Gun Laws Debate - Damascus, VA

Being paranoid is not an excuse. People with guns kill people.

Agreed, Molly, but would amend it to say "crazy idiots" with guns kill people. Guns, themselves, are inanimate. And paranoia is not a defense.

I think all people with "guns for protection" are paranoid crazy idiots.

Paranoia is not a defense but the reason for having guns.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The second amendment gives me the right to own and use my firearm to protect myself and others from non law abiding citizens who choose to harm innocent people.

Mr Conservative wrote:

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The second amendment gives me the right to own and use my firearm to protect myself and others from non law abiding citizens who choose to harm innocent people.

Wrong. The second amendment gives a "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." So if you are in a WELL REGULATED militia then you have the right to keep and bear arms when necessary for the security of protecting the state and/or country. Since the United States of America has the largest, meanest, and most well equipped military in the world, your right to secure the security of the US is moot.

I am a law abiding citizen who is also retired military. JoBobs liberal interpretation of the second amendment is WRONG!!!! Myself and millions of other citizens of the US not only arm ourselves for protection but also for hunting food. No politician who has gone against the 2nd amenment has had a long career in politics. Fear a government that fears your guns!!!!

Mr Conservative wrote:

I am a law abiding citizen who is also retired military. JoBobs liberal interpretation of the second amendment is WRONG!!!! Myself and millions of other citizens of the US not only arm ourselves for protection but also for hunting food. No politician who has gone against the 2nd amenment has had a long career in politics. Fear a government that fears your guns!!!!

I quoted the second amendment numb nuts. I think your interpretation is a liberal interpretation (mine is Liberal). I think that everyone in a well regulated militia should own as many muskets as they can carry into battle.

Chill out Larry. You can carry a musket into battle if you want but I have been in combat and prefer an M4 rifle. If you prefer not to own a gun then thats your right. I prefer to own one and thanks to the second amendment, I can. Please respect my rights as I respect yours. God Bless you

Larry, you left off the last three words in your quote, assuming that you were using a different username when you made quote. Those three words are "shall not be infringed." No Supreme Court decision has EVER deemed the Second Amendment to ONLY apply to the need for a "well regulated Militia." They have deemed the Second Amendment to say "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Framers had two concerns here. In the 1780s, guns were crucial to survival - against Indian attacks, for food - and yes - for personal protection from fellow citizens. The other consideration by the Framers was if the government should get too oppressive, the people had the right to shed that government, by force if necessary. Read the Federalist Papers and other letters, documents, etc. concerning the Framers' intent.

Goodness - if all guns were outlawed today, many of the outlaws would have guns simply because of Obama's "Operation: Fast and Furious" What an ill-conceived idea...

Haven't been many Indian attacks lately, however, everything else in the Framers' intent still applies.

Fred wrote:

Larry, you left off the last three words in your quote, assuming that you were using a different username when you made quote. Those three words are "shall not be infringed." No Supreme Court decision has EVER deemed the Second Amendment to ONLY apply to the need for a "well regulated Militia." They have deemed the Second Amendment to say "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The Framers had two concerns here. In the 1780s, guns were crucial to survival - against Indian attacks, for food - and yes - for personal protection from fellow citizens. The other consideration by the Framers was if the government should get too oppressive, the people had the right to shed that government, by force if necessary. Read the Federalist Papers and other letters, documents, etc. concerning the Framers' intent.
Goodness - if all guns were outlawed today, many of the outlaws would have guns simply because of Obama's "Operation: Fast and Furious" What an ill-conceived idea...

I think you are jumping to wanna be conclusions about protecting against fellow citizens, that was just a by product of someone having a gun (same as now). The right was not meant to apply to paranoia only to secure the sovereignty of the nation. I personally do not give a ratsass how many people have guns or what they jerk off to. I have an issue with how the NRA reinterprets the right to suit their needs.

Giving guns to the Mexican drug runners started under Bush II.

If there was an I.Q test required to purchase guns then only intelligent people would have guns (or would they?).

Give it up Larry. Fred got the best of you. Going to Chik Fil A to eat in a non-Liberal environment

what gun laws???? i bought a gun, unregistered from a flea marketer in wytheville. turns out he is a state cop, moonlighting. he was good too, had a big pistol.

paranoia will destroy ya

kcsunshineband wrote:

paranoia will destroy ya

Kink(s)y!

The British are coming! The British are coming! Grab your guns!

kcsunshineband wrote:

paranoia will destroy ya

Ya got that right!!!!