Gun ownership poll

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s hope our rights continue to remain rights instead of temporal privileges to be voided anytime people find it politically convenient.

I think you are confusing political convenience with "anytime mass shootings become normal"

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I think you are confusing political convenience with "anytime mass shootings become normal"

Still awaiting to here why criminals are going to surrender or not use almost every magazine in existence because a ban is passed. I’m sure this will solve psycho’s going psycho.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Still awaiting to here why criminals are going to surrender or not use almost every magazine in existence because a ban is passed. I’m sure this will solve psycho’s going psycho.

Rest assured that criminals will continue to commit crimes with guns that may be banned in the future, due to the absurd history of gun sales in our country. The point is to slow the future proliferation of such weapons. You know, so maybe we don't get to 500 Million guns in this country so soon.

Think of these laws as tourniquet to try to SLOW the bleeding.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Rest assured that criminals will continue to commit crimes with guns that may be banned in the future, due to the absurd history of gun sales in our country. The point is to slow the future proliferation of such weapons. You know, so maybe we don't get to 500 Million guns in this country so soon.

Think of these laws as tourniquet to try to SLOW the bleeding.

Mhm. So you don’t even expect to see in the data that it does anything. Of course we don’t want to set an expectation it will actually work in any mathematical way. Just like other ban in the US.

Even assuming it’s the gun that’s the problem, maybe the 400,000,000 guns that are peaceably owned aren’t the problem and it’s the ~10,000 that will used in murders this year. But no, we should eradicate the ‘fluid’ bill of rights instead. I eagerly await this principle being applied evenly to all items.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Mhm. So you don’t even expect to see in the data that it does anything. Of course we don’t want to set an expectation it will actually work in any mathematical way. Just like other ban in the US.

Even assuming it’s the gun that’s the problem, maybe the 400,000,000 guns that are peaceably owned aren’t the problem and it’s the ~10,000 that will used in murders this year. But no, we should eradicate the ‘fluid’ bill of rights instead. I eagerly await this principle being applied evenly to all items.

Dude, you talk in the most extremes for no reason. "Eradicate the Bill of Rights": its tiresome

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Dude, you talk in the most extremes for no reason. "Eradicate the Bill of Rights": its tiresome

“Ignore” the Bill of Rights? It is what you are proposing. The extremes you propose are tiresome on my side. If you didn’t propose extremes they wouldn’t be treated as such.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Well, fortunately, the Bill of Rights is fluid. Its changed for the better in the past. Let's hope it changes for the better in the future.

And hopefully the expansive ruling in Heller doesn't doom us all to continued excessive cycles of gun violence.

Plus one. Same people that said you can’t infringe my freedoms of speech have been successfully sued for defamation when they act like jackasses.

[Carter08]

[QUOTE=cgjackson222;2234011]Dude, you talk in the most extremes for no reason. "Eradicate the Bill of Rights": its tiresome[/QUOTE

Agree. Advance the ball instead of putting forth these hyperbolic statements.

[G1911]

[QUOTE=Carter08;2234018]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Dude, you talk in the most extremes for no reason. "Eradicate the Bill of Rights": its tiresome[/QUOTE

Agree. Advance the ball instead of putting forth these hyperbolic statements.

Banning most all common-use arms technology from the last several generations for the next generation is doing exactly that. Ignoring or eradicating the Bill of Rights. Obviously proposing it will make some note this. Your proposition of a 10,000x tax to serve as a ban for non-billionaires is a ban of all guns for 99.9% of the population. This is blatantly a de facto overturn of the 2nd. Don’t propose it if you can’t be called out for it.

[Carter08]

[QUOTE=G1911;2234021]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Banning most all common-use arms technology from the last several generations for the next generation is doing exactly that. Ignoring or eradicating the Bill of Rights. Obviously proposing it will make some note this. Your proposition of a 10,000x tax to serve as a ban for non-billionaires is a ban of all guns for 99.9% of the population. This is blatantly a de facto overturn of the 2nd. Don’t propose it if you can’t be called out for it.

Again, I’ve asked what do responsible gun owners agree should be restricted or be prohibited. If the answer is nothing, let’s move on and lawmakers will come for whatever they can. There is a serious violence problem in our country where guns have been utilized and a lot of people would like to try something different.

[G1911]

[QUOTE=Carter08;2234028]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, I’ve asked what do responsible gun owners agree should be restricted or be prohibited. If the answer is nothing, let’s move on and lawmakers will come for whatever they can. There is a serious violence problem in our country where guns have been utilized and a lot of people would like to try something different.

Cool. So you’re admitting the agenda is exactly what I said. Finally

[Carter08]

[QUOTE=G1911;2234029]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Cool. So you’re admitting the agenda is exactly what I said. Finally

That is absolutely what many people in deep blue areas are after because they don’t know better and their voters want it. Propose something better. Those people are not demons. Neither are you. They want change because what we have is severely broken and there are too many mass shootings in this country. Help them do better than trying to eradicate your second amendment rights.

[G1911]

[QUOTE=Carter08;2234032]

Originally Posted by G1911

That is absolutely what many people in deep blue areas are after because they don’t know better and their voters want it. Propose something better. Those people are not demons. Neither are you. They want change because what we have is severely broken and there are too many mass shootings in this country. Help them do better than trying to eradicate your second amendment rights.

I didn’t say they were demons. Read what was written. You just admitted it, the goal is to take everything that can be taken. Which, thankfully, is none of them right now. I cannot fathom why you think I would give you a list of rights I think you should be able to deprive your fellow citizens of. I am against ignoring or eradicating the Bill of Rights, any of it. I have said this since page 1.

Good luck in your quest to seize everything possible. I’m sure it will pay dividends.

[Carter08]

[QUOTE=G1911;2234034]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I didn’t say they were demons. Read what was written. You just admitted it, the goal is to take everything that can be taken. Which, thankfully, is none of them right now. I cannot fathom why you think I would give you a list of rights I think you should be able to deprive your fellow citizens of. I am against ignoring or eradicating the Bill of Rights, any of it. I have said this since page 1.

Good luck in your quest to seize everything possible. I’m sure it will pay dividends.

From what I’ve written you think that’s my quest? Seriously.

[G1911]

[QUOTE=Carter08;2234037]

Originally Posted by G1911

From what I’ve written you think that’s my quest? Seriously.

You straight up said it’s the goal in 510.

[Carter08]

[QUOTE=G1911;2234038]

Originally Posted by Carter08

You straight up said it’s the goal in 510.

I said it’s my quest? Come on man.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by irv

I assume you missed bullet number #1 and bullet number #3?
According to almost every major study on the issue, Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.

One would think if that were true, that I would know at least ONE person who knew ONE? Figuring in for my clueless youth, 50 x 500000 = 25,000,000. 50 x 3000000 = 150,000,000. Isn't the high estimate nearly 3% of every gun owner in the US every year?? That suggests either some people finding reasons to "defend", the need for training, or grandiose self reporting.

I'm only 3 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon, for chrissakes.

I own a handgun. Not 10, or 20, or 46. My FIL owns over 200. He thinks every time Amazon comes up his driveway, the only reason they didn't rape him is because he carries his gun. Probably reports every interaction as "Using his firearm for a defensive purpose".

I am a competitive person who has tried to, if not be the best at whatever he attempts, try to the best of my ability. Baseball, fishing, poker, driving, and father, son, friend. They haven't all been successes, but currently, my gunplay ranks pretty high. It might work it might not. I did what I could.

BTW, those that lobby against magazine limitations, claim that the time to swap in a live fire situation and MOST importantly, the added hassle and cost of purchasing extra equipment
, are the biggest objections of magazine limitations. 80% of those who are upset about it are "recreational users". Understandably, just as if you went to a bowling alley and the didn't have enough 16lb balls. Pretty Disappointing. 3rd bullet point is slippery slope argument.

And finally, by definition, all amendments are up for revue. Part of the old process and all. By declaring that any current ruling represents the majority, is a fallacy., 40% gun owners are out voted by 210,000,000 citizens. Whwt happens next? Billions to convince that you next encounter WILL result in your sexual domination unless you support 50 round magazines.

[G1911]

[QUOTE=Carter08;2234041]

Originally Posted by G1911

I said it’s my quest? Come on man.

Being the goal is so vastly different. Good going

[Carter08]

[QUOTE=G1911;2234061]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Being the goal is so vastly different. Good going

It’s not my goal either.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm ready to have the discussion about the threat of Big Pharma, our public education system, the media, our politicians (both sides), our work life balance, our broken homes, the lack of accountability in society anymore, etc. I'm ready for that conversation. Solving those issues, figuring out how to be better people, that's the long term solution.

I agree that these are conversations worth having.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

The weapon has been discussed as nauseum in this thread. One bullet per trigger pull. That's the weapon - AR, handgun - they're all the same. You can't touch one without touching them all, and you can't touch them all without infringing upon 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens.

It wasn't ad nauseam for me. You have grouped many different guns into a single category (one bullet per trigger pull) while excluding others. I'm interested to know why you draw the distinction in this way.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

There is all sorts of legislation and law out there to prevent stuff that STILL HAPPENS. Drugs, for example. We have a massive drug problem in this country, despite laws that ban those drugs. Drunk Driving, despite laws that make drunk driving illegal. It's been said before, but murder is illegal, yet no matter the weapon, it's still committed - car, knife, rope, plane, firearm, fire, hands, etc.

It sounds as if you are saying that the fact that some people break laws means that it's not worth trying to pass new laws. Is that right? Should we not revise drug and drunk driving laws to try and make them less ineffective?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I agree that these are conversations worth having.



It wasn't ad nauseam for me. You have grouped many different guns into a single category (one bullet per trigger pull) while excluding others. I'm interested to know why you draw the distinction in this way.



It sounds as if you are saying that the fact that some people break laws means that it's not worth trying to pass new laws. Is that right? Should we not revise drug and drunk driving laws to try and make them less ineffective?

- Glad we can agree on something.

- I did group many guns together because the mechanics are the same. The targeted firearms by anti-gun people are all semi-automatic firearms. One bullet per trigger pull. Simple as that. Magazine capacity is a moot point, as magazines can be changed in a matter of seconds. Again, to target one, you target them all because of the mechanics. There is literally no difference between a 9MM handgun and a 5.56 caliber AR-15. Now, revolvers and bolt action rifles are different, but those aren't targeted by the anti-gun crowd.

- I'm saying we need to stop pretending as a society that we can eradicate all crime/poor behavior with legislation. It's hilarious that one thing the majority of both sides of the political spectrum agree on is that they don't trust government, yet I often see people clambering for more laws (AKA bigger government). Again, cocaine/heroine/etc. are illegal, yet run rampant in this country. How? Schools are fun free Zones, yet we have school shootings. How? Laws are for the law-abiding. If we want to truly solve this solution, we'll all discuss what you and I agree should be discussed in the first point. Those are the topics that build the foundation for better, healthier people, and a safer society.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I'm saying we need to stop pretending as a society that we can eradicate all crime/poor behavior with legislation. It's hilarious that one thing the majority of both sides of the political spectrum agree on is that they don't trust government, yet I often see people clambering for more laws (AKA bigger government). Again, cocaine/heroine/etc. are illegal, yet run rampant in this country. How? Schools are fun free Zones, yet we have school shootings. How? Laws are for the law-abiding. If we want to truly solve this solution, we'll all discuss what you and I agree should be discussed in the first point. Those are the topics that build the foundation for better, healthier people, and a safer society.

I appreciate the reply, and I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. In spirit, I agree with much of this. Practically, though, I think there is a huge web of complex problems to disentangle if we're going to get there. Would enough Americans agree on ways to form such a foundation?

(And, I have many thoughts on the very important issues you mentioned regarding trust in government and illegal drugs, but I'll hold off on veering this thread into even more controversial territory...)

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I appreciate the reply, and I'm starting to understand where you're coming from. In spirit, I agree with much of this. Practically, though, I think there is a huge web of complex problems to disentangle if we're going to get there. Would enough Americans agree on ways to form such a foundation?

(And, I have many thoughts on the very important issues you mentioned regarding trust in government and illegal drugs, but I'll hold off on veering this thread into even more controversial territory...)

Responding to the bold...

- No, because there isn't enough proper education on the topics, and not enough people who care to go beyond what they're spoon fed by the media and politicians. This is why it's so important to denounce the term "assault weapons" because there is no such thing, and it's a propaganda term.

- One of my first posts questioned the OP's motives behind starting this thread, as his original post had a huge slant and the discussion is political in nature. Again, in my opinion, you cannot discuss this issue productively and work towards an actual solution without turning the focus to the other areas we've agreed upon. Until we restore decency and healthiness to the majority of society, we will continue to see criminal attempts like school shootings. The only solution in the interim is to fight fire with fire, tear down the "gun free zone" signs, and protect our children with the same level of protection as our politicians, etc.

[drcy]

I've never owned a gun and am against the proliferation of guns. However, the 2nd Amendment is clear. The 2nd Amendment gives the constitutional right for Americans to own guns. However, the amendment also doesn't prevent reasonable prevention or rules.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by drcy

I've never owned a gun and am against the proliferation of guns. However, the 2nd Amendment is clear. The 2nd Amendment gives the constitutional right for Americans to own guns. However, the amendment also doesn't prevent reasonable prevention or rules.

"Shall not be infringed"

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

"Shall not be infringed"

Do you think it allows a citizen to own a nuclear weapon for personal use? As soon as you say no you are infringing.

[G1911]

Gun owners will give up all of their nuclear weapons to the gun-grabbers.

The gun grabbers will leave us all the common-use tools of our grandfathers time, and repeal the existing infringements on them.

Compromise!

[drcy]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

"Shall not be infringed"

Incorrect. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Do you think it allows a citizen to own a nuclear weapon for personal use? As soon as you say no you are infringing.

I think we've found our compromise.

Originally Posted by drcy

Incorrect. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Incorrect? Are you sure?

[irv]

This is the "woke" "virtue signaling" insanity we are dealing with up here.
Says we are getting serious about gun crimes but reduces the sentences for those committing gun crimes.
Says citizens cannot defend themselves with a gun but the bad guys who do will have their sentences reduced.
https://www.facebook.com/CanadaProud...7485935645037/
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ous-gun-crimes

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by irv

This is the "woke" insanity we are dealing with up here.
Says we are getting serious about gun crimes but reduces the sentences for those committing gun crimes.
Says citizens cannot defend themselves with a gun but the bad guys who do will have their sentences reduced.
https://www.facebook.com/CanadaProud...7485935645037/
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...ous-gun-crimes

They must be pandering for the criminal vote.

The 2 things murderers want most:
1. A more defenseless populous on which to prey.
2. Lighter sentences when/if they are caught/convicted.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

They must be pandering for the criminal vote.

The 2 things murderers want most:
1. A more defenseless populous on which to prey.
2. Lighter sentences when/if they are caught/convicted.

For Americans wishing to better understand Canadian politics, perhaps they should look beyond Facebook posts from a group describing themselves as "Proud Canadians working to defeat Trudeau" and newspaper opinion pieces.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

For Americans wishing to better understand Canadian politics, perhaps they should look beyond Facebook posts from a group describing themselves as "Proud Canadians working to defeat Trudeau" and newspaper opinion pieces.

Same should be said for the rest of the world trying to understand America - don't watch CNN, Fox News, etc.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Same should be said for the rest of the world trying to understand America - don't watch CNN, Fox News, etc.

+1 Absolutely agree, Kyle

[drcy]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Incorrect? Are you sure?

Yes. Because, as demonstrated by Supreme Courts upholding regulations on guns, I am correct.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Incorrect? Are you sure?

Yes. The amendment does not prevent regulations on types of guns and other aspects. The Supreme Courts has upheld various regulations, and Scalia himself spelled out limits. Unless you believe the 2nd amendment allows anyone to own a nuclear weapon or banned bioweapon, you yourself agree. Scalia used the example of a bazooka.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by drcy

Yes. Because, as demonstrated by Supreme Courts upholding regulations on guns, I am correct.

What regulations do you want?

[drcy]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

What regulations do you want?

That would just be a matter of my personal opinion, which would be no better or worse than anyone else's.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by drcy

That would just be a matter of my personal opinion, which would be no better or worse than anyone else's.

Per your previous comment, "reasonable prevention or rules" would also be subjective, so figured I'd ask what you thought was reasonable.

[irv]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

For Americans wishing to better understand Canadian politics, perhaps they should look beyond Facebook posts from a group describing themselves as "Proud Canadians working to defeat Trudeau" and newspaper opinion pieces.

It's a video of Trudeau on camera. Who cares what the source is? Would it be more believable if it came from the NY Times or MSNBC?

I chose the Toronto Sun because it is basically the last standing media source up here that isn't funded by the Liberals.
If you prefer, here is a sugar coated, deflective piece from the funded CBC that might be a little more to your liking? Notice how many times, even though this is a 100% on Trudeau, that they bring up the Conservatives.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lib...code-1.6276568

Mark's opinion was spot on. If you can't see that then I can't help you. Read the T.O. article then tell me Trudeau still cares more about gun crime and not about future votes.

Instead, we have a virtue signaler in chief who talks about making streets safer while going soft on criminals.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

You've repeated the claim that half the country is going to be criminalized half a dozen times. Are there actually any legislative proposals that would do this?
If you ban future 18 year-olds from purchasing a semi-automatic weapon, that does not criminalize people that already own such weapons.

While I think that having a mandatory buyback of semi-automatic weapons would help make our country safer, no one is proposing this. We are not Australia--there just isn't the political will for such a measure and I think almost everyone knows it.

You are correct that no law is getting rid of most or even many of the 400 million guns in our country. And no proposed law is attempting to. No one thinks all guns are going to disappear.

I imagine you are going to come back with the slippery slope argument, that if we given an inch, anti-gun people will take a mile. But I just don't that's politically possible or even realistic to consider.

I don't agree with making a buyback mandatory. As an example, I know someone who did/does target shooting. They have an M1, military surplus going back to the 40's, that the government still makes available for civilian marksmanship programs. It was his fathers, and has had some serious work done to it that makes it far more accurate than a stock example. Duplicating that would require well over a thousand dollars. (I used it once, it made a very average rifle shooter into a slightly above average one. The benefit to a competetive shooter would be substantial)

Forcing him to sell that to the government for destruction at the pittance they would offer? No, that makes no sense at all.

Add in that a huge percentage of guns used for hunting are semi automatic, including other publicly sold M1s and you've done most gun owners a disservice, as well as providing a major setback to wildlife management.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Is anyone suggesting that they do? Do you believe that the Uvalde shooting would have transpired the same way, had the weapon been a billiards cue? How about an Mk47 Striker? To ignore what the weapon is is exactly the kind of "dancing around" that I referenced in my previous post.

Of course it wouldn't.

While pool cues are readily available, as far as I know the Mk47 is not publicly available. Even if it was it would be subject to the same rules and background checks as a real machine gun.


What would have made a big difference would be if even so much as the reporting of mental health issues which the Uvalde shooter apparently had was done in a way that would turn up on a background check.

As far as I know nearly all the mass shooters have had issues with mental health and either passed background checks or been abetted by relatives. And nearly all made public statements before acting that made their intentions clear.
How to make those red flags into something that will turn up in a background check without falling foul of the first amendment, and a variety of privacy laws and protections for people with problems is another discussion that needs to be had. And one that both sides have even more difficulty approaching. Nobody wants to return to locking people with mental problems away the way we did into the early 80's. (I think, but could be wrong there)
But i believe it's also true that getting them actual help is expensive and hard to convince people to pay for.

[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

[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.