Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)
-   -   Guns - POLL - Do you/Would you own? (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/guns-poll-do-you-would-you-own-310584/)

Bob3302 08-31-2020 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lg999 (Post 1826023)
why are you taking this poll?

do not answer this poll....

Joe V. 08-31-2020 10:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1825961)
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 08-31-2020 10:41 AM
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 08-31-2020 10:52 AM
It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on.

NoMoSno 08-31-2020 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsmart (Post 1826068)
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 08-31-2020 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LG999 (Post 1826023)
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 08-31-2020 11:01 AM
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 08-31-2020 11:02 AM
so are hammers,
knives, hatchets and bricks

Neils 08-31-2020 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1825643)
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 08-31-2020 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Fletcher (Post 1825764)
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.

Foxtrot 08-31-2020 11:05 AM
Gun laws were started by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves.

Neils 08-31-2020 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanFL (Post 1825519)
.
.
This is an ANONYMOUS POLL. Will not be tracked by responder etc.

With all the unrest going on in the USA currently and possibly into the future-

What is YOUR personal position on OWNING A FIREARM?
.
.
.
More click bait. Ignore it. If you want to keep your family safe then get a gun and learn to use it safely.

Chitown 08-31-2020 11:08 AM
Interesting topic. Anyone who has ever lived in a big city knows that as much as you may love and support your police officers when a home invasion is in progress you have seconds to react and grab your gun before your door is either kicked in or pryed open with a steel crow bar. Calling 911 talking to a dispatcher, dispatching the call and finally the police response may take 8-10 minutes. I want everyone to take a look at your leni’s if you have a screened in Leni like me, A razor or screw driver will punch through the screen like butter without a sound. And that cheep latch on your glass sliding doors is nothing. The same with the front door. A crowbar will pop that door open in 5 seconds. I wouldn’t be caught dead without at least one loaded handgun in the house.

sloanst 08-31-2020 11:11 AM
This is a typical argument posed by gun control advocates. Why compare Massachusetts to Florida and no other state? Because you cherry picked data that would satisfy your position. Why limit your data from 2007 to 2018. Why not use data from 1997 or 1987? Because you cherry picked data to satisfy your argument. Do you know what that is called? LYING.

Jayhawk 08-31-2020 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackhawksFan (Post 1825940)
I don't own any weapons, never have, never will but if someone else does that's fine with me as long as they're owned legallly, safely stored in a locking gun box or safe, licensed to have a gun and keep proficient in the skill should they ever need to use it.
While I can appreciate your sentiment, a gun stored and locked in a safe is completely useless. The Bad Guy isn't going to give you time to unlock the safe. No different than carrying a gun with no ammo. Useless.

Neils 08-31-2020 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougjb (Post 1825807)
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.
So that means that your first amendment right must be limited to only communication methods available at that time. No text, phone, internet posts, electronic bullhorns, etc.
Communist supporting posters should be prosecuted and not claim 1st amendment rights

Jayhawk 08-31-2020 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chitown (Post 1826090)
Interesting topic. Anyone who has ever lived in a big city knows that as much as you may love and support your police officers when a home invasion is in progress you have seconds to react and grab your gun before your door is either kicked in or pryed open with a steel crow bar. Calling 911 talking to a dispatcher, dispatching the call and finally the police response may take 8-10 minutes. I want everyone to take a look at your leni’s if you have a screened in Leni like me, A razor or screw driver will punch through the screen like butter without a sound. And that cheep latch on your glass sliding doors is nothing. The same with the front door. A crowbar will pop that door open in 5 seconds. I wouldn’t be caught dead without at least one loaded handgun in the house.
Completely agree, and I'm not even from Chitown. :coolsmiley:

bob47 08-31-2020 11:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 1825872)
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.
That's true. But you know what? A baseball bat or a knife doesn't have the ability to maim or kill somebody 100 yards away on the other side of Spanish Springs town square.

sloanst 08-31-2020 11:25 AM
FYI, It is illegal in the State of Florida to possess a concealed firearm within 15 feet of a bar (where alcohol is being dispensed). So, if you witness this, by all means dial 911. I will support you. Alcohol and guns do not belong together. Period.

Rebel Pirate 08-31-2020 11:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougjb (Post 1825807)
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.
Similarly, I support the first amendment:

1. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only means of written communication was by printing single-sheets individually following hand-setting type.

2. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only way to 'peaceably assemble' was in person.

3. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the only way to petition the government was to get hand-written signatures on pieces of paper hand-carried from one person to the next.

1a. So, let's get rid of off-set printing, lithograph printing, computers, fax machines, email, texting, social media, etc.

2a. So, let's get rid of telephones that enable teleconferencing, and computers that enable 'zoom'-meeting, etc.

3a. So, let's get rid of (again) any of that fancy-schmancy new-fangled communication equipment that makes collecting signatures more efficient.

I've seen this suggestion before (citizens can own a blunderbuss only) and it's just as silly as 1, 2, 3, 1a, 2a, 3a above. There's a difference between a principle and the instantiation of a principle. But, many people prefer keeping things simple beyond the point of being ridiculous.

sloanst 08-31-2020 11:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk (Post 1826086)
I for one would LOVE to see your proof of the "facts" and assertions you provided above.

Please share.
Yeah, that person :MOJE_whot: has no idea what they are talking about.

sloanst 08-31-2020 11:40 AM
Hunting isn't about the weapon, it is about the skill. Finding, patterning and getting close enough to accurately harvest the animal humanely is much more difficult than you believe. Otherwise, you are just walking in the woods with something in your hand.

charlieo1126@gmail.com 08-31-2020 11:50 AM
Let’s just talk about whose safer again
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk (Post 1826086)
I for one would LOVE to see your proof of the "facts" and assertions you provided above.

Please share.
2007 to 2018 gun deaths per 100,000 fl ranked 9th , Massachusetts 49th , 2018 gun deaths fl 2,802, Massachusetts with very dense population 258 Florida easy to get gun mass not so much whose safer that’s all I’m interested in

charlieo1126@gmail.com 08-31-2020 11:53 AM
Where are those communist
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neils (Post 1826085)
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.
I’ll destroy all there reputations signe joe McCarthy

SacDQ 08-31-2020 12:04 PM
I never take POLLS , nor due I talk to strangers about my personal Opinions.

MACH7SS 08-31-2020 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk (Post 1826099)
While I can appreciate your sentiment, a gun stored and locked in a safe is completely useless. The Bad Guy isn't going to give you time to unlock the safe. No different than carrying a gun with no ammo. Useless.
Actually, the modern gun safe is extremely quick to open. They make units that respond to the owner's fingerprint and they make units where the owner can set up a combination using their fingers in a pre-set pattern. For example, the safe has a hand printed on the top where the owner places his/her fingers. They then set it up to work for example by pressing index finger twice, ring finger once, index finger again. Once they put in that code correctly, the safe door pops open with a spring loaded piston. Personally, I prefer the fingerprint method since it is even faster and much more accurate under emergency conditions.

charlieo1126@gmail.com 08-31-2020 02:02 PM
Definition of cherry picking
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloanst (Post 1826098)
This is a typical argument posed by gun control advocates. Why compare Massachusetts to Florida and no other state? Because you cherry picked data that would satisfy your position. Why limit your data from 2007 to 2018. Why not use data from 1997 or 1987? Because you cherry picked data to satisfy your argument. Do you know what that is called? LYING.
taking things out of context , givingb11 years in a row of stats is facts, lying ?? To comical to even defend lol

Number 10 GI 08-31-2020 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1825961)
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.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Please do some research. The US Supreme Court ruled in DC vs Heller that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does indeed protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm for private matters and use within the home in federal enclaves. Militia membership has noting to do with private ownership of guns.

Also at that time "regulated" meant well equipped, not controlled.

Are people required to receive training and demonstrate they can properly raise a child? Bad parenting creates more problems in this country than guns.

Are you required to have completed education on how our government works and to prove it in a test before you can vote? Voting for the wrong person or party has created a lot of serious problems in this country. Need proof, check out the the anarchy and lawlessness being demonstrated in Portland, Chicago, etc., that the governors and mayors completely ignore.

Nope ammunition isn't mentioned in the Constitution but neither is food, clothing, medical care, and on and on so I guess we can't have those items either. Can't have gasoline for our motor vehicles, not in the constitution.

Nit picking is one thing but ridiculous hyperbole only shows the weakness of your argument.

Number 10 GI 08-31-2020 02:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1825944)
Judging people who don't do things the way you do, just because they don't do things the same way you do, is rude.
You do it all the time, go back and read your posts.

Number 10 GI 08-31-2020 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdFNJ (Post 1825972)
So is going through a stop sign without fully stopping no matter where you are!! (I'll raise you one "!") Your point?
What is your point? People break laws all the time, so let's confine everyone to their home so they can't commit unlawful deeds.

Number 10 GI 08-31-2020 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LianneMigiano (Post 1825987)
Why? For bragging rights? You can probably only shoot ONE AT A TIME.....
How many pairs of shoes do you own? You can only wear one pair at a time. How many different styles and colors of clothes do you have? All you need is a blue (pick your color) shirt and pants. Seven of each, one for each day of the week, is sufficient to clothe you.
Some people have multiple motor vehicles but they can only operate one at a time.

Your argument is meaningless.

Number 10 GI 08-31-2020 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob47 (Post 1826106)
That's true. But you know what? A baseball bat or a knife doesn't have the ability to maim or kill somebody 100 yards away on the other side of Spanish Springs town square.
Yep, that's true, but I can come up behind someone in a crowd and stab them in the back and no one will notice or hear it. A person could walk down the street in broad daylight holding a knife behind their back and slash another person's jugular as they pass and keep on walking and no one will know what happened until the victim starts spurting blood everywhere.

Gulfcoast 08-31-2020 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by theruizs (Post 1825842)
One day all will realize how wrong guns are, or any other object kept as a weapon. The only reason to believe that guns are necessary to protect life and/or property is if you believe this life is all there is. If you take another life, or harm another, even in defense of some form, you will have to make amends to the one harmed. Heaven is not what you think it is. And yes, the same is true for war and soldiers, although for most soldiers who were teenagers those who trained them may be just as culpable. Pooh pooh this now, that’s ok. You will eventually see the truth of it.
In your view of the world, the weaker people (children, women, older, disabled, smaller) would be at the complete mercy of the strongest/brawniest.

Guns are an equalizer, like it or not. They are also a good deterrent. You may not own a gun yourself, but the fact that you have the right to own one makes a criminal think twice about coming onto your property to do you or your loved ones harm. Thank God for that.

mtdjed 08-31-2020 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pmarlow (Post 1825850)
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.
Well said. And the government includes federal, State , county and city. When you have "Child" mayors, city councils, etc who have no skills regarding their oaths to protect the people, you have by the Constitution the right to protect yourself. If you choose not to protect yourself and family, that is your right. However, when the government chooses not to protect you, you have a right to protect yourself.

When Seattle Mayor and Washington Governor abandoned the capital district of Seattle to the mob, there were many citizens living there left to defend themselves. I am glad to know I have that right. That is not to say I relish that opportunity. In fact, I would personally not want to live or visit any area with that type of leadership.

DDGRoger 08-31-2020 03:50 PM
I am not carrying because I have yet to adequately trained. But I pray fellow citizens, properly trained, are carrying when I am sitting in one of our theaters with no back exit from the stadium seating, when we are dancing at a town square, or while we are enjoying a dinner out. Our only hope, if it ever happens, would be someone with skill returing fire. And yes, law enforcement will arrive int time to investigate the scene. Fortunately, there are many Villagers regularly carrying, most of whom are trained and proficient.

CatskillBill 08-31-2020 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloanst (Post 1826109)
FYI, It is illegal in the State of Florida to possess a concealed firearm within 15 feet of a bar (where alcohol is being dispensed). So, if you witness this, by all means dial 911. I will support you. Alcohol and guns do not belong together. Period.
THIS POST ABOVE IS FAKE NEWS
Where did you come up with a bogus 15ft ?
If I carry CONCEALED , how are you to know I have one?


He's the real story;
You are not permitted under Florida law to carry in a bar area that serves alcohol. The law states that "any portion of an establishment that dispenses alcohol.... which is primarily devoted to such purpose".

So it is widely interpreted in Florida to mean that you can carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol, as its primary purpose is to dispense food and not alcohol. However, if the restaurant has a bar area you cannot enter that area while carrying a firearm. And you certainly cannot enter a fully licensed bar. That is classed as a misdemeanor with a possible 60 days jail or $500 fine.

Topspinmo 08-31-2020 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob47 (Post 1826106)
That's true. But you know what? A baseball bat or a knife doesn't have the ability to maim or kill somebody 100 yards away on the other side of Spanish Springs town square.

And neither does handgun for home defense.

EdFNJ 08-31-2020 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsmart (Post 1826068)
It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on.
Why would you put a mask on a gun? :duck:

Topspinmo 08-31-2020 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsmart (Post 1826068)
It's illegal to carry a gun with any kind of mask on.
Only if you’re entering 7-11 or gas station :ho:

EdFNJ 08-31-2020 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sloanst (Post 1826109)
FYI, It is illegal in the State of Florida to possess a concealed firearm within 15 feet of a bar (where alcohol is being dispensed). So, if you witness this, by all means dial 911.
There are lot's of laws of things you aren't SUPPOSED to do (like driving while drunk). Lot's of people ignore that so why would carrying a gun in your pants while in a bar or restaurant being served alcohol be any different? You likely won't WITNESS IT since it's usually stuck down their pants.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 PM.
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.