Why Allow Gun Ownership?

[2aguy]

The framers didn’t contemplate large capacity rapid fire assault weapons that could rip 19 children to shreds in the space of mere minutes.

Scalia opined in Heller that the strict regulation of such firearms is entirely consistent with the 2nd amendment. Those weapons and magazines are banned in my state and nobody is less free because of that. I would argue we are more free - free to drop our children at school without serious concern that they will be slaughtered there.

You think that a magazine and rifle ban keeps your kids safe from mass public shooters? You really don't know what you are talking about..........

The gun in a mass public shooting does not determine how many get murdered. The amount of free time a killer has in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed victims determines the death count......and the sooner someone with a gun confronts them and makes them stop shooting unarmed people, the faster the attacker is stopped......

You need to think deeper about this before you post.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The framers didn’t contemplate large capacity rapid fire assault weapons that could rip 19 children to shreds in the space of mere minutes.

Scalia opined in Heller that the strict regulation of such firearms is entirely consistent with the 2nd amendment. Those weapons and magazines are banned in my state and nobody is less free because of that. I would argue we are more free - free to drop our children at school without serious concern that they will be slaughtered there.

The founders were perfectly okay with private citizens owning cannon that could kill a hundred or more people with one shot and private warships that could give any ship in the Continental Navy a good fight in a battle.

 

[2aguy]

Assault weapons have multiple settings. Civilian versions might look like the military versions, but they're not. What you're really arguing against is the large capacity magazines. I wouldn't have a problem with smaller magazines.

Good for you.....buy smaller magazines.....leave everyone else alone.

You don't get to say how many chances a free person gets to save themselves or their families.......and each bullet in a magazine is a chance to stop a violent criminal or criminals from committing rape, robbery, murder.............

Can you tell us how many bullets it will take to stop violent criminals? Can you let us know?....for future planning....

 

[AZrailwhale]

Good luck getting a CCW permit in NYC unless you own a store, are a retired police officer, or know someone.

What I was talking about was just a home license to keep it in your own house/apartment.

When Los Angeles hired the Chief of the Philadelphia Police Department as its Chief of Police, the LA County Sheriff refused to issue him a CCW. Left up to the government, the people would be disarmed.

 

[2aguy]

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.

The first part is very specific. In order to be a Regulated Militia one would have to be in a state sponsored militia.

The second part is more than a little vague. It was taken from the English Bill or Rights and that was taken from the Magna Carte. The original meaning did not think that the Military Weapons would be possessed by normal people. The Cost kept that from happening. When the 2A was written (copied) not everyone had guns. In fact, most did not. A Musket cost a months normal pay. Clean up until the middle 50s, the US had Armories scattered all over the United States with arms from small arms to medium arms. Most have torn them down but in Delta, Colorado, one still stands.

It still has all the ability to be used as an Armory like it was when it was buillt, 1921.

The last half of the 2A has been interpreted as a different meaning many times. During that time and before, the average home either had NO guns or had a Shotgun for hunting. Rifles and handguns were out of reach for more people. So the National Guard started the Armories.

In 1921 and back, handguns just weren't around that much. And almost no one owned a M1A1 because of the cost. So it was easy to tie up certain weapons (like the M1A1 Model 1921 or 1928) for the safety of the public. So keep that in mind. The AR IS the weapon of choice for high body count mass shootings. If we follow history, that should fall under public safety and can be restricted.

Yeah...no....try reading Heller....Scalia goes through the entire history of gun Rights from England to the U.S.......

You guys keep making shit up......

And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
-------
"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to
Page 307 U. S. 180
cooperate in the work of defence."
"The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."
-----
That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . ."

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

 

[2aguy]

Wrong...you must never have read my posts

What I DON'T support are assault weapons and yes magazine fed semi-auto hand guns

Shot guns, revolvers, and lever/bolt action weapons are sufficient for any real need, be it home defense or hunting...even target practice.

Then buy one of them.....for yourself....

Others think the AR-15 is a perfect match for their needs....so back off fascist...

 

[AZrailwhale]

Sorry but a batshit crazy barely legal piece of filthy dogshit here on a stolen citizenship doens’t get to re-write our constitution.
View attachment 650499
In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.
We need to own Blackhawk choppers.

You can own a Blackhawk IF you can afford it. Diesel Dave of the Diesel Brothers TV show bought one and had it refurbished. He has several YouTube programs about it. I believe it only cost him about two and a half million bucks plus improvements.

 

[2aguy]

Weak argument given the effect of having hundreds of thousands of military style weapons and their lack of any real purpose

They are not military rifles....never have been.....they were patented for civilians...not the military.

And their purpose is to stop evil assholes, either civilian criminals, or government killers....

The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

 

[2aguy]

and Volkswagens are sufficient for daily travel.

no need for SUVs, corvettes, Maserati's, etc

right?

Buses can be used....no reason for anyone to own a car....government transportation is all you need.....democrat politicians will still have privately owned cars, driven by taxpayer financed drivers....

 

[2aguy]

I happen to live where you are using as an example. And the only reason that the cowboys had the handguns was that they kept their firearms from the Military at the end of the Civil War. And because of that, many western towns and cities had gun regulations that when you visited a town or city, you had to surrender your weapons. Given only a few years (by 1900) things were back to normal and all those guns were no longer present. They either wore out, got lost or the owners made them into a static display over the mantle. Again, the average person could not afford a handgun or a Military style rifle. They owned cheap rifles and shotguns for hunting and protection. And it worked pretty damned well.

You gunnutters don't pay any attention to the History of America. In a very short time, the AR and AK will be regulated to keep it out of the fruitcakes hands through regulation.

You anti-gun assholes make up the history of America........

Most of the gun control laws in the Old West, if they existed at all, had nothing to do with confiscation or restrictions on gun type. They had more to do with gun use by restricting and prohibiting firing pistols in city streets. And, while few opponents of gun control today would object to limitations on discharging firearms in a busy intersection, gun control laws of this extent were largely unheard of in most American cities. In fact, they were even unusual in the Old West, and using the gun control ordinance from Tombstone as an example, they were proven ineffective.
-----

There were other frontier towns with gun control restrictions similar to Tombstone. Most made it unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person any deadly weapon within the limits of said city, without first obtaining a permit in writing. But, in those towns, as in Tombstone, in the closest equivalents to a “gun-free zone” in the 19th century, such gun control measures did little to stem gun violence, and likely provoked the infamous kerfuffle at the O.K. Corral.
----

Lots of guns, not a lot of crime​

Mass violence, like what took place at the O.K. Corral, was actually infrequent. Moreover, the Old West reputation for lawlessness is unwarranted, despite, at times, an elevated number of homicides.

Crime such as rape and robberies occurred at a much lower rate than in modern America — certainly lower than in the 1970s and 1980s, when the nation was wracked by a surge in criminality. It is also worth noting that crime and gun violence has fallen steeply since the 1990s, even as gun ownership has increased dramatically.





The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

Second, the idea that “Gun control laws were ubiquitous” in the 19th century is the work of politically motivated historians who cobble together every minor local restriction they can find in an attempt to create the impression that gun control was the norm. If this were true, Kristof wouldn’t need to jump to 1879 to offer his first specific case.

Visitors to Wichita, Kan., had to check their revolvers at police headquarters. As for Dodge City, a symbol of the Wild West, a photo shows a sign on main street in 1879 warning: “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.”


This talking point has been trotted out for years because it’s the closest thing anyone can find to resemble gun control in the Old West — a picture. But we don’t even know how rigidly the law was enforced, for how long, or if ever. We certainly don’t know that the guns were dropped off at “police headquarters.”

Dodge City-type ordinances—and those of some other towns—typically applied to the areas north of the “deadline,” which was the railroad tracks and a kind of red-light district. By 1879, Dodge City had nearly 20 businesses licensed to sell liquor and many whorehouses teeming with intoxicated young men. It was reasonable that these businesses wouldn’t want armed men with revolvers packed into their establishments.
However, the men voluntarily abandoned their weapons in exchange for entertainment and drink—just as they do today when entering establishments that prohibit the carrying of firearms. Those weapons were handed back to them when they were done. Not in their wildest imaginations would they have entertained the notion of asking the government for permission—getting a license or undergoing a background check—to own a firearm.

In the rest of the city, as with almost every city in the West, guns were allowed, and people walked around with them freely and openly. They bought them freely and openly. Even children could buy them. A man could buy a Colt or Remington or Winchester, and he could buy as many as he liked without anyone taking notice.


The fact is that in the 19th century there were no statewide or territory-wide gun control laws for citizens, and certainly no federal laws. Nor was there a single case challenging the idea of the individual right of gun ownership. Guns were romanticized in the literature and art, and the era’s greatest engineers designed and sold them. All the while, American leaders continued to praise the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny.

Those who praised this right, incidentally, include numerous post-Civil War civil rights activists, who offered particularly powerful arguments for the importance of the Second Amendment. Most gun-control regulations that did exist, after all, were used for subjugating blacks and Indians.

 

[2aguy]

Why Allow Gun Ownership?



To understand why anyone would make such a statement, you must understand the mindset of the individual making it.
There are those who truly believe the human condition is far better when "superior" intellects guide their lives every step of the way.

Being extreme narcissists, these people see themselves (or those they chose) as those "superior" intellects.
The ownership of guns interferes with their rightful place to guide your life exactly as they see fit.
They naturally deem you unfit to do so yourself.

And when the people refuse to bow to the demands of these individuals with self perceived superior intellects? That is when the "superior intellects," resort to murder and mass graves......to trim down the population to those who will obey....

 

[2aguy]

A shotgun is indeed a great weapon for bedroom defense. You have an intruder in your house. You crouch behind your bed with your shotgun pointed at the locked bedroom door and call the cops. If the intruder breaks the door down you get a second to make damn sure he is a true danger and then you blow him away.

A shotgun is not a great weapon if you like to play Wyatt Earp and clear your house by yourself. The bad guy can grab the long barrel of the shotgun and twist it away from you. He can also get behind an object and wait for you to walk into a room and then he can blow you away.

I once lived in a big home that was once of hotel with several renters. If I woke up hearing an odd noise I would grab a snub nosed .38 and slip it into my pants pocket and go investigate. I never ran into an intruder but I did encounter people coming home at odd hours. I didn’t scare anyone as they never know the hand in my pocket was on a handgun.

If I still lived in that large home today I would install cameras in the kitchen and living room. I then could determine if I had a real problem or not.

Hard for a small woman walking out to her car in the parking lot at night to carry a shotgun with her...........which is why we have hand guns.....

Each gun can serve many purposes....and all guns are opposed by anti-gun assholes....

 

[toobfreak]

Why Allow Gun Ownership?​

Because our law demands them.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Double-bullshit.

The framers knew damn well that the gubmint itself could be as much of a threat from within as any tyrant from without...Any argument to the contrary is the height of ignorance.

That’s why they built so many checks and balances into the system AND heavily restricted the Federal Government’s power to tax.

 

[2aguy]

I happen to live where you are using as an example. And the only reason that the cowboys had the handguns was that they kept their firearms from the Military at the end of the Civil War. And because of that, many western towns and cities had gun regulations that when you visited a town or city, you had to surrender your weapons. Given only a few years (by 1900) things were back to normal and all those guns were no longer present. They either wore out, got lost or the owners made them into a static display over the mantle. Again, the average person could not afford a handgun or a Military style rifle. They owned cheap rifles and shotguns for hunting and protection. And it worked pretty damned well.

You gunnutters don't pay any attention to the History of America. In a very short time, the AR and AK will be regulated to keep it out of the fruitcakes hands through regulation.

Yes....you guys know the value in lying about history......you have been doing it since 1917....

The reason was that enforcement of the anti carry ordinances in Tombstone and Dodge City and other frontier towns like Dead- wood, South Dakota that had them were highly selective. In Tomb- stone, those friendly with the Earps and their buddies got a pass. In Dodge City those friendly with the powers that be and or the Dodge City Gang — which included Wyatt when there — got a pass too on the side of Dodge with the carry ban. That “side” is a rarely mentioned fact.

Dodge City was actually two towns, one incorporated the other not, controlled by warring political factions that almost went to shooting at each other.

That close call brought together this group of the day’s most famous — or infamous — gunmen like Bat Masterson and Wyatt Earp to back the Dodge City Gang. The other side backed down.

The two Dodges were separated by railroad tracks known as the Dead Line that ran down the middle of Front Street, its main drag.

The famous sign reading “The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited” so often used to promote similar laws today was at the entrance to the North incorporated portion where the “decent” Dodge permanent residents sought to exclude riffraff like the drovers and maintain a somewhat puritan lifestyle. Women were not allowed in saloons and singing or dancing was against the law.

The cowboys and other undesirables were supposed to stay below the Deadline according to Wyatt Earp in the book The Old West in Fact and Film: History Versus Hollywood: “Below the deadline, as far as the marshals force was concerned, almost any- thing went, and a man could get away with gunplay if he wasn’t too careless about lead. North of the railroad, gun toting was justification for shooting on site, if an officer was so inclined, and meant certain arrest.”

Sounds like cut no slack enforcement, but there are simply too many accounts of gun carry on the North side to believe Earp’s account was anything other than his famed self promoting hyper- bole.

One example is the 1879 gunfight in the Long Branch Sa- loon between gamblers Frank Loving and Levi Richardson. Loving killed Richardson and a magistrate ruled the killing justifiable self defense. Even so, why was he not charged with illegal gun carry? Possibly because Dodge’s no carry laws and others like it else- where were not put on the books purely for public safety reasons as anti-Second Amendment activists claim in the many stories with titles like these:

• Dodge City Believed in Strict Gun Control – NYTimes.com
• Even the Old West had gun control – TheHill
• Gun laws were actually stricter then than now – Daily Kos

Those headlines only represent partial truths in that while some frontier towns did enact ordinances against the carrying of weapons in town, they were enacted during a period when the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. If a town wanted to ban a book, a play, a song or a newspaper story, it could.

Did the Wild West Really have More Gun Control than We Do? - CRPA

California Rifle & Pistol Association

crpa.org

 

[AZrailwhale]

Almost.

"Well regulated" as in "made regular".....As in organizational and training regimens, etcetera.

In those days well regulated meant properly operating. A clock that kept correct time was well regulated.

 

[2aguy]

I happen to live where you are using as an example. And the only reason that the cowboys had the handguns was that they kept their firearms from the Military at the end of the Civil War. And because of that, many western towns and cities had gun regulations that when you visited a town or city, you had to surrender your weapons. Given only a few years (by 1900) things were back to normal and all those guns were no longer present. They either wore out, got lost or the owners made them into a static display over the mantle. Again, the average person could not afford a handgun or a Military style rifle. They owned cheap rifles and shotguns for hunting and protection. And it worked pretty damned well.

You gunnutters don't pay any attention to the History of America. In a very short time, the AR and AK will be regulated to keep it out of the fruitcakes hands through regulation.

Gun control had the same aim in the old west as it does today....

Considering that the powers that be in places like Tombstone, Dodge City, Deadwood, South Dakota and many other frontier towns tended to be the saloon owners, gamblers and pimps — like the Earps — that often started the towns and provided the draws that kept money flowing in, business competition from outsiders with guns wanting either a piece or all of their action was something they did not want.

That is why the real reason for Tombstone’s anti-weapon carry ordinance was to disarm those who wanted to muscle in on the gambling, prostitution, liquor, extortion and robbery profits from which those in power got a cut, according to my grandfather and other old guys in and around his Globe – Miami, Arizona home I met who had been in Tombstone during the Earp brothers reign. Their reign could have ended abruptly, wrote Roger Jay in Wild West magazine, had the Tombstone “Gambler’s War” turned out differently:

“It raged during the fall and winter of 1880-81, and if the Earp brothers and Doc Holliday had lost it, they’d have had no choice but to clear out of Tombstone, Arizona Territory. The blood feud with the Sheriff John Behan–Cowboy faction would never have happened. No O.K. Corral. No Vendetta. No The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp TV series starring Hugh O’Brian.

The rivals in Tombstone’s ‘Gamblers’ War’ were the ‘Slopers,’ sporting men who had operated on the Pacific Coast, in and around San Francisco and the mining camps of the Sierra Nevadas — Aurora, Bodie, Virginia City — and the ‘Easterners,’ men who in the 1870s had run the faro layouts, keno rooms and poker games at the end of the cattle trails in Kansas, the beginning of the trails in Texas and points in between. The Earps and Holliday were prominent Easterners.”

The Earps were also Republicans and Civil War Union backers while the Cochise County Cowboys and Sheriff Behan were Democrats and Confederate sympathizers. Even so, the two factions were strange bedfellow partners in crime whose disagreements were the real cause of their OK Coral gun battle, according to then sheriff Johnny Behan, in this December 7, 1897 Washington Post interview:
========


“The Clanton brothers and the McLowrys were a tough lot of rustlers who were the main perpetrators of the rascally rife in that region. Between them and Earps rose a bitter feud over the division of the proceeds of the looting.

The Earp boys believed they had failed to get a fair divide of the booty and swore vengeance. They caught their former allies in Tombstone unarmed and shot three of them dead while their hands were uplifted.


They were hauled up before a Justice of the Peace… Warrants were issued for their arrest, and, summoning a posse, I went out to bring the Earps in. They were chased entirely out of the country and Tombstone knew them no more.”

Though it be probable heresy to many, the straight arrow lawman image of Wyatt portrayed by O’Brian and many other actors in films and TV shows was an invention of 19th century writer Ned Buntline, and the self promotion of Wyatt and his wife to writer Stuart N. Lake. Lake’s 1930s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal. Wyatt and his wife pressured Lake to write what they wanted to make them look best and it was those accounts that established many unchallengeable myths about Wyatt that were actually fabrications — and not just about Wyatt.

Did the Wild West Really have More Gun Control than We Do? - CRPA

California Rifle & Pistol Association

crpa.org

 

[AZrailwhale]

But not machine guns or rocket launchers.

Why?

It actually does. The Framers were okay with individual citizens owning artillery and private warships, hell, practically every normal merchant ship carried a number of cannons.

 

[fncceo]

Why Allow Gun Ownership?​

To date, the most compelling reason is just to see that look on your face...

 

[2aguy]

I happen to live where you are using as an example. And the only reason that the cowboys had the handguns was that they kept their firearms from the Military at the end of the Civil War. And because of that, many western towns and cities had gun regulations that when you visited a town or city, you had to surrender your weapons. Given only a few years (by 1900) things were back to normal and all those guns were no longer present. They either wore out, got lost or the owners made them into a static display over the mantle. Again, the average person could not afford a handgun or a Military style rifle. They owned cheap rifles and shotguns for hunting and protection. And it worked pretty damned well.

You gunnutters don't pay any attention to the History of America. In a very short time, the AR and AK will be regulated to keep it out of the fruitcakes hands through regulation.

And more....

For instance, historian Robert McGrath, who wrote a book about crime in the most notorious Old West towns, found that “robbery, theft, and burglary occurred infrequently,” and that “bank robbery, rape, racial violence, and serious juvenile crime seem not to have occurred at all.” And, “while the homicide rate was high,” McGrath wrote, “the killings were almost always the result of fights between willing combatants.”

The few gun control-type laws that existed were poorly and inconsistently enforced. Additionally, McGrath concluded that it was widespread gun ownership that deterred criminality in these areas in which law enforcement had little authority or ability to combat crime.