Owning/carrying a collapsible baton is illegal in some states. WTF?
- Thread starter MadAsAHatter
- Start date
rsm
Well-known member
don't worry, be happy, L'il Wayne's comeback will be soon!
Traintrack
Active member
Get a medical book, study any self defense that you can .
I got attacked almost two years ago, I had to go to court, it was ruled as self defense.
You don't need a weapon to defend yourself .
I got attacked almost two years ago, I had to go to court, it was ruled as self defense.
You don't need a weapon to defend yourself .
I used to have a glove and baseball with my bat, in my ride .
Stripped Rights
Well-known member
If someone can't see the obvious difference between the deaths that an AR and knife can cause then they must be blind. Not a whole lot of mass stabbings going on are there?
rsm
Well-known member
don't let facts, truth or reality get in the way of your narrative.
Handguns Are The Most Common Murder Weapon In The United States
Handguns are the most commonly used weapon in homicides, according to a study conducted by Reuters. The study found that of the 232 victims whose bodies were autopsied from 23 mass shootings from FBI records between 2000 and 2016, 73 were shot with handguns, while 105 were shot by rifles, 22 by shotguns, and 32 by multiple firearms."In fact, on average, over 1,500 people are murdered with a knife each year in the US, making it the second most common weapon used in homicides. However, unlike gun violence, little attention is focused on knife violence in the US."
"Despite their reputation as dangerous weapons, and their presence in mass shootings that received nationwide coverage, "assault rifles = semi-automatic rifles" are actually not frequently used in homicides. "
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/m...n in homicides, leading,by a knife each year.
now guess how many of these weapons were legally owned and used by law abiding citizens to shoot someone.
rsm
Well-known member
Stripped Rights
Well-known member
rsm
Well-known member
yes, mass shootings are not the leading form of gun violence.Of course they are but they're less likely to kill as many people per incident than AR types. FFS how is this so hard for some people to understand?
AR = semi-automatic rifle. Historically, it meant Armalite Rifle; it's the anti-2A that invented the term Assault Rifle. Words and meaning matter.
how about prosecuting criminals instead of releasing them? nope, let's infringe on 2A rights of law-abiding citizens. Interesting that the most violent areas for gun crimes have the most restrictive gun laws....maybe they need to post more "Gun Free Zone" signs?
if it was law-abiding citizens committing gun crimes the numbers of victims would be in the 10s or 100s of thousands, but that's not reality.
I own several semi-automatic handguns and rifles, none have been used to shoot anyone; I enjoy marksmanship as a hobby, and exercise my 2A right and right to self-defense. I have my Weapons License even though it too is a 2A infringement and even though we have Constitutional carry here and stand your ground / castle doctrine.
gun control only infringes on law-abiding citizens rights; it does nothing to reduce gun violence. if the goal of our ruling parasites was to reduce gun violence they're smart enough to know what needs to be done; but that's not their goal; their goal is to disarm law-abiding American citizens.
FFS how is this so hard for some people to understand?
Stripped Rights
Well-known member
In your opinion what's their reason for disarming us?yes, mass shootings are not the leading form of gun violence.
AR = semi-automatic rifle. Historically, it meant Armalite Rifle; it's the anti-2A that invented the term Assault Rifle. Words and meaning matter.
how about prosecuting criminals instead of releasing them? nope, let's infringe on 2A rights of law-abiding citizens. Interesting that the most violent areas for gun crimes have the most restrictive gun laws....maybe they need to post more "Gun Free Zone" signs?
if it was law-abiding citizens committing gun crimes the numbers of victims would be in the 10s or 100s of thousands, but that's not reality.
I own several semi-automatic handguns and rifles, none have been used to shoot anyone; I enjoy marksmanship as a hobby, and exercise my 2A right and right to self-defense. I have my Weapons License even though it too is a 2A infringement and even though we have Constitutional carry here and stand your ground / castle doctrine.
gun control only infringes on law-abiding citizens rights; it does nothing to reduce gun violence. if the goal of our ruling parasites was to reduce gun violence they're smart enough to know what needs to be done; but that's not their goal; their goal is to disarm law-abiding American citizens.
FFS how is this so hard for some people to understand?
rsm
Well-known member
their reasons, intentions and motives don't matter, since they don't change the goal which is infringement and even elimination of our inalienable rights; just as "hate speech laws" infringe on the 1A.
Stripped Rights
Well-known member
rsm
Well-known member
c'mon man, thought you knew better.
the 2A says nothing about a waiting period. making someone wait to exercise their constitutional right is an infringement. obvious and simple.
red flag laws = thought police like Minority Report. guilty until proven innocent, if you can afford the legal costs; they confiscate everything when they swat raid your home in the early morning hours. if someone is busting down my door at 4AM, I'm shooting.
restraining order isn't a Constitutional concern, until it violates your Constitutional rights - which it does. Again, you're assumed guilty until proven innocent.
none of these laws would ever be misused either, right?
inalienable rights have meaning.
rsm
Well-known member
The Constitution doesn't "outlaw" any arms. Merchant ships were allowed, and encouraged, to have the same cannon as warships due to piracy.
Jefferson, when asked about this from a friend, basically stated any weapon deemed necessary by an American citizen is sufficient for 2A. That is the intent.
If I could afford a fastattack submarine, for example, 2A allows it.
only totalitarians want to ban types of guns, and eliminate citizens rights to own weapons. You'd be in the company of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, PolPot, etc. to name a few.
2A - says right to bear arms.
Doesn't say immediately.
Doesn't say unregulated.
Doesn't say without restriction.
Doesn't specify what types of arms.
Doesn't specify age or aptitude requirements.
You wanna start spitting hairs?
I'm 6 and want a gun - OK with you?
I'm certifiably insane and want a gun - OK?
I just got out of jail for accidentally shooting my neighbor. I want my gun back. - OK?
I'm legally blind but can make out fuzzy shapes. I want a gun. - OK?
rsm
Well-known member
Let's see what Thomas Jefferson has to say:
"On every question of construction of the Constitution let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
basically, if the Constitution does / doesn't say something doesn't mean it's open to any possible interpretation. You can infer whatever you want, doesn't mean it's constitutionally accurate or relevant.
How old were you when you first shot a firearm, I was 7. I had bb guns and pellet guns around 8-10 years old too. I had family to teach me about firearms.
criminally insane; are you hospitalized or in a controlled environment? if you're allowed to be out and about in society freely, then you have your Constitutional rights like anyone else. clearly you're not a danger to society if you're allowed to be out and about in society.
so being handicapped justifies your Constitutional rights being denied?
served your time for a crime? that means you paid your debt to society, not that you lose your Constitutional rights.
rsm
Well-known member
Yes, it's unconstitutional and will be overturned eventually. 2A doesn't name any types of weapons at all. it's disingenuous to think our Founding Fathers didn't anticpate future weapons development, as they were alive when rifles were invented (vs the existing muskets)
same answer
Same answer
Yes; just as 2A required.