Those who choose to practice a particular right...

I said mass shooting is an example of why people might be intimidated seeing a gun in public. Guns are used in mass shootings...that is a fact. Nothing disingenuous about it. YOU were the one being disingenuous with your claim about hand/feet.

 

No, I just presented facts. You made an unsubstantiated claim and moved some goal posts. Oh, and you failed completely to address the questions posed to you about the propaganda component.

 

No such things happened. But feel free to keep going down your silly rabbit hole alone. Let me guess....you're going to reply with your typical silly "I accept your concession". Amiright? Of course I am. Have a nice day.

 

Prove it.

 

I come to this thread late and haven't read through all of the pages of comments so this may have already been discussed. The basic reason for laws and regulations of this type is social cost. These action have a cost that society has to bear either in a tangible sense of financial cost or intangible form of moral impact. Society restricts individual freedoms because allowing those freedoms has a societal cost.

Examples. Some extreme some minor. I am sure others can easily add more.

Gun control: Lost of life, hospital bill, crime.

Drinking and driving: Hospital bills, lost of life, property damage etc...

Second hand smoke: Health cost, negative impact on others.

Drugs and narcotics: Lost of life, medical cost, crime.

Pollution: Negative impact of others, financial cost to clean, health impacts.

Abortion: Some will argue for lost of life, moral arguments.

Gay Marriage: Moral arguments.

 

Im saying every restriction that makes bearing arms more expensive disenfranchizes more of the impoverished from exercising another constitutional right, and makes this country even more 'freedom for the rich.' Where open carry is banned, Americans that only have long guns can no longer bear arms, because those are not legal to conceal. Its one more step on the path to Australia or UK where in order to protect yourself you have to hire armed security. Who can do that? The financial and political elite, and no one else. Now they want their monopoly on force in America too.

 

Which specific restrictions increase the price of a weapon? Where open carry is banned concealed carry exists. I live in one of the worst states for gun advocates and I have a conceal carry permit.

 

Banning the carry of long guns means you have to buy a handgun to conceal. That is a cost that only exists because of legislative restrictions. It makes bearing arms more expensive for anyone that doesn't have a concealable weapon, because then they have to buy another gun.

 

A) How many carry a long gun on a daily basis?
B) I've yet to meet a gun owner who had only one gun. so spare me the sob story if long guns are banned these poor souls will have to buy another gun.

 

Not many. Are you suggesting its OK to disenfranchise a right so long as it doesnt effect very many people?

You've met many. You just didn't know because they didn't tell you about their guns. 42% of households in the US have at least one gun. Guaranteed some of those households are lower class and only have a gun because its inherited, which means its most likely grandpas deer rifle or bird gun. Where open carry is banned, those people can not bear arms. Thats disenfranchizement. Just because most of them weren't often exersizing their right doesn't mean its OK to make it harder to do so.

I'm betting you would agree if we were to apply this to voting instead of bearing arms, yes?

 

Nope. Just pointing out that it's not really the issue you make it out to be.

You don't actually know what type gun or how they got their gun. That's all conjecture on your part and doesn't help your argument. Stick with facts and you'll come off as more credible.

 

A dodge. Its a statistical guarantee that at least one person somewhere has a rifle or shotgun and cannot afford to buy a handgun in an area where open carry is banned. Thats one disenfranchised citizen that you're OK with (thats not a bash, btw, I know we can't do anything without disenfranchizing 1 person somewhere...). But how many would be too many and would change your mind?

 

Yeah so.... you're wrong here on how gun laws work, and it tells me you're likely the one out of the loop.

Numerous states allow private sales without a background check. Texas for instance. And there is nothing wrong with that, any requirement to register a firearm or tug your forelock before the sovereign before purchase is an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms. O but what about dangerous felons? IF you're letting them out of prison, they shouldn't be dangerous anymore. If they're still dangerous, stop letting them out before they're cooked, don't restrict the rights of the entire population.

 

You can in fact own a full auto weapon.

 

You can indeed purchase a firearm without a background check, depending on state law. Why, is there something wrong with that?

 

Do you fear the person being armed? Literally: hoplophobia.

 

Do you realize when you do the caps attack thing you just end up coming off like a QAnon type? Its really harmful to your rhetoric.
Also: In american jurisprudence you are not responsible for the crimes and torts of others. Full stop.

 

Where did I say I was ok with open carry being banned? Oh right...I didn't say that. Stop being disingenuous. I stated in another post I support those who need to carry a weapon. So again....stop being disingenuous. It's a bad look.
You're making too many assumptions. You're assuming these people, who you assume only have a rifle, even want to carry. If someone wants to carry bad enough they could always trade the rifle in to offset the cost of handgun.

 

Nor does the fact that its purpose is lethal make the manufacturer liable for what someone who bought from a retail seller who purchased from a wholesale dealer who bought from the manufacturer does with the item.
Nor does having a lethal purpose make it somehow illegitimate in purpose.

 

And trying to weasel our way around it implies they have a point, which they don't.
So its an item made for killing things. So stipulated, now what in the Green Hills of Earth does that have to do with whether or not I have the right to keep and bear it explicitly laid out in the constitution and the government is explicitly barred from infringing upon this right? O nothing? Ok then.

 

When their irrational hoplophobia compels them to disarm the law abiding, including themselves? The law abiding who would be in a position to stop or oppose any mass shooting psychopath immediately rather than wait for the police to be called and show up while people die?

No I really do not understand it at all. It makes no logical sense to disarm yourself when threats exist. Doing so is an act of irrationality.

 

You havn't actually said one way or the other... Your defense of the claimed reasons for banning open carry merely suggests you support banning it. But feel free to clear up your stance on the issue now- do you personally support or oppose it being legal to carry long guns and/or pistols visibly?

 

Um...what part of " I support those who need to carry a weapon." are you not understanding? Are you seriously struggling with understanding the words? Would you like me to say it in another language? Would that help?
And where did I defend banning open carry? Nowhere. Nowhere did I say I was FOR banning open carry or any carry for that matter. I don't give a rats ass how anyone carries a weapon. If a person needs a weapon to feel safe going out in public I say carry as many as will make you feel safe.
Please try to read the ACTUAL words being posted and not the words you THINK are being posted. K?

 

Dude you don't get to cut pieces off the sentence. <POST EDITED>



A well regulated electorate, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.

Now. Who may keep and bear books? Is it the people generally or only those that constitute the 'well regulated electorate'? What restrictions may be had on this right? Why does this right exist according to the sentence?


The people generally. No restrictions may be had here, explicitly the right shall not be infringed upon. Why? Because a well regulated electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, a subset of the people make up the electorate and so the people generally must be free to keep and bear books to maintain the proper function (a synonym for the term "well regulated") of the electorate. IE So the electorate may be constituted out of them in a functional manner at need, the people generally have this right and it shall not be denied or abridged to them.

Now. Let's examine the actual clause.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now. Who may keep and bear arms? The people generally or the well regulated militia only? What restrictions may be had on this right? Why does this right exist according to the sentence?

The people generally. No restrictions may be had here, explicitly the right shall not be infringed upon. Why? Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, a subset of the people make up the militia and so the people generally must be free to keep and bear arms to maintain the proper function (a synonym for the term "well regulated") of the militia. IE So the militia may be constituted out of them in a functional manner at need, the people generally have this right and it shall not be denied or abridged to them.

 

My request for clarity is an attempt to avoid presumption. I find that often people will hide behind technicalities because, for some reason or another, they don't want to commit to a position, or they don't want that position to be known... When you say "I support those who need to carry a weapon" I can't help but think of the oft-posited question 'why do you need a gun' posed by others who tend to agree with certain notions of yours like 'its reasonable to fear someone who has a gun over someone who may have a gun'. 'Need' is entirely subjective. Technically speaking, all countries, even those that have banned all civilian firearms, still issue permits to those that "need" to carry firearms. The state of course determines the 'need' at its whim everywhere but in the US, which tends to manifest as a complete monopoly on the use of force by those that enforce and support the state's agenda. I attempted to ask for your position in objective terminology so there would be no room for presumption of subjective terminology- do you personally support or oppose it being legal to carry long guns and/or pistols visibly? Or if you can explain why that question is not sufficient to clarify your position.