The Right To Bear Arms Is A Volatile Issue We Face Daily...

The right to bear arms is a volatile issue we face daily. There are those that argue criminals will get them no matter what legislation is invoked or enforced. Every citizen should have the right to defend themselves and their families regardless. Not a day goes by that we are dealing with a mass shooting or a child getting their hands on a gun and "accidentally" killing another child or shooting an adult with a gun they think is a play toy.

This video has a chilling start, but it makes a great point about the 2nd Amendment

The Second Amendment is more than 220 years old. When it was written, the world did not have machine guns, assault rifles, or tanks, instead relying on clunky muskets that were a pain to reload.

Yet as a video from States United to Prevent Gun Violence points out, America's lax gun laws are often based on a reading of the Second Amendment that makes it hard to pass restrictive gun laws, even as our weapons get much, much deadlier.

There are 2 videos to watch, both are very short. The first one shows what it would be like to try and commit murder with the use of a musket and then scroll down the page and the second one shows some statistics that were very interesting.

You have to go to the link to see them as these were not youtube versions.

This is an amendment that is constantly being used in a literal sense, when in reality, the wording was written over 200 years ago with a very different intention than the one being used today.

Just curious to know how keeping a gun for safety is justified when a child can get their hands on it. How can a gun in your possession, but locked up for safety come in use when it is needed? Most people are not not even capable of pulling the trigger if they have to, the criminals can, but the average citizen that decides to own a gun...they are not equipped mentally to pull that trigger.

There are instances when someone defends themselves and their family from harm and manage to take down a criminal, but those instances are far and wide, most of the time they just make matters worse and actually end up getting people and themselves killed or injured in the process.

Assault weapons with fully loaded magazines are the biggest problem and those are usually in the hands of deranged individuals with no inclination to care about who they shoot at, they just want to kill, but the individual robbing you for your possessions most of the time, would rather just not get caught or shoot anyone, but they have a gun for their own protection, if confronted by an unarmed individual will most likely run or tie you up, on the off chance you are armed, then who gets shot first?

I don't think the 2nd amendment was written for today and the government is to blame for allowing the manufacturing of assault weapons to occur, essentially creating a Pandora's Box where on one hand they want to confiscate them and on the other hand they have no one to blame but themselves for creating the mess.
The Constitution of the United States
The Bill of Rights & All Amendments

Article [II] (Amendment 2 - Bearing Arms)
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.

Where does it end? Sure you have the right to self defense, but should you be allowed to own assault weapons? Even so, from what I have seen all guns do is kill, they don't defend anything, does this mean you should not defend yourself at all, of course not, but sometimes the best defense is doing nothing. It is a difficult concept to accept, but it is often the best way to not escalate something into a worse situation.

Yeah, I know, but what if you could have done something to stop it and you didn't, that is where you cross the line from hero to scapegoat or victim. There is no way of knowing what intent is there on the behalf of a criminal. No one knows what they are going to do when confronted by that situation, unless and even then, they are experienced enough to react. The average citizen would most likely crap their pants when the time came to shoot another person.

The law and order community has not been able to handle themselves properly in many recent cases involving citizens and yet they are more qualified to handle a weapon. This is a fundamental breakdown in policy. They are trained to react a certain way when it comes to the use of deadly force or when they perceive a threat that is a possible danger to themselves or the community. Many of these cases are viewed in public from hindsight and nobody can possibly know what it was like to be in that moment.

Still we expect better from the police than the average citizen. I would like to see more restraint involved and the use of less lethal means to subdue criminals.

Without guns bombs would be used. Maybe not by many, but it's still the most absolute alternative for all those angsty teens.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

The US government has never been more rogue and more out of control than it is today.

They are the bully of the planets playground, murdering innocents for the control of sovereign nations' oil & gas reserves or any nation that rejects the petro-dollar.

The US government and her military is the strong-arm of the global elite bloodlines whose primary goal is a New World Order, one world government, law enforcement agency and religion.

The US citizens have suffered the advent of the CIA, NSA, DoD, FBI, DHS et al which have focused their attention on the domestic arena with the sole intention of disarming law-abiding US citizens. via false flag events and propaganda. This is a global policy as set out by the United Nations (the establishment of the NWO) and until the US citizenry is disarmed, full totalitarian control of the planets citizens cannot occur.

Never in the history of the US has it been more important that US citizens are armed - because the intention of the 2nd was to reign-in rogue government, and the current US government (over the last 60 years) is more rogue than ever.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree
Your logical alternative is to oblige your state laws in order for you to carry a firearm. You would then have 3 arms.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

please excuse me for saying, but ever since your galactic federation channeling thread in which you put down other members and you were receiving messages from space aliens that we all suck and need to change, i cannot take you seriously, and why should i take this thread seriously in regards to our 2nd amendment?

From my cold dead hands....

Even so, from what I have seen all guns do is kill

That is what they are designed to do. Be it man or beast, they are designed to kill both.

This discussion could be had every hour of every day and it's like a merry go round of those for and those against.

Both sides get it but seem to think that continuing to argue will change anything.

I don't need a reason to own my firearms. None. I could say that I love to look at them, I could say that I hunt regularly, I could say that I need them for protection, etc. but the truth is I just don't need a reason other than I have a right to own them. So I do.

The laws could change tomorrow. Nobody that has them are turning them in. Sorry. It's just not going to happen. So what's the point? More people in jail for not bowing down? More fines being paid because people aren't just going to hand over thousands and thousands of dollars worth of personal property?

If you allow laws to be passed about what type of firearm you can own, then we all know it won't stop there. It never does. The government is like a semi with no brakes. It just doesn't stop.

I'll worry about my guns and let everyone else worry about their lack of guns. I don't lose sleep at night because other people choose not to own them, they shouldn't lose sleep at night because a rural area stay at home mom may have one or two in her home. Don't ever force your way into my home and you'll never have to know what I own and what I don't. It's really that simple.

Murder is against the law. Making it more illegal doesn't stop it. Felons can't own guns, but they do. Mentally impaired people can't own guns, but they do. I'm not willing to part with any part of my freedom simply because some choose to continue to break the law.

Screaming about it and lobbing snack packs at the wall doesn't help either side. Everything that should be illegal already is.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Criminals will get guns regardless we have more guns than people here and those are just the guns the government can track,there are much more that they don't know about, for instance before 1968 it was legal to for someone to make a maxhe gun if they wanted to, after the 1968 law people no longer had that right but can still make any other kind of gun if they choose to,these homemade guns didn't have to be registered or even have a serial number unless it was to be sold. The term assault weapon is made up term for any scary looking semi-auto rifle,machine guns in America are very difficult to get, the cheapest ones you can get are 3k if you find a bargain and then there is a 6 month wait on top of a ton of papers work and having your name and finger prints added to a national registery. A Ruger Mini 14 isn't classified as an assault weapon but it can take 30 round magazines just like an Ar15 can. Secondly even if every single gun in America were taken away criminals would be able to make them relatively easily, for instance you could make a Sten submachine gun with sheet metal, nails or bolts or screws,and a bed spring,this is part of the reason WWII resistance fighters favored them and other easy to make machine guns,if one wanted to they could even make a silencer for it using sheet metal or piping and freeze plugs. Guns are not complex machines they are very easy to make and have been handmade in many countries with gun bans,Kyber Pass is very famous for it.

For the last few thousand years you would be considered crazy for atleast not carrying a dagger,the times and weapons have changed but the danger persists. Even if you got rid of all weapons of any kind people would still be killing each other and as long as people exist there will always be people killing each other whether it be with a gun,a laser,poisons,blunt objects,bombs,knifes,cars, or bare hands.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

well said bravo, there is no point having these threads or debates just like abortion, the fact is its legal and going to remain that way, and we just keep going in circles, and members get banned or worse because this a hot button issue that is silly to argue. We can own weapons people! and we will that's it.

originally posted by: Blissful
Without guns bombs would be used. Maybe not by many, but it's still the most absolute alternative for all those angsty teens.

I cannot see a very angry 13 year old building something lethal (out of his older brothers masters of the universe Action figures, Lego's, nerf balls and silly string [the explosive/timing device is the problem]). The sophistication this would entail.

It's funny.

You claim the amendment was written with a different meaning than its given today, yet you don't specify what meaning you think it has today.

The overwhelming majority of people don't understand what the language in the amendment meant at the time that it was written. So that argument is flawed from the beginning.

You do a lovely job of trying to take away every possible reason to have a weapon.

How is it safe to have a gun around kids? Oh you lock it up, well then what good will it do you?

It's cute, really, how you try to tie it all up in a little bow. And then have the audacity to sit there and talk about expecting better from law enforcement. Unless you expect to have a cop in your living room 24 hours a day, and don't mind paying the taxes for that to go on for years and years, good luck.

You have either entirely too much faith and trust in your government, or not enough faith and trust in yourself.

Every citizen should have the right to defend themselves and their families regardless.

Honestly, who among you disagree with this?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blissful
Without guns bombs would be used. Maybe not by many, but it's still the most absolute alternative for all those angsty teens.

I cannot see a very angry 13 year old building something lethal (out of his older brothers masters of the universe Action figures, Lego's, nerf balls and silly string [the explosive/timing device is the problem]). The sophistication this would entail.

You do know that there's like...step by step instructions online for how to do pretty much anything right?

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

please excuse me for saying, but ever since your galactic federation channeling thread in which you put down other members and you were receiving messages from space aliens that we all suck and need to change, i cannot take you seriously, and why should i take this thread seriously in regards to our 2nd amendment?

Is that the one where the OP came back three pages into it and tried to say it should've been in short stories? But then ranted some more?

originally posted by: Blissful

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blissful
Without guns bombs would be used. Maybe not by many, but it's still the most absolute alternative for all those angsty teens.

I can see a very angry 9 year old building something lethal out of lego's nerf balls and silly string.

I made napalm at 12. My friends had made bombs for humorous, non-violent reasons. Gasoline bombs are capable of incinerating lots of people, easy to make, too.

The Boston Marathon pressure cooker bomb seemed to be pretty effective too. It's easy to find a way to kill lots of people.

I said "I CANNOT see a 13 year old"...bombs as humorous and for peaceful purpose (how does that work)?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: Blissful

Shamrock6: You do know that there's like...step by step instructions online for how to do pretty much anything right?

Your point?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yep.... Long before we ever dreamed of the Internet we had The Anarchist Cookbook.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blissful
Without guns bombs would be used. Maybe not by many, but it's still the most absolute alternative for all those angsty teens.

I cannot see a very angry 13 year old building something lethal (out of his older brothers masters of the universe Action figures, Lego's, nerf balls and silly string [the explosive/timing device is the problem]). The sophistication this would entail.

You do know that there's like...step by step instructions online for how to do pretty much anything right?

Not to mention there are books at every library with step by step instructions on how to make improvised bombs,silencers, poisons,lethal traps ,mines, and firearms,sometimes containing all of the above in one book.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blissful

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blissful
Without guns bombs would be used. Maybe not by many, but it's still the most absolute alternative for all those angsty teens.

I can see a very angry 9 year old building something lethal out of lego's nerf balls and silly string.

I made napalm at 12. My friends had made bombs for humorous, non-violent reasons. Gasoline bombs are capable of incinerating lots of people, easy to make, too.

The Boston Marathon pressure cooker bomb seemed to be pretty effective too. It's easy to find a way to kill lots of people.

I said "I CANNOT see a 13 year old"...bombs as humorous and for peaceful purpose (how does that work)?

Pyromania's pretty common. It's humorous because "*POW* HAHAHAHAHA, did you see how far those sticks went?!"

One of my chemistry professors was a self-proclaimed pyromaniac. He said he liked fire and to watch things burn.

Anyway, I can't see young teens using it for violent reasons either. Older teens with issues, on the other hand, or schizophrenic young adults, oh yeah.

From the guy who brought us Galactic Federation of Light channeling, comes his expert Constitutional analysis.