US needs to Amend it Law on use of Weapon for Personal Protection

[Dunamisx]

What is now happening around the world is becoming alarm in that everything needed to be taken with serious cognizance before everyone of Us become the most sorted out for hunting by hoodlums and assassin's in disguise, the purpose for me to write about this topic is strictly concerning the recent incident of the attack aimed at the United States president and how one of the security guards was heated in place of the president upon the attack, what if this assassin got his way through and hit his target, which is the president.

I am saying all this because it is alarming these days the way people have ammunition and such should be discouraged and the public or civilians can be prevented from having access to all these suppliers of weapons and the rest, if you cannot forget so soon the incident of Charlie Kirk, that after the investigation has been made and everything was only concluded on a free bail for the murderer.

The United States government need to understand why they have to amend the law of allowing people to possess arms because the anonymous using such as for defense, but instead used for attack and any other criminal offenses and assassination of anybody they don't feel to go along with, I wonder what would have happened if this man eventually shot the president, of which I believe nothing can be done as regarding the life that would have lost, possession of ammunition should not be allowed in the society, only terrorists are the ones found with such act.

The one that has happened we only know about, but can't predict what may come next, or who may be the next target of anyone illegally possessing ammunition, let's discuss.

[BADecker]

The 2nd Amendment: "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."

The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


The 2nd Amendment has to do with a militia, the military, a State's national guard, the police, possibly an organized group of local militants when necessary.

The 4th Amendment has to do with private property of each individual.


If you own weapons, they are private property. Why? Because you are the only one who can name your property. Nobody else has authority over it.

Your guns are no longer guns. They are private property. They are only guns if you name them that. Otherwise they are private property, or any other name you might want to give them.

If government asks you if you own any guns, tell them no... only private property. But be ready for them to try to force you to name them guns, so that their gun laws can run your life.

[Findingnemo]

The weapon is for personal protection, not to assassinate someone, and with it the tracking can be lot easier to find whose gun it is. But I am not from a place where guns are for people, like in the US but every country got their own way of doing it. I wish they make the security tighter for the public meeting so anyone who is getting in should be thoroughly checked.

[Dunamisx]

If government asks you if you own any guns, tell them no... only private property. But be ready for them to try to force you to name them guns, so that their gun laws can run your life.

Is that not why most people believe that government officials have the immunity that covers them to engage the use of any kind of ammunition for their personal protection and the citizens cannot have the same right to do so, what is the essence of calling something a personal property and you will be forced to mention it is a gun, while those in politics will not be alleged the same way, if we are going to make a law then we should consider that both the rich and the poor, the elite and illiterate are all going to be affected by the same law that has been set.

[o48o]

What is now happening around the world is becoming alarm in that everything needed to be taken with serious cognizance before everyone of Us become the most sorted out for hunting by hoodlums and assassin's in disguise, the purpose for me to write about this topic is strictly concerning the recent incident of the attack aimed at the United States president and how one of the security guards was heated in place of the president upon the attack, what if this assassin got his way through and hit his target, which is the president.

I am saying all this because it is alarming these days the way people have ammunition and such should be discouraged and the public or civilians can be prevented from having access to all these suppliers of weapons and the rest, if you cannot forget so soon the incident of Charlie Kirk, that after the investigation has been made and everything was only concluded on a free bail for the murderer.

The United States government need to understand why they have to amend the law of allowing people to possess arms because the anonymous using such as for defense, but instead used for attack and any other criminal offenses and assassination of anybody they don't feel to go along with, I wonder what would have happened if this man eventually shot the president, of which I believe nothing can be done as regarding the life that would have lost, possession of ammunition should not be allowed in the society, only terrorists are the ones found with such act.

The one that has happened we only know about, but can't predict what may come next, or who may be the next target of anyone illegally possessing ammunition, let's discuss.

Not sure what the rest of the world has to do with US internal gun violence that has been always been a problem.

Ironically enough, it's the MAGA people who needs to change their stance if they want to change their laws. Personally more guns for desperate people with untreated depression or schizophrenia doesn't seem like a great combo in my eyes, while cutting from healthcare. But hey, i am only a psychologist, so what do i know.

And why is the assassination attempt of a president or Charlie triggering this conversation for you and not the numerous school shootings? I mean it's not the first time that political violence is happening in US. Obama had something like 12 or so assassination plots and attempts against him. Reason why you don't remember them is that they had a professional staff that preventing them to accelerate professionally, and that Obama wasn't acting like a victim in social media

[Dunamisx]

And why is the assassination attempt of a president or Charlie triggering this conversation for you and not the numerous school shootings?

You know what, when this things happen to the masses, people tend to see it as a common or ordinary thing without putting much attention on it because those affected are not prominent to them, but forgetting that everyone share equals life, I understand what you are pointing at and you are right in that regards because this should make no difference to what the masses are facing as well, but when those things happen, do the media even take it up? were people aware the way this goes viral? We are getting to a stage whereby there will be no differences between those in power and a common man on the street that has no one to fight for him.

[Mhizlove]

The weapon is for personal protection, not to assassinate someone, and with it the tracking can be lot easier to find whose gun it is. But I am not from a place where guns are for people, like in the US but every country got their own way of doing it. I wish they make the security tighter for the public meeting so anyone who is getting in should be thoroughly checked.

It's not that simple even though the weapon is for protection once it has entered pubic space the risk is high because not everyone has the same training or the control, that is where the strong security checks in public gathering really matters. At the end the safety of many people is supposed to be more than self or individual defence the only thing that can stop problem before it even starts it's proper screening and prevention

[BADecker]

If government asks you if you own any guns, tell them no... only private property. But be ready for them to try to force you to name them guns, so that their gun laws can run your life.

Is that not why most people believe that government officials have the immunity that covers them to engage the use of any kind of ammunition for their personal protection and the citizens cannot have the same right to do so, what is the essence of calling something a personal property and you will be forced to mention it is a gun, while those in politics will not be alleged the same way, if we are going to make a law then we should consider that both the rich and the poor, the elite and illiterate are all going to be affected by the same law that has been set.

People don't know the law. Simple belief doesn't make law. When adding simple belief to legal law, it simply shifts the position regarding what part of law is being used.

Second and Fourth Amendments are simple law. When people make agreements with government, their agreements drag them out from under the protections of the 2nd and 4th Amendments, and place them under the Contract Clause. If people realized this, they could write it right into their agreements, that this action does NOT diminish their 2nd and 4th Amendment protections.

If people did this, government might not agree to the contract, and the people might start to realize that they can't have their cake and eat it, too.

[Amaro958]

If you own weapons, they are private property. Why? Because you are the only one who can name your property. Nobody else has authority over it.

Your guns are no longer guns. They are private property. They are only guns if you name them that. Otherwise they are private property, or any other name you might want to give them.

If government asks you if you own any guns, tell them no... only private property. But be ready for them to try to force you to name them guns, so that their gun laws can run your life.

Maybe I am stupid but I don't get what you mean

[BADecker]

If you own weapons, they are private property. Why? Because you are the only one who can name your property. Nobody else has authority over it.

Your guns are no longer guns. They are private property. They are only guns if you name them that. Otherwise they are private property, or any other name you might want to give them.

If government asks you if you own any guns, tell them no... only private property. But be ready for them to try to force you to name them guns, so that their gun laws can run your life.

Maybe I am stupid but I don't get what you mean

You probably are not stupid. The Private Membership Association was set in place by the people at Pro Advocate Group - Private Membership Association (PMA). They used 2 basic things to do it: 70 Supreme Court cases going back to the start of the country; no attorney in court.

The point that they showed is that private property in the US is separate from public property. The 'controller' of public property is the government. The owner/controller of private property is the private individual who owns it.

Since a private individual is the owner of his privately own guns, he can call them what he wishes, legally. Nobody else has the authority to call them what they want, because they do not own them. They can call his guns, guns, in their own minds, because they own their own minds. But they can't force the owner of the guns to call them guns because they don't own the owner.

The owner of the guns gets to call them whatever he wants, because he is the owner. He can call them private property. Or he can call them Cf. guns (similar to guns, but not guns) if necessary, to make it easier to talk to others about them. But since they are only similar to guns, they are not guns.

Seventy+ SCOTUS cases on the subject, going all the way back to the foundation of the country, back him up regarding private property.

Note that this is only for the United States. Other countries have their own laws.

If a gun owner agrees that his guns are guns, then he has shot himself in the foot by agreement. He has placed himself and his guns into the public jurisdiction.

[_Miracle]

The 2nd Amendment: "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."

The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


The 2nd Amendment has to do with a militia, the military, a State's national guard, the police, possibly an organized group of local militants when necessary.

The 4th Amendment has to do with private property of each individual.


If you own weapons, they are private property. Why? Because you are the only one who can name your property. Nobody else has authority over it.

Your guns are no longer guns. They are private property. They are only guns if you name them that. Otherwise they are private property, or any other name you might want to give them.

If government asks you if you own any guns, tell them no... only private property. But be ready for them to try to force you to name them guns, so that their gun laws can run your life.

You are wrong on the 2nd amendment. It applies to citizens to protect from  federal government overreach and the founders wrote the amendments into law that they needed to fight for their own independence.

What is now happening around the world is becoming alarm in that everything needed to be taken with serious cognizance before everyone of Us become the most sorted out for hunting by hoodlums and assassin's in disguise, the purpose for me to write about this topic is strictly concerning the recent incident of the attack aimed at the United States president and how one of the security guards was heated in place of the president upon the attack, what if this assassin got his way through and hit his target, which is the president.

I am saying all this because it is alarming these days the way people have ammunition and such should be discouraged and the public or civilians can be prevented from having access to all these suppliers of weapons and the rest, if you cannot forget so soon the incident of Charlie Kirk, that after the investigation has been made and everything was only concluded on a free bail for the murderer.

The United States government need to understand why they have to amend the law of allowing people to possess arms because the anonymous using such as for defense, but instead used for attack and any other criminal offenses and assassination of anybody they don't feel to go along with, I wonder what would have happened if this man eventually shot the president, of which I believe nothing can be done as regarding the life that would have lost, possession of ammunition should not be allowed in the society, only terrorists are the ones found with such act.

The one that has happened we only know about, but can't predict what may come next, or who may be the next target of anyone illegally possessing ammunition, let's discuss.

Not sure what the rest of the world has to do with US internal gun violence that has been always been a problem.

Ironically enough, it's the MAGA people who needs to change their stance if they want to change their laws. Personally more guns for desperate people with untreated depression or schizophrenia doesn't seem like a great combo in my eyes, while cutting from healthcare. But hey, i am only a psychologist, so what do i know.

And why is the assassination attempt of a president or Charlie triggering this conversation for you and not the numerous school shootings? I mean it's not the first time that political violence is happening in US. Obama had something like 12 or so assassination plots and attempts against him. Reason why you don't remember them is that they had a professional staff that preventing them to accelerate professionally, and that Obama wasn't acting like a victim in social media

I can't stand MAGA but I am firmly 2A. Currently working on "rational" gun ownership laws. So many shootings this year already (including children).

[Dunamisx]

The moment it is realized that not only the innocent citizens are being affected in this, maybe our governments will do something about it, by the time the road becomes more unsafe for them to tread, insecurities becoming the other of the day, no one is safe of attack, maybe they will then see the need to avoid everyone having access to own a weapon except for the military personnel.

[Marvelockg]

The one that has happened we only know about, but can't predict what may come next, or who may be the next target of anyone illegally possessing ammunition, let's discuss.

A crime of that form that involves the person in the Calibar of the president being attacked is not the fault of  citizens being given weapon, it's rather an issue of the security system around the president not being too strong such that such thing was carried out.

Even in nations where the use of weapon is prohibited, we still find cases of killing happening and other less sophisticated weapon also being used. If you even deny people access to some of those weapons, believe me that hardened one will still carry it and use it to harm the innocent ones.

[programmer3666]

I don’t even like the sight of a gun, not to talk of owning one. Things are becoming too dangerous these days, and giving easy access to weapons can make situations even worse. A lot of innocent people end up suffering because some individuals misuse guns for violence instead of protection. Situations like attacks on public figures or mass shootings are scary enough to make anyone worried. Very stricter control and proper investigations are important, because once a life is lost, nothing can truly bring it back.

[BADecker]

The 2nd Amendment: "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."

The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


The 2nd Amendment has to do with a militia, the military, a State's national guard, the police, possibly an organized group of local militants when necessary.

The 4th Amendment has to do with private property of each individual.


If you own weapons, they are private property. Why? Because you are the only one who can name your property. Nobody else has authority over it.

Your guns are no longer guns. They are private property. They are only guns if you name them that. Otherwise they are private property, or any other name you might want to give them.

If government asks you if you own any guns, tell them no... only private property. But be ready for them to try to force you to name them guns, so that their gun laws can run your life.

You are wrong on the 2nd amendment. It applies to citizens to protect from  federal government overreach and the founders wrote the amendments into law that they needed to fight for their own independence.

It's really a shame that you can't seem to be able to read the 2nd Amendment when it is printed right out for you.

If you are taking your ideas from the Federalist Papers or the Anti-federalist papers, they are not part off the 2nd Amendment. But their adjudication by the courts is law. And such adjudication is that it pertains to the militia.

2nd Amendment rights have nothing to do with private property. But the 4h Amendment does. 2nd Amendment has to do with guns being kept/owned for militia purposes, and barely hangs on because of the last phrase in the Amendment.

The reason government keeps people focused on the 2nd Amendment rather than the 4th, is, The 4th Amendment allows people to keep their guns without any argument at all. Government wouldn't stand a chance if people understood their private property rights - 4th Amendment.

So, why would government even want to let the people focus there?

~

[hafiztalha]

There are many people who think that they need weapons for their self defence and to protect themselves and their own life when the help is not immediately available to them. With this point of view taking away their guns from the citizens who are following the law would not stop the criminals to do their crimes because they can find ways to do unlawful activities by anyway they do not need anyone's approval.

There are also many people who agree that the constant threat of violence is becoming alarming day by day , they also believe that if there are few people who have access to the weapons then their would be less attacks on public figures, tragedies and shooting. The government should find a way to educate citizens about the safe use of weapons to avoid any criminal activity.

[_Miracle]

The 2nd Amendment: "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."

The 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."


The 2nd Amendment has to do with a militia, the military, a State's national guard, the police, possibly an organized group of local militants when necessary.

The 4th Amendment has to do with private property of each individual.


If you own weapons, they are private property. Why? Because you are the only one who can name your property. Nobody else has authority over it.

Your guns are no longer guns. They are private property. They are only guns if you name them that. Otherwise they are private property, or any other name you might want to give them.

If government asks you if you own any guns, tell them no... only private property. But be ready for them to try to force you to name them guns, so that their gun laws can run your life.

You are wrong on the 2nd amendment. It applies to citizens to protect from  federal government overreach and the founders wrote the amendments into law that they needed to fight for their own independence.

It's really a shame that you can't seem to be able to read the 2nd Amendment when it is printed right out for you.

If you are taking your ideas from the Federalist Papers or the Anti-federalist papers, they are not part off the 2nd Amendment. But their adjudication by the courts is law. And such adjudication is that it pertains to the militia.

2nd Amendment rights have nothing to do with private property. But the 4h Amendment does. 2nd Amendment has to do with guns being kept/owned for militia purposes, and barely hangs on because of the last phrase in the Amendment.

The reason government keeps people focused on the 2nd Amendment rather than the 4th, is, The 4th Amendment allows people to keep their guns without any argument at all. Government wouldn't stand a chance if people understood their private property rights - 4th Amendment.

So, why would government even want to let the people focus there?

It is clear that you have not spent enough time putting all the things you think are true into real world practice.
What do you imagine happens when you are found with unregistered guns?
In that respect some criminals are a little more free.

And just because I've read The Anti + Federalist Papers alongside many of the arguments surrounding the founding of my country doesn't mean I agree with them
                                                        (they didn't always agree with each other).

At the end of the 1700's there was still concern about the strength of a new nation to defend itself or if the nation would even hold itself together or --> if the government or --> if majority rule would lead to oppressive laws. Laws that may effect the rights of white wealthy [men] property owners (aka the minority).


People were considered property upon our founding; 1865 changed that.


Don't you know my country is  currently run by lobbyists? The gun laws are whatever the NRA and SAF says they are ;-).
My state (California) has restrictive gun laws, mostly tied to the Black Panthers + other open carry liberation movements and that irony is not lost on me.

You can't speak out on the money my country sends to Israel to fund the genocide of Palestinians because AIPAC owns 80% of our politicians.
Ask Thomas Massie what happens when you want the Epstein Flies released and SuperPac money gets used against you.

We barely have the veneer of rights in my country right now, we started giving them up for a false sense of security after 9/11
So here we are.


A small sliver of Trump's base woke tf up when they tried to say Alex Pretti shouldn't've been armed. I wish detention centers to profit his donors and our ever growing surveillance state was enough but ... ?

When power consolidates it corrupts... always. It is a long documented pattern that's repeating.
Somehow the ones who get into those positions of power think they are the special ones who will be able to hold on to power and maybe in their lifetimes this is true.
But I don't think so this time. Especially when they can't get enough.

What kind of freedom do these fascists and techno fascists think they are going to enjoy from the bunkers they're building?

Maybe they could look around at the beauty and abundance in the world and try to preserve it instead of exploiting everything beyond sustainability?

Until then... what is a gun compared to the industrialized military complex?

BTW
You don't need guns
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/protests-grow-over-resort-in-albania-linked-to-trump-son-in-law-jared-kushner
https://www.lib.umich.edu/about-us/news/banned-books-week-2025-october-5-11
Books are also weapons.

[Zlantann]

There are many people who think that they need weapons for their self defence and to protect themselves and their own life when the help is not immediately available to them. With this point of view taking away their guns from the citizens who are following the law would not stop the criminals to do their crimes because they can find ways to do unlawful activities by anyway they do not need anyone's approval.

There are also many people who agree that the constant threat of violence is becoming alarming day by day , they also believe that if there are few people who have access to the weapons then their would be less attacks on public figures, tragedies and shooting. The government should find a way to educate citizens about the safe use of weapons to avoid any criminal activity.

My country is going through violent attacks by some radicalised Islamic militants. They can easily enter a community and slaughter many people without opposition. Legalising the use of arms would reduce these attacks to a large extent. Sometimes these criminals come with light weapons that could have been curtailed if residents were also armed. 

So, I support the legalisation of arms if the country is facing attacks or an increase in criminal activities. If these criminals know that residents are armed, they would look for another source of income rather than engaging in crimes.

We would have to recognise that legalising the use of arms has its disadvantages. The mass shootings and other attacks carried out by people with mental health or radical ideologies are also a problem.