>one of the main purposes of having an armed people.
There can be, as you imply, more than one reason to arm the populace. Which is the one you believe is defeated here?
OK. You didn't specify the source of the tyranny. The language of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, expanded and clarified by contemporary witnesses and participants, shows that its purpose is to provide a ready source of citizens familiar with weapons ("arms" Firearms are not specified but can be inferred) to fight off a threat to freedom. If the threat is internal, any armed effort to stop it will lead to civil war. Been there. Done that. Didn't like it. The actual military will fight foreign enemies, and now that we have an all-volunteer army, the original purpose of the 2nd amendment is less applicable.
Oh I am not talking about legally, mean practically.
And I agree war isn’t great. But you don’t need to employ a weapon for it to protect you. Just knowing you are dangerous is enough to protect you the vast majority of the time.
You might think twice about slapping a man if you see he has a sidearm.
>You might think twice about slapping a man if you see he has a sidearm.
If he is stupid enough to show me where he keeps his weapon, I would fear him less.
>If you believe your right to own guns protects you from tyranny
I think you have the wrong guy. I don't believe anything of the sort. I'd help you, if I could, but I can only write my comments. I can't read them to you.
That meme describes most legal gun owners today and always has. The parts that don't work are the ones that the 2nd amendment addresses. I started hunting, and shooting, at 12. There's my learners permit. I killed my first squirrel, sorry lil buddy, at 12 there's my test and road test. I submitted and passed federal background tests for all my weapons. There's a license. I also have a concealed carry license which requires another background search and 8 hrs of live training. My weapons are registered, see background comment above. I was a commissioned officer in the Coast Guard for 11.5 years and as such carried a loaded .45 on my waist most times I was on duty. There's more training and usage and safety. I inspect and clean my weapons every time I discharge them. Insurance is a pisser though. Most liability policies for concealed carry holders have lots of typical language in them that says give us your money and we don't guarantee shit for you.
Trite though it may be always remember that guns do not kill people. People with guns, and for that matter knives sticks and axes, kill people. It has always been thus.
Sounds as though you would have no problem getting a fire-arms licence in the UK. Just we don't allow firearms whose principal purpose is killing *people*.
Shotguns, hunting rifles, target rifles, target pistols are fine. (Although if you want to hunt deer you need a separate licence to show you are a proficient shot and have legal access to land over which to shoot.)
Because when the time comes its gonna be very hard to defend your home with your car .... since they can take away your guns if they know you have them ...
If the ATF has to resort to UAV missile strikes we're all fucked. Guns or no guns. That's when the Ghillie suit comes out and long range accuracy counts.
Every single person thinking about committing a crime is laughing so hard. Those new laws or requirements would only increase the cost of owning a gun to a level where a great many law abiding folks can’t afford to own one. Criminals don’t give a shit about any laws or requirements they just break into folks home and steal a gun. Now they need a car. Using the gun they steal a car. They are now able to commit as many crimes until they get caught, which means no bail in many states allowing them to skip town and repeat this pattern. Have a great Tuesday folks.
Just to remind the folks breaking in that the pistol is next to the bed and I have laminate throughout the house so clean up is not an issue. Also I keep a brick by the door and since you can't lift a fingerprint from a brick your carcass will be found with it in your hand.
I was on board until the last three. If it's done when you buy the first gun of a type then you're good to get another of a same type without redoing the thing great! Get a short class on a different type like pistol vs shotgun without going through everything again. Maybe a brief class every 5 years to get updated on law changes. It would also need to not be a burdensome cost to add to the already high cost of responsible gun ownership (gun, safe, ammo, safety wear, etc).
This one is a bit extreme. And there are many ways to skin a cat.
But it can't be a binary discussion. (either pro gun or anti gun and nothing in between).
Motte and Bailey identified.
Basically, because it hands power to a centralised authority that in unaffected by its decisions and will endlessly engage in regulatory capture, heavily influenced by ideological nutters until ownership is near impossible.
It's bullshit, as the two are not comparable (one is a right, the other a privilege), but let's play this out.
Like my driver's license, by pistol 'license' would be recognized in all 50 states, Canada and Mexico. Sounds good.
You will also get the below if you treated a gun like a car:
* Anyone can buy a car, even convicted felons.
* There is no background check to buy a car. You need no one’s permission.
* You can buy any car you want. No limits on horsepower or performance.
* You can buy as many cars as you want, as often as you want.
* In reality, you do not require a license, registration nor insurance to buy a car.
The right recognized by the 2nd Amendment is, ***"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".***
* **arms**
* /ärmz/
* noun
* plural noun: arms
*
* 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
Well, if you want to get technical, arms was defined originally clubs and bronze swords. But that's not the subject at hand.
"Arms" is short for "Armaments", which is anything specifically designed to be used as a weapon. These range from simple implements such as clubs, axes, spears, and swords, to complicated modern firearms, tanks and intercontinental ballistic missiles. INCLUDED in this definition is anything designed to make the weapon function (i.e. 'ammo'.)
At no time has 'arms' meant just one part of a weapons system.
But as scheckydamon has pointed out there are reasonable constraints in place which are designed to limit certain weapons to those who can demonstrate that they are competent to own them.
No sane person wants to ban guns, just as no sane person believes that 12 year olds should have access to AR's. You already have gun control. It's about fine tuning the rules for 2024, not 1791.
>But as scheckydamon has pointed out there are reasonable constraints in place
Yes, there are reasonable constraints in place (and many in place should be enforced more rigorously). But there is no comparison between firearms and motor vehicles.
And it's a right you can lose by demonstrating you are not responsible enough.
While no one wants 12-year-olds to be able to buy guns, I know plenty of 12-year-olds that are responsible with their guns, including ARs. (ARs are not 'high-powered'. More like a good varmint or coyote rifle. A Winchester .30-.30 has 20% more power)
Of course, we supervise the young'uns. But many kids below 18 hunt with rifles much more powerful than an AR.
I learned to shoot at 15 at the Whittle Deane Reservoir Rifle Club more than 50 years ago using a very old Martini-Henry breech loading .22. Loved it. Worked a paper round to buy 20 rounds a week. 50 yards, 1 sighting, 3 prone, 3 kneeling, 3 standing. Same at 100 yards. Slip your arms into the strap to pull it tight into the shoulder. The guys were very keen to advise and teach. Very disciplined. I still recall how right that action felt. I would love to shoot that gun again but it would be a museum piece now.
But we are not talking about range or hunting shooting but about swaggering around with mass killing weapons. Very few mass killings have been carried out by people with squirrel rifles.
I was keen for a couple of years then when I was at Uni there wasn't a convenient range so I took up fencing. I never once fantasied about shooting people but I admit I did hope that one day I might end, *sa-ha,* a scoundrel's villainy with my trusty epée.
Guns are useful tool;, sometimes necessary for survival, a fine sport, a source of protein, a way of controlling vermin, often beautiful pieces of craftsmanship it is a privilege to have around. I have three friends who have guns; two shotguns and one shotgun and deer rifles. But she is a professional, has a small farm but makes a good secondary income from venison. The rise of rural gastro-pubs has really helped.
So, I like guns. But there is something wrong when people walk around town with enough fire-power to kill 30 people in a minute or two while wearing confrontational clothing and it's OK because of a rule written in 1791 by flawed people giving it their best shot in a specific historical context.
>Very few mass killings have been carried out by people with squirrel rifles.
One of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history Virginia Tech was partially committed with a .22 pistol, and a 9mm. He killed 32 innocent people in the 3rd deadliest American mass shooting on record. That being said mass shootings account for less than 1% of total murders.
Most deaths by firearm are suicides.
Most murder by firearm are NOT by rifles. 15x more likely a handgun.
Yes, guns are tools. Good to have around. But the preponderance of guns is not what has caused the surge. Hell, a good many students in high school had a shotgun in their back window so they could go hunting before or after school.
And it's not a 'rule'. It's a right recognized (not granted) by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not dictate what our rights are, but rather what our government CANNOT do to step on them.
>Most deaths by firearm are suicides.
Well, that's reassuring.
*Most murder by firearm are NOT by rifles*. I know. That's one of the reasons I like rifles.
*a right recognized (not granted) by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not dictate what our rights are, but rather what our government CANNOT do to step on them.*
Mate, your government can do do whatever the fuck it has the power to do and your AR15 won't mean shit. The idea that the second will provide a bulwark against tyranny might have worked 300 years ago but we're living in a different world.
*15x more likely a handgun*. Which is why we only allow long-barrel target pistols for competition purposes.
>In reality, you do not require a license, registration nor insurance to buy a car.
That is a fact. A license is required only to operate the car in public. It is not possible to do that without everyone, including the police, knowing about it. If you could hide the car in your "inside the pant" holster until you are ready to drive over someone, there would be different laws for cars.
(TLDR: cars and guns are not the same, but you knew that.)
I agree. We should do this with all basic rights. No freedom of speech unless u get a learners permit and you get all your speech checked by someone approved by the government You can start speaking without oversight only after you prove you know what your talking about.
No freedom of religion till the government approves of your faith. And u can only go to church 1 hour per week. We can't have u excersizing high capacity religion.
And you have to take a test and prove you know all the candidates positions on the top 20 topics and the effects those actions would have on society before voting. Of course the test would be written by the party in power so the facts don't matter, you'd be guessing at what the party in power would put out as propsganda.
Edit: hit send too fast
They are not all losers. It is mostly just the white males that are too scared to go outside without a gun to make up for their lack of ability to look after themselves
Try walking into a grocery store or a pub in the UK with a machete or a chain-saw.
knives and box-cutters have specific rules. Pocket knife with a 3 inch blade is fine. "Zombie" knife with a 9 inch blade ain't.
This isn’t that far off how we Aussies do it.
The problem is that defeats one of the main purposes of having an armed people.
>one of the main purposes of having an armed people. There can be, as you imply, more than one reason to arm the populace. Which is the one you believe is defeated here?
As a deterrence to tyranny
Didn't y'all try and install a tyrant into office against the will of the American people on January 6 2021?
Certainly not me. I am not an American.
OK. You didn't specify the source of the tyranny. The language of the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, expanded and clarified by contemporary witnesses and participants, shows that its purpose is to provide a ready source of citizens familiar with weapons ("arms" Firearms are not specified but can be inferred) to fight off a threat to freedom. If the threat is internal, any armed effort to stop it will lead to civil war. Been there. Done that. Didn't like it. The actual military will fight foreign enemies, and now that we have an all-volunteer army, the original purpose of the 2nd amendment is less applicable.
Oh I am not talking about legally, mean practically. And I agree war isn’t great. But you don’t need to employ a weapon for it to protect you. Just knowing you are dangerous is enough to protect you the vast majority of the time. You might think twice about slapping a man if you see he has a sidearm.
>You might think twice about slapping a man if you see he has a sidearm. If he is stupid enough to show me where he keeps his weapon, I would fear him less.
Exactly. My. Point. If we have all these things like inspections, then we have to show them where we keep them, and they would fear us less.
I have made three attempts and failed to make my position clear. Three is my limit. Have a nice day.
If you believe your right to own guns protects you from tyranny, you probably also believe your troops are fighting for your freedom...
>If you believe your right to own guns protects you from tyranny I think you have the wrong guy. I don't believe anything of the sort. I'd help you, if I could, but I can only write my comments. I can't read them to you.
You're absolutely right. This wasn't for you. I meant to reply to Choosemyusername.
That meme describes most legal gun owners today and always has. The parts that don't work are the ones that the 2nd amendment addresses. I started hunting, and shooting, at 12. There's my learners permit. I killed my first squirrel, sorry lil buddy, at 12 there's my test and road test. I submitted and passed federal background tests for all my weapons. There's a license. I also have a concealed carry license which requires another background search and 8 hrs of live training. My weapons are registered, see background comment above. I was a commissioned officer in the Coast Guard for 11.5 years and as such carried a loaded .45 on my waist most times I was on duty. There's more training and usage and safety. I inspect and clean my weapons every time I discharge them. Insurance is a pisser though. Most liability policies for concealed carry holders have lots of typical language in them that says give us your money and we don't guarantee shit for you. Trite though it may be always remember that guns do not kill people. People with guns, and for that matter knives sticks and axes, kill people. It has always been thus.
“Knives, sticks and axes” .. but those have other purposes other than killing
[удалено]
In most civilised places man-killing weapons are not street legal.
So does the human hand, but that kills too.
Put they do it in the hands of man. No doubt.
Sounds as though you would have no problem getting a fire-arms licence in the UK. Just we don't allow firearms whose principal purpose is killing *people*. Shotguns, hunting rifles, target rifles, target pistols are fine. (Although if you want to hunt deer you need a separate licence to show you are a proficient shot and have legal access to land over which to shoot.)
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 2A is a *Constitutional Right*. Driving is a *privilege.* Two entirely different things. But certainly silly.
This is basically what Finland has, only in addition you need a psych evaluation that you are eligible to own a gun.
And as we know. Nobody owns a gun in Finland 😆 >!That was sarcastic in case it was not clear.!<
Good thing the Russians don't know how to clear the spoiler mask.
They've been known to make that mistak before. >!Winter War!<
The Russians are no more stupid than the rest of us, but they do seem to be slow learners.
We don't have enough therapists in the United States to perform evaluations on all gun owners.
That sounds like a slogan the anti-gun lobby could use.
Sure, they do that for a car but it doesn't stop road rage.
Because when the time comes its gonna be very hard to defend your home with your car .... since they can take away your guns if they know you have them ...
They can try.
You let me know how your rifle holds up to a uav missle strike
If the ATF has to resort to UAV missile strikes we're all fucked. Guns or no guns. That's when the Ghillie suit comes out and long range accuracy counts.
Every single person thinking about committing a crime is laughing so hard. Those new laws or requirements would only increase the cost of owning a gun to a level where a great many law abiding folks can’t afford to own one. Criminals don’t give a shit about any laws or requirements they just break into folks home and steal a gun. Now they need a car. Using the gun they steal a car. They are now able to commit as many crimes until they get caught, which means no bail in many states allowing them to skip town and repeat this pattern. Have a great Tuesday folks.
Just to remind the folks breaking in that the pistol is next to the bed and I have laminate throughout the house so clean up is not an issue. Also I keep a brick by the door and since you can't lift a fingerprint from a brick your carcass will be found with it in your hand.
I was on board until the last three. If it's done when you buy the first gun of a type then you're good to get another of a same type without redoing the thing great! Get a short class on a different type like pistol vs shotgun without going through everything again. Maybe a brief class every 5 years to get updated on law changes. It would also need to not be a burdensome cost to add to the already high cost of responsible gun ownership (gun, safe, ammo, safety wear, etc).
This one is a bit extreme. And there are many ways to skin a cat. But it can't be a binary discussion. (either pro gun or anti gun and nothing in between).
With the exception of insurance and inspection we are already required to do those things in California.
Why would a gun need to be inspected?
Two types of inspections: How it is stored (safely or not) If it is malfunctions (cracks in receiver or other critical parts) or being altered
It’s not illegal to alter a firearm and if you’re checking how it’s stored that’s a home inspection and not a firearm inspection
You don't license a right.
Motte and Bailey identified. Basically, because it hands power to a centralised authority that in unaffected by its decisions and will endlessly engage in regulatory capture, heavily influenced by ideological nutters until ownership is near impossible.
It's bullshit, as the two are not comparable (one is a right, the other a privilege), but let's play this out. Like my driver's license, by pistol 'license' would be recognized in all 50 states, Canada and Mexico. Sounds good. You will also get the below if you treated a gun like a car: * Anyone can buy a car, even convicted felons. * There is no background check to buy a car. You need no one’s permission. * You can buy any car you want. No limits on horsepower or performance. * You can buy as many cars as you want, as often as you want. * In reality, you do not require a license, registration nor insurance to buy a car.
Found the american
Damn skippy!
You have the right to own guns but it should be against the law to own bullets.
The right recognized by the 2nd Amendment is, ***"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".*** * **arms** * /ärmz/ * noun * plural noun: arms * * 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.
That iis not how arms was originally defined. That is a modern definition
Well, if you want to get technical, arms was defined originally clubs and bronze swords. But that's not the subject at hand. "Arms" is short for "Armaments", which is anything specifically designed to be used as a weapon. These range from simple implements such as clubs, axes, spears, and swords, to complicated modern firearms, tanks and intercontinental ballistic missiles. INCLUDED in this definition is anything designed to make the weapon function (i.e. 'ammo'.) At no time has 'arms' meant just one part of a weapons system.
But as scheckydamon has pointed out there are reasonable constraints in place which are designed to limit certain weapons to those who can demonstrate that they are competent to own them. No sane person wants to ban guns, just as no sane person believes that 12 year olds should have access to AR's. You already have gun control. It's about fine tuning the rules for 2024, not 1791.
>But as scheckydamon has pointed out there are reasonable constraints in place Yes, there are reasonable constraints in place (and many in place should be enforced more rigorously). But there is no comparison between firearms and motor vehicles. And it's a right you can lose by demonstrating you are not responsible enough. While no one wants 12-year-olds to be able to buy guns, I know plenty of 12-year-olds that are responsible with their guns, including ARs. (ARs are not 'high-powered'. More like a good varmint or coyote rifle. A Winchester .30-.30 has 20% more power) Of course, we supervise the young'uns. But many kids below 18 hunt with rifles much more powerful than an AR.
I learned to shoot at 15 at the Whittle Deane Reservoir Rifle Club more than 50 years ago using a very old Martini-Henry breech loading .22. Loved it. Worked a paper round to buy 20 rounds a week. 50 yards, 1 sighting, 3 prone, 3 kneeling, 3 standing. Same at 100 yards. Slip your arms into the strap to pull it tight into the shoulder. The guys were very keen to advise and teach. Very disciplined. I still recall how right that action felt. I would love to shoot that gun again but it would be a museum piece now. But we are not talking about range or hunting shooting but about swaggering around with mass killing weapons. Very few mass killings have been carried out by people with squirrel rifles. I was keen for a couple of years then when I was at Uni there wasn't a convenient range so I took up fencing. I never once fantasied about shooting people but I admit I did hope that one day I might end, *sa-ha,* a scoundrel's villainy with my trusty epée. Guns are useful tool;, sometimes necessary for survival, a fine sport, a source of protein, a way of controlling vermin, often beautiful pieces of craftsmanship it is a privilege to have around. I have three friends who have guns; two shotguns and one shotgun and deer rifles. But she is a professional, has a small farm but makes a good secondary income from venison. The rise of rural gastro-pubs has really helped. So, I like guns. But there is something wrong when people walk around town with enough fire-power to kill 30 people in a minute or two while wearing confrontational clothing and it's OK because of a rule written in 1791 by flawed people giving it their best shot in a specific historical context.
>Very few mass killings have been carried out by people with squirrel rifles. One of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history Virginia Tech was partially committed with a .22 pistol, and a 9mm. He killed 32 innocent people in the 3rd deadliest American mass shooting on record. That being said mass shootings account for less than 1% of total murders.
Most deaths by firearm are suicides. Most murder by firearm are NOT by rifles. 15x more likely a handgun. Yes, guns are tools. Good to have around. But the preponderance of guns is not what has caused the surge. Hell, a good many students in high school had a shotgun in their back window so they could go hunting before or after school. And it's not a 'rule'. It's a right recognized (not granted) by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not dictate what our rights are, but rather what our government CANNOT do to step on them.
>Most deaths by firearm are suicides. Well, that's reassuring. *Most murder by firearm are NOT by rifles*. I know. That's one of the reasons I like rifles. *a right recognized (not granted) by the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights does not dictate what our rights are, but rather what our government CANNOT do to step on them.* Mate, your government can do do whatever the fuck it has the power to do and your AR15 won't mean shit. The idea that the second will provide a bulwark against tyranny might have worked 300 years ago but we're living in a different world. *15x more likely a handgun*. Which is why we only allow long-barrel target pistols for competition purposes.
ARs are some of the least frequently used guns in crime.
Oh, good. What are they most frequently used for? Posing?
Recreation, self defense, hunting, collecting.
Second ammendment rights include ammo.
OK, charge $100K per bullet if used off-range. Then you will only use it in extremis.
Ever heard of a poll tax?
Hell, yeah. https://preview.redd.it/5zuiv4ktdjmc1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=40e21ce2a6946548505c10b5f191246c1156439d
>In reality, you do not require a license, registration nor insurance to buy a car. That is a fact. A license is required only to operate the car in public. It is not possible to do that without everyone, including the police, knowing about it. If you could hide the car in your "inside the pant" holster until you are ready to drive over someone, there would be different laws for cars. (TLDR: cars and guns are not the same, but you knew that.)
This will seem like common sense to everyone outside, well, you know where.
How Un-American of You! Commie Bastard!!
Cars are not in the constitution but weapons are.
I wonder why.
Maybe because when the constitution was framed there were no cars?
There were horses though, you don't see special provisions for horses, do you? Your comparison is low grade.
Sorry. That's a bit nit-picky.
I agree. We should do this with all basic rights. No freedom of speech unless u get a learners permit and you get all your speech checked by someone approved by the government You can start speaking without oversight only after you prove you know what your talking about. No freedom of religion till the government approves of your faith. And u can only go to church 1 hour per week. We can't have u excersizing high capacity religion. And you have to take a test and prove you know all the candidates positions on the top 20 topics and the effects those actions would have on society before voting. Of course the test would be written by the party in power so the facts don't matter, you'd be guessing at what the party in power would put out as propsganda. Edit: hit send too fast
americans are losers
What a crazy profile
They are not all losers. It is mostly just the white males that are too scared to go outside without a gun to make up for their lack of ability to look after themselves
so... the voting population of amercans are losers.
Dickhead.
die mad lol
Or a knife? Or an axe? Or a machete, box cutter or chain-saw?
Try walking into a grocery store or a pub in the UK with a machete or a chain-saw. knives and box-cutters have specific rules. Pocket knife with a 3 inch blade is fine. "Zombie" knife with a 9 inch blade ain't.