Those who choose to practice a particular right...

Mass shootings? Odd. Nearly three times as many people are murdered by hands/feet than are murdered in mass shootings. If mass shootings are responsible for people being intimidated by the sight of a weapon, I shudder to think what emotional angst must be elicited by hands and feet being visible in public.

Are you sure it’s the actual mass shootings, or could it be propaganda that’s responsible for folks being intimidated by the sight of weapons?

 

Thank you for CONFIRMING that you are just disingenuously confusing PURPOSE with OWNERSHIP.

The PURPOSE of a FIREARM is to propel a LETHAL projectile when the trigger is squeezed. That is the SOLE intended purpose that was DESIGNED into the lethal firearm by the MANUFACTURER,

No amount of disingenuous equivocation and semantic quibbling is going to alter that PURPOSE!

Facts matter!

 

I suppose you've never seen or heard of a competition target rifle?

 

lethal
[ˈlēTHəl]
ADJECTIVE

1. sufficient to cause death.
   "a lethal cocktail of alcohol and pills"
   • harmful or destructive.

So... cars, knives, dogs, sharpened sticks... alcohol and pills... The FACT remains that none of my firearms, nor any of the other items listed that I own have ever harmed anyone. Does that fact matter?

Can you site where the manufacturer specifies the purpose of the firearm as lethality to humans?

I'm close to becoming a firearms manufacturer myself. What form do I need to fill out to dictate the purpose of my future product to my clientele?

 

Thank you for CONFIRMING that ALL you have is disingenuous equivocation and semantic quibbling.

Sad!

 

Which does not negate the fact that guns were created for the purpose of killing, either in war, self-defense, and hunting.

 

Guess you also never heard of a shotgun designed for trap shooting either. Those clay pigeons never stood a chance....
This oft repeated lie is designed to do one thing, scare people into giving up their rights. Nothing more than fear mongering.

 

Which STILL does not negate the fact that guns were created for the purpose of killing, either in war, self-defense, and hunting. No lie.

 

It's not my fault if you choose to cling to falsehoods after being corrected. You have that right.
I gave you two examples of guns specifically designed for other purposes. You have to pretend not to understand that.

 

Are you saying you have an issue with the cost of a handgun? Might want to talk to gun manufacturers about that. Good luck.

 

I had a assumed that you lived in Louisiana, but apparently you live in Mississippi?

Ok Candide - we live in the best of all possible governments?

You seem to be using the phrase "the will of the people" to imply that all of our laws and regulations represent a consensus of the majority of our population. That type of government is called a pure democracy and that is not what we have. What we have is exactly what you describe next - we elect representatives that have the authority to do what they want. It seems that we don't like it too much. It's called a representative democracy and it is structured as a Federal Republic and it is ostensibly based on a Constitution and its amendments, the first ten of which are known as the Bill of Rights and were added to assuage the young concerns of the fledgling nation that state and more importantly individual rights would be protected. The second of these amendments is not particularly well written, but it is clearly about guaranteeing that the Federal government shall not infringe on the right of State Militias to keep and bear Arms at a minimum.

Let's strike the commentary / justification portion from it first.

A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

What exactly is the subject of this sentence? Is it the Militia, no, I think not. Let's strike that as well.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Now let's backup - can we strike the portion that states the justification: being necessary to the security of a free State?

It does not state: being necessary to the security of a free person; nope, it's all about the Federal Republic not infringing the people's rights to keep and bear arms on behalf of the security of a free State by virtue of its well regulated militia.

The great 2A, a grammatically incorrect single sentence amendment. Mired in its lack of clarity as well as by an inconsistent application of its enforcement across the States that constitute the Federal Republic.

Our well regulated militias are called police departments and their right to keep and bear Arms is not only not infringed but is paid for from public funds.

Funny, they didn't write an amendment guaranteeing the right to a horse.

A well cared for Horse, being necessary to the transit of the free States, the right of the people to keep and ride Horses shall not be infringed.

A shame really. We could be having fun debating cars versus guns in an entirely deeper context. In the 1911 Scotus ruling Sham v Cam it was determined that the Horse Amendment was intended to facilitate transportation between the States and as such that any Federal law to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed.

How dare they make me register my car. Who is the government to impose seat belt laws? Unconstitutional! Safety glass - government overreach! Catalytic converters and banning TEL - OVERREACH! Our right to leaded smog shall not be infringed!

We have so many laws that defy logic. Seatbelt laws in States that allow motorcyclists to ride without helmets. Will of the people? Sure, we all agreed that we need to click it or ticket....

 

Mass shootings is an example of why one might be intimidated by seeing a gun in public.
Airplane crashes are few and far between but that doesn’t stop people from having a fear of flying. In other words fear isn’t always about frequency of something.

 

And guns were STILL invented for the purpose of killing, either in war, self-defense, and hunting.

 

Wrong, but carry on. You can believe what you want but I'm not buying no matter how much you repeat that falsehood.
Millions and millions of guns never kill anyone, probably well over 99% of them.

 

Which STILL doesn't negate the fact that guns were invented for the purpose of killing, either in war, self-defense, and hunting, no matter how much you want it to.

 

So you don’t think it has anything to do with conditioning? If media and politicians spoke often on statistics of murder by hands/feet, but never about how many die in mass shootings, would irrational fear of the sight of a firearm still far exceed that of the fear of hands/feet?

How many people do you think even knew that 3 times as many die by hands and feet as in mass shootings? Does the reason why people are aware of one statistic and not the other matter?

 

Many people in my line of work own firearms designed, manufactured, and sold exclusively to save life. They were never intended to harm. In fact every design feature is intended to prolong/save life and increase quality of life.

I’m sure you wish to be apprised of all pertinent information on this subject. Now you are better informed on the subject and more qualified to participate in the discussion. Carry on.

 

Cool. Now try some data that applies to your claim of mass shootings, not murder by weapon class.

LOL

 

You do realize guns are used in mass shootings, right?
LOL

 

How do they save lives?

 

Well of course. That’s why your argument is silly. If people are intimidated by sight of firearms because of murders by firearm, make that claim. Don’t claim it’s mass shootings specifically. You are usually more logical in your arguments.

 

Again....what are used in mass shootings??? Nuff said.

 

There are things called vaccines, antivirals, antibiotics, anti-inflammation drugs, and pain medications. They have been in the news a lot lately with Covid and all.

All are used to save life and add quality of life.

Copper jacketed lead us not the only thing efficiently delivered over distances by firearms.

You seemed so sure you were well educated on this point. Why are you asking me these questions? Were you actually uninformed, or were you withholding information you did possess from the forum?

 

Your claim was intimidation was caused by mass shootings. If you don’t want to stand by that claim, in the future make claims you can substantiate. I know you claim to be pro 2A, but we don’t need disingenuous claims from the 2A side. There is plenty of that from the other position.