What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2017, 03:52 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
The founders wanted a quick response system for emergencies, like British and/or Indian raids on outlying settlements. That meant the locals had to be ready to grab a rifle and join up with the neighbors to defend a farm or the whole town. They were supposed to drill regularly (a well regulated militia) but the people farther from the dangers had little incentive to do so.

This "army on the cheap" ultimately failed to be effective and the US was forced to expand its regular military forces. Like the "gunboat navy", the militia sounded good on paper but just didn't work.

The "intent of the founders" was nothing like the current gerrymandered revision of the 2nd Amendment.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
06-06-2017, 05:19 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(05-06-2017 01:49 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(05-06-2017 01:43 PM)Jeanne Wrote:  Is this what you think gun owners are doing? LOL. We "take reasonable precautions" just as you say you do. Got that helmet on?

I never ride without a helmet. That's a reasonable precaution. Equivalent precautions for a homeowner would be to keep your doors locked, etc. If you also want to own guns, I have no problem with that. But to say that you "need" guns to be safe is over the top, in my opinion. I don't think you need them at all. I don't have any, and I am a person who takes reasonable precautions (like wearing a helmet when I ride my bike, avoiding highways, etc.).

I'm not anti-gun. But I am anti-fear mongering.

But...it should be obvious to any that I do need my gun on my person in order to protect myself....to be safe.

For those who have a carry permit, they obviously are in situations and environments where they need a firearm to protect themselves. When we read about people using whatever they have at hand to protect themselves, we should realize that a gun would be better. When we read about people using their sidearm to protect others or to diffuse a dangerous situation, we should realize that they are able to do so because of their gun.

That's the thing; you know when you need to wear a helmet is when you ride your bike. I never know when I may need my gun to protect myself, my family or my property...even if it is to simply discourage someone whose intent may be to do harm, that is, knowing I have a gun keeps them from their intent.

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 05:28 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-06-2017 05:19 AM)Jeanne Wrote:  But...it should be obvious to any that I do need my gun on my person in order to protect myself....to be safe.

To be safe from what though? Other people with guns? That fact that so many other countries don't allow guns, and they have been gunless for years, should show the world you DONT need guns at all.

As others have said, if you WANT a gun, that's fine. My father had a gun, for hunting, but it was never in the house or in anyway loaded/in a dangerous position etc. But in no realm of the world, in any set up do you NEED a gun, unless it's to protect you from OTHERS WITH GUNS lol.

Guns have become the "nuclear deterrent" for US citizens I believe, you all have guns....because you all have guns lol.

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OakTree500's post
06-06-2017, 05:32 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
The resolute refusal to consider that having a gun at hand makes people LESS safe is the problem here. Having bought into the Good Guy With A Gun fantasy they simply refuse to believe that the tool they bought to kill people with might not be a good thing to carry around.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 05:38 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-06-2017 12:50 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(05-06-2017 01:02 PM)Jeanne Wrote:  The Second Amendment is absolutely straight forward in declaring that this right of the People shall not be infringed...

Not necessarily. The Second Amendment of the Constitution reads: "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."

On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory" the Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional.

On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense, and have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory". A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

Briefly then, the term "people", as written 200 years ago, could hold the inference of an instrumentality of the State or the electorate, and not an individual person. So the Second Amendment is certainly not "straightforward" as you claim.

See also United States v. Miller (No. 696).

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what the Framers meant it to say, although it was a hard fight to get the 2nd into the Bill of Rights...because everyone thought it so very unnecessary, as that right was common sense.

"Well regulated" means in the vernacular of the time, that the militia is to be well outfitted with up to date weaponry.

The over-riding reason the 2nd was included and the militia thought to be a necessary part of any nation was to do as the Declaration of Independence requires of its citizenry; to overthrow a government that is no longer adhering to the principles of a people seeking to govern themselves and to never again be under the foot of a Tyrant. It was not for hunting or for self-protection.

The Framers expected much from the citizens; "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it." And...so the rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights also carry responsibilities for the individual, the People.

A standing army was not the intent and was to be avoided, for standing armies tend to do the bidding of those in power at the time. The militia is not the National Guard. The militia is the People. The 2nd is the right of the People, just as the 1st is the right of the People. Natural rights, not rights granted by governments or monarchs.

For statistics and facts, check out John Lott's work in his most recent book, "The War On Guns" and his earlier one..probably a website connected to it as well.

I think it bears acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of guns owned are never used in criminal activity or to kill a human being. While it is frightening to hear of mass killers who used a gun, the instances are rare. Much more common place are the killings done by those who illegally own a gun and who use them to commit crimes.

The instances of gun-use for self defense don't make the news because usually nobody is killed and no crime gets committed, but they happen all the time.

We have witnessed historically and very recently what happens to nations when law-abiding citizens are deprived of the right to bear arms and we have learned of the desperate attempts of those so deprived to obtain the few fire-arms available to them.

Those of us who choose to exercise our 2nd amendment rights also know that a government bent on tyranny would be able to destroy us if they wanted to go that far, but would most likely consider such actions to be too risky.

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 05:39 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
I personally can't get over how when you point out like "The UK and Australia have bans on guns, the latter after a huge massacre in the 90's....in the following time after that, they've had no massacres" yet you still get "yeah but if such and such had a gun".

Backwards if you ask me. Again, if you WANT a gun, and the means of getting one are a bit harder and not just popping down the shop to buy one on a whim when you need a loaf of bread, which would include limits on what you can have and why, then yeah why not. But to allow people to have almost any gun they like...for little to no reason, with super minimal checking being done as well. It's insane.

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OakTree500's post
06-06-2017, 05:50 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-06-2017 05:28 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  
(06-06-2017 05:19 AM)Jeanne Wrote:  But...it should be obvious to any that I do need my gun on my person in order to protect myself....to be safe.

To be safe from what though? Other people with guns? That fact that so many other countries don't allow guns, and they have been gunless for years, should show the world you DONT need guns at all.

As others have said, if you WANT a gun, that's fine. My father had a gun, for hunting, but it was never in the house or in anyway loaded/in a dangerous position etc. But in no realm of the world, in any set up do you NEED a gun, unless it's to protect you from OTHERS WITH GUNS lol.

Guns have become the "nuclear deterrent" for US citizens I believe, you all have guns....because you all have guns lol.

I live on an isolated farm and am often home alone or with my daughter and her infant. I work about the farm outside or in my chicken houses or garden or in the tractor in a distant field....I do not have locked doors to give me five seconds of warning before an attacker is inside. I have been attacked by wild animals. There are wild dog packs that roam, a bobcat that passes through occasionally, nasty groundhogs and coyotes and rarely a rabid animal. There are strangers who come down our long, winding lane to see where it goes. The county road before our lane has a section of it where drug sales regularly take place. Our mail box is often used as a drop site. We have drunks that come back at night looking for a place to party in the woods. We have had a car abandoned just before our woods opens to the house/shed area and bashed in with axes by criminals on the move. That is when I started carrying a sidearm nearly 30 years ago.

If the police left immediately from town, it would take them at top speed 15 minutes to get here. Too late for me. Crime committed. Me and mine injured or dead. I can't outrun them. I can't fight them. I can shoot them or shoot at them so I can get to the house, which offers some protection and more guns and ammo and await the police.

Why wouldn't any reasonable person choose to wear a sidearm when their safety and the safety of others might depend upon the use of it?

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeanne's post
06-06-2017, 05:52 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
There are exceptions, of course, but carrying a gun increases the danger to everybody, user or adjacent people, including children and infants. This is not a hard concept.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 05:54 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-06-2017 05:38 AM)Jeanne Wrote:  The over-riding reason the 2nd was included and the militia thought to be a necessary part of any nation was to do as the Declaration of Independence requires of its citizenry; to overthrow a government that is no longer adhering to the principles of a people seeking to govern themselves and to never again be under the foot of a Tyrant. It was not for hunting or for self-protection.

That's factually incorrect, as has already been pointed out.

The militia was specifically for the protection of the State against invasion or insurrection.
Quote:Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
emphasis added

Source: The Militia Act of 1792
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 05:57 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(06-06-2017 05:39 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  I personally can't get over how when you point out like "The UK and Australia have bans on guns, the latter after a huge massacre in the 90's....in the following time after that, they've had no massacres" yet you still get "yeah but if such and such had a gun".

Backwards if you ask me. Again, if you WANT a gun, and the means of getting one are a bit harder and not just popping down the shop to buy one on a whim when you need a loaf of bread, which would include limits on what you can have and why, then yeah why not. But to allow people to have almost any gun they like...for little to no reason, with super minimal checking being done as well. It's insane.

You will have to explain to me where in my country it is that easy to get an actual firearm. Excepting maybe .22s and pellet guns, background checks are required, sales must go through a licensed dealer, waiting periods, finger-printing, restrictions on cartridge size, restrictions on gun types, per month buying limit.

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeanne's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: