Is the Second Amendment necessary? (marijuana, education, religion, document)

[Gunluvver2]

Originally Posted by ozarknation

It was created in the 1700s, then cities and towns didn't have Police Departments or Law Enforcement.
Is the right to own weapons necessary any longer?

By your logic WHY would any of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights be needed?

[Gunluvver2]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Are you actually telling me that you think that the right to shoot gun is equivalent to the right to speak?????

I will tell you this: The government that tries to make it unlawful to own a weapon will eventually take away ALL of the other rights you have,

[JonasW]

Once a professional standing army was enacted the 2nd amendment became superfluous. It needs to be re-framed for a modern society.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by CCCyou

do elaborate..?

No. You made the claim. You elaborate and tell me since the signing of the Bill Of Rights when a "well regulated militia" has successfully taken action to protect the Bill Of Rights.

But I will go back to something I said earlier. You want to cut off a lot of the anti-gun lobby's efforts. Make it a "well regulated militia". Not just a bunch of guys who own guns. Not just wacko militias out in the woods of Oregon. Make it "well regulated".

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

But you yourself said magazines can be changed easily, so what does capacity matter?

If you use 5 round magazines, you'll swap them 20 times to fire 100 shots, so you'll spend a lot more time swapping than if you use a larger magazine. This should be obvious.

I said successfully. IT JAMMED, and he had to switch to a different mag, and/or different rifle. He had several. Again, maybe get the facts, and educate yourself.

I have the facts. He used large magazines, and fired 1,100 shots and killed 58 people and wounded 800+ more.

[Gunluvver2]

Originally Posted by Retired in Illinois

The gun debate overlooks a simple fact.

The 2nd amendment says that all have the right to "keep and bear arms". It does not say that everyone has the right to own police or military style arms.

IMO all of the common "hunting" weapons meet the intent of the 2nd amendment. Military/police style weapons do not. They are all designed for maximum kill rate of any human target. THAT is not the intent of the 2nd amendment. Under today's thinking machine , and/or fully automatic, weapons are illegal to for private citizens to own without a special permit with good reason. So it should be with any other military/police designed weapons.

Congress could, and should, outlaw all military/police style for citizen's private ownership. Owing common "hunting" weapons is more than enough for any person of sane and sound mind to own for their personal use.

You assume that the reason the Founders adopted the Second Amendment was to protect the right to go duck/deer hunting?

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

You assume that the reason the Founders adopted the Second Amendment was to protect the right to go duck/deer hunting?

And you assume that the amendment doesn't say "a well regulated militia"?

[Gunluvver2]

[quote=LowonLuck;51066406]No. Totally not necessary. Especially if we cannot make sure that guns are only in the hands of people that won't go on killing rampages.

Our rights to be safe and live, trump the right to the 2nd amendment[/QUOTE

Make it ILLEGAL to defend your life.

[Pilot1]

You talked about the 100 round mag. It failed.

Capacity is irrelevant.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

It does not evade the point. You thought the courts can fix this, and I told you why you are wrong.

I don't believe there is anything to fix that involves the courts.