Why do you want to own a gun, rifle, automatic weapon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, your question is irrelevant. As a constitutional right, the why doesn’t matter. At all.

There's no Constitutional right to own a semi-automatic rifle. So now you're going to have to think harder.

Do you have trouble reading? Get a parent to read the big words in the constitution to you. I wish you well on your journey of learning!

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why people need to march around and protest. I can see putting a bumper sticker on your car, or wearing a button, but that’s it. I don’t understand or like protests. Can we ban them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Strict gun regulation doesn't have to be an infringement, imo. Why aren't people outraged with 21 drinking age infringement? Just as one example? Why is taking the confederate flags in the South not considered an infringement? It seems to be as long as there is a powerful lobby and an industry to back up and shell money to politicians, right to bear arms without much limitations will be there because there is corruption.

For real? 1. Drinking isn’t a constitutional right, and 2. Taking a flag down is not the same as banning people from flying it.

[Anonymous]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262[url]

Can somebody post the opposite? Recent examples of guns used successfully for personal defense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, your question is irrelevant. As a constitutional right, the why doesn’t matter. At all.

is it actually? Or is it just for militias? Or in case Jefferson and his pals had a slave rebellion on their hands? And who are the people exactly? Only white males as back then? When they wrote, "we, the people," it wasn't really the people, was it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262[url]

Can somebody post the opposite? Recent examples of guns used successfully for personal defense?

So the article just says NO THEY'RE LYING! without any proof. What happened to believe the victim?

Here I'll give you one where an evil evil ar-15 was used to defend some one http://wgntv.com/2018/02/27/man-armed-with-ar-15-stops-attack-by-neighbor-in-oswego/

[Anonymous]

Is it true that the feds or states could say that no one can ow a gun for hunting, or for self-protection other than protection from tyranny?
IOW, doesn't the second amendment clearly say only for the purpose of protection from a tyrannical government?

[Anonymous]

I am very anti-gun. When I lived in rural CA is a single woman, I considered buying one. I thought that if someone were to beak in, the gun would be my only hope. Also, it wouldn't take someone long to figure out that I was alone in that house. Anyway, after a lot of consideration, I just moved. I figured that I would have to have the dumb gun with me at all times as I walked around the property, which was inconvenient. I moved to suburbia and got a security system and a dog. I felt much safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am very anti-gun. When I lived in rural CA is a single woman, I considered buying one. I thought that if someone were to beak in, the gun would be my only hope. Also, it wouldn't take someone long to figure out that I was alone in that house. Anyway, after a lot of consideration, I just moved. I figured that I would have to have the dumb gun with me at all times as I walked around the property, which was inconvenient. I moved to suburbia and got a security system and a dog. I felt much safer.

That's a fine choice, but why take away that choice from other single women? Not everyone has the ability to move or pay for a security system or own a dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, really, why? I can see having a hunting rifle for sport, but anything else is a foreign concept to me. We are not about to have a shoot out at noon, people whose land was taken aren't coming for you. If you are in a bad neighborhood if thieves and gangs had no guns, they could at best rob you, injure you maybe, but unlikely to kill you. If a young person was a thief and you had no gun, you couldn't kill that person and regret it for the rest of your life after you realize it was just a kid. What are your reasons for wanting to own or having the right to own(at 18 at that) a gun or similar weapon? I can't understand how anybody thinks owning guns and having such an easy access to guns is a good idea. Explain it to me. I see this part of the constitution easily fixed with strict rules for owning a gun and not at all an infringement. I see it as nothing but stubbornness by people who I can't understand.

A 90lbs 70 year old woman, and a 200lbs 25 year old man are made equal with a firearm.

Why do you want to render women defenseless OP?

If a 25 year old man couldn't get a gun, are you then saying elderly frail woman should own a gun to shoot the person meaning her harm since that person is stronger? Isn't that faulty logic and discrimination based on gender, weight, age? If strict checks and follow up checks are in place, then very few people who bother to go through it to own a gun. If nobody could get a gun easily, wouldn't crime go down substantially? And many people who buy guns are more likely to harm themselves and their families than a random 70 year old. How do Italian/Japanese grandmas fair and defend themselves then?

Why do you want women to get raped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.

DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment.

Sure, there are important limitations. I don't see what this has to do with the affirmation that the right to arms is a personal right. I don't see any issue with the "dangerous and unusual weapons" language. This is why full auto weapons have been banned. I am not certain that the NY/MD/CA assault weapons ban would pass Supreme Court scrutiny if the same standard in Heller was applied to those bans. An AR15 fits the literal definition of "in common use at the time". There is no more common rifle in use. Even the NY/MD/CA does not ban current guns already owned.

I think the point is that many of us believe that semi-automatic weapons are also dangerous, and the precedent for limiting based on that idea has already been established.

I actually think the "common use at the time" is pretty bold on Scalia's part because it essentially allows for gun manufacturers to be the leaders in what weapons become common. The "common use" language has no existence in the text or structure or even history of 2A. Would you agree? Certainly nothing about that could be pulled from the constitution "exactly as written."

Well, any weapon is dangerous in the broad sense of the term, so either being dangerous alone is not enough (e.g. dangerous <b>AND</b> unusual), or that "dangerous" refers to some additional level of menace. At the time of the short barrel shotgun ban, it was not a commonly used weapon among legal and lawful private users. The same is true for full auto weapons - it was not common at the time the bans were put into place.

I am not sure why you think "common use at the time" is such a bold standard. First it tracks with the textual purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is for privately armed citizens to protect themselves, and it would be rather important for people to be armed with weapons "in common use". US law and judges largely defer to "the will of the people" in practical matters such as this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strict gun regulation doesn't have to be an infringement, imo. Why aren't people outraged with 21 drinking age infringement? Just as one example? Why is taking the confederate flags in the South not considered an infringement? It seems to be as long as there is a powerful lobby and an industry to back up and shell money to politicians, right to bear arms without much limitations will be there because there is corruption.

Four federal appellate courts have upheld state and municipal bans on assault weapons and magazines. SCOTUS did not grant cert in any of these cases.

Not taking up the case does not mean they agree with the findings. Maybe they chose for the moment to defer to existing state regulations and court decisions. There was some question whether the 1994 assault weapons ban would have been found unconstitutional - a ban which is largely mirrored by the current state bans. But to be intellectually honest and consistent, I have to admit that for the moment, the assault weapons ban is not unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Small dick, of course

Women own guns too you sexist troll.

They've got the smallest dicks of all - nonexistent!

[Anonymous]

I honestly don't think it's particularly useful to ask why people want firearms of any type. They have their reasons, and you're not likely to change their minds. Better to find a more appropriate balance between their desire to own a firearm and public safety.

Personally, I think we as a society need to apply the TIWWCHNT rule: some people will take advantage of current liberal (small l) laws to obtain firearms capable of killing many people quickly, and use them to do exactly that. Because of that risk, there need to be severe restrictions on access to those types of firearms, on the This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things principle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, your question is irrelevant. As a constitutional right, the why doesn’t matter. At all.

There's no Constitutional right to own a semi-automatic rifle. So now you're going to have to think harder.

Do you have trouble reading? Get a parent to read the big words in the constitution to you. I wish you well on your journey of learning!

WELL REGULATED MILITIA

Big enough for you?