Two Guns Per Person

[Bang]

All I know is if someone has been shot, they were shot with a gun. It's pretty simple. If there were no guns, there could be no shootings. That means if someone wants to kill, they would have to use something less nasty. Fire-bombing via Molotov Cocktail comes to mind. Much preferable.

#SARC

[Gunsnwater]

So let me put on my 'know thy enemy' hat and ask what's the best response to this. And with due respect to Priell3, I'm not sure "as damn many as I please" is the best line of argument.

Right off the bat, I can justify three: handgun, rifle, shotgun. I can quite easily justify six: small carry handgun, larger/target handgun, hunting rifle, sporting/target rifle, two shotguns of varying bore/style. I could go on to nine easily enough, probably get to 20+ without a strain, and then invoke the 'collector' factor to increase that manifold.

Point is I think we're well-served to understand that straw-men will be brought to bear by the naysayers on near-any unilateral response... "Because Constitution" quickly turns into "Oh, so someone should be able to own 500 "assault rifles" and 100,000 rounds of ammo in 100-round magazines with bump-stocks and special sights that target women and children? Baby-killer!"...

In the end, no, I don't support any 'common sense' limit (or limit at all). In the end, I agree the constitution does not say "a reasonable number of arms"... But as a practical/pragmatic matter, I find that responding "over my cold dead..." to anti-2A folks is not typically productive.

I'd be more inclined to respond by drawing parallels against something they hold dear... e.g. "Okay, so what's the lifetime limit on abortions?" or "How many times can a woman complain about sexual harassment before she's hit her limit?" What about "So you can claim 'racism' twice and then you're done"... Or even "What's the limit on how many books you're allowed to own?" I'd sooner respond "Because Fahrenheit 451 B**ches" than "Because Constitution Motherfletcher!"

The point is really to bring the discussion back from emotion and return to the issue of limiting rights, including all the scary slippery-slope elements of that.

Yeah, I love a snarky response like "as damn many" or "cold dead hands" or similar, and that is -right-. But sometimes what's right isn't the ONLY right response, nor the best one. I prefer something that cuts their legs out from under them, versus something that just stokes the "See! These unreasonable, un-common-sense gun nuts just don't get it" fires.

KC

I dissagree with you 100%. You hold the ideas of a subject. Go on justify (beg) for your privilege. I demand my rights.

[Bang]

GL's post is outstanding. I wish it was in the form of oration in the house during gun control debates. But then, I guess it wouldn't matter to those who routinely ignore inconvenient truths. Cannot rep him again...yet.

[KCJones]

I dissagree with you 100%. You hold the ideas of a subject. Go on justify (beg) for your privilege. I demand my rights.

I think you misinterpret me. I am not justifying, or begging.

We have different tactics: you demand your rights, while I choose to point out other rights that can/will be infringed if mine are. I may be -defending- my rights, but I don't abrogate my rights or relegate them to the status of privilege: I simply point out other rights that could/would be infringed on the slippery slope and which may be a bit more impactful to those seeking to deny my rights.

It's pointing out to the boo-hooing "think of the children" folks the old saw: first they came for the jews and I (you) said nothing, then they came for the gypsies and you said nothing... etc. First they came for the gun owners, then they came for the assaulted women, then they came for the book-owners...

There's a great line in "A Man for All Seasons" where someone says he would tear down every law to get at the Devil, and Thomas More says "and when the Devil turned 'round on you, how would you defend yourself, the laws all being flat?"

That is the point I wish to make to the opposition, not to throw down my rights, but rather to relate them to the rights they hold dear and make them understand WHY rights are rights, not privileges, not granted, not allowed. Rights.

[KCJones]

GL's post is outstanding. I wish it was in the form of oration in the house during gun control debates. But then, I guess it wouldn't matter to those who routinely ignore inconvenient truths. Cannot rep him again...yet.

I can't rep him either, but I can rep you... Kudos. Well said.

[KCJones]

All I know is if someone has been shot, they were shot with a gun. It's pretty simple. If there were no guns, there could be no shootings. That means if someone wants to kill, they would have to use something less nasty. Fire-bombing via Molotov Cocktail comes to mind. Much preferable.

#SARC

With no #SARC at all:

Without guns for defensive use, baseball bats would be mightily effective. Or just a gang of big strong guys kicking ass. Steel toed boots. Billy-clubs. Golf Clubs. Bit of home-made napalm (it ain't difficult).

As I often say to anti-gun folks, what do you do if you suffer a home invasion by 3-4 big strong fellows with no weapons at all? You think they won't be able to rob / rape / kill you with their bare hands? You think they can't stop you calling the police (for whatever good that would do by the time they arrive, if they arrive).

Ever watch "A Clockwork Orange?"... There are no guns in the home invasion / rape / murder sequence. IIRC nothing but a single baton. Woulda been a wholly-different scene if the homeowners had a gun.

[streaker69]

Ever watch "A Clockwork Orange?"... There are no guns in the home invasion / rape / murder sequence. IIRC nothing but a single baton. Woulda been a wholly-different scene if the homeowners had a gun.

I blame all that violence on Ludwig Van.

[eatmydust]

What dick sponge neglects is the fact that the U.S. Constitution is not a laundry list of what citizens may do, it is a document enumerating the limitations of government intrusion into our lives. So, his assumption that the Constitution is a starting point not an end point is totally false. Someone who is hell bent on socislism and government intervention is going to misinterpret the laws of our land everytime. They mistakenly see Big Brother as the end all and be all, the U.S. Constitution is the leash on that beast.

[bigandy1966]

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.
Again for the window lickers on the left side of the classroom, for the motherfucking umpteenth time, lets break this down:

A well regulated Militia,
The militia was described as all able bodied males in a certain age group. Well Regulated refers to the uniformity of their arms in caliber, dress and uniform command structure so that they may be supported logistically and by a command structure that would not break down. Some might argue this now means state NG units, but these may bee called up as armed forces by the government, they do not count as citizen militia. The founding fathers were deathly afraid of a standing army on US soil and did not want the government to hold hat oppressive capability. Despite this concept being eroded repeatedly theres a reason for a Militia of citizen soldiers outside the control of the government and articles like this show the reasoning behind the necessity.

"being necessary to the security of a free State,"
The "Militia" is relegated to a singular task protecting the security of our liberty and our country, no one elses. Not afghanistan Not Zimbabwe. The United States.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
This enumerates a specific RIGHT of the PEOPLE, not Government entities, AGAIN NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! GET THIS THROUGH THEIR SKULLS!! Its describing the PEOPLE Not the "Militia" specifically, or the NG or the US army or the Police THE PEOPLE
To keep ( maintain and have ammunition for the use of the arms) and bear ( Go about freely armed ) arms (plural weapons as many as the citizen requires to protect the free state)
shall not be infringed.
There shall be No conditions on the keeping and bearing of arms by the people.
Now we may legally deny those deemed unfit to the right to keep and bear arms, criminals drug addicts and mentally unstable. Now despit the simplistic nature of this statement the government as taken upon itself the power to regulate this "right" because it is in direct opposition to its goals of oppression and to its power to oppress

[Bang]

As important, if not more, are the numerous letters, notes, notations, general documents written by the Founders during the times leading up to the drawing of the Bill of Rights. To look at (read) the 2nd without knowing those proofs of intent is almost akin to taking a knee and not really knowing why.

The problem today and of late is the same brains wired to believe the man-induced global change nonsense are the ones who will cling to the lame standard, "times have changed since then", and the flintlock/militia comparison posture.

What is really amazing (and f*cking aggravating) is Jefferson and associates were well aware that a semi-auto firearm had been invented, before the constitution was signed.

https://prezi.com/yfq60jxsfjea/weapons-1700-1800/