Discussion: The Second Amendment

[Nitehawk013]

Is that not a classic lefty reaction?

Someone gets hurt by a gun = ban guns. Someone gets their feelings hurt by a off color slur = ban slurs as "hate speech". Someone gets fat and dies of heart disease form eating too much fast food = ban soda and trans-fats.

The answer to a lefty is BAN BAN BAN. Not educate. Not tell people to accept repsonsibility and pay for crimes/stupidity. NO...just ban anything that might in some way upset or hurt another person no matter how rare the thing is. Just ban it no matter how foolish the idea of a ban is or how loudly the majority speaks in opposition of a ban.

 

[Malice]

Back in the old days, when kids grew up on farms and had guns al over the place, this didn't happen as often. They were taught.

Kids are not taught now. That is the problem, education

 

[SuperT]

A kid shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

 

[Nitehawk013]

Im form Ohio. I know plenty of kids who have guns. They are taught how to use them, when to use them and are well versed in safety. They have never shot anythign but targets, turkey, deer and various other delicious animals.

 

[SuperT]

Sorry, I don't "get" giving kids guns and hunting.

 

[Malice]

I don't own any guns myself to be honest.
But my father-in-law that lives with us has a few. He got his first .22 rifle when he was ten years old.

I am all for giving kids a gun, if they are properly educated...not just "here is a gun, have fun"

Now I personally would not give a kid that young a gun, unless he really showed me he was responsible and respectful of it.

 

[SuBe]

This is my opinion, and therefore should be treated as such:

Why do we have the 2nd Amendment? What is the purpose of it? Why did the Founding Fathers find it SO important that they would include it in the Most important document ever written?

This is actually easy. You have a right to Free Speech, you have a Right to practice your Religion, you have a Right to live your life in accordince of your wishes, as long as it doesn't impose on the rights of another individual. The Government is there to PROTECT your rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. That is all.

Now, imagine that your speech is unpopular. You believe that the Government isn't working on behave of your interests. They decide that they are going to kidnap you in the middle of the night and inprison you for "reeducation". What recourse do you have? You are going to sue them? What does that mean? You are going to use the Government to fight a corrupt tyrannical Government? Good Luck.

Scenerio 2: You work all our life and save up as much money and Gold as possible. You invest in Gold because it's a good investment. Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, threatens your family, and wants your money and gold. What do you do? You let them? The Robbers hold you at bay, and if you had a gun, you could protect yourself, your family, and your property. But, guess what, Ammunition was outlawed, and the Robbers got their's from Canada and smuggled it into the Country. You and your family are dead, and your property is gone.

Your Rights to Free Speech, your Rights to Practice your Religion or lack thereof, ALL your rights are dependant on your ability to protect those Rights. The Government, if tyrranical, doesn't care what your think, look at China, look at Former Soviet Russia, they are willing to push the Cause of Government, they don't care whay you say or do, because THEY have to guns. They choose what is Legal already, if you don't have a right to protect yourself and your rights, you have nothing.

What if our Founding Father's didn't have Guns? How would they ever have Fought for Independence? You people need to stop thinking that our Government is there for you, you have to start thinking about what if the Government and the Political Class are there for themselves. They only want power, they only want your money, they only want you to work for them.

 

[SoulManX]

my view on gun control is this:

When one becomes of legal age to drive, one must first obtain a driver's license. This is done to protect society from the harm that can be done by a person who doesn't know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road.

How does that relate to owning and using a firearm? A firearm by itself is not a deadly device. In the hands of a person with no regard for the safety of others, it is deadly.

Therefore, i suggest mandatory firearm training for law-abiding citizens before the purchase of a firearm. Such training will demonstrate the damage a firearm can inflict, show the proper means of storing a firearm in the home to help reduce accidental shootings, and proper training in the use of a firearm including understanding the basic firearm safety rules. To show that those attending the course have a firm grasp of firearm safety, only those who pass the written test with a score of a 100% will graduate the course and will then be issued their permit. Anyone who doesn't pass the test will fail the course and will have to retake the test again. First timers and those who are retaking the course will have to pay a registration fee, which will be reasonably priced. Permits will be good for 1 year, and will then have to be renewed.

 

[SoulManX]

this is my opinion, and therefore should be treated as such:

Why do we have the 2nd amendment? What is the purpose of it? Why did the founding fathers find it so important that they would include it in the most important document ever written?

This is actually easy. You have a right to free speech, you have a right to practice your religion, you have a right to live your life in accordince of your wishes, as long as it doesn't impose on the rights of another individual. The government is there to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property. That is all.

Now, imagine that your speech is unpopular. You believe that the government isn't working on behave of your interests. They decide that they are going to kidnap you in the middle of the night and inprison you for "reeducation". What recourse do you have? You are going to sue them? What does that mean? You are going to use the government to fight a corrupt tyrannical government? Good luck.

Scenerio 2: You work all our life and save up as much money and gold as possible. You invest in gold because it's a good investment. Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, threatens your family, and wants your money and gold. What do you do? You let them? The robbers hold you at bay, and if you had a gun, you could protect yourself, your family, and your property. But, guess what, ammunition was outlawed, and the robbers got their's from canada and smuggled it into the country. You and your family are dead, and your property is gone.

Your rights to free speech, your rights to practice your religion or lack thereof, all your rights are dependant on your ability to protect those rights. The government, if tyrranical, doesn't care what your think, look at china, look at former soviet russia, they are willing to push the cause of government, they don't care whay you say or do, because they have to guns. They choose what is legal already, if you don't have a right to protect yourself and your rights, you have nothing.

What if our founding father's didn't have guns? How would they ever have fought for independence? You people need to stop thinking that our government is there for you, you have to start thinking about what if the government and the political class are there for themselves. They only want power, they only want your money, they only want you to work for them.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm one of the members of the camp that wouldn't care if they just banned guns all together.

What's the point?! There's been too many kids die from getting ahold of parents guns and shooting themselves because they think it's a toy or children taking them to school and shooting up half of the student body.

Parents need to do a better job educating their children about firearms and a better job locking them up.

 

[The Senator]

I think it is ridiculous to ban hand guns and single-shot rifles. The former because I believe that the constitution declares that a citizen has the right to protect himself and his property; the latter because hunting is a sport which contributes greatly to local and state economic success. I do, however, believe that ammunition for automatic weapons should be outright banned. There is no rational reason, whatsoever, for a person to own an assault rifle. I believe that the intent of protecting one's life and/ or property should be to maim the assailant, not kill them. As a result, there is no need to use an assault rifle for protection. Furthermore, assault rifles cannot be successfully used as hunting devices considering they severely damage the animal in the process. More often than not, assault rifles have been used to commit murder or have been involved in illegal arms dealings, and I see them more as a burden on our justice system than a benefit.

If someone wants to own an assault rifle simply to have it as a part of their collection, then by all means, they should be able to own one. But ammunition for those weapons should be outright banned, in my opinion, of course.

 

[Paradyme]

bingo....

The only people hurt but gun bans, are those that want to stay legal.
The illegals will get guns illegally

Exactly. I've said before tons of time I don't understand how people can think that banning guns is going to stop a criminal from obtaining it illegally. All it does is effectively make every law abiding citizen a larger target for crime.

I used to hate guns because I didn't understand them. Once I got used to them and took a training course on how to properly handle a firearm I feel comfortable around them. I feel a mandatory firearm safety course should be required though. You should only have to take it once but it should still be in place.

 

[SuBe]

I think it is ridiculous to ban hand guns and single-shot rifles. The former because I believe that the constitution declares that a citizen has the right to protect himself and his property; the latter because hunting is a sport which contributes greatly to local and state economic success. I do, however, believe that ammunition for automatic weapons should be outright banned. There is no rational reason, whatsoever, for a person to own an assault rifle. I believe that the intent of protecting one's life and/ or property should be to maim the assailant, not kill them. As a result, there is no need to use an assault rifle for protection. Furthermore, assault rifles cannot be successfully used as hunting devices considering they severely damage the animal in the process. More often than not, assault rifles have been used to commit murder or have been involved in illegal arms dealings, and I see them more as a burden on our justice system than a benefit.

If someone wants to own an assault rifle simply to have it as a part of their collection, then by all means, they should be able to own one. But ammunition for those weapons should be outright banned, in my opinion, of course.

What if Ammunition for those weapons are the same as ammunition for "Single Shot" weapons? What if the person makes Ammunition?

Why can't people see that it's more of an issue to protect yourself FROM Governmental Tyrrany?

 

[The Senator]

What if Ammunition for those weapons are the same as ammunition for "Single Shot" weapons? What if the person makes Ammunition?

If the person makes ammunition, good for him. If that person uses the ammunition to commit a crime, then obviously he will have to be charged. But I do not believe that ammunition for these weapons should be readily available to the public, considering assault rifles have contributed to more harm than good when made available to the general public.

Why can't people see that it's more of an issue to protect yourself FROM Governmental Tyrrany?

As I have said many times before... good luck using your gun cabinet to combat a tank...

 

[SuBe]

If the person makes ammunition, good for him. If that person uses the ammunition to commit a crime, then obviously he will have to be charged. But I do not believe that ammunition for these weapons should be readily available to the public, considering assault rifles have contributed to more harm than good when made available to the general public.

Then, isn't it more of an issue if a Crime is Committed instead of the weapon being servicable?

As I have said many times before... good luck using your gun cabinet to combat a tank...

And people said the same thing to the Colonists, except TANK was British Military.

 

[The Senator]

Then, isn't it more of an issue if a Crime is Committed instead of the weapon being servicable?

No. It is an issue of ensuring that a crime cannot be committed by weapons which have shown, time and time again, that they have no place in our society other than as devices used for mass destruction. School shootings, public shootings, arms dealing-- all of these things have, in several circumstances, been perpetrated by assault weapons.

At the very, very least, it is my opinion that assault weapons should not be available to anyone unless they are licensed to handle such a weapon. And the process to obtain such a license should be rigorous and intensive, complete with a background check and psychological evaluation (both of which I believe should be required to own a gun as it is).

And people said the same thing to the Colonists, except TANK was British Military.

But the British military didn't have nuclear weapons and enough arms to fill the state of Vermont...

 

[SuBe]

Jman, do you believe that even though our Government is as Strong as it is Militarilly, that we should just bow down to them? That we should never be able to defend ourselves from them? Just in Case?

 

[Mutagen]

It should be control to point, with tolerance, if things progress worse, then we'll deal with it, hopefully rationally.

 

[SuperT]

I agree. There is no logical rhyme or reason why a person should own an assault rifle or any gun that shoots more then one bullet at the time.

There's just no reason a civilian or even an ex-Military member would need one once they are out in the regular populus.

 

[The Senator]

Jman, do you believe that even though our Government is as Strong as it is Militarilly, that we should just bow down to them? That we should never be able to defend ourselves from them? Just in Case?

I believe that our defense system is so strong, there is no way a group of ordinary citizens can successfully tackle the federal government if it were to somehow enslave us... guns or not... the only way for us to truly defeat the military would be if we had access to nuclear weapons, and frankly, I do not wish to see Bucktooth B. Redneck and his Backwoods Brigade have the liberty to walk into a store and be able to purchase a device which could level the entire NYC metropolitan area ...

 

[Malice]

I see it very similarly as SuBe does.

Owning guns is not a right to me, its a GIVEN/CONSTANT. You can own guns. Guns server numerous purposes.

To me, its what type is the issue. I am all for, allowing the govt to regulate who owns a freaking RPG or mini gun.

But for pistols/rifles/shotguns/and even assault rifles....they should be legal IMO.

 

[SuperT]

Please tell me a logical reason why a person needs an assault rifle?

 

[Malice]

Please tell me a logical reason why a person needs an assault rifle?

Tell me a logical reason why not?

 

[Paradoxium]

Tell me a logical reason why any career criminals would give a **** about gun laws to begin with?

In fact give me a logical reason why career criminals would not love tighter gun laws?

 

[Malice]

I heard this from a trainer...

Do you know how many homicides have occurred in Texas by Concealed Handgun Licensed carriers? meaning, how many people were killed, not in self defense by guys who had the permit and were carrying a gun?

ZERO