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

a reply to: quintessentone

Where are these purchases without background checks? Not at gun shops, that's for sure.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

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.

Right and they had a reason back then to have armed groups. What is that reason today?

If everyone wants gun ownership then I'd like it to be on par with the requirements of acquiring a car license, the bare minimum in training for safety and competence for everyone's sake.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

Where are these purchases without background checks? Not at gun shops, that's for sure.

Oh, allow me?

Fact: Less than 1% of crime guns are acquired at gun shows, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. 5

Fact: In total, about 10-11% of crime guns come from retail sources 6, where background checks are conducted. About 2.3% of guns used in violent crime come from retail sources. 7

Fact: Only 7.3% of traced guns were recovered from the individual who first bought the gun. 8

Link

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.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
-Ben Franklin

a reply to: quintessentone

But as I have already stated, the government grants you the privilege to drive a car or not. There is a thing called the second amendment to the Constitution that says the government has to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

Do you not see the difference?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

Where are these purchases without background checks? Not at gun shops, that's for sure.

Despite that support, thousands of guns are sold every year without a check to see if the buyer is prohibited from possessing firearms. Though federal legislation to strengthen requirements hasn’t passed, many individual states have passed their own laws.

www.thetrace.org...

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

But as I have already stated, the government grants you the privilege to drive a car or not. There is a thing called the second amendment to the Constitution that says the government has to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

Do you not see the difference?

Yes, for self defense in their home, isn't that the meaning/context? Some activists want everyone walking around the streets armed with or without any training.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

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.

Right and they had a reason back then to have armed groups. What is that reason today?

Let's see, the burning and looting of neighborhoods and buisnesses. The carjackings becoming more common. The beatings of strangers for no apparent reason. The increase in muggings. Need I go on?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

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.

Right and they had a reason back then to have armed groups. What is that reason today?

Let's see, the burning and looting of neighborhoods and buisnesses. The carjackings becoming more common. The beatings of strangers for no apparent reason. The increase in muggings. Need I go on?

So is vigilantism the way you all want to go? If so why not defund the police, or get rid of them altogether?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

But as I have already stated, the government grants you the privilege to drive a car or not. There is a thing called the second amendment to the Constitution that says the government has to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

Do you not see the difference?

Yes, for self defense in their home, isn't that the meaning/context? Some activists want everyone walking around the streets armed with or without any training.

False....again.

McDonald v Chicago

You really are ignorant in this thread. Perhaps do a little research before spouting nonsenese?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

But as I have already stated, the government grants you the privilege to drive a car or not. There is a thing called the second amendment to the Constitution that says the government has to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

Do you not see the difference?

Yes, for self defense in their home, isn't that the meaning/context? Some activists want everyone walking around the streets armed with or without any training.

So, when one leaves their home or property, they are fair game for attack? What about renters who don't own their property? What about walking the dog in ones neighborhood? What about coming home from a trip to the bank in a car?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

But as I have already stated, the government grants you the privilege to drive a car or not. There is a thing called the second amendment to the Constitution that says the government has to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

Do you not see the difference?

Yes, for self defense in their home, isn't that the meaning/context? Some activists want everyone walking around the streets armed with or without any training.

False....again.

McDonald v Chicago

You really are ignorant in this thread. Perhaps do a little research before spouting nonsenese?

Do you not understand what you read?

..."in the home"

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

But as I have already stated, the government grants you the privilege to drive a car or not. There is a thing called the second amendment to the Constitution that says the government has to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

Do you not see the difference?

Yes, for self defense in their home, isn't that the meaning/context? Some activists want everyone walking around the streets armed with or without any training.

So, when one leaves their home or property, they are fair game for attack? What about renters who don't own their property? What about walking the dog in ones neighborhood? What about coming home from a trip to the bank in a car?

Does that amendment allow for all of those situations?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

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.

Right and they had a reason back then to have armed groups. What is that reason today?

Let's see, the burning and looting of neighborhoods and buisnesses. The carjackings becoming more common. The beatings of strangers for no apparent reason. The increase in muggings. Need I go on?

So is vigilantism the way you all want to go? If so why not defund the police, or get rid of them altogether?

But we like the police. We had just rather have to deal with the police than have them investigate who killed us before the police got there.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

But as I have already stated, the government grants you the privilege to drive a car or not. There is a thing called the second amendment to the Constitution that says the government has to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

Do you not see the difference?

Yes, for self defense in their home, isn't that the meaning/context? Some activists want everyone walking around the streets armed with or without any training.

So, when one leaves their home or property, they are fair game for attack? What about renters who don't own their property? What about walking the dog in ones neighborhood? What about coming home from a trip to the bank in a car?

Does that amendment allow for all of those situations?

It doesn't exclude them now does it?

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: quintessentone

But as I have already stated, the government grants you the privilege to drive a car or not. There is a thing called the second amendment to the Constitution that says the government has to allow citizens to arm themselves for self defense.

Do you not see the difference?

Yes, for self defense in their home, isn't that the meaning/context? Some activists want everyone walking around the streets armed with or without any training.

So, when one leaves their home or property, they are fair game for attack? What about renters who don't own their property? What about walking the dog in ones neighborhood? What about coming home from a trip to the bank in a car?

Does that amendment allow for all of those situations?

It doesn't exclude them now does it?

Context and intent is everything.

a reply to: quintessentone

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense.

Does the right to defend yourself end at your own doorway?

Of course not.

Apply just a smidge of logic here.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

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.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
-Ben Franklin

Every friend of freedom... must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. Milton Friedman

When is the campaign to trade our guns in for puberty blockers to hand out to kids this Halloween gonna start?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
When is the campaign to trade our guns in for puberty blockers to hand out to kids this Halloween gonna start?

I've always been a fan of this quote:

"I want women to be able to use their 2nd amendment to commit their abortions!"

But yours just might be better..