Is it time to talk about guns?

I'm not licensed to carry a gun, don't want to carry a gun, don't live in continual fear, am not looking for trouble, and I am peace loving and prudent and aware myself.

 

Thank you for provided that disclaimer to the supposed Yamamoto quote.

The jury is still out means there is no proof that it was ever made. Ipso facto you can't claim he made the quote (well you can but you'd be wrong).

You asked if I believed in the 2nd I said I did but I don't think it was intended as a way to overthrow our government as many gun advocates do.
Do you think the 2nd gives you the right to overthrow our government?
Do you think the government has the right to restrict certain types of arms, say assault weapons, the use of, possession of, and the enactment of laws prescribing where you can legally carry them, etc.?

Why are you threatening to end a conversation if January 6 is mentioned?
Do you commonly debate by issuing threats?

 

Please stop attributing homicide rates to one factor in two widely different groups. Like every other thing in their society is equal. That shows a really poor understanding of how societies function.

 

I don't know what you heard but that's not what I said. Guns themselves are harmless, they just lay around doing nothing. What I said was please stop attributing homicide rates to one factor in two widely different groups.

 

I fixed you post for you as you had the quotes goofed up. Please tell me if I got it wrong.

Now on to the substance.

An absence of proof is not proof of an occurrence.
By your reasoning if I can't find proof of you stating you would like to overthrow the government I can quote that you would like to overthrow the government.

You don't believe the 2nd grants us the right to use weapons to overthrow our own government. Good I agree, that was not the intent of the 2nd.

However you think that common citizens, criminals, youngsters, etc. should be allowed to own and operate any type of weapon at any time in any place with no restrictions at all and all law regarding weapons are illegal according to the 2nd?

You made a statement of fact regarding how you debate or carry on a conversation, I understand that. I was asking why you made that statement.

 

Just because most people think Washington chopped down a cherry tree doesn't mean he chopped down a cherry tree and using an unsubstantiated quote to make a point doesn't prove anything.

So you do believe the 2nd allows for the banning of assault weapons, open carry, concealed carry, who may own a gun, etc.?
Do you have any problems with current gun laws in any local or federal jurisdictions?
For example, if your local jurisdiction were to ban the ownership of assault weapons, or require all guns to be registered would you have any difficulty with that?

 

So you don't support the federal banning of destructive devices?

1. You are okay with your neighbor placing landmines around his house?
   Do you support the regulation of certain guns such as machine and punt guns which are heavily regulated, registered, and taxed so as to put them beyond the reach of most citizens?

 

Thank you but I don't need an armed guard.

 

Cool.
So the point I am trying to make is that you have no trouble with the banning of certain types of weapons, specifically those that would be most useful if some country like Japan were to invade us, but you feel other types of weapons are perfectly okay.

Now, where is the cut off point. What makes some weapons subject to a ban or heavy regulation and others not?