[LianneMigiano]

Originally Posted by Freehiker

One of the questions should be “I own multiple firearms”

������

Why? For bragging rights? You can probably only shoot ONE AT A TIME.....

[EdFNJ]

Originally Posted by Robin Farris

I own many & I’m not about to give them up! In these times you must be prepared to protect yourself & your family.

[billethkid]

...... nothing new (or surprising) in pro gun and anti gun discussions

[davem4616]

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com

From 2007 through 2018 gun deaths per 100,000 people Florida 9th Massachusetts 49, in 2018 Florida 2,902 murders Massachusetts 238 hmmm one state of everyone gets a gun , the other hardly anyone , you tell me which state your safer in , oh and we don’t need an old guy militia , that’s what national guard is for

'old guy militia'.....now that's funny

made me start to think what an all star cast would be if it was made into a movie...and they were all alive:
- Buddy Hackett
- Red Skelton
- Danny Kaye
- Lou Costello
- Wilfred Brimley
- Laurel and Hardy
- Andy Devine
- Don Knotts

who did I leave out...oh ya, Duke

[LG999]

Why are you taking this poll?

[Bob3302]

Originally Posted by lg999

why are you taking this poll?

do not answer this poll....

[Joe V.]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Actually no, it bestows those rights on a well-regulated Militia.

Are you a member of the Militia? No? Then it's not a "right," for you. Are you wanting to be a member of the Militia? Then great. You pass. If you want to possess a firearm but are not willing to be a member of a well-regulated Militia, willing and able and prepared to fight against a tyrannical government, then you are asking for a privilege and not a constitutional right.

So prove that you a) know the law, b) can see your target with or without glasses. c) know how to use the weapon properly.

Are you saying you shouldn't have to prove any of those three things? If that's the case, let's just arm every man, woman, and child - if they're capable of holding a weapon, then they get to have one. Don't bother teaching them how to use it - because knowing how isn't required by the Constitution. Of course - ammunition is also not a Constitutional right. They can have firearms - but nowhere in the Constitution does it say those firearms can be loaded.

You want to pick nits? I can pick them all day.

Edited because I had a brain-poop and swapped out "well-armed" with what should've been "well-regulated." And by regulated - they meant "controls." It meant that even the constitution agrees that there should be some CONTROLS over how and who and under what circumstances a person gets to enjoy that right to bear arms.

From Reason.com, Brian Doherty | From the December 2019 issue:

The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The part of the amendment that could be its own stand-alone sentence—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed—is known as the "operative clause." The well regulated Militia part—the prefatory clause—is understood by enthusiastic gun regulators as defining the only reason for preserving the right to keep and bear arms (as opposed to one of the reasons). Anyone who is not a member of a well-regulated militia would have no such right.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, thought it made no sense to read the prefatory clause that way, because that would essentially nullify the direct and clear meaning of the operative clause. While the prefatory clause could give insight into some of the specifics of how to apply the operative clause, he argued, it could not make the right to arms contingent on militia service.

[George Page]

Muzzle loaded! A joke right? Correct logic dictates that citizens have the same weapons as the government, regardless of the year, decade or century.

[Tsmart]

It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on.

[NoMoSno]

Originally Posted by Tsmart

It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on.

Depends on the state you live:
Mandatory Mask Orders: Can You Still Carry in Your State?

[DeanFL]

Originally Posted by LG999

Why are you taking this poll?

.
.
well, apparently, if you took some time and ACTUALLY read it and several other posts - you would know.
.
.
.

[sloanst]

Do you know who is hurt most by gun control laws and regulations? The poor, mostly the African American poor that live in the most dangerous areas in this country. Those that can least afford to pay the cost of licensing (license always have a cost) are the most restricted from protecting themselves and their families. The 2nd Amendment ends with "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Forcing the poor to make payments they can not afford is "infringement".

[jammendolia]

so are hammers,
knives, hatchets and bricks

[Neils]

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.

Suggest that people need to be tested and pay for a license to post pro-communist propaganda.

Strange that dome of those people that demand respect of the 1st amendment rights can so willingly ignore our 2nd amendment rights.

[Jayhawk]

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.

I for one would LOVE to see your proof of the "facts" and assertions you provided above.

Please share.