The second amendment whats it mean to you

Those are some bizarre leaps and logic.

Someone being a terrorist is committing a crime and if you commit that level of crime you are no longer permitted to own firearms.

Ownership of fire arms is not tied to domestic violence. If that was true everybody in the country won 100% of people would be suffering from domestic violence, and we'd have to show up the numbers because of guns out number people

 

Legally no but nothing stops them.

 

Delete

 

Yes you can drive over the speed limit you just can't do it on public roads have you ever heard of racetracks?

 

In my experience abusive partners don't really need a gun. The vast majority don't use them as such an act would be lethal and they would no longer have their partner to control.

Your scenario isn't that realistic

 

there are more reasons to own guns than just to deal with attackers.

you're probably going to find that pretty difficult to do because most deaths involving firearms are suicides unless you really like some really depressing western movies. And then most of the others involve gang activity.

it's not the 18th century here anymore

among other things yes there's other reasons for it you haven't even nailed the primary reason yet but I wouldn't think you would understand assuming you're not from the US.

 

what stops them from just getting more? How did they take them away do they just knock on the terrace hide outdoor and saying we're here to confiscate your guns please and they just hand them over?

Well yeah your point is terrorists use weapons of course they do how else do you terrorize people?

 

Yes there are. They don't seem to matter do they?

 

You can have a sword.

 

Keep in mind she said that she doubts that millions of Americans engage in shooting sports I pointed out to her that there were 15 million hunters in 2020 in the United States.

They really don't know much at all about guns and half of what they know is completely false

 

So if the reason to have guns is not, as has been said, to del with attackers, and clearly not to ward off foreign enemies, what are they for?
I have asked but no one seems to know.

 

Dogs can operate doorknobs where you live? I'd definitely want a gun there.

Nobody is ever murdered in your country?

so you don't believe guns can be leathal or that leathal force doesn't stop people? It has worked in the passed. The only reason you aren't speaking German right now is because of people with guns.

 

Hunting, target shooting, self defense.

I've told you this before so you're lying when you say nobody seems to know.

 

I never said guns cause murder increases. I said guns don't help keep the rate down. Please don't mistranslate my posts. So can we stop trying to put words into my mouth?

If you recognise that crime is caused by your list, why do you not do something about them instead of blaming those who have to live in it, for not being able to compete properly?

Of course rural areas have less crime anyway. There are fewer people.

 

You said right here in this thread that guns kill innocent people and cause crime.

No one has to put the words in your mouth, you put them there yourself.

 

and many other people are speaking German because the Germans had bloody big tanks and aircraft that managed to dodge your little bullets.
No I do not believe hand guns can be lethal when confronting proper military hardware...the kind it takes to defeat a country. The effective "guns" used in WW2 were other tanks and planes plus incendiary and other bombs. If tanks rolled into town and all the residents lined up with their guns, they would be mown down while planes would be blowing up your homes .
Meanwhile the enemy would be operating guided missiles towards your cities from ships and missile sites.
A lot has changed in 75 years.

 

I already said twice I am happy to have them used for hunting. I have even told you I was happy for the hunters to cross my land . In fact I can add that I am happy for anyone to cross my land and don't think there is an imminent invasion or neighbourly land grab happening. If I was really bothered I would ask him to explain his "trespass" and point to the cadastral lines marked along the boundaries and show him the deeds to my property. Any further hassle and we would discuss it with the mayor. Finally there is the central regional office which has a record if all boundaries taken officially from a helicopter and which marks the boundaries to the centimeter , which I have signed in agreement.
Who needs a gun?
and I have been asking for hours ...self defense against what?
Neither you nor anyone haven't given me an answer yet.

 

You think the Nazis won WWII?

So militaries investing in training infantry is all pointless because tank?

Way to be rational.

Why would they bother with the tanks and plains just nuke the entire world.

Again way to be rational.

So why doesn't the US government just nuke it's own country?

Lol

 

Aaaand here comes the racism.

You DO realise don’t you that it is POVERTY that is the link? Poorer communities have more crime

 

and that while you are brandishing your gun at the front door, someone isn't stealing your stuff out the back door.

This whole "protect the homestead" thing is not applicable anymore. But gun traders want to perpetuate the myth and make a profit.

 

You got to love people who ask a question 50 different ways 50 different times because they didn't like the answer

 

You're right about your interpretation of the 2ND but there's this thing called judicial review (and judges have been known to overreach) which since the mid 1900s has federally granted absolute gun rights to all American citizens notwithstanding the original intent of the 2ND, IMO. Besides, I believe federal judges took into consideration the absolute gun rights of most state constitutions and granted the federal gun right to all Americans in the mid 1900s...So much for the 10th Amendment.

BTW, bearing and keeping had two very distinct definitions during the writing and approving of the 2ND...Bearing meant using guns in a war and keeping meant carrying a gun for any purpose (to hunt for food or beat someone over the head with the butt but not for war).

Sidenote: I always thought that using bearing and keeping in the 2ND was redundant since I thought it meant the same thing until I researched and discovered the very distinct difference in meanings of the words bearing (used for war) and keeping (not used for war).

 

You should probably go back and find a dictionary and look up the definition of racism.

I pointed out a simple statistical fact it's not my problem that it hurts your feelings and causes you to falsely cry racism.

Facts are not racist and facts do not care about your feelings

 

Who cares?

In the US we don't justify things We own by what we need we're not communists. It doesn't matter whether or not you need a gun if you want one if you want 10 of them if you want 50 of them just to look cool that's all the justification you need.

Threats?

That's a stupid question. The point of defense is against threats if no potential threat exists then it is a perfect world is that your contention?

 

Please don't treat me like an idiot.
The language you speak isn't determined by who won WW2.
However both Switzerland and Austria speak German.

The rest of your post doesn't make sense. We are speaking of armed civilians, not militaries. I have clearly said it is the militaries which SHOULD be used to deter opposition. Well organised military organisations.
Not individuals who are still playing history over and over in their heads.