Should carrying a firearm become mandatory?

[Juicin]

...

It did the opposite you dumb fuck

It made the 2nd amendment a universal right as opposed to something left up to the states

There was no way to interpret the second amendment as universal right pre 14th amendment.

GOOGLE IT YOU STUPID WHITE TRASH, MY GOD. YOU STILL DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT EVEN IS. AS SOON AS YOU DO YOU WILL REALIZE HOW ABSURD IT IS TO THINK THE FOUNDING FATHERS GUARANTEED YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN

edit- no you won't, you're fucking retarded. Who am i kidding. Blocking you for being so fucking dense.

You join an elite list of only one other person who i blocked for reasons i can't remember

But you seem to be of the false impression individual rights did not exist before the 14th amendment?
And that is wrong.
There are no state firearm laws before the Civil War.
That was because firearms for self defense were so universally accepted as an individual right, no such law would have been tolerated, on federal, state, or local level.
The whole point of needing the 14th amendment is that states started to make restrictive firearm law after the Civil War, against Blacks.

They existed, freedoms from the federal governments interference

With the 14 ammendment they became freedom to because of their universality

You're trying to have some irrelevant discussion on freedom to and freedom for when we have all sorts of precedent that says that's not how it worked. Again this is why Ron Paul wants "states rights". He wants to go back to pre reconstruction America so it would be legal for him to have his own little Christian Shariah state in East Texas. The racists want apartheid, which would be legal again unless disallowed by state constitution.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the precedent on this issue. It's not some philosophical problem. We have decades of case law on the issue and fought a civil war over the issue. It's why we passed the 14th ammendment to make what you're saying true.

 

[Rigby5]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

It does post reconstruction, because no level of governmetn can violate your constitutionally provided rights

Pre reconstruction it didn't

While that is true, it is also not relevant.
There are lots of individual rights the state nor federal government may not infringe upon, that are not enumerated.
They are infinite, so could never be enumerated.
That was the argument against the Bill of Rights, in that they were afraid some might get the false impression that only enumerated rights were protected.
An example is the right to privacy.
Not enumerated anywhere, but could not be infringed upon by federal, state, or local, even before the reconstruction period and 14th amendment.
And the right to defensive weapons should be obvious, since there is no other way to defend the right to life.

States had absolute control of gun laws inside their border pre 14th amendment, period

Just because states didn't take the guns away doesn't mean the founding fathers wanted you to have a gun, they didn't.

No, individual rights ALWAYS had precedence over any level of government authority.
That is because government authority is just borrowing delegated authority derived from the collective defense of inherent individual rights. So no government could ever legally violate individual rights.
Rights like self defense, privacy, family, etc., always are superior to any government authority.
If not, that is legitimate grounds for a rebellion.

And you keep saying the founders did not want everyone to be armed, and that is just plain false.
They wrote often about considering making being armed mandatory and universal.
Washington in particular was well known for making that clear.

from the former president’s annual address to the Senate and House of Representatives on 8 January 1790, in which he argued in favor of an armed citizenry and self-sufficiency in production military supplies as a deterrent to war:

Among the many interesting objects, which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defence will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.

again me and every relevant legal scholar disagree

fought a civil war over the issue after disagreements pushed half the nation to succeed.

Wrong.
There were examples of states passing gun laws before the Civil War, which the supreme court struck down.

{...
1837
Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court and is thrown out.
...}

See a Timeline of Gun Control in the U.S. from 1791 to the Present

Learn about federal and state gun control laws in the United States. Here's a timeline from 1791 to the present.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[sparky]

I'm a well armed redneck bluecollar, but they are merely a tool, not a symbol of freedom to me. I have seen far ..far to many folks shot in my day, so i'm not really into shooting anyone, especially for their political stripe , you aholes that think so as just that, UnAmerica to want to target anything you don't agree with, fuck you! ~S~

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm a well armed redneck bluecollar, but they are merely a tool, not a symbol of freedom to me. I have seen far ..far to many folks shot in my day, so i'm not really into shooting anyone, especially for their political stripe , you aholes that think so as just that, UnAmerica to want to target anything you don't agree with, fuck you! ~S~

would you shoot someone that came in your house uninvited and started stealing from you and threatening you with a gun to do things you didnt want to do???

 

[Rigby5]

I'm a well armed redneck bluecollar, but they are merely a tool, not a symbol of freedom to me. I have seen far ..far to many folks shot in my day, so i'm not really into shooting anyone, especially for their political stripe , you aholes that think so as just that, UnAmerica to want to target anything you don't agree with, fuck you! ~S~

If the tool is necessary in order to stay alive and maintain freedom, then doesn't it become a measure if not a symbol of freedom?
The only people I have seen shot are in illegal wars the government of this country started.
That does not give me confidence of this government in the future.

 

[evenflow1969]

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

No. Not every one is suited to carry one. Some times people get killed with their own gun

 

[justinacolmena]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the precedent on this issue. It's not some philosophical problem. We have decades of case law on the issue and fought a civil war over the issue. It's why we passed the 14th ammendment to make what you're saying true.

Everyone, including blacks, had guns before the Civil War. There were black soldiers on both sides of that war, in fact. It never occurred to anyone that the mere "possession" of a weapon of any sort might be illegal.

The judges masturbated on the bench in a court of law and revoked our gun rights after the war, along with the Jim Crow laws, the Sunday Blue laws, etc., etc.

The tobacco plantations of the deep south went to pot, and the owners started smoking too much weed.

 

[AZrailwhale]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

Wrong.
They sent letters to each other discussing things like this, and they almost decided to make firearm ownership mandatory and universal.
The only reason they did not, was that firearms back then were far too expensive compared to now.

It was not a state prerogative because most state constitutions are clear all male adults were the state militia automatically, and since there were essentially no police back then, the universal need for all individuals to be armed is obvious.

The only founders who did not trust the general population were the federalists, like Madison and Hamilton.
The liberals like Jefferson most certainly did trust the will of the people, and his side won by eliminating the land ownership requirements for voting.

We are a republic, and we are also a democracy, just a representative democracy.
That is all the founders intended to do to restrict mob rule.
They certainly would never have allowed any federal weapons laws at all, and there were none until 1934.
{...
The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.”
...}

Here’s a Timeline of the Major Gun Control Laws in America

A rundown of the most important events influencing Federal gun policy

time.com

And like everything FDR did, it was designed to enhance the government’s power.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

No. Not every one is suited to carry one. Some times people get killed with their own gun

Sometimes people get killed by their own governments guns.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Rigby5]

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

No. Not every one is suited to carry one. Some times people get killed with their own gun

Anyone who would get shot with their own gun should be removed from the genepool.

 

[cnm]

Should carrying a firearm become mandatory?

You know you'll just make it rusty when you put it through the dishwasher.

 

[Blues Man]

No it doesn't.

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

Being a CRIMINAL in possession of a firearm does.

You assholes always seem to leave off the important part.

as soon as you include accidental deaths and suicides you're clearly less safe with a gun than without

Our violence rate is way too low to justify owning a gun in most fo the country.

If you live in a poor part of Chicago or some other major urban center that is basically a warzone.....Then maybe it becomes rational

The great thing about rights are you don't need to justify exercising them.

It in no way follows that I think they should be taken away. Gun owners take all the risk of keeping elites scared of us?

But he seems to be confused about the statistical realities of safety and gun ownership. They will not make you safer on average.

Yes surprise your suburban little girl who you treat like a princess is not some disciplined little child soldier who won't accidentally shoot herself or some one else. Your family is probably not safer for having a gun in the house. You're in a catch 22 where you need easy access but that same access increases the threat level. *shrug*

Can't even trust the average suburban american kid at a gun range much less with 24/7 access. Going to be very few scenarios where a gun can keep you safe. Infinite where gun ownership can end up hurting you.

if anything guns are neutral when it comes to safety.

People who own guns legally are not the problem. If other activities had an accidental death rate as low as legal gun ownership they'd be praised as being extremely safe.

The problem with guns is and always has been the people who possess carry and use guns illegally.

You're very unlikely to ever need it

Which makes the claims they're neutral sort of insane

Actually, it is absolutely inevitable that people will need guns.
We formed this country due to corruption by government that required a rebellion.
That ALWAYS is the normal tendency, for all governments to become more corrupt, and for rebellion to restore rights for a time.
So whether or not guns become necessary in our life times, to us, is not relevant.
They absolutely will be necessary to some people at some time.
So it has to remain illegal for government to at all interfere in this essential weapons ownership by the general population.

Yea uh huh and i gain all the rewards with almost none of the risks with you having the gun

The only way to ensure the majority has guns to prevent tyranny, is for the right for all individuals to have guns to be kept sacrosanct.
If one generation becomes lazy and complacent, then they doom all future generations to authoritarian dictatorship at some point.

Yea and they viewed that as the states prerogative, not random plebs

Again the founding fathers hated people like you. They did not trust you to make choices about what is and is not tyrannical, or do much of anything else really.

We aren't a democracy we're a republic, there wasn't even any illusion you were allowed to vote much less use arms to affect politics.

so not only do you read minds, but read the minds of dead people,,

YOURE FUCKING AMAZING!!!

Yea it's almost like if you have a high IQ they go into great detail about American history in our education....

It's not very long relative to most nations. You can spend some time on what the founding fathers thought and the implications of the system they made. Not very difficult to connect these dots.

AP history class kids hear detailed history, not some tainted form of it, which is why teh right hates them so much. You're exhibiting the common strain of "ignorance is bliss" on our history. No it's not. Accept reality like a man. Yea our slave holding founding fatehrs who didn't like dmeocracy didn't enshrine your right to own a gun in the constitution. Not on purpose anyway

The Constitution has NO individual rights in it.
That was not its intent.
The Bill of Rights is ONLY to restrict the federal government, nothing more.
And the majority of the founders did not hold slaves or necessarily support slavery,
They did not like the original Athenian democracy, where everyone voted on each measure personally, and it had to be unanimous.
The had nothing against a representative democracy.

Of course it did.

The Bill of Rights is about the rights of the people individually and collectively and included those rights that were so important that a specific mention was needed to ensure the government could not violate them.

The bill of rights only limited the feds pre reconstruction

It did not enshrine any rights, it merely prevented the federal government from fucking with you

Not your state or city government. Those protections would need to be in the state constitutions

Do none of you understand the system we have is in many ways not the system teh founding fathers gave us/

You do realize that states are still bound by the Constitution right? State and local laws cannot violate the Constitution.

not pre civil war they weren't

you could have your own little theocracy, no first amendment protections

could certainly disarm people

This is why Ron Paul is a libertarian. The constitution allows him to have his own little theocracy in east texas as long as the texas constitution doesn't allow it. Many libertarians are not really believers in the NAP, they want pre reconstruction america. To go back to a time where the bill of rights did not apply to state governments

pre civil war is irrelevant to today

It's not to what the founding fathers thought tho

is it?

you stupid fuck

the founding fathers didn't do anything but gives states the rights to decide gun laws themselves. That's it

You'd have to be totally retarded to think they were mandating* anything approaching universal gun rights

Look Fucknut the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution for a reason and I never said a word about a mandate.
And we don't have universal gun rights now either , Idiot.

We in fact exclude many people from owning guns, don't we?

 

[cnm]

What a civil society you guys have made for yourselves.

 

[2aguy]

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Who has mandated that you wear a mask?
You Republicans have gone off the deep end, i.e. Georgia.
Threatening the lives of public officials, secretary of state, and yet you claim the left is a bunch of violent thugs.
As always, you got it backasswards.

Wow....joe biden voters spent the last 7 months burning and looting cities.....they spent the last 7 months beating and murdering Americans......and you post that stupid crap.

I get it...you are trying to create another democrat party big lie...so you have to post crap like that....but sell it somewhere else....

 

[2aguy]

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

No....being a criminal increases your chances of dying from gunfire, stabbings, and other ways to die violently....

 

[Blues Man]

What a civil society you guys have made for yourselves.

And we don't need a sheep fucker from NZ telling us how to live

 

[2aguy]

Ridiculous idea! Making carrying a firearm mandatory would violate people's sincerely held beliefs, and it would violate their right to freedom. Even worse for conservatives, it would result in women, LGBTQs, people of color, and Muslims all carrying, so these groups would not be so vulnerable to attack.

Dipshit....those groups are already the biggest growth areas for gun ownership.....you mindless nitwit...

 

[Rigby5]

I mean it provides far more protection than the masks we are mandated to wear for protection.

Having a firearm increases your chance of dying from gunfire.

That is totally wrong.
What they did was correlate between gun owners and shootings, which makes no sense, because obviously those in dangerous neighborhoods are both going to be more likely to have a gun and also to be shot, but it is totally wrong to then claim it was the ownership of the gun that caused the death.

 

[Rigby5]

Ridiculous idea! Making carrying a firearm mandatory would violate people's sincerely held beliefs, and it would violate their right to freedom. Even worse for conservatives, it would result in women, LGBTQs, people of color, and Muslims all carrying, so these groups would not be so vulnerable to attack.

No it wouldn't.
Carrying does not mean you have to shoot anyone.
You can use it as a noise maker and shoot in the air to scare people off or get attention.
People should be responsible for the safety of themselves and others.
If you hire people to do it instead, like police, they will end up doing what those who sign their paychecks want instead of what they should be doing.

 

[Lysistrata]

Ridiculous idea! Making carrying a firearm mandatory would violate people's sincerely held beliefs, and it would violate their right to freedom. Even worse for conservatives, it would result in women, LGBTQs, people of color, and Muslims all carrying, so these groups would not be so vulnerable to attack.

Dipshit....those groups are already the biggest growth areas for gun ownership.....you mindless nitwit...

And I bet this makes you piss in your panties. Remember that anyone who feels the least bit threatened can legally draw a gun now in "self-defense," even if this "threatening" person is unarmed, and can shoot them in "self-defense" if they try to grab the gun from you. These rules must apply to everybody, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other characteristic.

But you can't make carrying a firearm mandatory if it violates someone's sincerely held beliefs. This would be unconstitutional.