Which cause of death gets the most coverage by the MSM...

[Winston]

Suppose I walked out my door and some thug approached me with an intent to do harm. Would I stand a better chance of surviving if I had a firearm , some other weapon, or just my fists ?

Look it up, just your fists provides the best protection against harm.

 

[Meister]

It is stupid to believe the second amendment was created to protect us against tyranny. Damn, read Article 3, Section 3, like DU HUH. It was created because we are not suppose to have a standing army. Read Article I, Section 8. I mean this shit ain't rocket science.

It was implemented to protect us from our government.
You can call whatever you want stupid, but that doesn't make it so. But it sounds like you want to rid us
of any rifles and guns....after all, it shouldn't be protected by the Second Amendment, from what you're saying.

 

[jotathought]

Actually, 1-19.

It includes all of the prime ages for gang banging.

Ahh .. interesting .. seems the broad age range being used is not consistent across news organizations. CNN posted an article where the range was 1-18.

 

[Winston]

Talking about a fat trap telling other people anything. I also am not the one who is advocating the disarming of law-abiding citizens because they have a constitutionally protected weapon that you find objectionable.

An assault rifle IS NOT a constitutionally protected weapon.

 

[jotathought]

Look it up, just your fists provides the best protection against harm.

So Grandma Betty should use her fists to protect herself from harm?

 

[Winston]

It was implemented to protect us from our government.
You can call whatever you want stupid, but that doesn't make it so.

Then explain Article 3, section 3.

 

[Winston]

So Grandma Betty should use her fists to protect herself from harm?

Grandma Betty would be more likely to have the gun taken from her and used against her. So yes, her fists would be a better option.

 

[jotathought]

An assault rifle IS NOT a constitutionally protected weapon.

A majority a firearm owners do not own or possess an assault weapon.

 

[jotathought]

Grandma Betty would be more likely to have the gun taken from her and used against her. So yes, her fists would be a better option.

So in some instances, Grandma Betty would be successful at either spooking the threat or eliminating the threat.

 

[Meister]

An assault rifle IS NOT a constitutionally protected weapon.

where does it say that it isn't?

 

[Meister]

Then explain Article 3, section 3.

Treason?

 

[Concerned American]

An assault rifle IS NOT a constitutionally protected weapon.

By strict definition it is an "arm," Next? Just because you disagree does not give you the right to change accepted definitions.

ARMS

noun plural​

1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.
2. The deeds or exploits of war; military service or science.
3. Anything which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another with; an aggressive weapon.

 

[Meister]

Grandma Betty would be more likely to have the gun taken from her and used against her. So yes, her fists would be a better option.

Often Granny Betty would have used a gun in her defense successfully, it just wouldn't make the news.
It wasn't the right mantra of the msm.

 

[Winston]

By strict definition it is an "arm," Next? Just because you disagree does not give you the right to change accepted definitions.

ARMS

noun plural​

1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.
2. The deeds or exploits of war; military service or science.
3. Anything which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another with; an aggressive weapon.

By strict definition, a machine gun and a sawed off shotgun is an "arm", are they constitutionally protected? And we have had an assault weapons ban, did any constitutional challenge even surface? I mean seriously, do you people have no concept of history?

 

[Winston]

where does it say that it isn't?

They have been banned before and no one even bothered with contesting it.

 

[Concerned American]

By strict definition, a machine gun and a sawed off shotgun is an "arm", are they constitutionally protected? And we have had an assault weapons ban, did any constitutional challenge even surface? I mean seriously, do you people have no concept of history?

Reading isn't high on your list of things to do eh? I discussed the sawed off shotgun in post #48. As for the assault weapons ban that you HAD. I have owned what could be defined as an assault weapon for over 50 years--it has never been banned. Do you have a link to the assertion that there was no constitutional challenge? Your gun grabbing buddies try another tack daily, thankfully, freedom loving people are diligent and tenacious. Why don't you move to Mexico? Gun ownership is prohibited there. You can live in absolute safety. LMFAO. Try again.

 

[Concerned American]

They have been banned before and no one even bothered with contesting it.

Linkie?

 

[kyzr]

They have been banned before and no one even bothered with contesting it.

Most people don't get firearms. There are many varieties, you can ban ARs and then shotguns replace them.
If you ban shotguns, then there are pistols.
If you ban pistols, people will make their own.

There are so many guns in the US that even if ALL NEW SALES were banned, it wouldn't matter. A gun lives a long long time.

I'd rather focus on the shooter than the gun.

 

[Winston]

Treason?

Yes, why would the founders create a second amendment to enable "treason" when treason itself was mentioned in the main body of the Constitution? What, you have the right to bear arms but direct those arms toward the government and you will be convicted of treason?

The purpose of the second amendment is clear if you know anything about American History. The founders had a real fear of standing armies, and for good reason. Just read the Declaration of Independence. And I noticed you ignored Article I, Section 8, a real protection against a standing army. And therein lies the purpose of the second amendment, to provide for a "militia", I mean the perfunctory clause ain't there for shits and giggles, to stand at the ready instead of having a standing army.

The second amendment wasn't about personal defense, hell, when it was written most townships required, you got that REQUIRED, residents to keep their arms at a centrally located armory. Much like our Grandma example, residents were more likely to be overran by Native Americans and their guns stolen than they ever were of holding them off. Muskets against skilled archers, not much of a contest. Hence the requirement of having them at the armory. And yes, in regards to the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the British were on their way to the armory in Concord. I mean hello howdy. The minutemen went to the Armory, got their guns, and waited on the British. Not like they grabbed them from under their damn bed.

And hunting, give me a damn break. The colonists sucked at hunting. The idea that they went out and shot their dinner is a flippin joke. Hell, more likely they traded their damn musket for dinner. Daniel Boone was an anomoly, much like my great, great, great, great grandfather, who made a fine living "hunting" and spoke Cherokee and German, no English. If everyone could hunt he wouldn't have been able to build a fortune.

And there is gun control. Guns were outlawed in most Western towns, you had to check them in with the local sheriff when you entered town. What the hell you think the shoot out at OK Corral was about? I mean the shit starts getting ridiculous. The gun lobby has completely revised history for their own profit motives, the number of children and others killed be damned. It is time this shit came to an end.

 

[Winston]

Linkie?

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Several challenges, all rejected by the courts.