Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Many of the people in the thread are citing "Black market" as the source for most guns but a recent article in the Economist points to corrupt gun shops that are more concerned with selling guns than ensuring the people they are selling to have a legal ability to bear arms (ie. no criminal or physiological dis-qualifiers). While I am in favor of more gun control, I think that the real focus should be on the suppliers of weapons rather than the consumers. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. Look how many regulations they have for the distribution of their products and the consequences for reselling. It is harder for me to get a bottle of Vicodin than a handgun. Does that strike anyone else as screwed up?
When FEMA will overthrow democracy, you will wish to have the NSF...
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), ?Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,? gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to ?a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.?
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of ?terrorist? organizations, or who speaks out against the government?s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure ?continuity of government? in the event of what the document vaguely calls a ?catastrophic emergency.? Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure ?continuity of government.? This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
http://www.roguegovernment.com/The_Reality_Of_FEMA_Camps_And_The_Martial_Law_Appartus/14096/0/13/13/Y/M.html
why does FEMA camps have millions of Coffins ?
check this out..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G3g1o3uHFE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zSDdm-SHI
Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), ?Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,? gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to ?a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.?
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of ?terrorist? organizations, or who speaks out against the government?s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.
Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure ?continuity of government? in the event of what the document vaguely calls a ?catastrophic emergency.? Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure ?continuity of government.? This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.
http://www.roguegovernment.com/The_Reality_Of_FEMA_Camps_And_The_Martial_Law_Appartus/14096/0/13/13/Y/M.html
why does FEMA camps have millions of Coffins ?
check this out..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G3g1o3uHFE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zSDdm-SHI
First of all, congratulations on being the second person to say to say this. Second of all, all I did was state a fact (the 2nd amendment was written when guns were significantly different than they are today) and follow up with a statement concerning my interest with what the framers of the constitution would have thought about today's weapons. Applying that thinking to the first amendment would only leave you with a statement of truth (many forms of communication that exist today did not exist then) and... a question as to what the founding fathers would have thought of the internet. Applying my thinking to the first amendment would not mean no internet, tv, etc.Father Time said:
That having been said, I disagree on a fundamental level. (Here, by the way, is where I am making my first argument about anything.) Speech is speech. Be it oral, written, or in the form of an image, it is what it is. This is not true with guns. A flame thrower and an AK-47 are not the same as my Dad's four-ten. My point is not "oh, the amendment is invalid because the founding fathers couldn't see the future or plan it this way." My point is that the founding fathers were not saying that everyone should be able to carry semi-automatic handguns into public places. That is what the modern courts have decided. Just like the modern courts have decided that money is speech.
And by the way, who the hell has a "well regulated militia?" No one, that is who. And the supreme court decided to just tell that part of the original constitution to eff off. So, when arguing why you should have enough firepower to wipe out a city, don't go back to the constitution because the original second amendment looked nothing like the one we have today.
I legally own every last gun I have.
Unfortunately for me, I live in Texas, so I cannot carry them ANYWHERE outside of my house, car, or local shooting range. While that may sound absurd to several people, here's my logic. Several studies have been conducted with criminals to determine what they see as their largest threats. One of the biggest threats, to them at least, is an armed civilian. People will always get a gun illegally, but having many people with legal weapons is seen as a problem to most criminals.
Example: Virginia has almost no limitations on gun laws. Texas has very strict limits. Proportionally, Virginia's violent crime rate is much lower than that of Texas.
That being said, I think that the exact wording of the Constitution is outdated, but that was the point. The authors left room for states to make their own laws regarding issues yet to come, so no I see no problem with the 2nd Amendment. State laws should allow for residents to legally purchase and carry firearms easily, however there should be certain responsibilities gun owners must follow.
Unfortunately for me, I live in Texas, so I cannot carry them ANYWHERE outside of my house, car, or local shooting range. While that may sound absurd to several people, here's my logic. Several studies have been conducted with criminals to determine what they see as their largest threats. One of the biggest threats, to them at least, is an armed civilian. People will always get a gun illegally, but having many people with legal weapons is seen as a problem to most criminals.
Example: Virginia has almost no limitations on gun laws. Texas has very strict limits. Proportionally, Virginia's violent crime rate is much lower than that of Texas.
That being said, I think that the exact wording of the Constitution is outdated, but that was the point. The authors left room for states to make their own laws regarding issues yet to come, so no I see no problem with the 2nd Amendment. State laws should allow for residents to legally purchase and carry firearms easily, however there should be certain responsibilities gun owners must follow.
This. I haven't been on the eScapist too long, but it seems every day there's almost guaranteed to be a new "Mass Effect- hooplah" thread, a "What's your favorite blah" thread and a "I don't like guns, do you?" thread.Skullkid4187 said:
And no, I've no problem with the second amendment. People will abuse whatever power they have and violent people or people under sufficient stress will commit horrific acts, if they have guns, knives, or are just that much bigger than someone else.
Alright, yes, I think the 2nd amendment is outdated, however, there is a problem.
Can we trust those in power to stop there? If we allow the precedent of removing an article of the bill of rights, what else will the government take away?
Slippery slope and all that...
Can we trust those in power to stop there? If we allow the precedent of removing an article of the bill of rights, what else will the government take away?
Slippery slope and all that...
Not entirely related to the thread, but I love how whenever discussion comes in the US about things like the second amendment, it's about "what exactly the founding fathers meant by "a well armed militia." Why can't we just say that the dudes made an oopsie/made a call that may have been good once, but is now outdated.
That's actually illegal in most places. And in the few that it is legal, you have to go through an extremely lengthy process including a test for firearm proficiency and a psych eval. So no, not anyone can go around carrying a handgun, be it revolver or semi.CitySquirrel said:
That's where you're wrong. Modern rounds will go through you and do a lot of damage to your internal organs, but there's the chance you will live. The firearms during the revolutionary war shot solid balls of lead that mushroomed inside your body. I believe the two most popular calibers were 75 and 69. To put it in perspective, a .50 caliber round will tear someone's arm off from a mile away. Just imagine what a .75 would do. It would probably tear a whole through about half your back. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure you can't just stitch that up.SL33TBL1ND said:
For the most part, its generally accidents that people are worried about.
Sure, the kind of crowd that may be attracted to it are idiots (I.E. Rednecks), but you'd be surprised how safe they are with guns.
They just need to be stricter gun laws than there are now. Anyone who knew Jared Laughtner for more than a minute knew he was batsht crazy.
Sure, the kind of crowd that may be attracted to it are idiots (I.E. Rednecks), but you'd be surprised how safe they are with guns.
They just need to be stricter gun laws than there are now. Anyone who knew Jared Laughtner for more than a minute knew he was batsht crazy.
Wintermute_ said:
I'll make my response short.
A majority of "civilians" are what caused the French Revolution who at the time the French had a world power army. You could say that it wasn't the best, because it wasn't, BUT today the US doesn't exactly have the most enthusiastic army either, we are still pretty damn sexist and homophobic in the military.
Wait, you believe that in modern times where there are gangs, psychopaths, muggers, etc. we have no need for a weapon to defend ourselves? We are already forbidden from carrying many forms of melee weapons and the reason guns haven't followed yet was because of the second amendment. I say we fix how easy it is for anyone not sane to get it before just banishing it all together. When are we going to blame the individual before the tool he uses?
First off, the Second Amendment was written after a narrowly successful rebellion against an authoritarian government. The whole Bill of Rights was written with this in mind. The reason EVERY amendment was written was to limit the power of the custodians of the Constitution. Every right written into those amendments was to insure that people were given the ability to live without fear of their government trampling their rights. Some of those amendments are inconvenient to tyrants; some demand something of those who exercise the rights contained therein.
To say that any of the amendments are 'outdated' is a lie. These words were not written for a specific time, they were written with a full realization of human nature. That those with power want more of it. It was written to avoid abuses of power. If you discard any part of it, you discard the whole of it, and with it, the protections it offers. When that happens, the power of the executors of our Constitution will become even greater, while the power of the governed will all but disappear. What then will restrain the hand of the government? What will stop them from wholesale abuse of power?
As for shootings. Guns can be dangerous, and people can abuse them. This is a given and no one will disagree with you. There are several problems with outlawing them, however. The first is, most power tools can be dangerous, and people can abuse them; granted, power tools have uses that aren't killing, but they are no less dangerous in some cases. Second, the vast majority of licensed gun owners do not commit crimes. People who commit crimes do not often employ firearms, and when they do, they use firearms that are illegally obtained. Outlawing firearms would have little to no effect on those who would commit crimes with them.
On the subject of the mentally ill individuals who committed these much publicized acts of violence. The fault was not the gun; the fault lay solely on the disturbed individuals who committed the act. You cannot stop crazy, angry people from doing what they will do before they actually do it. Unless you have big brother watching you twenty four hours a day, reading your private writings, listening to you in your home, you will never stop some things from happening.
To say that any of the amendments are 'outdated' is a lie. These words were not written for a specific time, they were written with a full realization of human nature. That those with power want more of it. It was written to avoid abuses of power. If you discard any part of it, you discard the whole of it, and with it, the protections it offers. When that happens, the power of the executors of our Constitution will become even greater, while the power of the governed will all but disappear. What then will restrain the hand of the government? What will stop them from wholesale abuse of power?
As for shootings. Guns can be dangerous, and people can abuse them. This is a given and no one will disagree with you. There are several problems with outlawing them, however. The first is, most power tools can be dangerous, and people can abuse them; granted, power tools have uses that aren't killing, but they are no less dangerous in some cases. Second, the vast majority of licensed gun owners do not commit crimes. People who commit crimes do not often employ firearms, and when they do, they use firearms that are illegally obtained. Outlawing firearms would have little to no effect on those who would commit crimes with them.
On the subject of the mentally ill individuals who committed these much publicized acts of violence. The fault was not the gun; the fault lay solely on the disturbed individuals who committed the act. You cannot stop crazy, angry people from doing what they will do before they actually do it. Unless you have big brother watching you twenty four hours a day, reading your private writings, listening to you in your home, you will never stop some things from happening.
I think the problem with this lies within the fact that many don't understand the positive aspects of owning a handgun. We need to combat illegal gun usage, not the tool itself. Regulate who is and isn't allowed to have one yes (Criminals, illegal aliens, those with an excessive jail history, criminal misconduct, etc), but to the effect where it would put the American people in a disadvantage.
Not to mention that being allowed to gun gives you an advantage/opportunity of survival whereas it could be a knife, fist, or anything. It puts everyone at an equal advantage.
Not to mention that being allowed to gun gives you an advantage/opportunity of survival whereas it could be a knife, fist, or anything. It puts everyone at an equal advantage.