Mr. Executive Order and Chief at it again

[rogue06]

Vehicular assaults are capable of killing large numbers of people.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...cks/544603002/

And you are significantly more likely to be killed by a vehicle than by a gun.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/what...a-gun-or-a-car

Shall we start making it harder for honest, law abiding citizens to own and drive vehicles?

(The typical liberal counter argument is "Vehicles aren't intended for killing!" but does design intent really matter when they still kill a hell of a lot of people?)

And the driver of a vehicle can be responsible for a high number of fatalities. Has everyone forgot the Islamic terrorist in Nice, France who mowed over all those people in 2016 resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others? That's even more killed and wounded than the largest mass shooting (the sniper attack on the outdoor concert in Las Vegas the following year).

The irony is you often hear folks complain that we need to regulate guns as strictly as we do cars revealing the depths of their ignorance.

[kccd]

And the driver of a vehicle can be responsible for a high number of fatalities. Has everyone forgot the Islamic terrorist in Nice, France who mowed over all those people in 2016 resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others? That's even more killed and wounded than the largest mass shooting (the sniper attack on the outdoor concert in Las Vegas the following year).

The irony is you often hear folks complain that we need to regulate guns as strictly as we do cars revealing the depths of their ignorance.

And McVeigh killed 169 with a bomb made of readily available chemicals.

The point is that most anything can be used to kill, but guns are designed to kill, and modern sophisticated weapons modelled after battlefield weapons are designed to kill many people quickly and efficiently. Therefore, guns should be regulated and restricted.

[Mountain Man]

...guns are designed to kill...

You think our Founding Fathers didn't realize that when they wrote the Second Amendment?

[kccd]

You think our Founding Fathers didn't realize that when they wrote the Second Amendment?

Which is why they wanted gun ownership tied to membership in a well-regulated militia which was to serve in place of a standing army.
Well, now we have a standing army, and the closest thing we have to a well-regulated militia is the National Guard.

[Gondwanaland]

Which is why they wanted gun ownership tied to membership in a well-regulated militia which was to serve in place of a standing army.
Well, now we have a standing army, and the closest thing we have to a well-regulated militia is the National Guard.

Er.... no. Gun ownership was not tied to a well regulated militia. Gun owners, themselves, were the militia.

[Mountain Man]

Which is why they wanted gun ownership tied to membership in a well-regulated militia...

This is false. There was no such requirement written into the Constitution even though liberals have tried to interpret it that way for years.

[Cow Poke]

Which is why they wanted gun ownership tied to membership in a well-regulated militia which was to serve in place of a standing army.
Well, now we have a standing army, and the closest thing we have to a well-regulated militia is the National Guard.

wrong - Trump.jpg

A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel or (historically) to members of a warrior nobility class (e.g. knights or samurai).

[Cow Poke]

Er.... no. Gun ownership was not tied to a well regulated militia. Gun owners, themselves, were the militia.

Well, some of them had pitchforks, swords, knives, clubs, slingshots....

[kccd]

Er.... no. Gun ownership was not tied to a well regulated militia. Gun owners, themselves, were the militia.

So who was doing the "well-regulating". You know the part of the 2A that gun enthusiasts ignore and often leave out?

[kccd]

wrong - Trump.jpg

A militia is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a country, or subjects of a state, who may perform military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel or (historically) to members of a warrior nobility class (e.g. knights or samurai).

Who runs these organizations, and who ensures they are "well-regulated"?

[Gondwanaland]

So who was doing the "well-regulating". You know the part of the 2A that gun enthusiasts ignore and often leave out?

They were. Going out, practicing shooting, getting together with others to practice, etc.

"well-regulated" had nothing to do with passing regulations on things. It meant everything being in proper working order, being effective.

[Mountain Man]

kccd is a liberal. The concept of individuals regulating their own behavior without government oversight is foreign to her.

[Cow Poke]

Who runs these organizations, and who ensures they are "well-regulated"?

They tend to have their own chains of command, and their rights to do so shall not be infringed.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Do you understand "infringed"?

[rogue06]

And McVeigh killed 169 with a bomb made of readily available chemicals.

The point is that most anything can be used to kill, but guns are designed to kill, and modern sophisticated weapons modelled after battlefield weapons are designed to kill many people quickly and efficiently. Therefore, guns should be regulated and restricted.

A firearm can kill but it does not have to do so in order to perform the desired function with it. Just the sound of a pump shotgun chambering a round from the other side of a closed door has been known to rapidly sober up a bunch of idiots on more than one instance, who then, coincidentally, suddenly decide it would be a good idea to vacate the vicinity at that time. That this is indeed the case pretty much invalidates your assertion or at least the implication that is all it can do. It can also prevent injuries and loss of life by intimidating would be assailants.

[rogue06]

Which is why they wanted gun ownership tied to membership in a well-regulated militia which was to serve in place of a standing army.
Well, now we have a standing army, and the closest thing we have to a well-regulated militia is the National Guard.

Not. Even. Remotely. Close.

I mean, if the 2nd Amendment was meant to establish the National Guard, why did it take Congress 130 years to establish the National Guard (from 1787 to 1917) to do so?

No. The 2A is an individual right as was universally interpreted as such up until the 20th cent. when some folks decided to get a bit too clever.