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.
No? I'm not for getting rid of anything, including guns. I don't think it would even be realistically possible for such a large country to ever get rid of guns, and if we did, they'd be manufactured in secret or whatever.
I'm definitely for the regulation of the distribution of most or certain types of firearms. Gun control, if you will. I'm in favor of that. Denmark has had something like 3 mass shootings in 28 years. That's clearly a saner and more effective policy on guns than we have.
And guns are not banned there. They're just tightly regulated, and licenses are required for most of them. That's the way it should be. And that would not even be in conflict with the 2A.
Just like, how 90% of this stuff people claim these days about violations of their 1A rights, is not that. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and a private social media company can kick anyone off. This doesn't mean the 1A isn't still protecting the right to the freely expressed content of your speech. The government can't censor political dissidents like in China and Russia. That's what the 1A is and does.
The 2A says you can have an arm. That doesn't therefore mean that anyone can have any weapon at any time. Do you people want the craziest nut-job loonies out there to have anthrax and hydrogen bombs in their garage, and live next door to you? If not, then don't say you're not for regulation.
The 2A doesn't say what I can or can't have.
The Constitution doesn't place limits on my rights.
It places limits on how the Government is allowed to infringe on my rights.
And the 2A in particular specifically says that no infringement is allowed.
That's what our Founding Fathers thought.....obviously.
But in all serious. For home protection do you NEED a semi-automatic.
..........
YES! if only from this standpoint.
With the 1911, we were trained to reload with one round in the pipe, our eyes still over our sights, to do it by touch. Keep the pistol on line, ready to fire, in case someone managed to get next to us in that moment.
You can't do that, reload on the ready, with a revolver.
What's sick is that the lefties want to take away innocent people's guns and let violent criminals do their thing without any consequence.
That is profound stupidity on at least two levels:
a) criminals committing crimes without punishment.
b) doesn't allow Joe Average to defend himself against said criminals.
And for extra credit... the defenseless victim of the criminal is the only one who suffers any consequence. The criminal doesn't. The leftist doesn't. The gubbermint doesn't.
Bottom line is that the gun grabbers are sadistic vermin.
It says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. If you tighten up regulation and licensing on AR-15's and that class of weapon, then that does not infringe on the right of the people to bear arms, as there are plenty of other types of arms available, other than that one. An arm means, a weapon.
The 2A says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It doesn't say the right to bear muskets shall not be infringed.
And if the Founders intended the citizenry to only be allowed the most basic of firearms, then why didn't they word it that way?
Why are there no historical accounts of them enforcing that interpretation?
What's sick is that the lefties want to take away innocent people's guns and let violent criminals do their thing without any consequence.
That is profound stupidity on at least two levels:
a) criminals committing crimes without punishment.
b) doesn't allow Joe Average to defend himself against said criminals.
And for extra credit... the defenseless victim of the criminal is the only one who suffers any consequence. The criminal doesn't. The leftist doesn't. The gubbermint doesn't.
Bottom line is that the gun grabbers are sadistic vermin.
I'm all for criminals losoing guns and would love my neighbors to stop leaving their guns in unlocked cars.
So left, right or independent --- not eveyrone wants to take your gun...but can we all agree responsible gun ownrs are sometimes not so reponsible.
Meh, I think they should be banning all guns. I'm fed up with the on-going carnage especially where children are concerned. It's just an advertising slogan for the gun lobby that somehow a well armed citizens' militia could overcome a tyrant in the White House. Did a citizen's militia kick Trump out? Nope. All citizens' militias manage to do is to create occasions for blood shed like Ruby Hill or Waco or the Oklahoma City bombing where Timothy McVeigh managed to off 168 people, including a bunch of little kids in the daycare center of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
Let's hear it for well armed militias! No, let's not.
The Mhurrah Building was the only one of those three that was caused by a militia member. Ruby Hill and Waco were both the result of the government overstepping its bounds.
Maybe. But at least they promised to not be around firearms.
This happens regularly in that particular County (Charles) and while other cases for different crimes name the Judge involved about 90% of the time, the stories that feature illegal gun possession with O.R. never have the Judge's name.
Oh they PROMISED???
Well, that's completely different.
I hope the nice judge gave them a cookie.
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.
