Driving is a privilege, not a right, hence the license requirement. Defense is a right, which therefore should require no license, hence the Second Amendment.

I'm not seeing anything in the Bill of Rights about freedom of movement. Could you point me to which amendment contains a recognition of that right, explicitly?

Meanwhile, the Second Amendment says shall not be infringed.

Who should be entrusted with the authority to judge whether someone be careless? Who says whether someone be unfit to own a firearm?

It wasn't all that long ago that homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness. Should we then restrict people who have an alleged mental illness from owning and bearing arms?

The vast majority of people who own firearms are very responsible with them. Should we then deny them their rights because of a minority of people who have committed crimes using firearms?

Group punishment?

I know only one of you is guilty of this, but you're all getting punished? That doesn't seem at all like justice.

My first statement?

Indeed.

Maybe it would be better if everyone were required to learn how to use a firearm and how to be safe with it. Some of them might not be so goddamned scared of firearms after that. Hard to say. But I'm a Texas girl, I've been around Firearms all my life, got my first rifle when I was 12, have been hunting, took Hunter Safety classes, all kinds of nifty stuff. Never felt any desire to go shoot up a school or a theater or any other place like that, never had any desire to shoot anybody. But my experiences when I was in ROTC at least showed me that I would be able to point a firearm at someone and pull the trigger if it were necessary.

That was a big deal, too, at least for me, because I had "Never point a gun at someone unless you mean to use it" drilled into my head by my dad for years.

What do you think a "militia" was in 1791?

Before you answer, be advised that the constitution itself refers to a federal army. If the Second Amendment were referring to a government-controlled body of people, why would it not use the same term?

The National Guard is not now and never was a militia.

@Dr.Wol yes.

You can point to the phrase well regulated militia all you want, but the second part says the right of the people, not the right of the militia.

The people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were very careful in their choice of words and language.

I see, so a slippery slope fallacy is your response?

Or is that an all-or-nothing fallacy, better known as bifurcation fallacy or false dilemma?

Even with all the restrictions put in place after the Murrah building was bombed, it is still rather easy to make explosive and incendiary devices. Those will kill more people than an AR-15.

Are we going to start playing semantic games now?

What do you think a well regulated militia would have in terms of "arms"?

It says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Do you think the government should have a nuclear weapon?

What is the purpose, or what are the purposes, of the Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment itself gives at least one purpose for its existence. The security of a free state.

Free to what?

In the context of the time, "a free state" refers, obviously I think, to freedom from tyranny.

Would the people require nuclear arms or tomahawk missiles to preserve security of a free state?

Well then. It seems you've answered your own question.

That would be an assumption on your part.

No, you reached that conclusion. I simply pointed out you had answered your own question. I personally do not believe that any person, family, tribe, organization, city government, county government, state government, or national government should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

There could be some sort of planetary defense unit or division or whatever which should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, such as for example to destroy an asteroid headed for the planet or our moon, or an invading force from some other star system (if such a thing were to be real).

I have multiple firearms, and have never had to have any kind of license for them. I have had to have a hunting license, but not a license to own or bear a firearm. I do live in a state with open carry oh, by the way.

Altering the course of an asteroid so that it plows into the sun would be sufficient, would you not agree?

I've only had a background check for one firearm purchase, the most recent. I do not have to register any of them and have never had to do so. Remember, I am a Texas girl.

Because it's the only one I've bought after those laws went into effect. I bought it to honor Roger Moore after he passed away. It is a Walther PPK/S. I have wanted one for a long time, and after his passing, I decided it was time for me to buy one. It is now my preferred weapon. I keep it beside me at all times when I am at home, I can carry it in my vehicle, I can wear it in a holster which is not concealed. If I wanted to carry it concealed, I would have to get a license for that, which means training, the license only being granted after I have had training and passed the course. This would be an easy course for me to pass.

The Walther PPK and PPK/S are "automatic" (semiautomatic) pistols. They can be fired in such a way as to fire each time you pull the trigger. You can also use them as single shot by cocking the hammer before pulling the trigger.

The magazine holds 10 Rounds, and another can be in the chamber. 11 rounds are enough to stop a would-be assailant, and probably two or three.

I am a pretty good shot.

And I can shoot from the hip as well as by taking aim.

Also within easy reach most of the time when I'm sitting here in this spot is another pistol (which is a revolver), and a rifle.

I keep them all loaded.

As for "assault weapons," education would eliminate some of that. You are probably aware that, during the assault weapons ban, it was perfectly legal for a person to go and buy a rifle identical in every ***meaningful*** way to an AR-15. The only difference was appearance. The AR-15 ***looks*** scary to civilians and those who have never had any military experience or training.

All of my weapons are not registered to me or anyone else.

What states require registration?

As for a license, if I have to pay for a license, then it's no longer a right, but a privilege. So no, I have no desire for such a license, nor do I believe it should be necessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that such a requirement would be a violation of the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

Only Hawaii and the District of Columbia require the registration of all firearms.

The state of New York requires the registration of handguns.

California and Maryland require new residents to report their firearms.

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and a New York all I have some kind of registration required for so-called "assault weapons" and/or "assault pistols" and/or 50 caliber or larger weapons and/or high-capacity magazines.

I don't live in any of the aforementioned States, nor the District of Columbia, nor do I have any intention of ever living in any of those States or the District of Columbia.

In fact, the only States on that list I have ever even been to are Maryland and California. I will have to travel through California, maybe, when I move back where I'm going to move back to, but I don't think transporting my weapons through the state will have any kind of registration requirements. And frankly, I'll probably go the more Northern route, so I don't have to go through California. But that depends on the time of year, as well.

Actually, there is no federal ban on assault rifles. The sale and transfer of them is strictly regulated, but you can buy them. You can't buy a new one anymore, not since 1987? 1986? I forget, but anyway, you can still buy used ones, but doing so is strictly regulated. Not banned.

Well, in order for a law to be judged unconstitutional, it has to be fought in court and make it to the Supreme Court.

But that is simply a Judiciary judgement, and the fact of them being unconstitutional is not actually dependent on what the Supreme Court says. I mean, for example, let's take law X. Let's say law X is found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Was it constitutional before their finding? No. They simply had not yet ruled on it.

Nor is the Supreme Court infallible. If they were, they wouldn't have issued the decision which they did in the case of Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission. 😁

Some people spend far too much time focused on the "gun" part of "gun violence" and nowhere near enough time paying attention to the "violence" part of "gun violence." Violence is going to happen with or without firearms. It is violence which needs to be addressed, not the tools with which it is done.

And if you would like to address that, then you need to answer some questions about it.

If you can't answer the questions, then you can't do anything about the violence. You don't cure a disease by treating the symptoms. You cure it by treating the cause. What are the causes of the violence? That's the question which needs to be asked and answered.

And the answer is really rather simple. The causes of the violence are socio-economic.

@LotheronPrime exactly. 204 years of Civilian ownership of firearms with very rare incidents of mass shootings by civilians outside of gang violence during prohibition. So why did we go for over 200 years with exceptionally rare instances of mass shootings by civilians, and then all of a sudden the rate increased to 1 every 300 days in the 1980's, and then after 2012, why did that rate triple to one every 80 Days?

I don't think that the compromise is necessary. At all.

And I do apologize, Grenade, but I was talking with someone besides you as well as with you. To say that I stopped listening, however, would be incorrect.

The challenge is violence. And the solution to that challenge is to address the causes. The causes are socioeconomic. And I'm including mental health and psychiatric drugs under the category of socio-economic.

I will say that there has been no establishment of a causal relationship between psychiatric drugs and Firearm violence. There has, however, been a positive correlation noticed. A positive correlation is not necessarily a causal relationship.

It could be explained also by those people having gone off their meds.

We simply don't have sufficient data yet to draw any real conclusions.

Well, some of us are looking at it, but I suppose you mean people in government.

Yes, again, Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission. Very bad decision by the Supreme Court. Need a constitutional amendment to overturn that.

Those activists need an education. Most of them don't even know what the fuck they're talkin about half the time they start talking. I mean, what the fuck is "fully semi-automatic"? And that's just one example of many.

I wouldn't mind having an AK-47 just for collection purposes. But if I got one, I would insist on it having a 30 round banana "clip" painted red. For authenticity's sake.

Well, the mainstream media is always going to go for the sensationalistic, especially if it fits the narrative they are trying to promote.

Yes, one of the things I think is absolutely necessary is that logic should be a required course for high school graduation. I mean what is now university-level logic. A full year. I mean two semesters of course, but yeah. I have said this for over a decade. And as someone with a degree in philosophy, with a focus in logic and the history of ideas, I know what I'm talking about. Logic would help the voter see through the bullshit rhetoric of political candidates, among other benefits.

Anyway, guys, nice chat, but I need to go put this phone on the charger. Live long and prosper. 🖖

I was an undergrad in the 1980s. We didn't have safe spaces and Trigger warnings and shit like that.

And I kind of doubt that logic classes have been dumbed down to pacify the crybullies.

It's logic, after all, not gender studies.

@Grenade123 seeing as Logic is the crown of the Trivium, and thus one of the Seven Liberal Arts and Sciences, the very basis of Education in a free society, those Arts and Sciences proper for a free person to know, whence the name ***Liberal*** Arts and Sciences, I have very serious doubts that the university system would eliminate the teaching of Logic, regardless of what some post-structuralist- and postmodernist- inspired outrage mongers want. Also, seeing as how most undergraduate Philosophy programs on the European continent and in the United States focus on Logic and the history of ideas, ... yeah, they aren't getting rid of Logic, and I know very well that there are still Philosophy departments.

@Tinytim
Most of the Alt-Right I've encountered refer to Sargon as "Sargoy of Mossad" and similar things. It should be clear that they despise him.

@Dunk Massive
I'm a Green Party member, and have been called Alt-Right for being opposed to the intolerance and violence of Antifa.

@Dunk Massive
They're fanatics.

The Italian novelist, journalist, screenwriter, etc, Ennio Flaiano, once said:
“In Italia, i fascisti si dividono in due categorie: i fascisti e gli antifascisti.”
That means "In Italy, the Fascists divide themselves into two categories:: the Fascist and the Antifascists."
@Dunk Massive