U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 06-12-2014, 10:28 AM
Location: SDL/PDX/RDU
4,790 posts, read 2,556,165 times
Reputation: 5573


Originally Posted by tisnjh View Post
Oh my goodness. Why can't these kind of things stop???
Magic 8 Ball says "Cannot predict now"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 06-12-2014, 12:09 PM
29,191 posts, read 15,346,951 times
Reputation: 19864
Originally Posted by MrWillys View Post
You didn't fail Pedro, and I think you're getting this!

"Armed = furnished with weapons <an armed guard>; also : using or involving a weapon"

Can I own chemical weapons?
Can I have automatic firearms?
How about rocket launchers?

Why have my 2nd amendment rights been trampled on, and do you approve?
Can you yell fire in a crowded theater as part of your right to free speech? No. There are narrow restrictions on it just as there are narrow restrictions on arms.

It's getting tiresome that such simple concepts can't be understood by you and your mad-poppa alter ego.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-13-2014, 11:21 PM
9,397 posts, read 7,022,147 times
Reputation: 12146
Originally Posted by armory View Post
Before wading into 13 pages of BS to get to this..

This is the amendment in full.

Amendment II 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.

The entire amendment addresses firearms in America. It points out the militia needs them and goes on to say the people - citizens - have the inalienable right to keep(own) and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed.

How much easier is it to understand?
Why does the left try to interject something that isn't within that 27 word sentence?

It is a simple concept to understand.
It is.. However.. The second amendment has already been weakened by.. Is it the gun control act of 68? And, I think it would be something very hard for anyone to defend that the weakening done by that act is not a common sense thing to do. That act basically made it so that convicted felons could not own (or be in possession of) firearms. Even the NRA supported and continues to support that. If you want a literal interpretation, then there is no way that the gun control act of 68 is constitutional. Not that i'm saying "oh, we've already weakened it, so let's weaken it more"

It's very touchy for me.. Because I believe that SOME tightening of gun controls is probably needed at this time.. However, I also fully believe that once you surrender some of your rights, it makes it so much easier for more to be taken away. "better to err on the side of safety", well.. My definition of safety in that case is safety in not giving away my rights.

I actually chuckle a little bit each time that a cop is convicted of domestic violence, because.. I believe it was a Clinton era law that said that anyone convicted of DV, even if it was a misdemeanor, loses their gun rights.. so.. Alot of cops wound up out of work due to that. Someone may be able to provide more details on that or correct it a bit. Not that I disagree with that law, particularly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2014, 02:14 PM
Location: Northern California
11 posts, read 6,120 times
Reputation: 32
We do find ourselves in a bit of a pickle. Mass shooting, and attempted mass shootings, seem to be a trend for the crazies nowadays. They can get guns just as easily as us sane citizens... But in order to regulate how guns are acquired would require all of our rights to be violated... And the unintended consequence of that would be that the rest of our rights being put into jeopardy; we are already seeing that to a frightening extent.

So what is the solution? In a perfect world, removing all guns from the nation would end gun violence because there would be no guns; but this world is anything but perfect and it would never have a chance of working. In many ways, gun control laws puts the control of guns into the hands of corrupt people; criminals and corrupt "authority" figures...
So... do we make it harder for people to get guns? Do we require psych workups on everyone applying for a gun? Do we encourage citizens to arm themselves and pair that with education programs (some say the best gun control is early and thorough training)? Do we go the route Switzerland took?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top