Arming public reduces crime

Is that what you would call abortion doctors in this "less civilized" society that allows the brutal tearing apart lim from limb of children in utero?

 

Here is one rationale:

 

Your fantasies are your own friend. I can't enter into your thought-world either way.

 

So that is Illinois! Is that broader than the U.S. Constitution or narrower? If it is narrower, it would likely fail a challenge.

 

What part do you consider a fantasy? The tearing apart, or the legal status of abortion? Both are exceptionally easy to prove. Come on into reality, the water's fine!

 

Why should it fail a legal challenge as the supreme law of the land within that State?

Why would our Second Amendment deny and disparage States' rights as enumerated in our Tenth Amendment, if the purpose for a well regulated militia, is because it is Necessary to the security of a free State?

I would agree with you if the Second Amendment enumerated that a well regulated militia was not necessary to the freedom of the People.

 

Of course guns bring protection, and prevent crime.

 

Just ask our Iraqi friends. It was very peaceable there over the past 8 years thanks to all their guns.

 

You are confusing terrorist armies with regular people having guns.

 

So more guns are good as long as only certain people get them. I'm cool with that.

 

Yeah, if you pay your taxes, and are stable and not crazy you should be able to get a gun.

 

Psychological tests? I might not go that far, but it would be a way to keep guns out of the hands of the crazies.

 

Would it? We have doctors out there now who will trump up medical bills at a lawyers' request to boost a lawsuit, who says we won't have doctors out there selling a clean bil of mental health for a price?

 

Who on this forum is "peddling" guns? I think YOU'VE been ignoring the obvious fact that this is a GUN CONTROL forum: If you are offended by any political view that is different than your own to the point that you resort to slanders, then perhaps you should refrain from going on forums. Just a thought.

 

How many people recognize the difference between gun control and gun prohibition?

Gun control via States' rights is protected under our federal Constitution and an inherent States' right via the tradition police power to ensure the domestic tranquility, safety, and security of the State.

 

Simple thought...."Would you confront a possibly armed person, or knowing that person was armed, with an additude to commit a crime against that person."?

If you did....you are as ignorant. And deserve to be taken out by that person.​

 

Another simple thought; would an armed populace being in a well regulated militia and keeping and bearing those Arms which may be necessary to suppress insurrections and repel invasions; not to mention executing the laws of the State or the Union; be better for the domestic tranquility and security of any State.

 

The simple answer is no! It would not. A "well regulated militia" cannot be everywhere at once, so we would have only filling out a report after the fact as recourse (if you are still alive) to being attacked physically by a criminal.

Besides, a simple question, is there any reason we cannot have both?

 

Why would individuals who are entitled to the character of a well regulated militia of individuals who keep and bear Arms, not be more prevalent than the police are now?

We could be lowering our tax burden by ending our War on Crime by encouraging gun lovers to love their republic, at least as much as they love their guns.

 

I didn't say they wouldn't, but they still wouldn't be prevalent enough. The better solution is to allow the public the means to protect themselves, wouldn't you agree?

This is complete nonsense. Legally purchased guns commit a small percentage of gun crimes. You are just spewing ignorant nonsense fed to you by John Stewart or ALGore or some other moron.

 

I legally carry a gun, because a Cop is too heavy.​

 

Especially those day shift donut shop frequentling ones.

 

Why would a person who is entitled to the character of a well regulated militia of the United States, be concerned with the right to keep and bear Arms, in such a manner as may be necessary to the domestic tranquility and security, through a natural right organic to a free State of the Union.

The literal interpretation of the Second Amendment only applies to individuals who keep and bear Arms and are entitled to the character of a well regulated militia of the United States, and is so enumerated in the Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. It specifically applies to the militia of the United States, especially when called to federal service to execute the laws of the Union anywhere it may be necessary for the common defense and general welfare of the United States in order to provide for the domestic tranquility and general Happiness of the People, and of the several States of the Union.

 

Now, now. Be nice.

 

You're right,.... it WAS a "simple thought".