If more guns makes a country safer

[Blues Man]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

The spirit of America.

Yeah it's called self reliance

 

[NoVote]

Ah, deplorable history. Nothing like it.

Coming from someone who knows none, that's rich.

 

[sparky]

Society deems what is "Reasonable" just like Society deems what is a "Home" through building codes. Reasonable is set by "Laws" which are set by Society.

Anyone who has a problem with people being able to legally own a firearm there is a solution to that you can try and repeal the Second Amendment. I don't see that succeeding but if that is how you truly feel start the process and make your case

We need to have heavy, clear, extensive enforcement of the law.

The Supreme Court HAS supported the 2nd amendment all the way.

You have just as much of a right to protect yourself outside of your home as you do in your home

I'm going out on a limb here, to plat 'what if'....

What if every man woman and child in this country were responsible for it's defense (over and about their own)

What if every one of them went through militia and firearm training , note this doesn't have to be much more than what our VFW's and AL's offer now for FA training

Now this is the important part.

This is the 'trade off'......

We've some level of militia (you vets can stop laughing ,at least til i finish please, let's put the rouge gub'mit thing aside here)

We've armed ,and enabled the majority of citizens

Now we can shut down HS, NSA, FBI, etc , at least to bare bones....

What if WE THE PEOPLE were directly and individually responsible for our freedoms ?

~S~

 

[Blues Man]

its to separate "Militia" with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"

Looks like it's the subject to me.

It separates a clause from the main sentence.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed can stand alone as a sentence.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, is a clause not a sentence and cannot stand on it's own.

And the entire Bill of Rights including the amendments added after its initial ratification is a protection of the rights of the people not the rights of the states nor the rights of the federalgovernment

 

[cnm]

Ah, deplorable history. Nothing like it.

Coming from someone who knows none, that's rich.

That really hurts coming from someone ignorant of the British invasion of the US in 1812.

Ow ow ow.

 

[cnm]

And the entire Bill of Rights including the amendments added after its initial ratification is a protection of the rights of the people not the rights of the states nor the rights of the federalgovernment

That's why it is concerned with the security of a free state.

 

[fncceo]

Ah, deplorable history. Nothing like it.

Coming from someone who knows none, that's rich.

That really hurts coming from someone ignorant of the British invasion of the US in 1812.

Ow ow ow.

Everyone knows about the British Invasion ..

 

[cnm]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

The spirit of America.

Yeah it's called self reliance

Everyone else calls it selfishness.

 

[cnm]

Everyone knows about the British Invasion ..

Well, apart from deplorables...

 

[TRFjr]

And the entire Bill of Rights including the amendments added after its initial ratification is a protection of the rights of the people not the rights of the states nor the rights of the federalgovernment

That's why it is concerned with the security of a free state.

security from whom?
forign and domestics threats?
and who would be that domestics threat to its citizens freedoms? the government?
so now you need to explain how the unarmed man can defend its freedom?

 

[TRFjr]

Everyone knows about the British Invasion ..

Well, apart from deplorables...

ok Einstein what was the start of the revolutionary war
why was the British marching on Lexington and Concord? and who fired upon them at bunker hill? and the muskets used to fire on the British came from who?

maybe if you weren't so ignorant and truly understood history you would know why the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment and who it applied too

 

[Polishprince]

America would be the safest country in the world When will Republicans learn the NRA is FOS ?

The ownership of guns is certainly a factor, but not the only factor, ed.

America has a lot of failed, ultraliberal cities like Chicago, East St. Louis and Watts, where you take your life into your hand just walking out into the streets.

Further, our nation is a lot safer than many lib countries with extreme gun control. Places like Congo, El Salvador, Haiti.

 

[Blues Man]

And the entire Bill of Rights including the amendments added after its initial ratification is a protection of the rights of the people not the rights of the states nor the rights of the federalgovernment

That's why it is concerned with the security of a free state.

The subject is the right of the people not the state

The people are responsible for the security of the state

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Blues Man]

My gun makes me safer under specific conditions.

I'm not really concerned with making you safer.

The spirit of America.

Yeah it's called self reliance

Everyone else calls it selfishness.

Everyone else are sheep like you

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable.

Reasonable is subjective, especially in gun debates. Yes, our founders realized we would not be shooting muskets and single shot guns for eternity which is why they created and amendment process.

Which has been woefully ignored pertaining to the 2nd amendment. It's got to the point where it's up to anyone interpretation. The Weapons have outgrown the wording.

Again, subjective. If you want bans on certain weapons, you need to have a constitutional amendment.

Finally, something we agree on. I read where some inbreed says, "The 2nd amendment is perfect" and then goes off on trying to make it read something it doesn't say because he has his own interpretation it tells me that there are some people paying some mighty big bucks to prevent the rest of us from fixing this quite minor wording problem.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I only occasionally got to fire a 50 but while it can fire single shot I do not recall a selector switch on the M2.

To you and Westwall. I won't insult either of your intellegence on this one. No, there is no selector for single shot on an M2. It's a shooting method and does take some skill. And until you develop that skill you won't be able to do it. I wanted to see just how full of crap the dipstick could get and that was pretty well off the mark. You two pretty well hit it right on the mark. This information isn't something you learn by hanging around the normal Grunt Bar and buy drinks for the Gunny and get him to tell you stories. Obviously MIssLois bought the wrong Private the booze and didn't get the whole story. How do I know? Special Weapons Training USAF before I shipped out to SEA the first time as an Augmentee SP. And no, I never used the M2 in combat. But the training school I did spend time on one enough to be proficient on one. We trained for WhatIffs and the Whatiffs never came to be for the most part. If I come across sound like a hero, I wasn't one. Only a Hero is/was and Hero. And I can spot one across the room. But I can also spot a fake across the room as well since I served with the heroes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

 

[TRFjr]

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15 so any further banning of the vast majority of fire arms including asult rifles would be unconstitutional

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Society deems what is "Reasonable" just like Society deems what is a "Home" through building codes. Reasonable is set by "Laws" which are set by Society.

Anyone who has a problem with people being able to legally own a firearm there is a solution to that you can try and repeal the Second Amendment. I don't see that succeeding but if that is how you truly feel start the process and make your case

We need to have heavy, clear, extensive enforcement of the law.

The Supreme Court HAS supported the 2nd amendment all the way.

You have just as much of a right to protect yourself outside of your home as you do in your home

I'm going out on a limb here, to plat 'what if'....

What if every man woman and child in this country were responsible for it's defense (over and about their own)

What if every one of them went through militia and firearm training , note this doesn't have to be much more than what our VFW's and AL's offer now for FA training

Now this is the important part.

This is the 'trade off'......

We've some level of militia (you vets can stop laughing ,at least til i finish please, let's put the rouge gub'mit thing aside here)

We've armed ,and enabled the majority of citizens

Now we can shut down HS, NSA, FBI, etc , at least to bare bones....

What if WE THE PEOPLE were directly and individually responsible for our freedoms ?

~S~

You would need sandbags and cover just to go check the mail.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the Supreme Court agrees with you. Under your roof with reasonable firearms, you should feel reasonably safe. And your should be able to reasonably use them to defend the security of your home as well. Notice the words "Reasonable" and "Home".

Where is "Home" at in the Constitution?

And where does it say you can load up your Saburu Outback with an AA gun and run through the neighborhood either. Our FFs were reasonable people and expected for us to be reasonable. You aren't even close to becoming reasonable. That means you must rely on Society to be reasonable for you. If you don't like it, move to somewhere that has no laws where you can be totally unreasonable. I hear that Yemen has zero gun regulations. And how is that working out for them.

when you show us that someone advocates allowing us to own AA guns then you would have a point but no one has done such a thing so your point is irrelevant and absurd along with the rest of your argument
when you are reduced to using such hyperbole to make your argument you have lost the argument

I use that as an example to point out that there has to be a limit. And who determines that limit? We can't depend on individuals to determine their own limits since some just don't have any limits of any kind. So we need to determine a limit by society. And the way Society determine limits is through laws.

the limits were set by the DC vs Heller decision all guns are protected that are "in common use at the time" which includes the AR-15

No, Heller V covered on Handguns for the Home. You are reading into it. The word "Normal" comes into play here. And the courts are ruling that in many cases the AR does not fall under the definition of "Normal" nor does a 30, 50 or 100 round mag and have used Heller V to allow laws to stand that limits these things. You want that changed, I suggest you get the 2nd amendment changed to be more specific. The way it's written, it's left if up to the Courts and the States.