The Beauty of the Second Amendment - An Armed Citizen Saves A Police Officer's Life


#21

my community has a low crime rate and we have a low percentage of armed citizens do you have data for that? from a real news source not a gun lobby?

oh yes you can…are you saying someone with mental illness should be able to have a gun? criminal record? history of abuse???

you absolutely CAN and SHOULD restrict rights for the right reason.

tell that to the parents of the Sandy Hook kids…oh wait…

no one is trying to limit guns from legitimate owners…but there needs to be controls. Antonin Scalia even agreed.

using these anecdotal stories to make sweeping generalizations is just misleading.


#22

I bet your community is mostly white and affluent with a well paid police force. You don’t live like the rest of us. Liberal NIMBY.

Background checks already exist. Not an argument.

Looks like someone should have restricted your first amendment rights a long time ago, thankfully people who support the second amendment make sure that never happens to you.


#23

Source
source
Pew research
CDC-homicide
CDC-Injuries

Good point, I guess that’s why we have the NICS background check. If you have ever filled out a 4473 ( gun purchase form ) you would see that lying on that form constitutes a felony and obviously felons have lost rights because of past decisions. I’ll be more clear, You cant legislate the rights of an individual if said individual hasn’t been convicted of a felony.


#24

Liberals only cite the Constitution when it benefits them, when it doesn’t they develop selective reading and would rather see it pissed on and destroyed.


#25

that was just ignorant.

let me be more clear.

YES YOU CAN.

I lived in a small town 5,000 pple the PD Chief said “I don’t approve personal protection period take me to court.”

and it is WEAK as I explain below I have a LOT of experience with background checks… I was concealed carry for 10 years…I went to my big city PD and said I wanted to apply for a handgun permit for “Sporting and Shooting” he said “No one gets that…you want large capacity concealed carry” I said SIGN ME UP!!!

This is MASSACHUSETTS one of the most compacted states in the nation we don’t even allow rifles to hunt because the range might hit someone!!

I would suggest learning more about Antonin Scalia. if you know who that was.

BG checks require a 72 hour limit or approval is given I have seen BG checks take WEEKS in small towns that are not automated.

you need to learn more about BGChecks.

the South Carolina shooting victims might have benefitted from that. but that probably doesn’t matter to you, just wanting to be loud in whatever you say.

man was I wrong about you.


#26

I guess nothing you say to defend your hatred for the 2nd Amendment is off limits .The mentally disturbed is a completely different story and you know it . How is that gun control working in those democratic states ? You c’mon man . :laughing:


#27

Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.

Massachusetts’ death rate from guns was 3.13 per 100,000 residents in 2015 - including homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings - compared to the 11.28 national rate.
http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Massachusetts+Gun+Violence+Rate&qpvt=massachusetts+gun+violence+rate&FORM=EWRE

you continue to struggle. its not about limiting the number of guns it is about insuring only qualified people have them.

smart people understand this.


#28

Sorry- I am a familiar of Baltimore which has a large number of legal and illegal gun owners. the Police department doesn’t share your confidence. The data too often indicates your position of massive generalities is mistaken. You shall believe, however, whatever you want to believe- but that is called faith, not to be confused with a well informed opinion. Your rude little sideshow is not considered proof of jack.


#29

I guess you didn’t see the sources I posted which prove that what I’m saying are far from generalities. And I would also like to say thank you for not answering any of my inquiries.


#30

I think you are missing my point. If you want to amend the second amendment than write your congressman. I’m sure they will enjoy the incredibly long and lengthy process in the attempt. My original point stands. A law abiding citizen can not have his/her rights legislated away constitutionally. What I don’t understand is why you think “assault rifles” are any worse than i guess non-assault rifles?? I don’t get it.


#31

you are right you don’t get it.

we already are giving you a break because the 2nd says a well regulated militia.

you are not a well regulated militia. neither is your uncle (fill in the blank)

I support you fire in posting your personal opinion but you are not posting any facts to back you up. like this.

The Second Amendment doesn’t protect military-style assault weapons, Bellows says, and she quotes Justice Antonin Scalia to back the assertion. Scalia wrote Heller, which found that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep handguns for protection within the home.

Some maintain that the Second Amendment should prevent regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, Bellows notes in her remarks. The ABA, on the other hand, believes that “the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment must be understood to have some limits.” Second Amendment rights, she said, must be balanced against the need to protect citizens from especially dangerous weapons. Bellows says this recognition has supported regulation of fully automatic “machine guns” since the 1930s.

She quotes a portion from Scalia’s Heller opinion in which he interprets a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision as giving Second Amendment protection to weapons “in common use at the time” of its adoption. According to Scalia, “We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

Scalia said the constitution does NOT mean anyone can have any weapon for any reason.

Clearly regulations are appropriate and it is irresponsible not to deal with this in an adult manner.


#32

You are missing a critical point. That is the Militia Act of 1903 and 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes. So, with respect, you aren’t “giving me anything”


#33

I’m comfortable with my Scalia opinion he clearly said and I posted here today that this does not mean anyone can own any gun for any purpose and that restrictions are reasonable to be in place.

the background check loophole is terrible and the SC shooter might have been stopped from getting his gun if the GOP had acted to fix it.

it is stupid to think someone cant wait more than 72 hours to get a freaking gun!

WHO in this nation…NEEDS a GUN in 72 hours???

no

one.

who doesn’t already have one.


#34

I think she would disagree with you if she could.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/new-jersey-woman-stabbed-to-death-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit/


#35

The 2A gives us the right to bear arms. Originally, meant to have the same arms as our military, since the militia was the military. A standing army that could be used against the people was feared by many of our founders.


#36

Every little town should have a little volunteer militia company like they have little fire departments, could even probably be mostly the same bunch of guys, keep an arms room with a few mortars and AT weapons and enough rifles and gear to plus up the size in an emergency.


#37

@Lynn @Millington

Two options. Make the state weaker. Make the people stronger.

I prefer the latter. Every man and woman should be able to buy any infantry weapon used by his/her own nation’s army without a permit.


#38

So, can I own and operate a tank without a permit? Genuinely curious on your rather unique opinion about civilians owning military hardware.


#39

Short answer, yes, yes you should


#40

Yes, you should be able to own and operate a tank WITHOUT a permit.

Of course if you misuse it to seriously harm innocent people or property - life in prison without parole.