It doesn't work normally. Check out the school shootings I cited. Armed men dithered and ran when the moment of truth came.
Again, I am so happy I don't live in a blue state where libs are constantly trying to remove 2d amendment rights. TEXAS! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!
It was? Cite copy paste. As I said previously: The state is free to regulate the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms so long as said regulations do not infringe on said right. To that end: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
YOU claimed: So convicts should be allowed to keep and use firearms? After all, they are part of the people YOU are mistaken.
Step one in the Dictator's Playbook is to give the people an enemy they can be mobilized against. People who can be called Rapists and Murderers without foundation. If tyrannies always disarmed everyone then why did the Soviets in the 1930's train their youth almost universally in the marksmanship that later served them so well in WWII?
Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Hardly a ringing endorsement, especially of something so often deadly.
Dems want our money to go to policemen's salaries so as to reward brave service and attract better people. Republicans want to buy police expensive but ineffective weaponry and tanks, so as to enrich the armored car manufacturers and weapons merchants who give them campaign contributions.
You obviously did not read your own post, cited in mine. That's what it said. Words carry meaning. Your words, too. Deal with it.
Shall I quote about 700 monkeys typing for 7000 years? One of them will come up with the works of Shakespeare. I don't dispute the right to own guns; I just dispute they're an effective means of self defense. If they make you feel better,b all means, indulge yourself.
Don't tell me. Tell TOG6. He's the one who said the right to bear arms is absolute, not me. My position is that they need to be regulated, not banned or sold like candy.
They are obviously not sold like candy. A background check is required. But I am glad I live where there is no requirement for a permit, no waiting period, no required registration, no limit on magazine capacity... just common sense. TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!
Never said they were sold like candy. I said that they shouldn't be. Again, tell TOG6, he seems to be the one with an opinion opposing yours.
I don't really care. I'm retired in Texas where the only gun grabber (BETO) goy his butt kicked in the last election. We're free.
I am indeed OK with the status quo, with the proviso that background checks should be more stringent. Like I said, I have no problem with firearm ownership in general. I just have some problems in the particular. And I think the idea that 'the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun' is BS. Uvalde & co. have shown otherwise. I'm not sure what the solution is or even if there is one, but that's not it.
Yep! Democrat Politicians in America allow felons(murderers and rapists to vote), and protect illegal immigrants, threw SANTURAY CITIES, want for criminals to own guns, whilst disarming Law Abiding Citizens, always push their liberal socialist communist Agenda, that destroys the middle class, partially threw fear, and arms Drug dealers, and illegal immigrants, whom they support! And Republicans are racists fascist, want to sell guns to serial killers and mass shooters, on Jan 6 tried by force to make the election loser the US president, cut taxes to the rich and don't want to increase the minimum wage to starving population The above is an example of ........ Americans. Didn't named them out of fear my post will be removed.
More stringent how? It's not the only way, but it's the preferable way. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
This is pretty much saying that the right to bear arms is absolute, provided you can prove you're a human being.
let's go with just enforcing the regulations that are in place now. Except that it doesn't really work, does it? Again, Uvalde and Stoneman prove otherwise. At Uvalde, a cop had the gunman in his sights and didn't take the shot. Most people just aren't ready to kill other people instantly. Those that are should maybe not be allowed to own guns.
