Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Founding Fathers decided that Americans would be much better off if govt had NO authority to take away or restrict their guns. And they didn't decide that just from a knee-jerk reaction to some people getting shot in a fight in a pub that day someplace. They studied governments for years, how much they gradually turned well-meaning "gun control" (or sword control etc.) laws into laws that would disarm honest citizens and leave them vulnerable to both local thugs and murderers AND oppressive government. How many governments ultimately tried to disarm their populaces, making laws that only the law-abiding would obey, etc.
And after their long and involved study of many disparate issues, they wrote into our founding documents a flat ban on government making ANY laws to take away or restrict the people's guns.
And still nobody in this thread has even tried to refute the conclusions they came to. We've had a few hysterics saying, "Ummm, 1789! Muskets! Flintlocks!" as though that had anything to do with the Framers' studies of governments and human nature.
This one-sided abdication of the anti-gun-rights people's position is so complete as to be remarkable.
The only thing more remarkable (so far), is that after utterly failing to support their arguments for govt control of personal weapons, in the face of huge, documented sagas of criminals seeking out unarmed people far from police aid or presence, and govt after govt oppressing and even massacring its own citizens after disarming them... they still say govt should have the authority to control our personal weapons. And even that people should have no right to own and carry guns.
3 Prefaces and a question.
1. I am quoting you merely as the last post in this thread, but a couple of your points stood out.
2. I say this as a person who respects the 2A while not being a gun owner myself. I do wish we could find some "nuance" it in while still affording responsible people the right to partake in the exercise of our rights.
3. I prefer my cousin's idea of gun ownership; 38 guns, some collectibles, some used for hunting/hobby, locked in a gun safe, in a locked closet in his basement to my buddy's idea of gun ownership, two hand guns, neither secured, in a nightstand with a 6 year old in the home. Locks are bad "because I may need it in a moments notice".
My question.
You state (and many others state as well) lines of thought around, "The Founding Fathers decided that Americans would be much better off if govt had NO authority to take away or restrict their guns."
The verbiage of the 2A really has two parts. The latter part speaks to "....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." which runs with what the line of thought you laid above. There is no argument against those 14 words. They are pretty clear in their meaning, even if you try to apply time, place and context to them. They are in fact the rallying cry of folks who are passionate about gun rights as an issue.
So, if the last 14 words are clearly interpreted and applied, why are 3 of the first 4 not? "A well regulated Militia"
I'll ignore the Militia word because at the time of the writing of the Constitution, from a civil perspective, there simply wasn't much in the way of "police" or "civil protection". Many big cities of the era didn't have police departments for another 20 years. In the absence of a civil force of protection, that early void had to be filled.
But the first three words, if we apply the same fundamental interpretation we do to the last 14 words, sorta runs counter to the idea that "....govt had NO authority to take away or restrict their guns." doesn't it?
In short, how does one reconcile the latter part, key being "...shall not be infringed" when the former says "well regulated"? Regulated by definition means rules being applied.
Want to revoke rights? Due process and get them adjudicated mentally defective in a court of law.
And do it soon, before enough Constitution-upholding judges and justices get on the bench to point out that taking away someone's gun rights even due to mental issues is unconstitutional, and they strike down the entire trend.
Well aware about the HIPAA laws.
So , he purchased the firearms in Maryland. Next question is , did he have a CPL ? If not , there really was no reason for him to bring along his firearms unless he planned on spending some time at a gun range. This is sounding much more like a premeditated crime than anything. Wonder if he had lost to the targeted people prior to this competition ?
I'll admit my laziness. I did not read through this entire thread.
Well, there's more than 400 posts in it, due to the policy of consolidating all threads even remotely related, into one giant encyclopedia. But your particular question is one of the most repeated. Skim a few pages, you'll see it immediately. No matter where.
Well, there's more than 400 posts in it, due to the policy of consolidating all threads even remotely related, into one giant encyclopedia. But your particular question is one of the most repeated. Skim a few pages, you'll see it immediately. No matter where.
Sounds like the typical story of a shooter having been on BigPharma mood altering drugs for years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
