Is there anyone here that believes the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment so that America would be the shooting gallery it is today?

[Uncensored2008]

Every gunfetisher heard the call of this thread. Prepare to be gished.

As did every gun grabber.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"Self-defense" is just the "resist tyranny" fantasy on a smaller scale.
Firearms for "self-defense" has resulted in gangs with guns, road rage drivers with guns, angry spouses with guns, and guns in schools.
So, in the long run, a "self defense" firearm (typically a handgun) has produced more lethal confrontations than de-escalations in American society.

Firearms enable a 5'1" woman who weighs 90 pounds to successfully defend against a 6'2" - 220 lb man.

democrat incels hate that.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Firearms enable a 5'1" woman who weighs 90 pounds to successfully defend a 6'2" - 220 lbs man.

democrat incels hate that.

To gun control advocates, a woman who is raped is morally superior to one who shoots her attacker.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Thanks to @bongsaway for the idea of the format...

Whether you are a gun zealot or would prefer no guns in America, do you believe that the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment anticipating that America would become the most violent developed country in the world?

Congress won't do anything. The courts apparently never understood what a comma means in a phrase. Our only hope for meaningful gun safety in America appears to be in a Democrat President that is willing to grab powers denied to the Executive by law and use them.

Only fools.

The second amendment was never intended to support criminal behavior. Only someone with the IQ of a brick believes such insanity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

To gun control advocates, a woman who is raped is morally superior to one who shoots her attacker.

Besides, democrat incels fear they may be the one who is shot.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Besides, democrat incels fear they may be the one who is shot.

 

[rahl]

Actually, yes. Prior to that it was viewed as a right to form a militia.

At non point since its ratification has it ever meant right of the militia. The first court affirm it’s an individual right was in 1858. Every single court that had ever looked at it had told you it’s an individual right.

Do you ever get tired of being wrong about every single thing you post on this topic?

 

[rahl]

Read it and weep:
The militia represents a collective right. Heller turned that into an individual right.

The Evolution of the Second Amendment - New Jersey State Bar Foundation

by Jodi L. Miller “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” These 27 words that comprise the Second Amendment have been endlessly debated by legal scholars, judges and justices in the modern...

njsbf.org

Nope. The first time SCOTUS affirmed it an individual right was in dredd Scott in 1858. Every single court since has reaffirmed it.

 

[rahl]

Let us just repeal 2A and leave it at that.

You have zero chance of repealing it.

 

[rahl]

Why not get educated rather than disparaging someone who knows more than you do?

 

[rahl]

I am not feeling the love of someone who values knowledge.
Read information in post #80; then google <how the NRA changed the Second Amendment>, then read Heller.
Education is your friend, friend.

1858 was 150 years before heller

 

[poppopfox]

 

[JMB1911A1]

Nope. The first time SCOTUS affirmed it an individual right was in dredd Scott in 1858. Every single court since has reaffirmed it.

I did more digging. He is quoting an article written by the "Director of Creative Content" of the New Jersey State Bar Association.

NJSBA Staff | NJSBA

njsba.com

It is based on two book reviews.

 

[rahl]

"When first I wrote on the subject in 1974, Second Amendment scholarship was almost nonexistent, but the common belief was that the Amendment protected some manner of State right to control National Guard units, a belief universally accepted in case law at the federal level..."

nope. Every single court that has ever looked at it, beginning in 1858, has told you it’s an individual right.

 

[rahl]

Look at the actual SCOTUS ruling on 2A:

Gun Rights / Gun Control Supreme Court Cases

Read important U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving Gun Rights / Gun Control and learn about how the Justices have shaped the law in this area.

supreme.justia.com

Heller created the individual right.

Heller was 150 years after the first court affirmed it an individual right

 

[JMB1911A1]

View attachment 67575404

 

[Spock]

Firearms enable a 5'1" woman who weighs 90 pounds to successfully defend against a 6'2" - 220 lb man.

democrat incels hate that.

and what happens when the 220 lb man takes the gun or finds it in her purse and uses it in a series of car jackings, assaults and robberies?

 

[Spock]

There's only one version of the 2A that was ratified and became law.

And there was not need for the NRA to do anything with it because by-and-large, the government was not trying to massively restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.

BS. Learn about the restrictions in the 30's and the FFA. It is doubtful that similar restrictions would be possible now given the maniacal and irrational resistance of gun fanatics. Even now people are claiming that easy access to fully automatic and other restricted firearms should be allowed under 2A.

 

[JMB1911A1]

and what happens when the 220 lb man takes the gun or finds it in her purse and uses it in a series of car jackings, assaults and robberies?

What is the What If Fallacy? - Vocab Dictionary

The What If Fallacy, often referred to as the 'hypothetical fallacy,' occurs when someone argues against a position by proposing an improbable or unlikely

vocabdictionary.com

The What If Fallacy, often referred to as the ‘hypothetical fallacy,’ occurs when someone argues against a position by proposing an improbable or unlikely scenario without evidence. This type of reasoning diverts attention from the actual argument or evidence presented and shifts the discussion to unlikely situations.

For instance, if someone argues for the benefits of a public health program, a What If Fallacy would be saying, ‘What if this program leads to increased taxes?’ This response does not address the merits of the program itself but rather presents a hypothetical concern that may or may not be relevant.

Such fallacies can be problematic in discussions and debates as they derail productive conversation by introducing speculative fears rather than focusing on factual evidence and logical reasoning. It’s essential to recognize this fallacy to maintain a grounded and rational discussion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

and what happens when the 220 lb man takes the gun

Hard to do with a hole in him.

But that's why democrats want to disarm her. democrats support "victims rights," that is, the right to be a victim.

or finds it in her purse and uses it in a series of car jackings, assaults and robberies?

What if Superman eats some bad mushrooms?

Your absurd fantasies are not relevant to the fact that firearms allow everyone to defend against attack. Again, which is WHY the left opposes them.

 

[Noodlegawd]

BS. Learn about the restrictions in the 30's and the FFA. It is doubtful that similar restrictions would be possible now given the maniacal and irrational resistance of gun fanatics. Even now people are claiming that easy access to fully automatic and other restricted firearms should be allowed under 2A.

Those are not massive restrictions. They didn't prevent anyone from owning any kind of firearm.

 

[Spock]

What is the What If Fallacy? - Vocab Dictionary

The What If Fallacy, often referred to as the 'hypothetical fallacy,' occurs when someone argues against a position by proposing an improbable or unlikely

vocabdictionary.com

The What If Fallacy, often referred to as the ‘hypothetical fallacy,’ occurs when someone argues against a position by proposing an improbable or unlikely scenario without evidence. This type of reasoning diverts attention from the actual argument or evidence presented and shifts the discussion to unlikely situations.

For instance, if someone argues for the benefits of a public health program, a What If Fallacy would be saying, ‘What if this program leads to increased taxes?’ This response does not address the merits of the program itself but rather presents a hypothetical concern that may or may not be relevant.

Such fallacies can be problematic in discussions and debates as they derail productive conversation by introducing speculative fears rather than focusing on factual evidence and logical reasoning. It’s essential to recognize this fallacy to maintain a grounded and rational discussion.

tit for tat is what the gun argument is all about.
In actuality, many guns for self-defense get used against the owner or otherwise diverted. Do you dispute that fact?

 

[BabaVoss]

Clearly, the framers never intended for the US to globally renowned as a "gun culture" and a place of regular mass murders.
But we don't have the will to change it, sadly.
We now accept regular mass murders and gun violence as normal and necessary in exchange for some ill-conceived notion that "freedom" requires this.
It is madness.

 

[Uncensored2008]

tit for tat is what the gun argument is all about.
In actuality, many guns for self-defense get used against the owner or otherwise diverted. Do you dispute that fact?

Logical fallacy is the only leg the gun-grabber stool rests on, which is why it it the foundation of virtually all of your arguments.

 

[Spock]

Self-defense gun use myth:

Defensive Firearm Use Is Far Less Common Than Exposure to Gun Violence

www.rutgers.edu