Why Allow Gun Ownership?

[miketx]

You are so so so scary.

You should see me without makeup.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I'm so grateful that I have you inside my head telling me what I think.

Dope

As to the rest of that screed....it's good that we know how crazy gun nuts actually are

When your irrational behavior and discourse is cornered and you have no escape.......
Resort to insults and diversion. So typical.
Nowhere in this discussion have I resorted to such behavior.

This is the narcissism I spoke of shining through.
If you had a vaild argument people would probably listen to you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As long as you're male and over 27 and younger than 45 yes. Or female and NG

Wrong there is no maximum age limit in the unorganized militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So according you , only males 17-45 and females in the NG have 2A protection.

Hmmm

The government doesn't have a second amendment right.

 

[Vrenn]

Small Arms from 1800 to 1899

Listing of small arms appearing from 1800 to 1899

www.militaryfactory.com

With the exception of the weapons brought out from the Civil War, only the rich owned the rest considering a firearm costs more than a months pay. Now, if you have a real need for one you will come up with the money but the average person worried more about a roof over their heads, food and clothing.

 

[Auld Phart]

With the exception of the weapons brought out from the Civil War, only the rich owned the rest considering a firearm costs more than a months pay. Now, if you have a real need for one you will come up with the money but the average person worried more about a roof over their heads, food and clothing.

Questions about gun prices in the 1800's

www.thefirearmsforum.com

"My Gun Digest from 1966 has a reprint of J. H. Johnson Catlog from 1888 - 89. Colt New Line Revolvers went for $10.00 with Ivry Handles. New Frntier 44's went for $14.00. And Lightnings went for $12.40 in 41 . No S&W's. But a British Bull Dog in 44 was $3.50;"

"I've seen copies of the Monkey Ward catalog from the early 80s, and prices for a Colt SAA were around 17 dollars. But by the late 90s, Sears had 'em for 12.95."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

With the exception of the weapons brought out from the Civil War, only the rich owned the rest considering a firearm costs more than a months pay. Now, if you have a real need for one you will come up with the money but the average person worried more about a roof over their heads, food and clothing.

That's a crock of shit. We won the revolutionary war by screaming at them. The American government couldn't supply guns so the militia members had to supply their own dumb ass

 

[Vrenn]

Questions about gun prices in the 1800's

www.thefirearmsforum.com

"My Gun Digest from 1966 has a reprint of J. H. Johnson Catlog from 1888 - 89. Colt New Line Revolvers went for $10.00 with Ivry Handles. New Frntier 44's went for $14.00. And Lightnings went for $12.40 in 41 . No S&W's. But a British Bull Dog in 44 was $3.50;"

"I've seen copies of the Monkey Ward catalog from the early 80s, and prices for a Colt SAA were around 17 dollars. But by the late 90s, Sears had 'em for 12.95."

Questions about gun prices in the 1800's

www.thefirearmsforum.com

"My Gun Digest from 1966 has a reprint of J. H. Johnson Catlog from 1888 - 89. Colt New Line Revolvers went for $10.00 with Ivry Handles. New Frntier 44's went for $14.00. And Lightnings went for $12.40 in 41 . No S&W's. But a British Bull Dog in 44 was $3.50;"

"I've seen copies of the Monkey Ward catalog from the early 80s, and prices for a Colt SAA were around 17 dollars. But by the late 90s, Sears had 'em for 12.95."

There are people today that make less than 1200 bucks a month. Guess what 17 bucks is worth today? Over 1200 due to inflation. Most workers back then made anywhere from 50 cents a day to a dollar a day. It's almost ironic that a Cowpucher was better paid then a Store Clerk.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are people today that make less than 1200 bucks a month. Guess what 17 bucks is worth today? Over 1200 due to inflation. Most workers back then made anywhere from 50 cents a day to a dollar a day. It's almost ironic that a Cowpucher was better paid then a Store Clerk.

FYI the Continental Congress did not have the money to supply firearms to the soldiers fighting. The soldier had to bring their own firearm. Fucking moron

 

[Auld Phart]

There are people today that make less than 1200 bucks a month. Guess what 17 bucks is worth today? Over 1200 due to inflation. Most workers back then made anywhere from 50 cents a day to a dollar a day. It's almost ironic that a Cowpucher was better paid then a Store Clerk.

. It's almost ironic that a Cowpucher was better paid then a Store Clerk.

Cowpuncher averaged $30 a month and found.
They were the ones most likely to purchase a handgun.

Hillfolk, (Tennessee, Kentucky, etc), usually trapped and sold furs for necessities. (Including firearms to protect themselves and provide meat for the table)

Out west, a decent farm animal could be sold to provide needed firearms. ( a necessity in indian country)

Farmers, a decent crop would leave enough for a firearm or 2.

You dont seem to know as much about this topic as you claim,

 

[Anathema]

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

The fact that the Government (LEOs & Military) have access to those tools is exactly why they need to be act to the citizens. EVERY restriction on civilian arms should apply to EVERY Government Agent as well.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Yes....you are a fascist....we get it....you dont have to keep showing us

 

[2aguy]

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.

Oh good, another fascist.

You dont knowwhat you are talking about.....

You have no Right to limit how a free American can defend their lives and the lives of their families.....

 

[2aguy]

The framers didn’t contemplate large capacity rapid fire assault weapons that could rip 19 children to shreds in the space of mere minutes.

Scalia opined in Heller that the strict regulation of such firearms is entirely consistent with the 2nd amendment. Those weapons and magazines are banned in my state and nobody is less free because of that. I would argue we are more free - free to drop our children at school without serious concern that they will be slaughtered there.

If the founders knew that leftists around the world would round up and murder 200 million people they would have made owning actual military rifle and standard magazines mandatory for every citizen...

 

[2aguy]

The framers didn’t contemplate large capacity rapid fire assault weapons that could rip 19 children to shreds in the space of mere minutes.

Scalia opined in Heller that the strict regulation of such firearms is entirely consistent with the 2nd amendment. Those weapons and magazines are banned in my state and nobody is less free because of that. I would argue we are more free - free to drop our children at school without serious concern that they will be slaughtered there.

Scalia opined in Heller that the strict regulation of such firearms is entirely consistent with the 2nd amendment.

Bullshit......he said nothing like that....and in his opinion in a later case he stated the AR-15, by name, was protected by the 2nd Amendmemt....

What actually matters in a mass public shooting isnt the gun, you fascist.....it is the amount of free time in the gun free zone the killer has before aomeone with a gun makes him stop shooting unarmed people....

If you actually cared about keeping kids safe, you would support armed staff in schools.... just like armed security for politicians and celebrities

 

[2aguy]

Assault weapons have multiple settings. Civilian versions might look like the military versions, but they're not. What you're really arguing against is the large capacity magazines. I wouldn't have a problem with smaller magazines.

Magaizine capacity is a trojan horse for banning guns....in the short term it makes your legal gun illegal until the gun company decides to make reduced capacity magazines for that same gun.....if they decide to do ot at all....

In the long run, the gun will still accept any magazine that holds any number of bullets so they will come back and make that argument and call for banning all semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns....

Meanwhile, normal people do not need your permission or your irrational thoughts on how many chances they get to stop violent criminals from desteoying their lives.......

 

[2aguy]

The framers didn’t contemplate large capacity rapid fire assault weapons that could rip 19 children to shreds in the space of mere minutes.

Scalia opined in Heller that the strict regulation of such firearms is entirely consistent with the 2nd amendment. Those weapons and magazines are banned in my state and nobody is less free because of that. I would argue we are more free - free to drop our children at school without serious concern that they will be slaughtered there.

The framers didn’t contemplate large capacity rapid fire assault weapons that could rip 19 children to shreds in the space of mere minutes.

Scalia opined in Heller that the strict regulation of such firearms is entirely consistent with the 2nd amendment. Those weapons and magazines are banned in my state and nobody is less free because of that. I would argue we are more free - free to drop our children at school without serious concern that they will be slaughtered there.

Scalia didn't say anything like that....what he actually said...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

(There are now over 20 million AR-15s in private hands.)

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

 

[2aguy]

We have a disciplined militia in the national guard.

And the Federal government federalizes the national guard whenever it wants....making it just another part of the federal military.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

Congress didn’t set up militias. Congress didn’t exist when Lexington and Concord happened. Militias were independent associations of free men who elected their own leaders, or were raised and equipped by rich men who led them. Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders were a militia unit that he raised officially called the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry,

 

[2aguy]

Well, my guess is that someones "right" to own semi automatic weapons means I have a much higher chance of being murdered.

Perhaps a potential murderers "right" to buy a weapon should first be vetted.

No.......it does not.

What increases your chance of being murdered is living in a city that is controlled by the democrat party.....

Whites own more guns, but commit less murder.....

Blacks own fewer guns but commit more murder....in democrat party controlled cities.......