Gun ownership poll

[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

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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

The man is masterful at avoiding the question. Chicago has very strict gun laws, and it correlates with ridiculously high gun murder rates. Everybody gets upset when a dozen kids are murdered in a school, but if a couple dozen are murdered in Chicago in a week, nobody seems to take notice.

Strict gun control in Chicago is a flat failure.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The man is masterful at avoiding the question. Chicago has very strict gun laws, and it correlates with ridiculously high gun murder rates. Everybody gets upset when a dozen kids are murdered in a school, but if a couple dozen are murdered in Chicago in a week, nobody seems to take notice.

Strict gun control in Chicago is a flat failure.

Does nobody seem to notice or is it something that is talked about all the time and has the national attention? I think it’s the latter. Do you really think the prevalence of violence in Chicago is due to a lack of good guys with guns? At any rate, the main point is that we can’t prevent someone with known terrorist affiliations to purchase as many guns and bullets as they want - that seems like a problem.