Why Allow Gun Ownership?

[1srelluc]

The Brits have been killing each other off in wholesale lots for a while.

List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia

 

[Ringtone]

Backcountry guides advise not attempting to shoot at bears at all - it’s the least effective way to neutralize a bear attack. Bear spray is what you should be carrying - two cans, in case a very pissed off bear finds you again before you get to safety.

Most people think they are a much better shot than they actually would be in a crisis situation. Even police who practice routinely often struggle in crisis settings. This is why all the ideas about arming teachers and other civilians as a means of defense against suicidal mass shooters is insanity.

Nobody but military and law enforcement need to have ownership or possession of assault firearms and large capacity magazines. All the arguments to the contrary are specious.

Behold another leftist nincompoop spouting nonsense about the only solution that will solve this problem.

Israel Has Only Had 2 School Attacks in 44 Years, Here's How They Make Sure Their Kids Are Safe

"In 1974, Palestinian terrorists took over the Netiv Meir Elementary School in what has been called the 'Ma'alot Massacre,' which left 22 children dead and many others injured. The attack forced Israel to come up with a solution in order to prevent such a situation from ever happening again.

www.westernjournal.com

Leftist bitch poodles are making a big deal over Lauren Boebert's gaff about taking planes away.

Dems: That Lauran Boebert sure is a moron! We're not taking the planes away because we secured the Airports, dummy. ​

​

Republicans: Now secure the schools the same way so they can't be taken over by maniacs.​

​

Dems: Take the guns away!​

 

[surada]

The Brits have been killing each other off in wholesale lots for a while.

List of massacres in Great Britain - Wikipedia

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats

Murders, Murder rate per million people, Intentional homicide rate, Murder rate, Murders per million people

www.nationmaster.com

 

[BlindBoo]

Congress did not create the Militia, dummy.

The plain language of the Second Amendment's main clause, as the Federalist Papers affirm, firstly pertains to the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Bill of Rights are predicated on the imperatives of natural law regarding the inalienable rights of the people endowed by God (or nature if you please), not by governments. This inherent right of the people precedes the security of the several states, just as the militias of the several states precede the existence of Congress. Under natural and constitutional law the right to keep and bear arms and the existence of the Militia are ontologically rooted in the people themselves.

As the Court has observed on several occasions, Congress is empowered "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16). It did not create nor is it empowered to create the militia.

The Militias were set up by incorporating the existing colonial militias under the authority of Congress via the Constitution. They were always an instrument of the state, not vigilantes guarding against tyranny.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That is your ultimate goal. You passing more laws is meaningless. Criminals will not obey. Murder is against the law do murderers care?

It will only effect law abiding citizens who have done norhing to bebpunushed for

Nothing but fearmongering, ignorance, and lies from the right.

No one seeks to ban all firearms or confiscate guns.

And there's no political will to ban assault weapons, nor should they be banned.

 

[Ringtone]

Yet another gun thread filled with rightwing fearmongering, ignorance, and lies.

Guns aren't going to be banned, guns aren't going to be confiscated.

Indeed, AR 15s with 30-round magazines shouldn't be banned, that would be unwarranted government excess and overreach, and bans don't work.

Indeed, your fellow leftist bitch poodles are stark raving mad, aren't they? Banning long rifles and 20-to-thirty-round magazines wouldn't fix anything.

So tell me something, you miserable, dissembling, gaslighting bitch poodle, why are all the leftist media calling for banning them while dismissing the only real solution proposed by Republicans, namely, securing the schools with armed professionals?

You sick bastards. It's all about political manipulation and division and strife. You baby-killing, infanticidal monsters don't give a shit about the ongoing slaughter. You crisis-mongering whores.

It's leftist whores like you who have cheapened human life. It's leftist whores like you who incessantly assail the familiar and sexual mores that bind as you attack the liberty of those who observe them. It's leftist whores like you in the state schools and popular culture who are responsible for this insanity.

 

[Ringtone]

Nothing but fearmongering, ignorance, and lies from the right.

No one seeks to ban all firearms or confiscate guns.

And there's no political will to ban assault weapons, nor should they be banned.

You gaslighting whore. You and your ilk are the fearmongering bitch poodles of ignorance and lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Militias were set up by incorporating the existing colonial militias under the authority of Congress via the Constitution. They were always an instrument of the state, not vigilantes guarding against tyranny.

Exactly.

Prior to 2010, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the state's, safeguarding the right of the states to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including regulating state militia.

The Second Amendment was a collective, not individual, right having nothing to do with defending against tyranny.

 

[hadit]

1. Hunting

2. Target practice

3. Self defense

Case 1 does not require semi auto magazine fed. Certain cases (bear hunting or wild boar) require a handgun but large caliber revolvers serve that purpose.

2. That makes it a toy. A deadly toy

3. Certainly not a magazine fed semi auto. A shot gun is an excellent weapon for home defense.

And don't forget Joe Biden's advice! Shoot through the closed door before you know who is out there and what they want.

 

[1srelluc]

Nothing but fearmongering, ignorance, and lies from the right.

No one seeks to ban all firearms or confiscate guns.

And there's no political will to ban assault weapons, nor should they be banned.

Oh really?

Before Clinton:

After Clinton:

The exact same flavor of 10 round Chi-Com SKS carbine but due to the dem's nonsense the bayonet and it's stud was removed....It threw the balance completely off.....Even the cleaning rod stud was removed.

The dems then killed all SKS/AK imports from China.....Why you might ask?

While the standard model of the semi-automatic rifle, called an SKS, is not classified as an assault weapon and was not one of the 19 weapons banned in the crime bill passed in August, its importation was banned by President Clinton as a condition of the most-favored nation status granted China earlier this year.

 

[Ringtone]

The Militias were set up by incorporating the existing colonial militias under the authority of Congress via the Constitution. They were always an instrument of the state, not vigilantes guarding against tyranny.

Stop it! Just stop it! You are demonstrably wrong. Congress could not and did not create the militias. Your dissembling blather about vigilantes is mindless noise.

Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the Militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" Militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the Militia as all able-bodied men. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller), Page 23​

 

[Ringtone]

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats

Murders, Murder rate per million people, Intentional homicide rate, Murder rate, Murders per million people

www.nationmaster.com

Why the thumbs down on my post, surada?

crickets chirping

 

[Baron]

1. Hunting

2. Target practice

3. Self defense

Case 1 does not require semi auto magazine fed. Certain cases (bear hunting or wild boar) require a handgun but large caliber revolvers serve that purpose.

2. That makes it a toy. A deadly toy

3. Certainly not a magazine fed semi auto. A shot gun is an excellent weapon for home defense.

Protection from communist government ( Aussies are disarmed, their Covid communist dictators screw them up as they please )

 

[Vrenn]

Relying on a handgun to take down a bear is foolhardy. It takes a very, very well-placed shot to kill a bear. You wouldn't want to try to kill a brown or grizzly bear with a .357 magnum. I know I've seen someone try...

Sometimes you get the bear and sometimes the bear gets you.

I think this is a very good idea. The winner gets the gun and lunch. Afterall, the 2nd Amendment says, the right of the people to keep and arm bears, shall not be infringed. It would give bear hunting a new meaning. And think of all the stupid people it would eliminate in the process.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Bullshit. It was for the defense of the Nation against the worlds superpowers and the natives. The Militia referenced was the one set up by Congress for defense, not bands of Conspiracy theorists.

You're full of shit.

 

[JusticeHammer]

But not machine guns or rocket launchers.

Why?

Actually it does, but over the years restrictive laws have been passed.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Correct.

Nor was it the intent of the Framers that private armed citizens would 'overthrow' a Federal government perceived to have become 'tyrannical.'

Once again you are wrong.

 

[buttercup]

Correct.

Nor was it the intent of the Framers that private armed citizens would 'overthrow' a Federal government perceived to have become 'tyrannical.'

Do you ever say anything that is true? I’ve yet to see it. You are a either a huge fool, or you’re just as evil and corrupt as the slimy traitorous crooks you defend day in and day out. Not sure which.

 

[Ringtone]

Exactly.
[1] Prior to 2010, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government, not the state's, safeguarding the right of the states to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including regulating state militia.

[2] The Second Amendment was a collective, not individual, right having nothing to do with defending against tyranny.

Exactly wrong.

[1] The thrust of his claim is that the Militia is a creature of Congress. Bullshit! You know that's not true.

Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the Militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" Militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the Militia as all able-bodied men. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller), Page 23​

​

[2] Whether the Second Amendment entailed a collective or an individual right, it would be about defending/securing against tyranny. But, of course, you're a lying ass dog. It's an individual right, and always has been just like the Court unanimously observed in Heller. The 5-to-4 split in the decision was over the issue of regulation, not over the nature of the right. Obviously, if the right were not individually enforceable, the collective right of the Militia would be meaningless and unenforceable against the federal government given that the militias are subject to congressional control as "employed in the Service of the United States" for the purpose of national defense.

The Court held in Heller:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.​

​

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.​

​

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.​

​

(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.​

​

(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.​

​

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion.​

​

(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. ​

Be sure to pay especially close attention to the last paragraph in bold. Ain't that a daisy? Let's replay part of that again:

None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's [individual-rights] interpretation. ​

The Court has never held it to be a mere collective right per the Militia.

Also see: Supreme Court Gun-Ban Ruling Buries "Collective Rights" Theory - Competitive Enterprise Institute

 

[Canon Shooter]

Nor was it the intent of the Framers that private armed citizens would 'overthrow' a Federal government perceived to have become 'tyrannical.'

Actually, that's kinda' exactly what they had in mind...