The poors aren't actually provided for in The Constitution as they weren't given the right to vote. White men who owned property could vote. About 7% of the population.

The right of the state to form militias to protect it's own interests is actually what the second amendment is. Which is why you were confusing me.

Nick,

Do you live in an especially dangerous neighborhood? As a purely objective matter, is your family in so much danger that protecting them with a gun is the only objectively rational decision in your opinion? If I lived next door to you, would it be objectively reckless of me not to own a gun to protect my family (assuming I took prudent measures with respect to training, storage, etc.)?

In case it is isn't obvious, I am trying to understand whether you think of guns as something that serves a psychological need for you or whether you think of guns as an objective necessity.

So you think rich people should be able to have protection of armed security while poor people have to look over their shoulders everywhere they go? That is what life would be like if only police, military, and private security are allowed to have guns. Wasn't it just a few months ago the same people crying about how police should be of the few having guns, were calling for getting rid of the police and calling them racist? Now these are about the only people you want to have guns? Funny how quickly views change.

Like I said, weapons are already pushed across our unguarded southern border. This country will never not have guns with the exceptions of police, military, and private security.

No. I live in the safest neighborhood in my city. Doesn't negate the fact that a nutcase can walk on my property anytime they want.

As for you trying to figure out phycological needs of people, leave it to the professionals.

As a very general observation conservative posters tend to not BE the same as other posters.

They tend to be belligerent, narrowly focused and often times considerably less skilled at expressing and understanding different points of view.

They're much more likely to play word games, gaslight, dodge, refuse to stake out a clear position and defend it etc. etc. etc.

And while I do suspect that the IQ of the average conservative political poster is below average I don't think that's why they run into trouble.

I think they're just more likely to be angry, intolerant types who are venting their rage on people they think deserve their derision. (ie 'liberals')

And when you lump the mods into the category of people you're going to 'prove wrong' it's just not going to end well.

Bias or not.

There are multiple attacks and insults in that post. Don't worry. You won't receive a ban or warning. However, I'm not going to reply to these in the future because I will be warned or banned for simply replying. So attack on, people.

Nick. I'm trying to figure out why you think gun laws somehow effect the military.

I don't agree with your premise that people need to walk around with guns to be safe. I'd say that most people, rich or poor could get by fine without being armed. I say this mostly based on the fact that legal use of firearms by civilians is very rare. Even by the insane standards of some 'stand your ground' states most people will go cradle to grave and never touch a gun.

So if a person needs to hire armed guards that person is not representative of the average American. Not even close.

Are you arguing that we have a society that produces equal results now ?
If one guy gets to have an armed guard we all get to have guns ?

Meh. I'm not impressed with that logic.

You don't have to agree with me nor be impressed with any logic. Guns are legal, period. Thank God. That isn't going to change anytime soon. This "GET THEIR GUNS" nonsense has been going on for a very long time and it will never change. Heck, I'd even argue the answer is more guns.....not less. If every single teacher in that school was required to be armed, the situation would have been deescalated rather quickly. I dare say it might not even have happened at all because the active shooter knows he stood no chance.

Bolded of course is possible. If you live in that neighborhood for the next ten years, how likely do you believe it is that you or your family will be the victim of a home invasion or some other serious threat of bodily harm on your property?

Not likely at all, but even if there is a 0.00001% chance if it happening is too much. My family is my job to protect and I will do so. As the saying goes "when you have seconds to live, police are minutes away".

And they'll never get their hands on your heroine either (assuming you chose to use it).

But still. You told me. I will now hang my gunless head in shame and cry.

What about the supermarkets? Who's going to protect the churches? and the night clubs? or the HS graduation parties?

As I'm sure you would agree, you and your family are more likely to be attacked when you are out in public than when you are at home, if only because you will be in contact with more people.

Do you live in an area that allows to you carry a weapon? If yes, do you carry a gun most every time you go out in public? If not, why not?

If you live in an area where you are not allowed to carry a weapon in public, does it bother you that you may be unable to protect your family when you are out in public? Do you avoid activities that you otherwise would engage in if you were allowed to carry a gun?

mandate every teacher to carry a gun= no more school shootings

easy game.

that's actually a good idea. why don't they do that? it would have saved thousands of lifes with no real downside. teachers are way more responsible than ****** kids.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._United_States

I remember being told that I would be judged by the people I hung out with and that my reputation (if I had one) would always precede me.

I never remember being told that life was anything resembling fair.

Fair is a human and (dare I say) liberal concept.
It doesn't exist in nature.

I really really hope this is a troll. But even the very notion this could be vaguely serious shows quite how far USA has gone in the wrong direction

Conceal carry is a thing. I promise.

I have a conceal carry license. I do not leave my home without a firearm.

At least you're brave enough to admit that the mods are biased. That's a start.

Just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't mean that your opinion is right.

No, its a totally fair discussion and the far left looks like delusional *******s (again) when they insist that any mentioning of such things is inherently 'racist'.

That being said, its totally possible to weaponize those otherwise troublesome statistics for racially motivated reasons, which isn't helpful to anyone on any side. I think when people talk about it in this context, it's the weaponization of said statistics to create a pretext for other assertions.

But to reiterate- yes. The far left is trash as far as demanding said reality be silenced. Its just that the far right gives them a very aesthetically compelling reason to do it.

Fact 1: There are so many firearms in the United States, none of which are 'registered' or 'tracked', that they will be a reality in our lives for many generations, regardless of what laws are written.

Fact 2: Lunatics with firearms will exist, regardless of what laws you pass

Fact 3: Dealing with lunatics with firearms is a reality, regardless of your personal opinion on firearms.

Fact 4: Offense warrants defense. Since cops can't be everywhere, people need to protect themselves.

Fact 5: There are no centrally reported statistics on defensive gun uses, anywhere. They're all anecdotal, but they're all very real. I've done one myself.

The idealistic left comes off as complete tards when they just pretend that the real-time response to 'lunatics with firearms' is 'we should pass a gun law'.
Like, you guys literally come off as small children, when you offer that position, in that context.

"The house is on fire!"

"Fine, but I really DON'T THINK HOUSES SHOULD BE BURNING! We need to look into better controlling of matches and stoves"

"Sure, but the ****ING HOUSE IS ON FIRE! WHAT DO WE DO!!"

"Well maybe if we had BETTER LAWS about this stuff, this wouldn't be happening!"

"YOU. ****ING. IDIOT. THE. HOUSE. IS. BURNING. WHAT. DO. WE. DO?"

"I've already told you... if we had better consumer protection about electrical outlets..."

See why some people really do deserve to be shot?

The United States Army already existed when the Second Amendment was framed, so the 'well regulated militia' that was supposedly 'necessary to the security of a free State' meant the slave patrols of the southern States, as historians of the period have observed. The purpose of the Second Amendment was, and is, to keep 'em down.

Well said

Do you people imagine the rest of the world is some dystopian hellscape?

Most of the world is fine, just like most of the USA is fine.

The parts that aren't take up all the media attention.

Even though I grew up in a very pro-gun area, it's hard to imagine going through life this afraid. But based on your posts, I believe that you never leave home unarmed.

Trust me when I say this: I do not leave my home afraid, either.

I understand. You feel safe because you are armed.