The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Post Reply New Topic

Good question. The Second Amendment was finally incorporated to the states and their local governments by the U.S. Supreme Court opinions about District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller , which determined that the amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago , which determined that the amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

Within its Heller opinion, the Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. The Court researched several contemporaneous definitions of the terminology used in the amendment to arrive at its opinion. For example, strict constructionalists have published collections of such definitions of the terms used in the Constitution including one http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm which is a collection of such definitions of the phrase “well-regulated.” The opinion itself describes other such definitions and interpretations.

As for criminalization measures, those are provided by federal and state laws, not the Constitution itself as it is a negative-rights document https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_ ... ive_rights .

Instead of philosophizing on the side, why not just put it in the document so everyone knows exactly what you mean? And if you cannot apply the terms the original document held to the modern world, what's so bad about updating?

See, there's a reason they don't update...if they even tried...we all know all these various special interest groups would all be trying to get their teeth into it so they just don't even dare bother to do it even though it is really what it needs. It's outdated, pretty much, if we don't even use the same terms with the same meanings now.

That would make it simpler. And, the Constitution itself has rules by which it can be amended. So, those people who wish to change the Constitution to should follow those rules.

Well...that's why you have philosophizing and courts struggling to apply old terms to new...they made it nearly impossible to amend. They basically said when they wrote it, if you really really really need to amend this, it will be allowed but we think it's pretty much perfect the way we wrote it so we are going to make sure you have to go to hell and back to change any of this vague stuff that doesn't really fit into your world.

They made the assumption everything would stay the same forever and ever. They wanted to exist in their own little world completely cut off from others except to export their goods and they wrote for anyone in that mindset never thinking it would change and everyone else isn't accounted for.

bushmaster is a manufactur.
the criminals in the shoot out used ak47s, guns that bushmaster doesn't even make. not all scary looking guns are a bushmaster.

I'd rather have a shoot out then get on my knees and just let the bad guys walk a line poping us in the head one by one.

you might shoot an inocent person but by doing so also save 50 people. so do the outcome outweigh the risk. I don't get that whole idea "well if a mass shooter comes, just hide and hope they run out of bullets before getting to you, far better 50 people die then a person or two get accidentally shot" also Id rather be shot accidentally then killed by a murder.

some more info for the discussion:


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... LiO_EfF-PM

"so. heres 3 cases of people doing stupid thing, so people shouldn't have guns."

I'm sure one could find stupid cases of any activity, the fact that theres stupid people out there doing stupid thing doesn't mean all the peopl not doing stupid things should be treated the same as those who do.

I for one am smart enough to know you don't shoot through a door or more importantly at a indedentified person.
one except would be a person forcefully entering your house. but would I shoot someone out side my window. no. someone breaking through my window however would pose a higher threat.

all those cases could have been prevented if the people just checked their target. we live in a age of amazing flashlights.

those three stories were just a come-on for the meat in the rest of the article.

I am not saying people shouldn't *have* guns. I just pointed out potential problems and indeterminate wording and offered potent suggestions.

The term militia is actually quite well defined:

"Well regulated" refers to something like the militia having a well defined superior authority.

At the time of the Second Amendment was passed, it was inconceivable to the people of that day that anyone would want to disarm ordinary people to keep them from hunting and protecting themselves and their families. If not, you can bet that it would have been stated much stronger. As it is, it guarantees that the government will not abridge our already existing right to keep and bear arms.

Why not just go ahead and come out as an anti and be done with it?
You're not fooling anyone buy tapdancing around it.

NO NO, the world's not black and white and neither is the mind, when working healthy.

Nothing IS WRONG with having a spectrum of opinion instead of RIGID THINKING MIND.

BUT BACK ON TOPIC, of course folks CAN HAVE GUNS, AS A LEGAL RIGHT.

But as always where human beings are living in large Tribes now referred to as societies, CONTROLS are necessary to prevent anarchy from being the reality.

And GUN SAFETY PER strict regulations and requirements is A TOTAL NECESSITY, TO MAKE society work, WITHOUT, potential anarchy.

So yeah, IT'S ALL GRAY.

And yes, guns are A LOT LIKE SEX IN THIS WAY.

But 'my girls' could tell ya more..

By the way JOKE ALERT!

Specifically on the 2nd line ABOVE and the video below.

Can't say that. I believe in protecting oneself first and foremost and you should be allowed to do that without any penalties and sometimes, a gun becomes necessary. So, to deprive people of their guns can set up this scenario where they are getting guns pulled on them and they cannot fight back like the peasants of days gone and who wants that? No one wants some king's men to come along and bully and that's what happens.

However, there should be more seriousness afforded to gun ownership. I do think some people treat them more like cap guns than the real deal and that's just stupid in my honest opinion. It should definitely get more respect than the kitchen knife. Sometimes, it doesn't.

Let's look at a few exhibits from this thread.

That’s says a lot right there which is indicative of an anti-gun stance. Especially when you don’t know diddly about the “gun culture” or even how to define it.


They just “go off”, eh?
Is this another nugget of wisdom from your kuntry kuzzins who spend every waking hour lecturing on gun safety........but then go blow their hands off while improperly negotiating fences with firearms?


What’s a light trigger?


Yeah, right.


Advocating some kind of thought control? Besides, how can you think about gun safety without thinking about guns?


Demonstrates that you know very little about the subject of modern holsters.
Ignorance is a standard attribute of anti-gunners.


Yep, punish the masses for the mistakes of the few.


As someone else has already pointed out, Bushmaster is a manufacturer and mostly of AR-15’s. The bank robbers in this case did have one Bushmaster AR-15 carbine and the others were an AK-47 and an HK-91. The AK was made by Norinco and the HK-91 by Heckler & Koch.


It was also an illegal act which should be obvious. Their "Bushmasters" did not take control of their minds and make them do it nor was it attributable to the lack gun safety conscientiousness.
If you're following the ant-gunner's script the next things will be assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and registration.


In other words, change the constitution to suit whatever's in vogue at the moment.

And I could go back and dig out all the times you mention 2 year olds and guns thorough this thread. Do you have a phobia of 2 year olds? Did you have a bad dream where one ran between your legs and bit your b@lls off or something? You have peppered this thread with reference to 2 year olds.
One each 2 year old being involved in one accident in Jerkwater Idaho or wherever it was hardly warrants the obsession with them.

To sum it up; yes, you ARE an anti and there is only black and white where this topic is concerned.

I'd write more but I've run out of eye-rollers since it's been necessary to use all of them up on you. I'll have to buy some more at the store today.

^^^

Black and white may rule in the minds of some FOLKS but IT NEVER RULES in the REAL WORLD OF guns and FISTS.

I don't need a gun as I know how to use my MIND, hands, AND FEET.

BUT NEVER THE less, people with lesser skills, both intellectual, emotional and physical, DO need one to REASONABLY defend themselves in the wild.

Like I said, this is not a black and white issue, and UNLESS you are an expert in martial arts, I COULD most definitely take a gun AWAY from you before you ever saw OR HEARD me coming out of the peripheral of your eye or EARS.

BUT fortunately I am a good guy too, and don't do WHAT THE BAD GUYS CAN get away with, with guns or not GUNS WHO HAVE THE Real life skills BEYOND TOOLS OF METAL to get the job done in real LIFE of crime or special operations DEFENSE.

Trust me, there wouldn't be any time for eye-rolls for MOST anyone WHO ATTEMPTED TO TAKE A GUN OUT ON ME.

But again, you'd have to see my REAL LIFE 'NINJA' SKILLS TO BELIEVE IT for even one second of eyes or eye-rolls, friend.

In left vs. right politics and philosophy gun control (by whatever label) is the one topic that is black and white. Reason: No one has ever been able to put together a valid argument in favor of it.


Well hell, then; I bet you don't even have a jack and lug wrench in your car, just the spare tire alone. He man that you are, I' m sure you can hold the the car up with one hand and take off and replace the rim and lug nuts with the other hand. I mean after all...........


Why should someone like you need a gun in the wild? I'm sure you can kick a bear or cougar's ass with one hand.


Yeah, that made sense....


How???
Oh, I get it. Me, being the weak little cretin that I obviously am, would draw my piece for any reason and wag it around in an attempt to bluff someone out of a confrontation. You'd step in and save the day by taking my piece AWAY from me and b***h slapping me. Yep, just like in the movies.
This calls for a triple eye-roller for YOU.



Refer back to the tire changing thing. /\


Trust me, in my world the gun stays concealed out of sight and out of mind until and only in the instant it is needed. If it ever does come out it'll be to shoot someone. My would be assailant might not ever see it.
And before we go there, I do believe in the use non-lethal force when practicable.


Those who dote on their ninja skills online are rarely the ones that actually have them.......but here's some more eye-rollers for you just the same.