guns
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
the Zimmerman case is a totally different monster... I, in no way, have ever backed his defense
ImWaitingForTheDay
Annoy a conservative....Think for yourself
What i find amusing, is how you cling to the second amendment, but when challenged to explain it, you and sober simply move on to another part of the founding documents and abandon the second amendment.
TOS.
Ya know, I have to say you gun freaks were RIGHT!! Yes, I said it, your RIGHT! having guns in the home does save lives!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/10/11-year-old-shoots-grandfather/
TOS.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/10/11-year-old-shoots-grandfather/
TOS.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
There are now 36 states that are either "shall issue" for carry permits or that do not require permits at all.
One out of every 15 people in my state (Oregon) has a concealed carry permit.
Your concerns about licensed carriers mistaking rambunctious kids for legitimate threats and shooting them, while valid, have not come to pass and the statistics bear this out.
I am curious--was the man you met carrying openly, or did he just do a bad job of concealing his weapon?
While I generally support the right to open carry, I think it is socially unacceptable under most circumstances and downright obnoxious when done in schools or malls, especially when the person chooses to carry a long gun.
oldngray
nowhere special
Most of those people abusing open carry are
s. I agree they have a right to do so but they are only doing it for the publicity. If they really wanted to carry then concealed is far more practical - you could draw your weapon and be ready quicker than a slung rifle plus concealed keeps people guessing who is really carrying.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
In simple English...
The Constitution doesn't say "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Go ahead and talk about commas all you want. Go ahead and talk about the Militia Act that was passed 20 years after the Constitution all you want. None of that has anything to do with the fact that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms
is very clearly spelled out. In simple English even.
my impression was either bad concealment or intentionally bad concealment.Most of those people abusing open carry are
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I am 47 years old, somewhat overweight, with back problems and a bad Achilles tendon.
I'm big enough (and nice enough) that people don't usually mess with me, but the grim reality is that against an assailant or multiple assailants who are younger and more physically fit my chances of successfully running away from a fight, much less winning one, aren't the best.
Plus, I have a wife who is blind in one eye and unable to run or fight at all so when I am with her then I have to protect her and standing my ground is the only option.
I will tolerate verbal abuse and insults, retreat if necessary, and do everything humanly possible to defuse and de-escalate a situation but when push comes to shove and none of that works then carrying a concealed weapon simply gives me one final option other than begging for my or my wife's life.
Self-defense is, quite simply, a fundamental human right... no different from the right to love who you want, the right to choose a religious faith of your choice, or the right to the free expression of your beliefs.
I have always been amazed at the fact that the supposedly "liberal" politicians who advocate for religious freedom, feminism, gay rights and reproductive freedom for women are almost always the ones who say that the government should control who is allowed to own guns.
I'm big enough (and nice enough) that people don't usually mess with me, but the grim reality is that against an assailant or multiple assailants who are younger and more physically fit my chances of successfully running away from a fight, much less winning one, aren't the best.
Plus, I have a wife who is blind in one eye and unable to run or fight at all so when I am with her then I have to protect her and standing my ground is the only option.
I will tolerate verbal abuse and insults, retreat if necessary, and do everything humanly possible to defuse and de-escalate a situation but when push comes to shove and none of that works then carrying a concealed weapon simply gives me one final option other than begging for my or my wife's life.
Self-defense is, quite simply, a fundamental human right... no different from the right to love who you want, the right to choose a religious faith of your choice, or the right to the free expression of your beliefs.
I have always been amazed at the fact that the supposedly "liberal" politicians who advocate for religious freedom, feminism, gay rights and reproductive freedom for women are almost always the ones who say that the government should control who is allowed to own guns.
You see, I don't have a problem with any of that. I just have a problem believing you are the rule rather than the exception and I'm not in a hurry to have every person packing so that we can find out.
oldngray
nowhere special
Who would be the one to judge the rule vs. exception. Would you say an athletic man in his 20's is too healthy to carry?
No. I am speaking of the attitude.
AGAIN, you are WRONG! This is what YOU posted... I'll paste it word for word for you
(( It says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ))
SHOW ME WHERE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT or THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARTICLE 5 does it contain this sentence?
Where is the COMMA that you conveniently LEFT OUT?
Let me save you the trouble. Neither DOCUMENT contains that sentence.
This is why I asked you about sentence structure, Syntax and CONJUNCTION. You obviously cant explain it, and simply do the same thing every other gun freak does, they create something that doesnt exist.
Going back to the lengthy post where I disected the second amendment for you, I pointed out that there are 4 fragments to the sentence.
You, like the others of like mindset, want to CONNECT the last two fragments into ONE sentence, or , create a "stand alone" sentence, separating it from the two fragments that come before it.
If you can SHOW me a stand alone sentence that says what YOU think it says, then do so. Ill hold my breath.
I want to know, how YOU reconcile CONNECTING the last two fragments of the second amendment as having one meaning even though they are separated by a COMMA.
, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
,shall not be infringed.
How do you come to the conclusion, in your own mind, that when you read the second amendment, you leave out the PREAMBLE:
"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."
IF the last two fragments are to be connected even though separated by a comma, why isnt the first fragment or preamble connected to the last three parts of the sentence?
If the founders wanted "people" to have as many guns as they wanted, and the "people" were to make up the "militia", then why did they have to REGULATE the militia and make it a government function?
Why did they create the militia act with penalties if people didnt sign up or enlist? If the militia's were just a bunch of people with guns protecting the country from a tyranical government, why the need to REGULATE it?
The militia's in 1791, 1792 and onward, were NEVER a bunch of private citizens armed to protect themselves from government.
They were a government entity, subject to ONCALL duty, by order of the president of the United States.
They were the first standing army of the USA. The militia act is very clear WHO could be in the militia, and WHO could own guns.
They werent black people, they werent hispanics, they werent women, they werent chinese and they sure werent indians. The militia act was very precise in choosing only WHITE MEN, ages 18 to 45 as being able to be in a militia of any kind.
They were very precise in defining what weapons could be owned or stored.
There were no mentions of machine guns, assault weapons, grenades, pistols with 50 round clips in them, for they did not exist at the time. However, todays gun freaks, want to EXPAND, CHANGE, REDFINE the militia act to include these kinds of guns as if the founders would have approved them in the second congress.
I say, if you want to be a clear constitutionalist, then buy yourself a musket, providing of course you are younger than age 45, and some powder, find some balls and defend yourself with that.
Then, and only then would you be a true constitutionalist.
Up until that point, you just keep making crap up to fit your narrative. The others dont have the intelligence to answer the questions either , so dont feel bad that you cant either.
TOS.
Looks like you live in Somalia! Man, whatever you did in life to put you in a neighborhood where you have to keep ammo like this, I sure wouldnt spend one day there.
Nothing says "ghetto" more than a pile of high caliber ammo in a basement.
TOS.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
I would say that my attitude is the rule among those who have gone to the time, trouble, expense, background checks and training that are required to get a concealed carry permit.
Carrying concealed brings with it a greater need for training an accountability than merely owning a gun, so I don't have a problem with the idea of requiring those who wish to do so to obtain a license on a "shall issue" basis.
What I do have a problem with...is those licenses being issued solely at the whim of unaccountable, anti-gun bureaucrats and politicians, or worse yet being denied altogether with no recourse or due process.
Statistically, far more people die in traffic accidents than thru guns, yet drivers licenses are "shall issue" in all 50 states and reciprocal in all 50 states and we never hear anyone screaming and hollering about waiting periods or additional restrictions on drivers licenses or car purchases.
The fact of the matter is that as far as concealed handgun permits go, the worst fears of the anti-gun crown...blood in the streets and gunfights on every corner....simply have not materialized. Licensed carriers are not the problem and this has been proven in 36 states now over the last 20+ years.
There is simply no rational basis for granting a carry permit to a trained, law-abiding person in Oregon while denying one to a trained and law-abiding person who lives in Chicago or Washington DC.
I have an Oregon drivers license which is perfectly valid and allows me to freely drive a car in Chicago or Washington DC and no one questions or disputes that this should be the case. Why should a gun license be any different?
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
What state do you live in?
Similar threads
