Should carrying a firearm become mandatory?

[d0gbreath]

could someone pull me out of this quote stream please,,,

OK, you're out.

Will these mandatory pistols be purchased and distributed by the government using taxpayer money?

That looks like socialism.

I would be happy if they just dropped the taxs and background checks,,

That would be great! But it's not going to get mandatory guns into everyone's pockets.

I realize that the OP is a ruse. But it's fun to think about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law


KENNESAW, Georgia (Reuters) - The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory.
... it passed a gun ordinance in 1982 that required all heads of a household to own a firearm and ammunition.


The Kennesaw law has endured as the town’s population has swelled to about 30,000 from 5,000 in 1982.

“When the law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime ... and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then,” said police Lt. Craig Graydon. “We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area.

Residents say they are comfortable with the image the gun law projects on the city as a bastion of gun freedom."

Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law

The Virginia Tech killings have set off calls for tighter U.S. gun laws but anyone wanting to know why those demands likely will make little headway should visit Kennesaw, a town where owning a gun is both popular and mandatory.

www.reuters.com

 

[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 ******* 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 ******* 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 ****

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?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

Then why didn't they federally mandate it?

And go as far as to assure states the feds would never move on states autonomy on this issue?

I don't need to link you their writings it's all in the system they made.

You didn't remember one of our most important ammendments, the 14th, i think the founding father's correspondence is a bit high level for this discussion, lol

Why should they mandate that anyone carry or even own a gun?

Do they mandate that people exercise any other right?

Don't lecture me about what i understand. Your entire premise that the founders pre civil war didn't want people to own guns yet the Bill of Rights was passed right after the Constitution was implemented.

 

[westwall]

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 ******* 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 ******* 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 ****

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?

Yea it was to let the states be tyrants. it's a states rights issue pre 14th amendment

You had no freedom of speech or religion, you sure as shit did not have freedom to bear arms in any state mandated by the federal constitution.

The states were very concerned about their own autonomy pre civil war because under law they had a lot of it.

The fact no state outright banned personal ownership of guns doesn't mean they could not have legally. Many people only ate what they killed at that time I'm sure it would not have been a popular policy.

and once again pre-civil war Constitutional law has nothing to do with the present.

The Bill of rights will never be repealed and States are bound by it.

You're moving the goal posts

THe question was did the founding fathers want you to have a gun

The answer is no

You are an idiot if you believe that. Show one quote where the Founders say you should not own a firearm.

For some reason, disarming the populace is always high on the list for Leftists.

You may recall the professor who made up all sorts of stats denying that the early Americans even had guns.


"Michael A. Bellesiles is a former professor of American colonial history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S. Two years after publishing Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), Bellesiles was investigated by Emory University for research misconduct. After the committee found him "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work," he resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University, earlier awarded the book, was rescinded.[1]"

Michael A. Bellesiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yea the people who couldn't stand out in their rural classes of 30 have a good grasp of history...lol

Founding fathers pissed on just about everyone who wasn't a land owner. Women included

Anyone who thinks differently knows nothing about them.

Literally discussing right now a system in which our legislators can simply overrule the results of an election at their will. So many examples of the founding father's disdain for the average man.

First we started out by teaching you about the 14th amendment, next we're moving on to the realities of our political system from an even more macro view?

When we started off by you retards claiming the 2nd ammendment protected gun rights pre 14th amendment.

"Yea the people who couldn't stand out in their rural classes of 30 have a good grasp of history...lol "

Not certain to whom that is directed, but for clarity, I attended the best schools in the nation.

Let me know if you'd care to compare educational resumes.

Yeah, me too. I have a PhD from Caltech. I doubt this clown could carry on a conversation with the janitorial staff there.

 

[TheParser]

In the coming decades, violent crime is bound to increase.

So probably a greater percentage of people at that time will be carrying some kind of firearm than do today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Yea the people who couldn't stand out in their rural classes of 30 have a good grasp of history...lol "

Not certain to whom that is directed, but for clarity, I attended the best schools in the nation.

Let me know if you'd care to compare educational resumes.

Yeah, me too. I have a PhD from Caltech. I doubt this clown could carry on a conversation with the janitorial staff there.

Yeah...but I bet my fight song is better than your fight song......betcha'....


Wait.....does Caltech have a fight song????