« prev   random   next »

5
4

2nd Amendment Discussion

By CajunSteve following x   2018 Feb 17, 11:51am 32,832 views   322 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


With all the talk about the school shootings, let's take a look at what the 2nd Amendment actually 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."

Couple things to note in there:

1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.

So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?

In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.

So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??

Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.

« First    « Previous    Comments 281 - 320 of 322    Next »    Last »

281   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 4, 8:56pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Booger says


As funny as this is. Considering how stupid the left is, if this was real, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
284   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 May 2, 8:48pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CajunSteve says
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.


Arms are guns. Learn historical context.
285   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 May 2, 11:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anonymous says
Sell to teachers and students and schools will be safe


You mean how 'safe' they are as designated non-guns areas?

Ohhh...yeah! Safe!
286   LeonDurham   ignore (0)   2018 May 3, 6:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WarrenTheApe says
Arms are guns. Learn historical context.


Nope. Wrong again Warren. Look up the definition of arms. If it means guns, why not say guns. Or firearms.

The Fathers kept it general on purpose.
287   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 May 3, 6:44am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Democrats seem to hate freedoms people get. Gets in a way of government running our lives.
288   Hugolas_Madurez   ignore (4)   2018 May 3, 8:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The most funny bunch is the people who argue with a straight face that all the 2nd means is that a state is allowed to have an army.
290   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2018 Dec 12, 2:21pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.

Interesting. I do not know, but in 1820, a time when the writers and original interpreters of the Constitution were still around, was a common person allowed to own a cannon? They were allowed to be Privateers, owning fully equipped warships.
291   TrumpingTits   ignore (1)   2018 Dec 16, 5:36pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

LeonDurham says

Nope. Wrong again Warren. Look up the definition of arms. If it means guns, why not say guns. Or firearms.

The Fathers kept it general on purpose.


Nope. Wrong again, LeonDurham.
292   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2018 Dec 16, 6:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HeadSet says
the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.

Interesting. I do not know, but in 1820, a time when the writers and original interpreters of the Constitution were still around, was a common person allowed to own a cannon? They were allowed to be Privateers, owning fully equipped warships.


They were able to own the same equipment the government owned back then.

Today, not so much....
294   HEYYOU   ignore (26)   2019 Jan 1, 11:24am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Guns in a thermo nuclear age.
A nuclear tipped missile breaks into my house I'll blow it away.

I was going to post the 30 page 2nd Amendment to show all the constitutional restrictions on Americans' arms ownership.
I carry a federal,state & local piece of paper allowing me to say "2nd Amendment".

Dems & Reps have loved to add words to the 2nd.
295   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 1, 12:07pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Booger says


Oh man, that is so wrong somehow, but I loved it. Especially how they jiggle a bit after each shot.
296   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2019 Jan 1, 1:49pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Booger says


I'm trying my best to help increase that percentage on a regular basis!
297   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2019 Jan 1, 1:50pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Oh man, that is so wrong somehow, but I loved it. Especially how they jiggle a bit after each shot.


They need stabilization with a rear insert. Not enough recoil ballast.
300   HEYYOU   ignore (26)   2019 Jan 5, 10:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

More fun with guns! Targets that shoot back!
304   clambo   ignore (4)   2019 Feb 4, 2:57pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I was talking about this subject with a friend of mine just the other day.

Firstly, any student of history knows that the right to bear arms is an individual right and has always been.

When Connecticut was a colony, there were laws which required gun ownership and fines if you were caught not having one.

However, I think some new restrictions are OK but others will argue.

I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.

That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.

If you look at the cases recently of mass shootings, lots of them seem to be 1. kids on psych medication 2. acted nuts and people reported them 3. usually under 25 years of age.

That maniac in Las Vegas is an exception and was completely under the radar so I don't know how to prevent guys like him "going postal."

I don't mind discriminating against the "slack jawed punks" under 25; I am older so fuck em.
305   MrMagic   ignore (11)   2019 Feb 4, 3:38pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

clambo says
However, I think some new restrictions are OK but others will argue.

I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.

That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.


Couple of issues with that, it's doesn't matter what caliber it is. I can kill you with a 22LR or a 50 caliber. Doesn't matter. It's the intent that matters, not the caliber or age.

Second, how can you allow a 18 year old to join the military, and have access to all types of firearms, and after he gets out a few years later, tell him sorry, 22LR only for you?

clambo says
That maniac in Las Vegas is an exception a


Anyone can be a maniac and evil. At 12, 25, 50 or whatever age, and it doesn't take a gun, you can kill with anything. A knife, a hammer, a 2x4 or even my DeWalt cordless drill.

Regulating age for firearms ownership is the talk of clueless Liberals.
306   clambo   ignore (4)   2019 Feb 4, 4:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mrmagic, you can of course kill someone with a 22 but it's a lot more difficult than with a real damaging round.

I would not like to be shot with anything, but if I must, I prefer the .22 to 50 which would destroy me.

Of course, with the correct shot placement, a 22 is deadly with one round.

My proposal will make it harder for punks to go nuts.

I'm sick of kids going wacko using guns; I like the 25 year old limitation.

Shit, while I'm at it, how about 25 to vote? I'm not overly impressed with most teenagers I meet.
307   HonkpilledMaster   ignore (5)   2019 Feb 4, 4:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

clambo says


I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.

That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.


I would rather ban pistols, period, until age 30. Not that I think it would be very effective, but it would eliminate some of the incel crime.
308   clambo   ignore (4)   2019 Feb 5, 5:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It would help when a guy who is paid by the public to protect public safety wasn't a complete incompetent.

This is the Palm Beach County Sheriff who was just fired by the new governor. He may fight to keep his job.
312   HeadSet   ignore (1)   2019 Mar 3, 6:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Except that health care is not currently a "right."
314   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Mar 4, 11:37pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

ARM THE CITIZENRY WITH BATTLE NUKES AND TANKS!

« First    « Previous    Comments 281 - 320 of 322    Next »    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions