That was what they used their arms for, this was not modern times here roaming bands of marauders and Indians for instance. Just as now the government can't always protect you and the founding fathers put in place the 2nd Amendment to guaranty the citizens had the right and would be able to do so.
So you think people who don't align or agree with your political agenda should be banned from owning guns. Why would that not surprise me.
So free speech only covers the printed press and speeches given in person? What gun control measures failed in Boulder and what measures would have succeeded?
The colonialist were not opposed to paying taxes, it was which taxes and how those taxes were invoked that was the question. And that was not a 2nd Amendment issue. Taxes are covered elsewhere in the Constitution.
So you think a standing army of 1.2 million would have a chance against over 100 million gun owners or the over 350 million guns distributed to others who would stand against a tyrannical government? If you just took the hunters of West Virginia and Michigan, they would make up the largest standing Army in the world. You don't read history at all, do you. Not to mention the defection of US military personnel against its own people.
So...what's the cost/benefit ratio? How many people have saved their lives via the possession of a gun versus the number of people murdered by a gun?
Don't know the Colorado gun laws? He apparently bought the murder weapon a few days before the murders...so apparently there was a waiting period sufficient to have prevented his purchase. Background check? Doesn't seem to have been one. More will probably be forthcoming. Don't understand your comment on "free speech?" Free speech does have limitations as well. If a nexus can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt between the "free speech" and a violent crime, it may be prohibited as well, or if after the fact, complicity in the crime may be charged. For instance, if Trump's January 6th speech at the Ellipse rally can be proven to have incited the Capitol attack, Trump could be held accountable and complicit with the Capitol attack crimes.
They were connected. From the British and loyalist perspective, the taxes were "fair," based on the cost of defending the frontier from Native Americans, and the lack of colonial sovereignty. The latter rested with the King and Parliament, not with colonial assemblies. The colonies weren't taxed heavily. I'd contend that the "tax without representation" was largely a false argument, with the major reason being the Proclamation of 1763, forbidding western expansion. Many of the revolutionists supported independence from the UK for economic reasons and were land speculators (including one of my ancestors, who lived initially in Pennsylvania and went south into Western Virginia to buy and sell land. Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin (plus others) were land speculators.
It was a question, not a policy position. Why does it not surprise me that you don’t know the difference
F22 fighters aren't of much use against the likes of the Jan 6 insurrectionists. And they didn't even have firearms they were using whatever they could find at hand as clubs.
Your referenced chart indicates 1547 defensive gun uses over 28 months (2019, 2020, 4 months of 2021). That's an average of 55 uses/month or 660 defensive uses/year versus around 12,000/year homicides by gun (between 1996 and 2016). I have no idea where the 500,000 - 3 million number comes from? On balance, it looks like the bad guys are winning, with the gun as the weapon of choice.
Nope. As the CDC has pointed out, every study conducted has shown between 500k-300M defensive firearms uses per year, which DWARFS the murder/violent assault rate with firearms. You should have clicked on the link in the citation I gave you. It takes you to the actual study https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
You don't have to nitpick, you know what I mean. The issue is moot in the modern era. But, that wasn't the motivation for the second amendment http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-big-myth-of-the-second-amendment.586341/
It's a ridiculous argument, posits a scenario that is unrealistic in it's realization in the modern era. Moreover, such wasn't the motivation of 2a in the first place: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-big-myth-of-the-second-amendment.586341/
So I believe the capital police could've used the aid of well armed militia on Jan 6, don't you? I mean they we totally out-manned by a bunch of stick wielding pot bellied lunatics.
I throw trump supporters, religious extremists, and AntiFa in with your above list — can we agree none of those groups should be allowed to “bear arms”? You made a statement then asked for an agreement. You wrote it and don't even know what you wrote? lol
I checked them and a Poltifact, which after an investigation concluded it was "mostly false." Check Poltifact August 10, 2019 story entitled "Curt Schelling 'Law-abiding gun ownership stops crimes "2.5million times a year according to Centers for Disease Control." I don't think the claim was intentionally false, but rather (as the story explains) a misinterpretation of the CDC report on an earlier study. I suspect the claim is based on survey research which overstates the case and includes small business owners, who legally possess firearms to dissuade robberies, among the respondents to the survey. Personally, I think that while it may be an argument for gun ownership, with controls, it isn't an argument for unregulated gun ownership.
Perhaps you misunderstand. It may be an argument for gun ownership, but it isn't an argument for unregulated gun ownership.
If you follow the responses back (click the little arrows beside the posters name) you will see the statement I was responding to was wanting to exclude certain segments of society which “can be denied the right to bear arms”, I was asking what extent that premise extended to. Sorry you couldn’t follow
Incompetent rebuttal. Question has an assumed, notably vacuous & unsubstantiated, premise. Moreover, my response: It's a ridiculous argument, posits a scenario that is unrealistic in it's realization in the modern era. Acknowledges history, it just notes that the world today is not the same as the world was then, therefore, your premise is moot, anyway.
same way I explain illegal drug use. Murder is illegal. There are laws precluding you from doing so. Yet, people still murder. additional laws and regulations can not change this, so no new regulations and restrictions of my rights will be permitted.
