Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[bl4ckh4wk64]

They're less likely to shoot someone who is unarmed, as their main motivation is to shoot you before you shoot them. If you aren't a threat then they're far more likely to take the money and run, rather than make it worse for them self by needlessly murdering someone.

Yes, there are exceptions, but if they're like that they're going to shoot you first weather you have a gun or not.

That's the point of concealed carry though, they don't know you're carrying, thus you have the element of surprise. And yes, while many muggings don't end in bloodshed there are those exceptions. Those are the reasons people carry, they don't want to be that exception. You're also trained to actually give in to their requests unless they demonstrate harm on you or another person. Basically, give them the money, but if they stick around, then you shoot them. I see your point in stating that a gun will enrage the person wishing you harm, but keep in mind that they aren't necessarily looking for a fight. They won't attack you if they know you're carrying. However, there are the exceptions that take a stance towards you and follow you waiting for your gun to be out of reach. This is another reason people concealed carry.
It's almost always safe to carry a firearm, unless of course you're on federal ground in which case it will be illegal.

 

[Why do I care]

Crazy people + guns = shit storm

My family does legally carry guns so I see no need to ban them. Revision? Yeah, we might need that.

 

[jpblondie]

Gun Laws should be analyzed for every city. Some cities do better with more guns: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=41196

Yet others do worse. You cannot give every state cookie cutter gun laws. However, I do believe that there is no reason for a fully automatic weapon, an extremely short rifle or shotgun, or any explosive device. Guns do not solve everything, but think about it from a muggers point of view: "If I am in a city with many guns, there is a good chance my victim could shoot back". And that chance of retaliation is an important factor not talked about a lot.

This is not a black and white debate, please be rational here.

 

[theamazingbean]

If I had the authority, I would rewrite the 2nd amendment. I find having the right to bear arms too lax. Responsibility to bear arms is more like it. I'm rather fond of Switzerland's system, whereby 2/3 of the males age 18-34 have basic military training, and military equipment at hand, thus any attempt to invade the country would turn into the worst guerrilla war ever.

 

[aPod]

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. -

"Why i think guns are bad, and this amendment is outdated and needs to be changed or removed"

You and me won't get along i feel very much like theamzingbean

If I had the authority, I would rewrite the 2nd amendment. I find having the right to bear arms too lax.

The part about the security of a free State, is about your country.

If that isn't clear then i'll explain.

If someone decided that they wanted to control the country, start a dictatorship, and remove all of our rights we, as a free people, have been allowed the means to ensure that it doesn't happen, and legally to boot.

 

[theamazingbean]

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. -

"Why i think guns are bad, and this amendment is outdated and needs to be changed or removed"

You and me won't get along i feel very much like theamzingbean

If I had the authority, I would rewrite the 2nd amendment. I find having the right to bear arms too lax.

The part about the security of a free State, is about your country.

If that isn't clear then i'll explain.

If someone decided that they wanted to control the country, start a dictatorship, and remove all of our rights we, as a free people, have been allowed the means to ensure that it doesn't happen, and legally to boot.

I can't help but feel you might have misunderstood what I was trying to convey in my post. I am in favor of MANDATORY gun ownership. If I had my druthers, I would ship every 18-50 year old in the US an AK-74 tomorrow. I could probably be convinced that some form of mandatory firearms training should accompany this, but history has shown that control over the process of approval can be as restricting as an outright ban. So while people should be taught how to operate their government-subsidized military hardware, the intent isn't to restrict them from having it.

The argument is often made that while the 2nd amendment made sense when everyone had muzzle-loaders, it falls apart in the face of cruise missiles and Apache helicopters. I see that as a great reason to legalize electronic countermeasures and man-portable surface-to-air missiles. I would prefer to see the US military transformed into a force specialized in opposing illegally-imposed authority (whether from foreign enemies or domestic) and away from the armies of occupation we see operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the current wording of the 2nd amendment can be interpreted as supporting my goal, I find the wording too ambiguous. I would prefer tighter, more ironclad language.

 

[loremazd]

Look at prohibition, then you'll likely understand why gun control will do nothing but escalate crime.

 

[Ipswich67]

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. -

"Why i think guns are bad, and this amendment is outdated and needs to be changed or removed"

You and me won't get along i feel very much like theamzingbean

If I had the authority, I would rewrite the 2nd amendment. I find having the right to bear arms too lax.

The part about the security of a free State, is about your country.

If that isn't clear then i'll explain.

If someone decided that they wanted to control the country, start a dictatorship, and remove all of our rights we, as a free people, have been allowed the means to ensure that it doesn't happen, and legally to boot.

I can't help but feel you might have misunderstood what I was trying to convey in my post. I am in favor of MANDATORY gun ownership. If I had my druthers, I would ship every 18-50 year old in the US an AK-74 tomorrow. I could probably be convinced that some form of mandatory firearms training should accompany this, but history has shown that control over the process of approval can be as restricting as an outright ban. So while people should be taught how to operate their government-subsidized military hardware, the intent isn't to restrict them from having it.

The argument is often made that while the 2nd amendment made sense when everyone had muzzle-loaders, it falls apart in the face of cruise missiles and Apache helicopters. I see that as a great reason to legalize electronic countermeasures and man-portable surface-to-air missiles. I would prefer to see the US military transformed into a force specialized in opposing illegally-imposed authority (whether from foreign enemies or domestic) and away from the armies of occupation we see operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the current wording of the 2nd amendment can be interpreted as supporting my goal, I find the wording too ambiguous. I would prefer tighter, more ironclad language.

First paragraph: You, my friend, would love to live in Switzerland.

Second paragraph: Perhaps you're right, a revision may be necessary.

 

[Mysnomer]

The reason it exist is to make sure that the government can never suppress the populus, like the case of the French revolution. It's a great idea, but the way it's being upheld is outdated.

To bad they didn't create a proper Amendment to protect the population from being suppressed. There are a vast amount of more simple, and much more effective, ways to suppress the citizens of a country. Force is the least effective form of suppression and to have laws protecting against force promotes the deception of safety and freedom and distracts the public from the real sources of control.

Man, it's too bad the founding father's didn't think of that. I'm pretty ashamed to live in a country that doesn't protect speech, the press, or religious freedoms
.
.
.
Oh, wait.

 

[Darren-Jaguar]

This might have been said before, but I can't really be bothered to read through the thread.

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?

They may have known what they were doing, but "smart" isn't on the list of their qualities. Nor is good grammar.

"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."

It's the most outrageously bad use of commas ever devised. It should read something like so: "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Which implies that the said weapons be used for militia purposes. Oh.

 

[xDarc]

Drunk drivers still kill more innocent people than guns do. By innocent, I mean people not killing themselves- which accounts for more than half of all gun deaths in the US each year.

If you're not ready to ban alcohol first, then please come down off your soap box.

 

[xDarc]

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.

It would never happen? Because we're doing so well in Iraq and Afghanistan?

This place is a concrete jungle and we're having a hard time running a desert. I mean really.

 

[The Hive Mind]

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.

The US has the second or third largest standing military in the world.

 

[xDarc]

Guns aren't going away. There's no practical way to accomplish it. It's just another bullshit political football that the owners of the media like to throw around so politicians can pick sides and secure that special interest money.

Nothing ever changes. Just worry about your damn self. And I do. I live in the metro Detroit area, and I've been shot at for no reason what so ever. Just some kids out for a joy ride at 11:30, on my way out the door for work, and my car was parked in the street. I never needed a gun so badly then when I'm just standing there, frozen, hoping their reverse lights do not come on.

If they ever do make a law and tell everyone to hand in their guns, I'd wager a large amount of people would tell the politicians to blow it out their ass, I would... and I consider myself to be "left of the center."

 

[Smithburg]

Howitzers can be privately owned. Granted, they're really small howitzers owned by ski companies to provoke avalanches to make skiing safe, and this is clearly not within the context you were assuming, but I just think that little tidbit is amusing.

I can just see it now... "TAKE THAT MOUNTAIN JOHNSON!! TAKE IT NOW!" "BUT SIR! ITS TOO MUCH SNOW! AND WE NEED MORE AMMO!"

 

[Smithburg]

This might have been said before, but I can't really be bothered to read through the thread.

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?

They may have known what they were doing, but "smart" isn't on the list of their qualities. Nor is good grammar.

"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."

It's the most outrageously bad use of commas ever devised. It should read something like so: "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Which implies that the said weapons be used for militia purposes. Oh.

I think they had different rules for grammar then.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

This might have been said before, but I can't really be bothered to read through the thread.

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?

They may have known what they were doing, but "smart" isn't on the list of their qualities. Nor is good grammar.

"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."

It's the most outrageously bad use of commas ever devised. It should read something like so: "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Which implies that the said weapons be used for militia purposes. Oh.

It wasn't made for just the militia. It was made to protect every man's right to own and operate a firearm. Not just the militia's ability to defend people. That's what the whole "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms" part is about.

 

[Shiv595]

I'm fine with people owning pretty much any kind of gun, IF THEY HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED.

 

[Berethond]

This might have been said before, but I can't really be bothered to read through the thread.

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?

They may have known what they were doing, but "smart" isn't on the list of their qualities. Nor is good grammar.

"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."

It's the most outrageously bad use of commas ever devised. It should read something like so: "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Which implies that the said weapons be used for militia purposes. Oh.

No, if we're rewriting amendments then it should say, "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Implying that the two are separate. Oh.

Also militia, in that time, meant the collective consisting of all able-bodied men.

 

[Shannon Emerson]

Yet our army has been in a 10 year war right now with no end in site with the same kind of untrained that you speak of...