As long as one is a legal gun owner, yes. 1 shou[ld be able to carry a gun anytime and anywhere without the government telling them they cannot. Private property owners can do as they wish.

As long as one is a "legal" gun owner. So, there are... laws regulating gun ownership?

As you can see, everyone here, probably acknowledges that there should be laws regarding gun ownership!

So, it's not really an issue of a literal interpretation of the 2A, just a difference in opinion regarding the laws of gun ownership. I wonder, then, why it is, when my opinion on the nature of laws regarding gun ownership differs from others, people tell me "shall not be infringed" or "you don't support the 2A" and in essence, "why are you on this forum"?

EDIT: 2A is "keep" and "bear". If laws can be made for "keep", why not "bear"? Also, what happens if you're in the military and then you tell the armorer that your 2A allows you to carry any gun you want, not the ones they wish to issue you?

As long as one is a "legal" gun owner. So, there are... laws regulating gun ownership?

As you can see, everyone here, probably acknowledges that there should be laws regarding gun ownership!

So, it's not really an issue of a literal interpretation of the 2A, just a difference in opinion regarding the laws of gun ownership. I wonder, then, why it is, when my opinion on the nature of laws regarding gun ownership differs from others, people tell me "shall not be infringed" or "you don't support the 2A" and in essence, "why are you on this forum"?

EDIT: 2A is "keep" and "bear". If laws can be made for "keep", why not "bear"? Also, what happens if you're in the military and then you tell the armorer that your 2A allows you to carry any gun you want, not the ones they wish to issue you?

Your requirement means that a person with a clean record cannot carry a gun outside the home. Essentially, doing what HI did by saying you have no 2A once you leave your front door (prior to Buren). That is the big difference.

I never said that there's anything wrong with different opinions of gun ownership.  Just your current one in this thread and Kit's thread.

LOL!  There you go again -- telling me what I feel.  you just can't help it, huh?  I wasn't upset -- it was an attention getter -- which obviously worked.      Too bad you were more concerned with the delivery than the message.

Just because a particular thought is different doesn't mean it's better.  Your thoughts are not new.   I have a feeling i've lived through more government administrations than you have.  Your "ideas' have been tried, and this is where it's gotten us.

Your comments about my brother are pure hypothetical nonsense.  First you tell me what my brother might have felt (totally wrong), and now you want to theorize that without family, etc, he would have had a different opinion of incarceration.  You're falling into the same liberal mindset that got us here.  Rather than treat everyone as an individual, you want to pigeonhole criminals based on their circumstances and decide what's best for them as a group.

What do you think would have been a better punishment for my brother?  He was given 6 months to pay less than $400 in restitution and court costs.  When he didn't, he was jailed for contempt of court.   My mother couldn't bail him out on Monday because she got paid on Thursday.  I came home from college for that holiday weekend, and had i not, my mother would have been short the funds to get him out.  She brought the amount he said he owed, but he didn't think about the court costs -- and they wouldn't take a check (would have been ironic in a bounced check case). 

Tell me, what does your sense of fairness and "crime prevention" prescribe for that scenario?

Actually, not only just "hypothetical nonsense", but they're based on science. "Social Control Theory".

Based on what you have said about you, your brother, and mother, suggests that your social bonds and social controls are stronger than in other cases. I'm just trying to illustrate that thinking "harsh jail sentences" are the only thing that prevents people from committing crimes is an extremely outdated method of thinking. Once upon a time, we thought every crime was a crime against "god" and that when people committed crimes they were under the control of "demons". In some lesser developed places in the world, they still have this method of thinking.

Actually, not only just "hypothetical nonsense", but they're based on science. "Social Control Theory".

Based on what you have said about you, your brother, and mother, suggests that your social bonds and social controls are stronger than in other cases. I'm just trying to illustrate that thinking "harsh jail sentences" are the only thing that prevents people from committing crimes is an extremely outdated method of thinking. Once upon a time, we thought every crime was a crime against "god" and that when people committed crimes they were under the control of "demons". In some lesser developed places in the world, they still have this method of thinking.

Nobody said that, so why are you "illustrating" anything?

As for execution and life in prison, it absolutely DOES deter people from criminal acts.  It's a proven fact that every single person executed has never committed another crime.   

Do executions and life sentences deter ALL capital crimes?  Of course not, but there's no way to know whether or not someone decided against murder or rape based on the potential consequences. 

Nobody said that, so why are you "illustrating" anything?

Well, you're very hard to understand sometimes--it does deter (assuming corpses can be deterred from engaging in further action); but it's impossible to know if anything deters. I have to "illustrate", because when I attempt to bring science into the picture, you never seem to acknowledge it, yet you refer to elements of criminology in some of your posts even if you don't know the technical terms for those things by name. "Hedonic Calculus"; "Social Control Theory" etc. have you tried reading into those things, or have you already made up your mind?

If a couple sentences are "word salad", I don't imagine giving you access to a study posted to an academic journal will be of much value to you. You rejected my thoughts, even told me you don't care what I think (and that you're older than me, for whatever reason), so I think it's best to say that you've made up your mind.

Stack bot

You are creating a false dichotomy. There are plenty of options between our current practice of letting ‘em all out vs torture chambers and reinstatement of the death penalty. I’m curious if you just don’t get what’s going on with our institutional failure or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters.

Stack bot

You are creating a false dichotomy. There are plenty of options between our current practice of letting ‘em all out vs torture chambers and reinstatement of the death penalty. I’m curious if you just don’t get what’s going on with our institutional failure or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters.

Calling someone a "bot" is an incredibly unsophisticated, low IQ insult.

Ironic you're saying I created a false dichotomy on a forum where anyone who doesn't wholly agree with the popularist majority is shunned as an outcast. This becomes even more clear when you refer to my posts as "muddying the water", as if I'm trying to keep you from peering into your scrying pool to find comfort in your narrow world view when in reality all I am trying to do is open up intellectual discussions with my academic insights.

Ironic you're saying I created a false dichotomy on a forum where anyone who doesn't wholly agree with the popularist majority is shunned as an outcast. This becomes even more clear when you refer to my posts as "muddying the water", as if I'm trying to keep you from peering into your scrying pool to find comfort in your narrow world view when in reality all I am trying to do is open up intellectual discussions with my academic insights.

This is not true.  I have disagreed with others here over the years and when challenged to show how I came about, it was either accepted (i was right) or not accepted and I admitted I was wrong.  Which means my logic was backed up by evidence or it was wrong as my evidence wasn't good.

Then there were situations where I went based solely on feelings and stated the why.  No one has ever shunned me or made fun of me.

It comes down to how you reply when challenged.  If you show no evidence or it's wrong and continue to dig a deeper hole, then what happens happens. 

So instead of blaming "group thought" or things like that, maybe you need to look at yourself instead.

What this forum does use well is logic over feelings.  There have been many postings that lacked logic and yet the person refuses to admit they are wrong.  This is when we see threads going on and on and on.  Go look back and read any thread in the political section that has more than 20 pages.  Read from page 1 to the end.  Example: The person posted a link and only read the first few sentences. Only  to read the entire page, their statement was entirely wrong and the link they posted to support their view actually didn't support it.  Then said person refused to admit they were wrong. And on and on and on.

Calling someone a "bot" is an incredibly unsophisticated, low IQ insult.

Not if it's true. I can't peer through the computer and see what's going on but what I can say is your arguments come off a lot like a propagandizing chat bot.

"...as if I'm trying to keep you from peering into your scrying pool to find comfort in your narrow world view when in reality all I am trying to do is open up intellectual discussions with my academic insights."

Who talks like that anyway?

Well, you're very hard to understand sometimes--it does deter (assuming corpses can be deterred from engaging in further action); but it's impossible to know if anything deters. I have to "illustrate", because when I attempt to bring science into the picture, you never seem to acknowledge it, yet you refer to elements of criminology in some of your posts even if you don't know the technical terms for those things by name. "Hedonic Calculus"; "Social Control Theory" etc. have you tried reading into those things, or have you already made up your mind?

If a couple sentences are "word salad", I don't imagine giving you access to a study posted to an academic journal will be of much value to you. You rejected my thoughts, even told me you don't care what I think (and that you're older than me, for whatever reason), so I think it's best to say that you've made up your mind.

So, rather than attempt a dialogue, you see this is a contest where the end game is to convince me you're right and i'm wrong.

Do you even care how unproductive and abrasive your attitude is? 

i never said I don't care what you think. What I wrote was. "I didn't write all of that because I care what you think.  i wrote it so everyone else can read it and decide for themselves which of us has a better grasp of the problems and solutions."

Once again you assumed what i meant instead of reading what I wrote. 

As long as one is a "legal" gun owner. So, there are... laws regulating gun ownership?

As you can see, everyone here, probably acknowledges that there should be laws regarding gun ownership!

So, it's not really an issue of a literal interpretation of the 2A, just a difference in opinion regarding the laws of gun ownership. I wonder, then, why it is, when my opinion on the nature of laws regarding gun ownership differs from others, people tell me "shall not be infringed" or "you don't support the 2A" and in essence, "why are you on this forum"?

EDIT: 2A is "keep" and "bear". If laws can be made for "keep", why not "bear"? Also, what happens if you're in the military and then you tell the armorer that your 2A allows you to carry any gun you want, not the ones they wish to issue you?

Your ideas are nothing new. Basically what your kind does is they find one teeny weeny little gun law (like background checks) then use that one law as a way to justify a multitude of different laws that satisfy your feelings. Kinda like Biden does when he talks about gun control. 2A supporters are done playing those games. What you don’t realize is that someone further left than you will take your “common sense gun control” and double it and give it to the next generation of gun owners. No thank you.