The 2nd Amendment is a JOKE - The hypocrisy of gun owners!

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Dude we don't have a damn choice. This country is controlled by corporations and it doesn't matter who we vote for. They lie in our faces about what they will do when they get into office and then when they do, they completely contradict themselves. The needs of corporations are always put before the needs of citizens and we pretty much have no control over what our government does.

reply to post by kdm4life


I agree with the OP.

Citizens should not have the right to rocket launchers and attack helicopters....unless government
has them.

So let's get rid of all guns and weapons over anything over .50 cal projectile type. No nuclear devices,
no microwave weapons, no grenades, or mortars, or bazooka....

I think the problem lies with the government...

Why in the HELL does any government need A BAJIZZILION nuclear bombs for? Hunting?

Firstly, OP...If any government, not simply our own, has such weaponry...then we by definition of said amendment, should have the right to own such a weapon as well. Yes, this includes nuclear armament and "attack helicopters." That's not to say I believe anyone in the world ever needs such armament...but Apocolypse Dawn has pretty much laid out everything I wanted to say anyway...so just read his/her posts...

I don't own a gun, I really want one, simply for such a time where I may need one...Better to have and never need, than need and never have.

Yes, there are a lot of American people who do believe it simply stops at assault rifles...but in all truth, they have been squashing all of the constitution for a very long time...and very slowly. They didn't throw it in the fire...no, they have been slow roasting it in the crockpot...

Seriously OP, you ask an open ended question, and then demean one of the only people who has approached this thread with any dignity and unbiased opinion...why start the thread if you have no interest in discussing it properly?

Originally posted by APOCOLYPSE DAWN

Originally posted by luciddream
Only like 2 people came close to answering the question..

rest are just.. "2nd...rights..pew pew....merica!"

Answer the OP's question instead of bringing in strawmen...

"Why do you stop at Assault Rifles? why not a rocket launcher? it will be very effective against foreign invaders and tyrannical governments, so why not!?"

Like I mentioned before the government has no place to regulate the sale of ARMS to American citizens... it is the Job of the american people and the moral obligation of manufacturers that the items do not fall into the wrong hands.

You sir or madam, are my new best freaking friend!

Originally posted by Spacespider
reply to post by GrandStrategy

 

You will have my vote as next US president

But trying to talk sense into gun loving rednecks is like learning explaining a heroin addict drugs are bad

You probably voted for your current Savior-In-Chief. Not everyone that prefers their firearms as opposed to being at some psycho or sociopath's mercy is a ''gun loving redneck'', genius, and I should know, I'm a ''black'' guy. And I'm from The south. Some of The best people are what you ''out- of- towners'' refer to as rednecks. Stereotype much?? With your slave, bootsucking mentality, YOU deserve The dictatorship you so passionately desire. Send me a postcard from your camp, I mean slave quarters. People like you that want to give up The ability to protect himself or his family for a false sense of security is a pathetic excuse for a human being or a MAN. Your masters don't give a damn about you or yours. Have fun on your knees. Your family must be proud.

Same old tired talking points. If a person is a law abiding, responsible gun owner, then they should be able to own whatever arms they wish. Period. Is a rocket launcher a GIANT stretch of the imagination? You bet it is, but if someone owns an AR-15 responsibly then logic would suggest that they would own any and every other type of arms responsibly too.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson knew this day would come. I admire the man more with each passing day.

reply to post by GrandStrategy


I don't take you seriously at all. Your not a gun owner, you don't know about guns. Your argument is null, please pick another hippie liberal government ass kisser cause and this time research it so you don't look like a jackass.

I would say, that yes, American citizens should be able to own attack helicopters or aircraft carriers, if they can afford them. I'm sure bill gates is not going to go blow up a harbor somewhere...

reply to post by GrandStrategy


I thought you said you were going to make it quick. WOW!!

I agree with the OP, the 2nd Amendment is a ridiculous "excuse" for legal assault weapons. There is no reason for a civilized society to have legal high powered weapons like the one used at Sandy Hook. Hell, we have more regulation on what kind of plumbing we put in our houses or paint on our walls than we do on guns.

I call BS have you ever bought a gun?


The underlying reason for the determination of gun "enthusiasts" seems to be that there is a potential (seemingly growing daily) that TYRANNY is around the corner and we must be prepared to protect ourselves from evil.



I am reminded of a story that I was told in grade school called the Ant and the Grasshopper. The ants prepared for winter and stored food etc and the grasshopper was lazy and laid around. Your kinda like the grasshopper arent you?


Meanwhile, 20 kids get gunned down in their elementary school. As a society we are literally sacrificing children to the idea that there potentially might be something bad in the future we need to protect ourselves against. Guess what, there is something bad RIGHT NOW that we need to protect ourselves against... the ease and availabilty of weapons that can put 3 to 11 bullets in 20 kids in less than 5 minutes.

I think the pro-gun crowd should get away from arguments that start with "if you ban assualt weapons, then what's next, my hunting rifle?" or "knives and box cutters can kill people too." These arguments simply delay a real conversation and are the equivalent to hippies arguing to kill an industry over a spotted owl. Everyone sees how dumb those arguments are. Is it too much to ask for this country to discuss the regulation of assault weapons? In my opinion, if that conversation isn't had soon, then when the next school shooting happens, or the one after that or the one after, then the majority of Americans will have had enough. The gun nuts are a minority

Time OUT!!!! We are not in the minority and we are not NUTS and we are not hicks, rednecks. We are gun living people well with in our right to have them. What are you going to do when they come after something you care about?

P.S. If we are in the minority we still have the majority of the guns, in fact we have all of them. LOL

and eventually the rest of us will put our voting block together and ban guns outright in a European style (and live with the civil war like consequences) and when it's all said and done someone WILL be coming for your guns, but you will have caused that yourself by refusing to engage in a reasonable debate on the reasonable concept of regulating assault weapons. Wouldn't it be better to regulate the extreme stuff now rather than lose all your guns eventually because you're too hard headed to listen?

I have argued here and with others that any weapon the military can employee against its people should be available to its people. The only exception I make on this are things along the lines of nukes, chem and bio weapons. I don't think that the military could or would employ them against its people because the effects of such are not constrained to the site of the attack, and as such the use of such a weapon on its people is using it on itself.

Every other tool should have no restrictions by category. If the government wanted to have proprietary rights to a design, that is contractual between the company and the government. Any other company should be able to produce similar style or class of device for the people to buy.

Originally posted by buster2010
Oh look another anti gun whine fest. I'm sure Hitler, Mao and many others would agree with your line of thinking.

It is all rational and logical thinking. No argument against?

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by ohioriver

 

But why would there be a massacre??

Didn't you vote for this government? Didn't you choose your president? Don't you live in a most beautiful, most free, most democratic society since known history?

Aha got ya there

The only reason yanks live in such a beautiful place is because everyone has guns

when is ats gonna install a thumns down feature or a moran(sic) button?

Tell me OP, should Law Enforcement officers give up their guns as well or are they above the law?

Should the military stop selling arms to other countries? Should they stop killing the people they sold those arms to?

How about GE? Should General Electric stop selling arms?

I don't understand this whole anti-gun argument whatsoever. You guys are all for disarming the general public. But, when it comes to the Military or Law Enforcement, you guys support that they should have weapons. Are Law Enforcement officers or soldiers above the law? Are Militias incapable of defending this country?

If you're going to disarm the citizens you damn well should disarm everybody else in this country including the citizens, who OWN GE.

Good luck telling GE to stop selling arms by the way. This whole anti-gun argument is solely built on emotion and illogical reasoning. This is always hilarious. We kill over a million people in Iraq and we don't give a rats ass. But once another mind controlled drone kills a bunch of kids everyone's critical and logical thinking goes completely out the window.

Do you guys want the fox guarding the hen house? Do Liberals look at history at all?

Look up NDAA and NDRP. Tell me why we should give up more of our freedoms and rights. Ever heard of Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler or Stalin? All were in favor of gun control.

Look at history, you can learn quite a bit, and it's almost scary how history repeats itself so easily.

I am going to post something, an educated answer, that is going to blow most of you away.

I am a little tired of this same general argument. " you gun guys think that the second amendment should allow you to have rockets, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc." it's a and ignorant argument and both pro and anti second amendment people get it wrong.

About 15 years, as a political science major, I took a full class called, " guns and the constitution ". It examined gun laws, court cases, and the 2nd amendment and its development.

There was much discussion during the constitutional convention on exactly how the second would work. I am not ( at the moment ) going to break down the whole thing as I want to focus on one of the key words selected for the amendment. And that is the word "arms".

During the vernacular of the day, the word arms referred to that weaponry that was, 1) used by an individual, such as a rifle, pistol, or sword. And 2) were used as the standard weapon of the armed forces infantryman. Muskets were already becoming out classed by the new rifles (incidentally, prior to and during the war the English weren't too concerned about the colonists having muskets, but they WERE concerned about the technological leap to rifles and is one of the weapons they were looking to seize at Lexington and Concord, on this later).

Anyways, there was another term that there was serious discussion about using in the 2nd amendment. That term is "ordnance". In the vernacular of the day ordnance referred to mortars, cannons, and other crew served (not individual)weapons. While the founders wanted the people to have individual personal arms equivalent to the armed forces, they did not see a need for them to own crew served weapons. This is important because prior to the constitution many colonies/states allowed that. Incidentally, many states didn't restrict these weapons after the second was ratified, and even today it's not actually illegal to own an operating tank or cannon in some states...but it's not nesecarily a right protected by the Constitution and is usually highly restricted and/or monitored.

Now, if we take this line of thought as the original intent and extrapolate that to today, it means that the intent of the second amendment allows the people to own equivalent military grade individual arms like an AR-15. but it would not nesecarily protect the right to own weapons like artillery, tanks, nuclear weapons, etc.. Both the Miller and Heller Supreme Court cases used the argument that the 2nd protects weapons that have a militia purpose.

When the British Army marched on Lexington and concord it was to seize rifles and cannon that were being amassed. And this is what started the revolution. Knowing what they were planning,and fearing never being able to fight back should the english continue to rule by increasing tyranny, the colonists knew they had to protect those weapons, particularly the personal equivalent arms (the rifles).

So in a nutshell the 2nd totally protects your right to an AR15. But does not protect your right to a nuclear weapon, or rocket launcher, or whatever stupid analogy some are throwing out there.

If the government goes today to seize those personal arms (semi auto) rifles, they are repeating what the British did. Will the result be the same???? A justified insurrection????

As I posted in another thread.............

"I will not be okay with any new gun control laws in United States, I won't even take a single one seriously into consideration until our government accepts responsibility for selling guns to drug cartels in Mexico for starters. Then they need to stop arming other governments and groups on foreign soil.

Sorry, but the White House is full of hypocritics who thinks it's okay to disarm their own civilians all the while they arm foreign intrests. If the government want to know where the real gun problem exists, they need only look at themselves."

I'd also like to add that I think the civilians should have access to the same weapons the government has. That was the point of the 2nd amendment, to ensure our government never overstepped their role and only did as described, serve the people. The only people they seem to be serving is themselves and the people who line their pockets.

reply to post by GrandStrategy


Can I use your idiotic post, just re-type it concerning the first amendment? Think about it. I mean, printing presses and the internet are two different things........

guns are dumb/low consciousness..

guns...


guns were created to kill life.


Jesus would say get rid of the guns and just love your brothers and sisters, yeah he told me to say that


lol


really though, please think about it, honestly, none of these gun nutss is EVER going to use these weapons against another Human.

total waste of energy in my opinion.

reply to post by GrandStrategy


Ah, so people must agree with you in order to be taken seriously by you about their second amendment right?...

Are you serious?... Who the hell cares about what YOU think of us, and our second amendment right?...

DEAL WITH IT... You don't like Americans having a second amendment right? DON'T DISCUSS THE TOPIC...