Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[DrFecka]

I think (Come on 7th grade America History don't fail me now) the reason they crated the 2nd Amendment was so that the citizens would have the ability to own the same weaponry as the Government and the people at the time wouldn't feel 'oppressed' in their equality with the government.

I do think it's a bit outdated but I don't think it should be completely removed.

 

[Moromillas]

Ok, even without considering the recent events in Tuscon (So hundreds/thousands can die each year from gun crimes but if its a politician then suddenly "holy shit, guns may be dangerous"?) I'm really tired of hearing anyone in the news or wherever talk up 2nd amendment rights.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED...

Let me get this straight... So basically you want, people to have less freedom, more restrictions, and an even bigger government to lord over everyone. And you don't see a problem with that? And the idea that every person is just 'this close' to being a mass murderer/criminal, and all they need to push them over the edge is a gun in their hands? No, that's just wrong, wrong wrong wrong, it's so cynical to automatically think everyone is almost evil, and it's hateful.

 

[Queen Michael]

Wintermute, you just don't have the knowledge of science that's required to understand these things. I suggest you go read up on the ever-present risk of a zombie attack, and then try to say that the second amendment bugs you.

 

[MrJKapowey]

Wintermute, you just don't have the knowledge of science that's required to understand these things. I suggest you go read up on the ever-present risk of a zombie attack, and then try to say that the second amendment bugs you.

Please say you joke...

 

[Luhrsen]

Everyone gets so upset about private citizens owning weapons while ignoring the millions of disarmed people killed by the guns of their own governments.

 

[jakefongloo]

I think at this point, owning a gun to stand up and rise against the government would be pretty irrelevant. Unless we have the right to bear tanks.

Vietnam war, the vietkong didn't have tanks or helicopters, they did pretty alright for themselves.

OT: heroin is illegal people still get they're hands on it. Military Grade guns like for instance the M4 Assault Rifle WITHOUT the limitation that prevents it from being fully automatic still find there way into the hands of criminals. You honestly think that dissallowing guns into the hands of the upstanding citizens. The ones without connections would prevent gun violence? No. That's 8 levels of bullshit. So the gas station operator deep in the slums will have no way of defending himself? Felons already are banned from owning firearms,yet they still have them.

 

[Lt. Dragunov]

When it says the Right to Bear Arms, it means you have the right to own a pair of arms from a bear. I don't see why people think this gives them the right to have guns.

family guy XD

OT: there are alot of laws that are outdated, like divorce laws. Why is it the male who has to suffer while the female sits around and collects money from him even if it was the female who caused the divorce? And I'm speaking from exsperiance here people.

 

[nomadic_chad]

Revision, maybe. Abolishment, no.

In the event of revolution, the people may be outgunned, but that can't be used as an excuse to take away their attempt to defend themselves.

I think gun owners need to be more strongly educated about their weapons. I also think looneys should be put in the looney bin and not allowed to own a firearm.

 

[TeeBs]

I think at this point, owning a gun to stand up and rise against the government would be pretty irrelevant. Unless we have the right to bear tanks.

Vietnam war, the vietkong didn't have tanks or helicopters, they did pretty alright for themselves.

OT: heroin is illegal people still get they're hands on it. Military Grade guns like for instance the M4 Assault Rifle WITHOUT the limitation that prevents it from being fully automatic still find there way into the hands of criminals. You honestly think that dissallowing guns into the hands of the upstanding citizens. The ones without connections would prevent gun violence? No. That's 8 levels of bullshit. So the gas station operator deep in the slums will have no way of defending himself? Felons already are banned from owning firearms,yet they still have them.

Throw enough asian men into a tank's trends and you will render it immobile ill give you that.

Seriously, How many Vietnamese were killed in comparison to american soldiers.

 

[koriantor]

The issue of guns in america is a subject that shouldnt be touched. Those pro gun will never agree with those against regardless how many 9 year old children get shot. A gun is a tool for killing, it has no other use. An i doubt america will ever be able to ensure a criminal or an insane person will not be able to buy one. So shoot outs in schools and malls will happen and innocent people will be killed. Those that say it is for protection, how many of the thousands of people killed a year by guns were a criminal? Or how many were innocent people going about there daily life? The right to bare arms was only applicable when you could have been attacked by say the british or french colonials. It is an out of date law much like the Human Rights act is out of date and abused by criminals.

On a different note, i have been to america a number of times of times and never had a problem. I guess it may be the area you live in that has most gun crime. Just sucks that 9 year old kids die for your rights. Things need to change. The rules and regulations do. I am not saying you shouldnt have a gun, that is up to you and your country. But if it allows you to, then i am sure that you, as a respectable gun owner, would want the law around gun ownership to be tight enough so crazy people can not buy them.

Where are you from exactly? Just curious.

As for the response, I live in an area where a good portion of the people here own a gun. They use them frequently and for both food and recreation. For them, shooting a gun is fun (I don't understand it, but whatever, I'm not them). They've been taught how to properly and safely use a gun since they were little and all of the people I know have a lot of respect for how dangerous the gun is. Some of them are uncharacteristically responsible when it comes to carrying a gun. I am not afraid whatsoever of getting shot. Crimes are going to happen with or without the gun, people who are crazy will just kill someone else by other means (which is one of the reasons I think airport security is so outrageous). Guns are tools that should be used responsibly.

The problem people have with guns and crime is not solved by just taking it away from them. If a kid hits another kid with a toy, you don't just take away the toy, you also have to explain to the kid that hitting people is bad. Otherwise the kid won't know what he did wrong. Guns are similar. You have to teach responsibility with the gun, not just take it away and give a firm smack on the nose. For your stupid people (aka "gangstas"), teaching gun responsibility isn't even the real answer, the problem stems from something much deeper (but that's another topic for another time). Criminals will abuse whatever they can not just guns. If we regulate guns... criminals will still get them.

Now tell me, how many 9-year old children get shot? Guess what? Crap happens! That's life! While I may not agree on some of the details in today's Movie Bob's Big Picture video, he was definitely right when he said "$@*% Happens." It really is tragic when an innocent person gets shot, but we realistically cannot possibly eliminate every single threat to someone's life, and to try would be an endless pursuit with no definite outcome.

The world is not as stable as you think. It doesn't take much at all to start an avalanche of tragedy to happen. Most people like to believe in their stable schedules of going to work everyday and spend the day with their family. Eventually something will happen that will trigger a depression and I'll bet at that point you'll want a gun.

Anyway, back on subject. The constitution wasn't written to make daily life 200 years in the future convenient. It was written to guarantee the freedom and liberty of every human life. The right to bear arms exists to prevent a tyranny. For this reason, the amendment is not outdated, nor will it ever be.

Well that was a mess of a comment. I'm not as good as some of the previous posters at writing down my views. Oh well, I guess you guys get my amateur take on the issue.

 

[TOGSolid]

Lets run this down. Firstly, the second amendment was written when there was still a serious threat of Indian attack, British attack, and in general no exceedingly superior standing army in the U.S.. The National Guard was farmers and home owners with rifles and pistols. further more, it was written to ensure that if ever a oppressive regime took power, the American citizens could revolt much the same way we did against the british.
But hey guys, guess what?

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

So because we don't stand a chance, we should lay down arms and forever forget about even attempting it?

Secondly, you don't need an automatic weapon. You are not fighting any insurgents. Cops, officers of the law, have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them. You do not need more then at most 1-2 guns. What the hell are you using them for if its for defense, unless your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible, instead of not possible. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

1.) You don't know shit about the laws and restrictions regarding the sale of automatic weapons. Look them up.
2.) "You do not need more than 1-2 guns." That's personal opinion. Hell, I can get up to 5 easily. A .22 rifle and pistol for cheap practice. A hunting rifle for...well..hunting. A shotgun for bird hunting. A .44/.45 whatever pistol for halibut fishing (no...really...you do not want to try and wrestle a 200 pound halibut while it's still alive. People have fucking died doing that)
3.) Collecting "Tools of death" is you trying to force your morality on others. Get that shit out of here. Regardless, there's a lot of history within the realm of firearms that can be appreciated and from my standpoint, I enjoy the mechanical differences.
4.) "What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes." And knives, and baseball bats, and piano wire, etc. etc. What's your point?
5.) "Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible" Well no fucking shit. This just in, the likelihood of hitting someone with your car skyrockets when you own one and use it daily.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, the groups of hardcore gun owners/advocates that hide behind the second amendment for their right to own a god damned AK-47 or something of another unnecessarily large scale need to have that shield taken away so law making can continue and reduce the levels of gun toting potential criminals and deaths.

Am I justified in this view escapists? Or is there something I don't get about laws regarding a tool meant to kill something or someone?

Yes, there is a huge gun lobby because people like you who don't possess a shred of any sort of logical reasoning capabilities would love to impose unreasonable and badly thought out regulations on the rest of us who enjoy things like hunting/target shooting/collecting/etc. There is such a thing as reasonable regulations like requiring background checks, however people like you are far from reasonable.

Oh, and protip: If you can afford an actual, original, AK-47, then you've got more money than god and probably don't live in a trailer. Like most people who don't know anything about firearms, you're throwing terms around to make the argument sound scary and to make the people who enjoy firearms sound like sociopaths.

In all honesty your post is so barely coherent and flawed I'm almost wanting to report you for trolling. 1/10, you're pretty new to this so do some better research next time.

BTW, here's one for you. How do you explain the fact that firearm ownership has kept rising and crime has kept dropping? Guns are evil and cause so many problems right? Feel free to phrase your answer in the form of derpderpderpderpderp.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Ok, even without considering the recent events in Tuscon (So hundreds/thousands can die each year from gun crimes but if its a politician then suddenly "holy shit, guns may be dangerous"?) I'm really tired of hearing anyone in the news or wherever talk up 2nd amendment rights.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.
It reads
"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."

Lets run this down. Firstly, the second amendment was written when there was still a serious threat of Indian attack, British attack, and in general no exceedingly superior standing army in the U.S.. The National Guard was farmers and home owners with rifles and pistols. further more, it was written to ensure that if ever a oppressive regime took power, the American citizens could revolt much the same way we did against the british.
But hey guys, guess what?

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

Secondly, you don't need an automatic weapon. You are not fighting any insurgents. Cops, officers of the law, have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them. You do not need more then at most 1-2 guns. What the hell are you using them for if its for defense, unless your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible, instead of not possible. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, the groups of hardcore gun owners/advocates that hide behind the second amendment for their right to own a god damned AK-47 or something of another unnecessarily large scale need to have that shield taken away so law making can continue and reduce the levels of gun toting potential criminals and deaths.

Am I justified in this view escapists? Or is there something I don't get about laws regarding a tool meant to kill something or someone?

Two things you need to read:
This thread, which is quite similar that I started around last month with a crap load of votes:

And this link, which will explain some of the misconceptions you have: Particularly the ones about suppressors and automatic weapons:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

 

[Flying Dagger]

snip

Seeing as I'm too late to the party to provide a contribution that will be read, I feel this article should be added to the OP

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1240433/Boy-killed-bullet-fired-2-miles-away.html

I don't understand how anyone can read that and support the ownership of guns, whilst knowing that for as long as people own guns, things like that will happen.

I don't understand how anyone can stand by guns when for every story of someone defending themselves with one, there are five stories of people being accidentally shot. I live in england where we don't have these stupid rules, and very very few people get shot.

but people don't like to give up things that they believe will allow them to have any control over another person. however flawed their beliefs are.

 

[Shirokurou]

I heard that in Estonia, when you buy a gun, you have to pass a test on it's safety and... get this... accuracy. Or so I heard...

Shirokurou's life lesson: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A mad-man with a stone is always more dangerous than a pacifist with a gun. Do the right thing, fool!

 

[BanthaFodder]

owning guns is not a right, it is a privledge. however, we must not outlaw guns, for then only outlaws will have guns

 

[Madara XIII]

Why in Hell's Infinite Highway is this not in the politics section. And no, it is fine the way it is.

Damn, I was wondering the same thing. Meh, anyways it's fine. Secondly WHEN THE HELL HAS OUTLAWING ANYTHING EVER TURNED OUT OKEY DOKEY!?

 

[DevilWolf47]

Ok, even without considering the recent events in Tuscon (So hundreds/thousands can die each year from gun crimes but if its a politician then suddenly "holy shit, guns may be dangerous"?) I'm really tired of hearing anyone in the news or wherever talk up 2nd amendment rights.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.
It reads
"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."

Lets run this down. Firstly, the second amendment was written when there was still a serious threat of Indian attack, British attack, and in general no exceedingly superior standing army in the U.S.. The National Guard was farmers and home owners with rifles and pistols. further more, it was written to ensure that if ever a oppressive regime took power, the American citizens could revolt much the same way we did against the british.
But hey guys, guess what?

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

Secondly, you don't need an automatic weapon. You are not fighting any insurgents. Cops, officers of the law, have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them. You do not need more then at most 1-2 guns. What the hell are you using them for if its for defense, unless your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible, instead of not possible. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, the groups of hardcore gun owners/advocates that hide behind the second amendment for their right to own a god damned AK-47 or something of another unnecessarily large scale need to have that shield taken away so law making can continue and reduce the levels of gun toting potential criminals and deaths.

Am I justified in this view escapists? Or is there something I don't get about laws regarding a tool meant to kill something or someone?

The U.S. military is not nearly as large as people seem to think. This is part of why we have had so much trouble in Iraq. But, I still want to have my guns for in case something catastrophic were to happen. Mostly, though, I want my guns because I won't kill as many ducks with my bare hands. Now, if I had BEAR hands, that might be something.

Actually the reason we are having trouble in Iraq is because our commander in chief was phenomenally retarded. You'd think after Vietnam we would know that when you are up against an enemy that relies almost exclusively on sabotage the LAST thing you would want to do is send in an invasion force. Not to mention the fact that we had absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. And the fact that troops weren't deployed until several months after 9/11.
...not to mention the fact that airport security is still a stupid joke, the fact that the primary objective wasn't to capture terrorists but to secure fuel resources...

You get the idea. You mention that you're a hunter, and be honest, would you use an assault rifle to hunt birds when shotguns and standard rifles get the job done, are cheaper, easier to maintain, and use a more powerful ammunition that comes in handy in case you encounter something more dangerous than a duck?

 

[Zechnophobe]

Oh, I predict a storm of feces, incoming.

That having been said, the 2nd amendment was written when guns were significantly different than they are today. I question what the original writers would have thought if they could have seen future guns.

It's really true. Back then, a gun would let you MAYBE wound a person (or kill them) if they were standing still and drunk. Nowadays, a semi automatic can end lives faster than you can pop popcorn.

I think both the interpretation of the amendment, and the amendment itself are not really positive things in the nation.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Here's something interesting about guns, the most common fatalities caused by guns in America is actually suicide. Think about it, farmers have the highest rate of suicide out of any profession around the world and it just so happens they also have guns for use. So I see it as if they are having it really tough then what would the sight of a gun encourage. Suicide. Because guns are by far the easiest way to kill yourself because it's quick, easy, relatively painless and a high chance of success.

Just something that I feel that doesn't gets any attention when it comes to this second amendment business.

 

[Madara XIII]

owning guns is not a right, it is a privledge. however, we must not outlaw guns, for then only outlaws will have guns

Indeed, kind of like prohibition. Damn bootleggers...