Should carrying a firearm become mandatory?

[progressive hunter]

According to the Constitution, the federal government has no weapons jurisdiction at all.

In your subjective, wrongheaded opinion.

In fact, the Federal government has the authority to regulate firearms, provided Federal firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The 4473 and NICS background check are proof of that.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear.
The states, municipalities, neighborhoods, and even individuals need to protect themselves, and THEY are the militia. The feds can't create the National Guard and then try to claim you don't need a militia any more.
The founders were quite clear they did not want or trust a mercenary federal standing military force that worked for pay, because they would do illegal things for money, like invade Iraq on WMD lies.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate weapons at all, not a single bit.
The 4473 and NICS are totally illegal.
The need for weapons is local, so then the regulation of weapons has to also be local.
That is what the founders wrote, and that is what we should be doing now.
The BATF is illegal and should not exist at all.
To be legal it would have to have been explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and it isn't.
It is a modern violation of the constitution.

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

THeir biggest fear was getting lynched by mobs

The original conception of the second amendment was clearly about state organized militias. Our modern interpretations do away with that

got a link to that crap???

 

[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.

 

[Juicin]

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

 

[Rigby5]

According to the Constitution, the federal government has no weapons jurisdiction at all.

In your subjective, wrongheaded opinion.

In fact, the Federal government has the authority to regulate firearms, provided Federal firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The 4473 and NICS background check are proof of that.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear.
The states, municipalities, neighborhoods, and even individuals need to protect themselves, and THEY are the militia. The feds can't create the National Guard and then try to claim you don't need a militia any more.
The founders were quite clear they did not want or trust a mercenary federal standing military force that worked for pay, because they would do illegal things for money, like invade Iraq on WMD lies.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate weapons at all, not a single bit.
The 4473 and NICS are totally illegal.
The need for weapons is local, so then the regulation of weapons has to also be local.
That is what the founders wrote, and that is what we should be doing now.
The BATF is illegal and should not exist at all.
To be legal it would have to have been explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and it isn't.
It is a modern violation of the constitution.

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

THeir biggest fear was getting lynched by mobs

The original conception of the second amendment was clearly about state organized militias. Our modern interpretations do away with that

That is totally wrong, and we have letters where the founders were considering making firearms ownership mandatory and universal.

If you read ANY state constitution, they almost all say that the whole male population of age were the militia. That is because they wanted and needed as many people to be accessible to prevent threats and crimes, because transportation and communications prevented anything more centralized.

Remember, there essentially were no police back then.
Crime fighting was an individual responsibility, and still is in reality, since police are always too late to protect anyone.

 

[Juicin]

According to the Constitution, the federal government has no weapons jurisdiction at all.

In your subjective, wrongheaded opinion.

In fact, the Federal government has the authority to regulate firearms, provided Federal firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The 4473 and NICS background check are proof of that.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear.
The states, municipalities, neighborhoods, and even individuals need to protect themselves, and THEY are the militia. The feds can't create the National Guard and then try to claim you don't need a militia any more.
The founders were quite clear they did not want or trust a mercenary federal standing military force that worked for pay, because they would do illegal things for money, like invade Iraq on WMD lies.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate weapons at all, not a single bit.
The 4473 and NICS are totally illegal.
The need for weapons is local, so then the regulation of weapons has to also be local.
That is what the founders wrote, and that is what we should be doing now.
The BATF is illegal and should not exist at all.
To be legal it would have to have been explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and it isn't.
It is a modern violation of the constitution.

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

THeir biggest fear was getting lynched by mobs

The original conception of the second amendment was clearly about state organized militias. Our modern interpretations do away with that

got a link to that crap???

You want me to link you to the writings of founding fathers?

You can just google it

The idea they wanted your average pleb armed is a basic misunderstanding of the founding fathers.

Plebs are ignorant in 2020 with the internet. I can only imagine what they were like in 1776.

 

[Juicin]

According to the Constitution, the federal government has no weapons jurisdiction at all.

In your subjective, wrongheaded opinion.

In fact, the Federal government has the authority to regulate firearms, provided Federal firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The 4473 and NICS background check are proof of that.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear.
The states, municipalities, neighborhoods, and even individuals need to protect themselves, and THEY are the militia. The feds can't create the National Guard and then try to claim you don't need a militia any more.
The founders were quite clear they did not want or trust a mercenary federal standing military force that worked for pay, because they would do illegal things for money, like invade Iraq on WMD lies.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate weapons at all, not a single bit.
The 4473 and NICS are totally illegal.
The need for weapons is local, so then the regulation of weapons has to also be local.
That is what the founders wrote, and that is what we should be doing now.
The BATF is illegal and should not exist at all.
To be legal it would have to have been explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and it isn't.
It is a modern violation of the constitution.

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

THeir biggest fear was getting lynched by mobs

The original conception of the second amendment was clearly about state organized militias. Our modern interpretations do away with that

That is totally wrong, and we have letters where the founders were considering making firearms ownership mandatory and universal.

If you read ANY state constitution, they almost all say that the whole male population of age were the militia. That is because they wanted and needed as many people to be accessible to prevent threats and crimes, because transportation and communications prevented anything more centralized.

Remember, there essentially were no police back then.
Crime fighting was an individual responsibility, and still is in reality, since police are always too late to protect anyone.

no lol

they didn't even let non land owners vote

and you think they wanted to arm them?

their biggest concerns were again not getting lynched, especially by a mixed race mob. That really scared them.

Why would you think men who disdained the average american in every way possible thought they should be well armed? Maybe they thought there should be some militia armory. But private citizens walking around with guns they were likely to turn on their elites? No

We were a young nation then there was a great fear of upheaval, many western european nations were a shit show at that time

 

[Canon Shooter]

I wear a mask when I go out to a store. I've had Covid and it really, really sucked.

I also carry a gun.

Guess I'm ready for anything.

If you already had covid, then the mask it totally unnecessary.
You can not get it again or spread it to others.

Who says that? Certainly not the CDC.

While there's the hope that the virus works that way, the fact of the matter is that there's simply no evidence to suggest that a person who's had Covid can't get reinfected and infect others...

 

[progressive hunter]

According to the Constitution, the federal government has no weapons jurisdiction at all.

In your subjective, wrongheaded opinion.

In fact, the Federal government has the authority to regulate firearms, provided Federal firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The 4473 and NICS background check are proof of that.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear.
The states, municipalities, neighborhoods, and even individuals need to protect themselves, and THEY are the militia. The feds can't create the National Guard and then try to claim you don't need a militia any more.
The founders were quite clear they did not want or trust a mercenary federal standing military force that worked for pay, because they would do illegal things for money, like invade Iraq on WMD lies.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate weapons at all, not a single bit.
The 4473 and NICS are totally illegal.
The need for weapons is local, so then the regulation of weapons has to also be local.
That is what the founders wrote, and that is what we should be doing now.
The BATF is illegal and should not exist at all.
To be legal it would have to have been explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and it isn't.
It is a modern violation of the constitution.

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

THeir biggest fear was getting lynched by mobs

The original conception of the second amendment was clearly about state organized militias. Our modern interpretations do away with that

got a link to that crap???

You want me to link you to the writings of founding fathers?

You can just google it

The idea they wanted your average pleb armed is a basic misunderstanding of the founding fathers.

Plebs are ignorant in 2020 with the internet. I can only imagine what they were like in 1776.

I think its you that needs to google their words,, cause what you said is the exact opposite of what they intended and thats pretty clear from the 2nd A

 

[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.

 

[Juicin]

According to the Constitution, the federal government has no weapons jurisdiction at all.

In your subjective, wrongheaded opinion.

In fact, the Federal government has the authority to regulate firearms, provided Federal firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The 4473 and NICS background check are proof of that.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear.
The states, municipalities, neighborhoods, and even individuals need to protect themselves, and THEY are the militia. The feds can't create the National Guard and then try to claim you don't need a militia any more.
The founders were quite clear they did not want or trust a mercenary federal standing military force that worked for pay, because they would do illegal things for money, like invade Iraq on WMD lies.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate weapons at all, not a single bit.
The 4473 and NICS are totally illegal.
The need for weapons is local, so then the regulation of weapons has to also be local.
That is what the founders wrote, and that is what we should be doing now.
The BATF is illegal and should not exist at all.
To be legal it would have to have been explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and it isn't.
It is a modern violation of the constitution.

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

THeir biggest fear was getting lynched by mobs

The original conception of the second amendment was clearly about state organized militias. Our modern interpretations do away with that

got a link to that crap???

You want me to link you to the writings of founding fathers?

You can just google it

The idea they wanted your average pleb armed is a basic misunderstanding of the founding fathers.

Plebs are ignorant in 2020 with the internet. I can only imagine what they were like in 1776.

I think its you that needs to google their words,, cause what you said is the exact opposite of what they intended and thats pretty clear from the 2nd A

You dont' even know anything about interpretations of the second amendment.

Trust me i'm infinitely more aware of what teh founding fathers thought and did than most people in this country, clealry more than you if you think the guys who disdained your average pleb wanted to put a rifle in their hand to do anything but shoot brits or native americans.

Our slave holdign founding fathers were generally not saints

 

[progressive hunter]

According to the Constitution, the federal government has no weapons jurisdiction at all.

In your subjective, wrongheaded opinion.

In fact, the Federal government has the authority to regulate firearms, provided Federal firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The 4473 and NICS background check are proof of that.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear.
The states, municipalities, neighborhoods, and even individuals need to protect themselves, and THEY are the militia. The feds can't create the National Guard and then try to claim you don't need a militia any more.
The founders were quite clear they did not want or trust a mercenary federal standing military force that worked for pay, because they would do illegal things for money, like invade Iraq on WMD lies.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate weapons at all, not a single bit.
The 4473 and NICS are totally illegal.
The need for weapons is local, so then the regulation of weapons has to also be local.
That is what the founders wrote, and that is what we should be doing now.
The BATF is illegal and should not exist at all.
To be legal it would have to have been explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and it isn't.
It is a modern violation of the constitution.

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

THeir biggest fear was getting lynched by mobs

The original conception of the second amendment was clearly about state organized militias. Our modern interpretations do away with that

got a link to that crap???

You want me to link you to the writings of founding fathers?

You can just google it

The idea they wanted your average pleb armed is a basic misunderstanding of the founding fathers.

Plebs are ignorant in 2020 with the internet. I can only imagine what they were like in 1776.

I think its you that needs to google their words,, cause what you said is the exact opposite of what they intended and thats pretty clear from the 2nd A

You dont' even know anything about interpretations of the second amendment.

Trust me i'm infinitely more aware of what teh founding fathers thought and did than most people in this country, clealry more than you if you think the guys who disdained your average pleb wanted to put a rifle in their hand to do anything but shoot brits or native americans.

Our slave holdign founding fathers were generally not saints

nothing to interpret when its written in simple english,,

 

[Juicin]

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.

 

[Rigby5]

I wear a mask when I go out to a store. I've had Covid and it really, really sucked.

I also carry a gun.

Guess I'm ready for anything.

If you already had covid, then the mask it totally unnecessary.
You can not get it again or spread it to others.

Who says that? Certainly not the CDC.

While there's the hope that the virus works that way, the fact of the matter is that there's simply no evidence to suggest that a person who's had Covid can't get reinfected and infect others...

Yes there is evidence.
Anyone can get re-infected by any virus and test positive, but so far no one who was already infected has shown any symptoms or been infectious to anyone else.
They have all be labeled "asymptomatic", which means they can't infect anyone.
Pre-symptomatic can and do infect others, but will eventually show symptoms.

The proof is the existence of vaccine.
If one was not capable of becoming immune after infection, then vaccines would be a waste of time and money.

 

[Juicin]

According to the Constitution, the federal government has no weapons jurisdiction at all.

In your subjective, wrongheaded opinion.

In fact, the Federal government has the authority to regulate firearms, provided Federal firearm regulatory measures comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The 4473 and NICS background check are proof of that.

Wrong.
The 2nd amendment is quite clear.
The states, municipalities, neighborhoods, and even individuals need to protect themselves, and THEY are the militia. The feds can't create the National Guard and then try to claim you don't need a militia any more.
The founders were quite clear they did not want or trust a mercenary federal standing military force that worked for pay, because they would do illegal things for money, like invade Iraq on WMD lies.
The federal government has no legal authority to regulate weapons at all, not a single bit.
The 4473 and NICS are totally illegal.
The need for weapons is local, so then the regulation of weapons has to also be local.
That is what the founders wrote, and that is what we should be doing now.
The BATF is illegal and should not exist at all.
To be legal it would have to have been explicitly authorized in the Constitution, and it isn't.
It is a modern violation of the constitution.

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

THeir biggest fear was getting lynched by mobs

The original conception of the second amendment was clearly about state organized militias. Our modern interpretations do away with that

got a link to that crap???

You want me to link you to the writings of founding fathers?

You can just google it

The idea they wanted your average pleb armed is a basic misunderstanding of the founding fathers.

Plebs are ignorant in 2020 with the internet. I can only imagine what they were like in 1776.

I think its you that needs to google their words,, cause what you said is the exact opposite of what they intended and thats pretty clear from the 2nd A

You dont' even know anything about interpretations of the second amendment.

Trust me i'm infinitely more aware of what teh founding fathers thought and did than most people in this country, clealry more than you if you think the guys who disdained your average pleb wanted to put a rifle in their hand to do anything but shoot brits or native americans.

Our slave holdign founding fathers were generally not saints

nothing to interpret when its written in simple english,,

You need to google "interpretations of the second amendment" then get back to me on that

When teh founding fathers were alive is not how they interpreted that "simple english"

Why you think we have a more accurate view now that everyone who wrote it is dead I have no idea.

 

[progressive hunter]

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!!!

 

[Canon Shooter]

Trust me i'm infinitely more aware of what teh founding fathers thought and did than most people in this country

How so?

 

[Juicin]

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

 

[night_son]

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

Yes . . . mandatory for some but not for others. I personally know well several fellow human beings, some of which I even love, who should never be permitted to wield firearms—unless they spend months in training. Some folks just aren't equipped to wield them without causing catastrophic injury to themselves and others. Now, all of that being said, and in an ideal/perfect world, then yes in such a place everyone and their brother should be armed at all times.

 

[progressive hunter]

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. There i

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

to bad for you the wording and written intent if the 2nd A proves everything you said wrong,,,

but feel free to continue,, we like a good comedy show,,

 

[Juicin]

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. There i

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

to bad for you the wording and written intent if the 2nd A proves everything you said wrong,,,

but feel free to continue,, we like a good comedy show,,

Again you're just a pleb, luckily our system doesn't give a **** waht you think.

Barely average in your shit school and want to give history lessons on the internet....