Over 60 percent of active shooters stopped by good guy with a gun

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

Well, there is the second amendment in the Constitution saying arms are a right. There is nothing in the Constitution about anyone driving cars. Driving is a granted privilege.

You win the internet today!

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

Of course they are.

Unless you think that citizens that unite are not individuals...

Individual people are individual people, nothing near a well regulated militia. Actually during a crisis situation people untrained in how to use a firearm would be the opposite.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

More pearls of wisdom from you

In the context of being a well regulated militia...context is everything.

You are either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. This is long settled....

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

Everyone driving cars has some training - anybody can buy a gun without training.

And yet, with more cars, we still have more car crashes.

Even with training.

Interesting, innit.

And with more guns we have more children killing themselves or others.

Doctors screwing up prescriptions have killed more children this year.

In context, abortions have killed more children than any other cause.

If you take gang-banging out of the picture, malignant neoplasm has killed more kids this year.

So if you want to make the argument that guns are killing kids, the guns they are doing it with are illegal in the first place.

Perhaps if we made a law that illegal guns are illegal, would that help your argument?

So no problem for you with the more guns = more children dying because 'no infringement on my rights'? Is that what you are arguing for?

Yes, exactly.

Our rights are more important than any of your perceptions of security.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

More pearls of wisdom from you

In the context of being a well regulated militia...context is everything.

You are either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. This is long settled....

It is clearly stated...a well regulated militia not individual citizens. But interpretation is subjective.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

More pearls of wisdom from you

In the context of being a well regulated militia...context is everything.

You are either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. This is long settled....

It is clearly stated...a well regulated militia not individual citizens. But interpretation is subjective.

JFC...it's literally the 1st of the held decison:

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.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

Everyone driving cars has some training - anybody can buy a gun without training.

And yet, with more cars, we still have more car crashes.

Even with training.

Interesting, innit.

And with more guns we have more children killing themselves or others.

Doctors screwing up prescriptions have killed more children this year.

In context, abortions have killed more children than any other cause.

If you take gang-banging out of the picture, malignant neoplasm has killed more kids this year.

So if you want to make the argument that guns are killing kids, the guns they are doing it with are illegal in the first place.

Perhaps if we made a law that illegal guns are illegal, would that help your argument?

So no problem for you with the more guns = more children dying because 'no infringement on my rights'? Is that what you are arguing for?

Yes, exactly.

Our rights are more important than any of your perceptions of security.

It is the research of non-partisan scientists that prove that more guns = more deaths rather than the stats from that Lott guy who is bought by the NRA. Simple to understand.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

Everyone driving cars has some training - anybody can buy a gun without training.

And yet, with more cars, we still have more car crashes.

Even with training.

Interesting, innit.

And with more guns we have more children killing themselves or others.

Doctors screwing up prescriptions have killed more children this year.

In context, abortions have killed more children than any other cause.

If you take gang-banging out of the picture, malignant neoplasm has killed more kids this year.

So if you want to make the argument that guns are killing kids, the guns they are doing it with are illegal in the first place.

Perhaps if we made a law that illegal guns are illegal, would that help your argument?

So no problem for you with the more guns = more children dying because 'no infringement on my rights'? Is that what you are arguing for?

Not at all. You are stating that more guns=more kid deaths. That is simply untrue.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

Everyone driving cars has some training - anybody can buy a gun without training.

And yet, with more cars, we still have more car crashes.

Even with training.

Interesting, innit.

And with more guns we have more children killing themselves or others.

Doctors screwing up prescriptions have killed more children this year.

In context, abortions have killed more children than any other cause.

If you take gang-banging out of the picture, malignant neoplasm has killed more kids this year.

So if you want to make the argument that guns are killing kids, the guns they are doing it with are illegal in the first place.

Perhaps if we made a law that illegal guns are illegal, would that help your argument?

So no problem for you with the more guns = more children dying because 'no infringement on my rights'? Is that what you are arguing for?

Yes, exactly.

Our rights are more important than any of your perceptions of security.

It is the research of non-partisan scientists that prove that more guns = more deaths rather than the stats from that Lott guy who is bought by the NRA. Simple to understand.

You had to post data backed up by the FBI, which is what the entire OP debunks.

Yes, this is simple to understand.

a reply to: quintessentone

Well regulated at the time ment the state should be sure you had the bullets and powder should you need them. Almost everyone was trained to use them or they were a burden to society.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

Of course they are.

Unless you think that citizens that unite are not individuals...

Individual people are individual people, nothing near a well regulated militia. Actually during a crisis situation people untrained in how to use a firearm would be the opposite.

I was going to reply but JinMI took the time to flush your argument down the toilet before I could.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

More pearls of wisdom from you

In the context of being a well regulated militia...context is everything.

You are either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. This is long settled....

It is clearly stated...a well regulated militia not individual citizens. But interpretation is subjective.

JFC...it's literally the 1st of the held decison:

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.

The other member posted that right stating specifically within a well regulated militia. Now you post another one saying the opposite. Which is true?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

Well regulated at the time ment the state should be sure you had the bullets and powder should you need them. Almost everyone was trained to use them or they were a burden to society.

Whoa! Slow down.

If the poster cannot grasp contemporary legal precedent, what makes you think they could understand 18th century parlance?

Baby steps.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

Everyone driving cars has some training - anybody can buy a gun without training.

And yet, with more cars, we still have more car crashes.

Even with training.

Interesting, innit.

And with more guns we have more children killing themselves or others.

Doctors screwing up prescriptions have killed more children this year.

In context, abortions have killed more children than any other cause.

If you take gang-banging out of the picture, malignant neoplasm has killed more kids this year.

So if you want to make the argument that guns are killing kids, the guns they are doing it with are illegal in the first place.

Perhaps if we made a law that illegal guns are illegal, would that help your argument?

So no problem for you with the more guns = more children dying because 'no infringement on my rights'? Is that what you are arguing for?

Yes, exactly.

Our rights are more important than any of your perceptions of security.

It is the research of non-partisan scientists that prove that more guns = more deaths rather than the stats from that Lott guy who is bought by the NRA. Simple to understand.

You had to post data backed up by the FBI, which is what the entire OP debunks.

Yes, this is simple to understand.

And I posted those who debunk Lott's stats. One is not like the other one, one is not in the NRA's pocket.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

Well regulated at the time ment the state should be sure you had the bullets and powder should you need them. Almost everyone was trained to use them or they were a burden to society.

Define militia back then.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

More pearls of wisdom from you

In the context of being a well regulated militia...context is everything.

You are either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. This is long settled....

It is clearly stated...a well regulated militia not individual citizens. But interpretation is subjective.

JFC...it's literally the 1st of the held decison:

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.

The other member posted that right stating specifically within a well regulated militia. Now you post another one saying the opposite. Which is true?

The right of militias to form with their firearms.


At this point I cannot tell if you are trolling or deficient in the English language.

Toss me a hint?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

Everyone driving cars has some training - anybody can buy a gun without training.

And yet, with more cars, we still have more car crashes.

Even with training.

Interesting, innit.

And with more guns we have more children killing themselves or others.

Doctors screwing up prescriptions have killed more children this year.

In context, abortions have killed more children than any other cause.

If you take gang-banging out of the picture, malignant neoplasm has killed more kids this year.

So if you want to make the argument that guns are killing kids, the guns they are doing it with are illegal in the first place.

Perhaps if we made a law that illegal guns are illegal, would that help your argument?

So no problem for you with the more guns = more children dying because 'no infringement on my rights'? Is that what you are arguing for?

Yes, exactly.

Our rights are more important than any of your perceptions of security.

It is the research of non-partisan scientists that prove that more guns = more deaths rather than the stats from that Lott guy who is bought by the NRA. Simple to understand.

You had to post data backed up by the FBI, which is what the entire OP debunks.

Yes, this is simple to understand.

And I posted those who debunk Lott's stats. One is not like the other one, one is not in the NRA's pocket.

If you're looking for me to defend the NRA, no dice.

If you're looking for me to defend the FBI, no dice.

Difference being, no one elected the NRA nor use them as an authority. And that the authority you are relying on has a long and sordid history of corruption and malfeasance.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

More pearls of wisdom from you

In the context of being a well regulated militia...context is everything.

You are either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. This is long settled....

It is clearly stated...a well regulated militia not individual citizens. But interpretation is subjective.

JFC...it's literally the 1st of the held decison:

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.

The other member posted that right stating specifically within a well regulated militia. Now you post another one saying the opposite. Which is true?

The right of militias to form with their firearms.


At this point I cannot tell if you are trolling or deficient in the English language.

Toss me a hint?

People arming themselves without background checks, without gun training, with mental issues...sure go for it and let's see the grim realities emerge.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

Well regulated at the time ment the state should be sure you had the bullets and powder should you need them. Almost everyone was trained to use them or they were a burden to society.

Define militia back then.

Any armed group. You only had one shot and then had to take several seconds to reload if you were good at it. An individual could not put up a very good defense without his neighbors helping.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: quintessentone

More guns equal more deaths. That is true.

More cars equals more car accidents. I bet that's true also. Are you for banning cars?

2nd Amendment. Can't get around it.

What's the difference in training between cars and guns?

What's the difference between driving cars and keeping and bearing arms?

The right to travel is kinda shaky in doctrine, but is covered under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1.

Versus...

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.

The first 13 words of that is quite literal and they hate that.

Never mind the rest of it in context...

So they just focus on the words after that.

Individual people are not a well regulated militia, now are they?

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

More pearls of wisdom from you

In the context of being a well regulated militia...context is everything.

You are either being obtuse or willfully ignorant. This is long settled....

It is clearly stated...a well regulated militia not individual citizens. But interpretation is subjective.

JFC...it's literally the 1st of the held decison:

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.

The other member posted that right stating specifically within a well regulated militia. Now you post another one saying the opposite. Which is true?

The right of militias to form with their firearms.


At this point I cannot tell if you are trolling or deficient in the English language.

Toss me a hint?

People arming themselves without background checks, without gun training, with mental issues...sure go for it and let's see the grim realities emerge.

Violating peoples civil rights because you are scared or hold some facade of social order, sure go for it and lets see the grim realities emerge....