You can ban handguns without violating the 2nd Amendment

[soylentgreen]

*Hung (people are hanged, objects are hung)

Why would such a sign (big or not, or Neon or otherwise) tell you if there's a gun in the house ?

Firing a shotgun into the air (legal issues aside) affords a far greater certainty than any sign.

Had a thought about this.

Consider that all the pro gun crowd here make the claim that because they are law abiding citizens than they should not have to face any restrictions to ownership.

So given that that is true then no, let us not put the issue of legality to the side when proposing a solution.

Unless your also willing to argue that the pro gun crowd is full of shit when they say they are law abiding

 

[Lursa]

If you have other security measures then good for you. But suggesting that you need to keep a loaded gun within reach at all times is not one of them.

So I am corret you need to keep a loaded gun within easy reach. That is not a proactive measure such as your alleged other security methods would be. That is being reactive to crime, ie. waiting for it to happen before doing anything about it. Not really the most cleverest ways of dealing with crime unless of course you are using the worthless understanding of individualism that allows you to think only of your own self interest.

I'm not concerned about your 'opinion' of what I need. My 9 mm lives on a shelf on my nightstand. Yes, it is easily accessible.

So is the fire extinquisher in my kitchen. I dont spend a lot of time worrying about fires or home invasions, but I have planned and prepared for such contingencies.

Your need to judge other people's risks and choices is evident...but very limited and poorly thought out. I dont care if you continue to do so, you have made no headway in undermining my choices and you're not voting here so I dont really care.

 

[soylentgreen]

I'm not concerned about your 'opinion' of what I need. My 9 mm lives on a shelf on my nightstand. Yes, it is easily accessible.

So is the fire extinquisher in my kitchen. I dont spend a lot of time worrying about fires or home invasions, but I have planned and prepared for such contingencies.

Your need to judge other people's risks and choices is evident...but very limited and poorly thought out. I dont care if you continue to do so, you have made no headway in undermining my choices and you're not voting here so I dont really care.

I could not care less about your needs with a gun either. they are not relevant to the fact that your argument for a gun because of crime is a weak one.

No the real problem is you need to rely on the premise that you live in a crime ridden shithole if you need to keep a loaded gun nearby.

 

[Lursa]

I could not care less about your needs with a gun either. they are not relevant to the fact that your argument for a gun because of crime is a weak one.

No the real problem is you need to rely on the premise that you live in a crime ridden shithole if you need to keep a loaded gun nearby.

See? You've got nothing left but baseless personal attack.

Next time, just do so earlier and not waste my time. The personal attacks are as meaningless as your opinions on this subject...why not just open with them in the future? LOL

 

[Glitch]

I'm not concerned about your 'opinion' of what I need. My 9 mm lives on a shelf on my nightstand. Yes, it is easily accessible.

So is the fire extinquisher in my kitchen. I dont spend a lot of time worrying about fires or home invasions, but I have planned and prepared for such contingencies.

Your need to judge other people's risks and choices is evident...but very limited and poorly thought out. I dont care if you continue to do so, you have made no headway in undermining my choices and you're not voting here so I dont really care.

I keep a blanket, a shovel, and a few snacks in my vehicle in case I ever get stuck in the snow and can't get out when there is nobody around. I also keep water, food, and spare fuel for my generator in the event of a large earthquake and I loose power for several days during the Winter.

Being prepared for unexpected events is always the smart thing to do, even if those events never arise. Nobody plans for accidents or hostile encounters to occur, but acknowledging the possibility that they can occur and taking steps to help mitigate the damage that is done when they occur is being both intelligent and prudent.

How each person chooses to deal with unexpected events is entirely up to them. Everyone has different levels of risk, and varying skill levels that makes their contingency planning unique to them. Only the very stupid (a.k.a. Darwin Award recipients) never prepare for unexpected events.

 

[Lursa]

I keep a blanket, a shovel, and a few snacks in my vehicle in case I ever get stuck in the snow and can't get out when there is nobody around. I also keep water, food, and spare fuel for my generator in the event of a large earthquake and I loose power for several days during the Winter.

Being prepared for unexpected events is always the smart thing to do, even if those events never arise. Nobody plans for accidents or hostile encounters to occur, but acknowledging the possibility that they can occur and taking steps to help mitigate the damage that is done when they occur is being both intelligent and prudent.

How each person chooses to deal with unexpected events is entirely up to them. Everyone has different levels of risk, and varying skill levels that makes their contingency planning unique to them. Only the very stupid (a.k.a. Darwin Award recipients) never prepare for unexpected events.

It seems many anti-gun people focus a lot more on guns than on real life. And dont realize that dealing with real life has many more dimensions than guns.

 

[swing_voter]

I'm not concerned about your 'opinion' of what I need. My 9 mm lives on a shelf on my nightstand. Yes, it is easily accessible.

So is the fire extinquisher in my kitchen. I dont spend a lot of time worrying about fires or home invasions, but I have planned and prepared for such contingencies.

Your need to judge other people's risks and choices is evident...but very limited and poorly thought out. I dont care if you continue to do so, you have made no headway in undermining my choices and you're not voting here so I dont really care.

You probably don't have kids, but if you do, lock it up.



.

 

[Lursa]

You probably don't have kids, but if you do, lock it up.



.

I do not and none come over to the house.

 

[soylentgreen]

See? You've got nothing left but baseless personal attack.

Next time, just do so earlier and not waste my time. The personal attacks are as meaningless as your opinions on this subject...why not just open with them in the future? LOL

That is not a personal attack. That is the logical consequence of your argument. To actually need to keep a loaded gun within reach you are either living in an area where crime is rampant and the criminals will kill for small change. A.K.A a shithole. Or you are acting in a paranoid manner.

Either way your argument can only be seen as being based on creating a fear. That you need a gun to fight off criminals.

Please stop taking these replies as personal and start looking at it as an impersonal structured argument.

 

[RF667799]

That is not a personal attack. That is the logical consequence of your argument. To actually need to keep a loaded gun within reach you are either living in an area where crime is rampant and the criminals will kill for small change. A.K.A a shithole. Or you are acting in a paranoid manner.

Either way your argument can only be seen as being based on creating a fear. That you need a gun to fight off criminals.

Please stop taking these replies as personal and start looking at it as an impersonal structured argument.K

Keeping a fire extinguisher handy is "acting in a paranoid manner" by that reckoning. Unless one is living in a house made of straw and apt to burst into flame at any moment.

 

[soylentgreen]

Keeping a fire extinguisher handy is "acting in a paranoid manner" by that reckoning. Unless one is living in a house made of straw and apt to burst into flame at any moment.

No, Keeping a fire extinguisher is being pro active about a possibility of a fire . Keeping any safety device such as alarms both for fire or break-ins is also a proactive move.

But then fires are not crime. They are usually caused by accidents. And guns do not burn. In this argument guns are the problem with criminals.

I have proposed only two premises that must support the idea that a person needs to keep a loaded gun within reach. I am open to any more.

 

[Glitch]

You probably don't have kids, but if you do, lock it up.



.

It depends on how one is raised.

No firearms were ever locked up in our home. After cleaning them we put them in their gun sock and stashed them in the closet. My father started teaching me about firearms when I was six years old. I use to help him clean his shotgun/rifle after a hunt. So I knew and understood the difference between a toy firearm and the real thing. It never once occurred to me to play with any firearm growing up. It was as alien a concept to me as it might be to play with a chainsaw, or other potentially dangerous tool. The kind of toys I played with as a child always involved building something, from Lincoln Logs, and Erector Sets, to building Heath Kits later as a teen.

 

[SayMyName]

If you read the federalist papers, the papers that the Constitution is based on, the 2nd Amendment is all about civilians becoming a military unit, or a militia. This militia was to serve the governors of the states, to put down insurrections and to establish order after a natural disaster, etc. The militias were also supposed to defeat a rogue US Army. In 1776, the US Army was seen as the biggest potential threat to the republic. The US Army, however, has been well behaved.

You can ban all handguns without defeating the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Handguns aren't required for military service. Handguns lack the range required for a proper military weapon.

The National Firearms Act bans full auto weapons, an essential military weapon, btw. If you can ban full auto weapons you can ban anything. Well, it's not a ban, really. You need a permit to own a full auto weapon from the ATF, but it's not easy to get. We can do the same for handguns, place them under the National Firearms Act.



.

With all due respect, in the combat units that I served with many years ago in the United States Army, all of my soldiers, myself included, carried issued sidearms along with our standard military weapon. There are many units in all the services that do the same.

 

[swing_voter]

With all due respect, in the combat units that I served with many years ago in the United States Army, all of my soldiers, myself included, carried issued sidearms along with our standard military weapon. There are many units in all the services that do the same.

What kind of unit? MPs?


.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Or: who says a gun has to be a gun as defined by what’s avaiilable today? Maybe we need to create consumer class guns vs LEO.

Nuttin in 2A about what guns can and can’t look like.

The criteria used by SCOTUS to decide if the possession and use of a gun is protected by the 2ndA is not 'style' (like "military style") or "looks", but "type" and that is important. Where "style" denotes superficial appearance, "type" denotes actual design, performance, . . . usefulness.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Another gun thread?
Can anyone guess which way this is gonna go?
Gonna watch grass grow, there will be more excitement there.

Perhaps watching grass grow is all your brain can handle . . . You are the mental midget that opened the "GUN CONTROL" subforum and expected to see threads on other subjects besides guns.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

The criteria used by SCOTUS to decide if the possession and use of a gun is protected by the 2ndA is not 'style' (like "military style") or "looks", but "type" and that is important. Where "style" denotes superficial appearance, "type" denotes actual design, performance, . . . usefulness.

Right. 2-3 bullets per gun.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Right. 2-3 bullets per gun.

Based on what?

There are three 'prongs' of the Court's 2nd Amendment protection criteria. The Court asks for argument and briefs on the following.

1) is the gun of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment and/or​

2) is the gun of a type that could be used advantageously in the common defense and/or​

3) is the gun of a type in common use by the citizens at the time (which means, at the current time and/or at the time of the Court's evaluation).​

If a gun meets any of those criteria, the power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled or invalidated if already in force.

In Heller, the Court only used the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes.

When an "assault weapon" ban comes before the Court, ALL criteria will be employed to invalidate that law because "assault weapons" (and their standard capacity magazines) meet ALL the criteria.

.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Based on what?

There are three 'prongs' of the Court's 2nd Amendment protection criteria. The Court asks for argument and briefs on the following.

1) is the gun of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment and/or​

2) is the gun of a type that could be used advantageously in the common defense and/or​

3) is the gun of a type in common use by the citizens at the time (which means, at the current time and/or at the time of the Court's evaluation).​

If a gun meets any of those criteria, the power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled or invalidated if already in force.

In Heller, the Court only used the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes.

When an "assault weapon" ban comes before the Court, ALL criteria will be employed to invalidate that law because "assault weapons" (and their standard capacity magazines) meet ALL the criteria.

.

“At the time”. The definition of useful for guns is not static.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Perhaps watching grass grow is all your brain can handle . . . You are the mental midget that opened the "GUN CONTROL" subforum and expected to see threads on other subjects besides guns.

This mental midget knows enough NOT to throw out personal insults and stay within the forum rules.

And you might want to point out to me WHERE I opened a Gun Control subforum.
Link please.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

This mental midget knows enough NOT to throw out personal insults and stay within the forum rules.

And you might want to point out to me WHERE I opened a Gun Control subforum.
Link please.

LOL. Wow, so a SNOWFLAKE it is!

Where did you open a GUN CONTROL subforum?

That isn't what I asked . . .

I'll speak very slowly . . .

How did you come to be in this thread without opening / clicking on / being in the GUN CONTROL subforum?

 

[Lursa]

That is not a personal attack. That is the logical consequence of your argument. To actually need to keep a loaded gun within reach you are either living in an area where crime is rampant and the criminals will kill for small change. A.K.A a shithole. Or you are acting in a paranoid manner.

Either way your argument can only be seen as being based on creating a fear. That you need a gun to fight off criminals.

Please stop taking these replies as personal and start looking at it as an impersonal structured argument.

Since you are wrong in your assessment and have been told so WITH proof/examples you choose to ignore (you invent your own reasons to ignore the comparisons...if they arent related to guns, they dont count ), to continue to lie about me is a personal attack.

With that clarification:

See? You've got nothing left but baseless personal attack.

Next time, just do so earlier and not waste my time. The personal attacks are as meaningless as your opinions on this subject...why not just open with them in the future?

 

[Lursa]

Keeping a fire extinguisher handy is "acting in a paranoid manner" by that reckoning. Unless one is living in a house made of straw and apt to burst into flame at any moment.

That's different! People with seat belts and fire extinguishers and life jackets and doorbell cams arent living in fear...only people with guns.

 

[Glitch]

Based on what?

There are three 'prongs' of the Court's 2nd Amendment protection criteria. The Court asks for argument and briefs on the following.

1) is the gun of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment and/or​

2) is the gun of a type that could be used advantageously in the common defense and/or​

3) is the gun of a type in common use by the citizens at the time (which means, at the current time and/or at the time of the Court's evaluation).​

If a gun meets any of those criteria, the power claimed by government to restrict its possession and use by individual citizens must be repelled or invalidated if already in force.

In Heller, the Court only used the "in common use" test to invalidate the DC statutes.

When an "assault weapon" ban comes before the Court, ALL criteria will be employed to invalidate that law because "assault weapons" (and their standard capacity magazines) meet ALL the criteria.

.

I know where you got the "common use" phrase from, but not any of that other criteria.

Justice Scalia was wrong when he wrote Heller. The Second Amendment does not constrain the individual right of the people to firearms that are in "common use." That was judicial activism on the part of Justice Scalia.

There is no criteria specified in the Second Amendment that would allow government to impose any form of restriction on firearm ownership or possession. In fact, it states quite clearly that government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Imposing any kind of "test" or criteria is the very definition of infringement.

 

[Bodi]

If you read the federalist papers, the papers that the Constitution is based on, the 2nd Amendment is all about civilians becoming a military unit, or a militia. This militia was to serve the governors of the states, to put down insurrections and to establish order after a natural disaster, etc. The militias were also supposed to defeat a rogue US Army. In 1776, the US Army was seen as the biggest potential threat to the republic. The US Army, however, has been well behaved.

You can ban all handguns without defeating the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Handguns aren't required for military service. Handguns lack the range required for a proper military weapon.

The National Firearms Act bans full auto weapons, an essential military weapon, btw. If you can ban full auto weapons you can ban anything. Well, it's not a ban, really. You need a permit to own a full auto weapon from the ATF, but it's not easy to get. We can do the same for handguns, place them under the National Firearms Act.



.

I have been arguing that gun ownership is about being in the militia for decades... all gun owners that I have talked to are either ignorant or lie about it.