By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Call your Congressman tomorrow as Obama is giving his speech!

It is found that in most cases police under stress only hit there targets under 30% of the time. Bystanders are also likely to get hit. So lets take a bunch of untrained people arm them to the teeth. Sh-t you better keep a fire arm in the bathroom so your safe when your on the can. No one will steal your TP. You know your never safe. Holy sh-t.  Some people don't deserve fire arms period. You know crazy people but this article would have you think every person is a perfect shot and we are all John Wayne. You people watch to many movies.

YOUR NOT JOHN WAYNE, YOUR MORE LIKE



Around the Network

The thread title says it all. Don't even listen to what others have to say, just assume what is said and call and complain.



Ckmlb1 said:
sc94597 said:
Ckmlb1 said:
killerzX said:
Ckmlb1 said:
killerzX said:
spaceguy said:

So true. LOL



If we're going to stick to the context of their time, the right to bear arms was about muskets not assault rifles and automatic weapons...

Edit: It says the right of people to bear arms within a well regulated militia. 

at bold: no, not even close. it says the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

for your first part, thats just stupid. definitions of words matter. so knowing the defintiion is very important, that doesnt change what weapons we can have. if that were the case, the 1st amendment only applies to spoken word (and only words that existed at that time, they could never invision the types of words we have come up with), writing with a quil pen, and an old printing press. also any religion that the founders didnt know of isnt protected either, nor any newspaper that didnt exist at the time.

Why do you nitpick what they meant at the time when it came to what they meant by regulated but can't nitpick what they meant by arms? You're picking and choosing what's convenient for your argument.

It's not nitpicking though. It's substantiated by other writings of theirs. One can't construe what is written in the constitution to mean anything else when their other rightings explicitly state otherwise. Furthermore, the second amendment is based on inherent rights, hence it is not "permission" to the people, but a recognition of what's already there and should not be taken. It makes sense considering how the constitution is a document meant to establish the federal government.

They had no idea at the time what kind of arms we would have now and if you are saying the second amendment gives the rights to Americans to own any arms they choose then why can't I buy a tank if I have the money and equip my car with rocket launchers? 

Do you honestly believe they didn't have the foresight of technological progress? People had privately owned cannons back then. It is even more reason to enable people to own the same arms as commonly used in the standing military (which isn't too much to ask for, to be honest, considering how the Continental Army had BETTER weapons than the British Empire.) Back then if you got shot you were pretty much committed to die (from the poisonous ammunition.) Today it's somewhere around 15% change that you'll die, with current medical and weapon advancements. That's precisely why the civil war was so lethal compared with world war I (for Americans) in example. Technology might progress, but governments always have the inherent propensity to progress towards more power and more authoritarianism. With each restriction comes more freedoms to government and less liberty to people. At the very least, semi-automatic weapons (which are the most common among civilians) should not have more restrictions. 



The mods have gone over this, and we're going to put a stop to political threads that have flamebait in the OP like this (Godwin's law right from the getgo and all).

So, locking.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.