Gun ownership in this day and age

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sftyvlv1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
happens all the time
You took.my post completely out if context. I was replying to a poster who claimed this was one of the reasons behind the 2nd amendment.

And no, I don’t think it really happens all the time. In my, almost, 60 years on this planet, I have never needed a gun for self-defense, and I personally know of no one who has.
 
Now it’s all ar-15s and military style weapons.
You need to ask why? These guns are adaptable. They can be customized to overcome what a person is weak in. They can be made so every age, gender, and disability can use one. Why do you want to allow only certain people the right of self-defense?
Also, I have a hard time believing that their homicide rates are not actual dead bodies.
differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison.
fake news, as I said above the numbers are almost equal. they would have to count everything including the kitchen sink.
In my, almost, 60 years on this planet, I have never needed a gun for self-defense, and I personally know of no one who has.
I know cops who never used their issued gun in 20 years, that isn’t a reason to disarm all cops. Most people won’t have a need, it still isn’t a reason to take away the tool from those who have the need for the tool.
 
I know disobeying authority can be a sin
But imo buying a gun is always reasonable
And is overly demonized by people who are very uneducated

Owning weapons is a human right
You can argue whatever
But the world is dangerous and can never fully control evil
Good people deserve adequate defense
 
Last edited:
know cops who never used their issued gun in 20 years, that isn’t a reason to disarm all cops. Most people won’t have a need, it still isn’t a reason to take away the tool from those who have the need for the tool.
And I am not in favor of that.
 
The left 's brilliant plan to end gun vio!ence by criminals is…to disarm law abiding citizens. Exact!y what all totalitarian regimes do.
 
40.png
Odilon:
Countries like “gun free” Britain are not safer. Knife and acid attacks are completely out of control.
Tough to back up that claim.
England/Wales homicide rate is around 1/5 the of the USA’s.
Noooooo!!! We are not seriously going to have England preach to us that we shouldn’t have an armed citizenry!? I’m sure they would prefer to tax our tea and paperwork too!
 
Countries like “gun free” Britain are not safer. Knife and acid attacks are completely out of control.
Let’s not pretend that it is safer to live in the US per capita. Guns AND knife crime are way worse in the US. I don’t see those guns protecting anyone from the knife crimes do you?

Besides - I’ll take my chances with a knife over a gun.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
They hate cops
But want cops to confiscate guns that fit some weird criteria.
At least it’s not the EU where you can’t post a meme or use knife to butter your toast 😂😂😂
 
Indeed. I 'm glad I got to Europe, especially the UK, before it turned into Oceania. Ugh.They have nothing more to teach us.
 
And no, I don’t think it really happens all the time. In my, almost, 60 years on this planet, I have never needed a gun for self-defense, and I personally know of no one who has.
I would assume you have a never been the victim of murder.
Would you have us believe that this would be sufficient logic to conclude murder does not happen?
 
Of course not, wasn’t my point. Seems everyone of my posts on this thread either get misrepresented or taken out if context.
 
That using a gun for self defense does not happen all that often.
Which,BTW, was in response to another point I made about the second amendment being misrepresented.
 
my wife will not sign for me. In Canada you need character witnesses to apply for your licence.
Canada lets your wife be your character witness? Here in NJ we need two “references” but neither of which can be a family member.
 
Perhaps, of course I did not say it was definitive, just what I thought.
 
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.

Seems pretty clear cut. The militia is necessary to the security of a nation, but the people won’t have their right to bear arms infringed because of that.
Again, let me be clear, I am all in favor of individual ownership of guns and the right to self-defense.

But this the second amendment is not clear cut.
Most of the strong gun supporters that claim to be sticking closely to the constitution are adhering to a revisionist history that started when libertarians took over the NRA in the 1960s/1970s. American gun views aren’t only eccentric to the rest of the world but they are also eccentric to the majority of American history.
@TK421 was entirely accurate when he/she stated that the idea the second amendment protects an individual right to own a gun is a recent event, 2008 as a matter of fact. Before District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008, the second amendment had always been interpreted as referring to barring arms as part of a well-0regulated militia. Which is exactly how the amendment reads. It was the first time, in 240 years, the supreme court had ruled that an individual has a right, under the constitution, to own a gun for self-defense.
I am a, for the most part, a constitutional originalist. And I do not like when the courts “make-up” a right that was not the original intent of the framers. Conservatives should be more consistent and admit that the 2008 decision was certainly a violation of originalism.
 
That is a whole 'nother topic, and one worthy of discussion, but it is even more thread drift that we have already experienced. I will just say that I certainly understand you point of view, I have a die hard supporter of subsidiarity in our political structure. I feel like it has been completely abandoned thoughout the industrialized world and its not going to end well. OTOH, I said I was for the most part am originalist. I am not for sure I want to see the bill of rights not applied to the states. But it might be better than what we now have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top