...and see the homicide rate drop dramatically.
You don't think that is worthwhile?
US gun campaigner shot
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
You don't think that is worthwhile?
Sponsored Links
In England, Scotland and Wales self defence is not considered a valid reason for owning a gun.
You may have differing views as to why - and from whom - this is the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom
The U.S. disagrees.
You may have differing views as to why - and from whom - this is the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_policy_in_the_United_Kingdom
The U.S. disagrees.
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
Sponsored Links
What a stupid question.
You were the one who quoted:
"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."
By definition, an armed rebellion would not be allowed, per se, by a tyrannical government against whom the population may want to rebel.
The constitution says that a Well Ordered Militia is necessary and allowed.
I can understand that a new country without a large standing army, which had just been to war against a foreign power, and might later want to invade Canada or Mexico, might want a militia.
You are inventing the idea that the purpose of this militia was so that the members could mount an armed insurrection against the government, but for some reason this purpose was not mentioned in the constitution. Which is ridiculous.
What a stupid suggestion.
I can understand that a new country without a large standing army, which had just been to war against a foreign power, and might later want to invade Canada or Mexico, might want a militia.
You are inventing the idea that the purpose of this militia was so that the members could mount an armed insurrection against the government, but for some reason this purpose was not mentioned in the constitution. Which is ridiculous.
What a stupid suggestion.
Exactly. But the founding fathers did have the foresight - not surprisingly given that they had just had to resort to armed rebellion to escape from a tyrannical government - to include the second amendment to provide for the possibility of such armed rebellion in the future.
It also says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The amendments contained within the Bill of Rights are not saying what the people may or may not do. They are setting out things which the government is specifically not allowed to do, in order to protect certain basic rights of the people. The government is not allowed infringe the right of freedom of speech, it is not allowed to force a person to bear witness against himself, it is not allowed to impose excessive fines nor cruel and unusual punishments, and so on. And it is not allowed to infringe the right of the people to bear arms.
Did we ever see any evidence or explanation to support this strange claim?
I'm amazed at how many posters on here are supporters of the right to carry firearms.
Do they have the same mindset to carrying knives? Should we all still be wearing swords at our side??
Oh, wait a minute, they're all Brexiters.
Is there a correlation between being a Brexiter and wanting to carry firearms??
Well there certainly seems to be one on this forum.
I hope that we vote to remain in the EU!
I hope that the typical Brexiter that exists on here is not representative of the rest of the Brexiters.
If I was a Brexiter, I'd want to deny being amongst the typical wishful gun-toting type that visits this forum.
Do they have the same mindset to carrying knives? Should we all still be wearing swords at our side??
Oh, wait a minute, they're all Brexiters.
Is there a correlation between being a Brexiter and wanting to carry firearms??
Well there certainly seems to be one on this forum.
I hope that we vote to remain in the EU!
I hope that the typical Brexiter that exists on here is not representative of the rest of the Brexiters.
If I was a Brexiter, I'd want to deny being amongst the typical wishful gun-toting type that visits this forum.
Only if the government's "agents" still do.
And, really, correlating desire to Brexit with reasoning the US Constitution - Brexit must have got you really scared. And desperate.
B
Brigade77
I can tell you one of the most amazing things about gun ownership that I discovered.
When No'1 daughter started dating I started cleaning my guns on the kitchen table. She'd bring 'em home, or they'd call for her, & there I'd be stripping, cleaning & re-assembling.
We'd chat off hand about nothing in general while the missus hovered about with the sort of half smile on her face that bowled me over all those years ago.
Finally, at the wedding, (I have this on VHS) he stood up & thanked me for "always seeming to be cleaning your guns when I called for Alice, thank you for telling me just how special she is".
When No'1 daughter started dating I started cleaning my guns on the kitchen table. She'd bring 'em home, or they'd call for her, & there I'd be stripping, cleaning & re-assembling.
We'd chat off hand about nothing in general while the missus hovered about with the sort of half smile on her face that bowled me over all those years ago.
Finally, at the wedding, (I have this on VHS) he stood up & thanked me for "always seeming to be cleaning your guns when I called for Alice, thank you for telling me just how special she is".
I've always considered guns , or for that matter knives , axes , bows and to a slightly lesser degree swords to be simple tools just as is a hammer or spade. People have of course been murdered with the later two tools but there is little call to have them banned. It is the person who holds the tool that commits the crime and if there were no gun or knife or hammer then a chair leg or even bare hands would suffice.
As a bit of devilment when I hear the argument " we should have arms because criminals have arms " I like to respond as such. Taking "we" as say North Korea , arms as nuclear missiles , and criminals as the USA we end up with a very similar if not identical argument that the pro gun lobby cannot logically argue against.
As a bit of devilment when I hear the argument " we should have arms because criminals have arms " I like to respond as such. Taking "we" as say North Korea , arms as nuclear missiles , and criminals as the USA we end up with a very similar if not identical argument that the pro gun lobby cannot logically argue against.
Without doubt, the most stupid thing you have posted to date on this forum.
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 276
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
That couldn't have been an easy decision given there is so much to choose from
Sponsored Links