Ronald Reagan - "Welcome to the Republican Party"

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

---

 

I agree it's not worded the best but I still feel the people who wrote it expressed that it did affirm an individual right.

 

When you read the first part as a prefatory  clause it makes sense

 

Even if it meant to restrict to a militia the militia is literally every resident in the country. (At the time it was restricted to "free men" but now it would be everybody)

 

The vast majority of those that carry firearms are not using them in the scenarios you describe. A firearm is more likely to be used in an act of defense than aggression. 

 

Police cannot always make it in time. 

 

Under the Constitution we are not intended to have a standing army. 

 

One of the benefits of an armed populace is it does make the government a little more hesitant to abuse them. Sure you're not taking out a tank or helicopter with an AR-15. Of course not. But I do think it slows down the tyranny a bit. 

 

I shudder at the thought of what the current administration would be doing right now if it didn't have to worry about an armed populouce. 

 

There may be a time when it becomes necessary to attempt to  violently overthrow an oppressive government. If that time comes an armed populace is necessary. 

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

You're somewhat conflating "armed citizenry" and "armed individual." There are good reasons for each, but definitely not the same reasons.

 

Individual: the person safety justification is bogus. Possessing and wielding a gun makes it more, not less likely that you'll be killed. And for those who lack restraint...anger someone with a gun, and it's more likely to end badly than angering someone who's unarmed.

 

I would be MUCH more comfortable if people owned guns for personal defense and not for fun; if the idea of shooting someone was abhorrent and viewed as only a last resort; if popular culture didn't depict having a gun as the solution to all problems. But whippin' out the ol' shootin' iron isn't a last resort; it's the default setting. We're a violent culture, and we worship violent people as "strong" and "decisive."

 

Citizenry: the difference between how the average citizen might be armed and how government forces might be is huge. 200+ years ago, that wasn't the case. Ordinary people with hunting rifles could and did defeat professional soldiers. That isn't remotely the case today. So could we foment and support an armed rebellion? Yeah. For maybe three days. Then we'd get droned into oblivion, or our heads would explode from a shot fired from a mile away. Armed resistance to the government is a fantasy.

 

And since the populace IS armed and Trump is doing whatever he wants, I don't think that's slowing him down at all. I think if there was ever a successful rebellion, the weaponry used by the rebels would be technology, not firearms. The Nerd in Mom's Basement can outthink the MAGAs. But of course, that scenario wasn't dreamed of by the Founders.

---

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

---

The firearm is a tool of last resort. There are millions of people carrying guns and them being pulled out for funsies for the default setting is very rare. 

 

The vast majority of people who carry take it very seriously. They hope they never have to use it. 

 

Most people don't just pull out guns when they get an argument. 

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

I'd sure love it if what you say was true. It does seem to depend on where you are. Up here in the PNW, we only really see gun love in southern Oregon and in eastern Washington and Oregon. In the red goober states, you see it everywhere.

 

I don't know how you estimate "most people," but I think you'd have to agree: a certain number of folks get shot when arguments break out and at least one of them has a gun--right? And that is more than the number of folks who would get shot if no one had a gun--right? So at what point--at how many violent deaths--is it still "acceptable" because people are enabled to defend themselves with lethal force?

 

I'd really be happy if people had the wisdom and self-control to only use guns as you say. Unfortunately, I read the news--and it's clear that people don't. What's the proportion? You clearly believe that there's more common sense out there than I do. And I might have agreed with you in the recent past--but then, half the country went MAGA, with its awful leader and all the ideological claptrap. So now:

 

Amurrica. Is. STOOOOOPID.

 

And I don't want to get gunned down by Stupidsky because I cut in front of him in the parking lot.

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

I'd sure love it if what you say was true. It does seem to depend on where you are. Up here in the PNW, we only really see gun love in southern Oregon and in eastern Washington and Oregon. In the red goober states, you see it everywhere.

 

I don't know how you estimate "most people," but I think you'd have to agree: a certain number of folks get shot when arguments break out and at least one of them has a gun--right? And that is more than the number of folks who would get shot if no one had a gun--right? So at what point--at how many violent deaths--is it still "acceptable" because people are enabled to defend themselves with lethal force?

 

I'd really be happy if people had the wisdom and self-control to only use guns as you say. Unfortunately, I read the news--and it's clear that people don't. What's the proportion? You clearly believe that there's more common sense out there than I do. And I might have agreed with you in the recent past--but then, half the country went MAGA, with its awful leader and all the ideological claptrap. So now:

 

Amurrica. Is. STOOOOOPID.

 

And I don't want to get gunned down by Stupidsky because I cut in front of him in the parking lot.

---

Originally posted by: David Miller

---

    You needn"t worry, with your alligator mouth and hummingbird ass you are to much of a mouthy pussy to ever cut in front of anyone anywhere. 

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

It would be hilariously appropriate if you were gunned down in a parking lot. But we can only dream.

---

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

---

I'd sure love it if what you say was true. It does seem to depend on where you are. Up here in the PNW, we only really see gun love in southern Oregon and in eastern Washington and Oregon. In the red goober states, you see it everywhere.

 

I don't know how you estimate "most people," but I think you'd have to agree: a certain number of folks get shot when arguments break out and at least one of them has a gun--right? And that is more than the number of folks who would get shot if no one had a gun--right? So at what point--at how many violent deaths--is it still "acceptable" because people are enabled to defend themselves with lethal force?

 

I'd really be happy if people had the wisdom and self-control to only use guns as you say. Unfortunately, I read the news--and it's clear that people don't. What's the proportion? You clearly believe that there's more common sense out there than I do. And I might have agreed with you in the recent past--but then, half the country went MAGA, with its awful leader and all the ideological claptrap. So now:

 

Amurrica. Is. STOOOOOPID.

 

And I don't want to get gunned down by Stupidsky because I cut in front of him in the parking lot.

---

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

---

 

One of the ways I estimate that most people who cary do so peacefuly and rationally is by considering the number of people who carry in relation to how often firearms are used in scenarios you describe. 

 

I absolutely agree that a number of people get shot because an argument started over something stupid and then someone got mad enough to pull a firearm. When it happens it's a horrible tragedy. 

 

Whatever problems those people are suffering from that would cause them to do that wouldn't change because firearms are illegal. 

 

As you say we live in a violent society. I think a lot of that stems from mental health issues and the current societal and cultural stigma around them. 

 

FBI stats and other reports have shown that a firearm is several times more likely to be used in a lawful act of defense than used  illegally.

 

 In many of those uses the firearm is only displayed. Not only preventing the victim from getting killed her injured but preventing the perpetrator from having to be killed as well. 

 

 

---

Originally posted by: Mark

---

......I note that they used "well regulated" and not merely "regulated" which tells me the founders wanted  the right to bear arms to be heavily regulated. The founders had common sense. Unfortunately the people Fetishize gus ownership and equate it with manhood lack any common sense. 

---