Should carrying a firearm become mandatory?

[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,,

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

please tell me more,,,

 

[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.

please tell me more,,,

If you weren't sitting there spamming refresh you'd see it

 

[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,,

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

please tell me more,,,

If you weren't sitting there spamming refresh you'd see it

see what??

 

[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.

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

 

[Canon Shooter]

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.

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.

That's not nearly evidence that it can't happen. In fact, you admit that it can. All you're saying is that it hasn't happened, and I'm not even certain I would agree with that.

Where are you getting your information? Do you have a link to an article from a medical journal or the like?

They have all be labeled "asymptomatic", which means they can't infect anyone.

That's absolutely not true. Again, I would ask where you get information.

I have a friend here in town who had Covid, but she was asymptomatic. She spread the virus to her husband. He wasn't the healthiest guy in the world to begin with, and he passed away in September.

Also, the position of the CDC is that reinfection is possible and, if someone is infected, they can spread it.

I would welcome you providing date to the contrary, though...

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.

Well, you need to get the CDC on the phone and set 'em straight.

Have you never gotten the flu despite having a flu shot? I'm not talking about that slight crappy feeling which you get right after you get the flu shot. I mean the full-blown flu, maybe weeks after getting the vaccine.

I sure the **** have. That's why I don't get flu shots anymore...

 

[justinacolmena]

Wrong.
Partial lock downs can not succeed, have never succeeded, and never will succeed.
Only full quarantine or herd immunity can ever work or have ever worked.
So stop pushing a strategy known to not work.
Flattening the curve just makes it last longer, so then it kills far more.
Flattening the curve can easily make an epidemic last forever.

Wrong again. There are people who do get exposed, do not become sick, and develop immunity.
Every last one of those doctors needs to be hanged in the gallows for promoting ideas of mandatory quarantines, herd immunity, involuntary vaccinations, or other ways to treat people as cattle.

 

[justinacolmena]

The only reason they did not, was that firearms back then were far too expensive compared to now.

Wrong. Gunsmiths had forges like blacksmiths, and in those days you wouldn't be arrested or subject to civil liability for making or manufacturing firearms.

 

[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.

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

the federalists won

it was a states right to a militia for the beginning of our history

they didn't feel it was appropriate to take that power away from the states, not the citizens

which is why SCOTUS did not protect individual gun rights at the start

All it does is leave it up to the states.

Just because some one mentioned armed populaces will keep the state in check didn't mean they wanted to be checked by those people with guns. That coincides with their biggest fear being lynched

 

[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.

Accidental death rate?

As in .....oops I just killed someone?

No other product has as high an intentional death rate.

You deal with bad intentions AFTER someone commits a crime, not by harming everyone in a useless attempt to make all bad intentions impossible to follow through on.
That is because in order to do that, you have to make a 2 tiered society, of those with power and those without, and that not only is illegal, but the worst possible intentions of all.
That would ensure slavery eventually.
I trust the general population a millions times more than I trust mercenaries working for pay, like the police or the military.

 

[Rigby5]

The only reason they did not, was that firearms back then were far too expensive compared to now.

Wrong. Gunsmiths had forges like blacksmiths, and in those days you wouldn't be arrested or subject to civil liability for making or manufacturing firearms.

What I said was that the only reason the founders decided not to make firearms ownership a universal mandate, is that they were too expensive back then for a lot of poor families.

No one should ever be discouraged from making their own firearms.
The general population should be armed.

 

[justinacolmena]

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

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

The erection needs to come down, and universal gun rights need to come back.
The lies that justify gun control need to be done away with.
Fully functional guns are legal for all to possess and carry, no questions asked, by the letter of the law of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States --- duly proposed and ratified as supreme law of the land.

As for those that came to take our guns away, or tell us that our guns are illegal, it will be said that they died in the deadness of the letter of the law of one or another ill-conceived statute without the Constitution.

 

[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.

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

the federalists won

it was a states right to a militia for the beginning of our history

they didn't feel it was appropriate to take that power away from the states, not the citizens

which is why SCOTUS did not protect individual gun rights at the start

All it does is leave it up to the states.

Just because some one mentioned armed populaces will keep the state in check didn't mean they wanted to be checked by those people with guns. That coincides with their biggest fear being lynched

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution was not originally interpreted as individual rights or state rights.'
It simply was a restriction on the federal government.
But with the 14th amendment after the Civil War, then the Bill of Rights has been interpreted more carefully, as protecting individual rights as well.
That includes the right to bear arms.

And the founders were NEVER expressing any fear of being lynched.
That is totally and completely wrong.
They always felt they should comply with the will of the people, even if they disagreed with the people.
Political representatives should only be at odds with the majority if the majority mistakenly wants to harm a minority. And in that case, the representative should have the ability to deal with that verbally, not through a monopoly on the use of force. The last thing anyone should ever want is for government to have a monopoly on the use of force. That always has to end badly.

 

[Christ_on_a_croissant]

A dead goat is just as useful.

Please leave your sex life out of the discussion

 

[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

Maybe maybe not.

I have already been in a situation where I needed a gun and didn't have one so I'll be prudent and be prepared if it ever happens again.

Legal gun ownership does not increase crime or murder rates in any statistically meaningful way. Hence as far as crime and murder rates are concerned legal gun ownership is neutral.

 

[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.

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

The land owning restrictions were forced out by the majority of the founders within a few years.
It was only the federalists who did not trust the majority of the population.

The founders were not at all frightened by the general population.
They wanted mob rule to a degree.
They for the majority, did not distain the average American at all.
There were no land requirements to vote by 1800.

 

[Blues Man]

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

then tell me why does it say "the right of the people" not the right of state militias?

 

[justinacolmena]

Legal gun ownership does not increase crime

Why is legal gun ownership prosecuted as a crime in and of itself then?

 

[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.

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

the federalists won

it was a states right to a militia for the beginning of our history

they didn't feel it was appropriate to take that power away from the states, not the citizens

which is why SCOTUS did not protect individual gun rights at the start

All it does is leave it up to the states.

Just because some one mentioned armed populaces will keep the state in check didn't mean they wanted to be checked by those people with guns. That coincides with their biggest fear being lynched

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution was not originally interpreted as individual rights or state rights.'
It simply was a restriction on the federal government.
But with the 14th amendment after the Civil War, then the Bill of Rights has been interpreted more carefully, as protecting individual rights as well.
That includes the right to bear arms.

And the founders were NEVER expressing any fear of being lynched.
That is totally and completely wrong.
They always felt they should comply with the will of the people, even if they disagreed with the people.
Political representatives should only be at odds with the majority if the majority mistakenly wants to harm a minority. And in that case, the representative should have the ability to deal with that verbally, not through a monopoly on the use of force. The last thing anyone should ever want is for government to have a monopoly on the use of force. That always has to end badly.

They were very afraid of being lynched, we just don't talk about it in the pleb class because that would be too much for your little brains to handle. Again European elites were getting wiped out.

French revolution was in 1789

England had been ripped up by Cromwell a hundred years before

I'm sure many other instances that loomed large in their minds. We ended up being a very stable nation, but there was no guarantee of that at the start.

We're literally discussing how it would be legal for legislators to overrule the popular vote in 2020, at multiple levels of our elections, we are not a democracy. Never have been, the "will of the people" in their mind was land owning white males. And they didn't even respect them. They never respected teh will of the whole populace.

Pre reconstruction the constitution merely limited the feds. States could have put whatever gun restrictions their constitution allowed. Federal constitution would have nothing to do with it pre civil war

 

[Blues Man]

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

None of the founders thought private citizens should be armed

The erection needs to come down, and universal gun rights need to come back.
The lies that justify gun control need to be done away with.
Fully functional guns are legal for all to possess and carry, no questions asked, by the letter of the law of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States --- duly proposed and ratified as supreme law of the land.

As for those that came to take our guns away, or tell us that our guns are illegal, it will be said that they died in the deadness of the letter of the law of one or another ill-conceived statute without the Constitution.

if you think my statement indicates I am not pro second amendment then you need to read it again

 

[Blues Man]

Legal gun ownership does not increase crime

Why is legal gun ownership prosecuted as a crime in and of itself then?

It's not.

people who legally own and carry forearms are not the ones committing crimes