AZCB34

The way it is worded, the amendment is a free license to own any weapon. Of that there isn't really an argument. However, as I pointed out as well, the true intent of the amendment is vastly outdated and in fact barely applicable any longer.

That is the crux of the issue...and it isn't any different than the really intent of the free speech amendment being outdated from it's true intent. The way it is worded it leaves everything open but the actual intent of it isn't applicable any longer.

__________________
Dream like you'll live forever, live like you will die today. -James Dean

Shane H

First off let me say that I believe you are over guessing the amount of which violent crime would decrease if guns were banned. In general there would be a small decrease in the number of weapons out there that I agree with but overall Bad people ar going to do bad things regardless of the law. Guns even if banned really wouldnt be that hard to come by even in the long haul.

As far as your question. I have no problem with the banning of assault rifles and in fact agree with it. There is no reason whatsoever a citizen should need nor want one. There whole purpose and was to be produced as a killing machine with the whole intent of killing other humans! But I am against the banning of Handguns, Rifles, and Shotguns.

Guns even handguns are used for sport and hunting as well. Like I said above I also dont think that crime would go down like you think it would, so to me it is well within the rights of citizens to be able to protect themselves from violent offenders.

Guns while a testosterone builder for some criminals are also a good deterrant to crime as well. Most people that own guns are law abiding good american citizens who either collect them, use them for protection, or are hunters and sport shooters. So IMO they are really doing all that much harm. With exception of the few careless owners who may leave them out for a child to come into contact with.

Dback Jon

Used shotgun, semi-automatic rifle.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/South/07/...oot/index.html

__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

SirChaz

I disagree the second amendment is outdated.

The right to bear arms is not absolute just like the freedom of press, speech, and assembly have their limitations, but I do believe every American (that is not a convicted felon) has the right to keep and bear arms.

Every able bodied American is the militia IMO. It is up to each one of us to ensure our freedoms. I hope it never gets to the point where the populace relies only on the government for their protection.

Cardinals.Ken

Hmm, I would have to disagree.

The "Founding Fathers" knew that no government can oppress an armed populace. That is exactly why the Constitution includes the Second Ammendment.

And that's why if it is revoked, we must do our Patriotic Duty, and overthrough the current government, as Thomas Jefferson dictated in the Declaration Of Independence.

Taking away our weaponry will be yet another step towards our losing every Liberty we enjoy in this country and becoming a Police-State.

You think I'm kidding?

Think about it.

__________________
Dains plenfy of waten!

SirStefan32

Wow, thank you!
I was just about to say the same thing.

I am glad that there are still people who understand the importance of the Second Ammendment.

Stefan

__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."

"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."

"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."

Cigarette Smoking Man

SirChaz

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear.
It should read "I disagree that the second amendment is outdated"

I was replying to Dback JonAnd AZCB34Sounds like you and I are on the same page Ken.

Cardinals.Ken

Thank you.

I realize that my comments may appear shocking and out-of-line.

But

If the Jews had rifles and pistols in Gemany in the 1930's, would there have been a Holocost?
I doubt it, but perhaps, and not with out a fight.

Would the Soviet block have been able to subjugate their citizens for over 70 years had there been a shotgun and revolver in every household?
Maybe, but I doubt it.

Would Pol Pot been able to practice genocide upon his own people during the reign of the Khemer in Cambodia if people had been able to arm themselves as they saw fit?
Nope!

The issue of gun-related violence has nothing to do with the Second Ammendment.

It has everything to do with our society's inablity to truly care and nurture one another.

__________________
Dains plenfy of waten!

Cardinals.Ken

My bad...I just got into this forum, and had to read it all at once.

__________________
Dains plenfy of waten!

Dback Jon

The Jews in Warsaw did rise up against the Nazis - but were no match for trained troops with tanks.


And I fully support the right of everyone to arm themselves with front-loading muskets and single shot pistols.


Seriously, though. As I stated earlier - I have no problem with someone owning a rifle. It is the assault weapons that get me. The founding fathers had no clue as to what weapon technology would be like in 200 years.

Do stun guns fall under the second amendment? In fifty year/one hundred years, when laser guns that use energy beams to fire, are those still protected arms?

__________________



R.I.P Tim Minnick

The KING of Cards

Cardinals.Ken

Assault weapons really have no civilian purpose. But, if memory serves, they represent only fraction of gun-related deaths in the United States. It's handguns that are the biggest threat to life and Liberty.

I don't believe that just anyone should be able to just go down to the corner store and buy guns and ammo.

Personally, I believe that if someone wants to own a firearm, they should have to do one tour in the active military, and one in the reserves. This would keep with the "militia" reference in the Second Ammendment. The idea being, if you can't make it in the service, you shouldn't be able to keep and bear arms.

And I think stun-guns and ray-guns both fall under the purview of the Second Ammendment.

__________________
Dains plenfy of waten!

Krangthebrain

But Ken, if we do what you suggest, we will be too much like the Socialist!

__________________
26-year-old Saermengsi last season rated average 25.1 minutes, with 7.5 hours, 2.7 times and 2.7 backboard secondary attack, he Yifusen general as the replacement came in March Yifusen injuries ever period of time, three matches in a row, his secondary attack will reach 10. By Sun team, he could strengthen outer lane line, but also as the replacement fullback scored his general customary activities in the stadium two wings. On the season Saermengsi-ball hit rate reached 30%. He was in flames and Jones made a three-year teammate, Jones said that the organizers he pitches, but he can also shooting. His shooting is deceptive.

Cardinals.Ken

I bet you use fluoridated toothpaste and drink fluoridated water, don't you you self-rightious son-of-a-*****!


Just kidding, really...

For some reason this is making laugh uncontrollably...I think I need a nap...

__________________
Dains plenfy of waten!

AZCB34

Except the Second Amendment was more about allowing our citizens to own weapons to use against the British rulers than any effort to keep the new American government in line. Essentially it was done to allow the Americans to field an army against the British.

Same concept with the first amendment...it was put into place to allow people to criticize openly the government...specifically the British rulers again.

Sorry Ken, there would have been a Holocaust no matter how you slice it. The only difference would have been the Jews taking a few more Nazis with them is all. The Jews were outgunned, outmanned and would have never ever won that type of insurrection. In fact, one could argue that had they been well armed, the results of the Holocaust could have been WORSE as the Nazis would have taken out their greater anger on the Jewish populace.

So is it all right for me to pull out a gun and shoot a police officer when he pulls me over for speeding because the government, through the police, is oppressing me? Give me a break.

Fine, then lets all get guns and go after the government since that is what the 2nd is for.

__________________
Dream like you'll live forever, live like you will die today. -James Dean

Shane H

Actually I wholeheartedly disagree with this CB!

The intent was so the militia could rise up against its own govt. in the event that it startred to suppress its own people. Most of the people back then were used to being oppressed and taxed heavily and basically having there free will taken from them. The intent was to make sure that there current new govt. would never do that to any citizen of this country like in there homelands!