Mass Shootings Will Never Negate The Need For Gun Rights

a reply to: infolurker

Then why can’t we have bazookas, grenades or machine guns?

a reply to: Lab4Us

Everybody knows the 1st Amendment ensures several 'different' Natural Rights:
1. Freedom of Religion
2. Freedom of Speech
3. The right to Assemble
4. The right to Complain **to the government** (which is BS if you ask me)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People so often overlook that as soon as they move on to the 2d. We need better Civics Education in our schools.

If there are some limits on gun or weapon ownership such as its illegal to own a machinegun, or automatic weapon manufactured beyond a certain date, or grenades then the idea of gun or arms rights is legitimately constricted.

It’s all a matter of the power of the weapon.

A hand gun versus a machine gun.

A hand gun is legal a machine gun is not

What’s your problem? You think the constitution lets you have an atomic bomb in your backyard?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Plenty of people in the past were not educated on fire arms either..

But as is usual, the people who used/use them for protection, hunting, shooting sports, etc. knew/know more about them than the average person. In court, expert witnesses are used due to superior knowledge about subjects. Any idiot, however, can make blanket statements about firearms and the anti-gun crowd takes it as gospel.

Rifling has only been a common thing the last 100 year.

I own guns that are over 100 years old. There were high-quality guns 100 years ago. The Mauser rifles were superior firearms back then. I shoot mine regularly and I can hit what I aim at.

Guns were expensive:.

Good guns were expensive and still are expensive. But my Mausers that are over 100 years old will still be shooters when they are 200 or 300 years old. Quality matters!

About 75% of women never touch a gun..

I would never touch a woman who wouldn't touch a gun! They can't be trusted!

——//////////////———


You average person could barely read 100 years ago..

The average high school grad can barely read now; they certainly don't comprehend much of what they read. Most people these days choose not to read.



By every measurable thing besides maybe divorce rates. We have improved...

By most measurements I see, we are more depraved, ill-mannered, and less self sufficient than ever. Don't know if that can be considered improvement. Who knows where we're headed as a society. Bottom line, I'll keep my guns to ensure that in whatever future we have, the someone/group who thinks they know what's best for me won't be able to force their interpretation of my future upon me. I'll keep every single shot, bolt action, lever action, revolver, pistol, pump, and semi-auto I own. And I won't feel guilty!

a reply to: Peeple
There aren't any reliable statistics that show how many times a gun has been successfully used in self-defense. I personally know people, men and women, who have protected themselves or others when a bad guy(s) fled after they realized they had a gun. Even our local mayer shot and wounded an intruder a number of years ago. Some of these incidents didn't get reported to police so there's no way they could be tracked by any study. For an accurate study you would have to find a way to quantify the number of times a bad actor changed their mind just from the possibility their target is protecting themselves with a firearm.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

I have personally foiled two attempted robberies of my person with the handgun that I carried. Both lowlifes claimed they had guns. But I didn't have to shoot anyone. I simply had to inform them that their health would deteriorate rapidly and severely if they remained in front of my handgun (which I actually had pointed at them) longer than my patience held. They both suddenly had other places they really needed to be.

originally posted by: Deplorable
Maybe it's a willful misrepresentation. The way I read the 2d, it says that We The People are entitled to a militia.

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.

Professors of law and the English language would disagree with your interpretation.

The Commonplace Second Amendment

"The Second Amendment, unusually for constitutional provisions, contains a statement of purpose as well as a guarantee of a right to bear arms." This unusual attribute, some argue, is reason for courts to interpret the Second Amendment quite differently than they interpret other constitutional provisions -- perhaps to the point of reading it as having virtually no effect on government action.

My modest discovery 3 is that the Second Amendment is actually not unusual at all: Many contemporaneous state constitutional provisions are structured similarly. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution, its first, provides

The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

Compare this to the Second Amendment's

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.

Being in a militia is no more a prerequisite to bearing arms than being a member of the press is required for free speech.

What about a claim that, say, "to keep and bear arms" refers only to people's keeping arms in state-run arsenals, and bearing them while they are under the direct command of state officers? This position seems inconsistent with the operative clause (and again Miller did not hold this). As I mentioned above, a right of the people to bear arms (or to keep and bear arms) is present in the pre-1791 constitutions of four states; because this right against the state government can't be at the sufferance of the state, "the right of the people to bear arms" seems to have meant a right to have arms even without state authorization. The Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont provisions guaranteeing the right of the people to bear arms in "defense of themselves and the State" likewise suggest that "bearing arms" meant more than just bearing them under state control. What's more, under the Militia Clauses, the federal government could at any time take direct command of the militia away from the states. If the right was only a right to possess arms under the supervision of one's militia superiors -- who might well be under federal command -- then the right would impose little constraint on the federal government.

Militias are necessary to a free state because in a free state the government governs by the consent of the governed. The right to bear arms is necessary so that the people can form militias in order to replace governments that no longer have the consent of the governed to rule.

Gun owners are not required to be in a militia any more than militia members are required to own guns.

The anti-gun lobby that exists in the US was created during the 80s as a cover up for the crimes committed by illegal migrants and gangs, mostly consisting of illegal migrants.

France and the UK in particular have been supporting illegal migrantion in the US and have been supporting gangs and mafia since the 30s, so they came up with the idea of blaming guns for the shooting instead of blaming criminal gangs of migrants.

a reply to: Peeple

you are a writer....now become encumbered by the thought process.....against the govt. and Catholics..

did you know the Catholics are why the Pilgrims came across and why they were outlawed in the us till 1900.

now we have a Catholic majority on he bench at the scotus. got that?....pretty well hidden from us huh!!!

Feel free to Google statistics on people who survived home invasions, kidnapping, carjacking, rape, etc by using a gun in self defense.

Ask them why they didn't just let people rob and kidnap and rape them. Ask them why they needed a gun.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Krakatoa

Plenty of people in the past were not educated on fire arms either..

Rifling has only been a common thing the last 100 year.

Guns were expensive:.

About 75% of women never touch a gun..


——//////////////———


You average person could barely read 100 years ago..



By every measurable thing besides maybe divorce rates. We have improved...

At least a year or 2 ago, the fastest growing group of gun owners was women that were tired of being a victim.

Also guns were passed down in the family, many families that lived outside the city depended on a gun to help put food on the table, and in parts of the country even today many people hunt year round to make certain their kids eat.

France is talking how obscene is for guns to stop mass killers! The only shameful and obscene thing is that France is promoting slavery and slave labor under the guise of welcoming illegal migrants from every potential terrorist country.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: infolurker

That's kind of exactly what I don't understand, who are you defending yourself against?
Rivaling gangs? Your gouvernment?
Does that actually happen that someone prevents being robbed because he shoots the intruder?
How often in comparison to mass/school shootings does that happen?

Excuse my ignorance, those are genuine questions.

reason.com...

The CDC looked into it, and if you lowball their results, there are 500,000 defensive uses of firearms by legal gun owners each year.

People who dispute the numbers say it should be closer to 108,000.

So go with over 100,000 defensive uses a year as opposed to the relative handful of mass shootings, as horrific as they are.