[meridian5850]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I don't own a firearm and I won't own a firearm. I do own a bow and have a quiver of arrows, but I'm also not a hunter.

If I ever felt the need to catch my own food, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a deer for supper. I wouldn't feel guilty about murdering Bambi.

But I won't use a weapon to kill something I don't plan on consuming. And as such - I will never use a weapon against another human being.

I have no problem with other people choosing to own a firearm for self-defense or target shooting (which is fun, at least with archery).

I do have a problem with ANY people doing that though. I feel firearms need to have controls, checks and balances. It needs to be national. In every state in this country, you need a license to drive a car, and that license requires a written test, an eye test, and an actual driving test. I feel it is not unreasonable to require the same for anyone wanting a license to own a firearm. You have to know the laws of your state and the regulations for using it, you have to prove you're capable of seeing the target, and you have to prove you know how to use it properly.

I think that's reasonable. Sadly that's not the case in this country, some states don't care one way or another and some states have so many restrictions it's easier to just not bother at all.

...right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed...

And there are controls. Can't own a fully automatic weapon, illegal to carry while under the influence, etc.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Pmarlow

You obviously don’t know what the constitution says and even why it says what it does. The constitution says “we have the right to bear arms.” If you read the Federalists Papers the reason for this is so the people can protect themselves and their property from others including the government if the government doesn’t live up to its responsibilities as defined in the Constitution.

When I read rhetoric like this I have to think that a person was raised in a very dangerous area or that they are very insecure.

We know what the laws are. I grew up in the Midwest among hunters who would eat rabbit and venison that they shot. I grew up in a household with a police officer. I grew up with respect for guns and thought it was good I know how to shoot if I would need to. I buy meat at the grocery and carefully read the papers and watch the news and evaluate opinions from folks on my computer and feel kind of reassured that some of my neighbors who are solid and have backgrounds that are very reassuring have guns.

But when there is a "swagger" in a comment I can sense it.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I don't own a firearm and I won't own a firearm. I do own a bow and have a quiver of arrows, but I'm also not a hunter.

If I ever felt the need to catch my own food, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a deer for supper. I wouldn't feel guilty about murdering Bambi.

But I won't use a weapon to kill something I don't plan on consuming. And as such - I will never use a weapon against another human being.

I have no problem with other people choosing to own a firearm for self-defense or target shooting (which is fun, at least with archery).

I do have a problem with ANY people doing that though. I feel firearms need to have controls, checks and balances. It needs to be national. In every state in this country, you need a license to drive a car, and that license requires a written test, an eye test, and an actual driving test. I feel it is not unreasonable to require the same for anyone wanting a license to own a firearm. You have to know the laws of your state and the regulations for using it, you have to prove you're capable of seeing the target, and you have to prove you know how to use it properly.

I think that's reasonable. Sadly that's not the case in this country, some states don't care one way or another and some states have so many restrictions it's easier to just not bother at all.

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right guaranteed under the constitution. The 2d Amendment bestows a right for all citizens to keep and bear arms. Jim Crow laws were held unconstitutional and that is what you are advocating, requiring a test to exercise a constitutional right.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by matandch

My mother aways taught me that guns were dangerous.

Yes they are and so are knives, baseball bats, a length of pipe, motor vehicles, ladders, a crowbar, a hammer, and a whole lot of other things.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

I was a muti tour paratrooper in Vietnam , after 6 years in military I went to another agency . I spent many more years in Vietnam , Laos and Cambodia.The total number of countries that I either fired a gun or had one fired at me is 23 . I’m 81 haven’t had or never will have a gun for 21years.you can shoot all you want at those ranges but in a moment of danger with the adrenaline surging through your body you might just have a heart attack before anything else . I still walk around Miami , New Orleans , shoot dice in a couple of illegal games in Orlando ( not now sadly because of virus) still no need for a gun I’m from Boston , Massachusetts is one of the hardest states to get a permit and every year is ranked lowest or next to lowest in murders by gun

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by David Fletcher

Oddly the facts show that many times the gun Owner ends up shooting them self.

The facts do not bear out that owning a gun gives you any extra protection or safety.

America believes the second amendment was written to allow them to have a hand gun in a purse. The second amendment was never intended to be used as it is today.

I am sure the founders would be horrified as to how it all worked out.

And for what purpose was it intended?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What don't you understand about what it says?

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by dougjb

I am fully in support of the Second Amendment as it would properly be interpreted by strict originalists on the Supreme Court (of which, some claim to be but, in reality, none are).

By that I mean, any citizen should be allowed to own as many muzzle loading rifles as they wish (since that was really the only weapon available when the Bill of Rights was adopted). Citizens can also own as many muzzle loading cannons as they wish. But, as to any other gun, rifle or armament, absolutlely not. No other guns should be allowed under an originalist's view of the Second Amendment. All armaments other than muzzle loaders should be confiscated and after a reasonable time for compliance, the owners should be prosecuted. There is NO need for anyone to possess or use the type of weaponry now available.

Then you shouldn't be allowed to use a computer and the internet to express your opinions. They didn't exist back then either. A quill and inkwell on parchment worked then and would work today.

We don't need motor vehicles, airplanes or even trains as they didn't exist at that time either. Horses and wagons worked for them.

[loweglor]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

A driver's license is a privilege, not a right guaranteed under the constitution. The 2d Amendment bestows a right for all citizens to keep and bear arms. Jim Crow laws were held unconstitutional and that is what you are advocating, requiring a test to exercise a constitutional right.

I don't believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for people to walk around the streets carrying guns and randomly shooting people. I believe it was to carry a gun if imminent danger from government. The law was written in a time where danger of being killed from other items, such as cars, didn't exist but when it became apparent people could be killed by cars then laws, ability tests and licenses were required. We should afford the gun the same respect we afford the automobile.

[davem4616]

I sold all my hunting rifles before moving to Florida...I always had a 'pistol permit' for target and hunting purposes, but never owned a hand gun. My dad carried a 57 magnum when we went deer hunting, he wanted a 'close up weapon' in the event he shot a bear and needed it, I never did...guess I thought that I was a better marksman, lol

I've given thought to purchasing a hand gun recently...but doubt that I will.

[davem4616]

Originally Posted by loweglor

I don't believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for people to walk around the streets carrying guns and randomly shooting people. I believe it was to carry a gun if imminent danger from government. The law was written in a time where danger of being killed from other items, such as cars, didn't exist but when it became apparent people could be killed by cars then laws, ability tests and licenses were required. We should afford the gun the same respect we afford the automobile.

I agree. Our 'founding fathers' were looking at a much different world than the one we live in today.

[zendog3]

There is strong evidence that having a gun in your house is a bad idea. (You can look this up) People with guns in their house are more likely to be killed in gun violence than people who do not. If you have a gun in your house, sit is more likely to kill a family member than someone outside the house. Guns in a house are frequently used by children to kill themselves and others.
That said, although guns make you less safe rather than more safe, people with guns feel safer. People ought to have the right to feel safer -- But we who do not own guns should have assurances that gun owners are RESPONSIBLE. Laws to insure responsible ownership should include: 1) Liability insurance of one million dollars per gun owned. (if you are paralyzed for life by a gun shot, you should have compensation to care for you and your family.) 2. Laws requiring that all guns out of the possession of the owner, including in the home, should impose a fine and loss of gun owning privilege for any gun discovered not in a locked gun storage facility - gun safe. 3) Owners of hand guns should be required to attend the same class we expect of police officers including tactical usage, and knowledge of laws on when use of lethal force is and is not justified. (these courses may be taught by the ARA) Military style assault weapons should be stored and used only in an approved armory. 4) If a gun, out of the possession of the owner, and not stored in a gun safe, the gun owner is guilty of a felony. If that gun is used in a crime, the gun owner should go to prison.
In short, no citizen should be deprived of the right to own a gun, but a gun owner takes upon him/herself the power of life and death. We all have the right to expect the owner has a high degree of responsibility. These expectations are essentially the same that we expect of automobile ownership -- training, safe equipment, liability insurance, and penalty for irresponsible use.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by loweglor

I don't believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was for people to walk around the streets carrying guns and randomly shooting people. I believe it was to carry a gun if imminent danger from government. The law was written in a time where danger of being killed from other items, such as cars, didn't exist but when it became apparent people could be killed by cars then laws, ability tests and licenses were required. We should afford the gun the same respect we afford the automobile.

What you think means nothing, it is what the originators of the constitution thought and you can discover that by reading the Federalist Papers. That's why the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed".

There are people who don't have the mental capacity to cast a responsible vote so do we test these people also? There are people who should never have children so let's license childbirth.

[sail33or]

I moved to The Villages from TEXAS. My friends and neighbors know I am from Texas.

Went to a Halloween Party here once as a cowboy. I had a fake toy gun and holster. This actually offended/scared about 50% of guests. (cause I asked). Yes, even though it was plastic and had an orange cover over the barrel.

So I expect answers to any gun question to be split.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by matandch

My mother aways taught me that guns were dangerous.

So, that’s why you didn’t get red Ryder?

[airstreamingypsy]

[QUOTE=Beyond The Wall;1825772]Just because you own a firearm does not make you a right wing nut job. >

It does if you own more than the entire Sumter county Sheriffs department. Sounds more like you need a ***** enlargement.