Mass Bow & Arrow Killing - Where are the Bow Control pundits?

As usual the boys make fallacious argument with false balance.

In an America where everyone has guns, and apparently anyone with the will can use anything with equal effect so a "mass killing" of four elderly people with a chopstick is the same as 70+ with guns.

Just idiots who have never experienced a firefight and in their fantasy world think THEY will rise to the occasion and be the good guy with a gun. A walking shooting bumper sticker.
 
Last edited:
Wallet said:
Owning a gun inside city limits was allowed, you couldn’t carry them, keep them at home. Visitors had to check them, law office or hotel.

There’s a difference between restricting the lawful carry vs. lawful ownership.
More...
"to keep and bear arms" would disagree
 
Cuddles said:
"to keep and bear arms" would disagree
More...
UsualName made the correlation between the Old West, towns barring the open carrying of firearms, visitors having to check said weapons and today’s gun ownership legalities.

Back then no one restricted the “ownership” of guns, in fact basically everyone owed a firearm. What was argued was the right to carry firearms openly in town.

I’m all for restricting “open carry”. It’s stupid, on many different levels, for the average citizen to openly carry a firearm in public.

I’m all for allowing “concealed carry”. Check backgrounds if you want, add a safety course too. But a law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry and defend oneself.
 
Wallet said:
UsualName made the correlation between the Old West, towns barring the open carrying of firearms, visitors having to check said weapons and today’s gun ownership legalities.

Back then no one restricted the “ownership” of guns, in fact basically everyone owed a firearm. What was argued was the right to carry firearms openly in town.
More...
And I'm saying constitutional absolutists would say that was wrong then, and there is no "difference" in restricting carrying or owning as you claim. Obviously absolutists would put restriction on responsible ownership by the reading of "well regulated militia".
 
Cuddles said:
And I'm saying constitutional absolutists would say that was wrong then, and there is no "difference" in restricting carrying or owning as you claim. Obviously absolutists would put restriction on responsible ownership by the reading of "well regulated militia".
More...
Totally disagree, Framers wanted an armed populace.

We have in society restraints on firearms in the public, can’t carry on planes, in federal buildings, etc. no one, except maybe some zealots, see that as an infringement on gun rights.

Telling a law abiding citizen he can’t own a Semiautomatic weapon - stupid.
 
Last edited:
Well there he is, Espen Andersen Brathen.

16342562793413258612522445990251.jpg
 
The inner city thugs get their murder weapons from states with lax gun laws and then smuggle them into their own hoods where they hunt down victims and also sell the guns to 14 year olds.
 
Wallet said:
UsualName made the correlation between the Old West, towns barring the open carrying of firearms, visitors having to check said weapons and today’s gun ownership legalities.

Back then no one restricted the “ownership” of guns, in fact basically everyone owed a firearm. What was argued was the right to carry firearms openly in town.

I’m all for restricting “open carry”. It’s stupid, on many different levels, for the average citizen to openly carry a firearm in public.

I’m all for allowing “concealed carry”. Check backgrounds if you want, add a safety course too. But a law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry and defend oneself.
More...

So you’re wrong. There were plenty of state and local laws that banned ownership outright of firearms or limited types of firearms. Some of these laws were on the books until as late as 2010. You can check McDonnell v Chicago. This isn’t an abstract thing. From 1791 until 2010 the constitution only protected your right to bear arms as related to a militia.

I welcome any court ruling showing otherwise.

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4825&context=lcp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top