[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Only a completely naive fool trusts the government and only a totally brain dead fool believes politicians have their constituent's best interests at heart.

Is it really necessary to cast dispersion in every post. Some people can hold honest differences of opinions.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

Is it really necessary to cast dispersion in every post. Some people can hold honest differences of opinions.

I guess it's because I'm not a brain dead, naive fool. Funny, anytime someone disagrees with you it is dispersion but when you disagree with someone it is just an honest difference.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I apologize, I thought you were referring to incarceration. I agree with you. I don't recall which , but some state(s?) tried requiring death penalty for any felony where a gun was used. I don't think it helped, but honestly don't remember.

As for comparing to other countries. I see no problem with learning from others. Certainly we are different, but when every other country in the world does not have a serious problem we have, then I think it is worth trying to see why. Seeing what works someplace and figuring out how it might be applied here is just smart. It's, in my opinion, learning from others mistakes so I don't have to do it myself.

On your suggestions, we are not far apart. I absolutely want age limits. For the same reason we have age limits on drinking, driving, joining the military, etc etc etc. Children's brains have not fully developed.

And the thing I would add is universal background checks. If someone has a history of violent crimes, spousal abuse, mental illness, etc. I don't think they should have legal access to guns.

Which leads to my other suggestion, which I don't see any reason responsible gun owner should mind, and that is holding the seller of guns responsible to have performed the universal background test. If they failed to perform the test, or sold even though the buyer failed, they should share the blame for anything the illegal purchase results in.

So, I am okay with all of yours except age limits. (I think if a person can go to war at 18, then that should be old enough to own a gun) And I think we should add too more.

Once again, I have not verbalized my thoughts in such a way that makes my thought(s) coherent enough to be understood. I did not mean that there should not be age limits. What I meant to suggest is that age limits will not stop the killing or protect the children. If I am not mistaken, our governor signed a state law that indicated an age limit for purchasing rifles in Florida. Supposedly, no one under age 21 may purchase a firearm in Florida. I do not think that will save any children from a mass murder in public schools, but I also agree with you that anyone that can fight FOR this country should be able to purchase a hunting rifle when they come home. As long as our youth can still participate in firearms safety classes and sport competition as well as hunting, I have no problem with age limits for the purchases of firearms. As long as a father or mother can still purchase a firearm for their children (under supervision) to participate in such activities, I am fine with some form of guidance/supervision for our youth to become familiar with firearms.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by Driller703

I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.

With all due respect, perhaps the 2nd amendment is subject to interpretation and is not unlimited. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia thought so. For example we have free speech and freedom of the press by the 1st amendment but there are limits such as liability in defamation of your character etc. Having the ability to carry “arms” perhaps has its limits too. You can drive a car but you can’t drive drunk - I could go on but you can see where Iam going with this. “Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote as he laid out exceptions “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Justice Antonin Scalia

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

I guess it's because I'm not a brain dead, naive fool. Funny, anytime someone disagrees with you it is dispersion but when you disagree with someone it is just an honest difference.

Really please provide =examples of my taking offense at disagreement that isn't worded as a juvenile insult. As you just did again. I guess it is okay to insult members here if you ate you do it childishly.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by justjim

With all due respect, perhaps the 2nd amendment is subject to interpretation and is not unlimited. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia thought so. For example we have free speech and freedom of the press by the 1st amendment but there are limits such as liability in defamation of your character etc. Having the ability to carry “arms” perhaps has its limits too. You can drive a car but you can’t drive drunk - I could go on but you can see where Iam going with this. “Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited,” Scalia wrote as he laid out exceptions “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Justice Antonin Scalia

Hmm, I agree, but I expect Scalia was just a "conservative in name only" (CINO)... ahem... (sarcasm)

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Once again, I have not verbalized my thoughts in such a way that makes my thought(s) coherent enough to be understood. I did not mean that there should not be age limits. What I meant to suggest is that age limits will not stop the killing or protect the children. If I am not mistaken, our governor signed a state law that indicated an age limit for purchasing rifles in Florida. Supposedly, no one under age 21 may purchase a firearm in Florida. I do not think that will save any children from a mass murder in public schools, but I also agree with you that anyone that can fight FOR this country should be able to purchase a hunting rifle when they come home. As long as our youth can still participate in firearms safety classes and sport competition as well as hunting, I have no problem with age limits for the purchases of firearms. As long as a father or mother can still purchase a firearm for their children (under supervision) to participate in such activities, I am fine with some form of guidance/supervision for our youth to become familiar with firearms.

I can agree with your statement.

So, that makes two of us, I bet there are others. If we all talk instead of just repeating dog whistles and insults I firmly believe we can reach a compromise that will help.

And the reason is, I think that you said what you think, and then explained why. That is called discussion (for the others reading along) as opposed to just spewing out that anyone that thinks different than you is stupid. Maybe they are maybe they aren't but it isn't going to lead to anything other than heated arguments. Thank you for taking the time and responding to my post with intelligent discussion.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by number 10 gi

only a completely naive fool trusts the government and only a totally brain dead fool believes politicians have their constituent's best interests at heart.

amen, brother!!!

[Normal]

A firearm needed in NYC is much different than a firearm needed in Montana or even Alaska. Banning firearms on a national level is crazy.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Normal

A firearm needed in NYC is much different than a firearm needed in Montana or even Alaska. Banning firearms on a national level is crazy.

Banning firearms on whatever level is crazy, because it can't work.

There are anywhere from 300 million to 1/2 BILLION firearms in America currently in private hands. There is "paper" (purchase and ownership records) on only a very small percentage of these firearms, 10% to 15% at most. It is only recently, in the history of this nation, that the government began requiring background checks on weapons, and there no record at all of sales before those requirements went into effect. Those guns could be anywhere.

OK. For the sake of discussion, let's say the federal government requires all citizens to turn in their firearms. Just how many of those 300 million to 1/2 billion firearms will be dutifully toted in to the nearest collection station and handed over? Well, we can assume that those in ILLEGAL hands aren't going anywhere. And the legal ones? Maybe 5% at most. Almost certainly less.

OK. So the government saddles up law enforcement and sends 'em out to collect the guns. It calls on the people that records show have been purchased by them. But (surprise surprise) just about all of the guns aren't in the possession of the original owners. They're lost, sold, junked or whatever the story is. Forcible searches with metal detectors, etc., will turn up a fair amount. But barely a blip on the radar. And the guns with no "paper"? Would law enforcement go to every house owned or rented by every American to conduct such searches? Two answers come to mind. No way and no how.

Even back in Minnesota, where blue is the primary color, I knew several LEOs who stated unequivocally that there would be no way they'd engage in such a search. They're sworn to uphold the CONSTITUTION, not the government. Quite a number of military apparently feel the same way. There'd be no quicker way for the government to instigate armed conflict than to try to take the guns away from the legal owners. And the government, despite all the caterwauling and hoopla, knows it.

So--let's deal with reality, instead of pie-in-the-sky bee ess.

[Daxdog]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

Any argument about that is so wrong, when weapons like guns were invented and up to 1776 they were improving all the time. If anyone thinks that the foundling fathers thought they would not improve is wrong. ( trying to be nice). When you read or see anything like that you must find out where it came from and what is the background and why they may think that.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Daxdog

Any argument about that is so wrong, when weapons like guns were invented and up to 1776 they were improving all the time. If anyone thinks that the foundling fathers thought they would not improve is wrong. ( trying to be nice). When you read or see anything like that you must find out where it came from and what is the background and why they may think that.

I am not sure what you are saying. Do you mean the founders would be okay with citizens having Nukes?

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by Driller703

I agree. The second amendment was and still is in place to protect the people from the government. Therefore, the people should have access to the same weapons that the government will be using against them.

Before assuming the above is all encompassing, we should be aware of the period of time and what was happening.

Individual Firearm Weapons commonly used at that time were basically one-shot Muskets. Some basic rifles available but were still one shot.

Prior to the Revolutionary war (1775-1783) there was no US but 13 colonies of England.

The Frontier for example was Carlisle PA in 1755. The French and Indian war was 1754-1763. Much of the fighting was done by Militias from the Colonies. The "Colonies" rebelled at being taxed by Britain.

Colonies Declared Independence in 1776. Colonies (now states) issued Articles of Confederation 1777 -1781.

Revolutionary War over 1783. US Constitution 1789. Bill of rights 1791. These were amendment to the constitution. Amendment 2 topic of concern.

1792 Militia Act defined Militia requirements (Still single shot muskets). Militias defined as state responsibilities. Mentioned, Militias were there to protect again indigenous people uprisings, and protection against rebellions and protests. No specific reference to Loyalists or Protection from the Government. Spelled out the requirements for firearms, ammo etc for the Militia members to own.

This commentary is not meant to support or negate gun ownership, but when I see comments like the above second amendment put in place to protect the people from the government, I look for support but don't see it. The fact that the government mentioned Militias and soon after clarified their use and the requirements for citizens to participate and provide weapons is enlightening to me.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

A few years ago I tried to find where Yamamoto said that. I could not find it.

Misquoting Yamamoto - FactCheck.org

But it is a great quote!

And while researching the quote, I came across this depressing fact.

Japan logs record 150,000 new COVID-19 cases as Tokyo and Osaka both top 20,000.

Debunked all the way back in 2009. But I guess there are folks who need 14 years to catch up.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Banning firearms on whatever level is crazy, because it can't work….

So--let's deal with reality, instead of pie-in-the-sky bee ess.

You won’t see me turn in my guns unless I want to. I paid for the right to have them with my 20 years active duty in the military defending the very Constitution that established our government.

I was just starting to state with very general terms and a lack of concise verbiage that certain guns belong in certain places. I’m not for crazy limits by any means. Yes, you can own a crossbow or AR 15 in the big city, but the ownership is impractical. It is also impractical to not own a firearm if you live in rural America.