So a guy in Texas decided to bear arms against 2nd, 3rd and 4th grade kids

Well personally I would prefer you never stand on top of corpses as a bully pulpit for your terrible politics.

Manipulating people in an emotional state is a pretty disgusting thing to do but let's put it this way if anybody was going to do it I'm not surprised it's you.

I suppose the Soviet Union wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for people like you simping for dictators

 

Dodge noted and you don't have to be "trained" to fire a shotgun but to use a knife in a knife I would suggest you do get lots of training.

 

My best friend fended off a knife with a bag of change, so no gun needed.

 

Great then I hope you have a bag of change handy when a mad man comes at you with a knife, I'll take my shotgun. Guess who has the better chance of survival.

 

Me.

 

It appears that you are repeating the same disinformation that there were only single shot muskets at the time of the second amendment.

That is not true there were several repeating arms.

There was no TV internet or radio then either, should the first amendment only apply to the spoken and the written word?

 

Fun Facts:
1. More women die due to pregnancy every year than people die to gun accidents and cop shootings COMBINED.
2. Nearly 3 times as many people die due to falls each year than by gun homicide.

Imagine a world where every pregnancy that ended in death made national news. Imagine a world where every fatal fall made national news. Imagine a world where homicides never made the news. In that world, it would be people like you who would advocate for banning pregnancy and ladders.

Pop Quiz:
Does the average person convicted of murder have more than 10 previous felony charges or less than 10 previous charges?
Given the answer for the question above, would incarcerating a felon after 3 felonies for at least 15 years make a difference in the homicide rate?

 

""Imagine a world where every pregnancy that ended in death made national news.""
Would that include abortions?

 

Radio, internet and TV are spoken and written.

 

Try thinking about my point a little bit slower, you'll probably understand it the second time around.

 

Your point is irrelevant.

 

Thank you for noticing..... My point was based upon the common liberal misperception that they were only single shot muskets around when the first amendment was written. Aside from being incorrect.... It's totally irrelevant

 

Solve it? NO. It's a multifacited solution to bring down the issue.
There's no 1 size fits all solution. Killing other people have been around since more than 2 humans existed.

 

BS. Maybe if you listen to fake conspiracy theory news. That is your mispreception.
Second Amendment



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.

 

You're saying it was BS that they had repeating arms at the time the second amendment was written?
Or are you saying the common liberal argument where they try to say that there were only single shot muskets at the time the second amendment was written so that's all the second amendment applied to is BS? Because it sure is a big boatload of BS. there were multiple repeating arms at the time.

How nice of you to post the second amendment, can you please point out an expiration date or what arms it referred to?

 

I am saying your misconcetption is wrong.

The 2A is explicit and clear. Bearing Arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

And I see many in this forum tell me owning nukes is me being nuts. And they are hard core gun rights advocates.
So, it's not a liberal misconception. It's all who don't agree with the words of the 2A.

 

I have made no misconceptions I was merely talking about the common liberal one.

But you could amuse me and tell me what misconception you think I have committed

 

Read your post about muskets.
And links to prove your misconception.

 

Leave it to the left to cry about the 2nd amendment and guns instead of facing the real problems of these mass shootings.
If they actually cared about the kids instead of trying to ban guns, you would see much different post.

 

How so? The assailant would never get close enough to me to use the knife while you have to engage in hand to hand with them. Why is that safer than me putting the assailant down before they could even reach me?

 

Yep the right of the people to own weapons shall not be infringed.

 

The 1st is not as vague as the 2nd. Ambiguity is not a good thing when making rules about lethal weapons.

 

The term in the 2A is arms.

Second Amendment



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.

 

Yes, weapons. You think the 2nd Amendment is about letting you keep the arms attached to your body?

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
arms
/ärmz/

1. 1.
   weapons and ammunition; armaments.

 

There was nothing vague about the second until you liberal types get a hold of it and try to "interpret" it.

At the time it was written a well-regulated militia did not mean one that was regulated by the government.

It meant all military age males who were citizens of the United States.... And well regulated refer to the fact that they could be mustered at a moment's notice and show up and produce their own arms