Discussion: The Second Amendment

[The Senator]

The Supreme Court is debating whether citizens have the right to own guns under the Second Amendment this week. As many of you are aware, DC has a ban the sale and ownership of personal firearms.

So, gang, do you believe we have the RIGHT to own guns under the Second Amendment? If you do or don't, do you believe we should restrict access to certain types of firearms, by certain types of people? And how would you solve crises which have developed in some our cities, such as illegal arms deals, gun-related homicides, and even school shootings?

Discuss away.

 

[Tron5000]

Guns kick ass. They allow me to prevent someone from killing me in my house. Right on.

 

[Gilpesh]

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them.

Really, if a person is going to commit crime with a gun... they are. None of these laws or taking away rights is going to stop them when they have already decided to break the law. If anything this would just make people less safe.

Also I hate to do the car thing.... but really let's outlaw some cars when we're on the stopping people from getting killed bandwagon.

 

[Tron5000]

Oh yeah, of course we have the right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment. It says so in plain English. I wish there was no need for guns (i.e., there were no people who would try to hurt me with their guns), but that is not the case. So I'm certainly not going to put myself at a disadvantage against crazy people by being unarmed.

 

[The Senator]

I don't believe the constitution gives us a right to own guns.

I do not, however, believe we should ban guns. I believe those who can act responsibly should be able to own a single-shot or semi-automatic weapon. However, I believe that you should be psychologically stable and that you shouldn't have a history of violent behavior.

I also favor banning automatic weapons (or at least the sale of that sort of ammunition). I don't think anyone has a personal need for a submachine gun, if you ask me.

 

[Tron5000]

Coincidentally, my roommate just received his conceal-carry permit today.

We own single-shot and semi-autos, but no fully-auto weapons. There's just no need for that.

 

[Gilpesh]

*sigh*

Why does everyone have to be level-headed and agree on the issues?

 

[SuBe]

I believe that the 2nd Amendmant Guarentees your right to carry and own a Firearm. This was intentionally put into the Bill of Rights to keep the Government in Check. If we loose this right, it is a loss of all Rights. I believe that if you are convicted of a Violent Crime, you willfully gave up your right to own and carry a Firearm.

 

[Matt]

The Constitution should be seen as a living document. When the Framers wrote it, they could not anticipate guns that can fire 30 rounds per-second. "Arms" in their time meant a musket that takes a minute and a half to load after EACH SHOT. The Constitution should adapt to modern times and technologies.

I am not advocating a ban on guns. I am advocating strict laws surrounding ownership and an outlaw on automatic and assault rifles. Hand guns and semi-automatic rifles should be permited, but frankly there is no need for a civilian to own an AK-47.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

I believe that the 2nd Amendmant Guarentees your right to carry and own a Firearm. This was intentionally put into the Bill of Rights to keep the Government in Check. If we loose this right, it is a loss of all Rights. I believe that if you are convicted of a Violent Crime, you willfully gave up your right to own and carry a Firearm.

Unfortunately the Government both doesn't care and has better weapons then us. Seriously, if a mass tried to succeed the government, all that will happen is that they'll take out a plane and shoot a missle at them. End of succession.

At this point, people only consider using guns to defend their property against the common criminals--they know if they try to point their guns to the government to defend their property, they're f**ked.

But I digress.

 

[SuBe]

Unfortunately the Government both doesn't care and has better weapons then us. Seriously, if a mass tried to succeed the government, all that will happen is that they'll take out a plane and shoot a missle at them. End of succession.

At this point, people only consider using guns to defend their property against the common criminals--they know if they try to point their guns to the government to defend their property, they're f**ked.

But I digress.

I agree, try it and you are F**cked, but the right is still there. The Founding Fathers were afraid of possible Government tyranny. This gives us an option in the future to protect ourselves from Government. If we lose our Right to Firearms, we lose our option to protect ourselves from the Government and replace them with another.

 

[Tron5000]

The Constitution should be seen as a living document. When the Framers wrote it, they could not anticipate guns that can fire 30 rounds per-second. "Arms" in their time meant a musket that takes a minute and a half to load after EACH SHOT. The Constitution should adapt to modern times and technologies.

I am not advocating a ban on guns. I am advocating strict laws surrounding ownership and an outlaw on automatic and assault rifles. Hand guns and semi-automatic rifles should be permited, but frankly there is no need for a civilian to own an AK-47.

AK-47s are semi-automatic rifles. You have to squeeze the trigger for each shot. It is illegal to own an AK-47 that has been modified for fully-automatoic use.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

I agree, try it and you are F**cked, but the right is still there. The Founding Fathers were afraid of possible Government tyranny. This gives us an option in the future to protect ourselves from Government. If we lose our Right to Firearms, we lose our option to protect ourselves from the Government and replace them with another.

I agree, I'm just saying that people mostly buy guns so that they can defend their home from break-ins or so they don't get mugged. I think at this point, only survivalists and the NRA really believe that owning handguns could stop the federal government.

 

[SuBe]

I agree, I'm just saying that people mostly buy guns so that they can defend their home from break-ins or so they don't get mugged. I think at this point, only survivalists and the NRA really believe that owning handguns could stop the federal government.

That is true, MOST people don't think about it now, but if they ever need to, either next week or in 200 years, it is better to be prepared.

Anyway, if Skynet ever becomes opperational, wouldn't you want to be apart of the human rebellion?

 

[Tron5000]

That is true, MOST people don't think about it now, but if they ever need to, either next week or in 200 years, it is better to be prepared.

Anyway, if Skynet ever becomes opperational, wouldn't you want to be apart of the human rebellion?

Screw SkyNet. I'm waiting for the zombies. That's why I'm arming myself to the teeth.

 

[Malice]

You can own any damn gun you want within reason in my opinion.
if it can take out a tank, then no...but rifles and pistols...
Be my guest.

 

[Kelly]

As personal protection.......as stated above rifle, handgun.......along with a background check that is actually CHECKED....on a database that is worldwide, not just state by state.......

 

[lazur]

The Supreme Court is debating whether citizens have the right to own guns under the Second Amendment this week. As many of you are aware, DC has a ban the sale and ownership of personal firearms.

So, gang, do you believe we have the RIGHT to own guns under the Second Amendment? If you do or don't, do you believe we should restrict access to certain types of firearms, by certain types of people? And how would you solve crises which have developed in some our cities, such as illegal arms deals, gun-related homicides, and even school shootings?

Discuss away.

Actually, the Supreme Court isn't discussing 'guns' on a basic level at all - it's discussing 'handguns' and whether citizens have 'rights' to own 'handguns' (the type of gun used most often in crime, but also in home defense), specifically in Washington DC.

My personal opinion is yes, law abiding citizens should be able to own handguns.

 

[Tron5000]

As personal protection.......as stated above rifle, handgun.......along with a background check that is actually CHECKED....on a database that is worldwide, not just state by state.......

Why should my possession of a firearm be "worldwide" knowledge?

 

[Kelly]

Because that would ensure that someone, not needing to have a gun that comes from another country, becomes a citizen etc.....CANNOT get a gun. We are now a global society. Wake up....

 

[Tron5000]

Because that would ensure that someone, not needing to have a gun that comes from another country, becomes a citizen etc.....CANNOT get a gun. We are now a global society. Wake up....

I am awake. Otherwise I would be unable to type. I can talk in my sleep, but not type.

So you think that foreign governments should have access to information about the firearms that I keep in my own home?

 

[lazur]

Because that would ensure that someone, not needing to have a gun that comes from another country, becomes a citizen etc.....CANNOT get a gun. We are now a global society. Wake up....

We are not a 'global society' in that sense, at least not in my opinion. Our country is governed by laws which, in many cases, either take on a different form in other countries or don't exist at all.

Foreign nations should not be able to tap into a database to determine how 'armed' our country is. I believe that would be problematic to National Security.

 

[SuBe]

We are not a 'global society' in that sense, at least not in my opinion. Our country is governed by laws which, in many cases, either take on a different form in other countries or don't exist at all.

Foreign nations should not be able to tap into a database to determine how 'armed' our country is. I believe that would be problematic to National Security.

Maybe this could be a good thing.

*enemy looking at database*
*****, nevermind, them people got some guns.*

I'm only kidding, it's horrible idea.

 

[Kelly]

We are not a 'global society' in that sense, at least not in my opinion. Our country is governed by laws which, in many cases, either take on a different form in other countries or don't exist at all.

Foreign nations should not be able to tap into a database to determine how 'armed' our country is. I believe that would be problematic to National Security.

I'm am simply talking about a database that can give us a TRUE BACKGROUND check, even from those that choose to make our country their home. This is not to keep you from carrying the gun into another country. That country will take care of that problem.

 

[SuperFerret]

I don't like guns, but I don't think they should be completely illegal either.