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 Dayton Ohio shooter killed 9 people in 30 seconds before being killed by the police.
How many innocent people would he have killed if there were a few armed citizens in the crowd, and nobody had to wait for armed police to show up?
If he had known it was likely that, in any large crowd, there would be at least a few who carried gun and knew how to use them, would he have even planned his crime the way he did in the first place?
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 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 get-together, or a public place like a store, office, concert, etc. festival where probably several out of a hundred people were armed, would be the LAST place he'd want to open fire. He might not be afraid of dying. But his plan is often 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 school etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the people in the crowd or campus 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 were contemplating killing people, but 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.
Wow.
This seems like yet another subject the liberals don't want to discuss.
.... the second amendment has made us one of the most violent countries in the world,
Actually, government promising truculent, whiny liberal voters tons of free stuff, and then failing to keep its promise, has gotten the freeloaders even more upset and less likely to behave as responsible citizens.
And a few of the more extreme nutcases even pull out guns and use them, as happened recently in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY and a church in Laguna Hills, CA.
Such govt misbehavior and lawbreaking is one of the many reasons for the violence in the country.
The 2nd amendment has kept things from getting worse... on the rare occasions when normal people are left free to take advantage of it.
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 school etc., would know that there was a pretty good chance that some of the people in the crowd or campus 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.
Enforcing the 2nd amendment has been the LAST thing our legislators want to even try. And this despite the plentiful evidence that all their other laws have been ineffective - mass shootings such as the recent ones at a grocery store in Buffalo NY and in a church in Laguna Hills, CA just keep right on coming.
Our legislators are pretty clearly "stuck on stupid".
How long will it be before our Democrat House, Senate, and President will issues their 2,734th call to ban or restrict such-and-such a gun? Despite that NEVER having worked in the past?
..And most mass shootings happen in the so called "Gun Free Zones" because the deranged knows that he can have his way with his victims long before the Police show up.
I think the best way to combat the mass shootings is to take the threats seriously before they turn into the deadly threat.
The recent loser that shot up the grocery store in Buffalo was known to the Police and even had sat down to be interrogated by the FBI. How many people do you know that have been taken aside by the cops or the FBI for an interrogation? I'd say if that happens you are on a risky road to ruin and should be watched closely.
I think to get to that point where the FBI steps in, one needs to be deemed a danger to themselves of others so buying a gun Legally should probably be off limits for a number of years or until that person can prove they are capable and responsible enough to own one.
We have seen this play out too many times where the FBI has someone, lets them go and they eventually go on to murder people.
George Washington disbanded the army after the Revolutionary War except for a couple of units. Congress did not allocate money to maintain a standing army in peacetime. 2A was included to assure there would be militias available as a first line of defense in case of an attack on the country, until such time as an army could be trained to take the field.
Nice try, though. BTW - Which militia are you a member of...?
Citizens are the first line of defense of the States which the Federal Government wouldn't be able infringe on the right to bear arms.
The SC has ruled in DC vs. Heller, counter tp your claim, that 2A is an individual right. Militia membership not required. The play you made is tiresome and frankly ignorant in the historical sense.
The individual right of 2A was acknowledged even during the Dred Scott case
Quote:
For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
Actually, government promising truculent, whiny liberal voters tons of free stuff, and then failing to keep its promise, has gotten the freeloaders even more upset and less likely to behave as responsible citizens.
And a few of the more extreme nutcases even pull out guns and use them, as happened recently in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY and a church in Laguna Hills, CA.
Such govt misbehavior and lawbreaking is one of the many reasons for the violence in the country.
The 2nd amendment has kept things from getting worse... on the rare occasions when normal people are left free to take advantage of it.
You mean it could actually be worse if not for the 2nd amendment, in my dreams.
If the 2nd amendment actually worked we wouldn't be in this mess with mass shootings and gun violence in general. We had recent mass shootings in LA, TX and NY, the end amendment made it easier. It's a way of life in the USA.
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.
