Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

You keep bringing up the constitution, how essentially any law against guns is against the constitution. Can you please show me where in the constitution it says you can buy any type of gun, any type of ammo, at any age, with no restrictions?

Have you quoted the wrong post? The Constitution is not really the subject directly or indirectly in this post at all. The first paragraph is about state bills and laws.

The second paragraph is about what a compromise is and why it's not an 'across the aisle' situation - because it is a demand by one side to cede rights and/or criminalize the other side without giving anything to the other side in return for this session. An interest in an actual compromise takes for granted that the federal state does regulate firearms, which is moving past a true constitutional framework.

Nonetheless, this is a very easy question to answer.

[irv]

Alabama school resource officer kills man trying to enter school
Man tried to break into elementary school, police said.

https://torontosun.com/news/world/al...o-enter-school

[jingram058]

After continuing to periodically check in on this thread, the consensus would seem to be that nothing whatsoever can be done to stop or even decrease the number of mass shootings in this country because of the 2nd Amendment. These events are just something that cannot be eliminated.

[clydepepper]

Lessons in Addiction & Adaptability:

280576168_9740647055975885_1842533570762868570_n.jpgTP.jpg

[G1911]

Can we please enforce the rule against hijacking? He’s done it twice now after mod post 294 warning specifically against it.

There is much disagreement but it has been mostly civil (the posts about firearms, the actual subject, have been entirely civil) . I don’t think hijacking any thread anyone doesn’t like is appropriate. Nothing would stay on topic.

[cannonballsun]

[QUOTE=clydepepper;2232979]Lessons in Addiction & Adaptability:



That cat picture is absolutely hilarious.

[irv]

Originally Posted by jingram058

After continuing to periodically check in on this thread, the consensus would seem to be that nothing whatsoever can be done to stop or even decrease the number of mass shootings in this country because of the 2nd Amendment. These events are just something that cannot be eliminated.

Copycat crimes are a well known thing. The more attention these types of tragedies are given, the more they are likely to happen again.

I know a few that work for CN & CP rail up here in Canada, and I have been told more than once that when they report derailments, many a time they are intentional but they don't make that tidbit public knowledge because they know the next time the perp(s) will try and outdo the previous one.

[bnorth]

It is a mental health issue that many try to make a gun issue.

It is NOT the gun it is the moron behind the gun that is the problem. We had a Russian exchange student go crazy here with a sword and killed several people. Not a single person wanted to ban swords afterwards.

[cannonballsun]

In that mass shooting in Dayton, the shooter opened fire in a very popular area of town that had a large police presence. The police shot and killed the shooter within 30 seconds of opening fire. In that 30 seconds, he had already killed 9 people.
Good guys with guns can only do so much.

[cannonballsun]

The police said he fired 42 shots in 30 seconds, killing 9 and injuring 27.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

Good guys with guns can only do so much.

Good guys with guns is how these things always, finally, end. Solution: Let's have more good guys with guns. Let's have the bad guys out-armed 1000 to one.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Good guys with guns is how these things always, finally, end. Solution: Let's have more good guys with guns. Let's have the bad guys out-armed 1000 to one.

This.

These shootings are incredibly rare, but if one happened around you (the colloquial you, not any specific person) wouldn’t you want the other innocents nearby to be armed and able to effectively fight back? The quicker a good guy with a gun takes down the psycho, the less bloodshed there is. You’re more likely to live if others are armed too, than if only the criminals have them. There’s a reason these things tend to happen, in the very rare cases that they do, in crowds of unarmed people and in places where people are less likely to be armed. Nobody stages a massacre at a sportsman’s club.

[cannonballsun]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Good guys with guns is how these things always, finally, end. Solution: Let's have more good guys with guns. Let's have the bad guys out-armed 1000 to one.

In that scenario, how many of the 1000 good guys will accidentally shoot another good guy ? There'd be bullets flying all over the place. Doesn't sound too good to me.
Cops already worry about dealing with armed good guys at a live shooter scene. You've got a gun, how do the cops know you're a good guy ?
Anyway, the cops shot and killed the shooter in Dayton in 30 seconds. 9 people were already dead.
In Buffalo, at the grocery store, there was a good guy with a gun on the scene. He was a retired ex-cop. He was out gunned and killed.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by G1911

Have you quoted the wrong post? The Constitution is not really the subject directly or indirectly in this post at all. The first paragraph is about state bills and laws.

The second paragraph is about what a compromise is and why it's not an 'across the aisle' situation - because it is a demand by one side to cede rights and/or criminalize the other side without giving anything to the other side in return for this session. An interest in an actual compromise takes for granted that the federal state does regulate firearms, which is moving past a true constitutional framework.

Nonetheless, this is a very easy question to answer.

Greg- I'll be serious on this reply to you posting the 2nd Amendment and circling one part of it:

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.



This was written when there were no city police, no state troopers, no National Guard!


In today's world, do you really think it's necessary for the security of ANY free state (and they're ALL free now) to have a well regulated militia? Seriously?


This was written over 240 years ago and is out of step with today's world.


Sure gun ownership should not be 'infringed'(we don't even use that word anymore), but NOT EVERYBODY - and THAT's necessary for the security of ALL free states!


Of course, this, while an educated opinion, is only one...mine. Fire Away if you must.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

Greg- I'll be serious on this reply to you posting the 2nd Amendment and circling one part of it:

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.



This was written when there were no city police, no state troopers, no National Guard!


In today's world, do you really think it's necessary for the security of ANY free state (and they're ALL free now) to have a well regulated militia? Seriously?


This was written over 320 years ago and is out of step with today's world.


Sure gun ownership should not be 'infringed'(we don't even use that word anymore), but NOT EVERYBODY - and THAT's necessary for the security of ALL free states!


Of course, this, while an educated opinion, is only one...mine. Fire Away if you must.

Wait, you want to join the discussion now? Weren't you the guy who kept hijacking the thread because you so strongly disapproved of the debate, and sent me that weird unprompted PM about how you would not stop hijacking the thread and virtue signaling about how you were doing it to somehow help everyone?

Can you type in normal color and size like everyone else? Do you need to hit the caps lock key every few seconds? The guy who threw a fit that people even had this debate at all also believes his belated thoughts on the actual issue need to be highlighted to stand out from everyone else.

I would also advise that you get a calculator and refigure how old the Constitution is. Infringed is also still a normal word today.

All of the actual points relating to the issue here have already been addressed by both sides, in the posts you were trying to remove from view with your random pictures. The debate ended. Catch up, or sober up.

[Exhibitman]

My $0.02 here:

People on one side tend to forget the words "well regulated" in arguing for unfettered access to any gun at any time. People on the other side tend to forget that there is a basic right to have a firearm and a mechanism for amending the Constitution to rescind that right. For better and worse, that's our system.

People on both sides tend to ignore the actual historical basis for the amendment. The men writing the Bill of Rights were leery of standing armies and therefore wanted every citizen to be in the militia, and they wanted everyone in the militia to be armed. If someone was prohibited from participating in the militia, the leaders of the Founders’ generation would not have wanted them to have access to weapons. In fact, the 18th-century regulations that required citizens to participate in the militia also prohibited blacks and Indians from participating as arms-bearing members. Which brings up another basis for the original right: preserving the ability of state-sanctioned fugitive slave patrols to cross state lines while armed.

The history of gun regulation, especially open carry, is tinged with racism. Interesting footnote here--the first bans on open carry in Cali were championed by Ronald Reagan and the GOP as a direct effort to stop the Black Panthers from openly carrying guns. The Mulford Act was a 1967 California bill that prohibited public carrying of loaded firearms without a permit. Named after Republican assemblyman Don Mulford, and signed into law by governor of California Ronald Reagan, the bill was crafted with the goal of disarming members of the Black Panther Party who were conducting armed patrols of Oakland neighborhoods. They garnered national attention after Black Panthers members, bearing arms, marched upon the California State Capitol to protest the bill. Yup, that's right: Reagan was for gun control.

The historical reasons for gun ownership are not present today but a more pressing one is: potential authoritarian rule. The Nazis passed laws and regulations stripping Jews of the right to have weapons. We all know what happened next. The Soviets quickly banned guns in the USSR. The December decree of the CPC of 1918, "On the surrender of weapons", ordered people to surrender any firearms, swords, bayonets and bombs. The Nazis rounded up and killed millions of defenseless 'undesirables' in their murder camps yet had a terrible time clearing the Warsaw Ghetto when a small armed resistance was mounted. I believe that all minority group members have a moral imperative to arm themselves and become proficient in use of their weapons as a bulwark against the rule of the majority metastasizing into an authoritarian regime that will seek to eradicate what its leaders deem 'undesirables'. I strongly believe that private gun ownership is the best way to prevent the cattle cars from rolling to the death camps: you come for an armed minority populace, you better bring a big supply of body bags. The wannabe fascists know it too.

i am a responsible gun owner (decline to state specifics). I've pulled and used my weapon once for self-defense, in a condo complex where I was on the board right after the 1994 earthquake, and was very happy I had it at the time. Just showing it deterred the intruders. Due to the quake and power loss we had to manually open the gate to our underground parking area. Two rough characters from a low-rent apartment complex down the block saw the open gate and muscled past the board president "to look around". Me and two other board members were there and we had our guns. We stepped into the aisle of the garage and showed the weapons. The intruders saw the guns. One nodded and said "cool", and they walked right back out the way they came in. We had no further incursions until the property was red-tagged due to the damage and we all had to leave. I suspect that the two passed word that our complex was not an easy target.

I am all for allowing law-abiding citizens to have guns in their homes and at work. I am also all for keeping guns away from crooks, violent and mentally ill people by regulating the acquisition of a gun to screen as many of them out as we can, for making the unregulated sale of non-historical arms illegal for the same reasons, and for making the carrying of a gun as difficult as the acquisition of a driver's license, if not more. Well regulated...You leave your house or work and go into public armed, society has a stronger interest in making sure you aren't a moon bat and know WTF you are doing. I also believe that certain sensitive places, like schools and airports and large gatherings should be gun-free areas if the local governments determine it is in the best interests of their populaces to make it so, and that private businesses have the right to declare weapon-free zones. The 2nd Amendment applies to state regulation, not private. You want to work in my office, leave your piece at home or in your car.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by G1911

Wait, you want to join the discussion now? Weren't you the guy who kept hijacking the thread because you so strongly disapproved of the debate, and sent me that weird unprompted PM about how you would not stop hijacking the thread and virtue signaling about how you were doing it to somehow help everyone?

Can you type in normal color and size like everyone else? Do you need to hit the caps lock key every few seconds? The guy who threw a fit that people even had this debate at all also believes his belated thoughts on the actual issue need to be highlighted to stand out from everyone else.

I would also advise that you get a calculator and refigure how old the Constitution is. Infringed is also still a normal word today.

All of the actual points relating to the issue here have already been addressed by both sides, in the posts you were trying to remove from view with your random pictures. The debate ended. Catch up, or sober up.

1.) Math has been corrected.
2.) I change fonts to emphasize.
3.) As long as the tread remains open, anyone should be allowed to join - at any time.
4.) As far as my hijacking goes: I have ceased doing so. As I stated in my 'weird' unprompted PM, the humor was designed to 'lighten' the load of a very loaded discussion. I will always believe there's a place for it.
5.) I did not and would now request your advise...especially given your reaction...no offense given or taken.

[irv]

https://youtu.be/TgXzkPV9ebI

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by irv

https://youtu.be/TgXzkPV9ebI

It's the best and most effective way to prevent crime. The police (other good guys with guns) could never have gotten there in time.

[Carter08]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6imFvSua3Kg