Your thoughts on the Second Amendment

@SethPhotopoulos said:

@Skytylz said:

Not a lot we can do at this point. They probably should have been outlawed nearly a century ago. I hate how people think we should follow something written almost 250 years ago so strictly.

I think the first amendment is pretty cool.

I didn't say they fucked the whole thing up.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@mlarrabee said:

@Zleunamme said:

Gun fanatics make as much sense as the people that promote pro-life, also favor the death penalty.

I have to address this. Pro-Lifers argue that human life begins at conception. That is, the "fetus," from Zygocyte to birth, is a human being and one that is incapable of evil, if for no other reason than its infancy. The death penalty is (intended to be) reserved for those whose guilt is confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt, who show no possibility of rehabilitation, and who have committed a crime so heinous that imprisonment is not suitable punishment.

One cannot compare the most innocent with the most evil.

As soon as an innocent man is executed, the death penalty has failed utterly and completely. The sanctity of life argument no longer holds water when Texas just executed a man with an IQ of 61.

How? Failed justice in one case should not lead to failed justice in dozens of other cases. And the unintentional -though that sentiment followed too late- murder of a (perhaps) unwitting murderer does not cancel the intentional murder of 1.264.500.000 unborn fetuses.

But this is not the discussion intended for this thread. I merely wanted to point out the break in logic in the original quote.

how would we survive the zombie apocalypse without guns?

Smart ass comment aside, I think this:

@believer258 said:

I believe that I should be able to lawfully keep a gun for defense against those who would unlawfully keep a bigger gun.

Should gun laws be tighter and should they be controlled better? Definitely. But should they be gotten rid of altogether? No.

@mandude Unless you can be more specific about things you do not understand, we can not bridge this communication gap.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@LD50 said:

blah blah blah, I've decided you can't do this, blah blah blah

What an intelligent addition to the conversation. Welcome to a world where the Rule of Law exists.

I believe the Second Amendment should stay but guns needs to be regulated. No civilian needs or should have an M60 that shoots .50 Caliber rounds and a magazine that can hold hundreds of rounds. An Assault ban needs to be put in place.

If you've an issue. I'm right here. Let's hear it...

@LD50 said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@LD50 said:

blah blah blah, I've decided you can't do this, blah blah blah

What an intelligent addition to the conversation. Welcome to a world where the Rule of Law exists.

I believe the Second Amendment should stay but guns needs to be regulated. No civilian needs or should have an M60 that shoots .50 Caliber rounds and a magazine that can hold hundreds of rounds. An Assault ban needs to be put in place.

If you've an issue. This one is right here. Let's hear it...

Yeah my issue is that your original statement added nothing to the conversation and could be said about literally any law ever.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@LD50 said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@LD50 said:

blah blah blah, I've decided you can't do this, blah blah blah

What an intelligent addition to the conversation. Welcome to a world where the Rule of Law exists.

I believe the Second Amendment should stay but guns needs to be regulated. No civilian needs or should have an M60 that shoots .50 Caliber rounds and a magazine that can hold hundreds of rounds. An Assault ban needs to be put in place.

If you've an issue. This one is right here. Let's hear it...

Yeah my issue is that your original statement added nothing to the conversation and could be said about literally any law ever.

Are you saying that controlling people is the answer or that you oppose orders?

DUDES, you cannot make someone do something. next?

Its a right not a law. We start taking away rights I start taking away... stuff and you wont like it.

Making it harder for the wrong people to get guns is the best solution to this. While I consider myself a liberal I do believe in the constitution and the rights it grants people (and I don't like it when people twist the constitution to hinder other peoples rights).

I wonder how that amendment would be if there were Mac-10s that fired 1,000+ rounds per minute in the 1700s? On top of that, with a some practice, the weapon can be easily concealed, disassembled/reassembled and reloaded within seconds.

It's weird thinking that right now I have a high powered rifle with armored piercing rounds that I can easily grab out of the case and take it to a public event, or someone who steals it could. However, if the police catch me with weed and a pipe, then I'm arrested. What I'm trying to say is, the second amendment might be taken a little too broadly for modern times. Harmless things will get you thrown in jail, owning a full auto AR with 100round drum clip is safe for everyone though.

I could care less about gun laws and were they go. In the end, guns exist and the fucked up people will continue to shoot up the innocent, whether the weapon was obtained legally or not doesn't matter, they'll get their hands on it.

A much more friendly gun discussion than the last one I saw here =)

To those who argue that criminals are going to find ways to get guns anyway, that there are already too many guns in circulation for any ban to be effective:

It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try anyway.

As a New Zealander, I am very hesitant about to going to America because of its gun laws.

you should, we hood.

Banning things is a bandaid solution, it doesn't solve the problem, it covers it up and lets it fester, prohibition, the war on drugs, and even copyright protection have led to a huge buisness of doing whats illegal without the goverments oversight

@Intro: Just FYI, owning a fully automatic weapon isn't a matter of walking in and buying one. A "Full auto AR-15" would require fingerprints and photos to the ATF along with a full criminal background check, Sign off by the head of your local law enforcement, and cost somewhere north of $15,000 for the legal lower. The one you're thinking of is a semi automatic rifle, the media likes the term "assault weapon" better though because people don't know what it means (in this case, detachable clip and 2 of either: pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet clip, etc). If you're caught with one of these(class 3/NFA classified weapon) without the legal documents in place, you're going away for a lot longer than a possession charge.

We can agree though, many drug laws are useless and senseless.

@Vinny_Says said:

Hey we tried banning Alcohol....that didn't go well.

We tried banning other drugs....that's not working.

We're going to ban firearms....that one will work for sure. How exactly are we to take away people's guns? They have guns, I doubt they'll just hand them over.

The ban on alcohol, and drugs didn't work because people can make drugs and alcohol in their own home relatively easily. It's a lot harder to make a gun.

If guns were illegal, most people would not have the knowledge or resources to build or purchase illegal weapons.

@RainbowCarnage said:

@Vinny_Says said:

Hey we tried banning Alcohol....that didn't go well.

We tried banning other drugs....that's not working.

We're going to ban firearms....that one will work for sure. How exactly are we to take away people's guns? They have guns, I doubt they'll just hand them over.

The ban on alcohol, and drugs didn't work because people can make drugs and alcohol in their own home relatively easily. It's a lot harder to make a gun.

If guns were illegal, most people would not have the knowledge or resources to build or purchase illegal weapons.

you are out of your mind.

@LD50 said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@Vinny_Says said:

Hey we tried banning Alcohol....that didn't go well.

We tried banning other drugs....that's not working.

We're going to ban firearms....that one will work for sure. How exactly are we to take away people's guns? They have guns, I doubt they'll just hand them over.

The ban on alcohol, and drugs didn't work because people can make drugs and alcohol in their own home relatively easily. It's a lot harder to make a gun.

If guns were illegal, most people would not have the knowledge or resources to build or purchase illegal weapons.

you are out of your mind.

Why is that?

@Intro: Just FYI, owning a fully automatic weapon isn't a matter of walking in and buying one. A "Full auto AR-15" would require fingerprints and photos to the ATF along with a full criminal background check, Sign off by the head of your local law enforcement, and cost somewhere north of $15,000 for the legal lower. The one you're thinking of is a semi automatic rifle, the media likes the term "assault weapon" better though because people don't know what it means (in this case, detachable clip and 2 of either: pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet clip, etc). If you're caught with one of these(class 3/NFA classified weapon) without the legal documents in place, you're going away for a lot longer than a possession charge.

We can agree though, many drug laws are useless and senseless.

@RainbowCarnage said:

@LD50 said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@Vinny_Says said:

Hey we tried banning Alcohol....that didn't go well.

We tried banning other drugs....that's not working.

We're going to ban firearms....that one will work for sure. How exactly are we to take away people's guns? They have guns, I doubt they'll just hand them over.

The ban on alcohol, and drugs didn't work because people can make drugs and alcohol in their own home relatively easily. It's a lot harder to make a gun.

If guns were illegal, most people would not have the knowledge or resources to build or purchase illegal weapons.

you are out of your mind.

Why is that?

If guns were illegal, unicorns would be awesome. Guns are guns. No knowledge necessary.

SOBEREDIT: That very well could be the stupidest thing I've ever typed.

@NlGHTCRAWLER said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@damnboyadvance said:

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That's the way I see it.

Most outlaws become outlaws after they buy a gun.

James Holmes (the guy that shot people at the movie theater) He wasn't an outlaw before the shooting.

That's just stupid.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you can't honestly believe that owning guns causes people to shoot up movie theaters. He was a sick and twisted individual who happened to own guns, not the other way around. Guns are just tools and weapons. It's the people behind them that you should be worried about.

James Holmes and many other mass shooters are not the kind of people with the kind of connections or savvy that would be necessary to illegally acquire all of the weaponry that Holmes and others were able to buy legally. This is, of course, not to mention that if such things were illegal, they would exist in much smaller quantity and with no one to buy them, they would become extremely scarce even among the hardened gangbangers.

In my opnion, the only valid arguent in favor of the accepted interpretation of the second amendment is that most people who own guns are harmless hobbyists, but I don't believe the enjoyment they get from gun ownership is worth all of the lives that are claimed by gun violence in the United States.

@LD50 said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@LD50 said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@Vinny_Says said:

Hey we tried banning Alcohol....that didn't go well.

We tried banning other drugs....that's not working.

We're going to ban firearms....that one will work for sure. How exactly are we to take away people's guns? They have guns, I doubt they'll just hand them over.

The ban on alcohol, and drugs didn't work because people can make drugs and alcohol in their own home relatively easily. It's a lot harder to make a gun.

If guns were illegal, most people would not have the knowledge or resources to build or purchase illegal weapons.

you are out of your mind.

Why is that?

If guns were illegal, unicorns would be awesome. Guns are guns. No knowledge necessary.

Are you on drugs right now O_o

@chrissedoff said:

@NlGHTCRAWLER said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@damnboyadvance said:

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That's the way I see it.

Most outlaws become outlaws after they buy a gun.

James Holmes (the guy that shot people at the movie theater) He wasn't an outlaw before the shooting.

That's just stupid.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you can't honestly believe that owning guns causes people to shoot up movie theaters. He was a sick and twisted individual who happened to own guns, not the other way around. Guns are just tools and weapons. It's the people behind them that you should be worried about.

James Holmes and many other mass shooters are not the kind of people with the kind of connections or savvy that would be necessary to illegally acquire all of the weaponry that Holmes and others were able to buy legally. This is, of course, not to mention that if such things were illegal, they would exist in much smaller quantity with no one to buy them, so they would become extremely scarce even among the hardened gangbangers.

In my opnion, the only valid arguent in favor of the accepted interpretation of the second amendment is that most people who own guns are harmless hobbyists, but I don't believe the enjoyment they get from gun ownership is worth all of the lives that are claimed by gun violence in the United States.

wot?

@CaLe said:

America deserves to have the highest levels of gun crime and death. They really do deserve it. Well done.

Guns were completely necessary when the Bill of Rights was first written. The police system was not yet developed, and weaponry was standardized enough that overtaking a corrupt government was completely feasible. However, in modern society, they have no real productive use, at all. That being said, outlawing them is completely ridiculous as then, yes, only outlaws have guns. I do believe they should be strictly controlled--background checks should be thorough like Henry David, and mandatory for all purchases (even online and at gun shows)--and bullets purchased should also be registered.

@CaLe said:

America deserves to have the highest levels of gun crime and death. They really do deserve it. Well done.

Maybe if we tried to be first in education we wouldn't be number one in gun crime and death. Unfortunately, that'll never happen.

@LD50 said:

DUDES, you cannot make someone do something. next?

The cat is out of the bag in the U.S. Too many people have guns. Most people I know have at least one. I have a few. My fucking grandmother has one.

If the government tried to confiscate guns a whole lot of people would start dying. There are a shit ton of veterans that would start shooting if you tried to take them. It would be a fucking apocalypse.

@LD50 said:

@chrissedoff said:

@NlGHTCRAWLER said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@damnboyadvance said:

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. That's the way I see it.

Most outlaws become outlaws after they buy a gun.

James Holmes (the guy that shot people at the movie theater) He wasn't an outlaw before the shooting.

That's just stupid.

I don't mean to sound like a dick, but you can't honestly believe that owning guns causes people to shoot up movie theaters. He was a sick and twisted individual who happened to own guns, not the other way around. Guns are just tools and weapons. It's the people behind them that you should be worried about.

James Holmes and many other mass shooters are not the kind of people with the kind of connections or savvy that would be necessary to illegally acquire all of the weaponry that Holmes and others were able to buy legally. This is, of course, not to mention that if such things were illegal, they would exist in much smaller quantity with no one to buy them, so they would become extremely scarce even among the hardened gangbangers.

In my opnion, the only valid arguent in favor of the accepted interpretation of the second amendment is that most people who own guns are harmless hobbyists, but I don't believe the enjoyment they get from gun ownership is worth all of the lives that are claimed by gun violence in the United States.

wot?

Wot.

In need of dire modification. WHAT type of Arms? WHO can have them? WHAT regulations need to be in place? I think it's fairly reasonable that we don't allow citizens to own anti-tank rifles or fully-automatic machine guns like an MG3. I also think it's reasonable that the US should restrict exactly who can own a gun - I mean, for christ's sake, you guys regulate freaking AUTOMOBILES more than guns! You have more laws determining who can DRIVE than who can own a DEADLY WEAPON (and yes, a gun is more deadly than, say, a club or a knife. If they weren't, we wouldn't have invented guns!).

You have to look at the outside world. EVEN ADJUSTING FOR POPULATION, you guys have a higher crime rate than most of the developed world! Your guns aren't keeping you safe! In Australia, we get on by perfectly well without a huge population of gun owners. Our Government hasn't attempted to make us communist, we have the vote and we aren't overrun with criminal gangs. We're one of the safest places on earth, yes, even accounting for our relatively small population size, and we don't go around carrying pistols and revolvers, fretting over "The Gub'mit gon' take our guns away! That Nego in that thar white house is gonna make us all the Cawmuniss!"

Look at the rest of the world - we get on by perfectly fine without the need to own a fully automatic assault rifle under our beds.

Also: High rates of Civilian Gun Ownership = High rates of selling firearms on the blackmarket = Higher rates of criminals getting guns! In australia, our criminals, by and large, don't use guns! Why? Because they are hard to get. Because we don't have many in the country. Do you see the point I'm making? LESS GUNS = IT'S HARDER FOR THEM TO GET GUNS!

Unfortunately, the US can't follow Australia's example - you've swamped your nation with guns! You're stuffed/ There's nothing you can do! You can't get rid of them! You're stuck with your gun violence forever! No matter what you do!

The Second Amendment is here to stay - Americans won't let their guns get taken away. It doesn't matter if they rarely use their guns. It doesn't matter if the vast majority of them have never and will never, EVER effectively use their guns in self-defense. They feel powerful with their guns, they feel like more of a "badass" and a "man" with their guns, and they will not give it up. It doesn't matter if, for 99% of them, giving up their guns won't make a lick of difference in terms of their safety. They'll never give it up. It's a settled issue - they want their guns and they'll keep their guns. That's the path they decide to take.

You know, the US does a lot of great things. Does a lot of right things - you put that rover on Mars and that's an accomplishment you can be proud of. But you don't do everything right. In some areas, other nations do it better than you, and gun control and criminal justice is one of them. I wouldn't trade the Australian Criminal Justice system for the American one any day of the week, nor would I want a US "You-can-own-just-about-anything" type system over here. I can walk down the street at night in the city without even worrying for a moment about being shot. I can't do that in the US.

@LD50 said:

@LD50 said:

DUDES, you cannot make someone do something. next?

You've now started to quote your own posts. Well done.

i own a very nice pistol. i carry it everywhere concealed. i got my concealed permit. i wont give it up. if i need to use it to protect my daughter or wife one day (god forbid) i will.

i will say that this is due to the fact that it has been so easy to get a gun that criminals have them easily and readily available. there is no going back. so there is no way i will now give up my gun. i do wish i didnt feel the need for it but thats the world we live in now.

@phuzzybunny said:

Being kind of picky here but the Second Amendment isn't a law but a right.

also, when you take away people's rights, you aren't living in a democracy(or a republic in our case) anymore. people that want to break laws don't get permits for guns. people that want to protect what is theirs do. Law abiding citizens with inalienable rights. sorry, but i don't want to go back to living under a monarchy or anything else for that matter.

also using the above quote because it's all fact. there is no opinion involved in what they posted.

@Korolev said:

You have to look at the outside world. EVEN ADJUSTING FOR POPULATION, you guys have a higher crime rate than most of the developed world!

Wrong.

But ya know, making up facts is way easier than actually knowing what you're talking about.

Interesting that people from other countries show up in these threads talking about how stupid/power hungry/ full of themselves/intolerant Americans are. It tells us more about your shortcomings if anything. Stop making these weird generalizations with no real knowledge to back it up. It makes you look like the idiots.

@RainbowCarnage said:

@LD50 said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@LD50 said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@Vinny_Says said:

Hey we tried banning Alcohol....that didn't go well.

We tried banning other drugs....that's not working.

We're going to ban firearms....that one will work for sure. How exactly are we to take away people's guns? They have guns, I doubt they'll just hand them over.

The ban on alcohol, and drugs didn't work because people can make drugs and alcohol in their own home relatively easily. It's a lot harder to make a gun.

If guns were illegal, most people would not have the knowledge or resources to build or purchase illegal weapons.

you are out of your mind.

Why is that?

If guns were illegal, unicorns would be awesome. Guns are guns. No knowledge necessary.

Are you on drugs right now O_o

I bet the average american can make a firearm easier than they can produce a kilo of cocaine....

The reason the prohibitions of the past and present failed weren't because people were secretly getting drunk and high in their homes (people will always want to get high), it was because it gave rise to criminal empires that imported the substances and made millions in profit.

They will do the same with guns.

Also, people already have guns, they aren't just going to give them up to some government hack who comes into their home. I don't own a gun, but I understand that banning anything outright never makes the problem disappear.

@mrfizzy said:

@imsh_pl: I get where you are coming from but it could be argued that when a criminal commits a crime they are attacking/threatening society and are therefore attacking/threatening the government. In other words the government (police) would act in order to defend society by removing that person from the society which they are harming (prison).

But the anti-gun law is not aimed against criminals alone is it? It seeks to prevent anyone from getting a gun, regardless of their use of it. And the government will use force against anyone who uses it in a way it deems incorrect. But the 'incorrect' way is not only to use force against others but even to have a gun at your side/ use it without a license etc.

Besides, everyone should be judged by their own actions. There's no such thing as 'collective responsibility' (maybe in case of parents and children but that's a different debate). If my 3 neighbors rape a woman, I should not be put to trial along with them accused of gangrape. Likewise, it would be against the 'everyone is responsible for their actions and their actions only' if you were to have your gun taken only because some people out there use it incorrectly.

In short, the anti-gun law boils down to 'some people (the government) can initiate force against other people who do not threaten anyone (casual gun user)'.

I like my guns, people who know nothing try to call these "assault rifles" when they dont realize a shotgun can do way more damage. I think if people were brought up to handle guns safely and understand them better there would be less gun crime and accidental deaths. If handled safely and respectfully theres nothing wrong with guns and law abiding citizens shoulden't be punished because of some nuts.

@GenocidalKitten said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@LD50 said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@LD50 said:

@RainbowCarnage said:

@Vinny_Says said:

Hey we tried banning Alcohol....that didn't go well.

We tried banning other drugs....that's not working.

We're going to ban firearms....that one will work for sure. How exactly are we to take away people's guns? They have guns, I doubt they'll just hand them over.

The ban on alcohol, and drugs didn't work because people can make drugs and alcohol in their own home relatively easily. It's a lot harder to make a gun.

If guns were illegal, most people would not have the knowledge or resources to build or purchase illegal weapons.

you are out of your mind.

Why is that?

If guns were illegal, unicorns would be awesome. Guns are guns. No knowledge necessary.

Are you on drugs right now O_o

Yeah, I think that there is something seriously fucking wrong with LD50.

Get in a long line.

I kind of get peeved off with any of this "It's my right!" bs. The only people with true 'rights' are the rich elite folk that eat babies and drive clouds. Yeah, they're that rich. The mere fact that somebody decides what rights people can and can't have should ring some bells on whether or not it's truly you're right or if someone is just saying "N'awh, go on then." As for the second amendment it's tricky. Should people be allowed guns? Who am I to say? I'd rather only those that worked to protect others had them. But lets face it, how can you tell who is and who isn't corrupt before they shoot someone to kill without reason? In an ideal world there would be no guns, no weapons, because there would be no need for them. But from the moment they were invented I think it was too late.

Personally though, if I'm alone at night, I prefer to use a chainsaw. No one expects a tiny person to come at them with one of those. The shock alone should be enough!

Thinking that guns are responsible for America's relatively high (but ultimately low) violent crime rate is to be completely ignorant of the problems that face people who live in America.

@Korolev said:

You know, the US does a lot of great things. Does a lot of right things - you put that rover on Mars and that's an accomplishment you can be proud of. But you don't do everything right. In some areas, other nations do it better than you, and gun control and criminal justice is one of them. I wouldn't trade the Australian Criminal Justice system for the American one any day of the week, nor would I want a US "You-can-own-just-about-anything" type system over here. I can walk down the street at night in the city without even worrying for a moment about being shot. I can't do that in the US.

I live in Richmond, VA, which has a really high per capita murder rate. Guns are not why you don't go down the street at night in certain areas. Unless you are involved in criminal activity, you won't get shot. Criminals die in gun violence. But we have plenty of people who want to commit crimes, and they can do plenty without guns and those things are why I don't walk certain streets at night.

Does Australia border a nation with murder rates five times its own? Does Australia have a problem with gang violence? Did Australia try to integrate into their country millions of ethnically and culturally different people who had been oppressed and lived in slavery, whose descendants continue to feel the effects through poverty and deprivation?

Switzerland, Norway, Australia, and a whole host of European countries who have low violent crime rates also have some of the most homogeneous racial and cultural makeups in the world. This mostly resulted by design, such as by Europe's current and historical resistance to multiculturalism, or historical policies like White Australia.

India is an incredibly diverse country in all respects, and while it is legal to own firearms in India, the laws are much stricter than in the United States. In a ranking of gun ownership rate by country in 2007:

The United States was first with 88.8 guns per 100 residents.

Switzerland was 4th, with 45.7 per 100 residents.

Sweden and Norway were 10th and 11th with about 31.

Mexico was tied with Australia for 42nd, with 15 guns per 100 residents.

India was ranked 110th with 4.2 guns per 100 residents.

And yet Mexico and Australia have almost opposite murder rates, Switzerland has an incredibly low rate, and India and the United States have very close murder rates. Sweden and Norway have double the amount of guns Australia has, but murder rates that are equal to or less than that of Australia.

Do not try to reduce crime down to who has the most guns. It doesn't work like that.

Guns per capita by country

Murder rates by country

If you look at the countries with the highest amount of per capita guns, you will see a ton of countries that are at the bottom of the murder rates ranking.

It seems, Australia, the lesson you are teaching the world is not that guns cause crime, but that owning guns and keeping other ethnicities out of your country makes you safe. I hope you're happy with that.

I am having a very hard time figuring out if all these "all guns are bad and should be banned!" people are really that ignorant or just trolls.

Remember when we thought that black people should be slaves.

Remember when we thought that gay people should be jailed or 'treated'.

Time strides ever forward, peoples change and society evolves.

Things have moved on from December 15, 1791. In many ways.

Holy Christ I'm hungover.

I don't have a microscopic penis or an inferiority complex so I don't really think that much about guns and whatever "right" peple have to bear them.

If you make the gun control laws more (way more than it is now) strict, less people will die. I can not comprehend why people are against that.