The Second Amendment is a Relic - Its Purpose is Long Past.

reply to post by Julie Washington


Show us with any of the writings of our founding fathers, where they said that the second amendment only applied to "the militia."

Do you know who they intended the militia to be?

I don't want some guys opinion about the intentions of the founders. They wrote their thoughts down. Read them.

You can start here.

reply to post by Julie Washington


Why do idiots keep spewing this tripe? Seriously, why? There are many, many resources that prove this wrong. Resources such as the writings of the authors of the Second Amendment that tell us exactly why they wrote it.

You're just embarrassing yourselves.

/TOA

If you think that guns protect you and keep you safe, you are, in my opinion, utterly deluded.
Nancy Lanza owned several guns. Five of them I believe. But that didn't prevent her from being shot dead.

My point: even if you have more guns than you can carry, they are not necessarily gonna save your life.

Originally posted by Davo163
If you think that guns protect you and keep you safe, you are, in my opinion, utterly deluded.
Nancy Lanza owned several guns. Five of them I believe. But that didn't prevent her from being shot dead.

My point: even if you have more guns than you can carry, they are not necessarily gonna save your life.

That's true. Of course Gun Free Zone status didn't help the school out much either. It's almost like people bent on evil find a means somehow despite laws or security measures.

The OP has not read the constitution and failed her arguments in a previous thread. Please inform yourself before spewing propaganda

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Davo163
If you think that guns protect you and keep you safe, you are, in my opinion, utterly deluded.
Nancy Lanza owned several guns. Five of them I believe. But that didn't prevent her from being shot dead.

My point: even if you have more guns than you can carry, they are not necessarily gonna save your life.

ICBMs don't keep us safe either, but they're a pretty good deterrent.

Does the prospect of only the criminals having guns and government tyranny ever go out of style?

The founding fathers thought, erm...no.

Wow didn't know ats lets idiots op threads these days. The second amendment is more important now than ever.

reply to post by Julie Washington


In the past 100 years the human species has advanced further than it ever has before.

The constitution was adopted 225 years ago. Its only use now is to advance or blockade silly political dogmas (like this whole 2nd amendment debate).

The entire thing is a relic.

reply to post by anon29

Obviously you haven't read the document lately.

reply to post by Julie Washington


That's the problem with writing things down, somebody's going to come along and go nuts with an eraser. Happens all the time and no one bats an eye.

Time to ban erasers.

While you're at it, you might as well erase the third amendment, too. So old timey. You'll just love those soldiers bunking down witcha and expecting you to cook for them.

Interesting view point on guns, liberty, and freedom of speech.

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

Paul Harvey on Guns

Monday, November 06, 2000

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?

CONSIDER:

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."

It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.

Take action before it's too late, write or call your representatives.

paul harvey

.
So tell us all now what part of the population do you want to exterminate?
When are the anti gun liberals wise up?

It says...

The right of THE PEOPLE to bear arms...

THE.

PEOPLE.

That's us. The people.

Simple, right?

Originally posted by Davo163
If you think that guns protect you and keep you safe, you are, in my opinion, utterly deluded.
Nancy Lanza owned several guns. Five of them I believe. But that didn't prevent her from being shot dead.

My point: even if you have more guns than you can carry, they are not necessarily gonna save your life.

The guns I've owned have saved my life three times. They rifle I owned saved my elderly-invalid neighbor from a home invasion.

As Samuel L. Jackson said. . .

“I don’t mind people having guns. I grew up with guns … I’m not going to be the one without the gun when the people who have guns show up.”

Originally posted by madjax
Interesting view point on guns, liberty, and freedom of speech.

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...

What the author gets wrong is quite simple. The owning of a gun and even the carrying of a gun is not an act of violence. It does not aim to limit communication or imply a threat. It simply says, you can not use force against me. You must use persuasion or incentive. You must engage me in a civilized manner.

The suggestion is that guns liberally interspersed throughout society would cause us all to walk gingerly — not make any sudden, unexpected moves — and watch what we say, how we act, whom we might offend.

No it says, you can not put my life in danger for your gain. You can not attempt to sexually assault me without repercussions. It doesn't discourage eccentric behavior unless you have a fear of the object. Concealed carry permit holders are nearly 14 times less likely to be arrested for any crime than the population in general. They are 6 times less likely to be arrested for violent crime. We aren't trying to tell you how to live, or what to say. We are just ensuring that when a man threatens us with death, grave bodily injury, or rape we have every possible tool to level the field.

I don't know about you, but I think my female family members have a much better chance of fighting off a male attacker if they have a few extra tools at their disposal.

Guns undermine just that — community. Their pervasive, open presence would sow apprehension, suspicion, mistrust and fear, all emotions that are corrosive of community and civic cooperation. To that extent, then, guns give license to autocratic government.

Only if you choose not to belong to that community. There are communities across the country that still have "turkey shoots" to raise money for charity. There are many communities where it is still common to see gun racks in trucks. Yet the community is close knit and there for each other through times of good, bad, and even controversy.

The author strikes me as a man that has read many books but never traveled far from the confines of academia or urban life.

reply to post by Julie Washington


probably this is the reason why women shouldn't have been given the right to vote. the solipistic and emotional herd mentality of women is dangerous to the freedom of a society and i am pretty sure ninty nine percent of women would support gun control laws if they are exposed to emotional persuasion with a hint of threat.
everyone watch as the next women's movement will be to disarm us supported by the mentally children section of the society.

reply to post by Julie Washington


Strike while the time is right?
Otherwise, the cause assembles again to what it what was meant for.

reply to post by Julie Washington


This judge has no clue what he is talking about. This Tired old argument has been proven wrong so many times it's ridiculous. One only need read the Federalist papers to know the 2nd was written to protect the right of the individual to keep and bear and arms just as every other amendment in the bill of right is protecting "individual rights. They made their intentions clear....

Something is definitely a foot with all the sock puppets riling up the ignorant on this... They are not getting the guns period... They cannot make a right into a privilege and regulate it and tax it. Learn your constitution...

Originally posted by elysiumfire
Defuntion:

Can you tell me who exactly you think will come for our guns if it comes to that?
Some new goventment body perhaps? Our military maybe? Volunteers? Who? There are certain logistics to something like that. Any campaign to confiscate weapons from the American public would be an epic fail. Epic...

The logistics is easy. You first set up a timed amnesty for relinquishing guns that become by law illegal to own. You can set up centres for dropping them off, or you can simply take them to your local police station. Be under no illusion, once the amnesty runs out, if you have not handed in your illegal gun, robust policing will take them from you.

As you are quite well aware, all guns are serialised and entered onto a database containing names and addresses. If you've sold it privately, you should have informed the relevant authorities that you have done so, giving the name and address of the buyer. This you did because you are a law-abiding citizen, you are not a criminal. If the police have not received confirmation that you handed in your AK-47, or your M16, listen out for the knock on your door...what! you're gonna meet the cops with a gun! Let me know where I can send the flowers for your grave!

You being from the UK I am sure you do not know our gun laws. There is no national registry of weapons in the US. The Brady Bill had that as a no go. We gave up some rights but won on the registry one. When you guys from other countries comment on our laws and government at least do the research to know what you are talking about. The logistics for a ban are impossible. Look at the war on drugs, and our immigration. We have plenty of drugs and illegal immigrants.