The Right To Bear Arms

[Kondor3]

You're not going to get the guns.

No means No.

 

[Brain357]

Just for fun, let's take the car discussion lately. "cars kill more than guns"

First of all, it takes education and a test to prove you are responsible to drive a car.

Secondly, cars were designed to drive. Guns were designed to kill. If you can't accept this historical fact, you aren't a responsible gun owner.

Last, if you are one who says, "Criminals are just going to get them anyway" you are a NIHILIST and nothing more. Your argument in whole is that we shouldn't have laws because criminals will just disobey them anyway........

Don't forget cars are used daily by most people. Most people will never need to use a gun.

 

[Brain357]

So now Brain357 , now you can STOP asking why the US has a higher murder rate than some other countries. The answer is gang violence. Now, do you want to ban black people?

That seems like a rather silly question. How about background checks on private sales and registration?

 

[Brain357]

Most people can't hit the inside of a barn when they shoot a fully automatic weapon. The person taking rapid single shots is far more deadly. If you weren't such an ignorant twit you would know that.

true-automatic fire-suppress movement, break contact

single shots-inflict casualties

1989=Turtle doing demo for news chicks at a range north of Cincinnati

10 IPSC targets 1.5 yards apart-20 yards down range

turtle-one colt SMG 9mm32 round magazine

1) shot full auto-32 rounds in about 2 seconds-hit most of the targets

2) shot semi auto-one shot per target-all center of mass-less than 3 seconds-had 22 rounds left and all the targets were hit so as to normally be fatal in 75% of the cases

3) one shot per target-head shots-all targets hit in the head in less than 4 seconds-all guaranteed kills with 22 rounds left

4) one 10 shot semi auto shotgun loaded with federal tactical # 4 buckshot

less than 3 seconds-every target filled with at least 15 holes

full auto least "deadly"

I see what you ment now by "deadly". What applications do you see civilians needing a machine gun for? There is only about 230 criminals killed in defense each year. Based on the number of defenses that is already quite a low number. I don't think you can get much less deadly to criminals than that.

You know the 230 number is probably too low.....when a homicide is changed from murder to justified by a prosecutor or the killer is found innocent in court, the FBI doesn't change the data....so that number is off....probably too low....but still pretty good considering that law abiding gun owners use their guns 1.6 million times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives....

It is from the FBI. Not going to find more accurate number. You mean mostly criminals defending themselves as kleck has admitted.

You are a dishonest POS.

I have posted the quote from Kleck several times. Sorry the truth doesn't go with your agenda.

 

[Esmeralda]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

 

[Esmeralda]

A well armed popalance is respected by government
A disarmed popalance is dictated to by government

Oh please. What do you think, congresspeople sit around and say, "ooo we'd better not pass that law... Matthew will get his gun and shoot us!!" Give me a frickin' break. Go ahead and try to form a militia group or whatever. See how far you get before you're all squashed like bugs.

It's populace btw, not populance.

Are you saying you want freedom loving, Constitution following Americans to get killed?

You only want freedom for the things you want. You don't want people with whom you disagree to have freedom.

 

[ChrisL]

Just for fun, let's take the car discussion lately. "cars kill more than guns"

First of all, it takes education and a test to prove you are responsible to drive a car.

Secondly, cars were designed to drive. Guns were designed to kill. If you can't accept this historical fact, you aren't a responsible gun owner.

Last, if you are one who says, "Criminals are just going to get them anyway" you are a NIHILIST and nothing more. Your argument in whole is that we shouldn't have laws because criminals will just disobey them anyway........

Yes, fantastic, for fun.

1) DRIVING a vehicle is NOT a right. It is a privilege.
2) Even THOUGH they are educated and licensed, car accidents are still the NUMBER 1 killer in the United States. Cars kill many, many, many more people than guns. Key Data and Statistics Injury Center CDC
3) You are so full of shit, I can smell you from here.

 

[ChrisL]

Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.

This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.

REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.

What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.

I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force education on gun owners, some say that infringes their right to have a gun

Should we "regulate" your right to vote too?

 

[ChrisL]

How in the hell would you know?

Because if he had needed a gun someone would be dead, and no one is.

That is not true, in the study by Dr. Kleck, it was found that most cases of self defense occur because the perp is scared away by the weapon (kind of like you), and runs away.

AKA pure bullshit. People go for a gun and think they needed it, when they didn't.

A guy walking towards me with a knife in his hand is clearly a case where I needed to defend myself. I showed the grips of my very large revolver with my right hand poised very close to it and he turned and ran when he was still maybe 20 feet away. Had he continued in my direction, he would have met his maker.
Had I seen the knife before he turned away from me, I would have drawn the gun and likely fired 2 .44 caliber bullets into his chest. I would not have lost any sleep.

Well maybe a little. A .44 magnum is very loud and causes a ringing in your ears that lasts hours.

Yeah, you're a real tough there 140 pounds of soaking wet manhood...

Yes, a gun is an equalizer. I am a small woman, only 5 feet 1 inch tall and probably weigh 100 pounds soaking wet. Do I want to be able to get a gun (with LOTS of bullets) to protect myself against any potential attackers if I so choose to have one, you bet your butt I do! Do I care if you think I'm "tough" or not because of that? Not at all. What you and others THINK would be very low on my list f priorities or things that matter. The safety and life of me and my loved ones, OTOH, is number one on that list.

 

[ChrisL]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Accidental shootings make up a VERY small percentage of all shootings. The largest percentage of gun deaths is related to suicide and gang warfare.

 

[ChrisL]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?

 

[Esmeralda]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

Accidental shootings make up a VERY small percentage of all shootings. The largest percentage of gun deaths is related to suicide and gang warfare.

That's not my point. The point is what is he doing sitting on the couch playing with a loaded gun? What kind of judgment does this guy have? And, why does he think it is funny when he kills something? He's a moron and should not have the privilege of owning a gun.

 

[Esmeralda]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?

Yes, exactly. I am responding to the thread topic: the right to bear arms is obsolete. Period.

 

[Esmeralda]

Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.

This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.

REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.

What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.

I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force education on gun owners, some say that infringes their right to have a gun

Should we "regulate" your right to vote too?

This is a false analogy, faulty logic. Voting does not kill anyone.

 

[ChrisL]

Just for fun, let's take the car discussion lately. "cars kill more than guns"

First of all, it takes education and a test to prove you are responsible to drive a car.

Secondly, cars were designed to drive. Guns were designed to kill. If you can't accept this historical fact, you aren't a responsible gun owner.

Last, if you are one who says, "Criminals are just going to get them anyway" you are a NIHILIST and nothing more. Your argument in whole is that we shouldn't have laws because criminals will just disobey them anyway........

Yes, fantastic, for fun.

1) DRIVING a vehicle is NOT a right. It is a privilege.
2) Even THOUGH they are educated and licensed, car accidents are still the NUMBER 1 killer in the United States. Cars kill many, many, many more people than guns. Key Data and Statistics Injury Center CDC
3) You are so full of shit, I can smell you from here.

Another AntiParty, I don't know where you live, but where I live any moron is given a license. Just look around!!!

 

[ChrisL]

Guns are important in society. Lack of what was supposed to be a "well regulated militia" has caused many issues, mostly because Corporate Arms have convinced small brains that "regulated" means it's secondary meaning. When guns are regulated and stupid people don't get a chance to own them legally, there will be very little gun violence.

This pack of ignorant gun owners stating we can never have regulation are the cause of all this. Also, this pack of ignorant non- gun owners seem to think the only answer is to ban all guns.

REGULATION is key and it always has been. The words of the Constitution have been tainted by the Weapons Manufacturers that flood the NRA with money who then flood the (R)ight Wing with money.

What we have today is a society of gun owners that openly justify national homicide cases because they are scared to lose their guns. And we have gun owners trying to say that "hammers" are relatable to guns.........proof they don't know the gravity of knowledge that SHOULD come with gun ownership.

I've always proposed forced education and grandfather clause out 100 round mags and silencers. Funny thing is when I propose to force education on gun owners, some say that infringes their right to have a gun

Should we "regulate" your right to vote too?

This is a false analogy, faulty logic. Voting does not kill anyone.

Bull. Elections have VERY serious consequences.

 

[ChrisL]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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 astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I think the right to bear arms is obsolete, absolutely. It should be a privilege, not a right. Most of the pro-2nd amendment posters on here are hysterical people with limited intelligence and borderline personalities. I think it is a disgrace that such people have the right to own guns. Being able to own a gun is something that should be earned and that privilge should maintained by specific behavior. I remember, some years ago, a guy telling me he accidently shot his roommate's cat which was sitting on the couch next to him. He thought it was funny. Such a moron should not have the right to own a gun.

So, basically because there are SOME morons, you want to limit or take away a RIGHT from all citizens unless YOU feel they are worthy to practice a constitutionally guaranteed right?

Yes, exactly. I am responding to the thread topic: the right to bear arms is obsolete. Period.

It is more important now than ever with the levels of violence we are seeing in the world. Just as an example, one out of every five women in the United States has reported being sexually assaulted, and THAT is the ones who report it. Many do not ever report it.

 

[ChrisL]

If we were to let the government infringe upon just ONE of our rights, then we have set a precedent for them. Do you people NOT understand this? Then there is absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing the same to any one of our other rights too!!! The founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect US, the citizen, FROM the government. In this way, we prevent the government from becoming all powerful, like a monarchy.

THIS is why it is important to teach about these things in school!!! People need to realize just how precious every single ONE of our rights is!

 

[jon_berzerk]

If we were to let the government infringe upon just ONE of our rights, then we have set a precedent for them. Do you people NOT understand this? Then there is absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing the same to any one of our other rights too!!! The founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect US, the citizen, FROM the government. In this way, we prevent the government from becoming all powerful, like a monarchy.

THIS is why it is important to teach about these things in school!!! People need to realize just how precious every single ONE of our rights is!

yeah they could even force you to buy a product from a private industry

or be fined for not doing so

 

[ChrisL]

If we were to let the government infringe upon just ONE of our rights, then we have set a precedent for them. Do you people NOT understand this? Then there is absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing the same to any one of our other rights too!!! The founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect US, the citizen, FROM the government. In this way, we prevent the government from becoming all powerful, like a monarchy.

THIS is why it is important to teach about these things in school!!! People need to realize just how precious every single ONE of our rights is!

yeah they could even force you to buy a product from a private industry

or be fined for not doing so

Exactly. The government is not to be trusted. They will use every loop hole, like calling something a "tax."