When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives


The case is about whether guns are protected outside of homes.

The reality is, they're not really.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own a weapons. (Keep arms). This doesn't regulate what you can do with the gun beyond being able to obtain then (buy and sell).

It also protects the right to be in the militia (bear arms). Beyond this it has no scope.
So we will see how the Supreme Court rules. It may well leave the right to carry outside the home up to the individual states.
 
So we will see how the Supreme Court rules. It may well leave the right to carry outside the home up to the individual states.

I'd think that's how the Court would do it. The 2A says nothing about carrying arms. The only way it's applicable is if it's involved in buying or selling these weapons. Therefore it is a state issue.
 
rights dont need enforced they can only be violated,,,

you mother fuckers are amazing,, I dont know how youre still alive,,
I can explain it for you.

For generations we have been so focused on safety that we have created a place that Weapons Grade Stupid fucktards like Fridgiddipshit can proliferate and thrive in. If it wasn't for child resistant lids on things like Drano or Tylenol they would have died as children like nature intended. In pre-historic times, they would wander away from the village chasing a butterfy only to be played with and eventually eaten by some tiger cubs.

That's how it's supposed to work. Stupid people are protected now though. When you buy fish bait at a sporting goods store they have to put the words "Not For Human Consumption" on the lids to keep liberals from choking on a fish hook. These people used to die when they put an extension cord on a radio so that they could listen to music in the shower or blow dry their hair. GFI Plugs keep these idiots alive.

We have reversed evolution by allowing imbeciles to evade natural selection. That's why leftist pieces of shit having abortions is something I would never interfere with.


.
 
Never forget:

usgun-deaths-1999-2016.jpg
now break all that down into where it took place. what cities? what policies run those cities? gun free zones?

simpletons just parrot talking points. people who are really interested in what's going on always dig deeper.
 
now break all that down into where it took place. what cities? what policies run those cities? gun free zones?

simpletons just parrot talking points. people who are really interested in what's going on always dig deeper.
Most of them were suicide victims/perpetrators. Very sad.
 
I'd think that's how the Court would do it. The 2A says nothing about carrying arms. The only way it's applicable is if it's involved in buying or selling these weapons. Therefore it is a state issue.


Really?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 

Employee who killed gunman likely saved lives, police say​

...
SUPERIOR, Neb. (AP) — An employee who returned fire after a gunman killed two people at a Nebraska grain elevator likely prevented more deaths, a Nebraska State Patrol official said Friday.

The employee, who was not named, retrieved a weapon and shot Max Hoskinson, 61, after Hoskinson began shooting at the Agrex Elevator in Superior, Nebraska, on Thursday. Hoskinson, of Superior, was pronounced dead at a hospital.

Authorities said Hoskinson had been fired earlier Thursday and returned that afternoon with a gun and began shooting in an office area.
...
I must say, the thread title is an oxymoron
 
Except in Japan, and South Korea, the countries with extreme gun control but higher suicide rates than the U.S....
Yes, because of their culture. They're brought up to respect their country, so if they fail, say bankruptcy, they feel they've let their country down and thus commit suicide. Nothing to do with having or not having guns, only thick ***** would think otherwise.

That's why you think there's a connection, because you are the forum thick ****.
 
Listen westwall and 2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.

So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...

You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.
 
Listen westwall and 2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.

So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...

You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.




Look at who commits the vast majority of those crimes.

Chicago has 800 murders, and 150,000 KNOWN gang bangers.

Think there might be a connection?

Add in a DA who refuses to file charges against gang bangers and you have a city that has basically said shoot whoever you want to so long as you keep it out of the ruling class areas.
 
Yes, because of their culture. They're brought up to respect their country, so if they fail, say bankruptcy, they feel they've let their country down and thus commit suicide. Nothing to do with having or not having guns, only thick ***** would think otherwise.

That's why you think there's a connection, because you are the forum thick ****.

Dipshit….it was the that idiot making that case, not me you moron.
 
Listen westwall and 2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.

So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...

You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.

You are a moron……
 
Listen westwall and 2aguy , America has the 2nd Amendment so the people can shoot a tyrannical government, should such a government appear. The downside to this, in the meantime, people are shooting one another, so you experience high gun crime and gun deaths.

So I agree with you having guns, I don't agree on the lame shit justifications why you have guns, suicide rates in Japan (fuck all to do with guns), good guys shooting bad guys before a potential mass shooting happens, home defence, store clerk defence etc...

You're doing guns an injustice with shit threads like this, and with your retarded comments.
From about 40 posts back on this "shit threads";
...
... seems much of the discord on the subject results from a lack of historical knowledge and perspective on some issues. One would be the nature of language usage from about 230+ years ago. A second comes from lack of knowledge regards military tactics and methods from 230+ years ago.

A couple quick notes on language and terms will help.
1) "Arms" need not be limited to firearms. Spears, pikes, lances, halberds, swords, bow-n-arrow, crossbows, slings, etc. would also be included here. Hence the sharpened sabre hanging on my wall is covered. Since some colonial militias also had cannons, those also are covered.

2) Muskets were the principle type of firearm of that era and there was a prescribed method, or drill, on how a body(formation) of musket armed men would operate in a combat/battle situation.

We'll use the example of a small town militia of say @ 30 men. They would march toward the battlefield in three columns of 10 men each and once where they were to deploy, they would move to left or right and form as three lines of ten across. Usually they would be about an arm's length apart, and each line a step or two behind the frontline.

To engage, their leader would order;
"Present Arms"
"Aim"
"Fire!"
Once the first/front line has fired, they would then move "through the ranks" - the space between individuals in the lines behind them, to form a new line in the rear where they would reload their muskets.

The second line would then fire when ordered and do a similar move to the rear to reload.

And then the third line would fire when ordered and also move to the rear to reload.

This way the formation is always presenting a portion of their strength ready to fire and engage, covering those whom are reloading.

If well trained in the Drill (well regulated), they might also be capable of succeeding lines taking a step or two forward before firing in order to remain on that piece of ground rather than gradually moving rearward.

The well trained ~ know their drills ~ "well-regulated" militia unit would also likely have one or more leaders - officers and sergeants.

Bottom line here means the community's militia unit is trained in drill and proper maneuver as used on the battlefields of the 17-18-19th centuries versus just being an unorganized armed mob.

3) Since England kept few troops/army in the colonies until the decades prior to 1775, it had been the responsibility of the colonies to provide for their own defense, often against hostile natives, hence having a militia had been the custom for generations.
...
The colonists had been forming militias since the very beginnings of Colonial settlement for the purpose of defense against Indian attacks. These forces also saw action in the French and Indian War between 1754 and 1763 when they fought alongside British regulars. Under the laws of each New England colony, all towns were obligated to form militia companies composed of all males 16 years of age and older (there were exemptions for some categories) and to ensure that the members were properly armed. The Massachusetts militias were formally under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but militia companies throughout New England elected their own officers.[13] Gage effectively dissolved the provincial government under the terms of the Massachusetts Government Act, and these existing connections were employed by the colonists under the Massachusetts Provincial Congress for the purpose of resistance to the military threat from Britain.
...



en.wikipedia.org



Battles of Lexington and Concord - Wikipedia




en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
 

Forum List

Back
Top