Any day now we should reach the critical mass of gun ownership by "law-abiding citizens" where we become safe

[WrestlingRasta]

I can never understand how regulations automatically equals "THEY ARE ELIMINATING OUR RIGHTS"

Every single right we have, rights much more directly relating to the right to live, are regulated.

For example: The AIR we breathe, has regulations.  The WATER we drink, has regulations.  The FOOD we eat, has regulations. 

I have not heard one.....single......lawmaker.......propose the elimination of the right to bear arms.  But, as has been mentioned above, having a straight forward conversation with nothing but facts.  

 

(Gun owner and life long conservative)

[Mike Parrish]

3 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I can never understand how regulations automatically equals "THEY ARE ELIMINATING OUR RIGHTS"

Every single right we have, rights much more directly relating to the right to live, are regulated.

For example: The AIR we breathe, has regulations.  The WATER we drink, has regulations.  The FOOD we eat, has regulations. 

I have not heard one.....single......lawmaker.......propose the elimination of the right to bear arms.  But, as has been mentioned above, having a straight forward conversation with nothing but facts.  

 

(Gun owner and life long conservative)

It’s the logical fallacy of the excluded middle. 
 

(Gun owner and life long liberal)

[El Luchador]

4 hours ago, WrestlingRasta said:

I can never understand how regulations automatically equals "THEY ARE ELIMINATING OUR RIGHTS"

Every single right we have, rights much more directly relating to the right to live, are regulated.

For example: The AIR we breathe, has regulations.  The WATER we drink, has regulations.  The FOOD we eat, has regulations. 

I have not heard one.....single......lawmaker.......propose the elimination of the right to bear arms.  But, as has been mentioned above, having a straight forward conversation with nothing but facts.  

 

(Gun owner and life long conservative)

They don't usually outright say it, but incrementally it's the goal. Obama directly said he didn't want to take guns away but when asked what country he would model US gun laws after he chose a country that took away everyone's guns. They follow the playbook of those who disarmed their citizens.  Same catch phrases same strategies. 

[mspart]

It all sounds great until it doesn't. 

Gun control - Now only criminals have the guns because they don't care about the law.   How many crimes have been committed by law abiding citizens?   None.   Oh, and here in Seattle, if you do a crime with a gun, they waive the gun charge.   Yep, that is correct.   You can illegally use a weapon and not pay a cost for it legally.   Like they want the bad guys to have guns and use them.   

Defund police.   Now crime is rampant in every big city in America. 

Don't prosecute - Now crime is rampant in every big city in America.  Criminals stay on the street even if arrested.

WA - Police cannot chase cars - Result is there are faster speeds on the roads and a rapid rise of car theft.  Oh, and the thieves are not apprehended or prosecuted so they stay on the street.  

I really just want these politicians to have their car stolen or something similar and the police can't do a thing for them.  I don't want them physically hurt, just bearing the brunt of their policies that others are living with everyday due to their indifference. 

These all sound good, until they don't.   And by then it is tough to put the genie back in the bottle. 

mspart

 

[Offthemat]

What a complete waste of time it is to argue the right to bear arms.  The founders new the controversy that would arise from well meaning naive to tyrannical elites.  They therefore ended the amendment, and discussion, with “shall not be infringed.”  A phrase understood by all.

[Plasmodium]

"Well regulated" is also well understood by all.

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

"Well regulated" is also well understood by all.

I’m not so sure. 

[El Luchador]

36 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

"Well regulated" is also well understood by all.

Specific to the militia, meaning well organized. There is no legitimate debate as to their intentions. 

Edited May 13, 2023 by El Luchador

[Offthemat]

44 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

"Well regulated" is also well understood by all.

Not even close. 

[El Luchador]

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

[El Luchador]

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

[El Luchador]

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

[El Luchador]

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

[El Luchador]

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

[El Luchador]

Not even debatable what they intended  

[Plasmodium]

29 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

Obviously doesn't apply to this society.

[Plasmodium]

29 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

He would understand the former and the latter.

[Plasmodium]

27 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Not even debatable what they intended  

As recent history demonstrates, one packed court from an entirely different definition of reality.

[El Luchador]

58 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

As recent history demonstrates, one packed court from an entirely different definition of reality.

The coury is supposed to apply the constitution as written  and intended. The intent is clear,  anything else is judicial activism. 

[Le duke]

The coury is supposed to apply the constitution as written  and intended. The intent is clear,  anything else is judicial activism. 

Let’s take this to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Nuclear weapons would meet the definition of “arms”, as written. Should wealthy individuals be allowed to purchase and own them to prevent government intrusion upon private citizens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offthemat]

35 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Let’s take this to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Nuclear weapons would meet the definition of “arms”, as written. Should wealthy individuals be allowed to purchase and own them to prevent government intrusion upon private citizens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you meet the criteria they’ll install it for you. 

[El Luchador]

42 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Let’s take this to its logical, absurd conclusion.

Nuclear weapons would meet the definition of “arms”, as written. Should wealthy individuals be allowed to purchase and own them to prevent government intrusion upon private citizens?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is a nuke a bearable weapon? 

[Le duke]

Is a nuke a bearable weapon? 

Given that a nuclear recoilless round was developed in the early 1960s, and it weighed ~100lbs, yeah, I’d say so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Luchador]

Are they available?  Let's be realistic.  BTW a 40 Oz gun is way to heavy to carry,  so I don't think a 100 lb weapon is going to take over the market place.  Most countries don't have nukes, and I doubt they would be affordable.

[Bigbrog]

50 minutes ago, Le duke said:

Given that a nuclear recoilless round was developed in the early 1960s, and it weighed ~100lbs, yeah, I’d say so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

seriously....you really believe this??  Come on....