Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Deleted]

Let's be honest, the reason the 2nd ammendent was added in the first place was to scare away other nations that could invade.

These days no foreign nation can invade the US (hello nukes), and as such the 2nd amendment is obsolete (hence why the british got rid of it).

[TwoNineMarine]

the 2nd amendment is obsolete

Lololol

/10char

[obdigore]

Let's be honest, the reason the 2nd ammendent was added in the first place was to scare away other nations that could invade.

Well that was one half the argument for the second amendment. The other half was to put down slave rebellions.

Not that either of those arguments are still valid, but it wasn't 'just' to try to avoid having a standing military.

[belfpala]

Lololol

/10char

Expand on that?

[Zoranon]

Let's be honest, the reason the 2nd ammendent was added in the first place was to scare away other nations that could invade.

These days no foreign nation can invade the US (hello nukes), and as such the 2nd amendment is obsolete (hence why the british got rid of it).

I like how you mix ignorance with certainty.

[belfpala]

I like how you mix ignorance with certainty.

Oh you, with me in your sig.

I still stand by that statement, btw.

[vetinari]

Let's be honest, the reason the 2nd ammendent was added in the first place was to scare away other nations that could invade.

These days no foreign nation can invade the US (hello nukes), and as such the 2nd amendment is obsolete (hence why the british got rid of it).

The British got rid of theirs in the 1920's in response to fears of a communist revolution...

[Zoranon]

Oh you, with me in your sig.

I still stand by that statement, btw.

That quote is just absurd, saying that law abiding citizens would not consider taking some of their property away as a punishment is utter nonsense. How would saying for example "This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your cars away to be a punishment." sound?

[Deleted]

The British got rid of theirs in the 1920's in response to fears of a communist revolution...

Actually it wasn't till 1968 they got rid of all the guns. They did tighten the rules in 1920 sure, but you could still obtain a firearm for self-defence till 1937, and a shotgun till 1968.

[belfpala]

That quote is just absurd, saying that law abiding citizens would not consider taking some of their property away as a punishment is utter nonsense. How would saying for example "This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your cars away to be a punishment." sound?

Are we doing the cars are not a right thing? Or are you saying that sarcastically?

If I recall, my comment was a magic-button-make-all-guns-go-away-is-not-a-punishment. All. I stand by that. I'm not always great at wording things the way I mean them to be taken, and that's on me; I don't stand by that part.

[Zoranon]

Are we doing the cars are not a right thing? Or are you saying that sarcastically?

If I recall, my comment was a magic-button-make-all-guns-go-away-is-not-a-punishment. All. I stand by that. I'm not always great at wording things the way I mean them to be taken, and that's on me; I don't stand by that part.

Actually neither, I was trying to point out that suggesting that taking away someone's property and claiming it is not punishment does not make sense to me.

I would not know about the context, all you said in the post I quoted is the quote, which I considered completely ridiculous and so it is in my sig now.

[belfpala]

Actually neither, I was trying to point out that suggesting that taking away someone's property and claiming it is not punishment does not make sense to me.

I would not know about the context, all you said in the post I quoted is the quote, which I considered completely ridiculous and so it is in my sig now.

All good.

I think that quote from me came from the usual course of discussion on this topic. Essentially, every gun is legal at some point in its life. So you're fighting yourself by protecting what you're afraid of having to protect yourself from.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

[Zoranon]

All good.

I think that quote from me came from the usual course of discussion on this topic. Essentially, every gun is legal at some point in its life. So you're fighting yourself by protecting what you're afraid of having to protect yourself from.

Makes sense to me, anyway.

Fair enought, it does not make sense to me, but I respect your opinion.

Besides, 3d printing will soon ensure that there will be a lot of guns that were never legal in the first place, but even now, a skilled machinist can scratch build a "ghetto" gun.

AS for your second statement, guns are a great equaliser, especially for the weak. Besides guns make for a very efficient defence against knifes, clubs and other weapons. For me my gun is just like travel insurance, something that I hope I will never need, but something that may well save my life one day.

[TZucchini]

My favorite part of this conversation is the fact that you keep saying things like 'if the government becomes tyrannical.' It's already tyrannical.

Then why haven't you taken up arms? I thought that's what the second amendment was for. Keeping the government in check. You guys seem to be doing a pretty shitty job.

We literally cannot effect the changes we want to see as a people because money.

I more or less agree with some of what you're saying, but the fact remains: if everyone voted for Joe Blow instead of Romney or Obama, Joe Blow would be President. If Obama or Romney were tyrannical (they're not), I have full confidence in the American public to vote for Joe Blow.

On top of that our government literally does what it wants to. Invade Iraq? No big deal. Invade Afghanistan? No problem.

Both of those wars were hugely supported by the American public at their inception.

[Deleted]

I bet JFK was murdered because of his tyrannical reign....

[Ghostpanther]

Let's be honest, the reason the 2nd ammendent was added in the first place was to scare away other nations that could invade.

These days no foreign nation can invade the US (hello nukes), and as such the 2nd amendment is obsolete (hence why the british got rid of it).

I do not live in Britain. So why they did and when matters little to me. The most important part for myself of the second amendment is the part which says, " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. " Thankfully, so far the US Supreme Court agrees with that feeling and has shot down any attempt by any city or State which has tried to implement a total ban on weapons owned by the citizens to be a violation of the US Constitution.

[Rukentuts]

I bet JFK was murdered because of his tyrannical reign....

http://www.startribune.com/local/256463611.html

Here's a "responsible" gun owner.

[TZucchini]

Let's be honest, the reason the 2nd ammendent was added in the first place was to scare away other nations that could invade.

These days no foreign nation can invade the US (hello nukes), and as such the 2nd amendment is obsolete (hence why the british got rid of it).

The 2nd Amendment was adopted for numerous reasons, actually. Many of them were completely legitimate at its inception. Such as:

1). Organizing a militia
2). Keeping the government in check
3). Controlling slaves/suppressing revolts
4). Fighting off foreign invaders
5). Self defense

200+ years later, the only legitimate reason for owning firearms is self defense. Considering it's incredibly easy to defend yourself with other non-lethal items, and will only become easier as technology advances, I don't see much of a future for the 2nd Amendment. If firearm ownership continues, it will be without the 2nd Amendment, and with a much greater degree of control and regulation. As it should.

[Templar 331]

It says "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."

There are 2 different things there separated by a comma. The first says a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
The second thing it says is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I was off a bit on that, but the point still stands. It does not say that the militia is for overthrowing a tyrannical government. It only says "necessary to the security of a free State." The State being the government at whatever level you want to it to be, being the federal or state. So if anything, this proves that the Constitution doesn't condone revolts. Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion are proof of this.

[Gumboy]

I hate how people think there is only two sides to this debate, people that want to take all guns away and people that want no regulation for it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, there are many democrat gun owners and many republicans that probably don't care about guns in the slightest.

Backround checks for any gun purchases, mandatory (harsh) sentences for any gun crimes, stricter enforcement in bad areas, would all do a LOT more for gun violence prevention then a stupid ass "Assault weapons ban" would ever do, but gun control enthusiasts are obsessed with it for some reason.