The 1st Amendment and YOU!

[MikeyVassallo]

I can pretty much guarantee you the framers and the members who ratified the Bill of Rights did not have overthrowing their own government in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

 

[UrbanMasque]

..2nd Amendment..
Protection against tyranny...
...tyranny comes in many forms.

We got lucky with our founders, The men who wrote the Constitution were geniuses.

They did not specify purposely.
Protect yourself, protect your property, protect your country.
I wonder how they would've responded to all the bank foreclosures during our recession given their stance on the bank of england.

So much for me being "liberal".

 

[Hlallu]

Liberal and Conservative are terms used way too loosely now a days. I hate it.

Im actually going to look at that picketing schedule and see if there's one nearby I can do the charity thing for... That's possibly the best action ever.

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

I can pretty much guarantee you the framers and the members who ratified the Bill of Rights did not have overthrowing their own government in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

...They did. If it became a tyranny.

 

[KoalaRainbowPoop]

what does it matter, the 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten for todays times. i'm not saying take away guns, hell no, i love me some guns too, the amendment is just way to broad today.

 

[madster111]

The amendment is just way to broad today.

How so?

I want to move to america so that i have the right to hold a nuclear weapon in my hands.

 

[KoalaRainbowPoop]

The amendment is just way to broad today.

How so?

I want to move to america so that i have the right to hold a nuclear weapon in my hands.

the 2nd amendment says any u.s citzen can own a gun. any. sure, we have laws in place to "prevent" undesirable people from getting them, but yet they still do. the a.t.f.(department of alcohol tabaco and firearms) seize a lot of illegal firearms each year. look at it this way. russia, while still in the lead, used to provide the most illegal firearms. but it has gotten to where we are not far behind them.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

My problem with the second amendment is that in the late 1700's when it was written the most deadly a gun could be is a shitty little musket or a shitty little pistol. They had no idea that today you would be able to go to an outdoors store and buy a gun that you could shoot dozens of people with, not having to take 30 seconds to reload after each shot, and you could walk out of the store with it with little more than a glance at your ID.

When it was written, guns were an important part of life for the common man, who had to hunt for a good amount of his food.

Now don't get me wrong, we shouldn't get rid of it entirely. Just make it a little harder for the crazies who might want to use them to get their hands on a submachine gun.

Hell, if it were up to me the only handgun anyone should be allowed to have is a revolver. You only get six shots with a long reload time. It's way safer for the general public than any other handguns.

 

[madster111]

My problem with the second amendment is that in the late 1700's when it was written the most deadly a gun could be is a shitty little musket or a shitty little pistol. They had no idea that today you would be able to go to an outdoors store and buy a gun that you could shoot dozens of people with

I'm more worried about how you can now buy pistols powerful enough to take out armored people.
And helicopters.

Hell, if it were up to me the only handgun anyone should be allowed to have is a revolver. You only get six shots with a long reload time. It's way safer for the general public than any other handguns.

Bah.
What good will reducing handgun clips/mags do?
Allow people to only drop 6 rounds into people?


Even in the 1900s we had rifles that will hold 10 rounds and, because they're lever action, take no more than a second to cock them.
Then you put new rounds in at about a second each.

The only real way you murrikans could improve gun laws is steal our system, which prevents anything over a .40 and full auto.

 

[Green_Lantern]

It is still quite hard to legally get an automatic weapon in this country. It's possible just regulated and pretty expensive. And at least with handguns people who want to buy them have to have forms filled out with their police departments as well.

 

[Bretimus_v2]

Hell, if it were up to me the only handgun anyone should be allowed to have is a revolver. You only get six shots with a long reload time.

"I couldn't agree more with this man. I love to reload during a battle. There's nothing like the feeling of slamming a long silver bullet into a well-greased chamber."

Not to mention that they do a background check at outdoor goods stores in most states. Gun shows are where they don't do any kind of check.

 

[UrbanMasque]

I can pretty much guarantee you the framers and the members who ratified the Bill of Rights did not have overthrowing their own government in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

...They did. If it became a tyranny.

Yea, I guess ( I don't think they intended to have militias storming the white house, but maybe they did, the 1700's were a crazy time) - but I think they included it because they didn't want the government to be able to take everything from you. Let's face it, Gov't has all the power - but an armed populace checks and balances that power. Like, "wait a second congress - you guys want to take everything I own *racks his shotgun*, I don't think so."

Owning Guns are the only right we have that is really a privilege.
And in a check to OUR right to own a gun, the gov't places common sense restrictions on us.
Like no discharging in public, or carrying in public areas, or withholding guns from you if you're a violent criminal.
I call them Common Sense restrictions b/c if you know not to do these things - they will allow you to own one - because youre demonstrating that you have common sense.
Now, there are tons of people w/o common sense, BUT they havent demonstrated that they are a threat, and so you CANNOT preemptively take someones rights away. CANNOT.

SO, Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

what does it matter, the 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten for todays times. i'm not saying take away guns, hell no, i love me some guns too, the amendment is just way to broad today.

My problem with the second amendment is that in the late 1700's when it was written the most deadly a gun could be is a shitty little musket or a shitty little pistol.

Hmmm... sorry, but no. I believe the constitution was written flawlessly and the framers foresaw the possibility of a company being able to mass produce weapons at an amazing rate. The problem with modifying the constitution is that once you start to chip away at Certain rights for being "too broad" or not specific - it becomes a slippery slope and everything gradually gets taken away - until you wake up one day and its 1984.

Hell, if it were up to me the only handgun anyone should be allowed to have is a revolver. You only get six shots with a long reload time. It's way safer for the general public than any other handguns.

Yea, fine - until someone invents 2 shot rounds, or rotating/replacement barrels or something - Then what? more restrictions?

 

[Eyebrowsbv31]

Or they just make the chamber bigger, they'd find some way to make a 6 shooter into a 12.

Also, you saw boondock saints(the first, second blah), carry several of those, and they're cheap.

 

[KoalaRainbowPoop]

I can pretty much guarantee you the framers and the members who ratified the Bill of Rights did not have overthrowing their own government in mind when they wrote the second amendment.

...They did. If it became a tyranny.

Yea, I guess ( I don't think they intended to have militias storming the white house, but maybe they did, the 1700's were a crazy time) - but I think they included it because they didn't want the government to be able to take everything from you. Let's face it, Gov't has all the power - but an armed populace checks and balances that power. Like, "wait a second congress - you guys want to take everything I own *racks his shotgun*, I don't think so."

Owning Guns are the only right we have that is really a privilege.
And in a check to OUR right to own a gun, the gov't places common sense restrictions on us.
Like no discharging in public, or carrying in public areas, or withholding guns from you if you're a violent criminal.
I call them Common Sense restrictions b/c if you know not to do these things - they will allow you to own one - because youre demonstrating that you have common sense.
Now, there are tons of people w/o common sense, BUT they havent demonstrated that they are a threat, and so you CANNOT preemptively take someones rights away. CANNOT.

SO, Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

what does it matter, the 2nd amendment needs to be rewritten for todays times. i'm not saying take away guns, hell no, i love me some guns too, the amendment is just way to broad today.

My problem with the second amendment is that in the late 1700's when it was written the most deadly a gun could be is a shitty little musket or a shitty little pistol.

Hmmm... sorry, but no. I believe the constitution was written flawlessly and the framers foresaw the possibility of a company being able to mass produce weapons at an amazing rate. The problem with modifying the constitution is that once you start to chip away at Certain rights for being "too broad" or not specific - it becomes a slippery slope and everything gradually gets taken away - until you wake up one day and its 1984.

Hell, if it were up to me the only handgun anyone should be allowed to have is a revolver. You only get six shots with a long reload time. It's way safer for the general public than any other handguns.

Yea, fine - until someone invents 2 shot rounds, or rotating/replacement barrels or something - Then what? more restrictions?

changes to the bills of rights are made all the time. our forfathers did have the insight to relize things change, and made it to wear the bill of rights weren't set in stone.

 

[NickKmet]

they should just stop regulating guns. instead, make it hard to buy ammunition for them. No idiot "gangsta" from Compton is ever going to be able to manufacture a 9 mil or a .45 caliber round that will reliably fire in the quantities they want at an affordable price.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

Hmmm... sorry, but no. I believe the constitution was written flawlessly and the framers foresaw the possibility of a company being able to mass produce weapons at an amazing rate. The problem with modifying the constitution is that once you start to chip away at Certain rights for being "too broad" or not specific - it becomes a slippery slope and everything gradually gets taken away - until you wake up one day and its 1984.

If it was anyone else saying this, then I would laugh and take it as a joke. But since this is you we're talking about, not so much.

First of all, there is no way in hell the founding fathers could've forseen the power of firearms today. In their time, guns were single-shot, smoothbore rifles with gunpowder ammunition. They were hard to use, inaccurate, and not all that powerful. It wasn't until 50 years later were revolvers and rifling a commonplace, and another 20 or so years before Nobel invented a newer, much more powerful ammunition. So tell me exactly how the founding fathers would've been able to foresee the use of weaponry that wasn't even invented until half a century later?

Second, you say it's a slippery slope but you never really say how. What, because one law is going to be passed means that a shitload of them will be? That only happens if you sit back picking your nose for several years and let it happen. Drastic change like that doesn't happen overnight.

And if you're so afraid of constant changes to regulation, then just set down a simple precedent. If you're going to buy a gun with no other purpose than to kill other people then you need to have recent psychological proof that you are able to be responsible with that gun on top of a thorough background check. If it's a gun with hunting purposes, then you need to have a quick background check to prove you aren't a criminal.

 

[UrbanMasque]

First of all, there is no way in hell the founding fathers could've forseen the power of firearms today. In their time, guns were single-shot, smoothbore rifles with gunpowder ammunition. They were hard to use, inaccurate, and not all that powerful. It wasn't until 50 years later were revolvers and rifling a commonplace, and another 20 or so years before Nobel invented a newer, much more powerful ammunition. So tell me exactly how the founding fathers would've been able to foresee the use of weaponry that wasn't even invented until half a century later?

Longo... I'm going to talk VERY slowly, and deliberately - please try to stay with me.
The 1st revolver was PATENTED in the early 1700's. Bill of rights was written in the LATE 1700's. Patents usually precede mass production. Guns had cartridges as early as mid 1700's. Again I stress, the founding fathers were geniuses that took this possibility into their thought process.

Second, you say it's a slippery slope but you never really say how. What, because one law is going to be passed means that a shitload of them will be? That only happens if you sit back picking your nose for several years and let it happen. Drastic change like that doesn't happen overnight.

Slippery slope... like the 1st amendment and that bogus church spouting their hate, citing free speech. Free Speech applies to everyone, no matter how ludacris the message. Now, if you take away their Free Speech b/c it offends people, then you walk a dangerous downward path to being able to restrict OTHER free speech on this same premise. Usually referred to as.....wait for it.... a slippery slope. This can also be applied to guns.

And if you're so afraid of constant changes to regulation, then just set down a simple precedent. If you're going to buy a gun with no other purpose than to kill other people then you need to have recent psychological proof that you are able to be responsible with that gun on top of a thorough background check. If it's a gun with hunting purposes, then you need to have a quick background check to prove you aren't a criminal.

Seriously?!... Where do I start? Okay, no one buys a gun with the purpose of killing people, yes that is what guns are designed for but reasonable people don't have that intention. Protection, is the closest you can connect to that. Their is a waiting period for guns - b/c we understand that people are impulsive - if someone pisses you off, and you want to kill them, there is a waiting period for your gun so if you do kill someone - they can prove pre-meditation and give you the gas chamber. Even if you think someone is unstable you can't take away their rights b/c of a hunch.

The way our society is, you have to WAIT for someone to do something illegal, before you can strip them of their rights.
Psychological proof before purchasing a gun?..

If it was anyone else saying this, then I would laugh and take it as a joke. But since this is you we're talking about, not so much.

Who is going to administer these tests? And as a minority I wonder how fairly these "tests" will be administered. How will we prove psychological stability? What is the foundation for this test? Financial? Employment? Medical? Get real.
Background checks work.
Most people who commit murder USE A GUN THAT THE POLICE HAVE A HARD TIME CONNECTING TO THEM, meaning NOT BOUGHT through the legal channels.

So if you make the process HARDER for upstanding citizens, the only people you leave with weapons are the criminals.


[If you reply to this, please reply to certain sections and not the entire post- thnx*]

 

[Longo_2_guns]

Longo... I'm going to talk VERY slowly, and deliberately - please try to stay with me.
The 1st revolver was PATENTED in the early 1700's. Bill of rights was written in the LATE 1700's. Patents usually precede mass production. Guns had cartridges as early as mid 1700's. Again I stress, the founding fathers were geniuses that took this possibility into their thought process.

True, but none of those were put into widespread use until the 1800's. Right now we have the technology to create laser and sonic weaponry patented, but can you honestly tell me with complete certainty that it will be as easy to get a laser or sonic weapon in the year 2050 as it is to get a handgun today?

Slippery slope... like the 1st amendment and that bogus church spouting their hate, citing free speech. Free Speech applies to everyone, no matter how ludacris the message. Now, if you take away their Free Speech b/c it offends people, then you walk a dangerous downward path to being able to restrict OTHER free speech on this same premise. Usually referred to as.....wait for it.... a slippery slope. This can also be applied to guns.

Name one time that this has happened in a truly democratic nation. As long as there are people don't get swept away in the heat of the moment, it will be impossible for them to take away our rights. It's very easy to make a few changes without inevitably reforming an entire system.

Seriously?!... Where do I start? Okay, no one buys a gun with the purpose of killing people, yes that is what guns are designed for but reasonable people don't have that intention. Protection, is the closest you can connect to that. Their is a waiting period for guns - b/c we understand that people are impulsive - if someone pisses you off, and you want to kill them, there is a waiting period for your gun so if you do kill someone - they can prove pre-meditation and give you the gas chamber. Even if you think someone is unstable you can't take away their rights b/c of a hunch.

The way our society is, you have to WAIT for someone to do something illegal, before you can strip them of their rights.

Considering several thousand people are killed each year due to firearms, I'd say that people do buy them with the intention of killing people.

Second, I never proposed striping anyone of any rights. Not even in the slightest. Of course responsible people should be allowed to have guns. It's those who aren't stable and will take them to a public place and start shooting everything that shouldn't be allowed to have them. And frankly, I'd much rather make it a teensy bit harder to get a gun and weed out those who can't use it than have it so that any whackjob can buy a gun and go nuts. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Psychological proof before purchasing a gun?..
Who is going to administer these tests? And as a minority I wonder how fairly these "tests" will be administered. How will we prove psychological stability? What is the foundation for this test? Financial? Employment? Medical? Get real.
Background checks work.
Most people who commit murder USE A GUN THAT THE POLICE HAVE A HARD TIME CONNECTING TO THEM, meaning NOT BOUGHT through the legal channels.

Simple. Have Psychologists write up a test. It doesn't have to be difficult or long, and can be taken at anywhere guns are sold. You send it in when your done, and have a system that analyzes your answers to determine basically whether or not you're sane and competent. Other points taken into consideration are mental health, ie what you've been diagnosed with and what pills you're taking, on top of a standard background check. If it's discovered that you lied at any time in your test, you get fined at least $1000. This will take all of a week extra, and 97% of the people who take it will pass. The only reason you should fear it is if you're not completely there in the head.

Oh, and that's only if you want a handgun or something over a certain caliber. Standard rifles and shotguns that you can't conceal would just be a basic background check.

Basically, your whole argument is assuming that I'm taking a much more anti-gun stance than I actually am.

 

[UrbanMasque]

Basically, this is my thought process, the 2nd Amendment is the staple in our bill of rights. It pretty much reinforces our other 9, by ensuring the gov't will never take those away.

A gun in every home is closer to the original intent of the constitution than the theory of no guns anywhere.
Mexicos gun laws are among the strictest in the world! and more people die there due to gun violence than in the US. not b/c they are a borderline 3rd world country in some regions - but b/c only the police and the cartels have guns.

There is no gray area within the constitution outside of Administrative Law. The bill of rights is as Black n White as possible, either we can do it - or we can't - and once you start to infringe on rights due to technicalities it will become -insert buzzword- a slippery slope.

I sleep like a baby knowing that 1.) my country will never be invaded, 2.) my property is protected, and 3.) my rights as a human being and a citizen extend as far as my field of fire.

 

[madster111]

1.) my country will never be invaded, 2.) my property is protected

Neither of these things will matter if one of your retarded citizens kills a bunch of chinese people with your 'protection' and starts WW3.