You live alone ? Do you keep a gun in your residence ?

[rwb]

Yes it is. That thumb is of course a product of our Founding Fathers and their evil Constitution, the one that sets us apart from the rest of the world. Sorry you find it so inconvenient.

I see it the exact opposite!! The Constitution is an almost perfect document and it is that document that gives us the right to own weapons. And I am sorry so many think our current crop of legislators - State or Federal - are a brilliant group of individuals. The abject stupidity of legislators is so frightening!

 

[rwb]

Most elected officials could not spell CAT if you spotted them the C and the T!!

 

[ElCastor]

I see it the exact opposite!! The Constitution is an almost perfect document and it is that document that gives us the right to own weapons. And I am sorry so many think our current crop of legislators - State or Federal - are a brilliant group of individuals. The abject stupidity of legislators is so frightening!

The Constitution also gives you the right to free speech, but it doesn’t give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. You may believe that the right to keep and bear arms gives you the right to buy a machine gun at the corner store, but laws and regulations would disagree, and I believe rightfully so. Anyone who believes they are being denied a constitutional right by legislation can and should take it up with the Supreme Court.

 

[SeniorBen]

2nd 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.

The 2nd Amendment is a collective right for the purpose of a "well regulated militia," just like it says in the first part of the amendment. It's not an individual right.

Initially, our Founding Fathers were against a standing army and instead would use state militias in the event of an invasion by another country. That is why they worded the 2nd Amendment the way they did. But once they saw the low quality of servicemen that made up the militias, they changed their minds and formed a standing federal army. That was around 1820, from what I remember.

 

[win231]

2nd 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.

The 2nd Amendment is a collective right for the purpose of a "well regulated militia," just like it says in the first part of the amendment. It's not an individual right.

Initially, our Founding Fathers were against a standing army and instead would use state militias in the event of an invasion by another country. That is why they worded the 2nd Amendment the way they did. But once they saw the low quality of servicemen that made up the militias, they changed their minds and formed a standing federal army. That was around 1820, from what I remember.

Depends on which section you choose to highlight.
"A well-regulated militia" implies the military.
"The right of the people" implies regular citizens.

 

[RadishRose]

I don't keep a gun at my residence but my dog does!

 

[Indiana Joe]

We don't have a gun.
I really don't understand the concept of having a gun in the home for protection.
Both of my kids have a gun which is unloaded, and in a safe in some obscure area of the house.
So when the burglar comes into your home do you kindly ask him to wait while you go to the safe, fiddle with the combination ,load the gun and then find the guy and shoot him?
I'm pretty sure I would have better results with a baseball bat or frying pan.

Keep thinking a bat or a fry pan will stop a couple of psychotic home invaders armed with 9mm handguns or AR-15's. Your in total denial.

There is no way you can talk sense to anti-gun advocates.

I keep a couple of semi-auto 45's within hands reach at all times. When on my computer, they sit next to me with an extra magazine for each. If predators start kicking down your door, you ain't got time to run upstairs. or to a backroom to get your gun from under the mattress or wherever.

One thing that shows me how in denial anti-gunners are is the fact that most of them do not even have an intrusion system to tell them if anyone is coming onto their property, or through a window or unobserved door. Actually, a camera system with a monitor to see who is where they shouldn't be on your property, or shows them at the door, is mandatory as far as I'm concerned. You can get some cheap system with 4 cameras for under $300. You don't need high definition.

Those in denial seem to have no idea as to the savagery inflicted on the victims suffering a home invasion. Home invaders are evil, vicious psychopaths who mean to inflict on you and yours horrible, tortuous pain. They do not have the same mindset as that of a burglar.

Oh, and those morons who play with their guns as if they were cap guns, lot's of luck. A number of family members or friends have died because of such idiots. But then, I guess we should ban guns because of a few idiots like these. Matter of fact, why don't we also get rid of cars because of the thousands upon thousands of idiots who drive drunk?

 

[Indiana Joe]

I have been around and owned guns my entire life but never worried about keeping a gun easily accessible until a few years ago.

I now live alone and my house is secluded and we'll back off the road. One day while working in the pasture an unfimilar pick up came down my drive and two young guys get out, walk over to me trying to sell me left over asphalt "from another job", an obvious scam. A week later another truck pulls in while I'm out mowing inside a fenced pasture, another two guys get out and start to crawl thru my fence. I yelled to stay there, I shut off the mower and asked what they wanted. They claimed to be looking for a dog and wanted to show me a picture in case I see it, I told them to get out and they got very pissy. I couldn't help but think these guys were all working ttogether looking for places to rob and it worried me.

Both times I was well away from the house and defenseless. Sense then anytime I am outside I carry a gun, and I also keep a gun handy while in the house.

Hurray! Someone not in denial of reality.

I have a carry permit. I carry a Colt .45 Defender, plus a small .380 Ruger in a pocket holster as backup. When going for a doctor visit, I can't wear the Colt because of it's size. That's when the small Ruger comes in handy. The doc is not going to check my pockets. There have been a number of shootings in clinics, etc. I ain't getting caught flatfooted. unarmed in somewhere where it's allegedly safe, such an office or building having a NO GUNS sign. Fortunately, in Indiana, those signs mean nothing. The law says you can carry almost anyware. The very few places in which it is forbidden to carry are clearly stated in Indiana law.

 

[Indiana Joe]

Not sure why people would discuss whether they have guns in their home on a public forum.

Why not? Unless you give out your real name and addy, no one is going to figure who you are and where you are. The average punk is lucky if he knows how to type into a forum, much less hack into one for such info. Besides, the other methods for them getting guns is much easier. They know who sells stolen ones, they know someone without a record who will do what is called a "straw" purchase for them, plus gangs also rent out guns. Hacking is the last resource for getting a gun.

 

[Indiana Joe]

I don't know anyone who has a gun except for a few hunters.
I don't think Canadians are as obsess with firearms as our
neighbours to the soouth.

Canadians don't have the gang and drug problem we "neighbors to the south" have.

 

[JimBob1952]

Hurray! Someone not in denial of reality.

I have a carry permit. I carry a Colt .45 Defender, plus a small .380 Ruger in a pocket holster as backup. When going for a doctor visit, I can't wear the Colt because of it's size. That's when the small Ruger comes in handy. The doc is not going to check my pockets. There have been a number of shootings in clinics, etc. I ain't getting caught flatfooted. unarmed in somewhere where it's allegedly safe, such an office or building having a NO GUNS sign. Fortunately, in Indiana, those signs mean nothing. The law says you can carry almost anyware. The very few places in which it is forbidden to carry are clearly stated in Indiana law.

Joe, I'm sorry doctor visits are so hazardous in your neck of the woods.

I'm more worried about my blood pressure than about the doctor's office getting invaded by bad people. Although if I were your doctor I would certainly ask if you had a gun in your pocket or were just glad to see me.

What do you do when they ask you to put on a hospital gown? I can think of one place to hide the Ruger but it would be uncomfortable...

 

[JimBob1952]

Canadians don't have the gang and drug problem we "neighbors to the south" have.

That's sort of a chicken and egg problem.

 

[Indiana Joe]

It's legal here. Anyone with law enforcement access knows I have one because I went through training and a certification process to get a carry permit that's valid in all but 15 states.

This "training" stuff is nonsense. Many, many a senior citizen may not be able to pass some test or other, so that means their lives are over when the predators come after them? Hundreds, at least that number of senior citizens, have saved their lives with guns. Matter of fact, the average woman who is not interested in guns, so therefore has no license, cannot use a gun her husband has placed in the house for her protection when he is not home? Even when some monster begins kicking in her door with the object of raping her?

You people who are in denial regarding the reality of one's chances of being a victim are truly coldblooded in your efforts of a demanded agenda wherein everyone crosses their fingers in hopes that violence doesn't befall them.

 

[hearlady]

Repost below

 

[JimBob1952]

2nd 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.

The 2nd Amendment is a collective right for the purpose of a "well regulated militia," just like it says in the first part of the amendment. It's not an individual right.

Initially, our Founding Fathers were against a standing army and instead would use state militias in the event of an invasion by another country. That is why they worded the 2nd Amendment the way they did. But once they saw the low quality of servicemen that made up the militias, they changed their minds and formed a standing federal army. That was around 1820, from what I remember.

Jeez, I hate it when I have to agree with SeniorBen. But he's right.

I think people should be allowed to own revolvers and bolt action rifles, with proper training and permitting. I think all semi-automatic weapons should be banned outright, on a national basis. Buy them back, confiscate them, melt them down, who cares.

I know there's not a snowball's chance that will ever happen, but it would be great to get AR-15s out of the hands of morons who shoot up nightclubs and schools.

 

[hearlady]

Not sure why people would discuss whether they have guns in their home on a public forum

I wouldn't.

 

[win231]

This "training" stuff is nonsense. Many, many a senior citizen may not be able to pass some test or other, so that means their lives are over when the predators come after them? Hundreds, at least that number, of senior citizens have saved their lives with guns. Matter of fact, the average woman who is not interested in guns, so therefore has no license, cannot use a gun her husband has placed in the house for her protection when he is not home? Even when some monster begins kicking in her door with the object of raping her?

You people who are in denial regarding the reality of one's chances of being a victim are truly coldblooded in your efforts of a demanded agenda wherein everyone crosses their fingers in hopes that violence doesn't befall them.

^^^^ Just plain ole reality.

 

[Indiana Joe]

Jeez, I hate it when I have to agree with SeniorBen. But he's right.

I think people should be allowed to own revolvers and bolt action rifles, with proper training and permitting. I think all semi-automatic weapons should be banned outright, on a national basis. Buy them back, confiscate them, melt them down, who cares.

I know there's not a snowball's chance that will ever happen, but it would be great to get AR-15s out of the hands of morons who shoot up nightclubs and schools.

Semi-Auto weapons are comprised of more than just AR-15s and the like. My .45 Colt is a semi-auto pistol which holds eight rounds. Why in hell should that be included with AR-15s? You want us all using revolvers? Those have to have each round loaded separately. Lots of luck in a continued gun fight, like maybe in a home invasion involving more than one invader. Also, the damn trigger pull on just about every revolver sold these days takes a tow truck to pull. And lighter trigger springs are only available for a small number of revolvers.

People who know nothing about guns, know nothing about guns.

 

[Buckeye]

2nd 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.

The 2nd Amendment is a collective right for the purpose of a "well regulated militia," just like it says in the first part of the amendment. It's not an individual right.

Initially, our Founding Fathers were against a standing army and instead would use state militias in the event of an invasion by another country. That is why they worded the 2nd Amendment the way they did. But once they saw the low quality of servicemen that made up the militias, they changed their minds and formed a standing federal army. That was around 1820, from what I remember.

Well, SCOTUS, back in 2008, confirmed that it is an individual right. (District of Columbia v Heller) and again in 2010 (McDonald v City of Chicago). The rulings acknowledged that there are limits, but that it is an individual right.

And as recent as 2022, SCOTUS struck down a 1913 NY law that denied the right to carry in public (New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen).

You're welcome.

 

[JimBob1952]

I see it the exact opposite!! The Constitution is an almost perfect document and it is that document that gives us the right to own weapons. And I am sorry so many think our current crop of legislators - State or Federal - are a brilliant group of individuals. The abject stupidity of legislators is so frightening!

Semi-Auto weapons are comprised of more than just AR-15s and the like. My .45 Colt is a semi-auto pistol which holds eight rounds. Why in hell should that be included with AR-15s? You want us all using revolvers? Those have to have each round loaded separately. Lots of luck in a continued gun fight, like maybe in a home invasion involving more than one invader. Also, the damn trigger pull on just about every revolver sold these days takes a tow truck to pull. And lighter trigger springs are only available for a small number of revolvers.

People who know nothing about guns, know nothing about guns.

I know plenty about guns, and yes I do want you all using revolvers. The point is that if the idiots on the other side don't have semiautomatic weapons, then you don't need them either. Most of the shooting fatalities are caused by those idiots (the drugs and gangs folks) blazing away at each other with semiautomatic pistols (often hitting bystanders in the process).

How many continued gun fights have you been in? How many home invaders have you driven off? Do you live in the same country I do? If you feel the need carry a pistol to doctors' appointments and keep a Colt by your side while you type on the computer, you've got some other issues to deal with.

 

[JimBob1952]

Well, SCOTUS, back in 2008, confirmed that it is an individual right. (District of Columbia v Heller) and again in 2010 (McDonald v City of Chicago). The rulings acknowledged that there are limits, but that it is an individual right.

And as recent as 2022, SCOTUS struck down a 1913 NY law that denied the right to carry in public (New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen).

You're welcome.

I agree with you as well. The "limits" I'm proposing are a ban on all semiautomatic weapons.

De nada.

 

[rkunsaw]

I've been selling most of my guns the last couple of years. I only have eleven or twelve left. I keep a few loaded in various places in the house and car but don't expect to use them. But I will use them if needed.

 

[Indiana Joe]

Well, SCOTUS, back in 2008, confirmed that it is an individual right. (District of Columbia v Heller) and again in 2010 (McDonald v City of Chicago). The rulings acknowledged that there are limits, but that it is an individual right.

And as recent as 2022, SCOTUS struck down a 1913 NY law that denied the right to carry in public (New York Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen).

You're welcome.

The Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, as in guns, but do you really want the corner store selling fully automatic machine guns? In an age of bump stock rifles and assault rifles that are clearly designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people, isn’t it reasonable to draw a line? I can defend my home with a pump shotgun and/or revolver, but does the Constitution guarantee me the right to a 50 caliber machine gun? Surely we can, and do, apply reasonable limits and still respect the Constitution. Those who disagree are free to amend the Constitution, but in a world of lunatic mass murderers, good luck with that.

The "corner store" does not sell guns. It takes a specific license to do so.

Draw the line because of the efficiency with which a gun kills and how many it can kill? Before you take away my "efficient" weapon of self defense, take away all those belonging to criminals who will ignore any law saying such are illegal. The way it is today, the criminals should not have any guns to start with, but they do. Your "laws" are worthless in regard to scum owning guns. They will only insure the disarmament of the honest population.

If the powers-that-be did their job, very few criminals would have guns, and the number of honest citizen who feels they need a gim would drop.

The real solution is to imprison the scum for looong periods of time after a 2nd felony conviction.

 

[win231]

I know plenty about guns, and yes I do want you all using revolvers. The point is that if the idiots on the other side don't have semiautomatic weapons, then you don't need them either. Most of the shooting fatalities are caused by those idiots (the drugs and gangs folks) blazing away at each other with semiautomatic pistols (often hitting bystanders in the process).

How many continued gun fights have you been in? How many home invaders have you driven off? Do you live in the same country I do? If you feel the need carry a pistol to doctors' appointments and keep a Colt by your side while you type on the computer, you've got some other issues to deal with.

"The point is that if the idiots on the other side don't have semiautomatic weapons, then you don't need them either."
A question no one has a valid reply to: (maybe you can try) How would you suggest convincing those idiots on the other side to give up THEIR semiautomatic weapons so others don't need them either?

 

[Indiana Joe]

The Constitution also gives you the right to free speech, but it doesn’t give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. You may believe that the right to keep and bear arms gives you the right to buy a machine gun at the corner store, but laws and regulations would disagree, and I believe rightfully so. Anyone who believes they are being denied a constitutional right by legislation can and should take it up with the Supreme Court.

Screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater endangers others. There are laws regarding this. Disingenuous ones are always tryng apply identical labels to things, situations. which bear no resemblance to one another.

Oh, let's not go that "corner store" nonsense again. <groan>

The idea of owning and carrying a concealed gun has already been to the Supreme Court. You weren't paying attention. We won!