- Joined
- 03 Mar 19
- Moves
- 238
12 Aug 19
@chaney3 saidSomeone give definitive rationale, please, that I should not have a gun. We stipulate, of course, that bad guys have them. Stipulated also that my family, isolated on a farm outside town, would not have the benefit/comfort of gun protection. What is your convincing position given this scenario?
Without a militia, Americans have NO right to bear arms.
So, if you're in Texas with a shotgun, and NO militia, you've lost your right.
12 Aug 19
@chaney3 saidI wouldn't interpret it quite that way. I say that the militia stipulation is a reason given for a right. It's not that you lose your right if you're not in a militia but it makes it easier in the future to remove that right if the reason no longer applies.
Without a militia, Americans have NO right to bear arms.
So, if you're in Texas with a shotgun, and NO militia, you've lost your right.
That reason no longer applies
12 Aug 19
@livineasy4 saidThis whole discussion is baloney. Of course law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. That right has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Someone give definitive rationale, please, that I should not have a gun. We stipulate, of course, that bad guys have them. Stipulated also that my family, isolated on a farm outside town, would not have the benefit/comfort of gun protection. What is your convincing position given this scenario?
The conversation which should be engaged in is what limitations should be imposed on that right. I'm all for that. I don't know any "gun people," however, I do know people who own guns.
Radical solutions (martial law, confiscation of legally held weapons, etc.) are non-starters, and will never happen. That is one reason why we have laws, and rights.
12 Aug 19
@johnsim03 saidWhich in the end is why we are supposed to have guns.
This whole discussion is baloney. Of course law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms. That right has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The conversation which should be engaged in is what limitations should be imposed on that right. I'm all for that. I don't know any "gun people," however, I do know people who own guns.
Radical solutions (martial law, confiscat ...[text shortened]... ons, etc.) are non-starters, and will never happen. That is one reason why we have laws, and rights.
@livineasy4 saidFor those who watch too much TV, and too many movies, the answer is obvious.
Someone give definitive rationale, please, that I should not have a gun. We stipulate, of course, that bad guys have them. Stipulated also that my family, isolated on a farm outside town, would not have the benefit/comfort of gun protection. What is your convincing position given this scenario?
When confronted by a bad guy with a gun what you do is, you adopt a fake gung fu stance and let out a blood curdling scream.
The bad guy will be so terrified (and scared) he will drop his gun and high tail it out of town.
Then all of the pretty girls in town will jump on you and smother you with kisses and say "My hero!"
And then one of those gals will say, "No, he's MY hero!", then they'll all be shouting "No, he's mine!" and "I saw him first!" and before you know it they'll be dragging each other into the mud.
And if the guy is smart, he will high tail it outta town right behind the terrified bad guy.
The end
12 Aug 19
@lemon-lime said
For those who watch too much TV, and too many movies, the answer is obvious.
When confronted by a bad guy with a gun what you do is, you adopt a fake gung fu stance and let out a blood curdling scream.
The bad guy will be so terrified (and scared) he will drop his gun and high tail it out of town.
Then all of the pretty girls in town will jump on you and smother you wit ...[text shortened]... if the guy is smart, he will high tail it outta town right behind the terrified bad guy.
The end
A 21-year-old Norwegian man has appeared in court in Oslo, accused of a terrorist act in connection with a gun attack on a mosque at the weekend.
His face and neck marked by bruises and scratches, Philip Manshaus was also charged with attempted murder, as well as the murder of his stepsister.
He was remanded in custody for another four weeks, as prosecutors requested.
He smiled at photographers but said nothing, before the judge opened the case behind closed doors.
Mr Manshaus is accused of opening fire at the Al-Noor Islamic Centre in Baerum, west of the capital Oslo, on Saturday.
Shortly after the attack, the body of his 17-year-old stepsister was found at a house in Baerum.
There were three people inside the centre at the time of the attack and the gunman was overpowered before police arrived.
The mosque's director said the attacker had gone into the building wearing a helmet and body armour, carrying several weapons. Several shots were fired but no-one was seriously hurt in the mosque.
A 65-year-old retired Pakistani air force officer, Mohammad Rafiq, has been praised for seizing the attacker, pinning him down and taking his weapons from him.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49318001
@kazetnagorra saidI blame Trump.A 21-year-old Norwegian man has appeared in court in Oslo, accused of a terrorist act in connection with a gun attack on a mosque at the weekend.
His face and neck marked by bruises and scratches, Philip Manshaus was also charged with attempted murder, as well as the murder of his stepsister.
He was remanded in custody for another four weeks, as prosecutors ...[text shortened]... down and taking his weapons from him.[/b]
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49318001
@chaney3 saidJust read the SCOTUS Heller opinion for the refutation of your post.
No militia, no right.
https://casetext.com/case/dist-of-columbia-v-heller-3
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2788 – 2816.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2788 – 2799.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 2799 – 2803.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 2802 – 2804.
@livineasy4 saidYou might get depression and shoot yourself.
Someone give definitive rationale, please, that I should not have a gun.
You might accidentally shoot yourself.
You might get depression and shoot someone else.
You might accidentally shoot someone else.
Your child might play with your gun(s) and kill themselves or others.
You might shoot in anger.
You might shoot by mistake.
You might shoot a drunk inadvertently on your land.
An intruder might take your gun and shoot you.
A thief might steal your gun and sell it.
You might aim at bad guy and shoot good guy.
You might get shot by police assuming you are bad guy.
Maybe you are a bad guy.
Maybe you are so absolutely, totaly, friggin insane that you think it's OK to have a killing machine in your home.
Apart from that ... no, can't think of any reason ... go ahead ... get a gun.
BANG
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
13 Aug 19
1 edit
@livineasy4 saidThe definitive rationale is that guns shouldn't have been allowed to proliferate the way they have, putting your country in the precarious position of having half a billion in circulation. The reality is, bad guys do have ridiculously easy access to guns.
Someone give definitive rationale, please, that I should not have a gun. We stipulate, of course, that bad guys have them. Stipulated also that my family, isolated on a farm outside town, would not have the benefit/comfort of gun protection. What is your convincing position given this scenario?
The answer isn't to arm yourself, but to not live in isolation on a farm outside of town. If you do want to live with your family in isolation, emigrate.
13 Aug 19
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidFarmers live in relative isolation compared to town and city dwellers due to the fact they are farmers.
The definitive rationale is that guns shouldn't have been allowed to proliferate the way they have, putting your country in the precarious position of having half a billion in circulation. The reality is, bad guys do have ridiculously easy access to guns.
The answer isn't to arm yourself, but to not live in isolation on a farm outside of town. If you do want to live with your family in isolation, emigrate.
City dwellers don't need large tracts of land for growing crops and tending livestock. If they did they would not be city dwellers. They would be hermits, or farmers needing large tracts of land for growing crops and tending livestock. And being separated from other farmers by large tracts of land is why they are relatively isolated... unlike most city dwellers, who live well within yodeling range of one another.