Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Superhyperactiveman]

I love the 2nd ammendment. Because of it, I can own guns, which means I can protect myself, my loved ones, and my property, and that's one less thing I need to rely on the government for, which is pretty fucking awesome in my opinion.

 

[omega 616]

Nobody is going to invade USA, even if they did they won't call on the public to run at them with purse guns.

USA has god knows how many nukes, tanks, planes, boats, ships (boats go under water, ships go on top) infantry etc plus there is the UN, which I am pretty sure is there to stop anybody attacking anybody in it.

I think the UN works like a gang, so if a member attacks another member, the attacker gets gang raped. If a non-member attacks the UN goes after the attacker either by politics, sanctions on trade or all out war. There are 192 countries in the UN, whoever attacks will be fucked!

I live in the U.K and it's hard to get a gun over here, you don't see everybody getting robbed at gun point every day. This notion that each house must have a gun to protect it and each person has there own gun to protect themselves is silly! In fact very few places actually have armed police, there is a back up squad of armed police though.

All it does is rise the stakes from losing a bit of cash to somebody losing there life. I mean how much do you carry in your wallet at any point? $50 at most? You would kill (not just effecting that person but there friends and family) for the sake of $50, maybe your phone and MP3? To me, it's not worth it.

If you'd actually look at crime rates, you'd see that while there is a significant decrease in gun-related crimes in the UK, there's a corresponding increase in physically violent crime (with knives being the most common weapon).

The elimination of guns won't limit the crime rate at all. It will simply cause the crime to be performed in another fashion.

It's really quite simple. Some people are not nice. These not nice people will inevitably attempt to harm the nice people. When that happens, they will use whatever they need to to achieve the desired effect. If it's a gun, then they'll use guns. If it's a knife, they'll use a knife. If it's a god damn Godzilla doll, they'll use that and beat someone to death with it. Limiting weapons does absolutely nothing. And since it does not accomplish anything, there's no point in doing it in the first place.

Well thats obvious.

All I know is, if a person breaks in and your both armed with guns, somebody is probably going to die due to the mexican stand off situation. If a guy breaks in armed with a knife and your armed with a coat hanger your going to let him rob your ass and everybody is going to live ... unless the guy is a bit of a ****.

 

[Angus565]

I don't know what everyone's mad about, I wear t-shirts all the time, no one ever bugs me about my bare arms...

 

[TimeLord]

Being non-American, from my point of view across the pond, it's an outdated law that needs serious revision. If only to cut down on the gun crime in America.

Although implementing such a change I could see as near impossible for the amount of privately owned weapons in America.

 

[FUAU]

Here's something interesting. According to this website (www.areaconnect.com/crime/compare.htm) in 2006 the murder rate in Washington D.C. was 29.1 people out of every 100,000, while New York City's rate was 7.3 people for every 100,000. Also bear in mind that the national average is about 7 as well.

The interesting thing to note here is that the D.C. all-out handgun ban was in effect in 2006, no citizen was legally able to own a gun. And still homicide rate was still 3.98 times higher than New York's.

 

[WeBeNukin]

1. U.S. military vs. Civilians
Even if every American owned an AK, we are of course forgetting that the military has artillery, aircraft, tanks, etc. Small arms < Military grade war machines

Though I have a hard time picturing our military EVER attacking America. It would take a lot for Americans to start slaughtering other Americans like that.

2. Guns aren't the problem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox9XGFliiig
*American Dad Clip*

The underlying problem, I think is desperate people with guns. It seems like places like the UK would have fewer violent gun crimes, because there are fewer violent and desperate people. Whereas in the U.S. guns and people who will use them illegally are much more plentiful. Note: I'm American.

 

[TOGSolid]

bare hands to deal with armed enemies.

use effectively at close range

If you're going to specify hand to hand, then do it from the start. You're attempting to wedge an entirely different topic into this thread. Please feel free to tell me what any of this has to do with the 2nd amendment and its validity.

1. U.S. military vs. Civilians
Even if every American owned an AK, we are of course forgetting that the military has artillery, aircraft, tanks, etc. Small arms < Military grade war machines

Though I have a hard time picturing our military EVER attacking America. It would take a lot for Americans to start slaughtering other Americans like that.

2. Guns aren't the problem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox9XGFliiig
*American Dad Clip*

The underlying problem, I think is desperate people with guns. It seems like places like the UK would have fewer violent gun crimes, because there are fewer violent and desperate people. Whereas in the U.S. guns and people who will use them illegally are much more plentiful. Note: I'm American.

Basically. If you really want to reduce crime, then work on issues like reducing poverty, increasing education, and so forth. Yanno, things the left wing claim to really love doing but never do? (Note, I'm not a right winger and hate both sides).

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

I know you didn't want a reply, but I felt that you should realize this. In most cities it takes the police an average of 4 minutes to respond to a 911 call. By then you'd be a lifeless corpse wasting away on the ground, or if you're a woman, you'd be a sexually assaulted lifeless corpse.

They're less likely to shoot someone who is unarmed, as their main motivation is to shoot you before you shoot them. If you aren't a threat then they're far more likely to take the money and run, rather than make it worse for them self by needlessly murdering someone.

Yes, there are exceptions, but if they're like that they're going to shoot you first weather you have a gun or not.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

We should be Civil and mature to have Guns for self-protection. We wouldn't have issues if people just learned not to misuse Guns. For the matter, I feel taking away Guns is pointless because there will be people buying off Guns in Black Markets and when they threaten us, we'll have no way to protect ourselves then. Plus, it'd also cause other Nations to feel the urge to invade us if we don't have Guns, let alone only the Army does. It's all complicated really..

Nobody is going to invade USA, even if they did they won't call on the public to run at them with purse guns.

USA has god knows how many nukes, tanks, planes, boats, ships (boats go under water, ships go on top) infantry etc plus there is the UN, which I am pretty sure is there to stop anybody attacking anybody in it.

I think the UN works like a gang, so if a member attacks another member, the attacker gets gang raped. If a non-member attacks the UN goes after the attacker either by politics, sanctions on trade or all out war. There are 192 countries in the UN, whoever attacks will be fucked!

I live in the U.K and it's hard to get a gun over here, you don't see everybody getting robbed at gun point every day. This notion that each house must have a gun to protect it and each person has there own gun to protect themselves is silly! In fact very few places actually have armed police, there is a back up squad of armed police though.

All it does is rise the stakes from losing a bit of cash to somebody losing there life. I mean how much do you carry in your wallet at any point? $50 at most? You would kill (not just effecting that person but there friends and family) for the sake of $50, maybe your phone and MP3? To me, it's not worth it.

..*sigh* Honestly I would answer, but like 7 other people quoted my opinion and told me different things. Not just one thing, but many different views and I grew kind of tired. No offense, but my answer will be short cause I feel like I keep repeating to myself. I wouldn't kill anyone for anything, and I feel if people were mature and behaved then we could be trusted with guns is all. There's always going to be people who hide their weapons spite if a law came out saying we can't have any in our possessions. It's a factor.. and I like your avatar (lol). But, point is that it can lead to many scenarios and I for one just puts it out there in case. I respect your opinion and am very tired from College so all I shall say is - Let us become more Civil to not need guns, but for now we need them to protect ourselves if someone invades our house. That is all.

i will highly agree with this.

yes things need to be civil, and i think gun laws need to be updated, (note: i do not own a gun personally) i WILL voice my opinion and fight for peoples right to own a gun, as if you aren't strong, or are independent (as in you live alone or are alone most of the time), than mean people prey upon this idea (especially if your a woman) and having a gun gives you that better edge

just saying, if im in a horrible situation, and im generally alone , and i see 2-3 goons coming at me with a horrible look on their face, having that gun their is ALL the difference, between me being god knows what and dying and possibly living or scaring off the scumbags or possibly taking one down if they come at me with the intent to hurt/steal/kill/etc...

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

They're less likely to shoot someone who is unarmed, as their main motivation is to shoot you before you shoot them. If you aren't a threat then they're far more likely to take the money and run, rather than make it worse for them self by needlessly murdering someone.

Yes, there are exceptions, but if they're like that they're going to shoot you first weather you have a gun or not.

That's the point of concealed carry though, they don't know you're carrying, thus you have the element of surprise. And yes, while many muggings don't end in bloodshed there are those exceptions. Those are the reasons people carry, they don't want to be that exception. You're also trained to actually give in to their requests unless they demonstrate harm on you or another person. Basically, give them the money, but if they stick around, then you shoot them. I see your point in stating that a gun will enrage the person wishing you harm, but keep in mind that they aren't necessarily looking for a fight. They won't attack you if they know you're carrying. However, there are the exceptions that take a stance towards you and follow you waiting for your gun to be out of reach. This is another reason people concealed carry.
It's almost always safe to carry a firearm, unless of course you're on federal ground in which case it will be illegal.

 

[Why do I care]

Crazy people + guns = shit storm

My family does legally carry guns so I see no need to ban them. Revision? Yeah, we might need that.

 

[jpblondie]

Gun Laws should be analyzed for every city. Some cities do better with more guns: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

Yet others do worse. You cannot give every state cookie cutter gun laws. However, I do believe that there is no reason for a fully automatic weapon, an extremely short rifle or shotgun, or any explosive device. Guns do not solve everything, but think about it from a muggers point of view: "If I am in a city with many guns, there is a good chance my victim could shoot back". And that chance of retaliation is an important factor not talked about a lot.

This is not a black and white debate, please be rational here.

 

[theamazingbean]

If I had the authority, I would rewrite the 2nd amendment. I find having the right to bear arms too lax. Responsibility to bear arms is more like it. I'm rather fond of Switzerland's system, whereby 2/3 of the males age 18-34 have basic military training, and military equipment at hand, thus any attempt to invade the country would turn into the worst guerrilla war ever.

 

[aPod]

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. -

"Why i think guns are bad, and this amendment is outdated and needs to be changed or removed"

You and me won't get along i feel very much like theamzingbean

If I had the authority, I would rewrite the 2nd amendment. I find having the right to bear arms too lax.

The part about the security of a free State, is about your country.

If that isn't clear then i'll explain.

If someone decided that they wanted to control the country, start a dictatorship, and remove all of our rights we, as a free people, have been allowed the means to ensure that it doesn't happen, and legally to boot.

 

[theamazingbean]

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. -

"Why i think guns are bad, and this amendment is outdated and needs to be changed or removed"

You and me won't get along i feel very much like theamzingbean

If I had the authority, I would rewrite the 2nd amendment. I find having the right to bear arms too lax.

The part about the security of a free State, is about your country.

If that isn't clear then i'll explain.

If someone decided that they wanted to control the country, start a dictatorship, and remove all of our rights we, as a free people, have been allowed the means to ensure that it doesn't happen, and legally to boot.

I can't help but feel you might have misunderstood what I was trying to convey in my post. I am in favor of MANDATORY gun ownership. If I had my druthers, I would ship every 18-50 year old in the US an AK-74 tomorrow. I could probably be convinced that some form of mandatory firearms training should accompany this, but history has shown that control over the process of approval can be as restricting as an outright ban. So while people should be taught how to operate their government-subsidized military hardware, the intent isn't to restrict them from having it.

The argument is often made that while the 2nd amendment made sense when everyone had muzzle-loaders, it falls apart in the face of cruise missiles and Apache helicopters. I see that as a great reason to legalize electronic countermeasures and man-portable surface-to-air missiles. I would prefer to see the US military transformed into a force specialized in opposing illegally-imposed authority (whether from foreign enemies or domestic) and away from the armies of occupation we see operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the current wording of the 2nd amendment can be interpreted as supporting my goal, I find the wording too ambiguous. I would prefer tighter, more ironclad language.

 

[loremazd]

Look at prohibition, then you'll likely understand why gun control will do nothing but escalate crime.

 

[Ipswich67]

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. -

"Why i think guns are bad, and this amendment is outdated and needs to be changed or removed"

You and me won't get along i feel very much like theamzingbean

If I had the authority, I would rewrite the 2nd amendment. I find having the right to bear arms too lax.

The part about the security of a free State, is about your country.

If that isn't clear then i'll explain.

If someone decided that they wanted to control the country, start a dictatorship, and remove all of our rights we, as a free people, have been allowed the means to ensure that it doesn't happen, and legally to boot.

I can't help but feel you might have misunderstood what I was trying to convey in my post. I am in favor of MANDATORY gun ownership. If I had my druthers, I would ship every 18-50 year old in the US an AK-74 tomorrow. I could probably be convinced that some form of mandatory firearms training should accompany this, but history has shown that control over the process of approval can be as restricting as an outright ban. So while people should be taught how to operate their government-subsidized military hardware, the intent isn't to restrict them from having it.

The argument is often made that while the 2nd amendment made sense when everyone had muzzle-loaders, it falls apart in the face of cruise missiles and Apache helicopters. I see that as a great reason to legalize electronic countermeasures and man-portable surface-to-air missiles. I would prefer to see the US military transformed into a force specialized in opposing illegally-imposed authority (whether from foreign enemies or domestic) and away from the armies of occupation we see operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the current wording of the 2nd amendment can be interpreted as supporting my goal, I find the wording too ambiguous. I would prefer tighter, more ironclad language.

First paragraph: You, my friend, would love to live in Switzerland.

Second paragraph: Perhaps you're right, a revision may be necessary.

 

[Mysnomer]

The reason it exist is to make sure that the government can never suppress the populus, like the case of the French revolution. It's a great idea, but the way it's being upheld is outdated.

To bad they didn't create a proper Amendment to protect the population from being suppressed. There are a vast amount of more simple, and much more effective, ways to suppress the citizens of a country. Force is the least effective form of suppression and to have laws protecting against force promotes the deception of safety and freedom and distracts the public from the real sources of control.

Man, it's too bad the founding father's didn't think of that. I'm pretty ashamed to live in a country that doesn't protect speech, the press, or religious freedoms
.
.
.
Oh, wait.

 

[Darren-Jaguar]

This might have been said before, but I can't really be bothered to read through the thread.

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?

They may have known what they were doing, but "smart" isn't on the list of their qualities. Nor is good grammar.

"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."

It's the most outrageously bad use of commas ever devised. It should read something like so: "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Which implies that the said weapons be used for militia purposes. Oh.

 

[xDarc]

Drunk drivers still kill more innocent people than guns do. By innocent, I mean people not killing themselves- which accounts for more than half of all gun deaths in the US each year.

If you're not ready to ban alcohol first, then please come down off your soap box.