Wal-Mart and Dick’s Sporting stores banned rifles since Florida shooting February 14,2018

saywhatkid

Huked on fonix werx!
Premium Member
The police have no constitutional duty to protect you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia. You are on your own. Think about that. Id rather have the means to protect myself and family.
I didn't call for a gun ban. I said there needs to be a change. The current system isn't working. I don't feel safer knowing so many folks own guns. Kids are getting killed by other students. It has become a situation where we need guns to protect our families from nutcases that legally bought firearms. How very sad. And why isn't this a problem in other countries? It is strictly an American institution.
 

Foxrac

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I said nothing about federal law being 21 years old. All I asked was if he was under 21? If not how does these retailers changes in store policy affect him? The federal law says you have to be 21 to buy a handgun, but it says nothing about what age you have to be to buy a long gun, so it can be argued that retailers can set their own rules since no age is specified. Do you think the NRA would say anything if the retailers said they were going to start selling long guns to 8 year olds? The problem with all weapon sales is no common sense is used and every state has their own set of rules and the NRA is dead set against a national comprehensive gun control.

You seems confused with my posts, so I'm out.

I'm going to let Cappy and other members to take care of your questions.

FYI, I'm not NRA member.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
I'm 57. There are no 8 yr olds lining up to buy long guns. When did that happen? Citations needed. BTW: Why bash the NRA? Why not the SAF? GOA? and other grass root organizations? There are alot more out there protecting my rights from those that don't understand the whole picture and are scared because they dont like it. Imagine living in a place where emotions and feelings dictate what one can and cannot do? There is such a thing as minding your own business and moving on.I'd much rather be a free man than let the government dictate what I can and cannot do.


Read the 2nd Amendment and then the history books. There are 27 words in the 2nd and the first four are: " a Well Regulated Militia," the next nine are: "being necessary to the security of a free State," and the final fourteen are: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It didn't start with the last fourteen, it started with the first four and then threw in the second part of "being necessary to the security of a free State," If you go back to the time it was written, the US didn't have a standing army, it had militia's and after the British soldiers had shot and killed colonist in the streets prior to the Revolutionary War Alexander Hamilton knew something had to be done to keep history from repeating itself. In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote about standing armies being dangerous to liberty and he said “the most natural defense of a free country.”would be to have a regulated militia that would have the job of protecting the civilians. Thus the first thirteen words are about the militia and what their job would be. The last fourteen words are about arming the militia SO THEY COULD PROTECT THE CITIZENS. Nowhere in the 2nd does it say anything about the civilians having the right to bear arms.

The reason to bash the NRA is those other organizations and I don't even know who SAF is, aren't giving people running for office(Trump) $30 million for their campaign and millions more for Senate and Congressional campaigns. The GOA has less than 1/3 the number of members as the NRA and many members are probably in both organizations. I'm also pretty sure they don't have the same "buying power" as the NRA does with its 5 million plus members, so if someone is to be bashed it is the NRA. I will also add that I used to be a member of the NRA but relinquished my membership a number of years ago when they kept throwing up roadblocks concerning common sense gun laws and common sense comprehensive background checks.
 

Cappy

Well-Known Member
the final fourteen
Is the closing statement. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is paramount. Don't tread on it. Unless you are anti American. Or unpatrotic.

.”would be to have a regulated militia that would have the job of protecting the civilians. Thus the first thirteen words are about the militia and what their job would be. The last fourteen words are about arming the militia

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Whole people. You and me.
 
Last edited:

Cappy

Well-Known Member

There ya go. What you feel doesn't over rule what I feel. Tool up. Protect your kids. You are your own first respond-er. Remove Gun Free Zones and let law abiding citizens help out. Many veterans, parents with CC licenses (trained) said they will monitor the schools for free. Issue is that murder is already illegal. Let the sheepdogs (vets/parents/police) in the schools for protection. Just don't take away my and others means of protection (tools) because of your hurt feels.
 

saywhatkid

Huked on fonix werx!
Premium Member
There ya go. What you feel doesn't over rule what I feel. Tool up. Protect your kids. You are your own first respond-er. Remove Gun Free Zones and let law abiding citizens help out. Many veterans, parents with CC licenses (trained) said they will monitor the schools for free. Issue is that murder is already illegal. Let the sheepdogs (vets/parents/police) in the schools for protection. Just don't take away my and others means of protection (tools) because of your hurt feels.
That's the best you can do, boil my post down to one word? "feel" I'll do the same. Hold on...

"sheepdogs" That is what you figure we should all be, so everyone can carry a firearm to defend themselves. Sometimes, the wrong person gets armed, but it does not take away from your need to bark at the bad guys with an AR 15, should the opportunity arise. And you suggest that I defend my own child. So I should get armed and sit in his classroom, so you can carry? Great idea. Do you own stock in Smith & Wesson?

I didn't call for a gun ban. I said there needs to be a change. The current system isn't working.

Anyhow, that's probably the last post I'll make for the next 6 months. I'm outta here. No need to try to reason with the unreasonable.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
Is the closing statement. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is paramount. Don't tread on it. Unless you are anti American. Or unpatrotic.



"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Whole people. You and me.
Lets start with the militia first: in colonial times it was all able bodied male adults and I already said what the Federalist Papers said about the right to bear arms. I could care less what the NRA has warped it to mean. I also have no problem with any person of sound mind having guns as long as they aren't military type weapons(AR's, uzi's, etc.) with high capacity magazines or bump stock, etc.

I am as American and patriotic as the next person, but I also look at gun ownership as something that has to be looked at with common sense and what we have now is not even close to making any sense. And because what we have in place now can't keep weapons out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to own them, we need to put in place rules and measures that will do just that. If someone has nothing to hide in a comprehensive background check with a mental check, similar to what Japan does then they will still be able to buy guns.

Since you only used the part of George Mason's comment I will post it's entirety which might bring his comments into a clearer picture:

Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, &c., by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government. If there were a more particular definition of their powers, and a clause exempting the militia from martial law except when in actual service, and from fines and punishments of an unusual nature, then we might expect that the militia would be what they are. But, if this be not the case, we cannot say how long all classes of people will be included in the militia. There will not be the same reason to expect it, because the government will be administered by different people. We know what they are now, but know not how soon they may be altered.

Later on in the debate Mr. MASON rose, and said that he was totally misunderstood. The contrast between his friend’s objection and his was improper. His friend had mentioned the propriety of having select militia, like those of Great Britain, who should be more thoroughly exercised than the militia at large could possibly be. But he, himself, had not spoken of a selection of militia, but of the exemption of the highest classes of the people from militia service; which would justify apprehensions of severe and ignominious punishments.

You can pick and choose parts of whatever part of history you want to make your point, but when you look at the whole debate it puts much of the 2nd amendment in a different light. First of all the Constitution hadn't been ratified yet, they were still hashing out the details. You also have to realize that this was only Virginia's debate on the Constitution, there were 12 other states that also got together to hash out there questions and hear their comments during their states debates and only after this was done did they gather to ratify the Constitution.

If you want to read the entire debates on the Virginian ratification of the Constitution you can find it here.

eachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/june16/
 
Last edited:

seb

Well-Known Member
There ya go. What you feel doesn't over rule what I feel. Tool up. Protect your kids. You are your own first respond-er. Remove Gun Free Zones and let law abiding citizens help out. Many veterans, parents with CC licenses (trained) said they will monitor the schools for free. Issue is that murder is already illegal. Let the sheepdogs (vets/parents/police) in the schools for protection. Just don't take away my and others means of protection (tools) because of your hurt feels.

Let me ask you this, so do you feel safer today than you did 30 years ago? 30 years ago we had less than 160 million guns in the US, today we have more than 340 million! However, between 1764 and 1987 which was 234 years we had 17 mass shootings at schools in the US. Since 1988, we have had 61 of them in less than 30 years. Who knows how many more will take place over the remaining 9 months of 2018? So do you feel safer? Lets see the number of guns has more than doubled in 30 years and the number of school shootings has gone from one about every 165 months prior to 1988 and now one is happening about once every 5.75 months. I think even you can see there is a problem. Heck the school in Florida had armed police on site and look how many kids were shot and killed, so do you really think having armed teachers or parents are going to make that much difference? I don't know if you remember the bank robbery and shooting in the 1990's in LA where the police were out gunned by the bad guys as they were walking down the street and the police were going into gun shops and buying guns to more or less get them on an equal footing. In the end the bad guys ended up killing themselves.
 
Last edited:

Cappy

Well-Known Member
@seb I figured we won't accompolish anything here. Except for a locked thread. You will say A, B, C and I will counter with E. D, F. Full circle. I say, good luck to you. Most of all, vote!
 

seb

Well-Known Member
@seb I figured we won't accompolish anything here. Except for a locked thread. You will say A, B, C and I will counter with E. D, F. Full circle. I say, good luck to you. Most of all, vote!
Total copout on your part, but I expected as much, so I guess you have no answer?
 

Cappy

Well-Known Member
Total copout on your part, but I expected as much, so I guess you have no answer?
Im not a cop-out. Unlike you, I'm not a traitor of the US Constitution. You are running off emotions. Your emotions do not dictate what I can or cannot do. Get a life. MYOB.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
I think the statistics and facts speak for themselves: 17 in 234 years and since 1988, we have had 61 mass school shootings. I won't even get into other shootings.
The 2nd Amendment is under the Bill of Rights which were enacted in 1791, The United States Constitution was enacted in 1789, so exactly which document are you talking about? I'm not a traitor to either one: I just interpret the " A well regulated militia" being the key phrase of the 2nd Amendment and you seem to think it says that anyone can own as many firearms as they want!
 

Foxrac

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think the statistics and facts speak for themselves: 17 in 234 years and since 1988, we have had 61 mass school shootings. I won't even get into other shootings.
The 2nd Amendment is under the Bill of Rights which were enacted in 1791, The United States Constitution was enacted in 1789, so exactly which document are you talking about? I'm not a traitor to either one: I just interpret the " A well regulated militia" being the key phrase of the 2nd Amendment and you seem to think it says that anyone can own as many firearms as they want!

Tell to your politicians.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
Tell to your politicians.
Last time I looked our politicians were owned by the NRA, so it's going to have to come from the Supreme Court and with a conservative court we will not get a ruling anytime soon. However, with how these mass shootings are starting to come more often than they have ever come before who knows what will happen.
 
Top