Guns
Options
Replies
-
I am not scared enough to feel that I require a gun.
Right!? Why would I ever need a gun, other than a hunting riffle if I hunted, I just don't get the point of owning guns(other than hunting riffles). It must be the Canadian in me
Generally, the response from many permitholders is that they're not scared, either.
Some are. I can't deny that.
But there are many who simply look around, see that there are potential threats, and simply wish to have a means of dealing with them on the off-chance one of those threats presents itself.
It's the same reason I have a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with Quik Clot and a tourniquet in my car. I'm not EXPECTING to get into or pass by a major accident, but I know they happen. So I like to think that if my or someone elses' car catches fire, I've got the extinguisher. If there's an accident where someone's bleeding severely, I've got equipment to help deal with it.
So are the odds of me facing a deadly threat great? Not really. I tend to avoid high-threat environments. But I think I can speak for the majority of us when I say that, if we knew we were going to be attacked at a given time and place, we'd avoid it.
i try to stay out of politics on here, but i will say the following for those that do not understand why Americans feel strongly about gun rights.
the American Revolution started when King George III sent his troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the arms of the citizenry (militia). he sent his armed surrogates (soldiers of the British army) to disarm the colonists so that he could impose his political will on them through force. that's why the founding fathers enshrined the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. it's not about hunting. it's not about sport. it's not even about self-defense against criminals... it's about an armed citizenry being the only thing that stands between foreign or domestic tyranny and freedom. that's why gun control laws are ultimately viewed by the majority of Americans as an assault on their freedoms and that's why so many of those outside of the USA do not and cannot understand our mindset.
While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but did the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller case decide otherwise? Heller ruling established that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
So despite what you, or I or anyone else thinks the framers intended, ^that is the current interpretation, no?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.0 -
That's true, then add in the fact that all males are required to register for the selective service from the age of 18 to 25, which is an unregulated militia, and a lot of the arguments are torn asunder, if it weren't for the Heller case that disconnected militia need from 2nd amendment ownership and use of common use arms. (Read in: Military "type/grade")
Actually, by the **** Act of 1903 (lol it edited out the guy's name!
- also known as the Militia Act of 1903), and also by many state Constitutions, the militia consists of all able-bodied men aged 17-45. 0 -
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.
Thank you for telling us you are paranoid and not comfortable with your rights.0 -
That's true, then add in the fact that all males are required to register for the selective service from the age of 18 to 25, which is an unregulated militia, and a lot of the arguments are torn asunder, if it weren't for the Heller case that disconnected militia need from 2nd amendment ownership and use of common use arms. (Read in: Military "type/grade")
Actually, by the **** Act of 1903 (lol it edited out the guy's name! - also known as the Militia Act of 1903), and also by many state Constitutions, the militia consists of all able-bodied men aged 17-45.
The unregulated militia, I was just starting specifically about the SS. In my state I believe it's all males 17-45, as you noted. So if it weren't for Heller, then one who argued it was connected to militia participation would in effect be saying only men 17-45 should be allowed to have arms.0 -
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.
Thank you for telling us you are paranoid and not comfortable with your rights.
How am I paranoid? How am I not comfortable with my rights? Stop sniping (pun intended) and make an argument.0 -
Fact is, the more people that legally carry in a community, the less gun violence there is. MD has terribly restrictive gun laws, and now Baltimore is coming close to Detroit in murder rate.
Baltimore is known as the city that bleeds due to gun violence....
Also, from the looks at the profile pics I do not see many guns.0 -
I am not scared enough to feel that I require a gun.
Right!? Why would I ever need a gun, other than a hunting riffle if I hunted, I just don't get the point of owning guns(other than hunting riffles). It must be the Canadian in me
Generally, the response from many permitholders is that they're not scared, either.
Some are. I can't deny that.
But there are many who simply look around, see that there are potential threats, and simply wish to have a means of dealing with them on the off-chance one of those threats presents itself.
It's the same reason I have a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with Quik Clot and a tourniquet in my car. I'm not EXPECTING to get into or pass by a major accident, but I know they happen. So I like to think that if my or someone elses' car catches fire, I've got the extinguisher. If there's an accident where someone's bleeding severely, I've got equipment to help deal with it.
So are the odds of me facing a deadly threat great? Not really. I tend to avoid high-threat environments. But I think I can speak for the majority of us when I say that, if we knew we were going to be attacked at a given time and place, we'd avoid it.
i try to stay out of politics on here, but i will say the following for those that do not understand why Americans feel strongly about gun rights.
the American Revolution started when King George III sent his troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the arms of the citizenry (militia). he sent his armed surrogates (soldiers of the British army) to disarm the colonists so that he could impose his political will on them through force. that's why the founding fathers enshrined the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. it's not about hunting. it's not about sport. it's not even about self-defense against criminals... it's about an armed citizenry being the only thing that stands between foreign or domestic tyranny and freedom. that's why gun control laws are ultimately viewed by the majority of Americans as an assault on their freedoms and that's why so many of those outside of the USA do not and cannot understand our mindset.
While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but did the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller case decide otherwise? Heller ruling established that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
So despite what you, or I or anyone else thinks the framers intended, ^that is the current interpretation, no?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.
On one side, SCOTUS and the Constitution, and on the other, that ^.
Okay.
This is like arguing with toddlers.0 -
I almost threw up on her floor because I was so freaked out even being in the same room as a gun. :frown: I'm sure I'm in the same room as guns all the time but they're concealed so I just don't think about it.
Are you prone to fits of drama?
No.0 -
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.
Thank you for telling us you are paranoid and not comfortable with your rights.
How am I paranoid? How am I not comfortable with my rights? Stop sniping (pun intended) and make an argument.
Your paranoia leads you to believe irrationally that people with arms are paranoid and therefore, implied as dangerous. The entire basis of your argument lacks logic, background, anything. It's not substantive, you are just afraid of people going beyond hunting and shooting paper. You are uncomfortable with your rights to protect yourself. Which is fine of course, albeit a touch sad in my opinion. Hey though, it works for you, of course until it doesn't. 0 -
I almost threw up on her floor because I was so freaked out even being in the same room as a gun. :frown: I'm sure I'm in the same room as guns all the time but they're concealed so I just don't think about it.
Are you prone to fits of drama?
No.
I'd suggest thinking about that if an inanimate piece of metal makes you want to puke. That's drama.0 -
I am not scared enough to feel that I require a gun.
Right!? Why would I ever need a gun, other than a hunting riffle if I hunted, I just don't get the point of owning guns(other than hunting riffles). It must be the Canadian in me
Generally, the response from many permitholders is that they're not scared, either.
Some are. I can't deny that.
But there are many who simply look around, see that there are potential threats, and simply wish to have a means of dealing with them on the off-chance one of those threats presents itself.
It's the same reason I have a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with Quik Clot and a tourniquet in my car. I'm not EXPECTING to get into or pass by a major accident, but I know they happen. So I like to think that if my or someone elses' car catches fire, I've got the extinguisher. If there's an accident where someone's bleeding severely, I've got equipment to help deal with it.
So are the odds of me facing a deadly threat great? Not really. I tend to avoid high-threat environments. But I think I can speak for the majority of us when I say that, if we knew we were going to be attacked at a given time and place, we'd avoid it.
i try to stay out of politics on here, but i will say the following for those that do not understand why Americans feel strongly about gun rights.
the American Revolution started when King George III sent his troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the arms of the citizenry (militia). he sent his armed surrogates (soldiers of the British army) to disarm the colonists so that he could impose his political will on them through force. that's why the founding fathers enshrined the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. it's not about hunting. it's not about sport. it's not even about self-defense against criminals... it's about an armed citizenry being the only thing that stands between foreign or domestic tyranny and freedom. that's why gun control laws are ultimately viewed by the majority of Americans as an assault on their freedoms and that's why so many of those outside of the USA do not and cannot understand our mindset.
While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but didn't the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller case decide otherwise? Heller ruling established that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
So despite what you, or I or anyone else thinks the framers intended, ^that is the current interpretation, no?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Hey!!! Look at that. A SCOTUS ruling cited in a discussion about the Constitution. *mind blown*
I'm missing your point - could you clarify?0 -
Can I give you a whole different scenario?
Here in the UK guns are outlawed, we are not sold them, they are not for sale, unless you are in with a `bad crowd` where you may be able to source them for bank robberies, shooting security guards, or just some sort of gang warfare.
If your neighbor or a stranger got into a fight, let us suggest they did not have a gun and you did not have a gun, how would you settle it?
I totally understand that people want to be one step ahead with weapons, but how far will it go for personal protection?
This makes it clear to me that you are quite ignorant about the subject matter. Please actually get acquainted with responsible owners of firearms before assuming that we settle simple disagreements with them.
OK let me suggest that I am ignorant about the subject matter. I have read through all the posts, so I have got acquainted with the replies.
Can you suggest to me how the UK has got it wrong with gun laws?
The gun laws have opened the doors to banning other tools of self-protection. As I understand it, even carrying mace will get you similar punishment to that of carrying at least a knife.
For purposes of self-protection, a gun is no different than any other tool. Let's take your scenario and let's even assume both parties do have guns, and are both currently carrying.
Your fight starts out verbal. Maybe your dog took a dump in his flower bed and he's livid. He calls you all kinds of obscenities. What do you do? Well, you could do a couple of different things:
1. Escalate to his level by name-calling back.
2. Stand neutral and let him continue.
3. Walk away.
4. Actively diffuse the situation by apologizing to him and cleaning up the mess.
Most people with common sense and decent social skills will pick 4, most other people will likely do 2 or 3, and some dunces will do 1.
Let's say today you're that dunce (maybe you had a bad day, and this is the last straw). That escalates the issue, and pisses the neighbor off to the point that he throws a punch. Now what?
1. Escalate by tackling him or hitting him back.
2. Escalate even further by pulling out a non-lethal weapon.
3. Escalate way far by pulling your gun.
4. Be more or less neutral by evading his swings.
5. Actively attempt to diffuse the situation.
This one gets a bit more complicated. I can, however, tell you that it doesn't often go to 3 at this point. Why? Well, for one, you and your neighbor are both generally law-abiding citizens (albeit a little hot-headed at the moment), and here in America, we have some pretty hefty laws around "excessive force" and especially "lethal force," which all pretty much boil down to - unless you feel your life (or that of another) is actively being threatened, you cannot use deadly force of any sort without being prosecuted yourself. To note - this doesn't just apply to firearms, but also to certain unarmed combat maneuvers and anything else that is considered lethal force.
At this point, a lot of people will do either 5 or 1, some hotheads might do 2, and people trained in things like martial arts will likely do 4.
The vast majority of situations that start the way you presented will typically end here for one reason or another. Either a third party breaks it up, the situation gets diffused, or someone gets knocked out (or otherwise yields).
Let's say, though, that for whatever reason, the neighbor is supremely stupid and the kitchen knife sitting on the counter. Perhaps one of the larger ones pictured here - http://www.bestkitchenknivesreviewed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/best-kitchen-knife-set.jpg .
Well, now that changes things. Unless you've been trained to handle an opponent that's wielding a blade, it's very likely that your life and limb are now in jeopardy. If you are trained, then you know that this situation just got a whole lot more dangerous, but you may still not feel the need to use lethal force. See how this is getting hairy? At this point, it's a judgement call, and this is where it pays to have more tools than just your gun in your self-defense toolbox.
From here, you can do pretty much anything necessary without getting nailed for excessive force. If you're trained, that may include breaking his wrist in the process of disarming him, or knocking him out completely. Whether you pull your gun is a judgement call, and right now, your fate in the court room may depend on the judge and lawyers. If you have other options, you may be better off using them.
Let's say you don't, and you end up pulling your gun and shooting him. Let's also say it's not an immediately lethal shot. Well, now you have the aftermath to deal with - not only are the police deployed, but so are the paramedics. Let's also say that while he didn't die right away, he died on the way to the hospital. This means:
1. You are responsible for his death and have to bear the weight of that. Regardless of the justification, most people will tell you that killing someone is quite traumatic.
2. You now have to go to court and defend yourself in the situation. Remember, you may win "on the street," but you can still lose in the courtroom. There's a chance you'll be found guilty of anything from aggravated assault to murder, all of which are felonies.
3. You may have to do some amount time in a jail cell while the whole thing gets sorted out.
4. You may have to deal with your community reputation. Regardless of what happens in the court room, people are rumor mills. You may be acquitted, but you could very well still end up as "that guy who killed his neighbor."
5. You have to deal with the physical mess (and the fact that the place is a crime scene), particularly if it was in your house that it happened.
That's a lot of crap and stress to deal with, no matter who you are. We may have a lot of guns in this country, but, for law-abiding citizens, pulling a gun is not done lightly, particularly in the situation that you've presented.0 -
I am not scared enough to feel that I require a gun.
Right!? Why would I ever need a gun, other than a hunting riffle if I hunted, I just don't get the point of owning guns(other than hunting riffles). It must be the Canadian in me
Generally, the response from many permitholders is that they're not scared, either.
Some are. I can't deny that.
But there are many who simply look around, see that there are potential threats, and simply wish to have a means of dealing with them on the off-chance one of those threats presents itself.
It's the same reason I have a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with Quik Clot and a tourniquet in my car. I'm not EXPECTING to get into or pass by a major accident, but I know they happen. So I like to think that if my or someone elses' car catches fire, I've got the extinguisher. If there's an accident where someone's bleeding severely, I've got equipment to help deal with it.
So are the odds of me facing a deadly threat great? Not really. I tend to avoid high-threat environments. But I think I can speak for the majority of us when I say that, if we knew we were going to be attacked at a given time and place, we'd avoid it.
i try to stay out of politics on here, but i will say the following for those that do not understand why Americans feel strongly about gun rights.
the American Revolution started when King George III sent his troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the arms of the citizenry (militia). he sent his armed surrogates (soldiers of the British army) to disarm the colonists so that he could impose his political will on them through force. that's why the founding fathers enshrined the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. it's not about hunting. it's not about sport. it's not even about self-defense against criminals... it's about an armed citizenry being the only thing that stands between foreign or domestic tyranny and freedom. that's why gun control laws are ultimately viewed by the majority of Americans as an assault on their freedoms and that's why so many of those outside of the USA do not and cannot understand our mindset.
While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but did the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller case decide otherwise? Heller ruling established that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
So despite what you, or I or anyone else thinks the framers intended, ^that is the current interpretation, no?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.
On one side, SCOTUS and the Constitution, and on the other, that ^.
Okay.
This is like arguing with toddlers.
Never denied the right for guns. Heck, I even cited the Constitution earlier. I just have a problem with the current fear related mindset of many gun rights advocates.0 -
I live in Nevada, pretty much everyone has one.
On their person, to boot.
*shrugs* :drinker:0 -
I almost threw up on her floor because I was so freaked out even being in the same room as a gun. :frown: I'm sure I'm in the same room as guns all the time but they're concealed so I just don't think about it.
Are you prone to fits of drama?
No.
I'd suggest thinking about that if an inanimate piece of metal makes you want to puke. That's drama.
I can see how at first glance it would seem so, but there's more to my reaction than I feel comfortable sharing in a public forum. It's an issue but it's not as simple as "drama."0 -
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.
Thank you for telling us you are paranoid and not comfortable with your rights.
How am I paranoid? How am I not comfortable with my rights? Stop sniping (pun intended) and make an argument.
Your paranoia leads you to believe irrationally that people with arms are paranoid and therefore, implied as dangerous. The entire basis of your argument lacks logic, background, anything. It's not substantive, you are just afraid of people going beyond hunting and shooting paper. You are uncomfortable with your rights to protect yourself. Which is fine of course, albeit a touch sad in my opinion. Hey though, it works for you, of course until it doesn't.
No paranoia here. Just look at these forums and others. Look at the mentality of many seeing a gun as an answer to any disagreement. I don't see the need for a gun. I am fortunate to live in a safe area and I have the situational awareness to avoid possible dangerous situations and I take other safer precautions. If having a gun makes you sleep better, have at it. I just suggest that all responsible gun owners try to teach others that pulling a gun is the worst case scenario rather than the first step.0 -
I am not scared enough to feel that I require a gun.
Right!? Why would I ever need a gun, other than a hunting riffle if I hunted, I just don't get the point of owning guns(other than hunting riffles). It must be the Canadian in me
Generally, the response from many permitholders is that they're not scared, either.
Some are. I can't deny that.
But there are many who simply look around, see that there are potential threats, and simply wish to have a means of dealing with them on the off-chance one of those threats presents itself.
It's the same reason I have a fire extinguisher and a first aid kit with Quik Clot and a tourniquet in my car. I'm not EXPECTING to get into or pass by a major accident, but I know they happen. So I like to think that if my or someone elses' car catches fire, I've got the extinguisher. If there's an accident where someone's bleeding severely, I've got equipment to help deal with it.
So are the odds of me facing a deadly threat great? Not really. I tend to avoid high-threat environments. But I think I can speak for the majority of us when I say that, if we knew we were going to be attacked at a given time and place, we'd avoid it.
i try to stay out of politics on here, but i will say the following for those that do not understand why Americans feel strongly about gun rights.
the American Revolution started when King George III sent his troops to Lexington and Concord to confiscate the arms of the citizenry (militia). he sent his armed surrogates (soldiers of the British army) to disarm the colonists so that he could impose his political will on them through force. that's why the founding fathers enshrined the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. it's not about hunting. it's not about sport. it's not even about self-defense against criminals... it's about an armed citizenry being the only thing that stands between foreign or domestic tyranny and freedom. that's why gun control laws are ultimately viewed by the majority of Americans as an assault on their freedoms and that's why so many of those outside of the USA do not and cannot understand our mindset.
While true, though simplified, you must also know that this right to bear arms in a regulated militia also requires members of this militia to fall under the command of the President in Article 1, section 8, clause 15 of the Constitution. Also, that the reason that militias were included in the Constitution was because of an understandable distrust of standing armies during peacetime. When the Second Amendment was finally ratified, it still contained the right to bear arms within the context of a militia. Therefore, your write to bear arms is actually in order to be of service of your state's governor and then the Federal government.
Correct me if I'm wrong...but did the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller case decide otherwise? Heller ruling established that “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
So despite what you, or I or anyone else thinks the framers intended, ^that is the current interpretation, no?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.
On one side, SCOTUS and the Constitution, and on the other, that ^.
Okay.
This is like arguing with toddlers.
Never denied the right for guns. Heck, I even cited the Constitution earlier. I just have a problem with the current fear related mindset of many gun rights advocates.
You do understand that this " fear related mindset" fits just as well on the anti-gun advocates. No? As I said earlier, I don't get this idea that we are afraid.0 -
In for guns:
0 -
Yes, you are correct but I wanted to at least add some context to the history lesson.
I have no problem with sport shooting, range shooting or hunting. They are not my cup of tea but I have at it. My problem is not a fear of guns. My father was a Vietnam vet and then a LT. Col in the Air Force with a stint as a cop (including undercover NARC) in between. I grew up around guns. My problem are the folks that appear to see having a gun as a response to any kind of incident or slight. This mentality is what leads to everyone being armed because a armed society is not a polite society, it is a paranoid society.
Thank you for telling us you are paranoid and not comfortable with your rights.
How am I paranoid? How am I not comfortable with my rights? Stop sniping (pun intended) and make an argument.
Your paranoia leads you to believe irrationally that people with arms are paranoid and therefore, implied as dangerous. The entire basis of your argument lacks logic, background, anything. It's not substantive, you are just afraid of people going beyond hunting and shooting paper. You are uncomfortable with your rights to protect yourself. Which is fine of course, albeit a touch sad in my opinion. Hey though, it works for you, of course until it doesn't.
No paranoia here. Just look at these forums and others. Look at the mentality of many seeing a gun as an answer to any disagreement. I don't see the need for a gun. I am fortunate to live in a safe area and I have the situational awareness to avoid possible dangerous situations and I take other safer precautions. If having a gun makes you sleep better, have at it. I just suggest that all responsible gun owners try to teach others that pulling a gun is the worst case scenario rather than the first step.
you must get your straw wholesale... because you sure are building lots of strawmen on this thread.
0 -
Thought people were going to be flashing their biceps...I am disappoint :grumble:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Me too!:grumble:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions