Do you trust your neighbor to own a sword?

[signal_line]

People use guns for protection, just like with seatbelts. The idea to try and sidetrack that to say guns are only for hunting is bogus and deceptive. No mention of hunting rights in the US constitution. They were concerned with tyranny by the gov't. Should be concerned right this minute.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Duckshot]

People use guns for protection, just like with seatbelts. The idea to try and sidetrack that to say guns are only for hunting is bogus and deceptive. No mention of hunting rights in the US constitution. They were concerned with tyranny by the gov't. Should be concerned right this minute.

Guns are how we feed the homeless.

You see, when you see a hungry homeless dude on the street, you could give him a sandwich, but we got better ideas. -

Instead of feeding the hungry homeless you can complain to your representative legislator about the ugliness. Then, a law will be passed taxing you to feed the homeless, which is a sure fire trick to work because if you don't pay your taxes men with badges on their chest and guns on their hips will show up at your front door to haul you off to a "better place".

We need guns to feed the hungry homeless.

But of course, if you can't trust your neighbor to give a hungry dude a sandwich, then certainly that neighbor cannot be trusted to own a gun...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Of course not. But also, I don't know of anybody who is saying that we should end 2nd Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

When the government bans common firearms or makes their purchase unnecessarily difficult for law abiding citizens, that is infringement. When exorbitant fees or taxes are levied against firearms and ammo that is infringement. When firearms related business are over regulated and heavily taxed that is infringement. When law abiding citizens are severely restricted from having a firearm for personal protection when out in the public that is infringement.


When you continue to dissect a right the right ceases to exist.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Merriam-Webster

[FONT=&quot]Definition of [/FONT]infringe

[FONT=&quot]transitive verb
[FONT=&quot]1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another


"When the government bans common firearms or makes their purchase unnecessarily difficult for law-abiding citizens, that’s infringement. When exorbitant fees or taxes are levied against firearms and ammunition, that’s infringement. When firearms related businesses are overregulated and heavily taxed, that’s infringement. When law-abiding citizens are severely restricted from having a firearm for personal protection when out in public, that’s infringement."
“Shall Not Be Infringed” – What Does That Really Mean and is the Government Already in Violation? | Orange County Gun Owners


[/FONT]
[/FONT]

 

[releventchair]

In the context of the era the amendment was drawn up , a military consisted of what?
A review of 1781-82 was fresh back then. Any volunteer that could shoot straight and had the means to do so would be most welcomed.
More , a military is limited in mobility and very importantly , timing. To be everywhere at once is logistically impossible..
Citizens were (and often still are) on thier own hook when under assault.
We've been sucker punched repeatedly since. Nothing new going on there.

Option one was a giant military. There were minds that didn't like the concept. Having soured on military might "enforcing" , and impressing upon civilian life.
Then there would be the costs and logistics again.
Armed capable citizens were a sound alternative to national and social security.

Had we decided citizens had no right to arms and the customary familiarization fell off with disuse through banning , what effect would that have had in 1812?
Oh , but that was then when multiple countries were jockeying for acquisitions and resources , and willing to assault and invade held territories that could never happen today. To which I reply , oh really? Who then will ensure a timely defense should my township office be under assault? And who will guarantee a defense should my home be assaulted? In regards to timing , I'll take my rightful challenge of being who is responsible for my defense. History shows....There are those who can defend themselves in the moment while isolated from troops or local social authorities (l.e.o.'s today) , and those who could not.

I have armed neighbors. I have unarmed neighbors.
They/we are not at risk from each other. Mine are not anyways.
But there is a means of defense should it be needed. Which in my and our founders opinions makes for sound logic.

Some of us are armed for other beneficial reasons befitting the use of arms beyond being defensive.. Should anyone argue we shouldn't need to be familiar with all type arms or thier effective/accurate use as we have our governments troops or a police force to protect us , (nevermind the timing aspect) it is our government that sanely recognizes the benefit of citizens that can shoot. Even with military arms. Which is of benefit when they enter the military , and even if they don't.
See Civilian Marksmanship Program.

Who would without reservation invade a country who's citizens are armed and familiar with thier arms?
Who in history does/has not recognized the difference in unarmed countries vulnerability under assault?
Feel free to wager , never here. I'm all for never here. Except history shows very different.
And tomorrows guarantee of personal security is held in who's hands?

Have it and not need it beats the heck out of being empty handed under assault. Just in case I get a crazy new neighbor , or another visiting one from elsewhere.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

".And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down...d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”

― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons

Extend the argument to its obvious conclusion and we'll have no laws against anything.

As for "gun control" laws that worked, I think the National Firearms Act of 1934 was a success. And others, as well. They are not, obviously, a solution. That remains to be found.

I'm not satisfied with the situation in our country today. We need to find a way out. That requires working together. And experts being allowed to study the problem without bias or pre-conceived solutions.

Sadly, too many people are opposed to trying to find answers.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

The Supreme Court ruling you cited specifically states that the Second Amendment isn't a blanket right. Limitations are within the meaning, context, purpose of the Bill of Rights.

We limit free speech - defamation and plagiarism are illegal. All rights are limited because unlimited rights for one immediately begin to infringe on the unlimited rights of others.

In a real sense, that's the lesson of the failed Articles of Confederation. Each state began to conduct affairs in the narrow light of perceived short-term best interest. A strong federal government was obviously needed to make the system work.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Duckshot]

Expert solutions suck.

Exactly what problem is there to be solved? Is it like we need a war on violence kind of like the war on poverty or the war on drugs? Because those "expert" solutions turned a mere scratch into a hemoraging artery.

Maybe part of the solution is to accept that people are dangerous, no matter if they wear government badge jewlery or not, no matter if they are armed or not, and no matter if they are rich or poor.

Taking away another person's possessions to ease some paranoid fear that the inanimate object might be misused is not exactly sophisticated. It's a juvenile response, and it is also known as theft.

 

[Duckshot]

The Supreme Court ruling you cited specifically states that the Second Amendment isn't a blanket right. Limitations are within the meaning, context, purpose of the Bill of Rights.(snippet)

Yeah but the meaning, context, and purpose of our constitution is not found within it's own pages. The Bill of Rights must be interpreted within the context of The United State's founding document.

 

[Garscale]

Ok Bookaroo... you keep talking about finding a solution. What is it you want to solve? Are you looking to reduce crime or gun ownership? If crime, then adress the criminal, not the tool . I can guarantee you guns have never committed a crime. I can also guarantee you guns have prevented many thousands of crimes.

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

".

Extend the argument to its obvious conclusion and we'll have no laws against anything.

As for "gun control" laws that worked, I think the National Firearms Act of 1934 was a success. And others, as well. They are not, obviously, a solution. That remains to be found.

I'm not satisfied with the situation in our country today. We need to find a way out. That requires working together. And experts being allowed to study the problem without bias or pre-conceived solutions.

Sadly, too many people are opposed to trying to find answers.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Laws were in place prior to the passage/implementation of the BOR. A call for adhering to the supreme laws of this nation is not a call for anarchy.

Numerous founding fathers noted a belief that freedom is impossible without a moral society. I think their point was/is valid, and perhaps the answer to the "problems" being discussed is a move that is opposite to the ongoing current trends.

As for my thoughts on so-called "experts"....

they're a very large part of the problem

 

[Johnnybravo300]

I always carry especially with my family and especially in gun free zones.

There was a shooting recently here in Colorado in a grocery store and not one of them was armed. No way will I be caught like that and with my family.

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

The Supreme Court ruling you cited specifically states that the Second Amendment isn't a blanket right. Limitations are within the meaning, context, purpose of the Bill of Rights.

We limit free speech - defamation and plagiarism are illegal. All rights are limited because unlimited rights for one immediately begin to infringe on the unlimited rights of others.

In a real sense, that's the lesson of the failed Articles of Confederation. Each state began to conduct affairs in the narrow light of perceived short-term best interest. A strong federal government was obviously needed to make the system work.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Among my least favorite mischaracterizations is the claim that rights are limited in scope, therefore the door is wide open to whatever "corrections" are deemed necessary to achieve the desired amount of control.

The premise begins honestly enough - rights are limited in the manner that our actions have consequences. Make knowingly false claims about another, and the harmed has the right to redress.

But that isn't remotely close to the story so often pushed today.

The fact is that speech isn't limited (not legally) but the speaker can be held liable for any harm caused (in general that harm must be knowingly caused).

The problem with the mischaracterization is that far too many accept the concept of limited rights (confusing it with responsibility for actions undertaken) and that opens the door to infringement of our rights.

The 2nd Amendment is not a "blanket right" in the sense that one cannot abuse their right and cause harm to others. Barring a legal conviction that results in the loss of certain rights, the 2nd Amendment not only recognizes our natural rights - it specifically prohibits government from infringing on that natural right.

At the time our Constitution was being considered there were a number of framers who advocated for a strong central government. They lost the argument in the short run and a limited federal government won the day.

Of course the usurpation of powers (not legally held) began before the ink had a chance to dry, and continues to this day.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Duckshot:

I'll take expert solutions over amateur ones every day of the week.

When I was very ill, I went to an experienced medical specialist. i didn't ask my barber or a random taxi driver for advice.

As to what problem must be solved, I quoted the data above - no need to repeat it. People either correctly perceive there's a very serious issue with school children getting gunned down or they don't. More Americans have been killed by firearms since Bobby Kennedy was killed in a LA hotel than died in combat in every war our nation has fought - from the Revolution to this morning.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Old Bookaroo]

"At the time our Constitution was being considered there were a number of framers who advocated for a strong central government. They lost the argument in the short run and a limited federal government won the day."

If those good men didn't want a strong federal government they would have kept the Articles of Confederation.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Duckshot]

Duckshot:

I'll take expert solutions over amateur ones every day of the week.

When I was very ill, I went to an experienced medical specialist. i didn't ask my barber or a random taxi driver for advice.

As to what problem must be solved, I quoted the data above - no need to repeat it. People either correctly perceive there's a very serious issue with school children getting gunned down or they don't. More Americans have been killed by firearms since Bobby Kennedy was killed in a LA hotel than died in combat in every war our nation has fought - from the Revolution to this morning.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Killed with firearms, not "killed by firearms". Nobody ever got killed by a firearm unless it was defective.

A sword is a sword, and a gun ain't a weapon until a person points it at another person. The person did it, not the sword.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Duckshot:

So no one has ever been poisoned?

If someone is struck and killed by an automobile, they weren't killed by a car?

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

"At the time our Constitution was being considered there were a number of framers who advocated for a strong central government. They lost the argument in the short run and a limited federal government won the day."

If those good men didn't want a strong federal government they would have kept the Articles of Confederation.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Perhaps in hindsight some of them wished they had?

My point was that a strong central government is not what they created. They created a limited powers federal government.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

"At the time our Constitution was being considered there were a number of framers who advocated for a strong central government. They lost the argument in the short run and a limited federal government won the day."

If those good men didn't want a strong federal government they would have kept the Articles of Confederation.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

But that was under articles of confederation not under our Constitution. Under Constitution it is a strong central government which is why they added the Bill of Rights to protect the people's rights under a strong central government. The right to keep and bear arms was thought important enough to make it 2nd in our BOR and why they added "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. "

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

Duckshot:



As to what problem must be solved, I quoted the data above - no need to repeat it. People either correctly perceive there's a very serious issue with school children getting gunned down or they don't. More Americans have been killed by firearms since Bobby Kennedy was killed in a LA hotel than died in combat in every war our nation has fought - from the Revolution to this morning.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Would you mind citing the statistics supporting the claim of more Americans killed by firearms than all who died in combat (collectively) since the Revolution?

I ask only because the claim seems suspect.

As for the serious issue with children getting gunned down - isn't that illegal?

 

[Duckshot]

Old Bookaroo-

I got a laser site on one of my .380. Not exactly useful for a gun site but it is kind of a cool toy. Funny thing I noticed though. If I point the laser at the floor and sweep it across the room, the cat looks at it and goes nuts trying to chase it. But, if I try to temp the dog with tantalizing light beam, the dog ignores the dancing laser dot and looks at me.

I seen dogs eat cats.