Conceited CCW holders

well, that's your way of looking at it. We prefer choice, not tyranny.

 

We do too. The big difference being we've chosen freedom over fear

 

yep. the freedom that only a socialist would embrace.
"The law of for thee and not me."
Everyone is equal and some are more equal than others...............

 

So wanting to be free of violent gun crime is socialist now ?

Interesting

 

you already live in a "no guns" society..............what more could you even hope for?
our business really isn't any of yours............
I gotta ask, are you this active in the Mideast forums? They have more guns and IED's than anyone right now. Have you demanded they lay their arms down?

 

Your rights are limited by the rights of those around you. By all means own as many guns as you want. By all means, spend hours hunting for food rather than paying for convenience through our economic systems.
But as long as the rights of the few endanger the rights of the many (eg: firearms being made easily available to those with less benevolent intent), we all have "the first thing to say about it".

 

But you will not address the facts that I posted. Dishonest and evasive.

 

I'm not afraid.

 

Really ? So far I'm the only one who has posted any facts whatsoever on this issue.

 

I posted five facts and one opinion.

You continue to dodge.

 

No you posted an opinion. Your CCW will need to be stored at home I take it when you aren't out pretending to be Dirty Harry

Here again for the umpteenth time is why that's a very bad idea.

Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.

In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

These are the facts so why would I need to dodge ?

 

In other words, minorities have no rights in your world.

 

What part of "inalienable right" do you have a hard time grasping?

 

Do you even know what facts you think you are presenting? For instance, does the Philadelphia study take into account drug and gang activity? You can bet that gang members that carry a gun are more likely to get shot.

 

I've presented some facts so wheres yours contradicting them ?

 

You mean you have presented statistics. There are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. You can find whatever you are looking for using statistics. That you are unaware of this and resort to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority without delving deeper into the studies just means you will use whatever you can find to try and justify oppression of freedom. Hey, Scots don't even want to be free anymore.

 

Cherry picking the words of the founding fathers without understanding their meaning is intellectually dishonest.

 

So basically you've got nothing. Fair enough

 

That's a blatant misrepresentation of my position.
The rights of any group are limited by the rights of those around them.

When you have to misrepresent my position, there is clearly something wrong with yours.

 

I clearly understand the meaning. Based upon your posts here, either you don't, or you don't respect it. Either way, that makes your views evil.

 

You're saying that my rights are dependent on the actions of others. My rights are mine until I personally violate the rights of others. What you are describing are not rights.

That's like saying I don't have a right to free speech because other people abuse that right or that I can't practice my religion because somebody else abuses theirs.

 

You clearly don't, nor do you have any concept of the context...
Feel free to read what the founders actually meant by a "well regulated militia" by reading sections 4-10: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

It's also clear by reading over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, that the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government, not threaten it.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

In fact, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace and saw a militia as a form of compulsory military service that would protect the country from attacks during those times that the US otherwise had no need of a standing army.

Is this the function of those that pretend they are "a well regulated militia" today? Are uncle Jebediah's shotguns suited to protecting anyone from drone strikes? I think not.

Don't memorize one half of one Amendment and pretend you understand what the founding fathers were attempting to create. It's just silly.

 

If I were saying that lawful citizens shouldn't have access to firearms, then you might have a point. But I'm not saying that, so you don't.
What I'm saying is that a status quo that makes it easy for criminals to obtain firearms violates the rights of citizens.

 

Yep, since you rely on logical fallacies, I have nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it a blatant misrepresentation. You made your view very transparent.

 

DC v. Heller. You're, unsurprisingly, wrong. (PS, Federal Law maintains that all able-bodied men between 18-45 and all female members of the National Guard, are, whether or not they know, members of the Federal Militia.) I, as a free human being, have the inalienable right to have the tools to feed and protect my family. If you don't like it, I suggest you come and try to take them from me.