All Things Second Amendment

[Idolater]

Do not need to amend the 2nd Amendment.

I don't want to amend it.

It already reads "well regulated."

Which means "good with guns." iow, 'Civilians who are good with guns,' being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Town Heretic]

“...the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever [emphasis added] in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller

 

[Idolater]

“...the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever [emphasis added] in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller

The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was “‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment.” In Heller, we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” [emphasis added by the S. Ct.1] It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point.

​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf


¹ - With the following note:

" . . . guns are plainly 'bearable arms.' As Heller explained, the term includes any '[weapon of offense]' or 'thing that a man wears for his [defense], or takes into his hands,' that is '[carried] for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.' 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)." ibid.

​

 

[ok doser]

The most dangerous weapon of the founding fathers day, the 18th century equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction, was the fully armed man of war, sporting dozens of cannon or more

And the founding fathers didn't restrict ownership of that

 

[James.Roberts]

“...the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever [emphasis added] in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller

The Bill of Rights protects the people against the tyranny of government, not protect the government when they tread on the people's rights. There is an ongoing war against our form of government by the Democrat Party and the majority of the 4th Estate (if it can even be separated from the Democrat Party). The Second Amendment is only Second in importance to the First Amendment according to our Founding Fathers. I don't support those who want to make the USA a Socialist country where neither the First nor Second Amendments are allowed.

 

[Town Heretic]

The state court repeatedly framed the question before it as whether a particular weapon was “‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment.” In Heller, we emphatically rejected such a formulation. We found the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment” not merely wrong, but “bordering on the frivolous.” Instead, we held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” [emphasis added by the S. Ct.1] It is hard to imagine language speaking more directly to the point.

​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf


¹ - With the following note:

" . . . guns are plainly 'bearable arms.' As Heller explained, the term includes any '[weapon of offense]' or 'thing that a man wears for his [defense], or takes into his hands,' that is '[carried] for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.' 554 U. S., at 581, 584 (internal quotation marks omitted)." ibid.

​

Alito's joining notwithstanding, the language of the Court in Heller is plain enough. The failure of the consideration in the Mass. Court on a related matter failed because the law advanced a silly argument, that only the weapons in existence at the time of the 2nd Amendment's framing enjoy protection. It's a clearly erroneous view and the Court acted appropriately. But, as per Heller and my note relating to the majority opinion, the right to bear arms is not the right to bear any. And an argument can and should be advanced that the assault weapon is both unusual and dangerous.

 

[Idolater]

Alito's joining notwithstanding, the language of the Court in Heller is plain enough.

What is your view of Caetano. It seemed that as clear as Heller was, it was so carefully crafted to only affect the law in question in that case, that with Caetano the S. Ct. was able to clarify the record, and took this opportunity to do so. I find Caetano to be brilliant, offering an authoritative opinion on other prior S. Ct. opinions, in fact pointing out where the S. Ct. did that same thing in Heller, actually redacting Miller. Heller left some open questions, and Caetano closed some of them. I think it's very significant.

The failure of the consideration in the Mass. Court on a related matter failed because the law advanced a silly argument, that only the weapons in existence at the time of the 2nd Amendment's framing enjoy protection.

I know. And why would a cluster of extremely intelligent, educated, credentialed, authenticated doctors of the law all of them 'to a man,' and accomplished (judges), people, in your words, "[advance] a silly argument?" It was either in good faith, or it was not. And if it was done in good faith, then there's something wrong. In our courts. Where judges are kings.

Or did they advance what you admit is silly, with full knowledge and with deliberate consent? And if so, why?

We need to know one or the other. It can't be neither. Something is rotten in the state of denmark, that heaven won't direct.

It's a clearly erroneous view and the Court acted appropriately. But, as per Heller and my note relating to the majority opinion, the right to bear arms is not the right to bear any.

Right. "Dangerous and unusual" being the standard, and since guns are inherently, 'inalienably' dangerous, the only aspect left is whether it's unusual.

And an argument can and should be advanced that the assault weapon is both unusual and dangerous.

It can't be made that assault weapons are unusual in any way shape or form. You're dreaming, admit it. Because you know that in order to prove that assault weapons are unusual, you'd have to compare them to the prevalence of the selective fire service rifles and carbines, which are the American professional military standard issue small arms, and they are also the global standard, uniformly, across Both professional And non-professional military, of "common use" in the world. Selective fire rifles and carbines in the world probably outnumber the total number of assault weapons in America at least 10-to-1, if not 100-to-1 or 1000-to-1. There is no more common small arm, Besides here in America, where the semiauto only civilian replica versions of service rifles and carbines, are more popular among civilians, because the genuine articles are almost completely banned to American civilians, but assault weapons are not. And here, note that assault weapons are not service rifles and carbines, what people are calling assault weapons are semiauto only rifles and carbines. No military professional or non-professional uses assault weapons, more than they use selective fire rifles and carbines. The confusion was whenever someone misspoke or miswrote or knowingly created a neologism, replacing "rifle" from the term 'assault rifle,' which is roughly a synonym for "selective fire rifle," which is the same thing as a "service rifle," with "weapon," for an unknown reason (to me at least), making "assault weapon," which was a brand new term invented 20 or 30 years ago. It means and it only means semiauto only civilians replica versions of standard issue military rifles and carbines, in the US, among especially those against gun rights. They are rarely used by the armed forces, compared to service rifles and service carbines (that are selective fire).

So I don't think so. You're dreaming. Assault weapons as gun haters understand them are among the most commonly used bearable arms by civilians for all lawful purposes in this country. I'm sure you know that between President Obama's election in 2008, and his swearing in in January 2009, sales of your assault weapons spiked upward so quickly that the market's supply chain was stretched, causing delays at the point of sale, gun shops just plain ran out of e.g. AR patterns, and had to wait to learn how soon they'd see their next order, which will be bought up the Same Day that it arrives at the gun shop, the demand was so strong. People, bought assault weapons in droves during those 2-3 months.

Most people when they see a vintage M-14 pattern rifle, don't see 'an assault weapon,' because it's made of wood, and the grip is integrated with the shoulder stock. But that gun puts on a whoopin. You'd need a 7.62 chambered AR to equal the firepower in a vintage M-14 pattern rifle (semiauto only civilian replica of a real selective fire M-14), the M-14 being the standard issue service rifle for the US after we prevailed in WWII, until Vietnam, with the change to Stoner's M-16 pattern (which looks like an AR).

It makes me wonder, given the generation running things now, they were introduced to the characteristic AR pattern during the Vietnam era. I'm thinking that's not a real positive way to introduce something to people, especially when they're young, and impressionable. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't just a very lot of American oldsters who would just assume never have to look at that M-16 /AR pattern ever again, and they will and they do vote for bans, and the Second Amendment is supposed to protect me from them. It's supposed to stop lawmakers from making laws that infringe the right of civilians to carry rifles and carbines. That's just minimum, what it's supposed to do. But it has let us down. Somehow, it got lost in translation even though it's one of the simplest amendments.

I expect doctors of law to understand the Second Amendment, and that there isn't wide agreement within the field of attorneys over what it means, tells me that there's no valid appeal to authentic authority possible, when the field of authorities in that discipline, do not widely agree on that matter.

We have law that makes the S. Ct. the authorized interpreters of the Second Amendment, and there is not uniform agreement among authenticated doctors of the law as to what the Second Amendment means. So even though the S. Ct. are the created authorities, they are not authorities otherwise on the matter, because their field is not widely agreed upon themselves on the matter.

So we jockey to get justices. We have to. Because if we don't, you gun haters will. I'll happily vote for President Trump again if he's going to pack the S. Ct. full of justices who favor my view of the Second. I don't care about anything else. Because obeying the law, is the best way to change the law if we want to, and it's the best way to prepare for any event in the future. No matter what the unknown future event will be, being a well regulated militiaman, militiawoman, or militia[TI+ human person], is better than not being one, and by a very wide margin too. But as I said, even if we want to amend the Bill of Rights, it is better to obey what it says now, to know how best to amend it later. If we believe in the right to bear arms, but not in the way that the framers did, then we need to amend the Bill of Rights. If we obey the law now, we will know very plainly which way to go next.

 

[Town Heretic]

."Dangerous and unusual" being the standard, and since guns are inherently, 'inalienably' dangerous, the only aspect left is whether it's unusual.

And there's an argument for it. One of my first notes on the weapons and aids I was speaking to was their singular distinction, the unusual thing that marks their functioning. Here's a consideration of the phrase:

"Moore v Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th. Cir. 2012) (“ Some weapons do not terrify the public (such as well concealed weapons), and so if the statute was (as it may have been) intended to protect the public from being frightenedor intimidated by the brandishing of weapons, it could not have applied to all weapons or all carriage of weapons.

Blackstone's summary of the statute is similar: "the offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusualweapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land." 4 Commentaries on the Lawof England 148-49 (1769) (emphasis added).”) State v. Dawson, 159 SE2d 1, 7 (N.C. 1968)(“ Blackstone states that`the offense of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, byterrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward III, ch.3, upon pain of forfeiture of the arms, and imprisonment during the King's pleasure.' …

Hawkins, treating of offensesagainst the public peace under the head of `Affrays,' pointedly remarks, `but granting that no bare words in judgmentof law carry in them so much terror as to amount to an affray, yet it seems certain that in some cases there may be anaffray, where there is no actual violence, as where a man arms himself with dangerous and unusual weapons in sucha manner as will naturally cause a terror to the people, which is said to have been always an offense at common lawand strictly prohibited by many statutes.'”) footnotes deleted; U.S. v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510, 519 (6th Cir. 2012)"

It can't be made that assault weapons are unusual in any way shape or form. You're dreaming, admit it.

Someone likely said that about the bump stock. And assault rifles, great sales notwithstanding, aren't really that widely owned by the populace. Handguns are, but assault style rifles are still a niche, beloved by collectors, but not by the general public, so far as we can tell from statistics and modeling.

So we jockey to get justices. We have to. Because if we don't, you gun haters will.

I'm not a gun hater, and I think the insistence of people who are for unrestricted exercise of the right that any other reading than their own puts me in that company and category is a window into a mindset that is, at its foundation, something less than rational.

I own guns. I believe in the right to own them. I don't require an assault rifle to exercise that right or to do any lawful thing with a weapon. Abd what I hate is schoolyards, churches, mosques, and concerts littered with the corpses of people who should be here today, who would be here today if it wasn't for a small segment of people and a rich gun lobby.

I'll happily vote for President Trump again if he's going to pack the S. Ct. full of justices who favor my view of the Second. I don't care about anything else.

And that's another window. That would put Hitler in office (unless you're Jewish). I think it's a poor standard for electing a leader.

 

[Stripe]

What I hate is schoolyards, churches, mosques, and concerts littered with the corpses of people who should be here today, who would be here today if it wasn't for a small segment of people and a rich gun lobby.

They might be here today if they weren't exclusively committed in "gun-free zones."

 

[Idolater]

And there's an argument for it. One of my first notes on the weapons and aids I was speaking to was their singular distinction, the unusual thing that marks their functioning. Here's a consideration of the phrase:

"Moore v Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th. Cir. 2012) (“ Some weapons do not terrify the public (such as well concealed weapons), and so if the statute was (as it may have been) intended to protect the public from being frightenedor intimidated by the brandishing of weapons, it could not have applied to all weapons or all carriage of weapons.

Blackstone's summary of the statute is similar: "the offence of riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusualweapons, is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land." 4 Commentaries on the Lawof England 148-49 (1769) (emphasis added).”) State v. Dawson, 159 SE2d 1, 7 (N.C. 1968)(“ Blackstone states that`the offense of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons, is a crime against the public peace, byterrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward III, ch.3, upon pain of forfeiture of the arms, and imprisonment during the King's pleasure.' …

Hawkins, treating of offensesagainst the public peace under the head of `Affrays,' pointedly remarks, `but granting that no bare words in judgmentof law carry in them so much terror as to amount to an affray, yet it seems certain that in some cases there may be anaffray, where there is no actual violence, as where a man arms himself with dangerous and unusual weapons in sucha manner as will naturally cause a terror to the people, which is said to have been always an offense at common lawand strictly prohibited by many statutes.'”) footnotes deleted; U.S. v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510, 519 (6th Cir. 2012)"

Thanks. So one of the challenges that the S. Ct. might face will be in clarifying what is meant by "unusual," since according to data, assault weapons are not unusual, but according to the public peace, and whether the public is frightened or terrified, they might be determined to be unusual.

That strikes me as fantastically important to settle. I note that one of the things written above is that well concealed guns do not frighten or terrify the public, obviously, because the public doesn't know that they're there. I do not prefer concealed carry, personally, and think that making concealing deadly weapons a crime again, is a better foundation for the administration of law and order in society, than a society where the only armed civilians are carrying concealed weapons instead of openly. In many states today, only law enforcement is permitted to exercise the right to carry their guns openly. And obviously, the sight of the guns that leos carry, does not frighten or terrify the public.

And the what I see as most critical question here is what to do as the public changes. If the public suddenly becomes frightened and terrified at the sight of any gun, no matter how relatively innocuous it is (for example, a black powder musket that can only fire when the shooter is well trained, at maybe one round per minute), then does that gun therefore become "unusual," and therefore it is not protected anymore by the right to bear arms, that shall not be infringed?

That seems so amorphous a process as to make the Second Amendment almost meaningless. What would seem to me more right and just, would be to authorize only those civilians who are good with guns to make any laws concerning the gun market. I know that it is I who am dreaming in saying that, because it will never happen, but I'm setting it out there just as a contrasting thought.

The less armed civilians there are, the less comfortable the public will be at the sight of a gun.

Someone likely said that about the bump stock.

Someone misinformed.

And assault rifles, great sales notwithstanding, aren't really that widely owned by the populace.

There are no great sales of assault rifles. The supply is fixed, there's a cluster of assault rifles that are out there, the supply was set on May 19, 1986, when President Reagan signed into the law something like the 'firearms owners protection act,' which included the Hughes Amendment, that outlawed civilians from acquiring any assault rifles produced after that same date. Additionally, to deal in assault rifles requires working with ATF and paying steep fees, all for the permission to pay even steeper prices, as the supply of assault rifles available to the public is fixed.

Handguns are, but assault style rifles are still a niche, beloved by collectors, but not by the general public, so far as we can tell from statistics and modeling.

The statistics are the statistics I mentioned above regarding assault rifles. They are a niche beloved by collectors because the supply is fixed, and the only people who can afford the ATF fees and the steep prices, are collectors.

And again, if the public becomes frightened and terrified at the sight of handguns, then according to some attorneys, that's enough of a reason to make even handguns "unusual," and therefore authorized to be banned.

I'm not a gun hater, and I think the insistence of people who are for unrestricted exercise of the right that any other reading than their own puts me in that company and category is a window into a mindset that is, at its foundation, something less than rational.

I disagree. We disagree. We are not in agreement, and so when we discuss this matter, I have every right to argue with the full range of tactics at my disposal, just as you have the right to try and make it seem as if to disagree with you is "something less than rational." I could say the same about my position, and accuse anyone who disagrees with me of being "something less than rational," but that's your choice to employ this tactic, not mine.

I just call you a gun hater.

I own guns.

It's better to have a gun and need a gun, than to not have a gun and not need a gun.

I believe in the right to own them.

I believe in the right to own them. We do not use the same homonym 'right' though, it's apparent.

I don't require an assault rifle to exercise that right or to do any lawful thing with a weapon.

That's an answer to question that nobody asked.

Abd what I hate is schoolyards, churches, mosques, and concerts littered with the corpses of people who should be here today

Me too.

, who would be here today if it wasn't for a small segment of people

Either murderers, or innocent people suffering from some form of encephalopathy, such as a concussion or a neurological /CNS defect of some sort.

and a rich gun lobby.

There's a gun lobby because there are a lot of people like me who disagree with gun control laws and see them as flagrantly Unconstitutional. There's a gun lobby because the entire field of attorneys do not widely agree on what the Second Amendment means, and so we can't validly appeal to any of you to answer that open question, even though it's the type of question that we would be happy to submit ourselves to your vocation to answer, if you all could just get your collective act together and agree between yourselves. The fact that you have not probably means that you cannot, and so it's left to the rest of us plebs to jockey for justices on the S. Ct.

And that's another window. That would put Hitler in office (unless you're Jewish).

Not in America, and if the actual Hitler did rematerialize, and we did elect him President, he wouldn't be Hitler, because he couldn't be, not in America. President Trump is getting henpecked by the legislative branch, and has already been roundly slapped down by the judicial branch, and even law enforcement (his own branch) has been investigating him, and he can't stop any of this. It's absolutely brilliant and terrifically comforting to see our Constitution in action during this administration, because of how mighty our government is, when faced with another fox in the hen house (according to the president's opponents). Hitler would have zero chance to do what he did in Germany in the 30s and 40s, here in America. And yes, if the actual Hitler rematerialized and ran for President, and he was the only candidate who promised to put justices on the S. Ct. who believed as I do regarding the right to bear arms, then I would absolutely vote for him. Without a second thought. Because of how great our Constitution is, and the government that it creates and sustains. We would not permit even the actual Hitler, rematerialized, to be what Hitler was in 1930s Germany, not in America. Impossible.

I think it's a poor standard for electing a leader.

There's a sense in which our leader is our law. In times of crisis, certainly we need people making rapid decisions, which is just not the bailiwick of lawmakers, lawmaking not being the right tool for that job. But the rest of the time, the law is our leader. The law authorizes police to penalize people when they break it. And the S. Ct. is according to the supreme law the authorized interpreters of the supreme law, and the judges of all our other laws according to their understanding of the Constitution. And since you attorneys can't get your act together on what the Second Amendment means, then I am within not only my rights, but also within the spectrum of reason, to feel that the right to bear arms is the one right that I feel is critical, and that is being assaulted the most fervently, and so vote for candidates who promise to (and in the case of President Trump, who has delivered on that promise already) nominate justices who share my feelings on the matter.

Because there's a sense in which our leader is our law.

 

[Idolater]

They might be here today if they weren't exclusively committed in "gun-free zones."

It is to me completely Unconstitutional to forbid the bearing of arms on public property. That's to me a flagrantly Unconstitutional thing to do. If the Second Amendment is targeted at anybody, it's the government, police, and lawmakers. "Shall not be infringed" is written to them.

But even in spite of this, I hold civilians a little responsible for the carnage, because so many civilians are not exercising their right to bear arms at all. It'd be a bit like people whose inalienable right to free speech is protected by the law, but they never speak, or write, anything. No matter how bad things get, in their neighborhoods, in their governments, in their work; in their churches; they never say or write a single solitary thing about any of it, ever, to anybody. They just go along to get along, and hope nothing bad ever happens, even though bad things are happening all the time, all around them, all across the country---and still, nothing.

I consider being prepared to defend the life and limb of my neighbor as just being a good neighbor myself, and I think we can collectively improve the world if we all felt similarly, and worked to begin exercising our right to bear arms, at least in preparation to defend the life and limb of our neighbors, if not ourselves, and our families and loved ones, and other innocent of capital crimes people.

 

[Stripe]

It is to me completely Unconstitutional to forbid the bearing of arms on public property. That's to me a flagrantly Unconstitutional thing to do. If the Second Amendment is targeted at anybody, it's the government, police, and lawmakers. "Shall not be infringed" is written to them.

But even in spite of this, I hold civilians a little responsible for the carnage, because so many civilians are not exercising their right to bear arms at all. It'd be a bit like people whose inalienable right to free speech is protected by the law, but they never speak, or write, anything. No matter how bad things get, in their neighborhoods, in their governments, in their work; in their churches; they never say or write a single solitary thing about any of it, ever, to anybody. They just go along to get along, and hope nothing bad ever happens, even though bad things are happening all the time, all around them, all across the country---and still, nothing.

I consider being prepared to defend the life and limb of my neighbor as just being a good neighbor myself, and I think we can collectively improve the world if we all felt similarly, and worked to begin exercising our right to bear arms, at least in preparation to defend the life and limb of our neighbors, if not ourselves, and our families and loved ones, and other innocent of capital crimes people.

Yep.

I only take exception in that you cite US law as the basis for the right to self defense. If that were all that backs your ideas, it would leave us "foreigners" high and dry.

 

[Idolater]

Yep.

I only take exception in that you cite US law as the basis for the right to self defense.

No, I never do that. The right to bear arms is inalienable. All people possess it inherently. Law either recognizes, affirms, protects, defends, etc. the right, or it does not. Laws that do not recognize, affirm, protect, defend, etc., the right are bad laws.

If that were all that backs your ideas, it would leave us "foreigners" high and dry.

You all foreigners are still people, right? National borders do not change inalienable rights.

 

[northwye]

The Second Amendment, like the other Nine Amendments to the Constitution drawn up by James Madison and his Committee in the House, was created by the Jeffersonian Faction in our Federal government, not by what can be called the Lincoln Faction.

Many may think of Lincoln as the president who got rid of slavery.

But in many ways what can be called the Lincoln Faction opposed the Jefferson type of federal government. For one thing, the Jefferson federal government would give power to the states to correct and over rule policies which would harm the people. The Lincoln type federal government would not do that, though the Lincoln federal government still allowed for some checks and balances by allowing the three separate branches of government to stay in place.

In our history, the administration of Andrew Jackson was a Jeffersonian type federal government, which governed at a time in history a number of years before the Lincoln administration came to power in 1861. Andrew Jackson was of Scots-Irish heritage, both in genetics and culture, while the earlier American presidents were of upper middle class English heritage.

For the Second Amendment Andrew Jackson in the War of 1812 was an American hero of the people. Andrew Jackson's militias beat the best army in the world at the Battle of New Orleans. He commanded a very diverse group of militias,which had never fought before together nor trained at all to fight, such as that of the New Orleans Creoles, the Tennessee and Kentucky pioneer militias, with many Scots-Irish men among them who were basically warriers, plus some men from the regular army and an assortment of others like free Blacks, American Indians, and even some Gulf of Mexico pirates, who supplied Jackson with artillery, powder and men to fire the big guns. These guys were all a product of the Second Amendment philosophy of the Jeffersonian type federal government, different from the Army of the Potomac, under Lincoln, which had no militias in it.

Remember that the Federal Army under Lincoln invaded the South and made war upon civilians. Many families who had relatives living in the South during the War of 1861-65 have handed down stories over the generations since 1865 of civilian family members being shot and killed by Lincoln's federal soldiers.

In some cases these family stories of civilian family members being shot and killed by Federal Soldiers in the Federal invasion of the South during the 1861-65 war were written in family histories which still exist. In my own family, for example,in a family history book there is a story about a boy named William, born in 1849 and died in 1862 -"Killed by Yankees on steep hill to grist mill - 13 years old."

 

[Idolater]

National borders do not change inalienable rights.

It's also true that almost every country has an authorized path to gun ownership, regardless of how onerous or unwieldy that sometimes very narrow and treacherous authorized path is. Even Japan has an authorized path. I recommend making a serious effort at getting on that authorized path, wherever you live.

 

[Stripe]

It's also true that almost every country has an authorized path to gun ownership, regardless of how onerous or unwieldy that sometimes very narrow and treacherous authorized path is. Even Japan has an authorized path. I recommend making a serious effort at getting on that authorized path, wherever you live.

A Kiwi in Taiwan. :noid:

 

[Idolater]

A Kiwi in Taiwan. :noid:

If Wikipedia's article is to be trusted on the matter, there are about 1000 civilians in Taiwan authorized to bear arms (in this case, a handgun). Research. What do you have to do to be one of those 1000? I would guess that one thing would be to attain citizenship, and then a whole bunch of other things after that.

Good luck.

And in the meantime, do you carry anything at all that you can use as a weapon in defense of yourself or your family, friends, neighbors, etc.? Many steel handtools, carried in your pocket or in a briefcase or satchel can in a pinch become improvised weapons. Of course they'd necessarily be very close quarters weapons, and not ranged weapons like guns, but already having such a tool on you will be much better than if your safety is ever suddenly threatened and you have to 'make do' with whatever you can find in that sudden and unexpected moment. And I'm sure that there are at least a few of these types of tools that are not illegal to have on your person in Taiwan.

As a stopgap. As better than completely unarmed (=defenseless).

 

[Idolater]

And just in case anybody thinks that leos (law enforcement officers) don't use assault rifles or selective fire carbines, or that people are the only entities that can threaten your or your loved ones' safety:

https://us.cnn.com/2019/06/14/us/coyote-attack-new-jersey-trnd/index.html

. . . the coyote¹ lunged at the woman . . . bit the woman on the back of her leg and went after the child, biting his right leg . . . [and] lunged at her again before taking off into a wooded area.

...
[An leo] spotted the coyote . . . . Armed with an M4² . . . . The coyote "began to aggressively approach" the [leo] . . . [and the leo] fired several shots "to protect [themself]," . . . and killed the coyote.

Everybody possesses the inalienable right to bear arms.


¹ - Not a human!
² - Not an assault weapon!

 

[Town Heretic]

The fact remains that we can defend the right and our persons, property, loved ones without assault rifles, distinguished singularly for their unusual ability to kill great numbers of people in remarkably short order.

And in time we'll do something about that. Bump stocks were just the beginning of redrawing a rational line in the sand in terms of exercise balanced against the right of all of us to the thing without which every other right fails to have meaning: the right to the quiet enjoyment of our lives.

 

[ok doser]

... I hold civilians a little responsible for the carnage, because so many civilians are not exercising their right to bear arms at all....

I consider being prepared to defend the life and limb of my neighbor as just being a good neighbor myself, and I think we can collectively improve the world if we all felt similarly, and worked to begin exercising our right to bear arms, at least in preparation to defend the life and limb of our neighbors, if not ourselves, and our families and loved ones, and other innocent of capital crimes people.

Amen, brother :thumb: