Science Right-to-carry laws make us less safe

You said before that they all need to be at the library. Now they don't have a choice but to be gang bangers. Got it

 

Yahoo!! Good to know. We don't need law enforcement OR a military. So when do I see a huge reduction in taxes so I can afford to thoroughly arm myself??????

 

You know what they say....when the seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

8 to 14 minutes, if you live in England.

 

So....you still don't have a library card? ....you keep bringing this up...just be aware that no handguns are allowed at the library

 

You take them away? They will be had other ways and likely used for violence. See Chicago.

You keep the laws in place? Some really dumb people will kill theirselves or someone else being a dumbass OR will be used for violence. See suicide, showing off, Or James Hodgkinson.
However in the reality of gun ownership this is very rare.

It's our right as Americans to have firearms, end of story. There is no perfect answer to solve violence... I guess you could say it's PART AND PARCEL of living in a country with legal gun ownership.

 

I just wish you'd be consistent on your inner city violence opinion. On one hand every kid there should go to the library because their schools are like this concert. Now, due to their environment they have no choice but to go to these types of concerts.

If all of the teen gangbangers go to the library I'm sure they'll turn in their guns.

This lack of logic deserves sarcasm in every way.

 

River, my man, you would not ask these questions if you knew how to present yourself as being armed, regardless of whether you are or not.
I don't want to school you about this, it is not my job I seriously doubt you want to know.

 

People don't understand that, which is why, for me, it's so utterly frustrating to discuss this topic with someone like riverman or UncleCliffy. They don't understand that criminals using Rights against us is the price we pay for Freedoms in this country.

And it's hardly limited to guns. Criminals have abused Freedom of Speech, Religious Freedoms, and many others. Yet people think that if you limit that to a select portion of the population, or ban them outright, then somehow we as a society win.

Wrong! When we limit or restrict freedoms because of criminals, nobody wins. And especially not Freedom itself.

This.

 

I'm still trying to understand how the part of the 2nd Amendment that states citizens have the right to bear arms as part of "a well regulated militia" translates to unfettered (or limited restriction) gun ownership if you are not part of the aforementioned well regulated militia. But I'm sure it will be "interpreted" for me. The NRA has all the answers......

 

I think Mr. Patrick Henry said it best... "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Even if that was used in an entirely different context lol

 

The vast majority of NRA members are responsible gun owners so I don't know why you're going after them?

 

That would be foolish, don't you think? However, the police are not responsible for protecting you. Ask! They may, when they can.

 

The "Well-Regulated-Militia" portion of the 2nd Amendment was very clear 200 years ago: it meant a functioning and well-kept militia. The "militia" at the time consisted of us, the citizens of the US. It said nothing about the State or the Federal Government. It was speaking to US the individual citizens. And it simply meant that you were to keep yourself and your firearm functioning at all times to be ready to defend your hearth and homeland if necessary.

It said NOTHING about the militia being the standing army, and thus, it was not for the Federal Government or the State to regulate the militia.

Correct! The Supreme Court has already found in the favor that the Police are not responsible for your safety; IE: they do not have a "Constitutional Duty to protect the Citizens of the United States."

 

I was robbed in Denver a block from my apartment in the 70s with 2 bags of groceries in my arms....3 kids with handguns to my head...staying calm saved my life....not a handgun. Most of the circumstances where gun violence occurs...being armed would not change a thing. Drive by shootings...etc...even cops who are armed get shot....my whole point is that carrying guns doesn't stop gun violence. I'm 63 and have never felt the need to carry a weapon around at all...and I've owned weapons...my father had 12 guns...his handguns stayed in his locker ...everybody had guns but nobody felt any need to carry them around in public at all...some folks just need to make this some kind of liberal angst but that's really not the conversation we should be having

 

I agree with the law abiding part wholeheartedly. So why are they opposing those laws??? And it is the NRA (as an organization) who fights every attempt to tighten restrictions, regardless of their intent. They spend millions and millions of dollars to keep their "rights" from being "infringed". I know gun owners (and NRA members) who have no problems with the restrictions, if for no other reason than they are law abiding. From everything I've seen and read, the NRA doesn't even want to be part of the conversation except as an opponent.

 

Anecdote, but being more aware of your surroundings is more useful than a gun.

One cop got shot at a gas pump a while back. I'm always watching the cars and the people around me when I get gas. He may have still shot me but I'd have seen it coming. Guaranteed.

 

What was clear 200 years ago is utterly murky (if not absolutely irrelevant) in the 21st century......I'm sorry you're still living in the 18th century.

 

Because they don't want more red tape and bureaucrats getting involved in gun ownership, I mean people fight for less restrictions for lots of things. For example I am a pro-marijuana advocate and I believe more states and the federal government should legalize it, why restrict our freedom?

 

I will give it a go, even though I am not an NRA member. Not much of a joiner.

There is a long standing concept of the right of man to defend himself, with the force of arms if necessary. This was put in print in the Law of Nations which was an influential source on the founders. You have heard about, I am sure, how the founder delayed the subjects of rights in the Constitution. But they took this subject up right after completing the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights.
The 2nd Amendemt, one of these first 10. Madison included it here from the concept that, Men have the right to defend themselves with the force of arms. Well I am sure you are familiar with the legislative process and the word smithing that goes on, perhaps by folks that do not want the Right to be a right at all. So we have the language as it stands, it passed and is the law. Modifiable of course by another amendment.

 

That worked for YOU. It doesn't work for everyone. And if you doubt that, go read about the Carr brothers.

That is false, because it does not take each individual incident into account. Yes, there are SOME times where cooperating MIGHT work.

But....do you want to trust your life to a criminal and a "maybe"? I don't.

Nobody here is suggesting that it does. You certainly won't hear any argument from me about that! What I am arguing is that I don't trust the government enough on this issue when they tell me "you don't need a gun". They have fucked too many things up in this country for me to have any faith in them when it comes to the issue of firearm ownership.

You were confused about the "regulated" part, and I explained it. Just because YOU don't agree with it, doesn't make it any less relevant in the 21st Century.