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.
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.
1. The people who actually live in the places that you're so worried about protecting yourself from don't give two craps about expanding gun rights or gun access. Think! Why would that be? Do they care less about their life & family than you?
2. The infantile hero worship of vigilantism from people living in bubbles is why we're going to be the last civilized country in the world to regularly have mass-shootings.
The Bill of Rights are all rights for the individual.
The 2nd is the right of individual to bear arms; hence, they put it in the Bill of Rights.
You are ignoring half of it. The 2nd Amendment is the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, and their responsibility to serve as member of the militia if they do so. Everyone wants to talk about the right and ignore the responsibility.
Does your state have a legally constituted militia separate from the National Guard? Mine does. It was called up by the governor when the Japanese shelled Battery Russell on the coast. Everyone with a gun, including my father, mustered in Portland. A fleet of private planes did reconnaissance off the coast and determined there was no Japanese invasion force, so everyone went back home. If there had been an invasion, the mission of the militia was to delay the Japanese until the regular army could arrive.
If you didn't have a gun, you couldn't be in the militia. My dad said every hardware store in the state sold out of guns and ammo that night.
If you were in a crowd and there was a shooting, like this one in Gilroy, and a person came around a corner holding a gun, how would you react in that moment? I don't understand how you tell whether this person is a "good" guy or a "bad" guy, especially in a situation where people are panicked.
...
How can you tell whether a person coming around a corner holding a gun is a "good" guy or a "bad" guy?
If it's a handgun, one cannot be certain. If it's an AK-47 derivative, such as the subject firearm in Gilroy, well then it's not so speculative.
BTW, folks, you might want to know that the 2nd amendment contains no requirement that people join a militia. No specification of what a militia is or who can be in it.
All it says is that since a militia is necessary, the right of ordinary people to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted.
The last few liberals to try to pretend otherwise, were trying to change the subject away from the idea that letting law-abiding citizens carry a gun in public places, would be a more effective deterrent to mass shootings than any laws and restrictions govt has ever come up with.
And trying to divert the discussion instead, to whether the 2nd amendment requires militia membership or something.
How can you tell whether a person coming around a corner holding a gun is a "good" guy or a "bad" guy?
If it's a handgun, one cannot be certain. If it's an AK-47 derivative, such as the subject firearm in Gilroy, well then it's not so speculative.
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 potential murderers 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?
"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.
The Founders, who wrote that amendment, are telling you that you are wrong. BTW "regulated" as a term of that era means "equipped" or "provisioned". There is not a single quote, written or spoken, by a Founder that supports your delusion.
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 potential murderers 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?
Oh, it's been tried before - many times, in fact, and in each and every case, overall, has been a rousing success.
Bc these guys don't exist and wouldn't come out of the shadows in Open-Carry-topia?
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.
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.
