Rather than vowing to make sure Sandy Hook wouldn't happen again....

Status
Not open for further replies.
chs1971 said:
And in a free country, none of your business.

One side increasingly wants the power to order what the other side is allowed to do, say , and think.

The other side supports the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
You do not support the 2nd amendment. What about a Militia does gun ownership in the USA have in 2022? NOTHING!
 
psycho_dad said:
Dear god you are the poster child. Afraid of Social unrest and morally depraved nation. How many times have you had to use that hand gun in the last two years to protect you and your family? Who do you think was targeting the assistant director of the health department two years ago? Again, not the purpose of the 2nd amendment. You have not put you and your family more at risk than if you did not have a hand gun. That is a statistical fact
Click to expand...

Your screen name says it all the poster child of Psycho Dad's. No arrest was ever made in either drive by so I can't ascertain who the assailants were. However the social unrest and criminal activity occurring and being reported daily it is clear to see who the participants are. There names and pictures are in the news. As far as risk it is mine to take not the Government or Psycho Dads to decide. The risk is also mitigated when you practice safe Gun Ownership, take classes , become certified and were taught at a young age by your parents Gun Responsibility and than further instructed in the Military. I am more than comfortable taking the risk of being a gun owner with the education I have received in handling storing and firing.
 
chs1971 said:
I have guns to protect myself from stupid people who wish to cause me harm.
Click to expand...
You prove the point that You have guns to protect yourself from people with guns. PERIOD! You are afraid. Irrationally afraid. You are not apart of a well regulated militia. We have a professional army. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is lost on you.
ironmanz35 said:
Your screen name says it all the poster child of Psycho Dad's. No arrest was ever made in either drive by so I can't ascertain who the assailants were. However the social unrest and criminal activity occurring and being reported daily it is clear to see who the participants are. There names and pictures are in the news. As far as risk it is mine to take not the Government or Psycho Dads to decide. The risk is also mitigated when you practice safe Gun Ownership, take classes , become certified and were taught at a young age by your parents Gun Responsibility and than further instructed in the Military. I am more than comfortable taking the risk of being a gun owner with the education I have received in handling storing and firing.
Click to expand...
But you don't believe others have to be educated on how to handle, store or fire a gun? Or, are we on the same side that gun owners should be educated on how to handle, store and use guns properly and safely.
 
psycho_dad said:
You prove the point that You have guns to protect yourself from people with guns. PERIOD! You are afraid. Irrationally afraid. You are not apart of a well regulated militia. We have a professional army. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is lost on you.

But you don't believe others have to be educated on how to handle, store or fire a gun? Or, are we on the same side that gun owners should be educated on how to handle, store and use guns properly and safely.
Click to expand...
Does my wife carry because she is afraid of guns, or just rapists?
 
psycho_dad said:
You prove the point that You have guns to protect yourself from people with guns. PERIOD! You are afraid. Irrationally afraid. You are not apart of a well regulated militia. We have a professional army. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is lost on you.

But you don't believe others have to be educated on how to handle, store or fire a gun? Or, are we on the same side that gun owners should be educated on how to handle, store and use guns properly and safely.
Click to expand...
Exactly as I said I own them for sport and protection. Yes I am most certainly afraid of CRIMINALS with guns! You don't dictate my rationalization. I I am a veteran and if called upon I would serve again. The second amendment is not lost on me but misinterpreted by you. You can rationalize not owning a gun and relying on the police to protect you nothing wrong with that, I rely on the police to protect me but I also rely on myself because the police may not be able to assist me or mine in a crucial time of need. If you don't respect that then that is on you I could care less just showing you a different perspective.

I believe it should be a requirement for anyone owning a firearm to be educated on handling, cleaning, storing and most importantly firing.
 
ironmanz35 said:
Exactly as I said I own them for sport and protection. Yes I am most certainly afraid of CRIMINALS with guns! You don't dictate my rationalization. I I am a veteran and if called upon I would serve again. The second amendment is not lost on me but misinterpreted by you. You can rationalize not owning a gun and relying on the police to protect you nothing wrong with that, I rely on the police to protect me but I also rely on myself because the police may not be able to assist me or mine in a crucial time of need. If you don't respect that then that is on you I could care less just showing you a different perspective.

I believe it should be a requirement for anyone owning a firearm to be educated on handling, cleaning, storing and most importantly firing.
Click to expand...
It's not misinterpreted by me. You served in the US Military in one of it's branches. You did not serve in the Ohio Militia, or any other state Militia. The US army, Navy, Marines etc... "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." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. The very large National Defense establishment in which you served has taken over the responsibilities of the State Militias. You have the right to defend your home. You have the right to hunt and fish. I'm not saying you can't have guns. You can have fishing equipment as well. You are able to own a car. People aren't crying about the governments ability to regulate automobiles or to regulate the purchase and transfer of them and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. Why is it that it is unreasonable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage? Or, drive by shootings that scare you into buying a handgun that you didn't feel the need for before? So, you and I are on the same side. I chose not to have a gun. I do not rely on the police any more or less than you do. You believe as do I that it should be a requirement for anyone owning a firearm to be educated on handling, cleaning, storing and firing. You have admitted that you were scared because of a shooting and that is what prompted you to buy a hand gun. Were you required to take a safety course and show you knew how to handle, clean, store and fire it? What should happen if you don't store it correctly? I think you and I are 99% on the same page. You think you need a gun and I don't think I need one. That's not that big of a deal.
 
psycho_dad said:
It's not misinterpreted by me. You served in the US Military in one of it's branches. You did not serve in the Ohio Militia, or any other state Militia. The US army, Navy, Marines etc... "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." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. The very large National Defense establishment in which you served has taken over the responsibilities of the State Militias. You have the right to defend your home. You have the right to hunt and fish. I'm not saying you can't have guns. You can have fishing equipment as well. You are able to own a car. People aren't crying about the governments ability to regulate automobiles or to regulate the purchase and transfer of them and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. Why is it that it is unreasonable for the State to have reasonable regulations for the ownership and use of a firearm in an effort to stop mindless homicidal carnage? Or, drive by shootings that scare you into buying a handgun that you didn't feel the need for before? So, you and I are on the same side. I chose not to have a gun. I do not rely on the police any more or less than you do. You believe as do I that it should be a requirement for anyone owning a firearm to be educated on handling, cleaning, storing and firing. You have admitted that you were scared because of a shooting and that is what prompted you to buy a hand gun. Were you required to take a safety course and show you knew how to handle, clean, store and fire it? What should happen if you don't store it correctly? I think you and I are 99% on the same page. You think you need a gun and I don't think I need one. That's not that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
We agree on some points and others we do not. The Supreme Court has established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unrelated to one’s status in a militia.
 
psycho_dad said:
You prove the point that You have guns to protect yourself from people with guns. PERIOD! You are afraid. Irrationally afraid. You are not apart of a well regulated militia. We have a professional army. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is lost on you.

But you don't believe others have to be educated on how to handle, store or fire a gun? Or, are we on the same side that gun owners should be educated on how to handle, store and use guns properly and safely.
Click to expand...
As long as it is reasonable, I don't have a problem with that.
 
fish82 said:
Which is exactly how the 2A reads to anyone who isn't a moron like psycho dad. ?
Click to expand...
So, why is " well regulated Militia" in the 2A? It was there for a reason. It does not say that there cannot be gun laws. It does not say there can't be any regulations or stipulations. It's outdated and the supreme court said as much in 2008. All of a sudden you guys are OK with reasonable regulations. The problem is that there are no regulations that are reasonable to gun nut republicans. It's ok to have to spend hundreds of millions on fortifying schools and Billions on law enforcement to combat guns, but can't regulate guns in any way.
 
psycho_dad said:
So, why is " well regulated Militia" in the 2A? It was there for a reason. It does not say that there cannot be gun laws. It does not say there can't be any regulations or stipulations. It's outdated and the supreme court said as much in 2008. All of a sudden you guys are OK with reasonable regulations. The problem is that there are no regulations that are reasonable to gun nut republicans. It's ok to have to spend hundreds of millions on fortifying schools and Billions on law enforcement to combat guns, but can't regulate guns in any way.
Click to expand...
2008 The Supreme Court has established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unrelated to one’s status in a militia.
 
chs1971 said:
As long as it is reasonable, I don't have a problem with that.
Click to expand...
So, what is reasonable? The problem is that NOTHING is reasonable to republicans. You come up with reasonable regulations and I'll listen. I have no problem with that. I do not own guns. I am from a military family. No one in my family that has been in the military has guns once out of the military. One of my sons is active duty right now. He is stationed in the same place he was born. We don't hunt. No one is at risk because of me or my family. My guns can't be stolen and used against anyone else. A child can't find one in my house and accidentally shoot themselves. I won't go out and protest for or against gun reform. The second amendment does not say my idiot friends should have 21st century assault weapons. IMO.
 
ironmanz35 said:
2008 The Supreme Court has established that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unrelated to one’s status in a militia.
Click to expand...
Yeah, by a vote of 5-4. 200 years later. When State Militias are no longer a thing. Obsolete. They had also ruled years before that Abortion is also a right. Things can change. You know what was meant by the 2A. You know Militia was in there for a reason.
 
psycho_dad said:
So, why is " well regulated Militia" in the 2A? It was there for a reason. It does not say that there cannot be gun laws. It does not say there can't be any regulations or stipulations. It's outdated and the supreme court said as much in 2008. All of a sudden you guys are OK with reasonable regulations. The problem is that there are no regulations that are reasonable to gun nut republicans. It's ok to have to spend hundreds of millions on fortifying schools and Billions on law enforcement to combat guns, but can't regulate guns in any way.
Click to expand...
I heard the following last week and it makes complete sense. The word, "regulated" didn't have the same meaning in the 18th century as it does in the 21st. It meant "prepared" and "having the best weapons". This blurb below explains it succinctly:

Again, what is the meaning of “well regulated”?

Dr. Robert J. Cottrol is the editor of the book “Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment.” And Cottrol, a Second Amendment expert and legal historian, is the Harold Paul Green Research Professor of Law at George Washington University. He says the words “well regulated” refer to proficiency and top-notch training.

“This was written at a time when there was relatively little in the way of formal training in marksmanship on the part of armies and usually less on the part of militias,” Cottrol said. “The idea was that familiarity gained with weapons in private pursuits would translate into a militia that could be mobilized when needed.”

Are the two words applicable to guns?

Cottrol said he didn’t think so, adding, “That would have implied a degree of regulation by the federal government — and remember that the Second Amendment was originally conceived as a limitation on the power of the federal government.”
 
zeeman said:
www.foxnews.com

Legally armed Iowa woman shoots violent unprovoked attacker in grocery store: Police

An armed woman in an Iowa grocery store shot another woman after she was attacked without provocation, Des Moines police say. The victim acted in self-defense, police found.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
Guns don't protect. I'm a psycho_dad and I approve this message.


attorneysforfreedom.com

Most Mass Shootings Happen in Gun Free Zones - Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm | Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm

Most Mass Shootings Happen in Gun-Free Zones. After dozens of warning signs and alerts from concerned citizens went unnoticed, a shooter walked into a South Florida high school and murdered 17 people. In the wake of the tragic mass shooting, guns and “gun-free zones” have become hot-button...
attorneysforfreedom.com attorneysforfreedom.com
 
ironmanz35 said:
Exactly as I said I own them for sport and protection. Yes I am most certainly afraid of CRIMINALS with guns! You don't dictate my rationalization. I I am a veteran and if called upon I would serve again. The second amendment is not lost on me but misinterpreted by you. You can rationalize not owning a gun and relying on the police to protect you nothing wrong with that, I rely on the police to protect me but I also rely on myself because the police may not be able to assist me or mine in a crucial time of need. If you don't respect that then that is on you I could care less just showing you a different perspective.

I believe it should be a requirement for anyone owning a firearm to be educated on handling, cleaning, storing and most importantly firing.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top