In this world there are only 2 words, when spoken together, that have instilled more fear in a mans heart than “I do.” The other two are “I’m late.” Please be more careful.
What’s a good number? And from where do you derive it?
You think a retired cop or Marine would relish the idea of squaring off against an active LEO or military detachment? Seems to me, they’re the ones who would think better of it, knowing first hand what well trained active duty servicemen and women under command are capable of.
Red Dawn was just a movie.
I doubt anyone has a good number on the subject. The topic doesn’t exactly lend itself to frank responses on surveys.
That’s what I thought. :rolleyes:
I doubt anyone would “relish” it, but I’m not just talking about retired folks.
If it comes to that, then we’re talking about Martial law if not actual civil war. 2nd Amendment rights are going to be irrelevant.
There are plenty of solutions to the gun control problem that would work if there were sufficient political support to implement them.
‘If.’ Such a tiny word, yet so easy to trip over.
Yes, that’s what I said. To be clear, I use the term “gun grabbers” to mean “people who grab guns”. I have no idea how it came to mean “people who don’t grab guns” in so many peoples’ minds.
Correct. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed, because any infringement of the right of the people interferes with the ability to have a well-regulated militia.
I don’t see how I am the one doing that. The RtKaBA is expansive, not narrow - the FF thought you couldn’t have a militia without it, and therefore it cannot be infringed.
Then, again, you need to amend the Constitution. Or perhaps your understanding of what constitutes a well-regulated militia is different from what the FF thought.
You’ve got the same problem as usual - on what basis can you argue that Heller was wrong and previous Supreme Court decisions were right? Just saying “they are ideologues” doesn’t do that.
Regards,
Shodan
So if there’s a home invader in my house or a guy about to mug me, I’m supposed to ask them if they’ll please hold off until I can go check out a firearm from the armory?
Assuming this really is a mystery to you, the more common usage is to denote “people who want to take away (‘grab’) guns from their owners”, similar to the same way that “purse-snatcher” refers to the thief and not the woman who might try to clutch her purse as a thief rips it out of her hands.
I suppose you keep a team of your own personal first responders and medical doctors, in case of a fire or heart attack. I mean, just to be safe and ready for any emergency situation.
The right of the people, as represented by their duly-established armed forces, to have weapons for the purposes of those armed forces is guaranteed. Glad we agree.
That’s *exactly *how you’re doing it.
Sure. I would be very happy to repeal the Second Amendment. It would take away all of the most popular excuses and rationalizations, like yours, and leave us a better, safer, more decent society. Tell us, what arguments would you use instead if it was gone?
The fact that the rationale for Heller was invented, not found in the Constitution. That was already pointed out in my previous response.
I call bullshit on that. The way y’all use ‘gun grabber,’ it’s the equivalent of calling someone a ‘purse snatcher’ for advocating that future sales of paisley purses should be banned.
But that’s one of the reasons I’ve come around to outlawing weapons of mass slaughter - not just sale, but possession as well.
Because if the gun-worshippers are going to call us ‘gun grabbers’ for advocating background checks for sales at gun shows, what’s the point of bothering to try to find any middle ground? If we’re gonna be called ‘gun grabbers’ no matter what, then fuck it, let’s grab the guns. What are you folks going to say about us now? That we’re gun grabbers? Go ahead, knock yourselves out! We won’t notice the difference, because you’ve been calling us that all along.
No. I can’t pay for a doctor to keep on standby. A firearm by contrast is easily affordable. Also a fire or medical emergency is unlikely to kill me as fast as a mugger or home invader so waiting for emergency response is more reasonable.
I don’t care. It’s going to continue to get used to describe supporters of various gun control schemes with far greater frequency than Chronos’ bass-ackwards usage regardless of your personal feelings on the matter.
If it makes you feel any better, I generally try to reserve usage of the term for people who really are advocating taking guns away, not just infringing on future transactions.
ETA: which apparently accurately describes you
The only people I know of who want to snatch guns away from their owners are criminals who break into peoples’ houses to steal guns. And they’re pro-gun, too, because it means there’s something in houses of value that they can steal.
Because we already tried to find middle ground by exempting people that are not in the business of selling firearms from having to do background checks in exchange for requiring them from dealers. Any “middle ground” immediately gets thrown back into our face as a “loophole” that needs to be closed. With that kind of bad faith how are we going to trust that the next "reasonable restriction is going to be the end of it and that there won’t be no end to the cycle until we’re all defenseless.