Guns (Merged Thread) (legal, statistics, weapons, invasion)

[FlashTheCash]

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker

Ummm no, we all share the same rights. Legally speaking, how you feel about guns is irrelevant. They are protected as a right of the people. Your free to leave if you dont like rights.

The lawmakers may have intended for the right to keep and bear arms to be nothing more than the common law right to keep the arms the King said you could keep.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

I am a very serious gun owner. In my lifetime, I have spent several hundred thousand dollars on guns and hunting the most dangerous game. However, when it comes to dangerous criminals, I leave that to the police authorities.

OK - your point is?????

Think about this though: If that "dangerous" criminal is in my home - threatening my (or your) family - what good are the police at that moment?

[Wendell Phillips]

The point is that it is not for you to take the law into your own hands.

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by GregW

Maybe we should work on controlling dangerous people.

The thing is that you cannot control people, only try to prevent incidents.

Firearms really are the “great equalizer” and owning and carrying a firearm should be encouraged.

No they make unstable people even more dangerous.
BTW if everyone truly has a gun, the gun stops being an equalizer.
In this case the one who is the most paranoid (draws his gun the quickest) will be the top dog.

Remember disarming everybody does not protect anybody except the security forces that really do not want to face an armed population when they start enforcing political correctness or religious zealotry.

LoL are you claiming that only gun owners reason rational?
People who are motivated by fear rarely act rational, simply because they are stricken by their emotion (fear).

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

The point is that it is not for you to take the law into your own hands.

If someone is threatening YOUR family Wendell - and you have the means to protect your family - would you use those means?

[FlashTheCash]

Originally Posted by Widowmaker

The "well regulated militia" does not refer to the government's right to raise an army.

Well regulated means well governed or well directed according to rules or well under the control of the government.

It has that right by sovereignty.

The U. S. Government has no powers other than those enumerated in the Constitution.

The bill of rights was included in the original constitution

No it wasn't.

at the insistence of the Jeffersonian anti-federalists to guarantee individual rights.

Why do you say the Anti federalists were Jeffersonian?

[Wendell Phillips]

I would use what means to defend myself as is permitted by law. That does not necessarily mean that I have the right to use deadly force in every circumstance, as many who have been convicted of manslaughter have learned to their detriment.

[Tin Knocker]

Originally Posted by FlashTheCash

The lawmakers may have intended for the right to keep and bear arms to be nothing more than the common law right to keep the arms the King said you could keep.

We dont have a king.

[Wendell Phillips]

That's right, in the United States it is the law that is the sovereign authority.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by FlashTheCash

How would change the fact that the Constitution grants the government no power to legislate regarding firearms?

Earth to Flash. The government's been legislating restrictions on "arms" since the earliest days of the country. You saying it doesn't will not make a difference.