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.
You do know that is not reflective of the vast majority of law abiding gun owners, right? I could post silly pictures of your welfare queens with Obama phones, or drug addicts, and lazy Opiod users too. How about women with p*ssy hats? Or Gays marching in parades almost naked with little boys. But you'd probably like that.
And yet that's exactly what your ilk does to sidestep substantive discussion on those issues.
Regardless, I see no difference between anyone who supports uncontested open-carry laws and these yahoos. Yall are cut from the same cloth. It's like someone arguing against age of consent laws, then pointing to a pedophile and saying "we're not ALL like that." Yeah... you are.
In 2018, a total of 4,239 firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at checkpoints across the U.S., with an average of about 11.6 firearms per day, TSA officials said. Eighty-six percent of the firearms detected last year were loaded and a third of them had a bullet in the chamber, ready to fire.
If you come around the corner with a gun, are you firing it or pointing it at me?
Could you ever be sure in a chaotic crowd? It is more about your perception. For this scenario to work, all people would have to be thinking and behaving exactly like you. They won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
No, the State is not "The People". The Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution is to guarantee Natural Rights possessed by "The People". Government does not grant us rights.
Ah, but the People are the State.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
The most important effect of letting law-abiding citizens carry (even though most still wouldn't bother), is that potential murderers would know there's probably some people in the crowd who are armed and ready.
And this knowledge would keep some of the nutcases from going in and opening fire in the first place.
That's a better result than our current laws are giving us. Isn't it worth trying?
You are trying to apply your personal logic to everyone. Do you really believe that even a small percentage of mass shooters are logical thinkers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
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.
Every single day, my family and I are in many places and encounter many people. The vast majority don't mean to harm me. Or my family. I will not be victimized by a narrative that imagines violent attackers around every corner.
No, THE PEOPLE are the people, and not the State. The State works for THE PEOPLE, but they are not the same. When the State oversteps its bounds the PEOPLE have a means to fight back. Legally owned and carried firearms.
The STATE is merely a legalized MOB, and must be reigned in by the PEOPLE every now and then.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
In 2018, a total of 4,239 firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at checkpoints across the U.S., with an average of about 11.6 firearms per day, TSA officials said. Eighty-six percent of the firearms detected last year were loaded and a third of them had a bullet in the chamber, ready to fire.
That's because and I just learned this from another poster ... they might be needed at any moment for self defense ...
"The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia. The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.""
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.
Exactly what was needed - 100 people in various stages of competency with a sidearm firing at random in a crowd of 100,000. Three hundred dead instead of three.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
No, THE PEOPLE are the people, and not the State. The State works for THE PEOPLE, but they are not the same. When the State oversteps its bounds the PEOPLE have a means to fight back. Legally owned and carried firearms.
The STATE is merely a legalized MOB, and must be reigned in by the PEOPLE every now and then.
I think the last time that was tried was Kent State 1970.
"The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia. The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.""
If they were required to inaccessible, they would not be much good for self defense. Maybe the local guy here who had his front door kicked in by two druggies and was attacked would tell you that he would probably be dead if his gun was locked away. Who knows about his wife and kids? They might be dead too.
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.
