Active Now

Nice Jugs
Randy D
ORANGE is the new BLACK?
Heeeeers Jonny!
my2cents
Zack
Morning Star
Just Asking
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » I wonder about everything all the time. Want an example?

I wonder about everything all the time. Want an example?

What would the United States of America be like if the Founding Fathers did not include "the right to arm bears" as part of the second amendment? We would have freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the freedom to peacefully peaceably assemble and to address our grievances. But nothing about bearing arms or arming bears anywhere in there.

Would there be an NRA? Would homo saps hunt for food with knives and bows and arrows? There'd be the need for weapons for the military and certain professions like policing but for the ordinary everyday typical average citizen?

I know some of you cannot imagine such a world. For those who can how do you think it would have been and would be? Why?

Posted - September 8

Responses


  • 40756
    I got nuthin'
      September 8, 2019 11:46 AM MDT
    1

  • 71071
    Happy Monday.
      September 9, 2019 2:27 AM MDT
    0

  • 2651
    It would be like England.
      September 8, 2019 11:52 AM MDT
    2

  • 40756
    Asker's Pick.  
      September 8, 2019 12:43 PM MDT
    1

  • 71071
    Not Australia or Canada? Why? Thank you for your reply Mr.B and Happy Monday to thee.
      September 9, 2019 2:28 AM MDT
    0

  • 10039
    I think the Second Amendment has been corrupted.  The Second Amendment gives people the right to bear arms to protect themselves from an overzealous government by forming militias for that purpose.  We don't need militias because we have a standing military.  While the Founding Fathers who used muskets and blunderbusses could never have imagined the evolution of those weapons to AK-47s and AR-15s, I doubt they meant for the average person to be entitled to own them individually.  
      September 8, 2019 12:35 PM MDT
    3

  • 71071
    I totally agree with thee L. I think they would be appalled and shocked and stunned and deeply saddened by what the United States of America has become. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I'm gonna quote you by name on this one. I think it is SPOT ON! Happy Monday m'dear! :)
      September 9, 2019 2:25 AM MDT
    1

  • 10039
    Thank you.  Happy Monday. :)
      September 9, 2019 8:10 AM MDT
    0

  • 15693
    No it is in tact. The gun control people are trying to corrupt it. Our founders were clear who the "militia" is in the 2nd amendment. It was every able bodied man between 18 and 50 not enlisted in the regular miltary.  We are allowed to have guns because the government has guns. 

    “I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
    – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

    "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
    – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
      September 9, 2019 4:47 AM MDT
    0

  • 10039
    This is the Second 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"?

    Where in that 27 word sentence do you see a definition of what constitutes a "well regulated militia" or how old they must be?  

    According to Richard Lee, the right to bear arms is to preserve liberty (not to shoot up a synagogue, a church, a concert hall, a school, a nightclub, etc.), to  prevent the government from enslaving the people.  
      September 9, 2019 7:54 AM MDT
    0

  • 15693
    I was defining for you what the word "militia" meant at the time Madison wrote the 2nd amendment. 

    No one has the right to shoot up a synagogue etc. It is illegal. Taking my gun will not stop a crazy from shooting up anything. But may stop me from defending myself or my family.

    Militia is military aged men (then) who are not in the miltary. The well regulated part comes from the fact that by have to right to arms...they if needed would not have to be trained to aim and shoot. It is something they would be already able to do. 
      September 9, 2019 9:07 AM MDT
    1

  • 10039
    If you are going to shoot up a bunch of people and I take your gun because of it, I don't care whether you will not be able to defend your family.  No one is trying to take away your guns.  Why is that so difficult to understand.  All we are saying is you cannot have an assault-type weapon.  Why do you keep translating that to mean we want to take all of your guns?  Sheesh!
      September 9, 2019 6:25 PM MDT
    0

  • 15693
    I am not going to shoot up anything. But they want my gun. 

    Why do Dems not understand that the difference between a traditional rife and a "assault type weapon" is cosmetic. It looks scary. 

    They are indeed talking about banning semi automatic weapons and modern style rifes. It is not gonna happen. But Dems have come out and said it.


    Under Clinton's gun ban:
    This post was edited by my2cents at September 9, 2019 6:39 PM MDT
      September 9, 2019 6:37 PM MDT
    0

  • 10039

    The difference is that it's scary looking?  Are you telling me that you can kill 27 people in 32 seconds with the top two rifles and the two hand guns on the left?  No, no one wants to take away ALL your guns.  I don't know how many times you have to be told that.  Do you not think it's reasonable to have strict background checks to make sure that the people who have guns are not maniacs and eliminate the loophole of being able to buy a gun at a gun show and after 3 days if the seller doesn't hear back from the ATF they can sell the gun anyway?  Do you think it's so unreasonable to make sure that people can't sell guns to one another without a background check?  Even 79% of NRA members don't think that's unreasonable.  What is wrong with you?

      September 9, 2019 7:18 PM MDT
    0

  • 15693
    Yes. They can. They will fire a fast as you can pull the trigger release and pull it again.

    I think they should only allow licensed dealers to sell firearms at a gun show. I think the 3 day limit should be made to 2 weeks and if still no approval or denial it should be sent to the local police and they should have the option of denial of they know of a valid reason. Police know most of the people who are questionable. I think when a person tries to purchase a gun and fails the check, the local police should be notified and required to pay them a visit and ask why they were trying to purchase a fireman they are not allowed to have and place them under surveillance for a while. This would have applied to the El Paso shooter and some others. 
    I am fine with private sales to family and friends without a background check but think the seller should be liable if the buyer commits a crime within a 1 yr of the sell (if no background check) if the buyer starts behaving strangely the seller would be inclided to report them to the police. 
    But a background check should not be required to inherit a gun from your parent. Or to buy a gun for your kid. Or to loan a gun to your friend. 

     
      September 9, 2019 7:50 PM MDT
    0

  • 10039
    You think most people could fire 27 rounds in 32 seconds?  I find that hard to believe.  As far as you gun show rules, I can agree with that.  I can't agree with family and friends selling without a background check.  If the buyer commits a murder or kills someone with that gun, what good does holding the seller do.  Supposing the seller sells to someone to does not live near or around the seller?  How does he keep an eye on the purchaser to see if they're doing something strange?  A background check should defiinitely be required for everyone, even from a parent to a child.  Didn't one of those mass shooters get his gun from his mother and you should not be able to loan your gun to your friend unless you're taking him to the gun range and you'll be with him when he uses it.
      September 9, 2019 8:55 PM MDT
    0

  • 15693
    And AR15 does not fire that fast. They fire 45/min. 
    A semi AK 40/min.
    Most semi autos have a rate of 40/min. 

    We disagree on universal checks....that leads to a gun registry. That is illegal. But there have been states break that law. If I want to go hunting but forgot or did not bring my gun...I should be able to borrow a friends. Or if I want to test out theirs to see if I want the same one. 

    The problem is people do not report when a crazy starts talking about committing an shooting. It is assumed the shooter is just talking...blowing off steam. We need to treat it like we do terrorists stuff...if you see/hear something say something. 



     
      September 10, 2019 5:54 AM MDT
    1

  • 10039
    There are many things that drive people to engage in a shoot 'em up and mental illness is part of it.  We need to address that as much as addressing gun control.  
      September 10, 2019 10:43 AM MDT
    1

  • 24928
    HUH? The right to arm bears?

      September 8, 2019 1:20 PM MDT
    2

  • 40756
    That's why I said I got nuthin.  I don't know where this is going.  
      September 8, 2019 1:21 PM MDT
    1

  • 71071
    Read what Spunky said. I'm using it for another question.
      September 9, 2019 2:28 AM MDT
    1

  • 71071
    Exactly. Thank you for your reply and the graphic and Happy Monday to thee E! :)
      September 9, 2019 2:25 AM MDT
    1

  • 24928
    So you did that purposely to see if I would catch it? Heck, I didn't even read the rest of it.
      September 9, 2019 2:30 PM MDT
    1

  • 71071
    Yes and no.Yes I said it PURPOSELY. I have said "arm bears" for years. I did it all the time on Answerbag. So NO I wasn't seeing if I could trick you or catch you. I wasn't testing you or anyone. I just thought everyone knew that's how I roll E. You didn't? Color me surprised. I think we have a failure to communicate. I have no idea why. Do you? Thank you for your reply. Dd I answer your question? This post was edited by RosieG at September 10, 2019 1:13 AM MDT
      September 10, 2019 1:11 AM MDT
    0