I don’t know if your theory assumes the society that is armed is responsiblly armed bcauce if the society is criminally armed it is not going to be a polite society. You started by saying it when you got to the end it was missing.
Might be getting ignored the same way everyone else ignores the well-regulated militia part too..
2 Likes
Welcome to the community!!
1 Like
Now you’re just ‘messin’ with me’, Robert1246, unless YOU are of a criminal mindset … because where have you ever heard of “a responsibly armed criminal”?? The use of that term itself (“responsibly armed citizen” which YOU interjected into this discussion) presumes use as a deterrent against a criminal element, or anyone else who chooses for nefarious reasons to assert dominance over an innocent party.
It isn’t a “theory” if it has been proven, BTW!
But to your point … and reiterating … it is the known or unknown presence of firearms (in the hands of the ‘good guys’) that is a significant deterrent to the ‘bad guys’ because the bad guys DO have an instinct for self-preservation as well as a desire NOT to suffer the consequences of their illegal acts (apprehension, incarceration, getting shot or killed). Risk vs reward. “Is the $20 this guy might be carrying worth the possible jail time or death?”
Secondly, we are generally a law-abiding and peace loving society. It is because we outnumber criminals (so far) that our society has the ability to be transformed into a polite society, but it is our ability to act effectively in our own self-defense that discourages the impulse to engage in the Impoliteness or rudeness found in criminal behavior that is potentially directed against us.
By regulating or denying that ability of the ‘good guys’ to act in defense of self or others while ignoring the reality that criminals DON”T OBEY THEIR STUPID LAWS, … that begins to tilt the balance of power in favor of the criminal element and, if left uncorrected, will result in the chaos that always has been the goal of the left, along with ending our Rights through the Hegelian Dialectic.
5 Likes
Ignores … or more likely misinterprets. In the vernacular of the day in which the 2nd Amendment was written, “well-regulated” meant “well-equipped, well-armed, well-trained and disciplined”. Each member of the militia ( men and boys over the age of 15) was required to drill regularly with their militia units, to keep in their homes conventional arms of the period, adequate shot and powder, and three days rations packed and ready to respond “on a minute’s notice” to the defense of their towns, villages or settlements. Thus they were referred to by the term “Minutemen”. The term British “Regulars” is derived from “regulated”.
Welcome to the forum, Mathew413.
5 Likes
Not messing with you.
It’s not about me or you it’s about making the world a safer place.
Did George Orwell have it right?
3 Likes
I was never into sci-fi.
War is peace, slavery is freedom, ignorance is bliss, conform to make stronger,
Big Brother is watching you!
5 Likes
But like heaven above me
The spy who loved me
Is keepin’ all my secrets safe tonight
Carly Simon
NOPE!
count 1: Nyet!, Count 2 UH UH!, Count 3 No way Jose!, Count 4: NO DUCKIN’ WAY!
COUNT 5: Unfortunately YEP! But Forces of GOOD ARE WORKING ON IT!
The Demoncrats are trying to monitor and Infiltrate EVERY FACET OF OUR LIVES!
I wouldn’t be so Paranoid if folk’s weren’t trying to KILL ME! 
YEAH DAVE! Muahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahhhhhhaaaaaaahahahhahahaha!
6 Likes
6 Likes
Me; Elexa are you spying on me?
Elexa; No, I am not spying on you. We have been designed for your privacy. By the way, you left the oven burner on and you have a delivery package at your door.
7 Likes
You need to think more, Robert1246, and argue less. It appears the simple concept of an armed society being a polite society, even though it is a stand-alone concept and in practice predates the NFA of 1934 by much more than 150 years, is beyond your ability to understand. You keep conflating it with the modern concept of the “Responsibly Armed Citizen” when it is really about deterrence which, when effective at preventing confrontations, sidesteps the need for the use of the weapon.
Only if the concept fails in its goal of preventing confrontation does the need for personal responsibility in handling/using the defensive weapon enter into the equation. In other words, it IS about “making the world a safer place” but by changing the potential perpetrator’s mindset BEFORE there is an attack - not taking his life as a result of his actions!
9 Likes
An argument about the important things in life is how we learn. It is the whole point of the forum. It is for our enjoyment. It is all about being responsibly armed to protect and not brandish.
2 Likes
No buts
I think we agree.
One more thing. I understand all things.
It is challenging for me to think of us all carrying guns with no safety training.
1 Like
Where did I, or anyone else, say, “An armed, untrained society is a polite society”? You appear to be out in the weeds again with your assumptions. Perhaps that is why you feel challenged.
5 Likes