Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[demoman_chaos]

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Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.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

If another US revolution did happen, do you really think that the military would support the government? Think about it, the soldiers are people. People who most likely aren't fans of the government either. I am certain at least half of the military would aid in the revolution, but most likely closer to 80% or more.

As for the 2nd amendment itself, why should we get rid of it? If guns aren't used, knives will be used or some other weapon will be used. Don't blame the tool for the users actions. You can't blame misspelled words on a pencil. It is not the hammer's fault you missed the nail and hit your hand.
We don't need gun control, we need to better control the crazy folks that kill others.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

i think the only people who should have guns are those who use them in their work, or in sport like target shooting, and even then they should be hard to aquire.

 

[V8 Ninja]

What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes.

That statement isn't stereotypical and inaccurate AT ALL. =P

 

[daltonlaffs]

To quote a wise friend of mine (who was likely quoting someone else himself), "if all people with guns are criminals, then only criminals will have guns."

If guns are controlled in any way, you can bet your ass the actual criminals aren't going to care. They'll go through the same black-market channels and shady dealers that they always have. But people that have guns for genuine reasons -- hunting, self-defense, that sort of thing -- will no longer have them. In other words, gun control would NOT prevent another of these Arizona shootings. Rather, gun control is what CAUSED this shooting to be as bad as it was: If more than one person in that crowd had a weapon, the psychopath could have been downed before the first five people were shot.

Something to think about the next time someone blathers about how gun control would make the country safer. It just means that whoever breaks into your house knows for sure that you won't be firing back on them.

 

[The Man With the Soap]

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?

First off, I mentioned the size of the U.S. military as a hindering factor in Irag, not the hindering factor in Iraq.

Secondly, where in my post did I ever mention using assault rifles for hunting purposes? Please explain that to me.

 

[conflictofinterests]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

What it says: "No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."

I know Wikipedia is a dubious source at best, but it's got plenty of links to click on to verify as sources themselves.

Anyways, back on topic, it's best not to demonize any side in this with extreme rationalism. Empiricism is a more reliable way of thinking, and as of yet, there is no conclusive data.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

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?

Honestly, this doesn't deserve a real rebuttal. All I have to say is that it's anti-gun morons like you that spawned the NRA. They annoy me to no end, but with rabid anti-gun people in this country, they're a necessary evil.

The constitution allows the citizenry guns. This isn't changing. Get over it.

 

[DarthFennec]

I disagree with you, OP. I think it's very important for people to be allowed to carry weapons. It gives them a means of defending themselves. Also, banning guns is not going to stop people from killing each other. It won't help in the slightest. There are plenty of other things they can kill people with, besides a gun. Ever heard the phrase `guns don't kill people, people kill people'? This is exactly what it means, it means that people are going to do illegal things and be violent whether they have a gun or not. Take away someone's gun, and they'll skin you with their knife. Take that away, and they'll hit you with their car. Wasn't martial arts invented in order to teach people how to kill each other without any weapons? The killing will never stop, no matter what you do with the weapons. Also, I use weapons for perfectly legal purposes, and I don't want my rights to be taken away because of a few insane people. You take away guns, I can't go hunting with my uncle. You take away knives, I can't spread my butter or cut my steak. It's probably easier to kill someone with a car than with a gun. You take away cars, I can't drive to work.

Basically, don't regulate my weapons. It's bad for me and for everyone else. Instead, we should be focusing on finding these nutcases that go around killing people, and we should get them help. Before they actually kill anyone, hopefully.

EDIT:

Something to think about the next time someone blathers about how gun control would make the country safer. It just means that whoever breaks into your house knows for sure that you won't be firing back on them.

Thank you, I shall be quoting this in the future ^^

 

[Kagatos]

I'm sure that other people have already said what I'm about to say as I didn't go through every post in here. But here goes anyway:

Guns are tools, tools are not bad or good...the people that use those tools are the ones that need to be responsible for their own actions. Taking guns away from normal every day citizens will only ensure that those that DON'T follow the laws would have them and would still use them.

If you want to get crazy, why not ban knives, forks, axes, saws, hammers, hands...etc...etc...etc. You could go on and on as each of those in turn, and many more, are completely capable of ending someones life. Then why stop there...ban doctors as they have the necessary knowledge to hurt as well as heal.

Is it perfect? No. Will banning things make it better? No. Sadly, even if the world was a perfect place...a utopia if you would, I fear humanity would find something else to complain about.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Pro-gun? No, i call out bullshit that was used to ban so many things before. Remember pot? Banned because it was "dangerous" and on the same reason that guns are to be banned. All i hear is how guns automatically indoctrinate you into some crazed gunman. The exact same "violent" mindset they tried to portray drug users to be. People think that laws stop guns from getting into the hands of people, when laws are just words on paper and nothing more. If you actually take the time to notice legal guns drop crime rates while illegal guns raise it. Banning guns will only ensure criminals have guns which makes them ambitious, which leads to more civilian deaths. In a world of people being allowed to defend themselves with a gun, criminals would think twice. The argument of people using legal guns to kill is utterly false, as criminal with an illegal gun kills and not a civilian.

Guns should be regulated, but not outright banned.

Regulated like Australia, yes.
But again you turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that the easier it is to get a gun, the easier it is for a criminal to use a gun.
Less guns means less criminals using guns. Don't even bothering with your 'they'll get them anyway' bs, cause the fact of the matter is with restricted access the number of criminals able to get guns is less than with unrestricted access and the under the counter dealing that currently goes on.

And again i will ask, why do you feel your police force is so incompetent that it can't do the single job its exists to do? Why even have them if you think they can't protect you from criminals?

But stop replying now, you keep tempting me to answer back, and its an utter waste of my time >.< (hell, your first sentence just then was to deny you are pro-gun XD)

I got so pissed at some guy yesterday I shot him, ***** took my frenchfries.

Good example, (although made in jest and distorted to be someone ridiculous), of the danger of guns. All it takes is one moment of lost control and you've killed someone. Without a gun so easily at your disposal murder isn't so fast and simple, so someone would have to be much more intent on killing to actually go through with it than when they have a gun at their disposal.

 

[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?

First off, I mentioned the size of the U.S. military as a hindering factor in Irag, not the hindering factor in Iraq.

Secondly, where in my post did I ever mention using assault rifles for hunting purposes? Please explain that to me.

The mention of the assault rifle was related to the post YOU quoted. And you're right. Truth be told if i had to choose one and only one problem with why we fucked up Iraq, it is because we didn't know what the fuck we were doing in the first place.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

'like the US does now'...

School shootings
In America
More than the COMBINED total of the rest of the ENTIRE world...

doesn't sound like its working out to me...

 

[ShadowKatt]

I'm sure that other people have already said what I'm about to say as I didn't go through every post in here. But here goes anyway:

Guns are tools, tools are not bad or good...the people that use those tools are the ones that need to be responsible for their own actions. Taking guns away from normal every day citizens will only ensure that those that DON'T follow the laws would have them and would still use them.

If you want to get crazy, why not ban knives, forks, axes, saws, hammers, hands...etc...etc...etc. You could go on and on as each of those in turn, and many more, are completely capable of ending someones life. Then why stop there...ban doctors as they have the necessary knowledge to hurt as well as heal.

Is it perfect? No. Will banning things make it better? No. Sadly, even if the world was a perfect place...a utopia if you would, I fear humanity would find something else to complain about.

I'm in the same boat as you. 12 pages, what could possibly be left to say? Especially since no one in these topics is ever listening.

So, real simple, everyone that doesn't like guns, send your guns to me. You can wait for someone else to protect you, I'll protect myself. Get back to me in a few years and lemme know how that works out for you.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Honestly, I really could care less about it. Now, if people could offer some fair revision that would be fair, I'd be all for it. If not, I see no drastic need to change it in any way. I don't own a gun, nor do I have any intention of owning one. From what I've seen, many people who I'm unfortunately related to that own guns have an inflated sense of self worth, so... I guess that's a point against it.

 

[Studd_Jozz]

Look, I'll freely admit I only read your point about if the citizenry fought the US, we'd lose.
Just a couple things I'd like to point out: Vietnam, Korea, both Gulf Wars, the Warsaw Ghetto, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and so on.
Untrained civilians with shitty weapons that brought the US powerhouse to it's knees, with the exception of the Warsaw Ghetto, which brought the Nazis to their knees.
So, before you say we need rockets and tanks and jets to fight the US government, remember your history classes, lest we all be doomed to repeat them.

 

[Glerken]

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

Someone else may have pointed this out, but I'm not going to look through 12 pages just to make sure I'm not the first to correct you.

Amendments.

The framers were plenty aware that if the constitution was going to be relevant in the future, there would have to be changes as time went on.

 

[spectrenihlus]

I really don't understand this fear of having law abiding citizens the ability to have guns.

also

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/