Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[The Man With the Soap]

Ok, even without considering the recent events in Tuscon (So hundreds/thousands can die each year from gun crimes but if its a politician then suddenly "holy shit, guns may be dangerous"?) I'm really tired of hearing anyone in the news or wherever talk up 2nd amendment rights.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.
It reads
"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."

Lets run this down. Firstly, the second amendment was written when there was still a serious threat of Indian attack, British attack, and in general no exceedingly superior standing army in the U.S.. The National Guard was farmers and home owners with rifles and pistols. further more, it was written to ensure that if ever a oppressive regime took power, the American citizens could revolt much the same way we did against the british.
But hey guys, guess what?

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

Secondly, you don't need an automatic weapon. You are not fighting any insurgents. Cops, officers of the law, have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them. You do not need more then at most 1-2 guns. What the hell are you using them for if its for defense, unless your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible, instead of not possible. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, the groups of hardcore gun owners/advocates that hide behind the second amendment for their right to own a god damned AK-47 or something of another unnecessarily large scale need to have that shield taken away so law making can continue and reduce the levels of gun toting potential criminals and deaths.

Am I justified in this view escapists? Or is there something I don't get about laws regarding a tool meant to kill something or someone?

The U.S. military is not nearly as large as people seem to think. This is part of why we have had so much trouble in Iraq. But, I still want to have my guns for in case something catastrophic were to happen. Mostly, though, I want my guns because I won't kill as many ducks with my bare hands. Now, if I had BEAR hands, that might be something.

Actually the reason we are having trouble in Iraq is because our commander in chief was phenomenally retarded. You'd think after Vietnam we would know that when you are up against an enemy that relies almost exclusively on sabotage the LAST thing you would want to do is send in an invasion force. Not to mention the fact that we had absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. And the fact that troops weren't deployed until several months after 9/11.
...not to mention the fact that airport security is still a stupid joke, the fact that the primary objective wasn't to capture terrorists but to secure fuel resources...

You get the idea. You mention that you're a hunter, and be honest, would you use an assault rifle to hunt birds when shotguns and standard rifles get the job done, are cheaper, easier to maintain, and use a more powerful ammunition that comes in handy in case you encounter something more dangerous than a duck?

First off, I mentioned the size of the U.S. military as a hindering factor in Irag, not the hindering factor in Iraq.

Secondly, where in my post did I ever mention using assault rifles for hunting purposes? Please explain that to me.

 

[conflictofinterests]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

What it says: "No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."

I know Wikipedia is a dubious source at best, but it's got plenty of links to click on to verify as sources themselves.

Anyways, back on topic, it's best not to demonize any side in this with extreme rationalism. Empiricism is a more reliable way of thinking, and as of yet, there is no conclusive data.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

Ok, even without considering the recent events in Tuscon (So hundreds/thousands can die each year from gun crimes but if its a politician then suddenly "holy shit, guns may be dangerous"?) I'm really tired of hearing anyone in the news or wherever talk up 2nd amendment rights.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.
It reads
"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."

Lets run this down. Firstly, the second amendment was written when there was still a serious threat of Indian attack, British attack, and in general no exceedingly superior standing army in the U.S.. The National Guard was farmers and home owners with rifles and pistols. further more, it was written to ensure that if ever a oppressive regime took power, the American citizens could revolt much the same way we did against the british.
But hey guys, guess what?

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

Secondly, you don't need an automatic weapon. You are not fighting any insurgents. Cops, officers of the law, have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them. You do not need more then at most 1-2 guns. What the hell are you using them for if its for defense, unless your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible, instead of not possible. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, the groups of hardcore gun owners/advocates that hide behind the second amendment for their right to own a god damned AK-47 or something of another unnecessarily large scale need to have that shield taken away so law making can continue and reduce the levels of gun toting potential criminals and deaths.

Am I justified in this view escapists? Or is there something I don't get about laws regarding a tool meant to kill something or someone?

Honestly, this doesn't deserve a real rebuttal. All I have to say is that it's anti-gun morons like you that spawned the NRA. They annoy me to no end, but with rabid anti-gun people in this country, they're a necessary evil.

The constitution allows the citizenry guns. This isn't changing. Get over it.

 

[DarthFennec]

I disagree with you, OP. I think it's very important for people to be allowed to carry weapons. It gives them a means of defending themselves. Also, banning guns is not going to stop people from killing each other. It won't help in the slightest. There are plenty of other things they can kill people with, besides a gun. Ever heard the phrase `guns don't kill people, people kill people'? This is exactly what it means, it means that people are going to do illegal things and be violent whether they have a gun or not. Take away someone's gun, and they'll skin you with their knife. Take that away, and they'll hit you with their car. Wasn't martial arts invented in order to teach people how to kill each other without any weapons? The killing will never stop, no matter what you do with the weapons. Also, I use weapons for perfectly legal purposes, and I don't want my rights to be taken away because of a few insane people. You take away guns, I can't go hunting with my uncle. You take away knives, I can't spread my butter or cut my steak. It's probably easier to kill someone with a car than with a gun. You take away cars, I can't drive to work.

Basically, don't regulate my weapons. It's bad for me and for everyone else. Instead, we should be focusing on finding these nutcases that go around killing people, and we should get them help. Before they actually kill anyone, hopefully.

EDIT:

Something to think about the next time someone blathers about how gun control would make the country safer. It just means that whoever breaks into your house knows for sure that you won't be firing back on them.

Thank you, I shall be quoting this in the future ^^

 

[Kagatos]

I'm sure that other people have already said what I'm about to say as I didn't go through every post in here. But here goes anyway:

Guns are tools, tools are not bad or good...the people that use those tools are the ones that need to be responsible for their own actions. Taking guns away from normal every day citizens will only ensure that those that DON'T follow the laws would have them and would still use them.

If you want to get crazy, why not ban knives, forks, axes, saws, hammers, hands...etc...etc...etc. You could go on and on as each of those in turn, and many more, are completely capable of ending someones life. Then why stop there...ban doctors as they have the necessary knowledge to hurt as well as heal.

Is it perfect? No. Will banning things make it better? No. Sadly, even if the world was a perfect place...a utopia if you would, I fear humanity would find something else to complain about.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Pro-gun? No, i call out bullshit that was used to ban so many things before. Remember pot? Banned because it was "dangerous" and on the same reason that guns are to be banned. All i hear is how guns automatically indoctrinate you into some crazed gunman. The exact same "violent" mindset they tried to portray drug users to be. People think that laws stop guns from getting into the hands of people, when laws are just words on paper and nothing more. If you actually take the time to notice legal guns drop crime rates while illegal guns raise it. Banning guns will only ensure criminals have guns which makes them ambitious, which leads to more civilian deaths. In a world of people being allowed to defend themselves with a gun, criminals would think twice. The argument of people using legal guns to kill is utterly false, as criminal with an illegal gun kills and not a civilian.

Guns should be regulated, but not outright banned.

Regulated like Australia, yes.
But again you turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that the easier it is to get a gun, the easier it is for a criminal to use a gun.
Less guns means less criminals using guns. Don't even bothering with your 'they'll get them anyway' bs, cause the fact of the matter is with restricted access the number of criminals able to get guns is less than with unrestricted access and the under the counter dealing that currently goes on.

And again i will ask, why do you feel your police force is so incompetent that it can't do the single job its exists to do? Why even have them if you think they can't protect you from criminals?

But stop replying now, you keep tempting me to answer back, and its an utter waste of my time >.< (hell, your first sentence just then was to deny you are pro-gun XD)

I got so pissed at some guy yesterday I shot him, ***** took my frenchfries.

Good example, (although made in jest and distorted to be someone ridiculous), of the danger of guns. All it takes is one moment of lost control and you've killed someone. Without a gun so easily at your disposal murder isn't so fast and simple, so someone would have to be much more intent on killing to actually go through with it than when they have a gun at their disposal.

 

[DevilWolf47]

Ok, even without considering the recent events in Tuscon (So hundreds/thousands can die each year from gun crimes but if its a politician then suddenly "holy shit, guns may be dangerous"?) I'm really tired of hearing anyone in the news or wherever talk up 2nd amendment rights.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.
It reads
"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."

Lets run this down. Firstly, the second amendment was written when there was still a serious threat of Indian attack, British attack, and in general no exceedingly superior standing army in the U.S.. The National Guard was farmers and home owners with rifles and pistols. further more, it was written to ensure that if ever a oppressive regime took power, the American citizens could revolt much the same way we did against the british.
But hey guys, guess what?

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

Secondly, you don't need an automatic weapon. You are not fighting any insurgents. Cops, officers of the law, have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them. You do not need more then at most 1-2 guns. What the hell are you using them for if its for defense, unless your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible, instead of not possible. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, the groups of hardcore gun owners/advocates that hide behind the second amendment for their right to own a god damned AK-47 or something of another unnecessarily large scale need to have that shield taken away so law making can continue and reduce the levels of gun toting potential criminals and deaths.

Am I justified in this view escapists? Or is there something I don't get about laws regarding a tool meant to kill something or someone?

The U.S. military is not nearly as large as people seem to think. This is part of why we have had so much trouble in Iraq. But, I still want to have my guns for in case something catastrophic were to happen. Mostly, though, I want my guns because I won't kill as many ducks with my bare hands. Now, if I had BEAR hands, that might be something.

Actually the reason we are having trouble in Iraq is because our commander in chief was phenomenally retarded. You'd think after Vietnam we would know that when you are up against an enemy that relies almost exclusively on sabotage the LAST thing you would want to do is send in an invasion force. Not to mention the fact that we had absolutely no reason to invade Iraq. And the fact that troops weren't deployed until several months after 9/11.
...not to mention the fact that airport security is still a stupid joke, the fact that the primary objective wasn't to capture terrorists but to secure fuel resources...

You get the idea. You mention that you're a hunter, and be honest, would you use an assault rifle to hunt birds when shotguns and standard rifles get the job done, are cheaper, easier to maintain, and use a more powerful ammunition that comes in handy in case you encounter something more dangerous than a duck?

First off, I mentioned the size of the U.S. military as a hindering factor in Irag, not the hindering factor in Iraq.

Secondly, where in my post did I ever mention using assault rifles for hunting purposes? Please explain that to me.

The mention of the assault rifle was related to the post YOU quoted. And you're right. Truth be told if i had to choose one and only one problem with why we fucked up Iraq, it is because we didn't know what the fuck we were doing in the first place.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

'like the US does now'...

School shootings
In America
More than the COMBINED total of the rest of the ENTIRE world...

doesn't sound like its working out to me...

 

[ShadowKatt]

I'm sure that other people have already said what I'm about to say as I didn't go through every post in here. But here goes anyway:

Guns are tools, tools are not bad or good...the people that use those tools are the ones that need to be responsible for their own actions. Taking guns away from normal every day citizens will only ensure that those that DON'T follow the laws would have them and would still use them.

If you want to get crazy, why not ban knives, forks, axes, saws, hammers, hands...etc...etc...etc. You could go on and on as each of those in turn, and many more, are completely capable of ending someones life. Then why stop there...ban doctors as they have the necessary knowledge to hurt as well as heal.

Is it perfect? No. Will banning things make it better? No. Sadly, even if the world was a perfect place...a utopia if you would, I fear humanity would find something else to complain about.

I'm in the same boat as you. 12 pages, what could possibly be left to say? Especially since no one in these topics is ever listening.

So, real simple, everyone that doesn't like guns, send your guns to me. You can wait for someone else to protect you, I'll protect myself. Get back to me in a few years and lemme know how that works out for you.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Honestly, I really could care less about it. Now, if people could offer some fair revision that would be fair, I'd be all for it. If not, I see no drastic need to change it in any way. I don't own a gun, nor do I have any intention of owning one. From what I've seen, many people who I'm unfortunately related to that own guns have an inflated sense of self worth, so... I guess that's a point against it.

 

[Studd_Jozz]

Look, I'll freely admit I only read your point about if the citizenry fought the US, we'd lose.
Just a couple things I'd like to point out: Vietnam, Korea, both Gulf Wars, the Warsaw Ghetto, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and so on.
Untrained civilians with shitty weapons that brought the US powerhouse to it's knees, with the exception of the Warsaw Ghetto, which brought the Nazis to their knees.
So, before you say we need rockets and tanks and jets to fight the US government, remember your history classes, lest we all be doomed to repeat them.

 

[Glerken]

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?

The constitution was made to be altered as time went on.

Dude, no it wasnt

Someone else may have pointed this out, but I'm not going to look through 12 pages just to make sure I'm not the first to correct you.

Amendments.

The framers were plenty aware that if the constitution was going to be relevant in the future, there would have to be changes as time went on.

 

[spectrenihlus]

I really don't understand this fear of having law abiding citizens the ability to have guns.

also

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

 

[BlumiereBleck]

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?

The constitution was made to be altered as time went on.

Dude, no it wasnt

Someone else may have pointed this out, but I'm not going to look through 12 pages just to make sure I'm not the first to correct you.

Amendments.

The framers were plenty aware that if the constitution was going to be relevant in the future, there would have to be changes as time went on.

ok then chaaaaange every single Amendemnet to what you see fits...ohhhh lets change the the first so no one has rights, change the second so one can defend themselves, OOOOH also the 3rd so the government can send people to monitor your house! *goes on with this*

 

[TOGSolid]

You get the idea. You mention that you're a hunter, and be honest, would you use an assault rifle to hunt birds when shotguns and standard rifles get the job done, are cheaper, easier to maintain, and use a more powerful ammunition that comes in handy in case you encounter something more dangerous than a duck?

I bet you don't even know what an assault rifle is or have ever opened one up.

Negative points if you look it up before you respond.

 

[DevilWolf47]

You get the idea. You mention that you're a hunter, and be honest, would you use an assault rifle to hunt birds when shotguns and standard rifles get the job done, are cheaper, easier to maintain, and use a more powerful ammunition that comes in handy in case you encounter something more dangerous than a duck?

I bet you don't even know what an assault rifle is.

Negative points if you look it up before you respond.

I'm German. We made the original. Of course i know!
...i'm also psychotic and looked it up ten years ago.

Assault rifles are considered most of the time to be fully automatic rifles, which is complete bullshit. Assault rifles must have selective fire, a medium caliber, a stock, and the ammo source has to be a detachable magazine. They normally bridge the gap between submachine guns and light machine guns in terms of infantry weapons. Assault rifles pack more of a punch than submachine guns which are pistol caliber and therefore not always effective beyond 100 meters. Assault rifles have to have an effective range of at least 300 meters and use a medium cartridge which is more powerful personnel and material. The problem is that though it's minimal effective range is lower than a high powered rifle, in close encounters the rounds tend to pass right through the target. In close encounters, the priority is to use the weapons stopping power to knock down the enemy, throw off their aim, or kill them immediately; this isn't likely to happen if the round passes right through.

Do you want me to explain on? Assault rifles aren't that useful in self defense. Most of the time you need a weapon you can ready quickly, use effectively at close range, and are flexible enough that they can handle someone who knows how to avoid the initial attack. And since most confrontations where you need to defend yourself happen at close range...
...do i really need to spell it out? Up close and personal, guns often turn into a liability if you're up against someone who has any experience.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

And again i will ask, why do you feel your police force is so incompetent that it can't do the single job its exists to do? Why even have them if you think they can't protect you from criminals?

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.

 

[TOGSolid]

I'm German. We made the original.

Yeah...I've got bad news for you....
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/automatic-fedorov-e.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat

I was just making sure you weren't one of those tools that call a semi-auto rifle an "assault rifle."

Assault rifles aren't that useful in self defense.

They also happen to be massively regulated and prohibitively expensive to own. Assault rifles do not factor into this discussion at all.

Up close and personal, guns often turn into a liability if you're up against someone who has any experience.

Define "experience" and what are you basing this 'fact' off of.

 

[chadachada123]

'like the US does now'...

School shootings
In America
More than the COMBINED total of the rest of the ENTIRE world...

doesn't sound like its working out to me...

As i said, shit happens regardless. Teenagers would just get guns from gangs. Hell i know a teen who got his hands on an AK-47 courtesy of a gun running street gang. As i said, gun laws don't stop anything anymore than laws against pot. People will still buy guns and pot regardless of what a scrap of paper says. Trying to ban guns would only make things worse just like the war on drugs.

I suppose I'll also add for you, that of course school shootings are going to be bad in the US, since no state allows for teachers to carry guns and most schools have only 1 or no armed staff on hand.

A crazy gunman is GOING to choose a school to attack because he KNOWS that there will be absolutely no resistance.

You'd see far less school shootings if teachers were allowed to carry (with or without training, doesn't matter for this scenario). The vast majority still wouldn't, but it would deter potential many Chos that don't know which teachers are armed and which aren't.

 

[DevilWolf47]

I'm German. We made the original.

Yeah...I've got bad news for you....
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/automatic-fedorov-e.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat

I was just making sure you weren't one of those tools that call a semi-auto rifle an "assault rifle."

Assault rifles aren't that useful in self defense.

They also happen to be massively regulated and prohibitively expensive to own. Assault rifles do not factor into this discussion at all.

Up close and personal, guns often turn into a liability if you're up against someone who has any experience.

Define "experience" and what are you basing this 'fact' off of.

What do you mean "Define?" I think at this stage the fact that you can't tell on your own why guns wouldn't be useful in hand-to-hand is concerning. Now if you'll get off your lazy ass and look at the person who made the first post that was quoted by the person i quoted, you'll see someone else factored them into the argument. The fact that you demanded justification without first learning the context is also a bit worrying.