Not at all butthurt. This is a rare example of a discussion that didn't devolve into personal attacks. Another tactic meant to dissuade discussion.
Honestly if you want to have a debate on guns don't trot out all these stupid red herrings. I'm a gun owner and have a license to carry. You obviously don't know my position on guns.
A well regulated Militia - that is what it is for.....and it is tied to the 3rd amendment where they can billet at your domicile. DD
If the 2nd amendment was about militia, then wouldn't they write, "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?" Why would they write "the People"?
Crime keeps trending lower and lower due to better policing and data. Crime was significantly higher during the Leave it to Beaver and white picket fences days.
Because that’s how militias worked... The Founders also wrote the 2nd amendment when Indian attacks were a possibility and when France and Spain held signifcant territory surrounding America... None of those conditions exist anymore.
So the terms were interchangeable and the framers just were careless in using "the people" in the second amendment and didn't mean the same people they were talking about in the first and fourth. 4 out of 5 justices agreed with you and said you have no right to have a gun in your home.
As of today, number of gun violence report just for halfway of the year 2018 alone: # of incidents: 30,120 Deaths: 7532 Injuries: 14411 Kids under 11 killed or injured: 350 Teens killed or injured: 1463 MASS SHOOTING: 169 .... Source: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ Thanks 2nd amendment.
We need a YouTube video to counter the data, perhaps a runaway pool murderin children in an elementary school
Not at all, the framers lived in a time in the US where they didn’t have the type of organized armies or law enforcement we do now. We don’t need that same every “swingin d*ck” mentality now. I’ve never said people shouldn’t own guns, just the conditions no longer exist for the 2nd amendment in its current form.
Which as the constitution is a living document, the 2nd amendment no longer applies and you have no right to have a gun by your bed. This is the dissent written by Justice Stevens who now feels we need to repeal the second amendment because he was unable to change what it meant as a Justice. Where did you get that info on crime in the 1950's? I'm curious about that. From what I understand the crime rate was far lower.
If you don’t want to bring up careless acts as a reason to ban something then don’t, but you did so I responded.
But Governments do still exist and the founding fathers recognized the need of armed citizens to have the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government. After all they had just finished a war for independence they would have had no chance at winning if the people did not have guns. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
FYI their mass shooting criteria differs from mother jones in that they are including any incident that injures four people and they do not exclude gang violence.
I politely disagree. ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’ is very specific.
Pulling a trigger isn't a careless act. I would enjoy reading you explain how a pool and a firearm belong together in your argument since you brought it up.
"Right to bear arms ... until all Indians are eradicated and France, Spain and England are no longer a threat"
