[GW:225] It's So Easy To Buy A Gun

Jul 2011
Memphis, Tn.
It's about all the answer your little game deserves.

Now, before you start whining about "what game am I playing" . . . or something else that won't contribute to anything just stop it and move on.

Have a great rest of your Saturday.
What "game" would that be, exactly?
I don't live in fear if that's what you're asking . . . so yes . . . but that's often a choice IMO.

A fear of something quite specific is NOT "living in fear."
You people have a difficult time talking like educated adults it seems.
May 2012
Upper Bucks County, PA
You people have a difficult time talking like educated adults it seems.
That statement rings very hollow when you've spent page after page in this thread engaged in twaddle while there are two posts directed to you, directly rebutting you, that you are ignoring . . .


Dec 2015
No, it is a permit issued from the government that allows you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roadways. You are tested on, and the license is issued for the specific type of vehicle you are permitted to drive (e.g., passenger car, commercial truck with different grades of license according to gross vehicle weight).

The possession and use of a gun is a right, government has been granted no power to exert any control or influence over the the possession and use of a private citizen's personal arms that is not a breach of peace.
Yet our government does exert control and influence over the possession and use of private citizen's personal arms.

Take California for example. The Mulford Act was passed and signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1967 with NRA support.

FACT CHECK: Did the NRA Support a 1967 'Open Carry' Ban in California?

And just so you get the full picture, the background check is a requirement placed on a firearm dealer who is issued a license by the government to conduct business focused on the buying and selling of firearms. The seller is required by law to collect information on the buyer and run the check on anyone buying a gun under his/her license. A citizen allowing the check to be done (showing ID, filling out and signing the requisite forms -- under penalty of law for misrepresentation) is an indignity and intrusion suffered for the access to the retail firearm marketplace -- which the government has deemed to be under its complete regulatory authority.

OTOH, requiring private citizens to perform a check run when they dispose of their personal property (AKA, a "universal background check" on a "private sale) is a freedom loss. The government has no legitimate interest in the property of a private citizen.

The question makes no sense (spamking's use of the word 'freedom' was in the context of liberty) but if you are asking if a person has a "right" to be safe or feel safe, the answer is an unequivocal NO!
Last edited:
Likes: Hollywood
Dec 2015
There is also the 1934 National Firearms Act which is chock-full of government exerting control over and influencing the possession and use of private citizen's personal arms.
Dec 2015
The 2nd Amendment is not a provision mandating tactical equivalency. It only is intended to keep the original ratios of numerical superiority the framers recognized and understood as "securing the free state".

The framers stated in 1788 that the largest standing army that could be maintained in the US would, at most, amount to 1% of the total population. These government forces would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word James Madison used) by "citizens with arms in their hands" by a ratio of 17 to 1.

In modern times that superiority has grown a bit with the right being recognized for all people. That ratio now stands at about 25 armed citizens opposing every soldier (2.9 million active duty and reserve military vs 75+/- million "citizens with arms in their hands".

While the framers did not envision every person being armed, they certainly desired a significant percentage of the population to be properly situated with small arms, ready to resist with violence the standing army of a government of usurpers.

That ratio is arguably the only condition the framers intended to preserve with the enactment of the 2nd Amendment, for, while the government is legitimate, acting under the authority of the Constitution, that mass of armed, civic minded citizens would allow the civil authorities to organize militia from the people, when necessary, calling out the farmers, butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of the community and have them muster with an appropriate arm supplied by themselves and a couple days provisions.

OTOH, if the government de-legitimizes itself by violating the principles of its establishment, it is then no longer -- the government established by the Constitution -- it is something else, not able to claim the protections of the compact and subject to the people rescinding their consent to be governed, with violence if necessary.

Just to address how this does relate to the tactical, it is worthy of noting that at the height of the Iraq War, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents ranged between 8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence). With 160,000 troops in country our guys enjoyed at worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage. And in the opinion of many we were in a quagmire and losing.

Just imagine for a moment if there were 3+/- million insurgents opposing our 160,000 troops (Madison's 17-1 ratio), and many of the insurgents were very familiar with American heavy weapon platforms and endeavored to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up?

I wouldn't put much stock in the Federalist Papers making your argument.

Similar Discussions