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.
It's not my fault the 2nd is ambiguous and horribly worded.
Edit: This is precisely why it needs to be ratified for a third time. I've speculated in the past that they understood it didn't give rights for sales and production to specifically reduce "arms" for future generations, and worded it poorly with intention.
Edit 2: Something else just occurred to me. Future generations would still have a right to keep and bear arms... if they could somehow come by those arms without purchasing them. We could ratify the 2nd to include such wording as they're allowed to be passed down from one generation to the next. Or we might allow private sales of the "arms" themselves. At any rate, the 2nd does not address how one is to come by the arms they're allowed to "keep and bear". The word "bear" in this context implies display or show, it doesn't even really address your rights for discharging, which by the way is highly regulated.
its not ambiguous and horribly worded, you just want us to chagne it, so you are your statist thugs can strip us of our rights..
Of course, but none of these other things are generally specifically design (or even nearly efficient at) to harm or kill something. Typically, all these other devices are primarily designed with other, non-human-harmful uses in mind. Guns are specifically designed with harming something (generally human or other animals) in mind.
Edit: I suppose you could be like Homer in that very ironic episode of the Simpson's where he used his gun to turn off his lights and TV. It was quick and efficient, but one use only! LOL
what if it was used for a competition? hole in theory, and if anything you statist or hormer..
Of course, but none of these other things are generally specifically design (or even nearly efficient at) to harm or kill something. Typically, all these other devices are primarily designed with other, non-human-harmful uses in mind. Guns are specifically designed with harming something (generally human or other animals) in mind.
Edit: I suppose you could be like Homer in that very ironic episode of the Simpson's where he used his gun to turn off his lights and TV. It was quick and efficient, but one use only! LOL
I have been around firearms ever since I could walk, I'm 63 now, in my short lived life I have never seen a firearm purposely kill some one or something, there has to be a person behind the butt. A firearm by itself is no more harmful than a rock. If your intent is to kill something, you will find the means to do it irregardless of the choice of instrument.
If we are going to ban weapons based on purpose of design, then we could apply that to firearms, bows, knives, slingshots, shall I keep going. The danger of these lays in the intent of the user and not the instrument itself.
I have been around firearms ever since I could walk, I'm 63 now, in my short lived life I have never seen a firearm purposely kill some one or something, there has to be a person behind the butt. A firearm by itself is no more harmful than a rock. If your intent is to kill something, you will find the means to do it irregardless of the choice of instrument.
If we are going to ban weapons based on purpose of design, then we could apply that to firearms, bows, knives, slingshots, shall I keep going. The danger of these lays in the intent of the user and not the instrument itself.
Again 70% of murders are committed with guns. Guns are the major problem, not bows, knives, or slingshots. Second, guns can be banned. They have been in many countries. It is not practical to ban these other items, and there is no reason to ban them. The number of people getting killed with slingshots or bows is insignificant. It probably doesn't even happen.
Again 70% of murders are committed with guns. Guns are the major problem, not bows, knives, or slingshots. Second, guns can be banned. They have been in many countries. It is not practical to ban these other items, and there is no reason to ban them. The number of people getting killed with slingshots or bows is insignificant. It probably doesn't even happen.
Take away the guns and the rates for all the other methods will go up!
It's the PERSON'S intent to cause harm.
And no, they can't be banned. We have the 2A. The day you try to repeal it, will be the day you start a Civil war.
Again 70% of murders are committed with guns. Guns are the major problem, not bows, knives, or slingshots. Second, guns can be banned. They have been in many countries. It is not practical to ban these other items, and there is no reason to ban them. The number of people getting killed with slingshots or bows is insignificant. It probably doesn't even happen.
So banning drugs has stopped people from using drugs?
Again 70% of murders are committed with guns. Guns are the major problem, not bows, knives, or slingshots. Second, guns can be banned. They have been in many countries. It is not practical to ban these other items, and there is no reason to ban them. The number of people getting killed with slingshots or bows is insignificant. It probably doesn't even happen.
No, actually they can't, as the courts have consistently ruled. So long as the Second Amendment remains in effect, guns cannot be banned.
Don't like it? Tough! Repeal the Second, which would be nearly impossible.
I just bought a "gunnut". It hasn't killed anyone yet.
Maybe I need the rest of the gun?
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.