What kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed?

[JGalt]

So very often I see conversations such as these:

Astonishing that you cant go for a walk without taking your gun.Its like living in a prison.

You have to wonder what kind of horrible, dangerous places do these people live that hey have to go out armed.

The obvious response:
The same places where we're told gun-violence is -so- bad that we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
If gun violence is indeed that bad, how is it unreasonable to carry a gun for self-defense?

Why is the people who ask this question never want to discuss the answer?
How is it gun violence can be so bad that we need more gun control laws, but people who want to carry a gun to protect themselves are nuts?

The retards who think they have to carry a gun are the same retards who believe Fox News when it tells them there are no-go zones in America.

A little doom music, some manufactured bullshit, and the tards are shitting in their pants.

They don't know how to walk upright like a man.

No, dude. The only people who are crapping in their panties are you leftards who are so paranoid, they they want more restrictive gun laws. You wouldn't keep pushing for them if you weren't so terrified of firearms and the people who own them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, how do you find out if someone is law abiding?

When they are arrested for committing a crime.
Duh.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We do not punish people by curbing their rights because they might do something.

In a police state, they do. That's what he wants.

Do we have the right to run red lights? Steal from stores? Molest children? I guess we are a police state, though rational people consider us to be a nation of laws.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[
People still die for your supposed right to carry a gun. Possession of a firearm isn't an absolute right.

Since you avoided the issue at hand...
If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

Q. If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

A. Because no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker. Regulations, such as requiring a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a minor restriction, as can be seen by the numbers of people licensed to drive, to perform surgery, represent others in court, etc.

Registration of all firearms, focus on the word arms, seems reasonable. Gravity knives, push button knives,
nunchucks are illegal in many states; thus, why can't each state decide on licensing to own or possess them and for them to be registered?

As for arms, do you support the right to your own fragmentation grenade?

i think you mean *IF* the law abiding citizen becomes a law breaker.

or do you think every gun owner is going to break the laws now?

P1 I meant what I wrote: "no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker"

P2 No, I do not think every gun owner is going to break the law (now or in the future). Yet everyday a gun is used by someone to harm another, and many times people who know the shooter are surprised it was not like him or her.

And, BTW, I don't believe licensing and registration is a panacea, it is nothing more than an effort to reduce all gun violence from mass murders to suicides, and every purpose outside the law.

Thus, the manner in which the gun is obtained by the bad actor becomes necessary. And can be seen as aiding and abetting a murder, or careless disregard for securing the gun, allowing it to be stolen, or selling a gun so it is in the wind.

And if purchased legally, mandatory waiting times and other vetting of the purchaser may be necessary.

Let the people in every state decide on gun control laws by their vote.

Maybe we should let people in every state vote on all rights and truly have mob rule

The consequence you claim is highly unlikely since the rule of law is respected by most people, and the final voice on law in America relies on the good judgement and non partisan of the Supreme Court.

A partisan Supreme Court is a great threat to We the People.

 

[bendog]

it's all a fantasy. The vast maj of murders are by people who are known to the victim. Not because they are walking down the STREETS OF DODGE.

If anyone wants a firearm, they are widely available. LOL

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm sorry -- you actually believe we should restrict the rights of the law abiding because they might commit a crime?
All people? All rights? Or just the people/rights you don't like?

How does your belief support the position that gun violence is at the level where we need to restrict the rights of the law abiding, but not to the level where the law abiding need a gun for self-defense?

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country more

As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.

The States agreed to the 2nd Amendment when they became states. It is NOT a state issue. They shouldn't be allowed to pass any gun laws .

The Bill of Rights were passed December 15, 1791; the Constitution was ratified on March 4, 1788 and promulgated on March 4, 1789.

To your point, the 10th Amendment comes into play since the decision of the Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore (1833):

"In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments."

See: The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Barron v. Baltimore (1833) | PBS

However, this was overruled by Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment which is one the right wants to repeal. I wonder if and when the Supreme Court puts the people first and not corporate America Sec. 1 is clarified on the 2nd A.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm sorry -- you actually believe we should restrict the rights of the law abiding because they might commit a crime?
All people? All rights? Or just the people/rights you don't like?

How does your belief support the position that gun violence is at the level where we need to restrict the rights of the law abiding, but not to the level where the law abiding need a gun for self-defense?

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country more

As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.

So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We do not punish people by curbing their rights because they might do something.

In a polce state, they do. That's what he wants.

Do we have the right to run red lights? Steal from stores? Molest children? I guess we are a police state, though rational people consider us to be a nation of laws.

Look at you, completely unaware you responded with an non-seq.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To your point, the 10th Amendment comes into play since the 2nd A. is not clear and in the decision of the Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore (1833).

How can you be so woefully ignorant of current jurisprudence?

 

[Blues Man]

Since you avoided the issue at hand...
If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

Q. If gun violence doesn't rise to a level where the average person needs a firearm for self-defense, why do we need to further restrict the law abiding in their exercise of the right to keep and bear arms?

A. Because no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker. Regulations, such as requiring a license to own, possess or have in one's custody and control is a minor restriction, as can be seen by the numbers of people licensed to drive, to perform surgery, represent others in court, etc.

Registration of all firearms, focus on the word arms, seems reasonable. Gravity knives, push button knives,
nunchucks are illegal in many states; thus, why can't each state decide on licensing to own or possess them and for them to be registered?

As for arms, do you support the right to your own fragmentation grenade?

i think you mean *IF* the law abiding citizen becomes a law breaker.

or do you think every gun owner is going to break the laws now?

P1 I meant what I wrote: "no one can predict when the law abiding becomes a law breaker"

P2 No, I do not think every gun owner is going to break the law (now or in the future). Yet everyday a gun is used by someone to harm another, and many times people who know the shooter are surprised it was not like him or her.

And, BTW, I don't believe licensing and registration is a panacea, it is nothing more than an effort to reduce all gun violence from mass murders to suicides, and every purpose outside the law.

Thus, the manner in which the gun is obtained by the bad actor becomes necessary. And can be seen as aiding and abetting a murder, or careless disregard for securing the gun, allowing it to be stolen, or selling a gun so it is in the wind.

And if purchased legally, mandatory waiting times and other vetting of the purchaser may be necessary.

Let the people in every state decide on gun control laws by their vote.

Maybe we should let people in every state vote on all rights and truly have mob rule

The consequence you claim is highly unlikely since the rule of law is respected by most people, and the final voice on law in America relies on the good judgement and non partisan of the Supreme Court.

A partisan Supreme Court is a great threat to We the People.

So you're saying that the rule of law including gun laws are respected by most people yet you want to restrict people who obey laws even more because a minute fraction of people don't respect laws?

And the whole idea of having justices sit for life is so they won't be swayed by politics but I guess if you think a judge has a too conservative view of the Constitution for your liking that he is partisan.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cars, swimming pools and ladders kill more than guns. Your argument is beyond ridiculous but that's normal for you, right?

Apples and Orangutans ^^^

Cars, pools and ladders are all regulated. Your comment is not new, and has been posted dozens of times. Grow up and think for yourself.

No one has a right to own cars, pools and ladders… So your argument is irrelevant

Don't be silly. Gun ownership is regulated via due process all the time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, how do you find out if someone is law abiding?

When they are arrested for committing a crime.
Duh.

Duh! So by inference if someone is not caught, not convicted, they are good to go to the gun store. OJ could have walked out a free man and gone to the nearest gun shop in LA and bought guns.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm sorry -- you actually believe we should restrict the rights of the law abiding because they might commit a crime?
All people? All rights? Or just the people/rights you don't like?

How does your belief support the position that gun violence is at the level where we need to restrict the rights of the law abiding, but not to the level where the law abiding need a gun for self-defense?

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country more

As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.

The States agreed to the 2nd Amendment when they became states. It is NOT a state issue. They shouldn't be allowed to pass any gun laws .

That makes no sense at all.
First of all, states existed first.
Only existing states can create a national government that is a federation of independent states.

And the 2nd amendment, like all amendments in the Bill of Rights is ONLY a restriction on the federal government.
None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is an explicit restriction on states.

Read the Bill of Rights. For example, the 1st amendment. It says:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ....
Clearly all the amendments in the Bill of Rights were written with the same intent.
It is all only restriction on the federation, not the states.
After the Civil War and the 14th amendment, only then did the SCOTUS start to try to imply individual rights from the Bill of Rights, and start curtailing abuses by states.
But that is indirect and very controversial.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'm sorry -- you actually believe we should restrict the rights of the law abiding because they might commit a crime?
All people? All rights? Or just the people/rights you don't like?

How does your belief support the position that gun violence is at the level where we need to restrict the rights of the law abiding, but not to the level where the law abiding need a gun for self-defense?

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country more

As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.

So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?

Straw man. How many have been killed by the other nine Bill of Rights?

 

[Wry Catcher]

We do not punish people by curbing their rights because they might do something.

In a polce state, they do. That's what he wants.

Do we have the right to run red lights? Steal from stores? Molest children? I guess we are a police state, though rational people consider us to be a nation of laws.

Look at you, completely unaware you responded with an non-seq.

Look at you, incapable of comprehending an on point comment (too abstract to break through your biases I see).

 

[Edgetho]

That makes no sense at all.
First of all, states existed first.
Only existing states can create a national government that is a federation of independent states.

And the 2nd amendment, like all amendments in the Bill of Rights is ONLY a restriction on the federal government.
None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is an explicit restriction on states.

Read the Bill of Rights. For example, the 1st amendment. It says:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of ....
Clearly all the amendments in the Bill of Rights were written with the same intent.
It is all only restriction on the federation, not the states.
After the Civil War and the 14th amendment, only then did the SCOTUS start to try to imply individual rights from the Bill of Rights, and start curtailing abuses by states.
But that is indirect and very controversial.

The 2nd Amendment was 'incorporated' into Law applicable to the States. It is 'Fully Incorporated'. The 5th, 6th and 8th are partially so and the 3rd and 7th are not incorporated at all.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, how do you find out if someone is law abiding?

When they are arrested for committing a crime.
Duh.

Duh! So by inference if someone is not caught, not convicted, they are good to go to the gun store.

If a person commits a crime but is not caught or convicted, it is not illegal for him to buy a gun.
Duh.

 

[Pilot1]

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country more

As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.

So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?

Straw man. How many have been killed by the other nine Bill of Rights?

Laws, nor guns kill people. The ACTIONS OF PEOPLE kill people
Restrict the violent act not the tool.

 

[Rigby5]

Cars, swimming pools and ladders kill more than guns. Your argument is beyond ridiculous but that's normal for you, right?

Apples and Orangutans ^^^

Cars, pools and ladders are all regulated. Your comment is not new, and has been posted dozens of times. Grow up and think for yourself.

No one has a right to own cars, pools and ladders… So your argument is irrelevant

Don't be silly. Gun ownership is regulated via due process all the time.

But under what authorizing principle?
Government is not a source of any legal authority, so can only legally legislate that which is necessary in order to protect the rights of individuals. Is there anyway to show that preventing honest people from having weapons access through legislation, is going to protect anyone's rights when criminals will still have all the illegal access to weapons they want?
Gun ownership regulations that disarm honest people and make them easier victims for criminals, clearly is not legal and against the federal constitution.

The arbitary nature of municipal gun bans has been proven by the SCOTUS rulings over DC and Chicago, but clearly all and every federal gun laws is inherently illegal, except maybe regulations on imports.

 

[Blues Man]

While I agree with you 100%, the 2nd Amendment wasn't really adopted so we could fight crime, per se. Shoot Indians? A little bit.

Mostly, it was written and adopted so that, We The People, could never be trampled by an abusive government. Ever again.

Which is 100% why dimocrap scum hate it so much. Elected dimocrap FILTH will even tell you in private that they have no hope of establishing socialism in this Country as long as we have a 2nd Amendment.

THAT is why they're against it.

You need to understand something, people. dimocraps are TOTALITARIAN SCUM. Their goal is the absolute rule over everything you do.

The amount of energy you consume, the amount of pollutants you diffuse from said energy usage, how many children you have, where and if you decide to worship, what you can and can't eat, your freedom of movement..... Everything.

dimocrap scum are totalitarian scum. All you gotta do is open your eyes and look. ALL of their policies are aimed at one thing -- Domination.

Believe it

It's people like you who have proved gun control is not only sufficient but necessary.

The vast majority of violent crime in this country is in progressive controlled urban areas by repeat offenders mostly… Attacking law abiding citizens in rural America does nothing other than separate the country more

As I proposed, let the people of each state decide on gun control, or no gun control.

So you're OK with putting all rights up for a vote?

Straw man. How many have been killed by the other nine Bill of Rights?

Not a straw man at all

Are all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights equivalent or not?

Why not let states vote on the legality of abortion or public accommodation laws or whether or not you have freedom of religion and speech in that state?

You can't selectively enforce the Constitution