The Truth About The 2nd Amendment

[max-webster]

@TWR

UK, Australia, Canada have never had enough mass shootings to show that any gun laws passed since those events have had any statistical effect.

That wasn’t my point, my point was they enacted draconian laws after a mass shooting because the public wanted politicians to do something

@TWR

Legal gun ownership levels in the UK and Australia has never been more than a fraction of that of the US either.

Not true, at one time in the UK citizens were allowed to bear arms until I think it was William of Orange that was shot and killed and Parliament slowly started restricting the weapons.

In Canada almost the same thing until their first Prime minister added laws to prevent ■■■■■ Indians, Blacks escaping to Canada from slave states from owning guns and it skyrocketed from there.

The left doesnt understand history, all they have to do is read, and skip the reality TV shows and social media crap and actually learn something.

[TWR]

Even in that era they never had anything approaching our levels of civilian firearms ownership.

They were so expensive that it was still pretty well reserved only for the ruling class.

Canada was similar to the US in the colonial era and during westward expansion which is why I didn’t include them.

Australia was a penal colony so gun ownership there was extremely restricted only to the ruling class/gentry.

[imjimo258]

With out going to far into the poll you can see that it was tilted to the left to insure the results !

Fox News Poll – Margin of Error for Subgroups

The Fox News Poll is conducted under the joint direction of Beacon Research (D) (

formerly known as Anderson Robbins Research

) and Shaw & Company Research ®. It was conducted by telephone (landline and cellphone) with live interviewers August 11-13, 2019 among a random national sample of 1,013 registered voters. Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. Results among the attached subgroups have larger sampling errors:

Registered Voters Overall sample: +/- 3%

— Men: +/- 4%

Women: +/- 4%

White: +/- 3.5% the white population 60.7% of the U.S. !

Black: +/- 8% 12.3% of the U.S. population is black

Non-White: +/- 6% 13.8

White Men: +/- 5% Non-Hispanic whites totaled about 197,285,202 or 60.7% of the U.S. population .

White Women: +/- 5%

Non-White Men: +/- 8%

Non-White Women: +/- 7.5%

Under Age 45: +/- 5%

Age 45+: +/- 4%

Income Under $50k: +/- 5%

Income $50k+: +/- 4%

Democrats: +/- 4.5%

Republicans: +/- 4.5%

Independents:+/- 8.5%

Democratic Men: +/- 7%

Democratic Women: +/- 6%

Republican Men: +/- 6.5%

Republican Women: +/- 7%

Urban: +/- 6%

Suburban: +/- 5%

Rural: +/- 5%

Suburban Women: +/- 7%

Rural Whites: +/- 6%

Trump Voters: +/- 5%

Clinton Voters: +/- 4.5%

White College Degree: +/- 5.5%

White No Degree: +/- 4.5%

White College Degree Men: +/- 8%

White No Degree Men: +/- 7%

White College Degree Women: +/- 8%

White No Degree Women: +/- 6.5%

Liberal: +/- 5%

Moderate: +/- 7%

Conservative: +/- 4.5%

White Evangelical: +/- 7%

White Catholic: +/- 7.5%

Gun Owner Households: +/- 5%

[montecresto1]

Yep, Fox News is left…

[imjimo258]

You ever watch fox news ?
Its got its share of Trump haters !
You can go down the poll and see that it doesn’t reflect the actual population .

[Dr_Manhattan]

That matters not what type of gun, what’s matters is what the 2nd was intended for! You cucktified your country after you gave away your power and your whining about our guns laws or our constitution will not change that! What I find most ironic is a British citizen trying to virtue signal why guns are bad when it was your country in the first place is the reason the 2nd was created!

[Dr_Manhattan]

Tucker nails it in this OPEd piece!

American Tragedy

[TWR]

We keep hearing about the “fallacy” that an armed populace in the US could successfully rebel against the gov’t.

Philly gives us a glimpse into just how effective even a single well armed man who is determined can be.

Armed only with an AR and some handguns, he successfully held over 300 PB cops and feds off for 12 hours.

Multiply that times 20-30 million well armed men and women actually willing to die if they must to resist when the left comes for their guns.

[Dr_Manhattan]

Do you mean Philly? Or a separate incident from another past event?

[TWR]

Yep, sorry, should have been paying better attention.

[cerberus]

I don’t think you understand where I’m coming from; I’m not anti-gun per se, nor pro, I’m saying that societies would be better off without them, but since that isn’t possible, then everybody should be allowed to have them for their own self-protection??

[Samm]

@montecresto1

@Samm

Which is exactly why we fight so vigorously against any attempt to limit or rght to keep and bear arms.

Oh there’s no mystery to your efforts, they’re just vain. For one, as mass shootings continue to increase, more and more Americans will support increasing restrictions, but more importantly, you’ll never take on your own government with any success whatsoever. Though so many of you clearly have a morbidly romantic fascination with the notion, and the thought of fighting to the death gets your testosterone flowing, it’s a wholly unrealistic enterprise.

Until you amend the Constitution to remove or severely gut the 2nd Amendment, we will resist your attempts to violate our right to keep and bear arms. And we will resist your efforts to do that even more vigorously. That is the reality of the situation.

[TWR]

Monte keeps telling us that an armed citizenry could never effectively resist confiscation.

Wednesday in Philly though a single armed man managed to resist literally hundreds of local, state, and federal LEO’s for more than 12 hours before surrendering finally without incident.

Multiply that by 10-30 or even 50 million people willing to actually fight and likely die to resist confiscation nationwide.

We have only about 2.5 million sworn LEO’s including all LE agencies from locals to the feds.

[Dr_Manhattan]

I was not questioning on whether or not your anti gun but the mere fact that you made a false equivalency about the type of gun available at the time the 2nd Amendment was written compared to today’s firearms! You miss the point on why we have the 2nd and it matters not what that firearm is!

[cerberus]

Well as I thought I’d made clear - in those days nobody would have believed that guns would be invented which could obliterate a garden shed from 500 yards. Why are you making a mountain out of a molehill?

[Dr_Manhattan]

No one is making a mountain out of nothing, you are simply incorrect when making such arguments! The 2nd Amendment has a purpose which you conveniently ignore! Try rereading what I originally said!

[cerberus]

Sorry but I’m not interested in interpreting the ambiguities or otherwise of the 2nd Amendment, my interest is in realtime stuff. I actually believe there should be an amendment to the Amendment to reflect what today’s weapons are capable of.

[Dr_Manhattan]

And that is the difference between why you are considered a subject and why I am a citizen of our respective countries! If you can’t bother to take the time to understand why we have the 2nd then you lose the argument on ignorance alone! The 2nd doesn’t need to be amended and we have laws already on the books to address gun safety concerns but are not being enforced. If you refuse to educate yourself on this issue than you have no business arguing by putting forth such an absurd premise! You look rather ignorant for doing so! Clearly you are out of your scope from truly understanding this issue from an American point of view!

[TWR]

And that’s completely false as we’ve repeatedly pointed out.

Again the colonial rifled muskets were a huge step up in tech from the guns the British carried.

They could shoot accurately at twice the range the British could and reload as fast or faster giving them at least five shots to every 3 the brits were able to fire accurately in return.

They also lived in an age of invention and rapid advances in military tech when repeaters and muti barreled rifles, cannon, and even pistols had already been invented.

Additionally as has already been pointed out as well quite a few of them were inventors, artisans, craftsman, architects and engineers all of whom understood that the tech would advance greatly over time.

There’s absolutely zero reason to believe they assumed military/weapons tech would not advance and advance both significantly and rapidly into the future.

The first integrated cartridges were invented while many of them were still serving in congress, as president, or in state offices and the first metallic cartridges were invented while most of them were still alive.

To achieve the purpose the founders outlined the 2nd should be amended to read that “The People” have the right keep and bear arms equal to, or better than are issued to the nation’s police and military forces so that when necessary the modern Minute Men, can still show up equipped to do battle on even terms should the gov’t turn against us and to protect against invasion".

[imjimo258]

The Blunderbuss (born of the Dutch word “Donderbus”, appropriately meaning “Thunder Pipe” or “Thunder Gun”) came to prominence in the early part of the 18th Century (1701-1800) and was more akin to the modern day shotgun than a “long gun” musket or heavy pistol of the time. As such, she excelled in close-in fighting, be it within the confines of naval warfare or walled nature of the urban environment, where her spread of shot could inflict maximum damage to targets at close ranges. Its manageable size, coupled with its spread shot, ensured some level of accuracy for even the novice user and its appearance was rather intimidating to those unfortunate enough to be staring down the business end. As with modern shotgun firearms, the Blunderbuss also made for an excellent security-minded weapon and soon found popularity amongst all matter of operators - military, civilian and, of course, criminal parties - by the middle of the 1700s. Even George Washington championed the Blunderbuss for Continental Army “Dragoon” units of the burgeoning American military as opposed to the carbine musket - a “carbine” this being nothing more than a full-featured long gun of lesser overall length, proving suitable for horse-mounted handling. In fact, the short-form version of the Blunderbuss came to be known as the “Dragon”, giving rise to the term “Dragoon” for such gun-wielding cavalrymen. Dragoons went on to form specialized units of mounted infantrymen within their respective armies during the end of the 17th Century and into the middle of the 18th Century - in a way, becoming an evolutionary step of the fabled mounted knight of the Middle Ages. Their use of Dragons soon gave way to the widely-accepted carbine musket. The Blunderbuss was also known as the “Blunderbess”.

A rifle is a poor tool for close work a handgun or even better a short barrel shotgun loaded with 12 Gauge* 0 or 00 Buckshot 12 Pellets per shot vastly superior to the modern rifle !