Arming public reduces crime

Do you actually read the posts that you respond to here? Your rude response was absolutely irrelevant to his post, and is a recurring trend for you.

 

In my opinion, most gun lovers would love to keep and bear their Arms in public, why not let them when they become entitled to the character of a well regulated militia of the United States.

It is enumerated as an inalienable right to a well regulated militia of the United States.

 

You continue to purposely misinterpret the 2nd Amendment despite my numerous corrections. Again, the 2nd Amendment does not state that an individual must be a part of a "well regulated militia" to have the right to keep and bear arms, just like the 1st Amendment does not state that you must be a member of the press to have the freedom of speech. You seem to be arguing against strawmen, rather than simply acknowledging your multiple errors.

To restate my numerous previous posts in a nutshell, all the 2nd Amendment does is acknowledge that because a well-regulated militia is NECESSARY for the State/Union to be free, then the PEOPLE of the State/Union must be guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, just like all of the other Bill of Rights that reference "The People."

 

Only a well regulated militia is exempted from State gun control laws in favor of federal gun control as prescribed by our federal Congress. Everyone else is expected to respect the rule of law regarding gun control in the several States.

 

Many States allow open carry. I have a permit where I live that is good for concealed or open carry. I choose not to open carry, as many folks will freak out.

 

Would that be more of a problem, if individuals who are entitled to the character of a well regulated militia, were to muster in public more often with their Arms?

 

Not really.

 

Would you have a problem if a form of community service for individuals who keep and bear Arms; was to muster with their Arms for the required number of community service hours, as an alternative to other forms of community service if it were ordered by a judge for some infringement of the law?

 

So one of your boyfriends posts that "gun lovers don't love their republic" and I respond that he is full of sh**, which he clearly is, and I am rude?


Actually it was perfectly relevant. Your boy wants to legislate more restrictions on gun purchases, when legally purchased guns are not the problem. I can see how this angered you because you are on the same track to nowhere he is.

 

You may have missed the point of my argument:

In my opinion, most gun lovers would love to keep and bear their Arms in public, why not let them when they become entitled to the character of a well regulated militia of the United States.

It is enumerated as an inalienable right to a well regulated militia of the United States.

 

Yes that's right, you got it. You're rude.

Then you need to re-read his post then. He wasn't advocating anything of the kind.

Your knee-jerk reactions are so predictable.




P.S. Have you not considered that the vast majority of guns in this country are originally sold legally to legal purchasers? Some of these guns from then on will find their way into the illegal market and into criminal's hands. We can ignore this reality at our own peril.

 

Do you not realize that no amount of regulation will stop this from happening?

I am rude to arrogant people who talk out their

I cannot help the fact that you cannot see past what is in the post to where he is heading with his line of argument.

If you must wad your knickers every time you come in here, perhaps you should stay away.

 

As a "great" Democratic party appointed Surgeon General once said " we need safer guns and safer bullets".

 

Why not establish a culture of militia service by persons who keep and bear Arms through the common law, such that they can be entitled to the character of a well regulated militia; in order to secure the right of the people to keep and bear Arms and to be called to the defense of the State to insure the domestic tranquility and security of a free State, when necessary.

 

What law, exactly, "stops" ANYTHING???? Do you also expect laws that set speed limits on our highways to "stop" speeders?

That's the point, friend. You have made a knee-jerk reaction by assuming that his intention is banning guns (or whatever you fear). He said no such thing as far as I know, so we are now talking about your irrelevant reaction to his post.

You have a trend here doing this.

Yes, I'm sure you'd like that, but who then, would keep you honest?

 

IMO if a person can't qualify for and serve honorably in the Infantry, they should not cary a military grade gun. There is a level of skill and intelligence a Infantryman must posess that make him a ideal person to care and operate a military grade gun.

If more unqualified people have guns there will be perhaps less crime and more accidents like frendly fire, and collatoral damage. More bystanders will get hit, more property will be damaged, and more law suits will be filed.

 

EXACTLY! We should also let only people who have qualified and raced in the Indy 500 drive automobiles. If you are not a professional racecar driver, then you should never be allowed to legally drive a car. There is a level of skill and intelligence that an Indy racer must possess that makes him an ideal person to care and operate a car. (Hint: Sarcasm)

You do know that the number of deaths involving "military grade guns" are comparable to the deaths caused by lightning strikes? What....You didn't know that? Then, I am happy to set you on the right path. Also, these "military grade guns" are no different than most semiauto hunting rifles. Your comments indicate that you have no knowledge whatsoever on this subject, so please quit before you have to insert your foot even deeper into your mouth.

 

Well certainly not you, with your constant misrepresentations alnd lies.

 

I agree. Obsolete dogma, propaganda, and rhetoric is no substitute for an argument. No one is claiming that the citizens of the several States do not have inalienable or indefeasible rights to private property which may include Arms, subject to the police power of a State as prescribed by the elected representatives of that State.

It seems, to me, that gun lovers would have less to complain about if they were more willing to become entitled to the character of a well regulated militia of the United States; simply because they would then be entitled to keep and bear Arms as literally enumerated in our Second Amendment.

 

In my opinion, what you describe should be less likely if more persons who keep and bear Arms, are entitled to the character of a well regulated militia.

We could end our War on Crime and lower our tax burden with a simple but visible presence of an armed populace and police power of the State.

 

Would you object to a State militia gun registry for persons who may wish to acquire and posses a form of private property which may include Arms; and which may qualify for an exemption from State gun control laws arising from a literal construction of the Second Amendment.

 

Well, that's unfortunate. It's interesting that you can't support those accusations above, but more importantly to this conversation, it's ironic that you weren't able to respond to the rest of my post. You know,... where I specifically addressed your failed "argument"? I suppose that you resorted to these false accusations when you realized your whole argument had failed.

*Are there any adults here?*

 

Don't personally own a gun but like to have the right to buy if I thought I needed one (I'm a relatively liberal Democrat). I live in a relatively safe town (Kenmore WA) if I lived in a more dangerous place I'm sure I'd have one. I'm sure the European country mentioned at the begining of this thread is Switzerland.

Have nothing against reasonable restrictions on weapons like a prohibition on machine guns etc.

 

Never saw you "address my failed argument", all I see is your childish effeminate hissy fit posts.

 

More of the same rude personal attacks, eh? Stick to what you're good at, I suppose.

Aside from responding to your insolence, I also responded to your failed argument both here and here,which you have not been able to address, hence your "failed" argument.