An Argument for The Second Amendment

[USNavyVet]

[

Why do you think civilians don't need guns? Besides, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I have the right to own a gun, and ammunition, and anything else that I want. And your strawman arguments are absurd.

Actually, the Second Amendment also says, "Well Regulated Militia"

Which is why you can't have vials of anthrax, pipe bombs, Ricin, etc.

Implied in there is the right of government to regulate who has weapons and what kinds they can have.

Thanks for pointing out that you have no idea what you're talking about. I thought you were clueless but waited for your confirmation.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Fact-

Only 201 defensive uses of guns recorded by the FBI in 2010.

In that same year, there were 11,000 gun homicides, 16,000 gun suicides and 851 gun accidents.

You don't need a gun. Your reasons for wanting them are silly.

Cite, because the Department of Justice shows over 550 rapes and 1300 murders are prevented EVERY DAY by civilian firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fact-

Only 201 defensive uses of guns recorded by the FBI in 2010.

In that same year, there were 11,000 gun homicides, 16,000 gun suicides and 851 gun accidents.

You don't need a gun. Your reasons for wanting them are silly.

All three of your statements here are lies.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Why do you think civilians don't need guns? Besides, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I have the right to own a gun, and ammunition, and anything else that I want. And your strawman arguments are absurd.

Actually, the Second Amendment also says, "Well Regulated Militia"

Which is why you can't have vials of anthrax, pipe bombs, Ricin, etc.

Implied in there is the right of government to regulate who has weapons and what kinds they can have.

I love how Joe tried to hijack my thread. He cannot refute the origins of how the Second Amendment was enacted. Not only are militias allowed to bear arms, the citizens are allowed to defend themselves and their families by also bearing arms, those points are well beyond his ability to comprehend.

 

[regent]

The second amendment gives the reason why no infringement is there, but suppose the reason for infringement no longer exists can the right then be mull and void? Why did the writers go to the trouble putting in the reason for no infringement, did they see a time when the reason for the right is gone and therefore the right is gone?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The second amendment gives the reason why no infringement is there, but suppose the reason for infringement no longer exists can the right then be mull and void? Why did the writers go to the trouble putting in the reason for no infringement, did they see a time when the reason for the right is gone and therefore the right is gone?

The Founders were a lot more insightful than that. There will never be a foreseeable time in the future where the right or the need will cease to exist. Thus, the aspect of infringement will always exist. Therefore, the right and the need should be protected from the infringement. End of story.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

I love how Joe tried to hijack my thread. He cannot refute the origins of how the Second Amendment was enacted. Not only are militias allowed to bear arms, the citizens are allowed to defend themselves and their families by also bearing arms, those points are well beyond his ability to comprehend.

Here's my reaction to how the Amendment was enacted.

It's no more relevent that George Washington's doctors thinking bleeding him to treat his strep throat was a really good idea.

Do you honestly think the Founding Slave Rapists would have been for such a liberal interpretation that Joker HOlmes can walk into a gun store and buy military grade weapons?

 

[JoeB131]

The second amendment gives the reason why no infringement is there, but suppose the reason for infringement no longer exists can the right then be mull and void? Why did the writers go to the trouble putting in the reason for no infringement, did they see a time when the reason for the right is gone and therefore the right is gone?

The Founders were a lot more insightful than that. There will never be a foreseeable time in the future where the right or the need will cease to exist. Thus, the aspect of infringement will always exist. Therefore, the right and the need should be protected from the infringement. End of story.

Every other industrialized Democracy has limited gun ownership, and we will too, eventually.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[q

I love how Joe tried to hijack my thread. He cannot refute the origins of how the Second Amendment was enacted. Not only are militias allowed to bear arms, the citizens are allowed to defend themselves and their families by also bearing arms, those points are well beyond his ability to comprehend.

Here's my reaction to how the Amendment was enacted.

It's no more relevent that George Washington's doctors thinking bleeding him to treat his strep throat was a really good idea.

Do you honestly think the Founding Slave Rapists would have been for such a liberal interpretation that Joker HOlmes can walk into a gun store and buy military grade weapons?

Here's my reaction to your reaction:

Stop trolling Joe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The second amendment gives the reason why no infringement is there, but suppose the reason for infringement no longer exists can the right then be mull and void? Why did the writers go to the trouble putting in the reason for no infringement, did they see a time when the reason for the right is gone and therefore the right is gone?

The Founders were a lot more insightful than that. There will never be a foreseeable time in the future where the right or the need will cease to exist. Thus, the aspect of infringement will always exist. Therefore, the right and the need should be protected from the infringement. End of story.

Every other industrialized Democracy has limited gun ownership, and we will too, eventually.

If you don't like our right to bear arms, you can kindly expatriate at your own convenience.

 

[JoeB131]

Not trolling at all.

I just think the worst reasoning for an insane policy is "Well, 200 years ago, some assholes in powdered wigs wrote it down before they went home to rape their slaves or get bleed to death by their own doctors."

There is no good reason why Joker Holmes should be able to walk into a gun store with his orange hair and buy enough weapons to start a small war.

 

[JoeB131]

[q

If you don't like our right to bear arms, you can kindly expatriate at your own convenience.

Guy, you keep missing the point. YOu aren't winning elections. You don't get to make the decisions.

Now, if you want to go to a country more to your tastes, you can always move to Pakistan. Lots of guns, lots of religous assholes and they treat their women like shit. You'd be very happy there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[

Why do you think civilians don't need guns? Besides, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I have the right to own a gun, and ammunition, and anything else that I want. And your strawman arguments are absurd.

Actually, the Second Amendment also says, "Well Regulated Militia"

Which is why you can't have vials of anthrax, pipe bombs, Ricin, etc.

Implied in there is the right of government to regulate who has weapons and what kinds they can have.

I love how Joe tried to hijack my thread.

If you stop feeding the troll, he will go away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The second amendment gives the reason why no infringement is there, but suppose the reason for infringement no longer exists can the right then be mull and void?

No.
The right of the people to keep and bears arms is far broader than anything related to the militia.
Keep trying.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Actually, the Second Amendment also says, "Well Regulated Militia"

Which is why you can't have vials of anthrax, pipe bombs, Ricin, etc.

Implied in there is the right of government to regulate who has weapons and what kinds they can have.

I love how Joe tried to hijack my thread.

If you stop feeding the troll, he will go away.

Forget it, the troll feeds himself!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Not trolling at all.

Liar.

I just think the worst reasoning for an insane policy is "Well, 200 years ago, some assholes in powdered wigs wrote it down before they went home to rape their slaves or get bleed to death by their own doctors."

There is no good reason why Joker Holmes should be able to walk into a gun store with his orange hair and buy enough weapons to start a small war.

Hair color has nothing to do with guns. Are you intoxicated?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Put simply:

Each of us have the right to use deadly force in defense of our rights, to be exercised individually and/or collectively.
The 2nd ensures that your right to the most effective means available to exercise this right whall not be infringed.

Put simply:

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. And all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including Second Amendment rights.

The only issue remaining, therefore, is what weapons are subject to restriction, and what weapons are entitled to Second Amendment protection.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Keep moving that goalpost. Anyway, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. I know how to handle guns and do not fear them as most anti-gun nuts do. I'll stick to my 2nd amendment right.

I know how to handle guns as well. Most people don't. No civilian really needs one.

The two reasons that the gun nuts give is "We need to defend oursevles from criminals", but for every time a gun is used to kill a criminal, there are 160 cases where they kill a good guy.

The other is "We need to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government" (Usually when their guys don't win elections). Absolutely absurd when the government has tanks, bombs, artillery, warships, etc.

Why do you think civilians don't need guns? Besides, it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I have the right to own a gun, and ammunition, and anything else that I want. And your strawman arguments are absurd.

Provided it’s not subject to a reasonable, and Constitutional, restriction – such as a weapon determined to be dangerous and unusual.

Otherwise it’s ignorant idiocy to argue that the Second Amendment enshrines rights that are ‘absolute,’ where any restriction is an ‘infringement.’

 

[JoeB131]

There is no good reason why Joker Holmes should be able to walk into a gun store with his orange hair and buy enough weapons to start a small war.

Hair color has nothing to do with guns. Are you intoxicated?

I don't know, if I worked somewhere that we sold things that were potentially dangerous, and some freek with Orange Hair showed up...

I think I'd think twice about selling it to him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Put simply:

Each of us have the right to use deadly force in defense of our rights, to be exercised individually and/or collectively.
The 2nd ensures that your right to the most effective means available to exercise this right whall not be infringed.

Put simply:

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. And all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, including Second Amendment rights.

The only issue remaining, therefore, is what weapons are subject to restriction, and what weapons are entitled to Second Amendment protection.

Your post does nothing to reduce the soundness of mine.
Must be because you know I am right and that you understand you cannot soundly argue otherwise.