Anonymous wrote:I see this part of the constitution easily fixed with strict rules for owning a gun and not at all an infringement.

Do you believe that "a well regulated militia" means something government controlled, and is a modifier for "the people" and that's where the strict rules aren't an infringement?

If people don't believe that, how do you convince them strict rules aren't an infringement? Would you accept those same strict rules applied to our other personal rights?

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.

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.

Another woman, and a liberal, we have a semi-automatic 12 gauge shotgun and a Ruger mini-14 rifle - both of which I have shot and qualified on at the FBI course. We live on a small farm and need them mostly for livestock protection or in the event we have to end an animals suffering before our vets can get out here. Sadly, we had to buy the 12 gauge when some idiots (who have NO business living in the country) from DC decided to move up here and let their two pit-bulls run wild, which includes chasing our baby calves and some expensive horses, our neighbors chickens, etc.

DH does take one doe a year with the rifle during season.

Woman here. One one M9 for security because it is the type of weapon I used to use professionally and am comfortable with it. I inherited a .22 rifle which I don’t use but when the kids are older I plan to use for hunting small game.

Anonymous wrote:Small dick, of course

Women own guns too you sexist troll.

Small dick, of course

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

Since the right is not absolute, it probably does.

I own guns for multiple reasons, and hunting is not one of them. Note that these are again multiple reasons, we didn't buy our guns just for any one reason.

The wife and I bought our first gun several years ago due to what we saw as increased instability in the US and around the world - let me clarify by saying that we weren't afraid of an army of bad people coming to our door, but just a general increase of disruptive incidents in the country and the world as a whole that served as a small but enough of a catalyst to make the purchase decision. If the world turned chaotic, even if for just a few days, we wanted to have a way to protect ourselves. Again, not a major reason, a very small reason due to low risk of occurence, but it was the catalyst.

Another reason is that I see gun ownership as one of the few remaining areas where a US citizen can participate in the exercise of American Exceptionalism in terms of the balance of private rights and responsibility. A firearm is something with great destructive force, can be used either for defense or aggression. It is up to the individual owner to properly train himself in the safe handling of the firearm, to exercise reason and restraint in its use, and to secure it so that it is not used in a crime. Owning a firearm is a right that is infringed upon by most governments in the world, because most governments have seen fit to enforce rights/responsibilities by law than by individual freedom. I believe in the power and purpose of individual freedom, so it was important for me to exercise this right to the extent that I can.

Another reason is that I like tinkering with my hands. Many firearms are masterpieces of engineering and it's a joy to work on them. Similar to guys working on their cars, motorcycles, boats, etc. Again, not a major reason for owning a firearm, but one of the many.

Yet another reason is that I like shooting for target practice. The physical activity of improving my skill at handling a firearm is enjoyable to me. It's a challenge to improve my accuracy and hit targets at ever further distances. This is similar to any desire for people to engage in a sporting activity. Still not a major reason, but one of the many.

I'd like to think that I am a responsible gun owner. Before I bought my first gun I took a gun safety class and had several hours of range time to familiarize myself. All my guns are locked in safes and the safes are bolted down. I've taught my kids how to shoot a .22LR, but not any of the larger calibers until I believe they can safely handle them.

Recently I bought another rifle because of the increasing pressure to regulate their sale. I am glad that I live in VA and not MD.

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

DP. The constitution does not explicitly state that you are entitled to a particular type of gun, and SCOTUS decisions past have indicated that indeed, the type of gun one is able to access can be regulated.

The why matters for someone like OP trying to understand the perspective of someone with a different life experience than her. It's called empathy and more people should try it.

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

People like them to hunt apparently, though it seems to me it's not much of a sport to kill an animal with a semi-automatic weapon.

I think some people are just collectors and/or they just like to fire guns. Have you ever fired a gun OP? I haven't but I understand it to be a very powerful feeling.

Nothing in the Constitution is "easily" fixed in my opinion. I do however think we can reduce gun violence with a comprehensive approach, that still balances the rights of gun owners. But, some of that may include limiting access to certain weapons.


OP at first it seems like you are interested in hearing more about this from AR-15 owners and the like, but the rest of your post kind comes off that no matter what they say you aren't going to try to understand. I don't own a gun and I am a liberal democrat FWIW.

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.

It's very hard to be able to own an automatic weapon. I think you meant semi-automatic in the title?

Thieves and gangs do have guns and they're not going to just give them up. People are killed with knives all the time. Why would some one regret killing another person that's threatening their life? Have you ever tried to purchase a gun to see how "easy" it is? How exactly would you "fix" the 2A without infringing on rights?

when if the Queen of England comes to your house?

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.