Second amendment

[BIGBULL29]

America will be on a its knees someday, wondering why we kept choosing guns over human life.

Pro-lifers are usually the biggest gun-rights advocates. How ironic!

The absurdities of life...and the ignorance of humanity....

 

[pred]

America will be on a its knees someday, wondering why we kept choosing guns over human life.

Pro-lifers are usually the biggest gun-rights advocates. How ironic!

The absurdities of life...and the ignorance of humanity....

Yes because those who value human life value being able to protect human life. You keep thinking that if guns were gone no one would be committing crimes and killing each other.

From March 2017 to March 2018 there were over 40,000 offenses in England and Wales involving a knife. Now they want to ban knives. When will you get it through your head that bad people will continue to do bad things regardless of what they can get their hands on. All you do is make it hard for good people to keep the odds even in keeping themselves and their family safe.

 

[BIGBULL29]

I don't think any group is coming for anyone's guns, just like Religious Righties are never going to own a woman's uterus.

The NRA thinks Russia has a 2nd Amendment. Hard to believe. They like Russia more than fellow Lefty Americans. Wow - Putin is really winning.

Assault weapons of war will be banned in the future. That will happen. And so will greater restrictions on who can buy and own a gun (greater enforcement with background checks). Gun show loophole will also be closed. It bares mentioning that law-abiding citizens with no criminal record will just go on their merry way with their guns.

I always wondered why dudes and broads who love weapons of war rarely serve in the US military like my old man (Vietnam combat vet).

If it weren't for combat vets of war, you 2nd Amendment fanatics wouldn't have no 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[BIGBULL29]

Yes because those who value human life value being able to protect human life. You keep thinking that if guns were gone no one would be committing crimes and killing each other.

From March 2017 to March 2018 there were over 40,000 offenses in England and Wales involving a knife. Now they want to ban knives. When will you get it through your head that bad people will continue to do bad things regardless of what they can get their hands on. All you do is make it hard for good people to keep the odds even in keeping themselves and their family safe.

You cannot blow away 40-50 people with a knife, a chair, a table... You have a much greater chance of surviving a knife attack than being shot by a firearm.

How often are firearms used successfully in self-defense situations?

More firearms in society = more deaths. Fact. Where there is consistently a gun, there is a much greater likelihood of injury and death than if there were not such a weapon in the vicinity.

 

[pred]

I don't think any group is coming for anyone's guns, just like Religious Righties are never going to own a woman's uterus.

The NRA thinks Russia has a 2nd Amendment. Hard to believe. They like Russia more than fellow Lefty Americans. Wow - Putin is really winning.

Assault weapons of war will be banned in the future. That will happen. And so will greater restrictions on who can buy and own a gun (greater enforcement with background checks). Gun show loophole will also be closed. It bares mentioning that law-abiding citizens with no criminal record will just go on their merry way with their guns.

I always wondered why dudes and broads who love weapons of war rarely serve in the US military like my old man (Vietnam combat vet).

If it weren't for combat vets of war, you 2nd Amendment fanatics wouldn't have no 2nd Amendment rights.

The irony of how dare you not let me choose to make a choice to end another life who has no say. Then pro choice people stand on their little hill screaming down how gun owners don’t care about dead children.

Assault weapons of war? If read about your kind before. Don’t worry good peasant put your trust in me and do as I say. If you've done nothing wrong what do you have to hide.

 

[pred]

How often are firearms used successfully in self-defense situations?

estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

 

[pred]

FYI DGU = defensive gun uses

 

[Perados]

America was founded through a revolution in which citizens fought their own government. So I would think they considered the possibiltity of govenment tyranny in the future which could require another such revolution.
However, to me, this doesn’t appear to have much bearing on the amendment itself

I don't think they thought of tyranny... they were convicted of what they created just a few years earlier. Their political system was one of most modern in the world. I doubt THEIR nation would could have a tyranny.

I guess it's more likely that they thought of of America's density, its military power and the abilities of other nations who could threat them.
The only way to fight a possible invasion was to have a militia that was always able to strike back.

 

[Perados]

How is it a problem for a father to share a hobby with his son and teach him respect and to respect firearms along the way? Teach him to hunt, and valuable life skills?

There is a reason why there is an age limitation... that the people don't care about it shows that there is a problem.

It's nice to have a hobby you can share with your children. But children can't judge situations like adults do and in case of weapons it berries a lot of risks. - it's not surprising to have news about a 4 year old who shoots another boy at the kindergarten.

My personal view is that weapons don't belong in to the every day life. But if children get used to it at such a young age they will accept weapons more easily.

 

[Perados]

estimates there are 1,029,615 DGUs per year “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” excluding “military service, police work, or work as a security guard,” (within the range of the National Academies’ paper), yielding an estimate of 162,000 cases per year where someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.”

Any Study Of 'Gun Violence' Should Include How Guns Save Lives

this raises two questions...

1. How do they define "almost certainly"?

2. If you include the defence, you should also evaluate how many attacks wouldn't have happened with a gun, if there were harder regulations and less guns available. - it would lower the number of "almost certainly" and actual murder.

 

[IntactMale]

The Supreme Court can't make a decision on how to interpret the second amendment. I doubt anyone on this site is going to be able to pick apart the issue with more detail than the court, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the meaning is or should be. No one knows, it is impossible to know.

What everyone should know is that trying to interpret the words written 250 years ago, in a world with the technology of 250 years ago, is irrelevant today. People 250 years ago would have their minds blown by seeing the most basic aspects of the modern world. Cars, electronics, machines, computers, airplanes, all of these things seem like nothing to us, but would be so incomprehensible to someone alive 250 years ago, that we really can't trust their judgement of anything today. Remember that the people who wrote the amendment though women shouldn't vote, and that slavery was acceptable.

The Supreme Court can't make a decision, but here is some interesting information from Cornell. Read it, it's not leftist or whatever derogatory term the asshole who responds will want to use:

Second Amendment

One point I found pretty interesting was the restriction of sawed off shotguns, as they were deemed to not have any use for law abiding citizens:

The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.


So if a sawed off shotgun doesn't have use for a law abiding citizen, then what use does an AR-15, for example, have for a law abiding citizen? If the court suggested that the US Constitution does not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals or the mentally ill from firearm possession, then why are there so many criminals and mentally ill people with legally purchased firearms.

JulieinNaples apparently has guns. Anyone who has spent any time on this site knows that this is not a person of sound mind. But she has guns. If the constitution does not grant the right to own guns to the mentally ill as stated above, why do the mentally ill still have guns? Julie is a minor case, she's probably too stupid to use them, but Adam Lanza knew how to use them.

It's very easy to say that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, but countries that have outlawed guns prove that it really isn't true. For example, the UK and Australia. Guns exist in those countries, but gun crimes are minimal, at least by American standards.

I don't care to hear anyone's arguments. If you think you've got a foot up on the Supreme Court then please take your case to them. Here you are just an asshole on the internet and I don't need to hear your bullshit.

 

[phonehome]

Two things

On the Kids with guns front remember a few years ago with a "father" took his as I recall "son" who was like 6 or 7 to a gun range in as I recall Nevada, gave him a full auto UZI and he foreed it lost control of it and killed among others that "instructor" who was "training them"

On the knife front, on the day of Sandy Hook there was an attack in China by a guy who used a knife, he stabbed twenty something people and EVERY last one of them lived. So knife twenty something victims they all LIVE AR-15 and 26 are DEAD

 

[thisguy805]

 

[twoton]

Want to take my guns lefties? Come and get THEM. (Plural)

Like the bumper sticker, "You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands?"

That always makes me think of this:

 

[twoton]

America will be on a its knees someday, wondering why we kept choosing guns over human life.

Pro-lifers are usually the biggest gun-rights advocates. How ironic!

The absurdities of life...and the ignorance of humanity....

I don't think the connection is between pro-life and pro-guns, I think the connection is through conservative politics. Conservatives tend to be both.

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

The Supreme Court can't make a decision on how to interpret the second amendment. I doubt anyone on this site is going to be able to pick apart the issue with more detail than the court, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks the meaning is or should be. No one knows, it is impossible to know.

What everyone should know is that trying to interpret the words written 250 years ago, in a world with the technology of 250 years ago, is irrelevant today. People 250 years ago would have their minds blown by seeing the most basic aspects of the modern world. Cars, electronics, machines, computers, airplanes, all of these things seem like nothing to us, but would be so incomprehensible to someone alive 250 years ago, that we really can't trust their judgement of anything today. Remember that the people who wrote the amendment though women shouldn't vote, and that slavery was acceptable.

The Supreme Court can't make a decision, but here is some interesting information from Cornell. Read it, it's not leftist or whatever derogatory term the asshole who responds will want to use:

Second Amendment

One point I found pretty interesting was the restriction of sawed off shotguns, as they were deemed to not have any use for law abiding citizens:

The majority carved out Miller as an exception to the general rule that Americans may possess firearms, claiming that law-abiding citizens cannot use sawed-off shotguns for any law-abiding purpose. Similarly, the Court in its dicta found regulations of similar weaponry that cannot be used for law-abiding purposes as laws that would not implicate the Second Amendment. Further, the Court suggested that the United States Constitution would not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals and the mentally ill from firearm possession.


So if a sawed off shotgun doesn't have use for a law abiding citizen, then what use does an AR-15, for example, have for a law abiding citizen? If the court suggested that the US Constitution does not disallow regulations prohibiting criminals or the mentally ill from firearm possession, then why are there so many criminals and mentally ill people with legally purchased firearms.

JulieinNaples apparently has guns. Anyone who has spent any time on this site knows that this is not a person of sound mind. But she has guns. If the constitution does not grant the right to own guns to the mentally ill as stated above, why do the mentally ill still have guns? Julie is a minor case, she's probably too stupid to use them, but Adam Lanza knew how to use them.

It's very easy to say that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, but countries that have outlawed guns prove that it really isn't true. For example, the UK and Australia. Guns exist in those countries, but gun crimes are minimal, at least by American standards.

I don't care to hear anyone's arguments. If you think you've got a foot up on the Supreme Court then please take your case to them. Here you are just an asshole on the internet and I don't need to hear your bullshit.

This is a thread specifically for the interpretation of the second amendment. Even if you think your own interpretation is pointless, I’d like to hear it. I hear a lot of critiscim in the interpretation of others, but I want to hear an actual interpretation.
I started the thread by acknowledging that there are necessary laws and regulations beyond the amendment. And of course criminals and mentally ill shouldn’t have guns. Criminals sacrifice their rights when they break the law.
The ar-15 and sawed off shotgun debate is a separate issue. But there’s certainly a debate to be had. An AR is deadlier, but it’s not a weapon that’s been altered for concealment, it’s simply a less deadly version of the rifle used by our military

 

[Giacomo cavernosa]

I understand there’s a debate to be had about gun control in America. But that’s not what this thread is for. I’ve heard a lot of people complain about guns, but nobody’s provided an alternative interpretation of the second amendment yet

 

[185248]

My Father taught me to shoot when I was 11 and spent the first 2 times at the range just teaching me the safety of firearms first. Then he let me fire his 22 then his 32 then his 38 and then his 357, that dam near tore my hand off. Being a big girl, lol I insisted on firing his Winchester Model 12 12ga that proceeded to set me back 10 feet and bruise my shoulder because I did listen to him on how to hold it correctly. I can be cerebral at times.
Me and hubby shoot monthly and I love my Glock 29 10mm but a little big for the skimpy clothes I wear most times so it's in my purse.

Want to take my guns lefties? Come and get THEM. (Plural)

I bought my first rifle at 14. Walked home with it under my arm in a major city....no-one batted an eyelid.

I was using high powered weapons with telescopic sights at 17.

There was the news of a massacre here and there in Australia. Then along came Martin Bryant. The most notorious mass murderer in the world of that time using military automatics.

The only people I know wish to hang on to weapons of killing for food are hunters and farmers.

You say you have skimpy clothes.....but your photos are ages old. I can post a photo of me right here and now, date stamped. What is your answer to that? It goes to your whole credibility.

You are full of shit.

 

[IntactMale]

This is a thread specifically for the interpretation of the second amendment. Even if you think your own interpretation is pointless, I’d like to hear it. I hear a lot of critiscim in the interpretation of others, but I want to hear an actual interpretation.
I started the thread by acknowledging that there are necessary laws and regulations beyond the amendment. And of course criminals and mentally ill shouldn’t have guns. Criminals sacrifice their rights when they break the law.
The ar-15 and sawed off shotgun debate is a separate issue. But there’s certainly a debate to be had. An AR is deadlier, but it’s not a weapon that’s been altered for concealment, it’s simply a less deadly version of the rifle used by our military

I'm not going to go in depth with my interpretation because, again, if the Supreme Court can't make a decision whatever debate is had on this thread is absolutely meaningless. Obviously, the well regulated militia portion is where the debate lies, and I feel that the intent was to not infringe on the rights to bear arms when a militia is needed, not if a militia is needed. But it really doesn't matter, what someone thought 250 years ago doesn't necessarily make sense today. I don't care how well regulated a militia is, in the case of any kind of fight with the government any militia will be quickly crushed by the armed forces, so militias aren't even really relevant.

The comment about the AR isn't really about it being altered or concealed. It's the same idea as with a sawed off shotgun, what purpose does a law abiding citizen have for one, I don't think entertainment is a good enough answer.

I've said in several threads before, though I'm still accused of it, I don't want guns to be banned. I enjoy shooting guns in an appropriate setting. It's fun to shoot, but my entertainment is not important enough to justify widespread ownership of a tool that's only purpose is to kill.

 

[185248]

how about a 200 and 6th amendment?