No You Do Not Have An Absolute Right To Have Certain Types Of Or The Carrying Of Firearms

[miketx]

Why would it be sad.......

Was it sad that the members of Congress didn't have guns yesterday? And the only thing that saved them was the Whip was able to attend practice? Do you realize that the Whip rarely makes those early morning practices, and that it was a miracle that he was there...with his armed security?

Oh, for Pete's sake, 2AGuy, pay attention. Jake needs to carry in church? You'd think church was for quiet thoughtful peaceful meditation, not looking over your shoulder and keeping your handgun ready to fire. That's what we were discussing, not a public park.

Do you think the victims that Dylann Roof murdered in church would have like to have had handguns ready to fire?

They probably would have liked Dylan Roof not to have one. In some countries, that's the way of things.

He was a criminal. They can always get guns.

Is that why the three ISIS terrorists in London used a van and knives?

To incite terror!

 

[g5000]

Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop attacks like this

Yesterday, someone said 2.5 million times.

Both figures are bullshit.

No.....both figures come from actual research....I use the research of the anti-gunners hired by bill clinton and his Department of Justice when they did the research in 1994.........and obama's CDC confirmed the number in 2013.......and that doesn't leave out all the other actual research....

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop attacks like this

Yesterday, someone said 2.5 million times.

Both figures are bullshit.

No.....both figures come from actual research....I use the research of the anti-gunners hired by bill clinton and his Department of Justice when they did the research in 1994.........and obama's CDC confirmed the number in 2013.......and that doesn't leave out all the other actual research....

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

There were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes committed around the nation in 2015

So are the one third of gun owning Americans magically showing up at all of these violent crimes, with their guns every time, and then defending themselves TWICE?

Firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults.

 

[Vastator]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

Then; restricting religions based on common practice of the time should be no problem... Any takers?

 

[g5000]

Here's a question.

If some lunatic called for the assassination of a government leader, and for the mass extermination of everyone in the party of his political opponents, do you guys think he should be allowed to carry a gun?

 

[miketx]

Here's a question.

If some lunatic called for the assassination of a government leader, and for the mass extermination of everyone in the party of his political opponents, would you guys let him carry a gun?

Lib lunatics like you are already calling for Trump to be killed. The problem is that liberals shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

 

[g5000]

Here's a question.

If some lunatic called for the assassination of a government leader, and for the mass extermination of everyone in the party of his political opponents, would you guys let him carry a gun?

Lib lunatics like you are already calling for Trump to be killed. The problem is that liberals shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

You called for a hit squad to take out a government leader, and you called for the mass extermination of every liberal and Democrat.

By your own benchmarks, a person as violent as you should not be allowed to carry a gun.

 

[there4eyeM]

I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.

? That's kind of sad.

Sad? Ridiculous is the word.

The only place "absolute rights" exist is in a sentence made of words. There is no such thing as 'absolute rights' outside of subjective, human concepts.

 

[Vastator]

I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.

? That's kind of sad.

Sad? Ridiculous is the word.

The only place "absolute rights" exist is in a sentence made of words. There is no such thing as 'absolute rights' outside of subjective, human concepts.

Not true. Sheer will, and the power to make itso, grants anyone, all the rights they desire.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.

? That's kind of sad.

Sad? Ridiculous is the word.

The only place "absolute rights" exist is in a sentence made of words. There is no such thing as 'absolute rights' outside of subjective, human concepts.

Not true. Sheer will, and the power to make itso, grants anyone, all the rights they desire.

That is a subjective statement.

 

[BluesLegend]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

All I want is to keep a 6 shot revolver in my own apartment. NYC says to do that I have to pay $600 or so in fees, and wait up to 6 months to get a license to do so.

Why should I give a rats ass about "any weapon I want" when gun grabbing fucks like you in government enforce the above?

Having failed to take away your 2nd amendment rights via the courts, they are using punishment fees and lengthy delays in an effort to get you to give up your 2nd amendment rights voluntarily as not worth all the hassle and expense.

 

[danielpalos]

The State of Illinois should legalize marijuana if their Commander in Chief cannot solve, "his security problem".

 

[miketx]

Here's a question.

If some lunatic called for the assassination of a government leader, and for the mass extermination of everyone in the party of his political opponents, would you guys let him carry a gun?

Lib lunatics like you are already calling for Trump to be killed. The problem is that liberals shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

You called for a hit squad to take out a government leader, and you called for the mass extermination of every liberal and Democrat.

By your own benchmarks, a person as violent as you should not be allowed to carry a gun.

You are great at taking things out of context and twisting them. As far as the guns, come get them.

 

[danielpalos]

The City of Chicago has no, "special dispensation" from our Second Amendment and 10USC311, if it is not a Sanctuary City; and the security of a free State is not infringed.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

So I simply don't register the sniper rifle I am going to use to knock off my enemy (like you) when the time comes.

I am O.K. with that.

 

[2aguy]

Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop attacks like this

Yesterday, someone said 2.5 million times.

Both figures are bullshit.

No.....both figures come from actual research....I use the research of the anti-gunners hired by bill clinton and his Department of Justice when they did the research in 1994.........and obama's CDC confirmed the number in 2013.......and that doesn't leave out all the other actual research....

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop attacks like this

Yesterday, someone said 2.5 million times.

Both figures are bullshit.

No.....both figures come from actual research....I use the research of the anti-gunners hired by bill clinton and his Department of Justice when they did the research in 1994.........and obama's CDC confirmed the number in 2013.......and that doesn't leave out all the other actual research....

Self defense with a gun......40 years of actual research...first is the name of the group that conducted the research, then the year, then the number of defensive gun uses and finally wether the research contained police or military defensive gun uses....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

There were an estimated 1,197,704 violent crimes committed around the nation in 2015

So are the one third of gun owning Americans magically showing up at all of these violent crimes, with their guns every time, and then defending themselves TWICE?

Firearms were used in 71.5 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.8 percent of robberies, and 24.2 percent of aggravated assaults.

There are over 400 million guns in private hands....and over 15.7 million people carry guns for self defense....and as you see from the research...actual research....Americans use those guns to stop violent criminal attack.......and according to even bill clinton's Department of Justice Study, executed by anti gun researchers, Americans use their guns to stop violent criminal attack 1,500,000 times a year......

And then you have all the other research listed that shows the same high number of defensive gun uses...but go ahead and deny the research.....and pretend that guns aren't useful....

And what has happened as more Americans have bought, owned and carried guns?

Our gun crime rate went down 75%.

Our gun murder rate went down 49%.

Our violent crime rate went down 72%.

Nothing you put out about guns is true or accurate.......

 

[2aguy]

Here's a question.

If some lunatic called for the assassination of a government leader, and for the mass extermination of everyone in the party of his political opponents, do you guys think he should be allowed to carry a gun?

You mean the news readers on CNN, MSNBC and the others...you mean like them?

The guy should be investigated to see if he is an actual threat.......if he is they should drag him into court and use due process to take his guns.....

Right? You actually want it to be according to the law...right?

 

[2aguy]

Here's a question.

If some lunatic called for the assassination of a government leader, and for the mass extermination of everyone in the party of his political opponents, would you guys let him carry a gun?

Lib lunatics like you are already calling for Trump to be killed. The problem is that liberals shouldn't be allowed to have firearms.

You called for a hit squad to take out a government leader, and you called for the mass extermination of every liberal and Democrat.

By your own benchmarks, a person as violent as you should not be allowed to carry a gun.

Speech is not action twit.........

 

[Vastator]

I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.

? That's kind of sad.

Sad? Ridiculous is the word.

The only place "absolute rights" exist is in a sentence made of words. There is no such thing as 'absolute rights' outside of subjective, human concepts.

Not true. Sheer will, and the power to make itso, grants anyone, all the rights they desire.

That is a subjective statement.

Indeed. Subject to the intent of the one with the power, and the will to use it.

 

[danielpalos]

This topic is a legal non issue; we have a Second Amendment. Some of the people may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[martybegan]

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw

All I want is to keep a 6 shot revolver in my own apartment. NYC says to do that I have to pay $600 or so in fees, and wait up to 6 months to get a license to do so.

Why should I give a rats ass about "any weapon I want" when gun grabbing fucks like you in government enforce the above?

Having failed to take away your 2nd amendment rights via the courts, they are using punishment fees and lengthy delays in an effort to get you to give up your 2nd amendment rights voluntarily as not worth all the hassle and expense.

100% correct. It results in a de facto ban, even if de jure it is still "allowed"