. Permits is what I meant. Yes, I think that the gun buyer and government should share the expense for training.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> No, classes are not unconstitutional. Permits is what I meant. Yes, I think that the gun buyer and government should share the expense for training.


Any money that's forced from the gun owner's pocket is unconstitutional.  Just like poll taxes.

Permits are unconstitutional because you don't have to ask permission to excercise a right.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> No, classes are not unconstitutional. Permits is what I meant. Yes, I think that the gun buyer and government should share the expense for training.


Paying for a right is illegal unconstitutional and wrong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Paying for a right is illegal unconstitutional and wrong.


Shall we require mandatory classes on civics and politics to vote?


----------



## Bobob (Feb 13, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Any money that's forced from the gun owner's pocket is unconstitutional.  Just like poll taxes.
> 
> Permits are unconstitutional because you don't have to ask permission to excercise a right.


of course of course.


----------



## Bobob (Feb 13, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Paying for a right is illegal unconstitutional and wrong.


Correct. You have a right to buy a car. You do not have the right to drive it without getting a driver's license or insurance. You have the right to vote and many of us are demanding that a voter's ID is required before that right is exercised. What you need to be is realistic.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Correct. You have a right to buy a car. You do not have the right to drive it without getting a driver's license or insurance. You have the right to vote and many of us are demanding that a voter's ID is required before that right is exercised. What you need to be is realistic.


You never have a right to drive a car on public roads.  You pay for the privilege of driving on public roads.  That privilege is granted by the state and can be revoked at any time for almost any reason


----------



## Delldude (Feb 13, 2022)

miketx said:


> Ya gots ta keep a trim bush!


Duh...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Seeking to ‘ban’ abortion is among the more glaring examples.


And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban in constitutional.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> I am not the person to ask, as you and I are not educated  on this matter.


Speak for yourself.
But, it IS good of you to admit you have no clue as to what you are talking about - because it shows.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Um, I think that those are regulations, and a waiting period must be adhered to before any license to own is permitted, in my view. I think that the government should share in the funding.


Why do you think the state has standing to issue, much less require,  a license for the basic exercise of a right?
Do rights emanate from the state?  Does the state grant our rights?  
When did -that- change?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Correct. You have a right to buy a car. You do not have the right to drive it without getting a driver's license or insurance.


Surely I do.   I can drive it anywhere I want, w/o a license or insurance, so long as I do it on private property.
I can own as many cars as I want, even after a conviction for DIU or vehicular homicide.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 13, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So what?  Not everyone is a Christian or a Jew
> 
> Your beliefs are yours you have no right to force others to live by your beliefs


The Majority of people in USA are Monotheists who believe in Tanakh (Old Testament).  Suicide is a crime, as is murder.  These acts should not be enabled.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> Correct. You have a right to buy a car. You do not have the right to drive it without getting a driver's license or insurance. You have the right to vote and many of us are demanding that a voter's ID is required before that right is exercised. What you need to be is realistic.


Actually the ID is provided FREE of charge stupid because you cant make someone pay to vote.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 13, 2022)

Bobob said:


> No, classes are not unconstitutional. Permits is what I meant. Yes, I think that the gun buyer and government should share the expense for training.


Classes should just be part of high-school curriculum.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 14, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> The Majority of people in USA are Monotheists who believe in Tanakh (Old Testament).  Suicide is a crime, as is murder.  These acts should not be enabled.


Again so what?

We are not a theocracy and never will be.

A person has the absolute right to decide if he or she will live or die.

And YOU have no power to change that


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 14, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> A person has the absolute right to decide if he or she will live or die.
> 
> And YOU have no power to change that


I have no power.  But a Monotheistic Majority can pass laws which would make it difficult to commit suicide.

Most Americans believe in Tanakh (Old Testament).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> I have no power.  But a Monotheistic Majority can pass laws which would make it difficult to commit suicide.


There are literally millions of ways to commit suicide.
So, no.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 14, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> There are literally millions of ways to commit suicide.
> So, no.


It should be taught that it is a great crime.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> It should be taught that it is a great crime.


Can you give us an example of a law that would make it difficult for anyone to commit suicide in the millions of ways possible to do so?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Feb 14, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Can you give us an example of a law that would make it difficult for anyone to commit suicide in the millions of ways possible to do so?


It is a crime in most states to try and commit suicide. Obviously they cant do anything to you if you succeed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 14, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is a crime in most states to try and commit suicide. Obviously they cant do anything to you if you succeed.


As we see, that hardly makes it difficult.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 15, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> I have no power.  But a Monotheistic Majority can pass laws which would make it difficult to commit suicide.
> 
> Most Americans believe in Tanakh (Old Testament).



No law will make it difficult to commit suicide.

Anyone hell bent on ending his life will be successful.

No law can be passed that denies a person the absolute right to end his own life.

What are you going to do charge a corpse with the crime of suicide?

Or are you saying you want to ban all objects that can be used in a suicide?

ANd as I said we will never be a theocracy if you want to live in one I suggest you move to Iran.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 15, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is a crime in most states to try and commit suicide. Obviously they cant do anything to you if you succeed.


When was the last time a person was arrested and charged for attempted suicide?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 15, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> No law can be passed that denies a person the absolute right to end his own life.
> 
> What are you going to do charge a corpse with the crime of suicide?


That is not up to any court on Earth.  Socially, more people must accept Monotheism and understand that suicide is a great sin.


As Jews, we view observant Christians and Muslims as righteous Noahites.  Here.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 15, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> That is not up to any court on Earth.  Socially, more people must accept Monotheism and understand that suicide is a great sin.
> As Jews, we view observant Christians and Muslims as righteous Noahites.  Here.


Can you give us an example of a law that would make it difficult for anyone to commit suicide in the millions of ways possible to do so?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 15, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Can you give us an example of a law that would make it difficult for anyone to commit suicide in the millions of ways possible to do so?


One such law which *does in fact* diminish suicide is the prohibition of most narcotics.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 16, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> That is not up to any court on Earth.  Socially, more people must accept Monotheism and understand that suicide is a great sin.
> 
> 
> As Jews, we view observant Christians and Muslims as righteous Noahites.  Here.



There are no courts anywhere else.

and no people don;t have to accept your religion if they don;t want to and there's nothing you can do about it.

You control freaks are all the same, you just can;t stand it when people don't do what you tell them to do.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 16, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> One such law which *does in fact* diminish suicide is the prohibition of most narcotics.


That's not what i asked.
I asked:
Can you give us an example of a law that would make it difficult for anyone to commit suicide in the millions of ways possible to do so?        
Well?


----------



## Likkmee (Feb 16, 2022)

Canon Shooter said:


> So is the Mini-14 more acceptable for personal ownership than an AR-15?


I haven't repaired-modded guns in years but the mini is/was rock solid and reliable. The old ar was a mix of good and shit and quite intimidating to sheep.Lotsa tossed up surplus GARBAGE, back in the day.
The Mini looks like a "normal" carbine...wood and shit.. "just a rifle"per se.
The ranch rifle...kicked the BS up a notch. 10 rounds good---30 rounds turra-riss
If Chuck had a turban....OOOOBOY


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> That's not what i asked.
> I asked:
> Can you give us an example of a law that would make it difficult for anyone to commit suicide in the millions of ways possible to do so?
> Well?


Banning many ways is impossible.  Banning narcotics and firearms would help.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> There are no courts anywhere else.


Those who commit suicide suffer for a long time in Afterlife.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 17, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Those who commit suicide suffer for a long time in Afterlife.




How do you know?  Have you been there?


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 17, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Those who commit suicide suffer for a long time in Afterlife.


So what?

That's not your concern even if they share your beliefs.

Some of us don;t believe in life after death.

You are just looking for an excuse to force your religious beliefs on other people


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 17, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Banning many ways is impossible.  Banning narcotics and firearms would help.


You said:
_But a Monotheistic Majority can pass laws which would make it difficult to commit suicide.       _ 
And yet, you cannot tell us what laws would do that.
Why not?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> You said:
> _But a Monotheistic Majority can pass laws which would make it difficult to commit suicide.       _
> And yet, you cannot tell us what laws would do that.
> Why not?


1)  Banning narcotics. (done)
2)  Banning firearms.


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 17, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You are just looking for an excuse to force your religious beliefs on other people


Jews do not try to convert others to Judaism.  We view observant Christians and Muslims as righteous Noahites.  

Overall, 80% of people in USA believe in Tanakh (Old Testament).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 17, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> 1)  Banning narcotics. (done)
> 2)  Banning firearms.


Banning these things does not make it difficult to commit suicide.
Care to try again?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Banning these things does not make it difficult to commit suicide.
> Care to try again?


Had narcotics been legal, suicide and OD rates would have been even higher.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 17, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Had narcotics been legal, suicide and OD rates would have been even higher.


Banning these things does not make it difficult to commit suicide.
Care to try again?


----------



## Man of Ethics (Feb 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Banning these things does not make it difficult to commit suicide.
> Care to try again?


Ban of narcotics does decrease suicide rate.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Feb 17, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Ban of narcotics does decrease suicide rate.


It does?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Feb 17, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Ban of narcotics does decrease suicide rate.


Thank you for demonstrating you cannot support your claim.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 18, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Jews do not try to convert others to Judaism.  We view observant Christians and Muslims as righteous Noahites.
> 
> Overall, 80% of people in USA believe in Tanakh (Old Testament).


Hey you're the one calling for a monotheistic society not me.

YOU want to force your beliefs on everyone


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 18, 2022)

Relative Ethics said:


> Had narcotics been legal, suicide and OD rates would have been even higher.


Yeah because people only buy drugs with a prescription from a doctor.

How fucking naive are you?


----------

