• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shouldn't the entire U.S be considered a gun free zone?

Like you, I live in the People's Republic of Taxifornia. I'm not so sure I won't have hassles.

With the vehicle... Maybe not.

With the guns? You just have to know where to go.
Off Hodge Road north of Victorville for example. In one area the ground looked like gold from all the brass left behind.
 
Being able to be armed and being armed are two different things.... But I'm pretty sure that you knew that and are just trolling....

No, not trolling. If you lived in a violence prone place like Guatemala, and were allowed to have a weapon, wouldn't you? Why don't you think people arm themselves there?

According to this, Guatemala is #46 out of 175 in the estimated number of guns per capita by country. Not up there with #1 USA, but not too far down either..
 
With the vehicle... Maybe not.

With the guns? You just have to know where to go.
Off Hodge Road north of Victorville for example. In one area the ground looked like gold from all the brass left behind.

There are places where you can do some target shooting without any problems, but firing a gun mounted on a vehicle? In California? You go first.
 
So, then, your interpretation of "in general use by civilians" means "anything that the police use." That's pretty broad. Do you think that interpretation is what the SCOTUS had in mind?

Point is, that phrase is open to interpretation.

And "unusually dangerous." Don't cops sometimes use weapons that are "unusually dangerous?"

Can I get one of these? They look pretty cool, particularly with live ammunition:

militarized-police-300x2261.jpg

why not?
 
This is the problem with constitutions generally - they are products of their time. Like an old B&W movie they become terribly dated.

Back then the citizenry of a state could reasonable expect to own something similar to what regular soldiers carried. Not any longer.

Today's military would wipe the floor with the best that the USA could field in say the Second World War or the Korean war and maybe even the Vietnam War.

To organize a group of civilians into a fighting force you need a lot of training, a lot of spending, and an organization into which to assimilate them. I'm not sure but is the National Guard the direct descendant of the militia ?

Armed citizens getting together now are nothing more than an armed mob.




IIRC the SCotUSA are still to decide whether a sawn off shotgun is permitted under the 2nd amendment.






Not sure from the pictures, but the bottom one looks to have a greater magazine capacity and also a detachable magazine. That would make it an "assault type weapon" when coupled with the pistol grip.

EDIT: I say "looks to have"

They ALL take the same detachable magazine.
 
"Because, don't worry, the Police State will protect you! Guns are for police and police ONLY!"

Of course if there were few or no guns in society, the police wouldn't need to carry guns.


Go to the UK, British police do not routinely carry guns - they are much better equipped to police a community because of it.

When I speak to a cop in the USA, they are armed like storm troopers - I want to get away from them as fast as possible.


US society is polarized enough along racial lines. The police and the "civilians" is another dividing line.
 
Of course if there were few or no guns in society, the police wouldn't need to carry guns.


Go to the UK, British police do not routinely carry guns - they are much better equipped to police a community because of it.

When I speak to a cop in the USA, they are armed like storm troopers - I want to get away from them as fast as possible.


US society is polarized enough along racial lines. The police and the "civilians" is another dividing line.

First sentence is simply wrong.

And your hyperbole is showing... The average beat cop isn't armed to the teeth. Simply ridiculous. There MAY be an AR15 in the car. And/or a shotgun. Police have been kitted out like that for many decades.
 
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.


A lot of people apparently, including you, wouldn't have passed the English classes I have taken in my youth. The sentence in the second amendment is VERY clear to all that read and understand the English langue. Any person who as ever broken a sentence structure down would know the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a statement, nothing more, it modifies nothing. It simply describes the reason for the following statement ",the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Replace the statement "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," with "Fluffy unicorns are cool and badass," so that the full statement is thus, "Fluffy unicorns are cool, and badass, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What we find is the statement conclusions are identical., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The statement is as clear as day to anyone with any English language instruction. Notice there are NO distinctions made in the statement, it says Arms. Not firearms, not cannons, not swords, just Arms which is literally ANYTHING that can be used in an offensive or defensive capacity. Notice that is says keep AND bear, two words denoting ownership or possession, and the ensuing use thereof.

Apparently to wear a black robe in this country anymore requires a fair degree of illiteracy, as it is quite obvious that more than a few a have not a clue what the Second Amendment says, to say nothing about the literacy, or should I say the lack thereof, of my fellow countrymen.
 
The United States is the only country in the world that has a "right to bear arms" in its Constitution. It is quite insane but we have to live with it.

The Founding Fathers did mention maintaining a "well-regulated militia." We do know guns are not well regulated in this country. This social experiment has failed for the last 200 years.

When I read the term "well-regulated militia" I automatically assume this gives a presumption against gun ownership and making it less available for the everyday citizen.

England and Russia have higher murder rates than we do so the OP is useless.
 
And you refuse to refer to the posts #49 and later.... Nor will you look it up. Looks like you really don't want to know.

I am not going to go trawling back through the thread to look up a gun, I've never heard of, that for some reason you are very reluctant to give details of.
 
Back
Top Bottom