Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Numb1lp]

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.

First off, that just made my day. Thank you.

Second, I do believe it is every citizens' right to own a gun. No law would've stopped this psycho from doing what he did.

 

[archvile93]

I really can't support gun laws because al they seem to do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and do vitually nothing to deter criminals. And for those of you who say it's difficult to find illegal guns, no it is not. I offandedly mentioned the black market to a friend who said he knew a guy who could hook me up with all sorts of illegal firearms.

 

[EvanJO]

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.

The sad thing is the US military is actually pretty damn big....but not anywhere near as close as people's preconceived notions of how big it is. XD

The US military is big as far as numbers go, out-numbered by a few other countries, but technologically and strategically its an undeniable behemoth.

Anyways, there's an old saying that goes as follws: "If guns are outlawed then the only people who have guns will be the outlaws." People are always going to find a way to rob, jack, and murder one another. Look at the number of crimes committed with a bladed instrument in countries like Austrailia or the UK.

Guns are necessary. And yeah, like someone said before, "...shall not be infringed."

 

[Autohellion]

First of all to original poster In words i heard from a militia leader " It only take one man and a cheap pistol to kill a solider who has a Rifle and hand grenades. Soon you'll have a well equipped militia." Secondly you say that a civilian with a gun is not a threat is a stupid statement, in many battles from the civil war to the current war in Iraq A a militia that can disappear and re-appear is more that enough to throw a serious wrench in the works.Third In the recent shooting of the us a senator one man took out 6 people and wounded more, if one of the people in the crowd had had a gun he would have only hurt 1. To make the old statement. A armed society is a polite society.

 

[tavelkyosoba]

Perhaps the 4th or 6th are outdated too. The constitution wasn't written during times of faceless terrorism.


But in reality, a statement like I just made is the exact reason we HAVE the second amendment. It only seems outdated when people forget the intention of the amendment; to protect us from the government and it's agents.

And gun control is a ridiculous fallacy. Criminals don't care about the laws Washington makes. I know some guys from the Chicago 'hood and they each have a dozen handguns...all for the price of a single legally purchased gun with none of that pesky paperwork or background checks (they're not legally able to own a gun anyway...)

They mostly come from mexico with scratched off serial numbers.

 

[Plurralbles]

I think it is everyone's right to have the means to stand up to the government in every way but numbers, therefore the right to bear arms even to the level it is today is insufficient and should be increased.

"Right to bear fighter jets!"

 

[Berethond]

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
Do you ever think that maybe the people who wrote that were, you know, smarter than you?
And knew what they were doing?

what part of "that amendment was written in a time where the pinnacle of weapon`s technology was a cannon that shot a lead ball the size of a man`s head and the only gun in existence was a musket that was required to you be in spitting distance of the other guy to get a hit" do you not understand.
The constitution was made to be altered as time went on. Besides its not like i`m talking about taking away people`s guns bur instead make it so that there are fewer killings like the Tucson shootings. Such as having current and potential gun owners take a physiological test to make sure they are of sound mind. But if this is subject is taken up by a current or future president, it will require a lot of time and consideration in order to both accomplish its goals and keep to the spirit of the constitution.

That's the most bullshit argument of all time. The government has continually shown that lethality is no bar to what it will ban. For example they banned bayonets despite the complete lack of criminal bayonetting.

And, how exactly would one fail a physiological test? Be dead?
Unless you mean psychological test, in which that is exactly what you have to do already.

EDIT: Also early rifle (which existed at that time) were accurate to about 200 yards. Just sayin'

 

[kikon9]

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.

If you showed a modern automatic rifle to the founding fathers, they would be too scared shitless to reply.

Yes, just like if you were to show a modern person a suit of powered armor they would shit themselves. Get the fuck over your superiority complex. Any rational person would adjust themselves to the implications quickly. The people who wrote the constitution were some of the smartest men of their era, and they for damned sure wouldn't freak out over something as insignificant as an automatic weapon. In point of fact, they would be much more interested in the technologies which allowed us to PRODUCE said weapon.

Really? Because when people first built the gattling gun way back when, they were terrified. They were in awe and horror that such a thing could exist. Even the more intelligent of people were frightened that we had made killing people in mass that easy. And that was a big bulky machine that had to be wheeled around. If they were frightened of that, they would be just as scared , if not just in a terrified shock of a miniaturized, more accurate, model.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?
Do you ever think that maybe the people who wrote that were, you know, smarter than you?
And knew what they were doing?

The constitution was made to be altered as time went on.

Dude, no it wasnt

 

[Death on Trapezoids]

NEWSFLASH

guns will always be available to criminals, because they have access to a little thing called the black market.

Oh yeah, and since when is collecting anything illegal? As long as you're not hurting anyone (except possibly yourself), on what grounds does the gov't have the power to tell you what you can and can't do? I mean really, this is what mandatory background checks are for.

Tell me, do you *need* that fuel-guzzling private jet airplane that could otherwise service countless people? That second TV? That second car? Do you need a house with more bedrooms than occupants? Do you need to have all the lights in your house on at the same time? Do you need that knife collection? After all, you are no freakin' machete. How 'bout that baseball bat, or the gardening tools sitting in the garage; those are dangerous blunt instruments, you know.

Snip
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.

Since when is hunting illegal?

Hmmm... would I rather have a concealed weapon for self-defense, or be stabbed and die. In a perfect world, there would be no need for self defense devices at all, but as you can see, we do not live in a perfect world.

 

[Willem]

Making guns completely illegal would only increase the rate of crime.
Less people would probably die of gun related accidents, but I don't think it would really do that much of a differnce. Making things forbidden doesn't make them unaccessable.

 

[nico74]

IF the Second Amendment is out-dated, then what about the first? Freedom of Speach and Freedom of the Press were far different matters in the 18th century than they are today. Free speach then meant words traded in a bar, not discussions that go around the planet. Freedom of the Press was for newspapers that barely reached an entire city, let alone a 24 hour news network.

^This. The cool thing about the Constitution and Bill of Rights is that it is constantly evolving to change and fit the new issues and problems that arrive with each new generation. There is a reason America is the longest surviving Democracy in history.

 

[KissofKetchup]

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

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?

You forget that when the Constitution was written, America was still a huge vast wilderness where many animals, some dangerous that could very well kill you. Places like Alaska are still a vast untamed wilderness where bears roam wild. Not everybody lives in an apartment or suburb surrounded by concrete and steel rebar like you do.

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?

Ever heard of guerilla warfare? As for your last sentence, I don't have any statistics, but I'm sure that less than 1% of legally owned firearms are used in crimes.

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.

I agree with you on that regular citizens don't need automatic weapons. However the "everyday somebody" that you talk about who has a legally owned firearm and goes postal is almost always insane.

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.

You're obviously are paranoid that someone is going to shoot you.

Sorry to break it to you, but the second Amendment is not going to be repealed anytime.

 

[lacktheknack]

...Does it matter that the guns are ridiculously oversized? A gun is a gun.

Besides, abolition is a bad idea. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Violent crime goes up, because the victims don't have effective self-defense.

 

[Woodsey]

The guns are irrelevant - invading the US is a ridiculous thing to attempt anyway (which was my point). Invading a country is also illegal and attempting to invade arguably the most powerful nation on the planet is beyond moronic.

You said that the civillians would be fucked if they were attacked by the military, even the American military only has about 1.4 million currently in servce, the 2nd amendment is still relevent if they want to overthrow the govornment when it gets uppity.

EDIT
Also "invading a country is illegal" then explain iraq.
That was an incredibly stuopid thing to say.

Invading a country is illegal, and that's why there's currently an ongoing inquiry into the legality of the Iraq war. Of course, the Iraq war isn't intended as a territory grab so it's not in the same bag as invading a country because you want it's land, which is why it's up for debate. It's not stupid (STUPID, not stuopid, stupid), it's true. Try fucking checking next time.

And I posted my last post before finishing my write up, so my edit goes into the hypothetical situation of an invasion force capable of actually taking over the US.

I can't believe you're 21, yet know nothing of current affairs, and lack the ability to even look things up.

1)
Who exactly is going to enforce the illegality of an invasion?
I'm pretty sure that there isn't a large superpower out there with a ruler keeping an eye on the rule breakers.

There is no way in hell you haven't heard of the United Nations.

You mean that orginization of corrupt jackasses that have a list of human rights violations longer than the Las Vegas strip?

I've heard of them, but I somhow doubt they'd ever actually do something, for example if the Iraq war is found to be unjustified and illegal can you really imagine the US pulling out?
And do you really think the UN would actually do anything if they didn't?

That can depend on a large number of factors, although earlier I was rather referring to the Chilcot Inquiry, and of course, since you're so knowledgeable I won't have to explain what that is.

And no, maybe the UN couldn't/wouldn't enforce it at all should they feel the need to investiage the legality of the war, but invading a country is still illegal, which was the original point you called me stupid for.

 

[Dusk17]

I am fairly sure that most guns used in crimes are probably not obtained legally so gun control probably would not affect criminals. Most registered gun owners simply have them for self defense, or just like to collect them.

 

[tavelkyosoba]

Really? Because when people first built the gattling gun way back when, they were terrified. They were in awe and horror that such a thing could exist. Even the more intelligent of people were frightened that we had made killing people in mass that easy. And that was a big bulky machine that had to be wheeled around. If they were frightened of that, they would be just as scared , if not just terrified shock of a miniaturized, more accurate, model.

The minie ball did more to change the face of modern war than machine guns. Fast loading rifles devastated rowed infantry and forced them to start taking cover.

Until then, they were using fast loading MUSKETS that couldn't hit a barn.

Edit: fixed spelling

 

[Spencer Petersen]

"Those who give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither"

 

[Plurralbles]

Really? Because when people first built the gattling gun way back when, they were terrified. They were in awe and horror that such a thing could exist. Even the more intelligent of people were frightened that we had made killing people in mass that easy. And that was a big bulky machine that had to be wheeled around. If they were frightened of that, they would be just as scared , if not just terrified shock of a miniaturized, more accurate, model.

The mine ball did more to change the face of modern war than machine guns. Fast loading rifles devastated rowed infantry and forced them to start taking cover.

Until then, they were using fast loading MUSKETS that couldn't hit a barn.

wow dude work on your quoting skills.