Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Good luck if you are in a crowd on the ground.. you won't even see him coming with the truck until its too late. Ask the people in Madrid, France or London.

---

My chances are better with a truck plowing through than bullets spraying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

That dodge doesn't work since a vast majority of Americans AND NRA members support common sense solutions to the problem of mass murders in this country. The constitution also calls for a well REGULATED militia,.

---

Yes it is very clear that part of the Constitution is forgotten, the Constitution didn't call for an ill trained and ill disciplined rabble rampaging through the land. It seems to me that if guns owners are not formed into a well regulated militia then what they do is outside their Constitutional rights. People love to isolate certain words and forget others but what is said must be taken as a whole.

Now what purpose would a well regulated militia have? External defense, certainly, but also the keeping of order since in the founders view a police force did not exist, therefore this militia should exist to facilitate public order and any person who possesses a weapon for other purposes is outside the Constitution. But I know logic doesn't prevail

We have a right to bear arms in our constitution Clete, but no where is there a right to SELL arms and while sellers are already heavily regulated, there is a wide latitude what they sell, and to whom they sell it to, and no laws apply to private sellers at gun shows of which are numerous, at least none that can be enforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

We have a right to bear arms in our constitution Clete,

---

There is a COLLECTIVE right to bear arms - i.e., as part of a militia. There is no INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms - i.e., outside of a militia. That is what the amendment's language reads. The language is very clear.

However, in the late 18th century, hunting was a common and necessary activity. Militia membership was not a requirement to hunt.

The hallowed founders screwed that one up big time. So that 200+ years later, there is still no consensus on what the amendment means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Athos

There is a COLLECTIVE right to bear arms - i.e., as part of a militia. There is no INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms - i.e., outside of a militia. That is what the amendment's language reads. The language is very clear.

However, in the late 18th century, hunting was a common and necessary activity. Militia membership was not a requirement to hunt.

The hallowed founders screwed that one up big time. So that 200+ years later, there is still no consensus on what the amendment means.

---

Bovine excrement, where exactly does it say that anyplace. So apparently there is no individual freedom of speech or any other individual freedoms either by that same perverted extreme left wing perspective of the Bill of rights.

This IS the second amendment of the Constitution of the US:

Quote:

---

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.

---

https://usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Quote:

---

The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.

---

You can interpret the Constitution any way you want but states make their own rules within this framework. Maybe someday the state of Virginia will come for Smoothys arsenal and shoot his a$$ for resisting, but until then we can still apply some common sense restrictions for the public safety can't we?

Like a database for all 50 states of gun applicants for background checks. One of the things that came out of Vegas was the shooter was taking meds.

Las Vegas shooter had a diazepam prescription ? here's what that means - Business Insider

And he was a drinker when he wasn't gambling. Not saying meds and alcohol is the only factor here, but clearly we need to look at mental and emotional health of ANYONE we give the responsibility of gun ownership to. Common sense? It's a standard that law enforcement and the military applies to applicants.

Oh the lefties WANT a 50 state registry so they know who has exactly WHAT so they can come after everyone's guns when they decide to overthrow the government when they can't steal any more elections.

We already have more "common sense" laws than we need... and consider what side is harping the loudest.. the ones who think every Muslim that wants to come here should be allowed in.. without any waiting in line or applications everyone else has to do... yet want to take away the rights of actual Americans on some false promise of "security".

Chicago, and to lesser degrees NYC, and Baltimore (and the state of MD)... all have repressive gun laws... from unconstitutionally Draconian to ones that just make no sense (like MD where almost the only people carrying a gun you will meet is either a cop or criminal)... if you are in a restaurant in any of those and some thug comes in gunning up the place... you aren't going to have any law abiding people with a CC permit that can do something... so you wait 20 minutes for the cops to show up and blame everyone but the people responsible for that situation... like liberals do. All three of those places are among the HIGHEST crime rates in the country. And the left sees no correlation there.

Crime statistics are drastically different from one side of the Potomac river to the other... in VA we have open carry, and it's a SHALL issue state... a criminal never knows who will shoot back.. and our crime rates are significantly lower than across the river in MD where they can be assured... if there is no cop around... nobody can stop them. Exact same thing holds true for the border between DC and VA...(the same river)

I thought Obama got all the guns already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I thought Obama got all the guns already.

---

Oh its clear he WANTED to... and if he had any clue who had exactly what and where, he would have tried. He also had the common sense to know that would have ended very badly for him and anyone who would have been his flunky running house to house trying.

After all Chicago is such a shining beacon of safe neighborhoods and friendly neighbors because of decades of Democrat control. Hell its a virtual Utiopia, or did I get it backwards using "it's" in place of "is"


Funny thing is..as much as Owebummer hated guns in the hands of the public......he ended up being the greatest gun salesman in recent times.

Obama had NO interest in taking away guns owned by sane, legitimate gun owners.

Oh the lefties WANT a 50 state registry so they know who has exactly WHAT so they can come after everyone's guns when they decide to overthrow the government when they can't steal any more elections.

Right wing paranoia fueled lunacy! Hardly common sense since we probably have as many guns as you do!

We already have more "common sense" laws than we need... and consider what side is harping the loudest.. the ones who think every Muslim that wants to come here should be allowed in.. Without any waiting in line or applications everyone else has to do... yet want to take away the rights of actual Americans on some false promise of "security".

The average wait time under Obama was two years! Again common sense has to be based on facts and not just paranoia!

Chicago, and to lesser degrees NYC, and Baltimore (and the state of MD)... all have repressive gun laws... from unconstitutionally Draconian to ones that just make no sense (like MD where almost the only people carrying a gun you will meet is either a cop or criminal)... if you are in a restaurant in any of those and some thug comes in gunning up the place... you aren't going to have any law abiding people with a CC permit that can do something... so you wait 20 minutes for the cops to show up and blame everyone but the people responsible for that situation... like liberals do. All three of those places are among the HIGHEST crime rates in the country. And the left sees no correlation there.

And of course you have FACTS and not just speculation to go along with your absurd narrow claim. Fact is a lunatic can walk in a church, restaurant, mall, or beauty shop ANYWHERE in America and smoke a bunch of people including the state of Texas where I am and CC is a matter of fact as is open carry, and matters little what the crime rate is

Crime statistics are drastically different from one side of the Potomac river to the other... in VA we have open carry, and it's a SHALL issue state... a criminal never knows who will shoot back.. and our crime rates are significantly lower than across the river in MD where they can be assured... if there is no cop around... nobody can stop them. Same thing holds true for the border between DC and VA... (the same river)

Densely populated areas (URBAN) have higher crimes than less dense areas (RURAL) so what's your point? Nothing that makes common sense I suspect since you broad brush everything into neat little nonsense categories. Let take your example of Chicago for instance that has areas of blight, high unemployment, and no economic development, with very high rates of violence and crimes, and entirely crime free areas where the money flows like a river. This is a direct result of generations, and DECADES (More than a century in the case of Chicago specifically) of public policy design to keep power in the hands of a few brokers and oppress the majority of others.

Look up the history of Chicago and get the FACTS, and then look up any city and get the facts instead of making up nonsense to fit your own LUNACY!

The Second Amendment clearly identifies right as belonging to ‘the people.’ It is sheer nonsense to argue that the intent of the framers was to give the power to state run militias only . They all mistrusted government and thought that the preservation of liberty rested in the people being properly armed. No where else in the constitution does the use of the words 'the people ' mean a state controlled subset . The people are individuals when rights are mentioned .

Quote:

---

I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

---

George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

Quote:

---

Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence

---

George Washington .

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Second Amendment clearly identifies right as belonging to ‘the people.’

---

Will my rights as a citizen be protected when "the people" are armed as they are now? Will "the people" gather into a cohesive body, guns at the ready?

The right to bear arms has never been an issue with me, but given the advancement in technology, can't we at least DEMAND responsibility, and SAFETY to go along with ACCOUNTABILITY?

That's asking too much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The right to bear arms has never been an issue with me, but given the advancement in technology, can't we at least DEMAND responsibility, and SAFETY to go along with ACCOUNTABILITY?

That's asking too much?

---

Apparently it is Tal, you are abridging an absolute right of the people apparently

Sorry Tal and Clete and WG . None of your controls would've prevented Las Vegas . Stephen Paddock passed all the background checks when he purchased weapons. You know and I know that what the left wants in this country is a repeal of the 2nd amendment and enact laws that mimic Australia's restrictions and confiscations .All of the “common sense” laws for which liberals advocate are designed to hinder legal firearms purchases, not criminal gun violence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Sorry Tal and Clete and WG . None of your controls would've prevented Las Vegas . Stephen Paddock passed all the background checks when he purchased weapons. You know and I know that what the left wants in this country is a repeal of the 2nd amendment and enact laws that mimic Australia's restrictions and confiscations .All of the “common sense” laws for which liberals advocate are designed to hinder legal firearms purchases, not criminal gun violence.

---

Sometimes I think you want to force a reply. There are no confiscations here, Tom, unless illegal activity forces a search, there have been amnesties where citizens voluntarily hand in unregistered weapons. Our laws were put in place to counter gun violence of the very type that manifested itself in LV, and they have been successful, much to the chagrin of the US gun lobby. What we have demonstrated is a democracy can exist and be refreshed at the ballot box without the citizens resorting to violence or assassinating the leaders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Sorry Tal and Clete and WG . None of your controls would've prevented Las Vegas .

---

Huh? I didn't suggest a control. I wondered if the gun-carrying rabble will protect me when the government comes along to strip me of my rights. (P.S. They're already planning to strip me of SS and Medicare and my elderly mother of Medicaid.)

WG
knowing that ;why would you accept a social contract where the only way to protect your rights is from the same government that would strip you of what you are entitled to ? The gun toting "rabble " you speak of is the government that can ,will and has imposed it's will on the people by the force of arms many times .

The facts are clear . There are over 300 million guns in the country and record numbers of Americans applying for gun permits .Do you really believe those gun owners are a 'gun-carrying rabble ' ? The only noticeable achievement of all these so called "common sense " measures is the increase in sales of guns. Despite the sensationalization of well publicized mass shootings ;the truth is that there is more than a 20 year decline in gun violence in the country .(even as places with strict gun laws like Chi -town are the wild wild west some weekends ). 2/3 of the gun violence in the country is self inflicted suicide or accident .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

WG
knowing that ;why would you accept a social contract where the only way to protect your rights is from the same government that would strip you of what you are entitled to ? The gun toting "rabble " you speak of is the government that can ,will and has imposed it's will on the people by the force of arms many times .

---

The gun-toting rabble are all the NRA members (those open- and concealed-carry dudes). Will they connect with each other to form a militia and protect me against the government's tanks and cannons?