The new Chicago gun law seems to have sparked some conversation about this. I'm not stating whether or not I am for a against gun control but I thought that this would be a good time to remind people of the original purpose if he amendment. America gained it's independence from a tyrannical rule by banding together militias and fighting a revolution with a civilian army. The right to bear arms was put in place to insure that if the government ever again became tyrannical that the people would have the power to fight a revolution and yet again overthrow the government.
Now, whether or not this is an outdated concept is debatable.
...so debate!
Hi, my name is the Bison King, and I am COMPLETELY aware of DaFont!
I'd add that it's also instrumental for self defense in one's own home and life. Don't forget that blacks needed the right to protect themselves from racist asswipes who felt the need to go lynching.
Lootifer wrote:I earn well above average income for my area, i'm educated and I support left wing politics.
jbrettlip wrote:You live in New Zealand. We will call you when we need to make another Hobbit movie.
jimboston wrote:# 1 - Even if the concept is out of date, the Amendment still stands. Therefore you can't infringe on My Right.
Buddy, you're kind of missing the whole 'is it a good thing for it to stand or not' thrust of this debate...
jimboston wrote:# 2 - I think that it's good to believe it's possible... even if it really ain't. Kinda like a placebo effect.
Utterly ludicrous.
Why not just have an amendment that says every American is required to sit in their garden and chant Hari Krishna at the moon for at least an hour a day, just so that they can all believe that it's possible to heal the world with the power of joy alone.
I mean, it's good to believe that's possible, right? Kinda like a placebo effect.
The Bison King wrote:The right to bear arms was put in place to insure that if the government ever again became tyrannical that the people would have the power to fight a revolution and yet again overthrow the government.
Well right now, you can safely say that the government is actually the banks, and the banks are / were tyrannical. So why the f*ck are Americans not loading up the gun racks and heading off to the Hamptons?
Why not just have an amendment that says every American is required to sit in their garden and chant Hari Krishna at the moon for at least an hour a day, just so that they can all believe that it's possible to heal the world with the power of joy alone.
I mean, it's good to believe that's possible, right? Kinda like a placebo effect.
So...You're tellin me this won't work?
f*ck you, you're still a horrible fuckin doctor!
In other news... I simply think that if everyone had a gun, there would be less crime (Not that this has anything to do with this thread really.) And less liberals. And less idiots. And less rapists. And less pedophiles. And less Killing Sprees. ...Clap if you agree.
Last edited by DirtyDishSoap on Mon Jul 12, 2010 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
The Bison King wrote:The right to bear arms was put in place to insure that if the government ever again became tyrannical that the people would have the power to fight a revolution and yet again overthrow the government.
Well right now, you can safely say that the government is actually the banks, and the banks are / were tyrannical. So why the f*ck are Americans not loading up the gun racks and heading off to the Hamptons?
Because, as is abundantly clear to all those who care to see, the whole "overthrowing teh guvhmint" thing is a complete and utter crock.
DirtyDishSoap wrote:if everyone had a gun, there would be less crime (Not that this has anything to do with this thread really.)
<snip?
And less Killing Sprees.
Yes. Giving everybody lethal weapons is a sure way to stop them from committing lethal crimes. Just as giving them weapons capable of enabling killing sprees will stop them from perpetrating, uh, killing sprees?
Tell me DDS (and don't get me wrong, I like you) why does your "more weapons = less crime" thinking apply to guns, but not to baseball bats, hand-grenades, and chainsaws?
You have to compare the odds and damage caused by a potential tyrannical world government caused by our increasing technology and globalization... to the odds and damage of the people who wouldn't commit a crime without easy access to a gun committing the crime with easy access to a gun. That's not even taking into effect the people who use their guns for self-defense.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Put it this way, a guy wants to rob a bank in a small town where everyone owns and carries a gun. How likely do you think that man will successfully pull off that heist? Not really lookin good for him, lol. As for killing sprees itself...Well let's say everyone has a limit to...Oh idk...Either a handgun or a basic AR. If the guy starts shootin up two or three people in public, chances are thirty different other guys are gonna think the same thought of simply shootin him and moving on.
It's sort of like the Death Penatly, only without the prison sentences and judges and what not.
Dukasaur wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:taking medical advice from this creature; a morbidly obese man who is 100% convinced he willed himself into becoming a woman.
Your obsession with mrswdk is really sad.
ConfederateSS wrote:Just because people are idiots... Doesn't make them wrong.
King Doctor is very good at being a thorn in peoples side. Doc skips all the legitimate issues, and cut right to name calling and smearing. Doc, those tactics still do not work, and are still the weakest possible argument.
The second amendment says the right to bear arms. Does that mean we should have the right to bear nuclear weaponry? If you are sane and say no, then you have to accept that the amendment should be interpreted by what "arms" meant at the time. I'm pretty sure weapons that didn't exist yet (like automatic weapons) weren't part of that definition.
jimboston wrote:# 1 - Even if the concept is out of date, the Amendment still stands. Therefore you can't infringe on My Right.
Buddy, you're kind of missing the whole 'is it a good thing for it to stand or not' thrust of this debate...
jimboston wrote:# 2 - I think that it's good to believe it's possible... even if it really ain't. Kinda like a placebo effect.
Utterly ludicrous.
Why not just have an amendment that says every American is required to sit in their garden and chant Hari Krishna at the moon for at least an hour a day, just so that they can all believe that it's possible to heal the world with the power of joy alone.
I mean, it's good to believe that's possible, right? Kinda like a placebo effect.
#1 - Not missing the point of debate... pointing out that the debate is meaningless since there won't be an amendment to the Constitution on this point. Go home and drink some tea Limy.
#2 - You can't get your silly amendment even considered, because you're a Limy prick.
#3 - Even if your silly amendment was considered it make no sense.
#1 - Not missing the point of debate... pointing out that the debate is meaningless since there won't be an amendment to the Constitution on this point. Go home and drink some tea Limy.
#2 - You can't get your silly amendment even considered, because you're a Limy prick.
#3 - Even if your silly amendment was considered it make no sense.
Come on quite the name calling. Can we please try to not make every single debate a Brit U.S. thing.
Well, the way I feel about it is that the notion of over throwing the US government with a grass roots militia movement in this day is positively retarded (pardon the french) I also think that the idea that everyone owning a gun is going to reduce crime is WAY retarded. However as an amendment it should not be rescinded. Once you take away one liberty it opens up a slippery slope. If you can justify removing one freedom by claiming that it's in the best interest of the people (even if it is) you can start justifying all crazy kinds of things. And I think we already started heading down a scary path of that with the Bush Admin, and the Patriot act. The 2nd Amendment is an important sign of trust between the government and the people.
Hi, my name is the Bison King, and I am COMPLETELY aware of DaFont!
Just because it's an amendment doesn't mean it's necessarily "good" for the people. I mean, what about Prohibition? I bet a lot of you would disagree with that.
Secondly, if someone robbed a bank with a gun, I don't know many people that would actually step up and shoot them, considering they'd risk EVERYBODY'S lives...(also, wouldn't that be illegal? Shooting someone if they weren't directly threatening you?).
Just because it's an amendment doesn't mean it's necessarily "good" for the people. I mean, what about Prohibition? I bet a lot of you would disagree with that.
I agree that just because it's an amendment doesn't mean that it's good for the people, but prohibition is a bit of an exception, because, it was an amendment that took away a liberty rather than granting one.
Hi, my name is the Bison King, and I am COMPLETELY aware of DaFont!
Army of GOD wrote:Secondly, if someone robbed a bank with a gun, I don't know many people that would actually step up and shoot them, considering they'd risk EVERYBODY'S lives...(also, wouldn't that be illegal? Shooting someone if they weren't directly threatening you?).
In some (insane) localities, it probably (ashamedly) IS a crime.............but good luck finding a jury that would actually convict.
For all of you people who want a gun ban, just remember that the only people who get rid of the guns are the ones who actually obey the laws. Criminals will still get their guns if they want them badly enough, and then the innocent have no way to protect themselves. It's audacious that in a society where crime rates have increased for decades, people think that removing personal protections is a good thing. I guess it goes part and parcel with a belief that government can always take care of the people.
Just because it's an amendment doesn't mean it's necessarily "good" for the people. I mean, what about Prohibition? I bet a lot of you would disagree with that.
I agree that just because it's an amendment doesn't mean that it's good for the people, but prohibition is a bit of an exception, because, it was an amendment that took away a liberty rather than granting one.
Still, were our forefathers gods? Who says THEY know what's best? Just because it's an amendment in the Bill of Rights doesn't mean it's the best thing for us...
Also, this debate sucks because it's nothing but speculation. It turns into "MOAR GUNS MEANS MOAR VIOLENCE" and "MOAR GUNS MEANS THEIR GUNNA BE ASCURRED".
InkL0sed wrote:The second amendment says the right to bear arms. Does that mean we should have the right to bear nuclear weaponry? If you are sane and say no, then you have to accept that the amendment should be interpreted by what "arms" meant at the time. I'm pretty sure weapons that didn't exist yet (like automatic weapons) weren't part of that definition.
A handgun is okay for protection, but anything more is completely unnecessary and puts peoples' lives in danger
InkL0sed wrote:The second amendment says the right to bear arms. Does that mean we should have the right to bear nuclear weaponry? If you are sane and say no, then you have to accept that the amendment should be interpreted by what "arms" meant at the time. I'm pretty sure weapons that didn't exist yet (like automatic weapons) weren't part of that definition.
A handgun is okay for protection, but anything more is completely unnecessary and puts peoples' lives in danger
So families can't have rifles and shotguns for hunting? If those were completely banned, our access to crops would severely decrease because there would be no way for deer and fowl population control. City people need to realize there are many more uses for guns than inner city violence.
