Commander PK

Correct, in a place where handguns are already banned. Well, would he be wrong in that statement? If you thought that your neighbors were having too many kids...would you have yourself castrated to stop them?

Well if the discussion has been had what are we here for? Why does the thread keep popping up? If you read the thread, you will find that I have posted numerous times in this thread over it's lifespan....and I still remain unconvinced that law-abiding citizens voluntarily restricting their rights because "criminals" is the way to go. I have to pop in every once in a while to remind some of you that an opposing opinion does exist in this Country.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified long before the NRA begs to differ. The founders always intended for the people to be armed and not helpless. What happens if the government decides to ban particular speech they don’t like and the ACLU’s lawsuits are tossed out and ignored?

While other countries have less guns and less gun deaths many do have per capita a far higher murder rate regardless of their gun laws. The U.S. doesn’t even enter into the top ten for homicides...is that because of our guns or in spite of them?

Because our right to own a gun in this country guarantees all the other rights we enjoy. When seconds count the Government cannot do a better job of protecting me than I can myself. I don’t want my ability to do so pointlessly hindered when evil doers will just have another law to ignore. Also, unlike all other people’s that came before us we are free to an extent the world has never seen before and we cannot simply be trampled over by an oppressive government. Too many assume our American government is incapable of that kind of tyranny and they take the way we live for granted everyday. Blind faith in any system is dangerous.

Let me try making my point another way. Why do some people feel that preventing a good person from legally carrying/owning/possessing a particular gun is more likely to prevent murders, burglaries, and robberies from the bad people who can still get them? Where is the tangible benefit to the good people in disarming and announcing to the world that they have disarmed?

if it’s a “mindless talking point” as you say...where is the counter argument that is so mindful? Post the obvious logical and rational response that shows me I’m wrong on this issue.

Failing to face the reality of the situation because you fear evil doesn’t make sense either Larry...even though millions of you have bought into that as well. I don’t believe the answer to our violence problem is restricting our rights. We did not get here overnight and a few laws passed to make some people “feel” better won’t stop our murder problem. Too many people have forgotten what it takes to get and keep the kind of liberties we enjoy in this country. They would happily sacrifice their rights for a false sense of security.

That’s cute, but you didn’t answer my questions.

I’m sure I’ve asked this before...but where is the logic in refusing to allow a law-abiding citizen to open carry or concealed carry when the law-breaking citizen with murderous intent will just break that law in addition to murdering people? In a country with millions of guns and millions of law breakers? Does anybody really believe a place with a sign stating “No Guns Allowed” is going to stop a killer from walking in said place and opening fire? What does any of that really accomplish other than guarantee the killer a lot of helpless victims to shoot up? Not one one of these shootings has made me think the proper response is for me and you to voluntarily turn in all our guns and stop buying ammo. I can’t see a situation where I EVER think something like that is a good idea no matter how many times this happens. The problem is not the gun.

For me its less about the means used and more about irresponsibility, recklessness, and a lack of respect for human life. Like I said earlier, guns are designed to kill, but not to murder. In a world that has guns, they will not go away and they can’t be un-invented...to restrict the law-abiding good people from owning a gun (or a particular type) when the criminal element will just break another law to have one makes no sense to me.

I can’t disagree with those facts. The AR-15 is a civilianized version of an M-16. I’m not an expert on that gun and I don’t own one, but I know plenty who do.

It’s stock as you put it because it’s common sense. The logic is sound and the comparisons make sense. I did answer your first question. I said I don’t think they should be blamed at all. Maybe we are talking about two different things. Blame vs. liability. I see them the same. A gun is not designed for murder it is designed for killing. If there is no murder and the killing is justified...there is no blame or liability to be placed at the feet of the shooter, his gun, or the maker of his gun. If the gun is used to commit a crime than the maker of the gun is also not libel because the gun was not meant to be used for that purpose. Kind of like blaming a prescription pill company when somebody intentionally overdoses on their products...or blaming a GPS for running a red light. I did not buy my guns to murder people. I did buy them to defend myself and my family which could result in an irresponsible and reckless persons death if necessary. In that case...I blame the perp for his death and nobody else. If you believe that a gun maker has SOME of the blame when someone commits a crime with the gun then you also have to believe a knife maker has SOME as well when used for the same purpose. Edit: And our current gun laws are sufficient we just need to have the balls to fully prosecute and punish those who commit crimes with guns.

I don’t I don’t think we can blame a company when it’s product is misused. A gun is designed to kill...but not to murder. There is a difference. If somebody uses a chef’s knife to stab somebody in the back...is the maker of the chef’s knife to blame? Even a little bit? Somebody can commit murder with a chef’s knife, but that isn’t what the knife is designed for. If somebody gets high and takes their Dodge Ram out for a joyride and hits and kills a couple in a Civic...is Dodge to blame? Is Honda? Slippery slope

I see a difference Everyone knows guns can kill. The gun industry does not try to cover up that fact or mislead people into thinking guns are not deadly if you end up on the business end of one. Cigarettes were not always known to kill people. The tobacco industry worked to cover up the fact that they can for years.

Fixed that for you. Edit: fixed my fix

With that said, is it logical to assume their intent was that Joe/Jane Citizen should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms except in the context of the militia? No militia...no arms? I don’t think so

Well if we are going to talk facts we should have actual facts right? Is that too much to ask? Or is it irrelevant because you decided it was...just now.

If that is true why did they distinguish between the words militia and people in the same amendment. (Well regulated militia...right of the people... to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) If the 2nd was only intended for use in the context of a militia, why didn’t they say on the back half the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It’s clear to me, “the people” were who they were referring to who’s rights to arms shall not be infringed. Me, you, and every other American citizen posting here are “the people” You only believe the 2nd amendment was for a different time and place if you believe that human nature has fundamentally changed.

I disagree. What they think it meant. A portion of the populace in 2018 like to try and rewrite history to serve their own ends. 25 years ago it was common to see teens in pickups with shotguns and rifles on racks in front of their rear mirror parked at the high school. Nobody thought it was much of a problem then. Nobody really questioned it either. I know. I was there.

Your bitterness never ceases to amaze. Even after all these years.

Slippery slope fallacy? Did you and Dan T not just admit (to sum up) that you want to rethink and rewrite the 2nd amendment to be a privilege and not a right? NRA and ‘Murica be damned?

Because if we are being intellectually honest that’s exactly what a foot in the door has always been for some of these people. When emotions run high, that’s when the truth comes out.

I thought we were rehabilitating these people back to normal citizenship? There is even a movement to give prisoners back the vote. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/prisoners-convicts-felons-inmates-right-to-vote-enfranchise-criminal-justice-voting-rights-213979 In any case, convicted violent felons already can’t buy guns legally. https://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-can-a-convicted-felon-receive-firearm-rights/