U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old Today, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Right here; Right now
8,878 posts, read 4,466,164 times
Reputation: 1416

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


How I interpret it is that every state should have a regulated Militia (army) and those are the ones allowed to keep and bear the arms. But then people are going to tell me, I'm wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
That's how I interpret it too. But apparently not the SCOTUS.

District of Columbia vs. Heller, 2008
That was a good read ... ty.

 
Old Today, 04:27 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,901 posts, read 3,434,850 times
Reputation: 2916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
Every time there's a mass shooting, the only alternatives people seem to examine, are either "ban more and more guns", or "everybody should be armed".

How about if we simply let the 2nd amendment do what it was originally intended to do?

If everyone is allowed to carry a gun, would everybody do it? Of course not. Most wouldn't bother.

But a few probably would.

And in a crowd exceeding 100,000 people (as the Gilroy festival was), there might be a hundred or so, armed and knowing how to use their weapons. That's a tenth of one percent.

And the guy who wants to commit mass murder, would know it. If he wants to go someplace where nobody could shoot back, and divert him from the body counts he wanted to rack up, a festival where maybe 1 out of a hundred people (or even less) were armed, would be the LAST place he'd want to open fire. He might not be afraid of dying. But his plan is to rack up a huge body count and get weeks of lurid headlines after the police finally show up and kill him.

If the 2nd amendment were actually upheld and enforced as written, and all law-abiding adults were freely allowed to carry a gun, most still wouldn't bother. But a few would.

And a criminal planning to rob a store, shoot up an office, or murder or rape someone in the street, shoot up a festival etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the people in the crowd were armed, and knew how to use their weapons.

Some of the crazier criminals might go ahead and commit their crimes anyway. But a number of them would consider the increased risk to himself, and decide not to commit it, than do nowadays.

Presto, a mass shooting prevented, all without a shot being fired.

Why don't we try upholding the 2nd amendment, instead of expecting government to make everything better? If someone contemplating killing people, knows there's probably someone near him armed and ready, he's less likely to even start.

The main use of civilian-owned firearms is to DETER crimes. Which is a far better result than the results we have gotten from every government so-called "gun control" scheme, which have never resulted in ANY reduction in crime.
How much does the knowledge that someone could be carrying a gun deter crime in crime-ridden areas? That should tell you how ridiculous your premise on more-guns-less-crime is.

I really wish you guys would shut up about guns and crimes when most of you love in remote little hamlets, stroking your him barrels, HOPING for crime to happen, so you can live it your childish Dirty Harry fantasies.

Stay in your lane. Defend the 2A based on what you know: hunting and dated references from the founding fathers. Be quiet about everything else.
 
Old Today, 04:31 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,185 posts, read 1,417,517 times
Reputation: 3725
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
How much does the knowledge that someone could be carrying a gun deter crime in crime-ridden areas?
What does that have to do with mass shootings in low-crime areas like a festival in Gilroy?

Have you even bothered reading the thread?
 
Old Today, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,901 posts, read 3,434,850 times
Reputation: 2916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
What does that have to do with mass shootings in low-crime areas like a festival in Gilroy?

Have you even bothered reading the thread?
Bc your entire superhero fixation on guns is easily disproven by empirical evidence.

Guns are abundant in crime-filled areas. Your premise suggests that abundance would actually deter other criminals bc they don't know who has a gun. Has that ever borne out in reality? No.

Ever notice how people actually living in crime-ridden neighborhoods are NOT even slightly for expanding him rights and access? Why do you think that is?
 
Old Today, 04:36 PM
 
9,709 posts, read 4,640,615 times
Reputation: 5513
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
How much does the knowledge that someone could be carrying a gun deter crime in crime-ridden areas? That should tell you how ridiculous your premise on more-guns-less-crime is.

I really wish you guys would shut up about guns and crimes when most of you love in remote little hamlets, stroking your him barrels, HOPING for crime to happen, so you can live it your childish Dirty Harry fantasies.

Stay in your lane. Defend the 2A based on what you know: hunting and dated references from the founding fathers. Be quiet about everything else.
You sound like a man who wets his panties around guns. Bet you have never been hunting in your life.
 
Old Today, 04:40 PM
 
Location: USA
18,305 posts, read 9,016,622 times
Reputation: 13753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
You sound like a man who wets his panties around guns. Bet you have never been hunting in your life.
The vast majority of people that hate legally owned guns used responsibly by the law abiding do so out of complete IGNORANCE.
 
Old Today, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
6,901 posts, read 3,434,850 times
Reputation: 2916
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
You sound like a man who wets his panties around guns. Bet you have never been hunting in your life.
I don't give 2 craps about guns. Nor do I have an infantile fantasy about being a vigilante.
 
Old Today, 04:53 PM
 
Location: USA
18,305 posts, read 9,016,622 times
Reputation: 13753
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
I don't give 2 craps about guns. Nor do I have an infantile fantasy about being a vigilante.
How about defending your life and/or your family's? Is it ok to allow their lives to be sacrificed to violent criminals?

The government already has 22,000 illegal restrictions on guns in the form of GUN LAWS already on the books.
 
Old Today, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
12,356 posts, read 12,575,240 times
Reputation: 19629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1 View Post
That's not what the Second Amendment says. There is no training requirement nor membership in a militia to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has ruled the 2A is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.

Are you saying you're ignorant of those facts?
The Militia Act of 1792 says you are wrong.
 
Old Today, 05:05 PM
 
Location: USA
18,305 posts, read 9,016,622 times
Reputation: 13753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
The Militia Act of 1792 says you are wrong.
What part of the act are you referencing, specifically? However, the Supreme Court says I'm right.

The act only talks about state militias (National Guard units), it says nothing about the unorganized militia.

Per United States Code.

Quote:
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—

(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top