If anyone wants to have a serious discussion on the Second amendment

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

Someone find this person the link to the CDC which states that accidents in the home increase exponentially with a gun in the house.


And yes, I do think its irresponsible to have a gun around children. No good comes of it.

Go ahead. I'll pull out the University of Chicago study that says guns are used far more times each year to prevent crime than to cause it...up to two million times a year.

Except if I do it, I'll do it myself.

 

[SadnonMage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

Someone find this person the link to the CDC which states that accidents in the home increase exponentially with a gun in the house.


And yes, I do think its irresponsible to have a gun around children. No good comes of it.

This is yet more liberal propogandish banter.
In homes where firearms are treated with the respect they deserve, accidents don't occur.
I plan to take my son and daughters hunting when they are old enough, after completing a hunter safety training course.
It is something I feel every child should be able to do, at the right age.
The only thing that is irresposible is leaving guns laying around where they can be accessed by children.
Locked up with trigger locks, secure. That is where they should be when not being used.

 

[SadnonMage]

Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

so you're unwilling to listen to my arguments and the only way you can refute them is to say because of my nationality i dont know what im talking about ?

thats nice of you

i dont think this thread was about a serious discussion ... its you telling people what you think without listening to others or having any discussion

And I suppose you aren't a liberal?

Your post are all a broken record......

Guns are bad.

Grow up and face reality. I intended this thread to be a serious discussion as to why the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America exists, and what do I get, well that was 200+ years ago and really doesn't apply in today's world.
What's next, we shouldn't have the right to free speech, because that was written 200+ years ago and it isn't based in reality?
The reason you are able to even post your ideas here is because at some level your Government believes in free speech, otherwise, like 50% or so of the world you wouldn't even be able to access this site.

 

[islandman]

Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

Funny thing is if it weren't for the NRA, sportsmen, and people who love to hunt and donate everything they don't keep for themselves to food pantries, would be using slings and stones.

Hunting for the sake of hunting is fine. I don't have a problem with it and i've enjoyed the times i've gone out and done it.

But explain to me why you need an AR-15 to shoot down ducks. And explain why you have the right to take it back to your neighborhood and endanger someone else's life.

And I don't buy the "I keep it in a safe place, unloaded, and with a gun lock" argument. These precautions would negate the gun's ability to defend the home from assualt.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

But explain to me why you need an AR-15 to shoot down ducks. .

No wonder you end up at McDonalds after a long day of duck-shooting-at.

 

[islandman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

No wonder you end up at McDonalds after a long day of duck-shooting-at.

lol

don't blame me. One of your compariots handed one out to all 20 guys in my party. Maybe you "hunters" aren't so smart after all. I would have preferred a shotgun, for the obvious reasons.

 

[islandman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

This is yet more liberal propogandish banter.
In homes where firearms are treated with the respect they deserve, accidents don't occur.
I plan to take my son and daughters hunting when they are old enough, after completing a hunter safety training course.
It is something I feel every child should be able to do, at the right age.
The only thing that is irresposible is leaving guns laying around where they can be accessed by children.
Locked up with trigger locks, secure. That is where they should be when not being used.

Liberal? LMAO!!!!!

I'm an ardent supporter of Guliani and his hard-ass ways. No one's ever painted me with the liberal brush. too funny.

I don't like people pointing guns at me. Sorry, but i'd rather take care of myself than risk my life because someone else believes the respect their guns when at home. I can't count on that.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

lol

don't blame me. One of your compariots handed one out to all 20 guys in my party. Maybe you "hunters" aren't so smart after all. I would have preferred a shotgun, for the obvious reasons.

I doubt if it was one of my compatriots. I personally don't own an AR-15 and don't know anyone personally that does.

I also don't hunt. And since we're talking about hunting, it has nothing to do with the second amendment.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

Hunting for the sake of hunting is fine. I don't have a problem with it and i've enjoyed the times i've gone out and done it.

But explain to me why you need an AR-15 to shoot down ducks. And explain why you have the right to take it back to your neighborhood and endanger someone else's life.

And I don't buy the "I keep it in a safe place, unloaded, and with a gun lock" argument. These precautions would negate the gun's ability to defend the home from assualt.

LOL, no, you don't use a AR-15 to shoot ducks. But then again, unless you have a class 3 license, no one has a legal AR-15 anyway.

There are laws against reckless endangerment. Your statement would lead one to believe that all firearm owners are murder's waiting for their chance. Just a little paranoid, don't you think? I do.

Now, I don't really care if you want a firearm or not. That is your personal choice. However, you have no right to force your choice on others. None at all.

So far your arguments have been histrionics and 'feeling's'. So you're a 90's kinda guy that cries at the movies. Fine. But when someone invades your home, or attempts to hi-jack your car, or assaults your wife/girlfriend, or any one of a number of other loathsome acts. You wave the page of the law book at him/her that says it's against the law. I'll shoot them dead. We'll see who was more effective at stopping the assault.

Ishmael

 

[sexy-girl]

Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

Implying that gun owners:

a) do not vote

b) are accident-prone morons, and

c) are irresponsible and don't have any regard for the safety of their children.


I knew there was a reason I didn't want to get seriously involved in this particular gun control thread.

i haven't said any of those things although i am very anti gun


my argument has been that the 2nd amendment is nothing to do with self defense and protecting your home from fellow american citizens

peoples argument that there can be no discussion on gun control is because its in the bill of rights well i think not only is the 2nd amendment outdated but its also not being used in the same meaning it was intended for

so people shouldn't be able to say there can be no debate on gun control

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

i haven't said any of those things although i am very anti gun


my argument has been that the 2nd amendment is nothing to do with self defense and protecting your home from fellow american citizens

peoples argument that there can be no discussion on gun control is because its in the bill of rights well i think not only is the 2nd amendment outdated but its also not being used in the same meaning it was intended for

so people shouldn't be able to say there can be no debate on gun control

Guess what? Go back and read. You can do away with the second amendment and the right is still there.

Ishmael

 

[SadnonMage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

Hunting for the sake of hunting is fine. I don't have a problem with it and i've enjoyed the times i've gone out and done it.

But explain to me why you need an AR-15 to shoot down ducks. And explain why you have the right to take it back to your neighborhood and endanger someone else's life.

And I don't buy the "I keep it in a safe place, unloaded, and with a gun lock" argument. These precautions would negate the gun's ability to defend the home from assualt.

Watch your step, your soap box is wobbling.
Yes I have guns in my home.
Yes I have Children.
My firearms are locked, locked up and in a place where my children can't get to them.
An AR-15 is not a hunting rifle and I am not, nor did I say at anytime that I support the owning of "assault weapons".

I have been involved in the education aspects of firearms, running and participating in clinics and hunter education programs.
I have been involved in competitive shooting, with pistols, rifles and shotguns.
It is a fun and exciting activity. It is also expensive.
I don't own my guns for "home defense", and I don't advocate the use of them in that manner, that is why we have police.
And locks.

btw, anyone trying to shoot ducks with an AR-15 will be sorely disappointed, unless they are an expert marksman at moving targets.

 

[lost]

my theory

From a person who does not own a gun:

If the Second Amendment were read the same way as the First is then guns would be handed out in school and probably subsidized by the government.

We should have guns because monsters are real.

 

[islandman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

LOL, no, you don't use a AR-15 to shoot ducks. But then again, unless you have a class 3 license, no one has a legal AR-15 anyway.

There are laws against reckless endangerment. You're statement would lead one to believe that all firearm owners are murder's waiting for their chance. Just a little paranoid, don't you think? I do.

Now, I don't really care if you want a firearm or not. That is your personal choice. However, you have no right to force your choice on others. None at all.

So far your arguments have been histrionics and 'feeling's'. So you're a 90's kinda guy that cries at the movies. Fine. But when someone invades your home, or attempts to hi-jack your car, or assaults your wife/girlfriend, or any one of a number of other loathsome acts. You wave the page of the law book at him/her that says it's against the law. I'll shoot them dead. We'll see who was more effective at stopping the assault.

Ishmael

Your reply is lacking, your arguments ineffective.

I take exception at the invader who enters my home, who attempts to high-jack my car, who assaults a member of my family because he bought a gun from someone who obtained it legally only to sell. Gun manufacturers also make it simple for people to modify a semi into a full auto.

I question why a citizen would need a full auto.

If you're willing to check your guns at the local police station after you've used it on the firing range or at the local duck hunt or what ever it is that gets you off, I don't bloody care if you own an M1-A1.

Please read carefully. I realize its hard for you.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

my argument has been that the 2nd amendment is nothing to do with self defense and protecting your home from fellow american citizens

peoples argument that there can be no discussion on gun control is because its in the bill of rights well i think not only is the 2nd amendment outdated but its also not being used in the same meaning it was intended for

so people shouldn't be able to say there can be no debate on gun control

The second amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms. It doesn't specify "in defense of the home", and the phrase "well-regulated militia does not mean the national guard. It means that the entire citzenry is a part of a militia with the purpose of protecting itself against tyranny from their own government. Anyone that reads the writings of the people that wrote it realize this.

If the second amendment is outdated, then change it. It's really that simple. But, apparently the anti-gun groups can't get the type of popular support needed to get rid of the second amendment. That's why they just keep chipping away around the edges, trying to pass a law here and there whenever they can find a legislature or court that is friendly to their aim.

 

[Laurel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

PC, not a gun control thread when started, I was hoping for some serious discussion on the facts of History.
Guess I drew out the lefties a little early, sorry.

Uh, I'm a leftie, and I support ALL of the Bill of Rights.

Be careful how you swing that broad brush.

 

[SadnonMage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

i haven't said any of those things although i am very anti gun


my argument has been that the 2nd amendment is nothing to do with self defense and protecting your home from fellow american citizens

peoples argument that there can be no discussion on gun control is because its in the bill of rights well i think not only is the 2nd amendment outdated but its also not being used in the same meaning it was intended for

so people shouldn't be able to say there can be no debate on gun control

And I don't beleive I have said any of these things either.
I am soley attempting to have a discussion on the 'why' of the Second Amendment.

 

[islandman]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

And I don't beleive I have said any of these things either.
I am soley attempting to have a discussion on the 'why' of the Second Amendment.

Sorry for the hijack. I think the 2nd is outdated. I may not like it, but i'll defend it, right along with everything else in the Constitution.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

I don't own my guns for "home defense", and I don't advocate the use of them in that manner, that is why we have police.
And locks.

I'd be very careful here.

The police have no obligation to protect you or your family or your property. This is settled law in that it has been tested before the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. Only you are accountable for your own protection.

It is axiomatic that the police are not present when a crime is commited. Only a VERY stupid criminal would do so. So there would be a considerable delay in your attempt to reach them and their arrival. From several minutes to up to 4 hours (Yep, four hours. A recent event in Minnesota. Like last week. The woman is lucky to be alive.)

So, you may not choose to have a home or personal defense weapon. Again, that is your choice. It should never be the law of the land.

Ishmael

 

[SadnonMage]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All I have to say is...

Uh, I'm a leftie, and I support ALL of the Bill of Rights.

Be careful how you swing that broad brush.

Sorry, Laurelina, I was just, as stated before, attemting a discussion on why the Second Amendment was.

I don't, didn't, and do not intend to offend anyone.

 

[Laurel]

Re: Re: Re: UK, also stands for unarmed Kingdom

No biggie. I don't think Freedom is a partyline issue. There are lefites & righties who want to scrap the Bill of Rights. There are also lefties & righties who want to protect it.

When you throw around over-used, mis-defined labels like "liberal", you alienate people who otherwise agree with you.

That's all.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm, but you fail to see all of History.

Your reply is lacking, your arguments ineffective.

I take exception at the invader who enters my home, who attempts to high-jack my car, who assaults a member of my family because he bought a gun from someone who obtained it legally only to sell. Gun manufacturers also make it simple for people to modify a semi into a full auto.

If you have some proof for this I'd be interested in seeing it.

I question why a citizen would need a full auto.

"full-auto" weapons are illegal to own with out a special permit, which is obtainable only after a very thorough background check. Very, very few average citizens own them.

If you're willing to check your guns at the local police station after you've used it on the firing range or at the local duck hunt or what ever it is that gets you off, I don't bloody care if you own an M1-A1.

That would negate the purpose of the second amendment. It's not about duck hunting. It's about government.

 

[REDWAVE]

"A well regulated militia"

This is a fascinating discussion. This is one of the few issues on which I agree-- sort of-- with the right-wingers. The Second Amendment is the right which underlies all our other, "cooler" rights, the one which makes them enforceable in practical terms. An unarmed public is much easier for the government to enslave than an armed public. Historical evidence does show that the "well regulated militia" the "Founding Fathers" were referring to was a citizen's militia, capable of resisting an oppressive government.

Of course, as some have pointed out, the federal government is much more heavily armed than it was then, and with highly sophisticated and advanced weaponry, up to and including nuclear weapons. Rifles, shotguns, and handguns alone are hardly sufficient to stand up to the government today. Does that mean the Second Amendment should be extended to include all weapons, up to and including nuclear ones?

 

[islandman]

Re: "A well regulated militia"

Of course, as some have pointed out, the federal government is much more heavily armed than it was then, and with highly sophisticated and advanced weaponry, up to and including nuclear weapons. Rifles, shotguns, and handguns alone are hardly sufficient to stand up to the government today. Does that mean the Second Amendment should be extended to include all weapons, up to and including nuclear ones?

i've always been a bit of a pyromaniac at heart.

 

[SadnonMage]

Re: "A well regulated militia"

This is a fascinating discussion. This is one of the few issues on which I agree-- sort of-- with the right-wingers. The Second Amendment is the right which underlies all our other, "cooler" rights, the one which makes them enforceable in practical terms. An unarmed public is much easier for the government to enslave than an armed public. Historical evidence does show that the "well regulated militia" the "Founding Fathers" were referring to was a citizen's militia, capable of resisting an oppressive government.

Of course, as some have pointed out, the federal government is much more heavily armed than it was then, and with highly sophisticated and advanced weaponry, up to and including nuclear weapons. Rifles, shotguns, and handguns alone are hardly sufficient to stand up to the government today. Does that mean the Second Amendment should be extended to include all weapons, up to and including nuclear ones?

OMG I'm gonna fall over from shock. Redwave is in agreement with me??