Skip to main content
Update
The boards are getting a new home!

We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.

Saturday, September 24th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 10
“[My family] never took photos with their guns. They came from an older world, before guns became props in a culture war with real casualties, when they were still needful tools in a wild country. I remember the way they treated their guns, and their universe seems so distant from the one we live in now. My dad used to say: ‘This isn’t for play; this isn’t a toy.’ But what else do you call something that you put into the hands of a little child at Christmas?”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/boebert-ma...

(about the Boebert and Massie photos)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How much fear do Bobert, Massie, and others of their ilk feel? Who do they think cares about them enough to attack them physically? Can fear cause psychopathology?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok, but to me this is a personal choice.

Some families do enjoy gun ownership and hunting or target shooting as a hobby. That's fine with me as long as they use good judgement in their choices of what to shoot.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Massie's weapon in his Christmas photo looks a lot like the M-60 machine guns I was responsible for 56 years ago...

I wonder what his "good judgement" of what to shoot might look like.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
How much fear do Bobert, Massie, and others of their ilk feel?

It isn't fear. It is a lack of confidence and self-identity that they try to fill with machismo virtue-signalling. 'Same way an inner-city gang member might pose with a weapon or a rapper might sing about their "AK."


Bless their hearts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Real guns for kids, no

60 years ago, kids played with cap guns, played cowboys and Indians, had BB guns......routine.

Folks drove around with hunting rifles and shotguns in the rear window of their pickup trucks over most of the midwest, west.......

times were different.

As a kid, my day would take me high power rifle target shooting. They were always locked up between use.

The elementary school where I went had a rifle range UNDER the school. The Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts would use it for earning Merit badges and NRA certification for levels of marksmanship. Guns always locked up or controlled by adults. 22 shorts. one shot target rifles.

Times are different. No one back then thought about shooting anyone. No car jackings. Almost zero robberies with guns, no home invasions. No loosey goosey no bail governments either. Heck, the guy who set the 50 foot xmas tree in NYC got arrested and out in 24 hours with NO BAIL! How do you expect to end crime this century? Kill six people, if it's your first offense, no bail and back out on the street in 24 hours. Duh! Second offense, maybe $100 bail. Guy who set the 100,000 acre fire that caused a billion dollars damange in CA caught and likely out on ZERO bail there. What can you say? Catch and release. Repeat crime, catch and release. 23 page rap sheet and still doing car jackings

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Massie's weapon in his Christmas photo looks a lot like the M-60 machine guns I was responsible for 56 years ago...

I wonder what his "good judgement" of what to shoot might look like.


In Missouri a previous governor ran campaign videos of himself firing a machine gun. Needless to say that appeals to the "They're trying to take out guns away," segment and the NRA.

It is no surprise the NRA can get the Missouri State Legislature to enact anything they can dream up. Now we are into protecting criminals, per 60 Minutes.

There has to be a way to keep guns out of the wrong hands while allowing law abiding citizens to do their thing.

You wonder if the M-60 machine gun is real (and licensed as required) or a movie prop.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 24
"Ok, but to me this is a personal choice.

Some families do enjoy gun ownership and hunting or target shooting as a hobby. That's fine with me as long as they use good judgement in their choices of what to shoot."
-------------------------------

pauleckler, I've read many of your posts over the years, have always thought that you were a sane,
rational,intelligent person.

In what world is it a "personal choice" to take an American Taliban Christmas Card photo ?? You find nothing obscene or absurd about those photos ?? You're good with that ??

I own guns, would never in a million years use them as a prop in Christmas photos.
Would never hand one over to a child as a prop for a photo. Don't give a rip if the weapon
is loaded or not, letting a kid think it's just a toy/prop is incredibly immature.

But hey, the NRA loves it. Let's sacrifice some more youngsters in the NRA/American quest for
a gun in every American's hand.

Unreal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
American Taliban is news to me. Its merely gun owners shoeing their guns.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 15
There has to be a way to keep guns out of the wrong hands while allowing law abiding citizens to do their thing.

Why? What important principle of our government requires this to be true? Why would the mere ownership of guns by ill-informed, frightened old white pharts be so important that we choose to sacrifice our children's safety and leaving them with feelings of fear and insecurity in the classroom?

Sometimes you need to re-think and re-order your priorities. In this case, the technical advances in guns and ammunition as well as the political situation in the world has changed so dramatically since the bill-of-rights. In addition, the percentage of citizens who actually hunt or need a gun for other reasons has declined so much since the bill-of-rights was drafted. It is way past time to re-evaluate and re-prioritize what rights are needed vs what rights are counter-productive to a modern America.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
But hey, the NRA loves it. Let's sacrifice some more youngsters in the NRA/American quest for
a gun in every American's hand.


Yes. Let's all take a minute to recognize those children who risk their lives every day so that ill-informed old white pharts can cling to their weapons.

Thoughts and prayers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The "let's take their guns" community is welcome to their opinion. Opposition is strong.

A compromise with law abiding gun owners has a better shot at becoming law.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Opposition is strong.

No doubt. It will be very difficult and time consuming to adjust American thinking to re-prioritize their love of guns. And Americans . . . especially Democrats . . . just don't take on difficult tasks anymore. If it is difficult, we simply let wealthy Republicans rule and then whine about it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nessie:"Sometimes you need to re-think and re-order your priorities. In this case, the technical advances in guns and ammunition as well as the political situation in the world has changed so dramatically since the bill-of-rights."

Actually, no. Guns were just as deadly in the right hands back then. Self defense was just as important as it is today.

Just as your other 'rights' guaranteed in the Bill of Rights haven't changed just because you have the internet and news web sites and TV news stations from back then when there were only printing presses.......and still have juries.....and rights of silence when arrested ...and don't house soldiers in your house, etc, etc... they haven't changed a bit today.

The colonists had 'state of the art' weapons equal to their enemies. They had pistols useful for self defense. Those that lived in cities didn't go out to hunt but went to the butcher shop for meat.

Half the millennials in the country probably think that meat and poultry comes shrink wrapped from some 'meat factory' somewhere........and never associate it with Elsie the cow. and her friends.

- - ------

paul:"A compromise with law abiding gun owners has a better shot at becoming law. "

NO...just like talking about giving up your first Amendment rights - we'll compromise and say only 'government approved TV stations can broadcast news'.......you OK with that?

No camel nose under the tent.. First this, then that....then gun registration (totally useless since criminals don't register guns), then gun confiscation from law abiding citizens.

t.




Nessie:"In addition, the percentage of citizens who actually hunt or need a gun for other reasons has declined so much since the bill-of-rights was drafted."

You sure about that? When was the last time you saw George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Hancock hunting? They went to the local butcher shop or raised chickens and hogs, traded for deer meat, etc.

All the people who lived in cities went to their local meat market , raised chickens....bought milk and eggs if they didn't have their own.

Probably more people hunted , percent wise, back then, but they didn't have refrigeration, didn't have the ability to get things from more than 10 miles away, etc. They also had relatively poor diets in many respects (no or little fruit, vita C, etc). Salt and sugar expensive. And fished.

The need for a gun for self defense is exactly the same. Call9-1-1 and they have NO OBLIGATION to even show up. Or 20 minutes from the time you call. Or maybe not even there because the cable got cut.

- ----


Nessie:" It is way past time to re-evaluate and re-prioritize what rights are needed vs what rights are counter-productive to a modern America. "

Absolutely. First time use of a firearm in a felony, FIVE YEARS IN FED PRISON. Project Exile. No exceptions. You won't do it. You let Little Johnny Gangbanger off with 3 weeks probation after 22 prior arrests for armed robbery. Time and time again. it's like you WANT more and more gun violence to justify your demands for 'gun confiscation' from legal owners.

- --
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Part of the problem is what you just said. "let's take their guns" community.

You've already given the pro-NRA faction a victory just by characterizing it like that.

Until people have had enough of their children being slaughtered in the classroom, no law has a chance of passing; not even modest proposals (which have been offered over the years). And, apparently, they aren't tired of it yet.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Until people have had enough of their children being slaughtered in the classroom, no law has a chance of passing; not even modest proposals (which have been offered over the years). And, apparently, they aren't tired of it yet. "

Right now, every gun transaction requires a federal database check on that person - so they are eligible to buy a firearm. Every transaction requires a picture ID. Even at gun shows.

The problem in MN was PARENTS who bought their very troubled child a gun! A gun for xmas - and left it in plain sight. Parents who spent that day at the school talking about their kid and drawings of pistols and bloody victims and laughed it off as 'he was designing video game.'

Maybe you need to examine HOllywood? Millions of rounds expended every major film. Machine guns. Good guy never gets hit, blows away 60 perps easily, never runs out of ammo. How many 'thrillers' in the past 50 years? Of course, those machine guns ARE ILLEGAL for 99.9999% of the population to own now. Doesn't stop Hollywood.

Maybe you need to examine rap videos? Guns, guns, guns, hoes, bling, more guns......is that what inner city kids have as examples? Not the good guy with a gun ala the Lone Ranger but the city punks, the gang members.

No, 100 million legally owned guns didn't go out and kill anyone. They didn't jump off the shelf and start shooting people.

1000 murders in Chicago? Why? "no bail" laws, no chance of going to jail, 3 weeks probation for 22nd conviction armed robbery, etc. Drugs, gangs, more drug turf wars, more gangs. Drive by shootings every day. Week after week. Portland OR not doing much better......still nightly riots there?

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
In addition, the percentage of citizens who actually hunt or need a gun for other reasons has declined so much since the bill-of-rights was drafted.

The right to own guns was based on the need for the military to be armed when called up to fight--no other reason. The govt could not afford to buy/have large numbers of weapons for the military because where--and when--the need would arise was not a single place. It was a general need the govt could not fulfill quickly when they were needed.

This is not speculation. It is spelled out in the Militia Acts of 1792. The specified people (i.e. white property owners primarily) were *required* to spend their own money to buy *military grade* weapons and ammunition (i.e. so no using the family weapon handed down over the years). *Each person* was required to buy and have the specified equipment (a military sharing weapons doesn't really work very well). In exchange, those items were *specifically exempt* from seizure for any reason--including debts owed or taxes paid. Again, this makes sense, because you don't have a military if their weapons were seized and sold to pay debts/taxes. Thus, the purpose of the Second Amendment is (was) to enable those citizen who could be called to serve to be equipped with similar/compatible weapons and ammunition (etc) if they were called into military service.

This worked through the Civil War. Some time after that point, and before WWI, the govt began to equip the military by providing weapons, ammunition, clothing, and more. In essence, the need for the Second Amendment disappeared--because people were no longer required to bring their own weapon and ammunition (etc) when they were called up or volunteered for military service. This is also documented by the US govt *removing* the legal protection of a weapon, ammunition, etc from seizure and sale to pay debt or taxes. Before this change, the govt expected the person called into the military to provide their own weapon, ammunition, etc. When that change took place, the Second Amendment became a moot amendment because the need to have the person called into the military to bring his own weapon, ammunition, etc was eliminated. The govt *expected* the person to NOT have any of that gear because the military supplied it as part of the cost of govt.

Therefore, the Second Amendment is "dead amendment walking"--and the right knows it, as does the Supreme Court. Getting them to *admit* it is a totally different issue.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
Actually, no. Guns were just as deadly in the right hands back then.

Please stop insulting our intelligence. The statement above is simply stupid. Let's look at just one example:

https://www.britannica.com/event/Sandy-Hook-Elementary-Schoo...

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
mass shooting, Newtown, Connecticut, United States [2012]


. . . Lanza fired 154 rounds in less than five minutes, claiming 26 lives. . .

Just as deadly my arse. Think - at least a little bit before spewing this absurd gun nut malarky.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...Lanza fired 154 rounds in less than five minutes...

Yeah, back in the late 18th century you were really good if you could get off 2 shots per minute (muzzleloader). As I recall, they often had teams so one was reloading while the other fired, increasing the shots/min slightly. The self-contained cartridge wasn't invented until 1845 by a Frenchman (don't recall his name, but I saw a documentary several months ago). So the only weapons were muzzleloaders.

So, yeah, that was gun-nut malarkey you were quoting. Utterly ridiculous.

Wasn't aware of the Militia Acts of 1792. That was interesting. Don't know if I would want to be required to own a firearm, though. (I'm a white landowner, though only less than an acre.)

Also, I recall reading in the Federalist Papers that there was mention of hunting, so it wasn't exclusively for purposes of the militia. But the wording does seem to make the inability to restrict ownership contingent upon the state's need to raise a militia. Since that doesn't happen anymore, government should be able to restrict as it likes. Especially the state governments, for whom that amendment was written anyway (i.e. they feared "federal overreach").

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
P.S. I think posing a child with a gun is stupid, and sends the wrong message (to the child). I was raised with firearm safety (dad had guns). If I violated even the tiniest rule with a firearm I would have been grounded for 6 months. I never did, and also never fetishized them. They were something that could get me in a lot of trouble if I mishandled them in any way whatsoever.

1poorguy (doesn't own a firearm, was taught from the age of 10, went shooting semi-regularly with dad until I moved out at 18)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_(firearms)

Long read, but also a history lesson.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ho ho....

With tens of millions hunting now, and most of America back then outside the cities HUNTING TO SURVIVE, the right to own a weapon was written into the Constitution.

jerry: "The right to own guns was based on the need for the military to be armed when called up to fight--no other reason"

No.....half the USA depended upon hunting for survival.

And of course, crime has always been around. Highway robbery goes back to the first caravans traversing the country side.

Under British law, all guns were confiscated or only allowed to be used when you checked them out of a British facility for hunting, then you had to return them the same day.
The Colonists obviously had different plans.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, that mentions Flobert in 1845. The first rimfire cartridge, apparently. 1808 appears to be the first integrated cartridge (still well after the signing of the Bill of Rights). That one was a breech loader. Faster than a muzzle loader, but nowhere near the fire rate of Lanza's weapons, so the other poster was still being ridiculous.

The documentary mentioned Flobert has the inventor of the modern cartridge.

Yes, an interesting history.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Militia Acts were draft acts. We didn't have much , if any, of a standing army at that point.

Yes, just about every able body person 18-45 owned a gun then.

And a lot do today.

After the Civil War, which of course had a draft act still in effect.....the militias turned into National Guards in each state. Weapons were provided. During the civil war, weapons were often provided by the gov't.

You'll note that Congressmen were exempt from the draft acts back then. Everyone else had to serve.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
NO...just like talking about giving up your first Amendment rights - we'll compromise and say only 'government approved TV stations can broadcast news'.......you OK with that?

We already have limits on freedom of speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater. Lying about what your product will do in an advertisement.

Reasonable limitations are allowed.

On guns, we already have limits on machine guns.

Better background checks is a good beginning.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The Militia Acts were draft acts. We didn't have much , if any, of a standing army at that point.

There is no draft now--just registration. Plus, nobody provides their own weapon for military service.

You'll note that Congressmen were exempt from the draft acts back then. Everyone else had to serve.

Actually, a number of groups of people were exempt from military service, based on their occupation. The Jan 6 riots would have had a much different outcome had each congresscritter been required to have a gun AND been trained how to use it.

When the govt provided the weapons for the military, that functionally ended the Second Amendment. With the change in the laws regarding weapons/ammo/etc being subject to seizure and sale for debts (personal or tax), Congress legally repealed the Second Amendment. Congress admitted there was no longer a valid reason for any *right* to own a gun when guns (supposedly needed "for military service") could be seized and sold--thus depriving the person of the item most-needed to fight in any military. This is not refutable, because ANY gun bought could again be seized and sold to pay debt owed. Thus, there is no right to own a gun.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"When the govt provided the weapons for the military, that functionally ended the Second Amendment."

True but at that time, likely half the country depended upon hunting to survive. So no....wrong again


"With the change in the laws regarding weapons/ammo/etc being subject to seizure and sale for debts (personal or tax), Congress legally repealed the Second Amendment. "

No, it just said guns are 'property' subject to bankruptcy laws. same as your refrigerator and stove and couch and TV set and computer. And iPhone and iPad.

- - -----
"Congress admitted there was no longer a valid reason for any *right* to own a gun when guns (supposedly needed "for military service") could be seized and sold"

Wrong. It just said that guns were 'property' subject to bankruptcy laws....like your refrigerator, stove, microwave, TV sets, computers, laptops, iPhones, etc. And cars and boats and planes and ATVs and jet skis.

- -----

"--thus depriving the person of the item most-needed to fight in any military."

You do realize that every able body male in Switzerland owns a gun and is responsible for keeping it in good working shape - so when called up to defend the country they are ready to go?

Even been to Israel. The men and women there are armed with FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons they carry with them on buses and transit. Keep them at home, ready to go. NO mass murders there. No Johnny Gangbangers are Music Videos with shoot em up, displays of pistols, bling, drugs, more drugs, and even more drugs, drug gangs...... like chicago and the top 12 cities run my democrats where crime doesn't matter and the more the merrier.

- ----

" This is not refutable, because ANY gun bought could again be seized and sold to pay debt owed. Thus, there is no right to own a gun. "

Wrong again. You could say the same about computers and TVs - and cars. they can be 'seized' thus there is no 'right' to own a computer or TV or iPhone. Duh!

= = =

Also the Supreme Court, decision after decision, affirmed the right of citizens to own guns, overturning city/state rule after rule for gun grabbing and limiting.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Also the Supreme Court, decision after decision, affirmed the right of citizens to own guns, overturning city/state rule after rule for gun grabbing and limiting.

They never heard any arguments based on the US Constitution AND concurrent (1790s) legislation passed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Actually, no. Guns were just as deadly in the right hands back then. Self defense was just as important as it is today.

Just as your other 'rights' guaranteed in the Bill of Rights haven't changed just because you have the internet and news web sites and TV news stations from back then when there were only printing presses.......and still have juries.....and rights of silence when arrested ...and don't house soldiers in your house, etc, etc... they haven't changed a bit today.

The colonists had 'state of the art' weapons equal to their enemies. They had pistols useful for self defense. Those that lived in cities didn't go out to hunt but went to the butcher shop for meat.


No. The Bill of Rights hadn't been incorporated to the States, and that's a huge change. Most militias specified which weapons to buy to join them, etc., and weren't very good. Until Washington got a Prussian General, they were an ill disciplined lot, wallowing in their [email protected]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bring: " Most militias specified which weapons to buy to join them, etc., and weren't very good."

They were 'state of the art' weapons at the time. Those that had 'rifles' were 10x more deadly than those with 'muskets' - and wreaked havoc upon the enemy.

Most weapons in the civil war caused MASSIVE injuries. You get hit with a lead 50 calibre ball or mini-ball, you'd lose a leg or arm - if you didn't get killed, or have infection set in and die that way. 700,000 died in that war. That was a significant part of the population. Another 2 million were injured. (My great grandfather fought to end slavery - was wounded twice - lived his life with a bullet lodged in his kneecap)

The Gatlin Gun was the first US made machine gun, but not widely deployed to start - very expensive at the time.

It wasn't till after the war that the technology moved quickly to smokeless powder, to cartridge based guns. And repeating rifles (shots stored within )

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
"When the govt provided the weapons for the military, that functionally ended the Second Amendment."

True but at that time, likely half the country depended upon hunting to survive. So no....wrong again


Nice try, but failed again. The military did NOT permit someone to bring just *any* gun with them. The weapon had to meet specifications stated in the Militia Acts of 1792. Which is why THAT SPECIFIC WEAPON was protected from seizure or sale for any reason. Other weapons were irrelevant because they did NOT meet the requirements stated in the law--and were thus NOT COVERED under that law.

Even been to Israel. The men and women there are armed with FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons they carry with them on buses and transit.

Yes, I know. Lived there a bit. Was located about midway between Tiberius and Nahariya, a short distance south of the Lebanese border. Syria was to the east a bit. Walked all around Tiberius and visited the coast. I identified the threat risk at Nahariya (where and how the risk existed) AND the clear lack of protection of the public from attack, and notified the local/area military commander. A short time after I left, attacks happened precisely as I stated they would (where and how). Local civilians were killed--as were the attackers. After the second attack, the Israelis sealed the area--and no more attacks. The attacks are public info and can be found on the Internet.

" This is not refutable, because ANY gun bought could again be seized and sold to pay debt owed. Thus, there is no right to own a gun. "

Wrong again. You could say the same about computers and TVs - and cars. they can be 'seized' thus there is no 'right' to own a computer or TV or iPhone. Duh!


Correct. There is NO RIGHT TO own computers, TVs, etc. Because there is no protection for these (and other) items under the law. Similarly, there is NO RIGHT to own a gun--because each and every gun a person has/owns CAN be seized and sold if the courts order it. Thus, there exists--PER YOUR ARGUMENT--NO RIGHT TO OWN A GUN. The Second Amendment is all smoke and mirrors, confusing the crap out of the nut jobs who claim they DO have "RIGHT" to own a gun when they really do not have any such right.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You keep flapping your lips but never actually read things

"Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack."

EVERY gun in 1782 was either a musket or a rifle. Early guns were long abandoned. You just don't learn.

"The U.S. Model 1842 Musket was the first U.S. weapon made at both the Harpers Ferry and Springfield Armories with fully interchangeable parts. It was also the first regulation musket made in the percussion ignition system by the national armories and was the last of the smoothbore . 69 caliber muskets."

American weapons available in 1776

Brown Bess.
Charleville musket.
American-made muskets.
Long rifles.
Bayonet.
Pattern 1776 infantry rifle.
Ferguson rifle.
Brown Bess musket.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_infantry_weapons_in_th...

----

As to your silly statement, the government can force sale of your printing press in bankruptcy, ending your First Amendment rights to print and distribute news, correct? Therefore we must conclude there really is no First Amendment according to your logic!

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
As to your silly statement, the government can force sale of your printing press in bankruptcy, ending your First Amendment rights to print and distribute news, correct?

Silly rabbit, a printing press is not the First Amendment. Nor was a printing press covered by the Militia Act of 1792. But the requirement to have a specific type of military grade weapon was law. Nowhere does any law state any other weapon or related gear was protected by federal law.

The Internet spreads news, real or fake--no printing press required.

Nobody stops you from believing, or posting, any nonsense you choose.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Baloney again Jerr

"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. 2–53."

District of Columbia vs Heller Supreme Court decision - Year 2007

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

You lose on every argument!

Not only that, but you fail to realize EVERY gun made from 1842 on was a musket or rifle, which at the time was acceptable to the government.

However, the Supreme Court says YOU have a right to a gun for self defense and other legal purposes (hunting , target shooting, killing predator animals, venomous snakes in your yard , etc. Unconnected to military service.

Be educated. That is the LAW OF THE LAND. Decided.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
law abiding gun owners

what does this even mean? They never broke any laws whatsoever...yet? From what I've read, a lot of gun owners/users have broken or skirted gun laws.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
No Johnny Gangbangers are Music Videos with shoot em up, displays of pistols, bling, drugs, more drugs, and even more drugs, drug gangs...... like chicago and the top 12 cities run my democrats where crime doesn't matter and the more the merrier.

How does this explain the many white mass shooters?

top 12 cities run my democrats

NYC is top by any definition and isn;t even in the top 20 cities by murder rate.

Murder rate by state--highest are Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri and Alaska...1 purple and 4 red states:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/murder-rate...

PS--DD & fam have lived in Harlem for almost 12 years. She heard a gunshot once. I note that all 4 of them, especially the adults, take public transit and walk after dark. To hear the reich-wing lie-o-sphere tell it, you;d think they were in a war zone.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
To hear the reich-wing lie-o-sphere tell it, you;d think they were in a war zone.

The RWNJs *are* in a "war zone". Reality vs their highly-restricted imaginations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"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. 2–53."


You still lost and you know it. The firearm CAN be taken from the owner and sold. So, NOT PROTECTED.

Militia Act of 1792 *prohibited* taking the military firearm AND related items for ANY reason. PROTECTED.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
" jerr:"The firearm CAN be taken from the owner and sold. So, NOT PROTECTED."

So can your printing press, your Xerox machine, your mimeo, your computer, your smart phone and other access devices for 'first amendment' purposes. By your logic, the first Amendment doesn't exist.

They can sell your house so you don't have to worry about housing troops. too



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think they’re just 50 years behind. Maybe Harlem was dangerous in the 70s but due to gentrification it’s now a desirable location.

Yes, you’re more likely to die in the deep south.
Print the post Back To Top