Gun ownership poll

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would add that the founders actions and writings also make it abundantly clear that they very much saw it as a right granted to the population.

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:
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.
Pp. 2–53.
(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. Pp. 2–22.
(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.
Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately
followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(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.
Pp. 30–32.
(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. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights 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. Pp. 47–54.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

[icurnmedic]

I like my guns, some are valuable and its a place to invest. Not to mention, I live in a area where the nearest LEO is likely 10-20 minutes away. No one is around to hear any disturbance much less help.

+1 on the security system , I use SimplySafe at Home, and Ring at work. Both work well.

One of several reasons schools are not well guarded, or can't afford to hire the security personnel, is the government is too busy handing out freebies to those who do not contribute. OR maybe they just have not diverted the funds to the appropriate necessities. You decide.

Life begins at conception, but viable life does not. I am Switzerland when it comes to the abortion thing.

Oh and so much talk about semantics of "pro xxxx"
Why not :
pro-choice= "pro-abortion"
Pro-life= Anti-abortion.

A FWIW dictionary.com defines militia :
noun
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Pretty good discord in this thread.
Thomas

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

One of several reasons schools are not well guarded, or can't afford to hire the security personnel, is the government is too busy handing out freebies to those who do not contribute. OR maybe they just have not diverted the funds to the appropriate necessities. You decide.

Who are "those who do not contribute" and what are they not contributing?

[icurnmedic]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Who are "those who do not contribute" and what are they not contributing?

If you do not know, there is no reason to discuss.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

If you do not know, there is no reason to discuss.

And we wonder why things are so polarized in America these days. Personally, I've appreciated the discussion on this thread between people with very different viewpoints on these issues.

[BCauley]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

If you do not know, there is no reason to discuss.

That’s essentially just saying you don’t know, or don’t want to answer out loud.

If you believe something, then own it. Quit the childish games.

[icurnmedic]

Originally Posted by BCauley

That’s essentially just saying you don’t know, or don’t want to answer out loud.

If you believe something, then own it. Quit the childish games.

Wow, wasn't meant to be childish and not really trying to be controversial.
I just assumed anyone with a HS education or half a brain could figure it out.

But lets see who I am describing....
Well I have a neighbor who is 23 years old. Known him his entire life. Granted at this particular house it is "backwoods" and he has lived their again 23 years. He does Not work, therefore does not pay taxes(contribute) receives government $$ including medicaid for his children, 2 of them, (takes).
Not such a big deal if he wasn't also running a Meth house that is very bu$y.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by icurnmedic

I like my guns, some are valuable and its a place to invest.

I don't do this, but Kalashnikov's have outperformed the S&P the last few years. I could sell some of my beater stuff for more than I paid new not that long ago.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

So then why isn't a death certificate issued for each and every miscarriage? Only 7 states and 3 American territories require reporting the death of "(a)ll products of human conception." Twenty-five states require reporting the death if the gestation period is 20 weeks or greater. Twelve states and one territory require reporting the death is the gestation period is 20 weeks or greater and the birth weight is 350 grams or more. You can see the reporting requirements for all the states and territories here:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

Furthermore, we all know laws are fluid. They change depending upon who has the power to craft and pass the laws. So quoting a law, even though it may be current law of the land, means nothing in the context of this discussion. Otherwise, this whole discussion would be moot, no?

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Oh and Michael, by the way, regarding that "extreme" view of when life begins.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code: Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 (Uniform Code of Military Justice) §919a (Article 119a).

Peter, I've finally had a chance to look at the law you cited and I noticed this, which you omitted:

‘‘(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the
prosecution—
‘‘(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for
which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for
which such consent is implied by law;
‘‘(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant
woman or her unborn child; or
‘‘(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

So, I'm confused. A fetus is a human being and you can be prosecuted for murder if you cause the death of the unborn fetus. Because the fetus is a human being. But, you can't be prosecuted for murder if it is done during an abortion. Seems like the fetus is a human being worthy of protection except when it's not.

I see it also applies under limited circumstances. From Wiki: "The law applies only to certain offenses over which the United States government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur, no matter who commits them, such as certain crimes of terrorism." Again, it seems like the fetus is a human being worthy of protection except when it's not.

I guess kudos to the "pro-lifers" who wrote that and got it passed. Now they can claim that a fetus is codified by law to be a human being ... except when it's not.

Now to be clear, I understand the reasoning behind the law. And I agree with that reasoning. If a pregnant woman intends to carry the fetus to term, then yes, her unborn fetus was "murdered" and the perpetrator should be punished. I can see where she may think of it as a human being and it should be protected.

But the law also recognizes, without actually saying it, that a pregnant woman who does not want to carry the fetus to term does not think of the fetus as a human being and should not be punished. At least for now.

[Butch7999]

Peter, thanks for the informative clarification. Obviously, if we had a say,
we'd dissent vehemently against the court's tenuous inference. The
ammosexual crowd can be glad we'll never be able to rule on this one.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:
...
(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. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation
of the operative clause. ...

[irv]

Has anyone ever thought about any of this? I know some will think it is conspiracy nonsense but I think they are valid questions that need to be answered honestly.

Where did this Avalde shooter get all his wears?

He was carrying $5-6000 worth of guns, armor and ammo.

How did he get it, poor family and 18 years old. Kid probably hadn’t made $6000 gross in his whole life. How did he get to the gun shop, how did he procure all this stuff. Where did he practice shooting. Did he go to a range or a gravel pit?

All this makes very little sense to me.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by irv

Has anyone ever thought about any of this? I know some will think it is conspiracy nonsense but I think they are valid questions that need to be answered honestly.

Where did this Avalde shooter get all his wears?

He was carrying $5-6000 worth of guns, armor and ammo.

Maybe he maxed out a couple of credit cards? He obviously wasn’t concerned about paying it back or the interest. Someone that knew him told a reporter that Ramos was a huge pothead (marijuana), that has since been scrubbed completely by the media. Just like a certain detail of the Tulsa Oklahoma mass shooting, that is a narrative that the media doesn’t want, it doesn’t fit their agenda.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Maybe he maxed out a couple of credit cards? He obviously wasn’t concerned about paying it back or the interest. Someone that knew him told a reporter that Ramos was a huge pothead (marijuana), that has since been scrubbed completely by the media. Just like a certain detail of the Tulsa Oklahoma mass shooting, that is a narrative that the media doesn’t want, it doesn’t fit their agenda.

Must be something like that but I don't know an 18 yr old up here who would qualify for any credit card with a limit over $500 to a $1000 at most?

Supposedly he fought with his mom and moved out because she/him couldn't afford WIFI? They were basically welfare poor. Where did he move to and how much was rent, if there was any?

Way too many things here that aren't adding up but my gut tells me we will never find out the "real" answers.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by irv

Supposedly he fought with his mom and moved out because she/him couldn't afford WIFI? They were basically welfare poor. Where did he move to and how much was rent, if there was any?

Since he shot his grandmother in the face I assume he was staying with her.

[G1911]

I cannot make out what make/model the 2 AR-15's the Uvalde shitbag posted are, the photos I've seen of this post he made with them are too grainy for me to read. An AR can be from $500-$5,000, usually under $1,500 unless you're trying to flex at the range. A complete Colt is about $1,000.

The reports I have read stated that he had a tactical vest and not body armor (but then again a whole lot of BS has been published about this case and half of what has been said has been walked back). You can get a vest for like $40 if you aren't going for the nice stuff. Body Armor costs more.

5.56x45mm ammunition is around .50 cents in free states like Texas if you shop around. He shot, according to the News reports that are often found to be inaccurate later, between 100 and "a few hundred" rounds in the engagement.

Magazines are $10-$20 a pop.

He probably didn't have $5-6K worth of stuff. Still a lot for a broke person, but from what I've seen it's closer to $2,000 USD.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Since he shot his grandmother in the face I assume he was staying with her.

Grandma was supposedly dirt poor as well, but I also assume he likely lived there for free? Allegedly, she asked him to help out more. Whether that was financially or doing work/earning his keep, or both, I don't know?

Originally Posted by G1911

I cannot make out what make/model the 2 AR-15's the Uvalde shitbag posted are, the photos I've seen of this post he made with them are too grainy for me to read. An AR can be from $500-$5,000, usually under $1,500 unless you're trying to flex at the range. A complete Colt is about $1,000.

The reports I have read stated that he had a tactical vest and not body armor (but then again a whole lot of BS has been published about this case and half of what has been said has been walked back). You can get a vest for like $40 if you aren't going for the nice stuff. Body Armor costs more.

5.56x45mm ammunition is around .50 cents in free states like Texas if you shop around. He shot, according to the News reports that are often found to be inaccurate later, between 100 and "a few hundred" rounds in the engagement.

Magazines are $10-$20 a pop.

He probably didn't have $5-6K worth of stuff. Still a lot for a broke person, but from what I've seen it's closer to $2,000 USD.

Supposedly they were Daniel Defense rifles, which aren't cheap, but then again, like you mentioned, so many stories/walk backs it isn't funny.

[clydepepper]

Meanwhile, back in north Georgia:


Bill Gates is trying to make us eat fake meat grown in a peach tree dish.- so says an elected representative of my home state.


Truth is stupider than fiction.


I thought everyone could use a chuckle.
.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Meanwhile, back in north Georgia:


Bill Gates is trying to make us eat fake meat grown in a peach tree dish.- so says an elected representative of my home state.


Truth is stupider than fiction.


I thought everyone could use a chuckle.
.

No offense, how the heck did you guys elect that certain representative?

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From the Supreme Court 2007 Heller decision. Sorry to people who don't like it, and I may not like it myself, but it's the way it is.

Held:

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. Pp. 2–53.

(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. Pp. 2–22.

(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. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(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. Pp. 30–32.

(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. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, 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. Pp. 47–54.

Also, here is the CURRENT LEGAL DEFINITION of The Militia:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—

(1) be a citizen of the United States; and

(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So, ALL US citizens over the age of 18, and under the age of 45 (under 64 in certain cases), are members of the US Militia.

As stated above in DC vs Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, is not limited by militia membership.

Therefore, ALL US Citizens of legal age (over 18), have the right to keep and bear arms, and this right "shall not be infringed" upon.

Steve