Don't waste your time if you want to buy a hand gun
doesn't matter. years ago, i had a friend who did not want to carry concealed. he wanted a full size .45 revolver with a 15 inch barrel in a hip holster. that way everybody would know that he was armed. even if it would take half a minute to draw.
my position is much more conservative. anybody can have as many guns of any type that they want and can carry, provided they were available when the second amendment was written. they even had rifled barrels then. max rate of fire for a Kentucky Long Rifle was about 2 rounds per minute due to the tight fit of ball to barrel. lots less damage volume, but very accurate.
"anybody can have as many guns of any type that they want and can carry, provided they were available when the second amendment was written."
Thank you sir. I have been waiting to see someone bring some context into discussion. Now I don't know that I suscribe to your stance in detail, but the point should be that people seem to be somewhat misrepresenting what the intent of the second amendment was in the day it was written. In those days we were concerned about being invaded by the armies of foreign countries (and were). Does anyone here feel that is a threat today?
I own numerous firearms. It seems to be a traditional requirement living in Ky. I enjoy target shooting. Everyone here does. Anyone here like the exploding targets? Big fun!
What I don't see is a use for is military style automatic weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens. What I don't understand is why some people have to go through a background check and others do not. You want to drive a car, you get a license.... you want anything more than a 6 shooter or a hunting rifle, you get specially licensed for that too!
I am unaware of historical text that indicates that the second amendment was primarily passed based on the ability of the public to be armed against an invasion by another country. Personally I don't think that individuals think this way. I think individuals wanted to have guns because they wanted one for themselves and not so they would be ready to defend the country for the common good. I think you imagine a people who were only thinking of the welfare of others when in fact they were thinking of their own welfare. If all it was so that the US could be armed for defense against invasion then I don't think there would have been enough passionate support to make it amendment. You get support from individuals when you do something that benefits individuals. At that time people were more worried about marauding Indians (they did not call them Native Americans back then just like we don't call the Italians Romans or vise versa) than attacks from other countries. Also in the recent past they were used to the British as occupiers and were used to British soldiers being able to enter anyone's home at will and do as they pleased. The idea of having a guns to be able intimidate people from behaving this way made them feel empowered. And that was a feeling they enjoyed very much. Also at the time many people used guns to hunt for food. Anyone who went into the wilderness would have been killed by a hostile Indian or a predator if they could not defend against such attacks. You would have been insane to go into the wilderness unarmed.
However, now days there are some neighborhoods in many cities that are more dangerous than the wilderness was back them. And if you are not a member of certain minorities if you enter these neighborhoods you are effectively committing suicide. I personally would not go to any of these places unarmed. However my solution is not to go there at all as I am one of the people who may as well put a bulls eye on myself. I would be inviting trouble just because I am who I am.
eagle, i will go one step further, even though i have taken some heat for it over the years.
if you want to buy a gun of any type, i will let you under some circumstances.
1. the ballistics are registered, so that if a slug gets picked out of a person we all know who did it.
2. YOU own whatever happens as a result of that gun. if somebody burgles your home and manages to get into your gun safe, and then kills somebody with your piece, you have some responsibility. a faulty safe or whatever, you have some responsibility.
3. i don't want to take your guns, but do you really need that many rounds per minute to defend yourself? i think that a lot of bad guys would leave you alone if you openly packed a .45 on your hip. even if it only fired 2 rounds per minute.
i don't have anything more lethal than a .177 pellet/BB rifle/pistol, unless you count three really cowardly dogs. sadly, the bad guys don't know how cowardly they are.
for far too long the debate has been polarized between "BAN ALL GUNS" and "ALLOW ALL GUNS". NOT THAT SIMPLE.