# Second amendment question



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

There are many strong advocates of the Second Amendment here. There are also some who see every Muslim as a potential terrorist. Sometimes the two views overlap. A question to you. Should Muslims be allowed to own and carry guns in the US? If a 14 year old boy with a poorly built electronic device is enough of a threat to justify arrest what of a an adult male Muslim with a gun and a carry permit?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Sure.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

All U.S.( citizens) with no violent criminal record should be able to......


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Exactly
Citizens only


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I don't have a problem with the Muslim religion if that's what you choose. Heck, you can worship snakes or be into witchcraft for all I care.

I do have a real problem with Muslims or any other group that has hatred and anti-American views, is out to harm Americans, break laws, do damage, re-write the constitution to suit themselves, etc. 

Catholics don't necessarily agree with Baptists, but they get along peacefully and don't threaten one another, call for their deaths publicly, etc.

If you are a legal citizen religion shouldn't come into play, just go by the rules the rest of us go by.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Any law abiding citizen should be able to keep AND bear arms.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> Exactly
> Citizens only


SCOTUS has declared that illegal aliens have the right to own guns. 
.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Well sure. I feel that Muslims have the same right to carry guns in schools as nonMuslims do. Exactly no right.
This was a trolling thread.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

First of all, the Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to bear arms whenever and wherever you want. Let's just get that straight before I answer. And yes, Muslims should live with the same laws as everyone else where they live.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Any law abiding citizen should be able to keep AND bear arms.


Yes just what the 2nd amendment stets. The right to keep and bare arms This is good for all US citizens.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

It makes one wonder the motives behind politicians who seek to disarm people, all the while going out of their way to make this country more dangerous to live in.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wiscto said:


> First of all, the Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to bear arms whenever and wherever you want. Let's just get that straight before I answer. And yes, Muslims should live with the same laws as everyone else where they live.


Keeping and bearing arms is a right.
The government can't legally take or infringe on a right.
But then this government doesn't seem to care much for our laws or our Constitution.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> First of all, the Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to bear arms whenever and wherever you want. Let's just get that straight before I answer. And yes, Muslims should live with the same laws as everyone else where they live.


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

All other powers not denied them by the constitution shall be reserved to the states and to the people respectively.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Well sure. I feel that Muslims have the same right to carry guns in schools as nonMuslims do. Exactly no right.
> This was a trolling thread.


I said nothing about schools, though many here advocate more guns in schools, not fewer. I'll admit that it is a bit of a trolling thread but that doesn't mean thoughts can't be reasonably exchanged.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

ninny said:


> SCOTUS has declared that illegal aliens have the right to own guns.
> .


Yea, so, we the people are stating our views.... we do have the freedom and right to express them and to address our government.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I said nothing about schools, though many here advocate more guns in schools, not fewer. I'll admit that it is a bit of a trolling thread but that doesn't mean thoughts can't be reasonably exchanged.


an honest excuse.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I said nothing about schools, though many here advocate more guns in schools, not fewer. I'll admit that it is a bit of a trolling thread but that doesn't mean thoughts can't be reasonably exchanged.


What are your thoughts since you started the thread ?


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Yea, so, we the people are stating our views.... we do have the freedom and right to express them and to address our government.


I Posted this to show that the SCOTUS has made another crappy ruling, I certainly don't agree with it. I think Illegal's can have all the guns they want as long as they're in Mexico.

.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

TripleD said:


> What are your thoughts since you started the thread ?


I'm probably more pro second amendment than many here. I feel there should be as few restrictions on gun ownership and possession as possible. This includes allowing felons, at the completion of their sentence, the ability to buy and possess guns. It's a stance I've been taken to task for before. That right to keep and bear arms extends to all citizens with no religous test. But I also don't think that all Muslims are terrorists, potential terrorists or are planning some grand subjugation of our culture. I was curious about how those who do feel such a threat from Muslims that they can concoct scenarios that allow a young boy to be handcuffed and arrested for a poorly built clock can justify allowing that same threatening group to carry actual weapons.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I'm probably more pro second amendment than many here. I feel there should be as few restrictions on gun ownership and possession as possible. This includes allowing felons, at the completion of their sentence, the ability to buy and possess guns. It's a stance I've been taken to task for before. That right to keep and bear arms extends to all citizens with no religous test. But I also don't think that all Muslims are terrorists, potential terrorists or are planning some grand subjugation of our culture. I was curious about how those who do feel such a threat from Muslims that they can concoct scenarios that allow a young boy to be handcuffed and arrested for a poorly built clock can justify allowing that same threatening group to carry actual weapons.


I do not believe that Muslims are anymore a threat than any other religious group, wacked out extremists are a different matter. Was Jim jones a Muslim. Timothy mcveigh? Can't think of his name but the wacko from Waco.. Was he a Muslim.... These guys share one thing in common with the 911terrorists... They were all wacked out extremists with an agenda replacing their conscience.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I do not believe that Muslims are anymore a threat than any other religious group, wacked out extremists are a different matter. Was Jim jones a Muslim. Timothy mcveigh? Can't think of his name but the wacko from Waco.. Was he a Muslim.... These guys share one thing in common with the 911terrorists... They were all wacked out extremists with an agenda replacing their conscience.


YH are you starting to lean left ?

Muslums = 1.57 billion followers follow Islam moohamid and quran = Cult

Jim Jones =900 followers = Cult defunct or dead 

David Koresh =79 followers = Cult Dead 

Timothy Mc Viech =1 follower = Total nobody Dead 

Any group where even 1% of 1.57 billion may follow their own book would accidentally be more likely be a threat to what they refer to as the Great Satan =USA and our way of life ,than all the rest of your lame examples put together . 

Also note those you mentioned have been eradicated either self inflected or by the gun .Not so with the 1.57 billion muslums YET still alive and increasing by the second :runforhills:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> YH are you starting to lean left ?
> 
> Muslums = 1.57 billion followers follow Islam moohamid and quran = Cult
> 
> ...


Not leaning ether direction here. Just stating the facts. Do you have any credible source to support your notion the all Muslims are radical extremist terrorist set on killing every nonmuslim they can find? David koreshs bunch was a Christian based "cult", so was jones. Mcveigh killed hundreds, also raised to be a Christian.
Are there radical Muslim extremist? Yeppers and they need to be taken seriously, or better yet taken out of the game. My point is that not all Muslims are terrorists any more than all Christians are wackos.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not leaning ether direction here. Just stating the facts. Do you have any credible source to support your notion the all Muslims are radical extremist terrorist set on killing every nonmuslim they can find? David koreshs bunch was a Christian based "cult", so was jones. Mcveigh killed hundreds, also raised to be a Christian.
> Are there radical Muslim extremist? Yeppers and they need to be taken seriously, or better yet taken out of the game. My point is that not all Muslims are terrorists any more than all Christians are wackos.


If you understood the word christian you would see non of your examples fit .

If you understood the Quran you would see even if only 1% of those 1.57 billion actually follow their own book ,and the ones in waiting that could follow it is a hugh amount . 

Many don;t know the meaning of christian or Islam but use christian in the same context as islam in total error . Many refuse to read or learn if they do read :runforhills:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> If you understood the word christian you would see non of your examples fit .
> 
> If you understood the Quran you would see even if only 1% of those 1.57 billion actually follow their own book ,and the ones in waiting that could follow it is a hugh amount .
> 
> Many don;t know the meaning of christian or Islam but use christian in the same context as islam in total error . Many refuse to read or learn if they do read :runforhills:


There are as many definitions of the word Christian as there are denominations. And probably more because not all that belong to a particular sect believe exactly the same. If you do not recognize that fact my examples will never fit. If however you can recognize that, my examples fit the situation perfectly.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> *Keeping and bearing arms is a right.*
> The government can't legally take or infringe on a right.
> But then this government doesn't seem to care much for our laws or our Constitution.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> All other powers not denied them by the constitution shall be reserved to the states and to the people respectively.


Yup. But the people can't infringe on one another, either. We all have a right to control what occurs on our private property. That's why I can reject your right to carry on my private property. That's why Target and WalMart can reject your right to carry on their private property.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There are as many definitions of the word Christian as there are denominations. And probably more because not all that belong to a particular sect believe exactly the same. If you do not recognize that fact my examples will never fit. If however you can recognize that, my examples fit the situation perfectly.


Since the word christian has been distorted then try a better term Followers of Christ . 

1 John 3:10 ESV / 

By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Yup. But the people can't infringe on one another, either. We all have a right to control what occurs on our private property. That's why I can reject your right to carry on my private property. That's why Target and WalMart can reject your right to carry on their private property.


Agreed, a property owning indivial has the right to say what people are allowed to do on his property, which has nothing to do with our rights to keep and bear arms on our own property.... Like the publicly owned streets, sidewalks, parks, court houses etc.those are publicly owned.... Meaning me, I are part of the public.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Agreed, a property owning indivial has the right to say what people are allowed to do on his property, which has nothing to do with our rights to keep and bear arms on our own property.... Like the publicly owned streets, sidewalks, parks, court houses etc.those are publicly owned.... Meaning me, I are part of the public.


Nah. The public isn't your property, it's OUR property.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Since the word christian has been distorted then try a better term Followers of Christ .
> 
> 1 John 3:10 ESV /
> 
> By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.


And again you will find as many definitions as there are people. A rose by any other name still has a few thorns. Was koresh not a true believer? Or jones?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Nah. The public isn't your property, it's OUR property.


Exactly. I have as much right to use it as you do, unless there is something that makes you more equal than I?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Nah. The public isn't your property, it's OUR property.


 And those, who are tasked with the administration of that property, are forbidden, by the Constitution, from infringing on our rights to bear arms. Granted, they have broken that law with impunity for years.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And again you will find as many definitions as there are people. A rose by any other name still has a few thorns. Was koresh not a true believer? Or jones?


The Bible tells me Satan is a true believer . Some facts just don't twist good, go stand in your garage and tell everyone that comes by you are a car ,in today's world you would find some followers . Take the wide path ,defend those a follower of Christ know aren't true followers .

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Exactly. I have as much right to use it as you do, unless there is something that makes you more equal than I?


I didn't say that. It's called "voting." And you're the one who brought up the public side of the debate, I just decided to correct you. But yea, I agree, the 2nd Amendment says what it says.



Farmerga said:


> And those, who are tasked with the administration of that property, are forbidden, by the Constitution, from infringing on our rights to bear arms. Granted, they have broken that law with impunity for years.


I don't really deny the wording of the Constitution. But I do think that this country needs to stop and think about the tyranny of the minority here. Why should I be forced to trust YOU with a firearm in a public space we share? We need an amendment that protects private ownership and use on private property, public unincorporated land, but beyond that cities and communities should be able to determine their own fate regarding firearms in their public spaces. 

And people should start facing felony loss of rights for making stupid mistakes like leaving a .22 out that is then part of an accident that involves two three olds and one death. And if your gun goes off in public without cause, you're done. Felony neglect and your rights are gone. People on the gun side like to pretend mistakes aren't happening, like guns going off in the bathroom at WalMart. Well... I'm on the gun side, and I'm not going to pretend it isn't happening.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I think our constitution layed out a form of government that provides for rule by law rather than majority rule, I also think it was done to protect every one, majority and minority alike from the tyranny so often associated with all other forms of governments.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think our constitution layed out a form of government that provides for rule by law rather than majority rule, I also think it was done to protect every one, majority and minority alike from the tyranny so often associated with all other forms of governments.


Yup. They wanted to avoid all forms of tyranny. What we have with our current carry laws in some places is the tyranny of the minority. Even though the Constitution doesn't specifically guarantee their right to carry arms anywhere and everywhere they choose, some people have decided to carry their AK-47s slung over their shoulder just to prove to the rest of us that they can. The vast majority of people are uncomfortable with it, but apparently that doesn't matter. Why do I pay taxes on streets if I have to accept something as extreme as a guy walking around with an assault rifle just because he wants to. According to the NRA, I can't even ask my government to require that guy to pass a strict background and mental health check and receive training. Why should I have to accept that? 

I want guns, but I want a new amendment.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Of course all Muslims are not terrorists or out to kill Americans or Christians.

Because of a lot of skullduggery on the part of the US, I'm thinking a lot of Muslims are not too happy with the US these days.

I've read some of the Koran, mine is small print and hurts my eyes, but I see a lot of kindness and lessons in compassion which can compare to Jesus' teachings.

As for the Koran being bloody - read our old testament. The Jews did quite a bit of ugly stuff and then said 'God told me to do it.'

Could the young boy being ME have something to do with the reaction - very well could. However, a little kid was suspended, or otherwise punished, because he made a gun cut out of paper. Little kids are punished for kissing their fellow little kids.

As for the fake bomb - I still believe the first teacher who saw it could have prevented the situation. He knew the policy of the school, he knew the atmosphere in this country today - I can't believe his ignorance.

If a Muslim is a citizen - yes he has the right. 

I would have to think on felons - it would depend.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Yup. They wanted to avoid all forms of tyranny. What we have with our current carry laws in some places is the tyranny of the minority. Even though the Constitution doesn't specifically guarantee their right to carry arms anywhere and everywhere they choose, some people have decided to carry their AK-47s slung over their shoulder just to prove to the rest of us that they can. The vast majority of people are uncomfortable with it, but apparently that doesn't matter. Why do I pay taxes on streets if I have to accept something as extreme as a guy walking around with an assault rifle just because he wants to. According to the NRA, I can't even ask my government to require that guy to pass a strict background and mental health check and receive training. Why should I have to accept that?
> 
> I want guns, but I want a new amendment.


Yikes!
That scares me more than a guy with an AK slung over his shoulder.:runforhills:

While you're at it, why not tweak the rest of the Bill of Rights?

There's sure to be some speech that makes people uncomfortable.
Why allow people you just know are carrying something illegal, get away with it? Frisk'em and jail'em on the spot.
If they won't talk, we can just beat a confession out of them too.
And confiscate all their stuff, since they had it coming anyway.

Now THAT'S the kind of safe, comfortable place we can all enjoy, isn't it?

:umno:

I think I'll take my chances with the riff raff, thanks anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Yup. They wanted to avoid all forms of tyranny. What we have with our current carry laws in some places is the tyranny of the minority. Even though the Constitution doesn't specifically guarantee their right to carry arms anywhere and everywhere they choose, some people have decided to carry their AK-47s slung over their shoulder just to prove to the rest of us that they can. The vast majority of people are uncomfortable with it, but apparently that doesn't matter. Why do I pay taxes on streets if I have to accept something as extreme as a guy walking around with an assault rifle just because he wants to. According to the NRA, I can't even ask my government to require that guy to pass a strict background and mental health check and receive training. Why should I have to accept that?
> 
> I want guns, but I want a new amendment.


i would love to hear how you would word this amendment.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i would love to hear how you would word this amendment.


No, stop, wait a minute.........I'm still loading!


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

For the record.

The only terrorist at Waco was the government.
They did the killing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I didn't say that. It's called "voting." And you're the one who brought up the public side of the debate, I just decided to correct you. But yea, I agree, the 2nd Amendment says what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nobody is forcing you to trust anyone anywhere.... You are perfectly within your rights to carry all the paranoia you can stuff in your backpack. What you do not have the right to do is demand that I not carry a perfectly legal firearm on public property.

Now as to your paranoia..... What makes you fearful of me? Have I ever offered to cause you any harm? I am no threat to anyone who doesn't threaten me or mine with harm.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

wiscto said:


> Even though the Constitution doesn't specifically guarantee their right to carry arms anywhere and everywhere they choose


The Constitution does have a guarantee: "...SHALL not be infringed."

Unlike most federal laws the Second Amendment is refreshingly black and white.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> For the record.
> 
> The only terrorist at Waco was the government.
> They did the killing.


Well... There is that. Picky picky picky


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

cfuhrer said:


> The Constitution does have a guarantee: "...SHALL not be infringed."
> 
> Unlike most federal laws the Second Amendment is refreshingly black and white.


The constitution was written in very simple easy to read language.. Straight forward black and white. It takes some pretty slippery lawyers to twist those words into illegible jibberish... Then try to tell us the founders wrote it in some vague coded language that only they (the sleaze bag lawyers) can interpret.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i would love to hear how you would word this amendment.


Yea I'll get right on that... 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> nobody is forcing you to trust anyone anywhere.... You are perfectly within your rights to carry all the paranoia you can stuff in your backpack. What you do not have the right to do is demand that I not carry a perfectly legal firearm on public property.
> 
> Now as to your paranoia..... What makes you fearful of me? Have I ever offered to cause you any harm? I am no threat to anyone who doesn't threaten me or mine with harm.


Yea. Right. My paranoia. Yet you're the one carrying the gun. I live in a conceal carry state and I don't carry, so which one of us is paranoid? 

I didn't say I did have the right. I'm saying the states and the people do, and if the courts decide that isn't the case, we should clarify the issue with a new amendment that the average American reader can actually comprehend. Or maybe we should just stop being so slippery and lawyer like with our English.

But since you want get all "righteous Constitutional literalist" on me, let's talk. The real irony here is that the 2nd Amendment is 100% about militias...*if you read it literally.* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/literal I guess it's time for an English lesson.



> "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"


Is that a complete sentence? No, it is not a complete sentence. It's just sort of dangling there waiting to be completed. So why is it there? Because it's part of a complete sentence. 



> 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.


That is one sentence. It is one amendment with one literal purpose. There is no right to keep and bear arms beyond the necessity of a well regulated militia for the security of a free state, because a literal reading of the Constitution requires that you don't break up the sentence.

THAT... Is the literal translation of the Constitution, my friends. Because that's how English works.

And they weren't just talking about a militia, but a well regulated one. Who has the power to regulate the militias? The states, *according to the discipline provided by Congress.* 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> The constitution was written in very simple easy to read language.. Straight forward black and white. It takes some pretty slippery lawyers to twist those words into illegible jibberish... Then try to tell us the founders wrote it in some vague coded language that only they (the sleaze bag lawyers) can interpret.


Yea... See above. Turns out you might actually want a new amendment as well. Because I'm pretty sure you aren't a member of a well regulated militia.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> There are many strong advocates of the Second Amendment here. There are also some who see every Muslim as a potential terrorist. Sometimes the two views overlap. A question to you. Should Muslims be allowed to own and carry guns in the US? If a 14 year old boy with a poorly built electronic device is enough of a threat to justify arrest what of a an adult male Muslim with a gun and a carry permit?


You're comparing totally different scenarios.

In one all laws are followed, and the necessary permissions obtained.

In the other, the individual acted on his own against school policy, and then ignored advice about not showing it to anyone else.

Pretending the kid wasn't a *potential* threat is pretty unrealistic.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Yea I'll get right on that...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


my high school and college English teachers all claimed that commas count, but can be replaced easily.... With a period. You seem to have a bit of trouble with those definitive clauses. I do agree with you on the militia thing though. They wanted to be able to call up the citizens on a moments notice if needed, and for those citizens to have sufficient arms to put any invading force in its place. It sure nuff ain't about duck hunting. What's your take on the discussions about the word "regulated" meaning supplied during that era. I've heard that but never bothered to dig that rabbit hole too deep.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The militia is the people working together. In Alaska every able body male from 18 to 70 are the militia... only per our state constitution.

http://www.alaska.net/~cadrecc/handbook.pdf


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Yea I'll get right on that...
> 
> 
> But since you want get all "righteous Constitutional literalist" on me, let's talk. The real irony here is that the 2nd Amendment is 100% about militias...*if you read it literally.* http://www.thefreedictionary.com/literal I guess it's time for an English lesson.
> ...




You have the anti-gun interpretation down to a science, I'll give you that.
The SCOTUS already ruled that argument incorrect however, a few times.

But in the spirit of teaching English, I'd like to point out a fatal flaw in the logic you presented.
A noun.

The words "the people" occurs throughout the Bill of Rights, the meaning and context in which it's used is important and obvious.
Even without the supporting documents on the Constitutional debates at the time, each time "the people" is used it is consistent.
It means all people, no exceptions. And in this case it highlights a distinct separation between those in the well regulated militia and everyone else. The debates at the time clearly support that. Notice it is next to the one about not having soldiers camped in your house. They were kinda familiar with how to prevent that too.

IOW, it isn't the right to bear arms in the general population that is necessary for a militia...........it's *BECAUSE* of it.
Big difference.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> my high school and college English teachers all claimed that commas count, but can be replaced easily.... With a period. You seem to have a bit of trouble with those definitive clauses. I do agree with you on the militia thing though. They wanted to be able to call up the citizens on a moments notice if needed, and for those citizens to have sufficient arms to put any invading force in its place. It sure nuff ain't about duck hunting.
> 
> 
> * What's your take on the discussions about the word "regulated" meaning supplied during that era. I've heard that but never bothered to dig that rabbit hole too deep.*


I have.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yea. Right. My paranoia. Yet you're the one carrying the gun. I live in a conceal carry state and I don't carry, so *which one of us is paranoid*?


You appear to be the one who is paranoid, while the legally armed individual is merely prepared.

It's similar to having insurance and fire extinguishers.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> my high school and college English teachers all claimed that commas count, but can be replaced easily.... With a period. You seem to have a bit of trouble with those definitive clauses. I do agree with you on the militia thing though. They wanted to be able to call up the citizens on a moments notice if needed, and for those citizens to have sufficient arms to put any invading force in its place. It sure nuff ain't about duck hunting. What's your take on the discussions about the word "regulated" meaning supplied during that era. I've heard that but never bothered to dig that rabbit hole too deep.


You can't replace that comma with a period, because then you have one incomplete sentence. That isn't the way it was written. I really believe regulated means regulated. Anything else is not a literal interpretation of the Constitution. And regulate was and is a firmly defined word. 

I'm with you that times have changed, but one can easily argue that we have a well regulated militia, regulated by the states according to the discipline provided by Congress; The National Guard. Even if that isn't the case... The states, and Congress according to Article 1 Section 8, have the power to regulate.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> You have the anti-gun interpretation down to a science, I'll give you that.
> The SCOTUS already ruled that argument incorrect however, a few times.
> 
> But in the spirit of teaching English, I'd like to point out a fatal flaw in the logic you presented.
> ...


Mine isn't an interpretation. That is the only way to read that sentence literally, unless you're a fan of breaking the English language. It is what it is, period. I did say we need a new amendment to clarify the right in today's world, did I not?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You appear to be the one who is paranoid, while the legally armed individual is merely prepared.
> 
> It's similar to having insurance and fire extinguishers.


When is the last time someone died from accidental discharge of a dang fire extinguisher. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I really believe regulated means regulated. Anything else is not a literal interpretation of the Constitution. And regulate was and is a firmly defined word.


"Well-regulated" was also a defined term:

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm



> The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in *proper working order*. Something that was well-regulated was *calibrated correctly, functioning as expected*.
> 
> Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Well-regulated" was also a defined term:
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm


Yes. And we have a well regulated militia today. It's called the National Guard. Would you say that having people dropping their guns in public, toddlers reaching into purses and shooting their own mothers in the head....is something that is well calibrated? And before you say, "Cars are more dangerous," cars are not arms.

And you can say all you want about the founders, I'd guess that the only one you've really read anything on in terms of the right to bear arms was Jefferson. There's a reason it ended up being worded the way it was worded... And that is because the majority of them were concerned about the state militias.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

The 2nd amendment is really moot anyway.

Any law that restricts citizens from having guns - for any reason, is an "infringement".

It's ok to pretend.

Muslims terrorists seem to prefer bombs most of the time, anyway. Better collateral damage.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You can't replace that comma with a period, because then you have one incomplete sentence. That isn't the way it was written. I really believe regulated means regulated. Anything else is not a literal interpretation of the Constitution. And regulate was and is a firmly defined word.
> 
> I'm with you that times have changed, but one can easily argue that we have a well regulated militia, regulated by the states according to the discipline provided by Congress; The National Guard. Even if that isn't the case... The states, and Congress according to Article 1 Section 8, have the power to regulate.


Let's not forget the rest of that sentence either. Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states and foreign countries. Article one section eight grants no power to regulate any "militia". Army, navy, yes, states militia no.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Mine isn't an interpretation. That is the only way to read that sentence literally, unless you're a fan of breaking the English language. It is what it is, period. I did say we need a new amendment to clarify the right in today's world, did I not?
> 
> And there y'all go with SCOTUS again. You're for it or against it based on your own whims. I did actually know how SCOTUS ruled, which is yet another reason why I would like a new amendment.


You may want one, I'd rather keep it like it is.
Did you forget about the insistence on being "well regulated"?
How does that comply with the end of the sentence......"shall not be *infringed*"?
Care to tell me how those opposite terms apply to the same group of people, which is the basis for your reading of it?

That's gonna be tough, so I'll be patient.:grin:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I DID say it was debated, but it's worth reading at your leisure to see the intent of the vast majority.

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-on-the-second-amendment


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let's not forget the rest of that sentence either. Congress has the power to regulate commerce between the states and foreign countries. Article one section eight grants no power to regulate any "militia". Army, navy, yes, states militia no.





> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia *according to the discipline prescribed by Congress*


I agree with you somewhat. But they certainly have power over the discipline (training, rules, etc.) of the militias, which is how the National Guard has come to be. And none of this really changes the fact that according to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms was for the necessary militias. Times have changed, and so the debate rages. Does everyone need to be armed in order for a well regulated militia to exist? Not anymore. But... Should we protect that institution? I think so. 

What do you think about the meaning of "bear arms" though? Do you believe that just means anywhere any time? Or in general, for the purposes of defending the freedom of their state? Is it really unconstitutional, given the structure of Congress and the states as pertains to the militias, to say...hey...don't walk around town with AK-47s slung over your shoulder?



farmrbrown said:


> You may want one, I'd rather keep it like it is.
> Did you forget about the insistence on being "well regulated"?
> How does that comply with the end of the sentence......"shall not be *infringed*"?
> Care to tell me how those opposite terms apply to the same group of people, which is the basis for your reading of it?
> ...


I can see it's tough for you, but I think you're just making it hard for yourself. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was for the purpose of militias, which were necessary for the security of the free state. Well regulated, even if that just means "properly calibrated," means that citizens walking around town armed at all times when the militias are not needed, occasionally fumbling and accidentally discharging their firearms, or carelessly allowing children to gain access and kill each other in tragic accidents, does not sound "properly calibrated" to me.

But like I said, I think a new amendment would simplify everything. 

Just so you know, I believe in gun ownership. It hasn't stopped corruption and organized crime from tearing at our fabric in the past, but I'd rather we were armed than not. And what better way to guarantee that than an amendment that clarifies everything in modern terms.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

So, you disagree with the English definition of "infringed"?
It means the same as well regulated?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> So, you disagree with the English definition of "infringed"?
> It means the same as well regulated?


Hey buddy. In that sentence, infringed means taking away their right to keep and bear arms. Asking them not to bear it on the corner of 4th and 8th isn't the same thing as infringing on their right to keep and bear arms. And like I said, the purpose was to provide for the necessity of a well regulated mililtia, not a bunch hardcore advocates walking around Target with AKs slung over their shoulders. 

So if you really think about it, you're the only one equating regulate with infringement. Unless of course you think the Constitution is, in which case the entire amendment is meaningless and your guns aren't protected at all.

And by the way, you're kicking the wrong dog. I only pointed out what the Constitution literally says because I don't think it can stay that way if we are going to protect gun ownership for all the reasons we care about.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I DID say it was debated, but it's worth reading at your leisure to see the intent of the vast majority.
> 
> https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/history/the-founding-fathers-on-the-second-amendment


Thanks, a good read, pretty much sets the record straight on the intent of the second amendment.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Hey buddy. In that sentence, infringed means taking away their right to keep and bear arms. Asking them not to bear it on the corner of 4th and 8th isn't the same thing as infringing on their right to keep and bear arms. And like I said, the purpose was to provide for the necessity of a well regulated mililtia, not a bunch hardcore advocates walking around Target with AKs slung over their shoulders.
> 
> So if you really think about it, you're the only one equating regulate with infringement. Unless of course you think the Constitution is, in which case the entire amendment is meaningless and your guns aren't protected at all.
> 
> And by the way, you're kicking the wrong dog. I only pointed out what the Constitution literally says because I don't think it can stay that way if we are going to protect gun ownership for all the reasons we care about.



I refrain from kicking dogs in general, but I got the gist of what you meant by wanting a new amendment earlier, although I disagree that it's needed.

I'm merely explaining that I've heard this position on the wording many times before and my defense is well rehearsed and focused.

"Well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" are polar opposites.
When you are part of a militia, your right to keep and bear arms can be infringed at any times, by order of your commander.
You have chaos if the soldiers can fire at will and not follow directions.

My question is, according to its own words, "*Who* are those people that are not infringed"?
It can't be the militia, because they are regulated.
So who is the group of people referred to in the 2nd, that can keep and bear arms without that right being infringed?
They must be somewhere, so who is it?
Would you say it is only those militia members that have returned home?
If so, then that means only 1% of the population is granted that right.
That's hard to swallow as a guaranteed right compared to the rest of the Constitution.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

What we need is "Constitutional Carry" Not just CCW like here in WI.
And even at that you CAN carry open in WI even without a thing called Constitutional Carry. Open carry is in many states. Many that is that are not filled with those liberal paranoid folks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I agree with you somewhat. But they certainly have power over the discipline (training, rules, etc.) of the militias, which is how the National Guard has come to be. And none of this really changes the fact that according to the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms was for the necessary militias. Times have changed, and so the debate rages. Does everyone need to be armed in order for a well regulated militia to exist? Not anymore. But... Should we protect that institution? I think so.
> 
> What do you think about the meaning of "bear arms" though? Do you believe that just means anywhere any time? Or in general, for the purposes of defending the freedom of their state? Is it really unconstitutional, given the structure of Congress and the states as pertains to the militias, to say...hey...don't walk around town with AK-47s slung over your shoulder.


pretty much anywhere anytime. If you have read the federalist papers you should be aware that the second amendment was discussed by many of the founders... Nearly every one stated that the people need the ability to not only participate in the militia, but to defend themselves, their families, community or town. Even that useless little twit Payne stood up strongly in favor of not just guns but all manner of weapons needed to be held by the citizenry.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> I refrain from kicking dogs in general, but I got the gist of what you meant by wanting a new amendment earlier, although I disagree that it's needed.
> 
> I'm merely explaining that I've heard this position on the wording many times before and my defense is well rehearsed and focused.
> 
> ...


But most of that is an issue of context. You read your link (a lot of those quotes didn't actually come from the Federalist Papers), so you know that there was an inherent fear of standing armies. They preferred militias of armed citizenry for the defense of the nation, called upon only when they were needed. In that context it was far more than 1% who were armed. The wording made sense. We've turned our backs on that philosophy of defense. Hell... Like so many people have mentioned, we've turned our backs on the 4th amendment. We need to reword and reinforce, and I don't see a problem with allowing cities and states to ban public carry. You have your guns at home. When the time comes to defend your liberty...do you really give a crap at that point if the cops are telling you that you're breaking the law? But during times of peace...why not avoid the tension of having a guy walk down the street with a visible assault rifle?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> But most of that is an issue of context. You read your link (a lot of those quotes didn't actually come from the Federalist Papers), so you know that there was an inherent fear of standing armies. They preferred militias of armed citizenry for the defense of the nation, called upon only when they were needed. In that context it was far more than 1% who were armed. The wording made sense. We've turned our backs on that philosophy of defense. Hell... Like so many people have mentioned, we've turned our backs on the 4th amendment. We need to reword and reinforce, and I don't see a problem with allowing cities and states to ban public carry. You have your guns at home. When the time comes to defend your liberty...do you really give a crap at that point if the cops are telling you that you're breaking the law? But during times of peace...why not avoid the tension of having a guy walk down the street with a visible assault rifle?


What tension? It's just a gun. :shrug:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't care if he was "profiled" since *reality* says in a room full of people in the US, a Muslim is more likely to be the terrorist, and a young Middle Eastern male named Mohammed is *more likely* to be a terrorist than Billy Joe-Bob Brown sitting beside him
> 
> "Profiling" is used as a derogatory term when it's just good common sense logic.





Bearfootfarm said:


> You're comparing totally different scenarios.
> 
> In one all laws are followed, and the necessary permissions obtained.
> 
> ...


I'm referring to posts like this. Pretending that those young Muslim men who are more likely to be terrorists aren't a potential threat, even more so if they're carrying a gun, would seem to be bad policy, per you. I'm asking what restrictions you think should be put on all these "potential threats". It would seem that ignoring these "potential threats" could have far worse consequences than a 14 year old with a poorly put together electronic device he openly displayed. If we're going to arrest kids like that, in part because you and others see his religion as making him more threatening, doesn't logic say that any young Muslim man carrying a gun, even legally, is enough of a threat to be arrested?


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Turns out you might actually want a new amendment as well. Because I'm pretty sure you aren't a member of a well regulated militia.



If you live in Illinois you are a member of the state militia. 
"SECTION 1. MEMBERSHIP The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law. 
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Jim


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> But most of that is an issue of context. You read your link (a lot of those quotes didn't actually come from the Federalist Papers), so you know that there was an inherent fear of standing armies. They preferred militias of armed citizenry for the defense of the nation, called upon only when they were needed.  In that context it was far more than 1% who were armed. The wording made sense. We've turned our backs on that philosophy of defense. Hell... Like so many people have mentioned, we've turned our backs on the 4th amendment. We need to reword and reinforce, and I don't see a problem with allowing cities and states to ban public carry. You have your guns at home. When the time comes to defend your liberty...do you really give a crap at that point if the cops are telling you that you're breaking the law? But during times of peace...why not avoid the tension of having a guy walk down the street with a visible assault rifle?



Yes, context indeed. It makes a difference in every language, doesn't it?
You are correct about the fear of standing armies. Constitutionally we can't authorize one for more than two years at time, yet we have one.
All the more reason to heed that warning in context.
While then it was more than 1% who served, that's the figure today. 
To allow the meaning of the 2nd to apply only to the militia, makes the wisdom of the true meaning even more important than when they wrote it.

When challenging these misleading readings of the 2nd amendment, I always find a common thread.
Partitioning.

You did it again.
Keep AND Bear arms.

The SCOTUS has ruled on the meaning of "bear" also. It means what everybody knows it does, to carry.

So, without leaving out any words, *WHO* are "the people" that have the right to "keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed"?

That's the question.
Militia can definitely keep and bear arms, but only under orders of command, an obvious restriction that infringes on the right.
That militia person can return home with their arms, being on call to bear arms again, under orders.
Until such time, they fall under civilian rights to keep AND bear, no problem there.
But If they are on call and under command, they go back to having their right infringed.
So the question remains, who are these people that cannot have that right infringed, not only to possess, but to carry?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> There are many strong advocates of the Second Amendment here. There are also some who see every Muslim as a potential terrorist. Sometimes the two views overlap. A question to you. Should Muslims be allowed to own and carry guns in the US? If a 14 year old boy with a poorly built electronic device is enough of a threat to justify arrest what of a an adult male Muslim with a gun and a carry permit?



You're making an assumption that is wrong..

The ones that put all these "zero tolerance" rules in schools are liberals and as such don't support the 2nd A. 

Remember you can get suspended for biting a pop tart into an "L" shape because it looks like a gun.. That isn't something that 2nd A supporters would do...


NO I HAVEN"T READ ANY OTHER POSTS IN THIS THREAD< JUST THE ORIGINAL POST>>


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

beowoulf90 said:


> You're making an assumption that is wrong..
> 
> The ones that put all these "zero tolerance" rules in schools are liberals and as such don't support the 2nd A.
> 
> ...


And I've stated repeatedly in this thread and others my disagreement with such rules. Using the fact that other people who you disagree with enacted rules you disagree with as an excuse to enact the same sorts of rules because you agree with a different underlying premise makes little sense to me. But Mom, he did it first. And, along with not reading any other posts you didn't answer the question asked.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

FWIW Syria probably conforms to our 2nd amendment, better than we do. 

Until a recent law (whatever that is, in Syria) everybody there had unlimited guns and surely their Militias (numbering in the hundreds of separate groups) are probably "well regulated" - at least, from within their own ranks.

It just seem weird that they fight ISIS, while fighting each other. Starting to sound more familiar in other places, too.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Fishindude said:


> I don't have a problem with the Muslim religion if that's what you choose. Heck, you can worship snakes or be into witchcraft for all I care.
> 
> I do have a real problem with Muslims or any other group that has hatred and anti-American views, is out to harm Americans, break laws, do damage, re-write the constitution to suit themselves, etc.
> 
> ...


I have a problem w/theocratic political entities out to destroy western civilization & setting up a world-wide caliphate, citing their 'holy book' as reference.
The sooner we recognize that is what Islam is, the better off the world will be.
Perhaps there are Muslims who do not subscribe to that Islam philosophy; careful monitoring of the mosques here might let us weed out the ones who do.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not leaning ether direction here. Just stating the facts. Do you have any credible source to support your notion the all Muslims are radical extremist terrorist set on killing every nonmuslim they can find? David koreshs bunch was a Christian based "cult", so was jones. Mcveigh killed hundreds, also raised to be a Christian.
> Are there radical Muslim extremist? Yeppers and they need to be taken seriously, or better yet taken out of the game. My point is that not all Muslims are terrorists any more than all Christians are wackos.


McVeigh was raised Christian but left that long ago & claimed to be agnostic.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> And I've stated repeatedly in this thread and others my disagreement with such rules. Using the fact that other people who you disagree with enacted rules you disagree with as an excuse to enact the same sorts of rules because you agree with a different underlying premise makes little sense to me. But Mom, he did it first. And, along with not reading any other posts you didn't answer the question asked.



Your premise is still wrong..

If the Adult (male or female) is a law abiding citizen of the USA, REGARDLESS of their religion, they should be allowed to own and carry a firearm..

But again you want to compare those who created the "zero tolerance" garbage to 2nd A supporters.. 

Just because 2nd A supports use the very same laws / rules against the idiots who created them doesn't mean they support them.. It means some of us know how to fight the system (aka play the game) from within the system.. 
Lets get one thing straight.. I don't care what your religious beliefs are.. Up until you try to stop me from exercising my freedom and my religion..

If muslims want to live here fine by me.. But the moment you try to stop me from BBQing my pork or bacon, you have now crossed the line and thus are Anti America/Anti American.. If you want to eat goat, go for it.. I personally don't care for it.. If the welfare you are getting doesn't meet your religious code, too bad.. Deal with it or do without it.. It's being given to you and now they want to cry that "donor" is discriminating against them.. 

As long as they are Citizen of the United States of America, they are protected under the Constitution. Those here illegally have no right to our charity, etc.. We already donate more to the world than anyone else..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

beowoulf90 said:


> Your premise is still wrong..
> 
> If the Adult (male or female) is a law abiding citizen of the USA, REGARDLESS of their religion, they should be allowed to own and carry a firearm..
> 
> ...


My premises were these. Some people totally support the second amendment. Some people think all Muslims are potential terrorists. I can link posts that support both of these. Some of those people support both things. I asked how those who feel that all Muslims are terrorists reconcile that with their constitutional right to bear arms. My premise is the same as yours. They have every right to constitutional protection, including the second. Some people have answered this question. Some have found interesting ways not to. Thanks for answering.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

ninny said:


> SCOTUS has declared that illegal aliens have the right to own guns.
> .


Cite the case, please.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

JJ Grandits said:


> For the record.
> 
> The only terrorist at Waco was the government.
> They did the killing.


Amen...


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> There are many strong advocates of the Second Amendment here. There are also some who see every Muslim as a potential terrorist. Sometimes the two views overlap. A question to you. Should Muslims be allowed to own and carry guns in the US? If a 14 year old boy with a poorly built electronic device is enough of a threat to justify arrest what of a an adult male Muslim with a gun and a carry permit?


First off I am not partial to any religion of the world except the one which I follow and no other religion can restrict my practice of my chosen religious view.

That aside, a legal citizen or resident of our nation who can legally own a firearm. in my opinion should be accorded the same right as any legal citizen or resident.

Nut cases regardless of their cultural or religious flavor should be restricted as the laws provide for.

Sure it is not a totally prophylactic type protection but that would require psychics or totalitarians in control of our populace and that is much worse than addressing the issue of criminals, psychotics and psychopaths as they crop up.

Second Amendment rights fall within the same realm as the view of "better to have 100 criminals on the streets than one innocent man in prison".

If a psycho of whatever flavor misuses a firearm and survives without a weapon holder of sound mind and weapon possession qualification certified neutralizing them, it is better for our nation to address the issue of the psycho, overcome the results of their actions and let life in our nation continue on.

Regardless of a citizen's religious/ cultural view, if their view includes our national value perspective, they are part of the "good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun" equation.

In the 1950s white Christian members of the Ku Klux Klan shot and lynched black AME church members and American Jews .

During the first Gulf War some whites in Huntsville targeted a family of Iranians who immigrated here and became citizens when the Shah of Iran was overthrown simply because the family were Muslims.

The father who worked at the same plant I did and was also a member of our competition shooting club held off the white idiots who only knew they were Muslims with his Beretta and Mossberg shotgun until the police arrived.

The amusing fact of his situation was that when he and his family immigrated here, he first joined the military to gain G.I. benefits and progress from green card to naturalized citizen more quickly. Also as part of our competition shooting team, his marksmanship rating was so high, the county deputy who was our range officer convinced him to join the reserve deputy program to be a reserve and interpreter / PR liaison to the Muslim community in the county.

That man and his family still live here and I guess they are still Muslim but he always did like most of the Christians did and if he wanted to skip his version of church to go to a football game , hunting, sleep in or whatever, he did.

Although he came from a Muslim culture, just as American Christians , he is American first and only holds to his religious views if he is sure doing so won't put his marriage , job or personal relaxation time in jeopardy.

As I recall him saying, the reason he and his family immigrated to this country and became citizens was if they stayed in Iran they would have been killed and he knew that here we give all of our citizens the same basic rights and means to legally defend ourselves from our not so normal neighbors.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Shrek, same view here.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What tension? It's just a gun. :shrug:


That is just your opinion. The tension, of course, comes from the people who see the gun and wonder about the intentions of the person bearing it. This is especially the case in parts of the country where shootings have occurred or do occur. 



farmrbrown said:


> Yes, context indeed. It makes a difference in every language, doesn't it?
> You are correct about the fear of standing armies. Constitutionally we can't authorize one for more than two years at time, yet we have one.
> All the more reason to heed that warning in context.
> While then it was more than 1% who served, that's the figure today.
> ...


I don't agree with your points regarding the English language. Keep and bear are separate by definition. They are two verbs with two different meanings. If one implied the other, there would have been no need to include both in the sentence, and there would be no need for the conjunction. What is a conjunction? A conjunction is a part of speech that joins two sentences, phrases, or clauses. They are still separate words with separate definitions, they are simply applied to the context of the whole sentence. 

The reason I think that is important is because "keep" in the context of that sentence implies that the citizens should be able to keep arms for the purpose of defending their free state in a militia, and "bear" implies that they should be able to brandish arms for the purpose of defending their free state in a militia. That is the literal reading.

It needs to be clarified for the modern context. 

And as for the general public... There are far more accidental shootings than there are self defense shootings.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The militia is one, not the only, reason to keep and bear arms. That is why the term "militia" and "the People" are separate. Think of it this way:

*Breakfast, being important to the well being of society, the peoples right to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.* 

If you were to read that, would you believe that people only have the right to keep and eat food for breakfast?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> The militia is one, not the only, reason to keep and bear arms. That is why the term "militia" and "the People" are separate. Think of it this way:
> 
> *Breakfast, being important to the well being of society, the peoples right to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.*
> 
> If you were to read that, would you believe that people only have the right to keep and eat food for breakfast?


If I were writing a Constitutional Amendment, the law of the land, and I needed to specify the reason for the protection of a right....I would write that reason very clearly. The only way to legally interpret your sentence is that we are preserving the right to keep and eat food for the purpose of breakfast and the well being of society. If there were no need to qualify the right to bear arms, they wouldn't have written it the way they did. 

If I write,



> Intense happiness being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the citizen to keep and snort cocaine shall be preserved.


Then we have the right to keep and snort cocaine for intense happiness. We don't have the right to inject it. We don't have the right to cook it into a rock and smoke it. And if we demonstrate any other behavior than intense happiness, such as loss of contact with reality or agitation, we are no longer exercising a protected right.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> That is just your opinion. The tension, of course, comes from the people who see the gun and wonder about the intentions of the person bearing it. This is especially the case in parts of the country where shootings have occurred or do occur.


My opinion? I asked a question, didn't offer any opinions. Here is my opinion. There should be no tension just because someone is carrying a firearm in plain view strapped over his shoulder. Particularly not in an area where shootings have occurred recently. It becomes plainly obvious what his intentions are.... Most likely his intentions are to be able to defend himself if needed. Do you get tense when an armed policeman walks past you on his way to the donut shop? Or do you presume he is merely going about his business heading for a snack? Why would you not grant a law abiding fellow citizen the same benefit of doubt? Why would you get tense? Are you presuming he is "up to no good"? Where does this tension come from?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

ninny said:


> SCOTUS has declared that illegal aliens have the right to own guns.
> .


That's the hype, but not the reality.

They said the 2nd Amendment "protects" illegal immigrants, but there are still laws that make their possession of firearms or ammunition illegal, so the ruling was pointless


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> There are far more accidental shootings than there are self defense shootings.


Another mindless chant

There are far more instances of crimes stopped through the use of a firearm than accidental OR intentional shootings combined, because quite often the mere sight of the weapon is all that is needed to do the job. 

In about 80% of the defensive uses of firearms, no shots are fired at all 



> The tension, of course, comes from the* people who see the gun* and wonder about the intentions of the person bearing it


No one sees "concealed" weapons



> Keep and bear are separate by definition. They are two verbs with two different meanings. If one implied the other, there would have been no need to include both in the sentence, and there would be no need for the conjunction. What is a conjunction? A conjunction is a part of speech that joins two sentences, phrases, or clauses. *They are still separate words with separate definitions*, they are simply applied to the context of the whole sentence.


Both are there, both have meaning, and both apply.

"Keep" means keep, as in possess
"Bear" means carry. It doesn't include any limitations in the Constitution


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> My opinion? I asked a question, didn't offer any opinions. Here is my opinion. There should be no tension just because someone is carrying a firearm in plain view strapped over his shoulder. Particularly not in an area where shootings have occurred recently. It becomes plainly obvious what his intentions are.... Most likely his intentions are to be able to defend himself if needed. Do you get tense when an armed policeman walks past you on his way to the donut shop? Or do you presume he is merely going about his business heading for a snack? Why would you not grant a law abiding fellow citizen the same benefit of doubt? Why would you get tense? Are you presuming he is "up to no good"? Where does this tension come from?


"Just a gun" is an opinion. And there is tension. We know what cops are. We can reasonably assume that the cop has extensive training. And even they make mistakes.

Like I said. Accidental shootings. Intended shootings. Maybe you live in a place where everyone "looks" the same. Maybe they all look like law abiding citizens to you. I live in a place where there really haven't been that many shootings...and yet we have them. One fairly recently. A guy who served in the military, the kind of guy you see every day at the gas station, and he killed people. You're expecting the rest of us to feel no tension because that's what you want us to feel, that's what you think is reasonable. Expecting us to feel the same way as you is not reasonable.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

All US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. It makes no difference what their religious affiliation is. My issue would not be with muslim citizens owning firearms, it would be with the number and type of muslims that we allow to become US citizens in the first place. At this point in time, there are alot of PO'd muslims who would love to come here and kill Americans. Without getting into the reasons why, and who I believe is responsible for that situation, it is the reality that we are living in right now. So, in order to safeguard American lives and liberties, I think it makes alot of sense to curtail the number of muslims that we let in here in the first place. The few muslims that we do let in should be fully vetted and re-vetted. This is not about prejudice or being "anti-muslim" its a logical response to a very real issue.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Another mindless chant
> 
> There are far more instances of crimes stopped through the use of a firearm than accidental OR intentional shootings combined, because quite often the mere sight of the weapon is all that is needed to do the job.
> 
> ...


Ooo mindless hah? :catfight: Get over yourself. You have one way of looking at it, no one is required to agree with you. That 80% statistic is BS and you know it. The provable statistics are in. I'd also be willing to bet that accidental shootings occur more often than "self defense uses of firearms where no shots are fired." But I also doubt very seriously that you could provide the number of "defensive use of firearms" where no shots were fired. Give me a break. That's conjecture. I can say that 100% of the time I've walked out of my house, my fists were a successful defense without firing a bullet...and they've never gone off accidentally. 

And you just cut out the first part of the sentence. Again. I guess you all don't like the actual wording after all.

So like I said... New amendment.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> "Just a gun" is an opinion. And there is tension. We know what cops are. We can reasonably assume that the cop has extensive training.
> 
> Like I said. Accidental shootings. Intended shootings. Maybe you live in a place where everyone "looks" the same. Maybe they all look like law abiding citizens to you. I live in a place where there really haven't been that many shootings...and yet we have them. One fairly recently. You're expecting the rest of us to feel no tension because that's what you want us to feel, that's what you think is reasonable. Expecting us to feel the same way as you is not reasonable.


My take on this is that if you are tense regarding me exercising my freedoms then thats a problem you have, not me. Maybe I'm tense at the idea that you should have the right to free speech, or the right to be secure in your personal effects without probable cause. That's my tough luck. If somebody else's freedom makes a man tense then maybe that man needs to speak to a professional about his problem?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Might we not spend more time trying to make people behave. When I was young, everyone had guns, many carried them, anywhere, anytime. No one stood around wondering if they were going to hurt someone with them.

To spend all that time discussing doing away, or somehow regulating, guns, and not a lot about making sure people, who will have to use the guns, do as they should.

As for guns preventing crime, it is true, there is no way we could come up with a real answer. Sometimes the fact people just know you have - or might have - a gun in your home, makes your home safer. 

I was just thinking last night how really ridiculous Whataburger's stance was on people who would open carry. They said they wouldn't allow them on the property, because it would make people uncomfortable and they had young people working and they shouldn't have to worry about someone open carrying.

I'm wondering why it would make anyone more uncomfortable to see a gun, than to wonder exactly who had a gun concealed? Also, he didn't want his young people concerned, yet they will be the ones to have to tell someone they can't carry a gun?

Maybe I'm not seeing this right, but I think this was just a stand they took because they thought it would set well with a certain segment. Silly businesses don't worry about those who would find their stance ridiculous, as we 'the unenlightened' will most probably continue to do business with them. I won't and I have no desire to carry a gun - open or not. 

Yes, David Koresh's group, Waco, were not terrorists - they didn't kill anyone. They defended themselves and then were incinerated - innocent women and children by our government.

I would like to know why exactly. We will never know, probably, but there was some reason the government went after them - and some reason they went after them in the way they did.

I'd like to know about the shootout with the bikers in Waco as well.

As I said, weird things going on in Texas - not sure why.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Ooo mindless hah? :catfight: Get over yourself. You have one way of looking at it, no one is required to agree with you.
> 
> *That 80% statistic is BS and you know it.
> *
> ...


Feel free to show your sources.

Estimates on crimes prevented VS shots fired range from around 80 to 92%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> "Just a gun" is an opinion. And there is tension. We know what cops are. We can reasonably assume that the cop has extensive training. And even they make mistakes.
> 
> Like I said. Accidental shootings. Intended shootings. Maybe you live in a place where everyone "looks" the same. Maybe they all look like law abiding citizens to you. I live in a place where there really haven't been that many shootings...and yet we have them. One fairly recently. A guy who served in the military, the kind of guy you see every day at the gas station, and he killed people. You're expecting the rest of us to feel no tension because that's what you want us to feel, that's what you think is reasonable. Expecting us to feel the same way as you is not reasonable.


Why cant we reasonably assume that our fellow citizens know how to use a gun? I was well acquainted with their use by the time I was eight. As was nearly everyone I knew. Guns are really not all that complex and their use is even less so. I don't expect everyone to share my feelings, I have lived long enough to know not everyone is the same. We have a wide variety of folks living in my area, tall, short, thin and thick, people from foreign countries, folks whose ancestors settled the area generations ago. Folks from various religions and some with no apparent faith at all. Most are law abiding citizens, a few not so much. Lots of them carry concealed, some open carry and many not at all. I seldom see the tenseness you describe. I am not even suggesting there is anything wrong with unfounded paranoia. Just curious as to why it's there.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

More gun use statistics:

http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/gun-web-widget.shtml


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why cant we reasonably assume that our fellow citizens know how to use a gun?


Because we know absolutely nothing about them. Whereas we know that cops in general need a 2 year tech degree and extensive training to be cops. It's really pretty simple.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> More gun use statistics:
> 
> http://www.actionamerica.org/guns/gun-web-widget.shtml


Good article, thanks for posting it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Because we know absolutely nothing about them. Whereas we know that cops in general need a 2 year tech degree and extensive training to be cops. It's really pretty simple.


Fear of the unknown. Got it.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oh we're posting links now... Let me just deal with that BS statistic in your link right away. http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/

http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opi...n-killed-accidental-shootings-you-might-think
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fear of the unknown. Got it.


LOL you guys are such hypocrites. If you weren't afraid of the unknown you wouldn't carry.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wiscto said:


> LOL you guys are such hypocrites. If you weren't afraid of the unknown you wouldn't carry.


Do you carry your driver's license? Of course you do because you MAY need it. Do you check the air in your tires? Do you have a jack in the trunk? Do you have house insurance? We all protect ourselves in varying ways for what MIGHT happen. It's called being prudent. You may decide not to carry and I might decide not to replace the jack in my trunk. Either or both of us may end up in a bad situation because of our decisions but we both HOPE we never do.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wiscto said:


> LOL you guys are such hypocrites. If you weren't afraid of the unknown you wouldn't carry.


Quite the opposite. It is knowledge of the known that makes the right to possess arms so important.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> LOL you guys are such hypocrites. If you weren't afraid of the unknown you wouldn't carry.


I don't carry due to fear of the unknown, I carry due to my understanding of the known. There are a bit over 300 million good folks living in this country, and a few knot heads. I am too old and decrepit to wrestle anyone. For whatever reason I've noticed these knot heads don't push me very hard when they see my firearm. It works for me, your mileage may vary.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> That is just your opinion. The tension, of course, comes from the people who see the gun and wonder about the intentions of the person bearing it. This is especially the case in parts of the country where shootings have occurred or do occur.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And you have explained it well. I have heard that many times before, the implication that they were only talking about the militias. But there are three problems with that meaning, actually four, that you haven't addressed so far.

1) If the militia is "well regulated" when are they not infringed in this right to keep and bear arms?
Only when they are not serving actively? Today we only have 1% of the population serving, and you can count all the retired veterans too. 
Can you honestly say that the 2nd right on one of the most important documents in history was to apply to 1 or 2% of the country?
They could have banned them outright and just passed a law in Congress to allow military to have arms instead.
That would have made more sense, to define a right for over 90% rather than the other way around. Don't you think, especially in the context of the whole thing?
Are there any other rights in the entire document that apply to a small fraction and exclude almost everyone else?

2)Yes, *keep AND bear* are joined by a conjunction. Their definitions aren't as relevant as the fact they are both rights not to be infringed. If you could keep, but not bear, then it would have been *or* or *but*.
You don't object to someone keeping a firearm, but you object when they exercise their right to carry it as clearly defined in the amendment.

3) The other problem this view has is, how can you tell who is ex-military or on leave or not active duty?
If you acknowledge only the militia to have the right to keep AND bear arms, and a person in civilian dress and appearance openly carries, how does law enforcement make the legal distinction without violating a few OTHER amendments like the 4th and 5th?


The fourth I'll ask below.....




wiscto said:


> If I were writing a Constitutional Amendment, the law of the land, and I needed to specify the reason for the protection of a right....I would write that reason very clearly. The only way to legally interpret your sentence is that we are preserving the right to keep and eat food for the purpose of breakfast and the well being of society. If there were no need to qualify the right to bear arms, they wouldn't have written it the way they did.
> 
> If I write,
> 
> ...



4) You read and acknowledged the context in which this was written, a real fear of government or monarchial control of standing armies.
That's a long way from the happy feeling of a good breakfast or a recreational drug.
If we assume your context argument that the well regulated militia was a good thing, for the well being of a society and it was to exclude everyone else in this right, we would have to erase all the writings I posted previously so no one would know that the standing army was feared and not welcomed.
Is that what you suggest be taught? When the Bill of Rights was written, that an unarmed society with a small number of armed soldiers in the control of one person was a good and proper thing?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why cant we reasonably assume that our fellow citizens know how to use a gun? I was well acquainted with their use by the time I was eight. As was nearly everyone I knew. Guns are really not all that complex and their use is even less so. I don't expect everyone to share my feelings, I have lived long enough to know not everyone is the same. We have a wide variety of folks living in my area, tall, short, thin and thick, people from foreign countries, folks whose ancestors settled the area generations ago. Folks from various religions and some with no apparent faith at all. Most are law abiding citizens, a few not so much. Lots of them carry concealed, some open carry and many not at all. I seldom see the tenseness you describe. I am not even suggesting there is anything wrong with unfounded paranoia. Just curious as to why it's there.





wiscto said:


> Because we know absolutely nothing about them. Whereas we know that cops in general need a 2 year tech degree and extensive training to be cops. It's really pretty simple.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fear of the unknown. Got it.


Yeppers, fear can be a destructive force.
When I drive to work everyday I have no idea what the other person behind the wheel might do. All I can do is keep it between the ditches and stay out of the way.
Sure, they're licensed to drive, a lot of good that does when they've had a few drinks or play with their phones and watch videos.
But I manage to survive with not much danger.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> LOL you guys are such hypocrites. If you weren't afraid of the unknown you wouldn't carry.


I've had fire extinguishers all my life to be prepared, not because I'm "afraid"
I've never needed one, but that doesn't mean I will stop having them.

You're the only one who has *said* you're afraid


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've had fire extinguishers all my life to be prepared, not because I'm "afraid"
> I've never needed one, but that doesn't mean I will stop having them.
> 
> You're the only one who has *said* you're afraid


like a fire extinguisher a gun may never be needed, but I would rather have one when it is needed than not have it if I ever do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Oh we're posting links now... Let me just deal with that BS statistic in your link right away. http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/
> 
> http://[COLOR="Red"]everytown.org[/COLOR]/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf
> https://www.minnpost.com/second-opi...n-killed-accidental-shootings-you-might-think
> ...


Two of your links are propaganda directly from anti-gun organizations, and two are duplicates of statistics that don't disprove any of the data I posted. 

In fact, they tend to support it by showing how few accidental shootings there truly are.

My stats were from actual victim surveys, while yours were from political action groups with anti gun agendas.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shrek said:


> First off I am not partial to any religion of the world except the one which I follow and no other religion can restrict my practice of my chosen religious view.
> 
> That aside, a legal citizen or resident of our nation who can legally own a firearm. in my opinion should be accorded the same right as any legal citizen or resident.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the answer. Your Muslim aquaintance sounds much like many of the Muslims I've met and come to know in the last 35 or so years. 

And thanks to all the others who answered. I won't pretend to agree with all your answers but my intent wasn't really to argue or get anyone to change their mind, but to better understand how and why others think as they do. Some of the answers have been quite enlightening as has been some of the silence. 

I'll now return this thread to its regularly scheduled constitutional arguement.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> There are many strong advocates of the Second Amendment here. There are also some who see every Muslim as a potential terrorist. Sometimes the two views overlap. A question to you. Should Muslims be allowed to own and carry guns in the US? If a 14 year old boy with a poorly built electronic device is enough of a threat to justify arrest what of a an adult male Muslim with a gun and a carry permit?



I "liked" a few of the affirmative answers on the first page, and apologize for helping to hijack your thread.

I hoped you deduced from my arguments that all people, including any race, religion (yes even Muslims) gender, political view etc., have the right to keep and bear arms.
To restrict it on any of those terms would be un-American.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I "liked" a few of the affirmative answers on the first page, and apologize for helping to hijack your thread.
> 
> I hoped you deduced from my arguments that all people, including any race, religion (yes even Muslims) gender, political view etc., have the right to keep and bear arms.
> To restrict it on any of those terms would be un-American.


No apology needed. Threads go where they go. Once again, we agree on something. There's hope yet.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Everyone should share in all of our rights until they prove themselves unworthy, at which point the should be separated from decent society.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> like a fire extinguisher a gun may never be needed, *but I would rather have one when it is needed than not have it if I ever do*.



That's the same reason I want them to build a Hooter's restaurant here.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

And I worry about morons and unstable people walking around with guns because I know they do... Think things through. When you apply a certain logic, try not to assume that it doesn't apply to the person you're talking about.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Two of your links are propaganda directly from anti-gun organizations, and two are duplicates of statistics that don't disprove any of the data I posted.
> 
> In fact, they tend to support it by showing how few accidental shootings there truly are.
> 
> My stats were from actual victim surveys, while yours were from political action groups with anti gun agendas.


I can say the same thing about your link. The difference being that the statistics in my link can actually be corroborated, and yours is straight up manufactured...yea I'm saying it...your link is a blatant lie. It isn't even spin, it's total fantasy. I'm pro ownership. But I'm also a realist.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> And I worry about morons and unstable people walking around with guns because I know they do... Think things through. When you apply a certain logic, try not to assume that it doesn't apply to the person you're talking about.


Your worrying won't change anything, and anyone legally carrying is unlikely to cause you any problems




> I can say the same thing about your link. The difference being that the statistics in my link can actually be corroborated, and yours is straight up manufactured...yea I'm saying it...*your link is a blatant lie.* It isn't even spin, it's total fantasy. I'm pro ownership. But I'm also a realist.


LOL
My links from college professors and national crime surveys are "lies" and yours, from "Moms Demand Action" is all truth? 

That's ridiculous

One of my links even had one of the studies you cited (Hemenway), so I guess that makes yours a "lie" too.



> I'm pro ownership.


No, you aren't
You're pro *control* as long as you decide the terms


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> And I worry about morons and unstable people walking around with guns because I know they do... Think things through. When you apply a certain logic, try not to assume that it doesn't apply to the person you're talking about.


Ok, I'm not sure I understand everything I know about this post. I have not been talking about anyone, and which logic have I applied? Are you trying to say that you are unstable and walk around with guns? Or you know someone who does? Sorry but you've gotten me confused. I have never known any unstable people that carry. I have heard of them, but never knew them personally.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, you aren't
> You're pro *control* as long as you decide the terms


Seems to be a lot of that going around in the world today.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your worrying won't change anything, and anyone legally carrying is unlikely to cause you any problems
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Think what you want. The first link shows you exactly how much bull is in yours. 2 million people "brandish their firearms" and deter crime a year? That is the stupidest wishful thinking I have ever heard in my life. I'm dead serious. I have no respect for anyone who actually believes that statistic. It is a blatant lie, and it really has nothing to support it, just people who make unfounded claims on surveys handed out with an obvious agenda.

And you not carrying a weapon is just as unlikely to result in you being robbed or harmed as I am unlikely to be harmed by some idiot with a legal gun. So... All you have is an opinion. Opinions are like everything else, subject to democratic debate. Which is all we're doing here. I stated an opinion. You're the ones who get your panties wedged in all the wrong places when you hear an opinion you don't like. And yet you all express your opinions in the exact same manner as I do, with confidence. And you and YH were the first ones to cast stones. YH with his little "backpack" comment. You with your "mindless" comment. 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I'm not sure I understand everything I know about this post. I have not been talking about anyone, and which logic have I applied? Are you trying to say that you are unstable and walk around with guns? Or you know someone who does? Sorry but you've gotten me confused. I have never known any unstable people that carry. I have heard of them, but never knew them personally.


Typical. You said...



> I don't carry due to fear of the unknown, I carry due to my understanding of the known.


I'm not paranoid of the unknown. I'm paranoid of the known. It is a known fact that random accidents happen. We can do this all day. But at the end, the only reality is that you don't have any authority over how I feel. I gave my opinion about gun control, you don't agree. This crap is over.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Two of your links are propaganda directly from anti-gun organizations, and two are duplicates of statistics that don't disprove any of the data I posted.
> 
> In fact, they tend to support it by showing how few accidental shootings there truly are.
> 
> My stats were from actual victim surveys, while yours were from political action groups with anti gun agendas.


Boy I have read some far out reasons for these anti gun types not liking the rest of the people by constitutional law can carry guns, but this one from my own state takes the cake big time. Boy am I ever glad we have Scott Walker as our Governor. He may not make it to the big stage, but I sure hope and pray then he stays as Governor of the State of WI for a LONG TIME. We need him more then ever when confronting such foolishness the liberals have in there minds. We sure need a person that will take no bull form them and keep WI as close to the Constitution of the USA as possible.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> Boy I have read some far out reasons for these anti gun types not liking the rest of the people by constitutional law can carry guns, but this one from my own state takes the cake big time. Boy am I ever glad we have Scott Walker as our Governor. He may not make it to the big stage, but I sure hope and pray then he stays as Governor of the State of WI for a LONG TIME. We need him more then ever when confronting such foolishness the liberals have in there minds. We sure need a person that will take no bull form them and keep WI as close to the Constitution of the USA as possible.


Oh take a deep breath. Like anything is ever going to happen to you if you don't have your gun with you in LaCrosse... Like I said before, I'm all for gun ownership. In fact I want to secure it, and make people's private property untouchable. But the paranoia of the pro-carry anytime anywhere crowd is absolutely no less paranoid than those of us who don't want to get shot by some idiot's kid because the idiot didn't properly secure her firearm in her purse and her kid got a hold of it in line at the checkout.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Oh take a deep breath. Like anything is ever going to happen to you if you don't have your gun with you in LaCrosse... Like I said before, I'm all for gun ownership. In fact I want to secure it, and make people's private property untouchable. But the paranoia of the pro-carry anytime anywhere crowd is absolutely no less paranoid than those of us who don't want to get shot by some idiot's kid because the idiot didn't properly secure her firearm in her purse and her kid got a hold of it in line at the checkout.


Yeppers, there has been so many checkout line shootings by three year olds that I'm skeered to go to the grocery store. Sheesh


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, there has been so many checkout line shootings by three year olds that I'm skeered to go to the grocery store. Sheesh


Yea and so often when I use one example, it's the only example of accidents happening... And so many people get mugged in the checkout line, I'm so skeered I need my gun. Oh pwease don't infringe on my rights to carry my gun on your property, Target, I may never weave my house again.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Yea and so often when I use one example, it's the only example of accidents happening... And so many people get mugged in the checkout line, I'm so skeered I need my gun. Oh pwease don't infringe on my rights to carry my gun on your property, Target, I may never weave my house again.


I'm not sure but I think there may be more violent crimes being committed than accidental shootings out side the home. That's just a guess on my part. No facts, no links, pure guesswork.

ETA: ok I looked up the number of accidental deaths by firearms. In 2010 it seems there were a total of 606. That's not broken down to in home versus outside the home. Now I will go back and see how many violent crimes were committed during same year.
According to the FBI there were approx 1,246,248 violent crimes committed in 2010. Rape, robbery, assault etc. that's their numbers not mine, the following is my thoughts... I am thinking that number would have been considerably lower had the victims been armed with firearms. I also think it may have been higher if those who carry didn't.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Let's see 
Funny River man in recovery after bear attack
Troopers were called at 4:36 p.m. and were not able to find the bear after the attack, according to an Alaska State Trooper dispatch. High was not armed with a gun or bear spray when he was attacked, according to the report.
m.peninsulaclarion.com Â· 9/15/2015
How Not to Get Attacked by a Bear
How Not to Get Attacked by a Bear
scientists found that bear spray was 92 percent effective in deterring attacks from the three species of North American bear in Alaska between 1985 and 2006. Ninety-eight percent of people carrying bear spray who got &#8230;
National Geographic Â· ByChristine Dell andTodd Wilkinson Â· 9/16/2015
Alaska Bear Attack: 20-Year-Old Woman Mauled By Brown Bear While Jogging
A 20-year-old woman from Alaska has been hospitalized following a bear attack that has left her injured. The woman, identified as Gabbriele Markel, was attacked by a brown bear when she was jogging with her friend and coworker identified as 26-year-old ...
The Inquisitr Â· 8/6/2015
Grizzly Bear Attacks Runner in Alaska
A grizzly bear attacked a runner on ... Gabriele Markel and Kaitlyn Haley, employees at the Alaska Wildland Adventures lodge near Skilak Lake, were approximately three-quarters of a mile away from the lodge when the attack occurred. Markel, 20 &#8230;
Runner's World Â· 8/6/2015
Hunter airlifted from Alaskan island after bear attack
The injured hunter was flown to Kodiak Municipal Airport and then handed over to emergency medical services, the Coast Guard said. In May, a woman jogging at an Air Force base in Alaska survived an attack by a brown bear sow defending its two cubs.
CNN Â· ByJethro Mullen Â· 11/6/2014
Soldier's wife survives bear attack on Alaska base
Confronted by a mother brown bear and her cubs, an Army soldier's wife in Alaska displayed "phenomenal" survival instinct by apparently playing dead, surviving scratching from the bear's claws and then walking two miles to safety, an official

So many if not most carry a gun around here just to go out side. So the go out to get their mail.. which for most is,a drive down a road to a wooded area... so the take their gun... cause.. mauling by bears are common 8 last month... next the head to the merc (our = to a 7-11) should the take it off and leave it in the car... nope.. open carry. We, are not afraid of folks like we are bears...... it's a tool.. and it is wise to have the tools you might need .... no different than having jumper cables.

They are really quite safe when not being used for crimes. Why can't we just outlaw crimes.... we did. criminal are the main problems with guns not law abiding citzens.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Any amendment I would support would protect carry pretty much everywhere, but cities would be empowered to choose their own path for their own streets democratically. Unincorporated land would be entirely protected, as well as all federal land. But I would strengthen the right of private property owners to also choose their own path. 

And I'm not saying one accident makes stricter control more legitimate, but here's a little dose of reality.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-killed-in-wal-mart-accidental-shooting-kept-gun-in-special-pocket/



> Terry Rutledge said his daughter-in-law did not put the weapon "loosely into her purse."
> 
> Victoria Rutledge had a concealed weapons permit, and guns were a big part of Rutledge's life, her father-in-law said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Why cant we reasonably assume that our fellow citizens know how to use a gun? I was well acquainted with their use by the time I was eight. As was nearly everyone I knew. Guns are really not all that complex and their use is even less so. I don't expect everyone to share my feelings, I have lived long enough to know not everyone is the same. We have a wide variety of folks living in my area, tall, short, thin and thick, people from foreign countries, folks whose ancestors settled the area generations ago. Folks from various religions and some with no apparent faith at all. Most are law abiding citizens, a few not so much. Lots of them carry concealed, some open carry and many not at all. I seldom see the tenseness you describe. I am not even suggesting there is anything wrong with unfounded paranoia. Just curious as to why it's there.


The liberals have nearly eradicated that that assumption that folks know about guns. 

The boy scouts train kids as young as 8 or maybe its 10 to shoot skeet. 

When that happened here a number of years ago the libs (thank the Lord we're mostly conservatives) had a fit. Didn't realize, I guess, that it happens every year w/scouts. And the majority set them strait on how everyone should know how to take care & use a gun. Not that it changed thier minds but at least they didn't win. 

In many communities its considered outcast behavior to OWN a gun. We cannot let this attitude prevail.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Any amendment I would support would protect carry pretty much everywhere, but cities would be empowered to choose their own path for their own streets democratically. Unincorporated land would be entirely protected, as well as all federal land. But I would strengthen the right of private property owners to also choose their own path.
> 
> And I'm not saying one accident makes stricter control more legitimate, but here's a little dose of reality.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mom-killed-in-wal-mart-accidental-shooting-kept-gun-in-special-pocket/


The existing amendments provides everything needed for private persons to choose their own path, if we could get people to obey them. Did you not notice that dose of reality I brought forward? The one about over a million people being robbed, raped, or assaulted in one year, most of which could be prevented had those victims been armed with a firearm. Do you think an accidental shooting by a two year old should out weigh those facts?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The existing amendments provides everything needed for private persons to choose their own path, if we could get people to obey them. Did you not notice that dose of reality I brought forward? The one about over a million people being robbed, raped, or assaulted in one year, most of which could be prevented had those victims been armed with a firearm. Do you think an accidental shooting by a two year old should out weigh those facts?


First of all... It's really just an assumption on your part that those statistics would be different if those people had been armed. There have always been and always will be people who choose not to be armed. By and large those people would fair no better with a weapon, and by and large those are the kinds of people who are "chosen" by criminals. The majority of those people are targeted for robberies which are almost never actually life threatening.


One of the reasons many people choose not to be armed in public is because they are not vulnerable. They don't live in violent areas, they don't go out at night and when they do they practice safe behavior, they don't work in gas stations, they don't walk alone. Those people are almost never targeted, and when they are, they are usually targeted in areas of high population and high traffic, so they know that if they are armed they run the risk of initiating a shootout that causes far more death than if they had just handed over their wallet. The likelihood of a shooting like the Aurora theater is far less than accidental death caused by the discharge of legal weapons.

Reporting robberies as "violent" crimes is kind of a toss up. Most robbery victims are not in mortal danger because they aren't a threat to the local thugs robbing them. That's why they're robberies and not shootings. Take away robberies and you're nowhere near a million.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> First of all... It's really just an assumption on your part that those statistics would be different if those people had been armed. There have always been and always will be people who choose not to be armed. By and large those people would fair no better with a weapon, and by and large those are the kinds of people who are "chosen" by criminals. The majority of those people are targeted for robberies which are almost never actually life threatening.
> 
> 
> One of the reasons many people choose not to be armed in public is because they are not vulnerable. They don't live in violent areas, they don't go out at night and when they do they practice safe behavior, they don't work in gas stations, they don't walk alone. Those people are almost never targeted, and when they are, they are usually targeted in areas of high population and high traffic, so they know that if they are armed they run the risk of initiating a shootout that causes far more death than if they had just handed over their wallet. The likelihood of a shooting like the Aurora theater is far less than accidental death caused by the discharge of legal weapons.
> ...


take away in home accidental shootings and we are nowhere near 606 either, which btw is still a whole lot less than the number of crimes stopped because a potential victim was armed.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> take away in home accidental shootings and we are nowhere near 606 either, which btw is still a *whole lot less than the number of crimes stopped because a potential victim was armed.*


Conjecture, and nothing more. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ 

The statistics on supposed "gun brandishing" defense uses are all manufactured. And the notion that just having a gun stops crime is just an assumption.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Conjecture, and nothing more. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
> 
> The statistics on supposed "gun brandishing" defense uses are all manufactured. And the notion that just having a gun stops crime is just an assumption.


Let's manufacture one of those now... Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would be just as likely to give me the same attitude you have displayed on this forum numerous times if we were face to face and I held my trusty shotgun across my lap? Somehow I have a feeling you would be very polite, maybe almost as polite as I have been when I was stareing down the wrong end of one myself. Rest assured that at least one crime was stopped dead in its tracks when that old man leveled his shotgun in my face at a can't miss range. About three feet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> *Conjecture, and nothing more*. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
> 
> The statistics on supposed "gun brandishing" defense uses are all manufactured. And the notion that just having a gun stops crime is just an assumption.


You're a hoot!
You claim actual crime victim survey statistics are "manufactured", while all your sources are anti-gun organizations 
(and we all know they *never* lie, huh?)

From your source:


> Numbers on this table reflect a subset of all information
> collected and *will not add to 100% of incidents*.


They show what fits their agenda


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> And the notion that just having a gun stops crime is just an assumption.


:umno:

That's ONE time where there is no place for assumptions.
Some of us know all too well just how real that is.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let's manufacture one of those now... Are you honestly trying to tell me that you would be just as likely to give me the same attitude you have displayed on this forum numerous times if we were face to face and I held my trusty shotgun across my lap? Somehow I have a feeling you would be very polite, maybe almost as polite as I have been when I was stareing down the wrong end of one myself.


Hahaha. I love it when these threads "go there." And dude. I absolutely would. You should see how hard my adrenaline pumps just thinking about it. There's nothing I hate more than someone claiming authority over me, how I choose to talk, what I choose to say, and when. I would have to admit that I'm almost psychotically opposed to backing down; particularly to hypocrites who can't recognize their own "attitude". You don't want people to talk to you that way? Maybe you should watch your own mouth. 

Taking this conversation back to what we were talking about, because "attitude" isn't crime you just wanted talk tough on the internet.... 

If a real criminal wants what you have, do you really think they're going to give you a chance to draw that firearm? Or do you think they're just more likely to ambush and kill you rather than simply hold you up and take your stuff?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> :umno:
> 
> That's ONE time where there is no place for assumptions.
> Some of us know all too well just how real that is.


Assuming they have no idea that you have a weapon, because most people seem to prefer conceal carry, how many muggers do you think would give a person the time to reach for their ankle holster before they thump you in the head, stab you, or start shooting?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Hahaha. I love it when these threads "go there." And dude. I absolutely would. You should see how hard my adrenaline pumps just thinking about it. There's nothing I hate more than someone claiming authority over me, how I choose to talk, what I choose to say, and when. I would have to admit that I'm almost psychotically opposed to backing down; particularly to hypocrites who can't recognize their own "attitude". *You don't want people to talk to you that way? Maybe you should watch your own mouth. *
> 
> Taking this conversation back to what we were talking about, because "attitude" isn't crime, you just wanted talk tough on the internet....
> 
> *If a real criminal wants what you have, do you really think they're going to give you a chance to draw that firearm? * Or do you think they're just more likely to ambush and kill you rather than simply hold you up and take your stuff?


perhaps you could bring forward those posts I have made that lacked in politeness or due respect to another member? Disagreeing is not being rude or disrespectful. 

They have and I did, and oddly enough they turned and fled the scene of the "crime" that was never reported.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> perhaps you could bring forward those posts I have made that lacked in politeness or due respect to another member? *Disagreeing is not being rude or disrespectful. *
> 
> They have and I did, and oddly enough they turned and fled the scene of the "crime" that was never reported.


Yea that's what I thought. But y'all are sensitive when you don't get your way. And you know you take your little shots. Backpack... Skeered... General sarcasm. I just see the turds floating and rise to the occasion.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Conjecture, and nothing more. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
> 
> The statistics on supposed "gun brandishing" defense uses are all manufactured. And the notion that just having a gun stops crime is just an assumption.





wiscto said:


> Assuming they have no idea that you have a weapon, because most people seem to prefer conceal carry, how many muggers do you think would give a person the time to reach for their ankle holster before they thump you in the head, stab you, or start shooting?


None.
That explains a lot about firearm knowledge in some of us anyway, in light of those statistics, doesn't it?
You don't wait until you see your car careening towards a tree to put on your seat belt, do you?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Videos of mall shooter stop by a bystander with a gun
bing.com/videos

2:25
Oregon Mall Shooting Stopped By Licensed Gun Carrier
YouTube
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=6246F9931B232288E35B6246F9931B232288E35B
1:57
New video of NJ mall shooter released
YouTube

2:24
Media Blackout: Oregon Mall Shooting Stopped By Licensed ...
mrctv.org

1:16
Portland Mall Shooting Leaves Three Dead
YouTube
See more videos of mall shooter stop by a bystander with a gun
Yes, concealed carriers have stopped mass shootings ...
bearingarms.com/yes-concealed-carriers-have-stopped-mass-shootings
... Mall shooting in December, where concealed carrier ... mass shootings end when the shooter is ... mass shooter if the good guy with a gun has a ...
How many mass shootings have been stopped by an armed ...
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120604135428AAV0CDr
Resolved Â· 8 posts Â· 7 total answers Â· Published Jun 04, 2012
Whenever a nut goes postal at a school or mall or workplace, all the US gun ... bystander almost shot the ... guns were also brave enough to stop ...

http://blog.uritraining.com/?p=88


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Assuming they have no idea that you have a weapon, because most people seem to prefer conceal carry, how many muggers do you think would give a person the time to reach for their ankle holster before they thump you in the head, stab you, or start shooting?


You whined about being scared from "seeing people with guns", but now you say the bad guys won't know who has one. 

You claim "there is no danger" on one hand, and now say "they will hit/shoot/stab you before you can react.

Another point where your ignorance shows is assuming someone would carry in a ankle holster if there are better options. 

The *only *people I know who use ankle holsters are LEO's who carry back-up guns where they won't show, and where they have access while seated in a patrol car.

You want to carefully construct your fantasy scenarios to give the bad guy all the advantages while overlooking the reality that guns are used hundreds of thousands of times each year to prevent crimes, or to stop them once they start.

It's obvious you are just making it all up as you go along, and have very little real knowledge that you didn't glean from some anti-gun organization


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Assuming they have no idea that you have a weapon, because most people seem to prefer conceal carry, how many muggers do you think would give a person the time to reach for their ankle holster before they thump you in the head, stab you, or start shooting?


Been down that road too, ended badly for one of them, his buddies opted out for some reason and I drove my car home in spite of their desires, but it's one of the reasons I carry now. It's also one of the reasons I don't much care for living in the city. Not they only reason but one of them.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I took a beating in a parking lot of a well known shopping store in Raleigh when I was 20 one night walking to my car. Two guys ambushed me from behind a car and demanded my wallet after I fought back enough to hold my ground from the first assault. I refused and they attacked again. This time they forced me to the ground and were beating me but good until another shopper decided to assist me and then others came to help. The attackers ran away once help arrived for me. That will be the last time I am unarmed while minding my own business except while at work because my employer requires us to remain unarmed. 

Wiscto, you can shove any form of gun control you gun grabbers want. The second amendment is very specific.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I took a beating in a parking lot of a well known shopping store in Raleigh when I was 20 one night walking to my car. Two guys ambushed me from behind a car and demanded my wallet after I fought back enough to hold my ground from the first assault. I refused and they attacked again. This time they forced me to the ground and were beating me but good until another shopper decided to assist me and then others came to help. The attackers ran away once help arrived for me. That will be the last time I am unarmed while minding my own business except while at work because my employer requires us to remain unarmed.
> 
> Wiscto, you can shove any form of gun control you gun grabbers want. The second amendment is very specific.


See, this is why you people get the tone you get from me. You all for some reason think it's personal. I state my opinions, just like I did when I first tried to join in the General Chat, and y'all showed me who you are.

You don't have to like my opinions, but I still have them. No amount of endless prodding, strong emotional language, or personal hatred will change my mind. They ambushed you. You're lucky you didn't have a gun for them to take and shoot you with...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> You don't have to like my opinions, but I still have them. No amount of endless prodding, strong emotional language, or personal hatred will change my mind. You know what ------ criminals off? Pointing guns at them.
> 
> Oh and I agree, it's very specific. For what purpose? Militias.


You have every right to your opinions, but I don't mind telling you that you're wrong about the vast majority of criminals. That isn't opinion, it's empirical fact.
Most are gutless punks who will mess in their pants and run if you pull out a piece, whether you fire a shot or not.
No Rambo, no BS, just hardcore experience.
I think you know that and would be amazed if you didn't.

I also have listened to your take on it only being militias. I gave you 4 questions to explain why it can't be and noticed you changed to the topic of irresponsibility in the general population as a different reason for your opposition instead.
Care to take a crack at answering those?



Post #106



farmrbrown said:


> And you have explained it well. I have heard that many times before, the implication that they were only talking about the militias. But there are three problems with that meaning, actually four, that you haven't addressed so far.
> 
> 1) If the militia is "well regulated" when are they not infringed in this right to keep and bear arms?
> Only when they are not serving actively? Today we only have 1% of the population serving, and you can count all the retired veterans too.
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> See, this is why you people get the tone you get from me. You all for some reason think it's personal. I state my opinions, just like I did when I first tried to join in the General Chat, and y'all showed me who you are.
> 
> You don't have to like my opinions, but I still have them. No amount of endless prodding, strong emotional language, or personal hatred will change my mind. They ambushed you. You're lucky you didn't have a gun for them to take and shoot you with... Everyone wants to believe they can channel their inner Rambo if they have a gun. When someone has the drop on you, they have the drop on you. You know what ------ criminals off? Pointing guns at them.


Tell ya what, how about you deal with criminals your way, I'll deal with them my way. I've been dealing with them for a lotta years, from both sides of the fence. I've partied and ridden with some, tracked down and brought others back to face justice, gone to jail with some, been ambushed by some and attended too many funerals for others. I think I have a fair grasp of what ticks them off.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Tell ya what, how about you deal with criminals your way, I'll deal with them my way. I've been dealing with them for a lotta years, from both sides of the fence. I've partied and ridden with some, tracked down and brought others back to face justice, gone to jail with some, been ambushed by some and attended too many funerals for others. I think I have a fair grasp of what ticks them off.


So personal.... How about you have your opinion and I have mine, because there isn't diddly I can say here that changes your life one bit. And you'll never change the fact that I think I have a fair grasp as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> See, this is why you people get the tone you get from me. You all for some reason think it's personal. I state my opinions, just like I did when I first tried to join in the General Chat, and y'all showed me who you are.
> 
> You don't have to like my opinions, but I still have them. No amount of endless prodding, strong emotional language, or personal hatred will change my mind. They ambushed you. You're lucky you didn't have a gun for them to take and shoot you with...


I'm not trying to change your mind. You've already decided not to listen to reason.

I'm pointing out your sources are all anti-gun groups with no credibility, and many of your ideas about those who carry are simple false.

That's for the benefit of others who might read this thread and think something you may have stated is factual, when most of it is not.

You're trying to convince people they are no safer with a weapon than someone who is not armed, and that's just ridiculous.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> So personal.... How about you have your opinion and I have mine, because there isn't diddly I can say here that changes your life one bit. And you'll never change the fact that I think I have a fair grasp as well.


That works too. :buds:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not trying to change your mind. You've already decided not to listen to reason.
> 
> I'm pointing out your sources are all anti-gun groups with no credibility, and many of your ideas about those who carry are simple false.
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## beenaround (Mar 2, 2015)

wiscto said:


> First of all, the Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to bear arms whenever and wherever you want. Let's just get that straight before I answer. And yes, Muslims should live with the same laws as everyone else where they live.


and that's the problem right there, your view. The amendments aren't to tell the people what they can and cannot do, they are to tell the government what they can and cannot do. You and many assume because it doesn't expressly say something the people have no right to it, that is dead wrong.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

beenaround said:


> and that's the problem right there, your view. The amendments aren't to tell the people what they can and cannot do, they are to tell the government what they can and cannot do. *You and many assume because it doesn't expressly say something the people have no right to it, that is dead wrong.*


yeppers and they even clarified that point in the ninth amendment.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> pretty much anywhere anytime. If you have read the federalist papers you should be aware that the second amendment was discussed by many of the founders... Nearly every one stated that the people need the ability to not only participate in the militia, but to defend themselves, their families, community or town. Even that useless little twit Payne stood up strongly in favor of
> 
> not just guns but all manner of weapons needed to be held by the citizenry
> 
> .



I think that's a key point the populace at the time of the founding had the BEST weapons. 
The most accurate rifles and cannons were in private hands.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I think that's a key point the populace at the time of the founding had the BEST weapons.
> The most accurate rifles and cannons were in private hands.


As it should always be. :thumb:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yet we write laws limiting what the general population can own.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I think that's a key point the populace at the time of the founding had the BEST weapons.
> The most accurate rifles and cannons were in private hands.


Look at what is in private hands now. LOL

[YOUTUBE] ?v=A0CKq0xRu2k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wiscto said:


> See, this is why you people get the tone you get from me. You all for some reason think it's personal. I state my opinions, just like I did when I first tried to join in the General Chat, and y'all showed me who you are.
> 
> You don't have to like my opinions, but I still have them. No amount of endless prodding, strong emotional language, or personal hatred will change my mind. They ambushed you. You're lucky you didn't have a gun for them to take and shoot you with...


Actually everyone, including you, benefits from concealed carry except criminals. Criminals now have no idea who is and isn't armed and that is a deterrent to bad behavior. I have no problem with you not carrying a gun if that's your choice but why do you bash other people's choice? A gun is an inanimate object and a tool just like everything else. It places you in no danger by itself. If you don't have the confidence to use one, fine. It you are gunophobic, fine. You should stay away from them and make us all safer. Myself, I am totally comfortable with one (actually the other day I had 2 on me. Hope you didn't sense a disruption in the "force") and I don't even notice I am carrying one any more than I do my pocket knife. Like my pocket knife, it is just there in case I need it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Good point poppy as I am one who doesn't carry and rarely even touches a gun... unless I am forced to do to being the best skilled present at a time when bears are out.

I rather have a gun in the hand of my neighbor who is skilled does practice and is well versed in the responsibilities of handling a gun. C.c. are required to take training. Hats off to all of you providing a service to your community and country by carrying legal and safe. I trust your motives. Thank you.


----------



## beenaround (Mar 2, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> yeppers and they even clarified that point in the ninth amendment.


I just can't understand why anyone would support the turning of the table. 

The whole bent of the declaration is what the government can and cannot do and never intended to express the rights of the people, yet many have turned it around 180.

Having said that and with the description of government in mind it's always a 2 edged sword. The people have the right to do just about anything until they use that right to infringe upon the rights of others life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the people do that the government is empowered to limit that freedom and, like I said knowing the description of government, will do it in a highly inefficient and grossly abusive of power manner.

Bottom line if anyone wants to limit government it's entirely up to the people and their treatment of each other. Voting booths just pick the flavor of the koolaid, when it would be much better to never have to drink it. These days with the abuses we pour out apon each other, we have to gag on it in order to swallow it all.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

beenaround said:


> I just can't understand why anyone would support the turning of the table.
> 
> The whole bent of the declaration is what the government can and cannot do and never intended to express the rights of the people, yet many have turned it around 180.



It is the inherent nature of humans to want to control what other people do because it makes them "uncomfortable".
From gay rights to gun control, to EPA regulations, to taxes, there is a constant battle on both sides to control the weapons and ammunition so to speak.
There are some of us who just strive to do what we believe is right and want to be left alone, unmolested by gov't or criminals.
But they just .......can't.......do it.
They push and push until someone steps up and says, "Molon Labe", or in the Southern dialect, "If ya want some, come get some!"


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not trying to change your mind. You've already decided not to listen to reason.
> 
> I'm pointing out your sources are all anti-gun groups with no credibility, and many of your ideas about those who carry are simple false.
> 
> ...


Being anti-gun does not mean that the statistics are wrong. I think your opinion on "sources" is laughable. Your link was a pro-gun propaganda machine siting COMPLETELY MANUFACTURED statistics, and yet you think you can judge credibility? Especially when mine can be verified and yours cannot. I don't believe that you recognize reason. I don't think you recognize your hypocrisy regarding the bolded statement. I don't agree. And I think YOU are wrong. I think YOU state things as being factual when they are not.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You whined about being scared from "seeing people with guns", but now you say the bad guys won't know who has one.
> 
> You claim "there is no danger" on one hand, and now say "they will hit/shoot/stab you before you can react.
> 
> ...


There's obviously a difference between conceal carry and open carry. Obviously you won't be attacked if you're walking around with an AK-47, but then everyone else has to wonder if you're the next pyschopath. If you can't segregate the different scenarios, that really isn't my fault. Your knowledge isn't anymore in depth than what you just described about me. You're a hypocrite. Worse... You're presumptuous. I just gave ankle holster as one example. But you think you can reconstruct my entire psyche from that, apparently. You should really take a look in the mirror, big guy.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

beenaround said:


> and that's the problem right there, your view. The amendments aren't to tell the people what they can and cannot do, they are to tell the government what they can and cannot do. You and many assume because it doesn't expressly say something the people have no right to it, that is dead wrong.


I'd say that's a pretty good philosophy, actually. But we're not arguing about what the amendment tells the people. We're arguing about what the amendment tells the government. Basically, it comes down to this.

Would allowing cities to ban guns on their public property infringe on the right to bear arms? My opinion? No. You can still bear arms on your property. You can still bear arms on federal "public land." You can still bear arms where the local government allows it. You can still bear arms for the purpose of a militia. You can still bear arms for the defense of your free state. 

Just my opinion. Tell your friends not to give themselves heart attacks.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> I'd say that's a pretty good philosophy, actually. But we're not arguing about what the amendment tells the people. We're arguing about what the amendment tells the government. Basically, it comes down to this.
> 
> Would allowing cities to ban guns on their public property infringe on the right to bear arms? My opinion? No. You can still bear arms on your property. You can still bear arms on federal "public land." You can still bear arms where the local government allows it. You can still bear arms for the purpose of a militia. You can still bear arms for the defense of your free state.
> 
> Just my opinion. Tell your friends not to give themselves heart attacks.



You have failed once again to admit what the phrase "shall NOT be INFRINGED" means.
You can't have it both ways.
It either IS infringed or it ISN'T.
The amendment says it isn't but the gun control advocates insist it's because us ignorant, ******* hillbillies just can't read English.
I think not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Being anti-gun does not mean that the statistics are wrong. I think your opinion on "sources" is laughable. Your link was a pro-gun propaganda machine siting COMPLETELY MANUFACTURED statistics, and yet you think you can judge credibility? Especially when *mine can be verified* and yours cannot. I don't believe that you recognize reason. I don't think you recognize your hypocrisy regarding the bolded statement. I don't agree. And I think YOU are wrong. I think YOU state things as being factual when they are not.


You keep saying "manufactured statistics" even though they were the result of actual crime victim surveys.

Yours cannot be "verified" because they are simply not true, and the scenarios you have offered are totally unrealistic.

Being "anti-gun" means they are only presenting what they want you to believe, and you seem to be falling for it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> There's obviously a difference between conceal carry and open carry. Obviously you won't be attacked if you're walking around with an AK-47, but then everyone else has to wonder if you're the next pyschopath. If you can't segregate the different scenarios, that really isn't my fault. *Your knowledge isn't anymore in depth than what you just described about me. * You're a hypocrite. Worse... You're presumptuous. * I just gave ankle holster as one example.* But you think you can reconstruct my entire psyche from that, apparently. You should really take a look in the mirror, big guy.


Every "example" you've given has been totally unrealistic, and you don't seem to have a lot of knowledge about guns in general.

The one instance wasn't the only clue to your psyche.

You started out by announcing you're afraid of guns


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> It is the inherent nature of humans to want to control what other people do because it makes them "uncomfortable".
> From gay rights to gun control, to EPA regulations, to taxes, there is a constant battle on both sides to control the weapons and ammunition so to speak.
> There are some of us who just strive to do what we believe is right and want to be left alone, unmolested by gov't or criminals.
> But they just .......can't.......do it.
> They push and push until someone steps up and says, "Molon Labe", or in the Southern dialect, "If ya want some, come get some!"


Yea. Except I don't care what gay people do. I'd like to see a fair tax. And I'm all for EPA regulations like....stop putting crap in the Cuyahoga River that causes it to start on fire...but I'm willing to back off on quite a bit of other things.

On the other hand. Gay people can't kill me by being gay. Taxes could starve me, but they probably won't because we're not quite that stupid yet. But some moron who accidentally fumbles his holster and fires a shot through the bathroom stall I'm sitting in at WalMart because i just had to go.... That could kill me.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Every "example" you've given has been totally unrealistic, and you don't seem to have a lot of knowledge about guns in general.
> 
> The one instance wasn't the only clue to your psyche.
> 
> *You started out by announcing you're afraid of guns*


See. When you say things like that, I know you're just a typical propagandist with a penchant for spin. I didn't say that at all. I have guns. I shoot guns. I hang out with people and shoot guns. Morons walking around with guns...that scares me. If you can't understand the fundamentals of a conversation, why bother participating?

None of the examples I gave were unrealistic. All of them have actually happened. So that noise you hear is me laughing at the irony of your statement.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> You have failed once again to admit what the phrase "shall NOT be INFRINGED" means.
> You can't have it both ways.
> It either IS infringed or it ISN'T.
> The amendment says it isn't but the gun control advocates insist it's because us ignorant, ******* hillbillies just can't read English.
> I think not.


Ahhh... Okay. Freedom of speech, but... Can we threaten to kill each other? Nope, we have laws against that, for good reason. Liberty. Property. Can I drive on the sidewalk? Nope. Can I pee in the drinking fountain? Nope.

And yet, by definition, *no right is to be infringed.*


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep saying "manufactured statistics" even though they were the result of *actual crime victim surveys.*
> 
> Yours cannot be "verified" because they are simply not true, and the scenarios you have offered are totally unrealistic.
> 
> Being "anti-gun" means they are only presenting what they want you to believe, and you seem to be falling for it.


Nope... See. They weren't. You know how I know that? Because actual crime victims report to the police. 

The rest of your BS is just typical, "I'm saying it so it's true." You didn't look into it. You have no idea where the stats came from. You just don't like it so it must not be real. That's very humble of you. :thumb:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Yea. Except I don't care what gay people do. I'd like to see a fair tax. And I'm all for EPA regulations like....stop putting crap in the Cuyahoga River that causes it to start on fire...but I'm willing to back off on quite a bit of other things.
> 
> On the other hand. Gay people can't kill me by being gay. Taxes could starve me, but they probably won't because we're not quite that stupid yet. But some moron who accidentally fumbles his holster and fires a shot through the bathroom stall I'm sitting in at WalMart because i just had to go.... That could kill me.


And I don't think gay people will hurt me either, but when they go after a business or a clerk, they won't stop until they are fined or jailed out of business.
The tax man will do the same thing or any other power freak from the gov't.
I view the gun confiscators with much the same distain.
As long as they mind their own business and keep their hands off my stuff, including trying to fine me, license me (taking my $) or jail me (take my freedom) I'm just fine.
Otherwise, they can meet me one on one and give it their best shot, pardon the pun.

I'm not conned by the militia argument, and I can read the amendment for myself and understand it quite well.
My previous generations all warned me about those that would try to confiscate the guns for our own protection and to fight them to the death if necessary, because it just might come to that.
The forcefulness and audacity of those described above are all birds of the same feather in my book.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Ahhh... Okay. Freedom of speech, but... Can we threaten to kill each other? Nope, we have laws against that, for good reason. Liberty. Property. Can I drive on the sidewalk? Nope. Can I pee in the drinking fountain? Nope.
> 
> And yet, by definition, *no right is to be infringed.*


You can do all those things right now. Laws were put into place to placate those too weak minded to stand up for themselves. I've stood up in a crowded theater and yelled "fire" as loud as I could, so did most of the others there at the time, because everyone knew it wasn't true and that we announced that it was going to happen. So many folks were able to actually do this for once and it was a hoot!

You can do anything you want, but there might be a price to pay, it's up to the individual. The majority of those governed agreed to the laws infringing on their rights and the government ran with it. The government is violating the Constitution wether you agree or not. Some of us want the government to follow the Constitution, but they will lose their power over the people if that happens, so they, not only won't do that, but they will try and convince lower level folks that it's in their best interest to let them run amok. 

I'm all for putting them back in their box and locking it!


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

Lot of time spent here over the wording of the 2nd amendment. Folks are getting bogged down in it's language, when, in fact, it doesn't matter WHAT it says !

People tend to overlook the 9th:
*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*


Congress is allowed 18 specific powers in Art1, Sec8. That is all they can do under the Constitution. (CLEARLY, they do a lot more, but the Supremes should be throwing all of it out the door).


No where under those 18 powers does it say anything about regulating firearms....thus, under the 9th, that power and right lays with the people....or under the 10th, with the States.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> See. When you say things like that, I know you're just a typical propagandist with a penchant for spin. I didn't say that at all. I have guns. I shoot guns. I hang out with people and shoot guns. Morons walking around with guns...that scares me. If you can't understand the fundamentals of a conversation, why bother participating?
> 
> None of the examples I gave were unrealistic. All of them have actually happened. So that noise you hear is me laughing at the irony of your statement.


I think you may have stumbled onto the real issue at hand.... Morons. They are dangerous with guns, cars, drugs and a host of other things that are relatively safe in the hands of normal people. Why don't we fight the source of the problems and let normal law abiding citizens keep their toy... Erm tools?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> See. When you say things like that, I know you're just a typical propagandist with a penchant for spin. I didn't say that at all. I have guns. I shoot guns. I hang out with people and shoot guns. Morons walking around with guns...that scares me. If you can't understand the fundamentals of a conversation, why bother participating?
> 
> None of the examples I gave were unrealistic. All of them have actually happened. So that noise you hear is me laughing at the irony of your statement.


I'm not going to search back thru the thread, but if memory serves you did say you get a bit tense if you see someone with an ak47 slung over their shoulder in a public place. You have since expressed your "fear" of being shot by a two year old in a checkout line or being shot by some "moron" in the bathroom stall next to you. This to me sounds a bit like you are afraid of other people carrying guns, while staunchly defending your own right to keep and bear arms. I'm not sayin..... I'm just sayin.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Nope... See. They weren't. You know how I know that? Because actual *crime victims report to the police.
> *
> The rest of your BS is just typical, "I'm saying it so it's true." You didn't look into it. *You have no idea where the stats came from*. You just don't like it so it must not be real. That's very humble of you. :thumb:


They did report to the police, which is how the researchers knew they were crime victims. 

The FBI also uses a similar survey called the "Uniform Crime Report" and that data is available to the public also

The Bureau of Justice Statistics compiles the same data.

There is nothing "manufactured" about the figures I used and they weren't all from a single minded group with anti-gun agendas as yours were.

The fact that you can point to one instance of an accidental shooting isn't evidence that a repeat is likely, or common.

No matter how you spin it, it still comes out you think everyone is too stupid to handle guns safely, so no one should be able to, because it scares you


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They did report to the police, which is how the researchers knew they were crime victims.
> 
> The FBI also uses a similar survey called the "Uniform Crime Report" and that data is available to the public also
> 
> ...


That's kinda how I see it too, but he's not alone in that thinking, else there wouldn't be so much support to trade our hard won freedom for a false sense of security.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> And I don't think gay people will hurt me either, but when they go after a business or a clerk, they won't stop until they are fined or jailed out of business.
> The tax man will do the same thing or any other power freak from the gov't.
> I view the gun confiscators with much the same distain.
> As long as they mind their own business and keep their hands off my stuff, including trying to fine me, license me (taking my $) or jail me (take my freedom) I'm just fine.
> ...


I honestly can't respect anyone who thinks Kim Davis didn't go after the gay couples. All they did was walk into the clerk's office and ask for the license they are legally entitled to. You sit there and complain about control and then applaud someone who is STILL trying to force her faith on a community. 

And I never called for gun confiscation. If you're going to misrepresent my views, don't bother joining the discussion. I don't want control. I want local communities to have the right to decide.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They did report to the police, which is how the researchers knew they were crime victims.
> 
> The FBI also uses a similar survey called the "Uniform Crime Report" and that data is available to the public also
> 
> ...


Hey. Guess what. I looked at the statistics. 2 million self defense "brandishing of weapons" were never reported.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not going to search back thru the thread, but if memory serves you did say you get a bit tense if you see someone with an ak47 slung over their shoulder in a public place. You have since expressed your "fear" of being shot by a two year old in a checkout line or being shot by some "moron" in the bathroom stall next to you. This to me sounds a bit like you are afraid of other people carrying guns, while staunchly defending your own right to keep and bear arms. I'm not sayin..... I'm just sayin.


I want communities to be able to choose what happens on their streets. Go back or don't. Doesn't matter to me. You can misrepresent what I said if you want, I'd call that typical.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I want communities to be able to choose what happens on their streets. Go back or don't. Doesn't matter to me. You can misrepresent what I said if you want, I'd call that typical.


so join an hoa that prohibits firearms in your home, just don't try to take everyone else's rights that enable us to protect you.
There is no need for me to misrepresent your statements, they are pretty much self explanatory in your own words.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> so join an hoa that prohibits firearms in your home, just don't try to take everyone else's rights that enable us to protect you.


1. I don't like HOAs
2. I said from the beginning that I want our guns on our private property absolutely protected. 
3. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. If you're not, this conversation has slipped the grasp of your memory, because we done been through all this.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> 1. I don't like HOAs
> 2. I said from the beginning that I want our guns on our private property absolutely protected.
> 3. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. If you're not, this conversation has slipped the grasp of your memory, because we done been through all this.


You seem to forget that "our" streets belong to the public... And that myself along with the rest of our good citizens are the public. We are entitled to bear arms on our own property are we not?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You seem to forget that "our" streets belong to the public... And that myself along with the rest of our good citizens are the public. We are entitled to bear arms on our own property are we not?


LOL :thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> LOL :thumb:


And on this happy note I bid you goodnight. Be safe.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think you may have stumbled onto the real issue at hand.... Morons. They are dangerous with guns, cars, drugs and a host of other things that are relatively safe in the hands of normal people. Why don't we fight the source of the problems and let normal law abiding citizens keep their toy... Erm tools?



Well, because me, you and Ron White already know the answer to that problem........
"YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID'".


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvQ77JP8nw[/ame]





wiscto said:


> I honestly can't respect anyone who thinks Kim Davis didn't go after the gay couples. All they did was walk into the clerk's office and ask for the license they are legally entitled to. You sit there and complain about control and then applaud someone who is STILL trying to force her faith on a community.
> 
> And I never called for gun confiscation. If you're going to misrepresent my views, don't bother joining the discussion. I don't want control. I want local communities to have the right to decide.




The woman didn't walk out of her office and go after them, some flew in from San Francisco to eastern Kentucky to get THEIR 15 minutes of fame and force a local community to comply with THEIR values.
Ever hear of the pot and the kettle?
Applaud control?

I've said she should have walked away from a job that required her to break one of God's laws. 
YH, who I quoted above, has disagreed with me on points about that case. He thinks gay marriage is a constitutional right and I don't.

Know what?
I can still respect the man and get along with him anyway.
Try it some time, you might find you can do more than you ever thought.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> I want communities to be able to choose what happens on their streets. Go back or don't. Doesn't matter to me. You can misrepresent what I said if you want, I'd call that typical.


Again you're being totally unrealistic.

There's no need to "misrepresent" what you've said.

States have specifically passed preemption laws to prevent exactly what you're suggesting because it's such a bad idea


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Every "example" you've given has been totally unrealistic, and you don't seem to have a lot of knowledge about guns in general.
> 
> The one instance wasn't the only clue to your psyche.
> 
> You started out by announcing you're afraid of guns


Post of the day award.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Okay. This one is for BearFoot and all those who like his posts. I'll say this one last time.

1. Every example I gave was real. A short google of any single one of my scenarios will show you the truth. And that's why I used the Wal-Mart stories in particular. They are all easily verifiable. Easy enough that unless you're lazy or stubborn, you can google them all right now and prove yourself wrong. 

2. We didn't talk about guns in general. At all. You're making a huge leap. I know everything I need to know to have hunted every fall for a good chunk of my life. I've eaten what I've killed. I'll grant that I don't own a handgun, but I handled my buddy's Desert Eagle just fine. I'm pretty confident with guns, actually. Not worried about myself at all. Because I know I'm not careless. 

3. You have no clue about anyone's psyche here. It says more about you that you think you do, but don't worry, I'm not a big enough sociopath to actually think I know anything about you based on this here internet message board.

4. States have also banned conceal carry. Is that because conceal carry is such a bad idea? The only thing you learn is what you want to be true. State A passes a law congruent with your views....dang they must be amazing intelligent people. State B does not...what a horrible idea. WE ALL FEEL THAT WAY. Wake up and smell your ego.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Sorry but guns are safe in the hands of law abiding people... right where they should be. Not every law abiding person will choose to carry that responsibility... thanks to those that do. I don't so the best I can do is to vocally stand up and fight the push from this who are scared and those wanting control.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> *Sorry but guns are safe in the hands of law abiding people...* right where they should be. Not every law abiding person will choose to carry that responsibility... thanks to those that do. I don't so the best I can do is to vocally stand up and fight the push from this who are scared and those wanting control.


Who aren't careless morons...


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Morons have rights also!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Morons have rights also!


Yea see, the amusing thing about this whole thread is that I never said they didn't. I said I think that cities should be allowed to VOTE on whether or not weapons are allowed on their streets. I also said that I would like an amendment to clarify that, because I think it's pretty obvious that my reading of the 2nd Amendment is not going to be accepted, and I ACCEPT THAT. I also accept that a new amendment is far fetched. Now y'all don't have to like my opinion. Y'all don't have to like me. But the rhetoric and the playing of victim cards as if I'm doing anything to anyone here was pretty well over the top, and I'm sure you know that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Anybody at anytime should deb able to strap on weapons and look like Rambo without ANY city or federal government saying One Dern Thing~!
If you ever go to AZ and see those rifles in gun racks in pickup trucks you can BET them suckers are LOADED.
I went to several horse actions out there and many were open carry.
Why at one time you could go grocery shopping get a loaf of bread a Colt 45 holster strap it on and continue to shop buying the rest of your food~!  Cool~! THAT is what is called FREEDOM~!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Yea see, the amusing thing about this whole thread is that I never said they didn't. *I said I think that cities should be allowed to VOTE on whether or not weapons are allowed on their streets.* I also said that I would like an amendment to clarify that, because I think it's pretty obvious that my reading of the 2nd Amendment is not going to be accepted, and I ACCEPT THAT. I also accept that a new amendment is far fetched. Now y'all don't have to like my opinion. Y'all don't have to like me. But the rhetoric and the playing of victim cards as if I'm doing anything to anyone here was pretty well over the top, and I'm sure you know that.


 
Wouldn't such actions run afoul of the Supremacy Clause? The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that law states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore, any gun control law, that limits the lawful from keeping and bearing, would be unconstitutional and illegal.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Wouldn't such actions run afoul of the Supremacy Clause? The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that law states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore, any gun control law, that limits the lawful from keeping and bearing, would be unconstitutional and illegal.


But if the Constitution defers power to state or local authorities specifically through an amendment, the law of the land is that the specific power named belongs to state and/or local government.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Wouldn't such actions run afoul of the Supremacy Clause? The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that law states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore, any gun control law, that limits the lawful from keeping and bearing, would be unconstitutional and illegal.


You know that, and I know that, along with many others, but from what I have been able to discern our freind wistco is of the opinion that the general welfare clause renders the rest of the constitution moot. Congress should be able to do anything they please if they think it's good for the country.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

wiscto said:


> But if the Constitution defers power to state or local authorities specifically through an amendment, the law of the land is that the specific power named belongs to state and/or local government.


Yes where if there is enough anti gun people they can buy out who they need to then use the force of the guns of the state to force compliance . But all states right at this point in history are dead as evidenced by obomacare ,same sex marriage ect .:thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> But if the Constitution defers power to state or local authorities specifically through an amendment, the law of the land is that the specific power named belongs to state and/or local government.


True, but the second amendment does not defer powers to the states concerning firearms... It plainly states that the citizens right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not by the Feds, not by the states, not by anyone.
The tenth amendment states powers not granted to congress by the constitution *nor prohibited by it to them shall be reserved by the states or to the people respectively.* the power to infringe these rights is prohibited to the states.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> But if the Constitution defers power to state or local authorities specifically through an amendment, the law of the land is that the specific power named belongs to state and/or local government.


 In the case of keeping and bearing arms, it didn't defer to the states. The Bill of Rights are rights for all Americans and cannot be taken away by the state or local governments. So, a state, or, local law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, is just as illegal as a state or local law limiting free speech.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You know that, and I know that, along with many others, but from what I have been able to discern our freind wistco is of the opinion that the general welfare clause renders the rest of the constitution moot. Congress should be able to do anything they please if they think it's good for the country.


That's a pretty poor interpretation of what I said actually. Not once in this conversation did I invoke the general welfare clause. The powers of Congress can't just circumvent the Second Amendment. Obviously we interpret the 2nd differently, but at no time did I imply that Congress should be able to ban guns based on general welfare.

Now on the other hand, if they were to apply a small excise tax to create safety literature that is to be given to all customers purchasing a firearm...that would fall under their power. They are requiring nothing other than that safety literature be provided for customers. That would fall under general welfare, in my opinion.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> In the case of keeping and bearing arms, it didn't defer to the states. The Bill of Rights are rights for all Americans and cannot be taken away by the state or local governments. So, a state, or, local law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, is just as illegal as a state or local law limiting free speech.


How many times do I have to say in this thread that my opinion is that we should have a new amendment? I'm serious. How many times do I have to say it before you guys understand what I'm saying? I said it right in the post you responded to. That whole post that I wrote was predicated on my opinion that a new amendment is needed. When you take me out of context, you're not really having a conversation with me. Kind of seems like you're really just talking to an imaginary version of me.



> Yea see, the amusing thing about this whole thread is that I never said they didn't.* I said I think that cities should be allowed to VOTE on whether or not weapons are allowed on their streets. I also said that I would like an amendment to clarify that, because I think it's pretty obvious that my reading of the 2nd Amendment is not going to be accepted, and I ACCEPT THAT.* I also accept that a new amendment is far fetched. Now y'all don't have to like my opinion. Y'all don't have to like me. But the rhetoric and the playing of victim cards as if I'm doing anything to anyone here was pretty well over the top, and I'm sure you know that.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Yes where if there is enough anti gun people they can buy out who they need to then use the force of the guns of the state to force compliance . But all states right at this point in history are dead as evidenced by obomacare ,same sex marriage ect .:thumb:


States never had the right to infringe on the rights of their citizens. Nice try though. Righteous you are not.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> That's a pretty poor interpretation of what I said actually. Not once in this conversation did I invoke the general welfare clause. The powers of Congress can't just circumvent the Second Amendment. Obviously we interpret the 2nd differently, but at no time did I imply that Congress should be able to ban guns based on general welfare.


I never implied that you asserted that belief in this thread either, that was inferred by myself from comments you have made in other threads. I am glad you seem to grasp that congress cannot ban guns.... Now if we could just get congress to understand that.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I never implied that you asserted that belief in this thread either, that was inferred by myself from comments you have made in other threads. I am glad you seem to grasp that congress cannot ban guns.... N*ow if we could just get congress to understand that.*


Agreed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> States never had the right to infringe on the rights of their citizens. Nice try though. Righteous you are not.


Ok we are getting closer.... You admit so far that the Feds nor states can infringe on the citizens right to keep and bear arms.... Now let's work on local government.... Where do you think your city is granted any such powers? I see nothing about an exemption for city's in the constitution.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> How many times do I have to say in this thread that my opinion is that we should have a new amendment? I'm serious. How many times do I have to say it before you guys understand what I'm saying? I said it right in the post you responded to. That whole post that I wrote was predicated on my opinion that a new amendment is needed. When you take me out of context, you're not really having a conversation with me. Kind of seems like you're really just talking to an imaginary version of me.


 Oh, I understood you. You said you wanted an amendment to CLARIFY, the right of state and local governments to vote on gun rights. That would imply that you believe your interpretation to be correct. I simply disagree with your claim.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Oh, I understood you. You said you wanted an amendment to CLARIFY, the right of state and local governments to vote on gun rights. That would imply that you believe your interpretation to be correct. I simply disagree with your claim.


I would be interested in seeing this proposed amendment sometime.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok we are getting closer.... You admit so far that the Feds nor states can infringe on the citizens right to keep and bear arms.... Now let's work on local government.... *Where do you think your city is granted any such powers?* I see nothing about an exemption for city's in I the constitution.


Well. I think my firmest opinion in this thread still stands that I would like an amendment to guarantee it. But I honestly don't know where it is pulled from the Constitution. Where does it say in the Constitution that government can ban verbal threats to another citizen's life? It really doesn't, but most people accept that we can't allow verbal threats because it can be used as leverage against peoples personal freedoms. This is why you believe everyone should carry, but what about the people who will never be comfortable with using guns?

At what point do we make that distinction? If 80% of a city feels unsafe around guns (regardless of how you feel about their feelings), at what point is a guy walking around with an AK-47 infringing upon their liberty? What about people who don't live in the community but show up from three states away just to show everyone that open carrying an AK-47 around town is legal. Why should his views be imposed upon those from another state?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Oh, I understood you. You said you wanted an amendment to CLARIFY, the right of state and local governments to vote on gun rights. That would imply that you believe your interpretation to be correct. I simply disagree with your claim.


:thumb:

So I'll clarify my opinion. My opinion is that the 2nd Amendment is not well written for the context of our time. My opinion is that no right should be allowed infringe upon basic liberties. If 80% of a city's population are uncomfortable walking out the door and having to sort out which complete stranger with an automatic weapon is a terrorist, psychopath, law abiding citizen, or law abiding citizen preparing to commit a crime...at what point is the 2nd Amendment oppressing them? Have you ever lived in a city where 99% of your daily interactions are with total strangers? Walk in their shoes. Right now we have people traveling 6 states over to walk around with AK-47s slung over their shoulders just to prove that they can. And then they're offended when police show up to identify them and understand their intentions. So yes. I would like an amendment that offers my city clear and direct power of self determination regarding weapons...but that also guarantees my rights on my private property or private residence.

I've also conceded multiple times that I know my view of the Second Amendment is not the legal view. Which means I'm fully aware that the states and local governments are not really able to pass laws, and obviously as a result I can understand the legal dispute of laws currently in effect. 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would be interested in seeing this proposed amendment sometime.


Saying that I would like one shouldn't imply that I have one ready to go. I think you would be able to sympathize with that. It's something I would want to put a lot of time into.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> :thumb:
> 
> So I'll clarify my opinion. My opinion is that the 2nd Amendment is not well written for the context of our time. My opinion is that no right should be allowed infringe upon basic liberties. *If 80% of a city's population are uncomfortable walking out the door and having to sort out which complete stranger with an automatic weapon is a terrorist, psychopath, law abiding citizen, or law abiding citizen preparing to commit a crime...at what point is the 2nd Amendment oppressing them?* Have you ever lived in a city where 99% of your daily interactions are with total strangers? Walk in their shoes. Right now we have people traveling 6 states over to walk around with AK-47s slung over their shoulders just to prove that they can. And then they're offended when police show up to identify them and understand their intentions. So yes. I would like an amendment that offers my city clear and direct power of self determination regarding weapons...but that also guarantees my rights on my private property or private residence.
> 
> ...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> wiscto said:
> 
> 
> > :thumb:
> ...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> > wiscto said:
> ...


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> wiscto said:
> 
> 
> > Farmerga said:
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> Whatever. They are separate. And they're treated separately.


Yes, and all ten of those early amendments are critical to our form of government and our freedom. None of them need be tampered with. Some of the later ones could be repealed with no harm done.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Wouldn't such actions run afoul of the Supremacy Clause? The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, that law states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, therefore, any gun control law, that limits the lawful from keeping and bearing, would be unconstitutional and illegal.


Yup but its already happening w/many cities like Detroit, having the strictest laws...& hey, how about sanctuary cities? Violation there!

I think I posted this b/4, the city I live in is highlighted as the safest in the US & the one w/MOST guns per capita! Plano, TX.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pELwC...showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wiscto said:


> States never had the right to infringe on the rights of their citizens. Nice try though. Righteous you are not.


You want cities to have that right, which is why your idea is unrealistic


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You want cities to have that right, which is why your idea is unrealistic


That's a real doozy. We do have the right to pass amendments. If an amendment is passed, then obviously the cities have that right and it is constitutionally provided. And now you understand the fundamentals of my idea.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wiscto said:


> Okay. This one is for BearFoot and all those who like his posts. I'll say this one last time.
> 
> 
> 4. States have also banned conceal carry. Is that because conceal carry is such a bad idea? The only thing you learn is what you want to be true. State A passes a law congruent with your views....dang they must be amazing intelligent people. State B does not...what a horrible idea. WE ALL FEEL THAT WAY. Wake up and smell your ego.


Name a state that doesn't allow concealed carry. Also, please show me a city where people walk around with automatic weapons.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Well. I think my firmest opinion in this thread still stands that I would like an amendment to guarantee it. But I honestly don't know where it is pulled from the Constitution. Where does it say in the Constitution that government can ban verbal threats to another citizen's life? It really doesn't, but most people accept that we can't allow verbal threats because it can be used as leverage against peoples personal freedoms. This is why you believe everyone should carry, but what about the people who will never be comfortable with using guns?
> 
> At what point do we make that distinction? If 80% of a city feels unsafe around guns (regardless of how you feel about their feelings), at what point is a guy walking around with an AK-47 infringing upon their liberty? What about people who don't live in the community but show up from three states away just to show everyone that open carrying an AK-47 around town is legal. Why should his views be imposed upon those from another state?




You may want to check some of these past SCOTUS rulings, I don't know if you've already read them or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States



wiscto said:


> States never had the right to infringe on the rights of their citizens. Nice try though. Righteous you are not.


I 'll pull up a few, but that is actually some of the more curious rulings by the SCOTUS. States DO have the right to infringe of some rights, that was in the previous DOMA ruling a few years ago.


You'll find this an interesting read on how recent it is that the SCOTUS disallowed the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/2nd-amendment-gun-permit-think/


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *States have specifically passed preemption laws to prevent exactly what you're suggesting because it's such a bad idea*





wiscto said:


> 4.* States have also banned conceal carry. Is that because conceal carry is such a bad idea? * The only thing you learn is what you want to be true. State A passes a law congruent with your views....dang they must be amazing intelligent people. State B does not...what a horrible idea. WE ALL FEEL THAT WAY. Wake up and smell your ego.





poppy said:


> Name a state that doesn't allow concealed carry. Also, please show me a city where people walk around with automatic weapons.


I know there's a lot going on here. I was making a philosophical argument against something he said. He basically used the argument that because states passed a law preemptively against something, then obviously the thing they were passing a law against was a bad idea. I just thought I'd point out the flaw in that sentiment. Because obviously the other side of the debate will think the same thing.

And since you asked. ILLINOIS banned it. I didn't say they didn't currently I allow. I said BANNED. They banned it, the courts overruled them. That's recent history, so... 

Next on your little hit. I said some people are going interstate with their rifles just to open carry and prove that they can. That's what I said. You took that and simplified with your question, so I thought I should clarify.

I take it you 
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/03/open-carry-gun-fight-moves-to-target-stores/

Here's a guy forcing his 2nd Amendment rights on Wal-Mart's property rights.
[YOUTUBE]rzw8jW0aCys[/YOUTUBE]

Guy in Michigan intentionally walking around to prove "the principal" of it all.
[YOUTUBE]Nu6fNnQ-Qig[/YOUTUBE]

Intentionally looking for attitude from a cop, cop handles it diplomatically.
[YOUTUBE]N30TagPCNE4[/YOUTUBE]

There are literally hundreds of these videos.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> You may want to check some of these past SCOTUS rulings, I don't know if you've already read them or not.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States
> 
> 
> ...


Either inalienable rights exist, or they don't. You can't have a Bill of Rights, you can't have rights period...unless a state is not allowed to infringe on those rights. The entire premise of this country does not exist if the 9th amendment does not apply to ALL government. And if the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then why are you trying to argue that the 2nd Amendment is protected FROM the states...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Either inalienable rights exist, or they don't. You can't have a Bill of Rights, you can't have rights period...unless a state is not allowed to infringe on those rights. The entire premise of this country does not exist if the 9th amendment does not apply to ALL government. And if the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states, then why are you trying to argue that the 2nd Amendment is protected FROM the states...


First, let me explain that there are times when I will post a link to a law that is in opposition to my own personal stance or position.
That doesn't mean I agree with it or defend it, but I have to admit a fact when it exists.
It may seem odd to most people, but understanding your opposition and the strengths they have is important if you seek to defeat it.

I merely corrected your notion that the states never had the right to infringe on the Bill of Rights, they most certainly had, and did. This was recently new to me as well and a real eye opener.

The credit for learning that bit of interesting trivia belongs to another member, Forerunner, not me. It is important to know how and why these things came to be and just how much we have been deceived.

Only then can you grasp what these courts are doing and how to keep them from affecting your own freedom.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wiscto said:


> And since you asked. ILLINOIS banned it. I didn't say they didn't currently I allow. I said BANNED. They banned it, the courts overruled them. That's recent history, so...
> 
> *Next on your little hit. I said some people are going interstate with their rifles just to open carry and prove that they can. That's what I said. You took that and simplified with your question, so I thought I should clarify*.


Actually you said this in post #211.

So I'll clarify my opinion. My opinion is that the 2nd Amendment is not well written for the context of our time. My opinion is that no right should be allowed infringe upon basic liberties. *If 80% of a city's population are uncomfortable walking out the door and having to sort out which complete stranger with an automatic weapon is a terrorist, psychopath, law abiding citizen, or law abiding citizen preparing to commit a crime...at what point is the 2nd Amendment oppressing them?
*

Just wondered where people are carrying automatic weapons. That is all. BTW, As you admitted, Illinois could not legally ban concealed carry and the courts overturned them. The population in Illinois never was for the ban. It was rammed through by the democrat politicians mainly in Chicago.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I guess some don't realize how VERY expensive it is to OWN, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, and get a license for a Full Auto.
I wonder if some think that a AR-15 means this AR stands for Automatic Rifle IT DON'T the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark. The Full Auto was redesigned and renamed the M16 for Military use.
* In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the rifle for civilians as the Colt AR-15. *


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

poppy said:


> Actually you said this in post #211.
> 
> So I'll clarify my opinion. My opinion is that the 2nd Amendment is not well written for the context of our time. My opinion is that no right should be allowed infringe upon basic liberties. *If 80% of a city's population are uncomfortable walking out the door and having to sort out which complete stranger with an automatic weapon is a terrorist, psychopath, law abiding citizen, or law abiding citizen preparing to commit a crime...at what point is the 2nd Amendment oppressing them?
> *
> ...


Yea that is what I said. Thanks for quoting what I said I said, for me, even though you seemed to be the one who was confused.

You say I "admitted" as if I didn't already know what the court decision was. You seem to assume that I give a crap about the Illinois law, outside of proving my point to BearFoot that just because a state writes a law...that does not mean that the state is right. I used a law that he wouldn't like to prove my point. I'm going to assume that you still just haven't managed to comprehend this conversation.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> I guess some don't realize how VERY expensive it is to OWN, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, and get a license for a Full Auto.
> I wonder if some think that a AR-15 means this AR stands for Automatic Rifle IT DON'T the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark. The Full Auto was redesigned and renamed the M16 for Military use.
> * In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the rifle for civilians as the Colt AR-15. *


So I went back to find out if you were talking about me. Yea I said automatic weapon at one point, so what? I know the difference between semi auto and auto, it was just a mistake. I actually thought it was Poppy making the mistake and ignored it, because I didn't think it was a big deal, and I figured that I got his drift anyway. I didn't even realize he was quoting me. I do know what you're talking about, and even if I didn't, you'd still be making an empty gesture. Nothing you just said relevant to the discussion at all. You probably do know more about assault rifles than I do. Does that inflate your ego to its proper level? Because that would be all your post is worth...outside of successfully annoying me enough to point out to you how pointless it was otherwise.


----------

