U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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)
 
Old 08-04-2019, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Here
10,930 posts, read 12,002,405 times
Reputation: 6073

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by njbiodude View Post

Apparently at the Las Vegas massacre many of the people in the audience were armed. But everyone was afraid either other people or the police would shoot them if they started shooting wildly at the prepetrator so most just hid. That in itself should be an argument against having everyone armed in public.
Do you realize how stupid this take was?? The guy was several stories up in a hotel. 99% of the people at the event had ZERO idea where the shots were even coming from. My god...get a clue. Do you even think about this stuff before posting it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2019, 01:33 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
1,376 posts, read 1,375,156 times
Reputation: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1984 View Post
The 2nd amendment wasn't a mistake, but it's outdated. Guns won't prevent government tyranny or aggression with modern military fire power (which filters down to local police).

Assault rifles, high capacity magazines, and other mods that improve killing capacity need to be banned.
I call BS!! Automatic weapons have been around since the early 20th century and we never had these mass shootings on a level like this. It wasn't until the late 90's that things got bad. Looks to be a social issue with some nutjobs that can't tell the difference between shooting a human being on a video screen or real life.

Media has played a huge part in what we see today. Violent movies, video games, etc have played a part in this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,683 posts, read 20,263,528 times
Reputation: 8475
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There, I said it.

In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.

But here we are.

It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.

Yes, the Founders expected firearms to get better over time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 01:44 PM
 
319 posts, read 54,609 times
Reputation: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
180 degrees wrong


The founding fathers would be surprised at all the weapons restrictions. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to put citizens on par with the military in weaponry. Thus, citizens would be able to overthrow an oppressive government that no longer represented the people.


The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate "checks and balances" if peaceful options fail.
The Nazis were able to take over Germany easily after they disarmed the citizens and there was no way to counter gangs of brownshirts showing up a the door of any "resistance".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,769 posts, read 7,624,331 times
Reputation: 7595
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There, I said it.

In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.

But here we are.

It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.
The founding fathers did not make a mistake.
It is the way the amendment has been interpreted that is the problem.
The 2nd NEVER meat arming the general public, only people who would be part of a militia.

Bob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
9,739 posts, read 7,369,919 times
Reputation: 8390
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
Exactly. Please explain to me, someone, how every mentally unbalanced individual having the "right" to own weapons of mass destruction fits the definition of "a well regulated Militia"?

Again, the FF had no way of seeing how this amendment would be misused. It's time we made a correction to deal with the reality today.
So, what you'd like to do, is have stricter controls over certain mentally-ill people possessing guns? Is that right?

Have you found 10% of Republicans, NRA types, or even regular citizens that would be opposed to these limits?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 01:59 PM
 
30,255 posts, read 15,727,034 times
Reputation: 20359
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY View Post
The founding fathers did not make a mistake.
It is the way the amendment has been interpreted that is the problem.
The 2nd NEVER meat arming the general public, only people who would be part of a militia.

Bob.
Bob, do you realize the 2nd is in the Bill of Rights?

Bob, do you realize the Bill of Rights are protections for the INDIVIDUAL from government?

I'll summarize. They wrote a special group of right for individuals which are the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. These are rights, not for agents of the government such as soldiers but for individuals. Had they been about organizing the military, it would not have been included in the rights for individuals - the Bill of Rights.

Don't worry, lots of people know very little about our Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 02:00 PM
 
24,651 posts, read 12,166,712 times
Reputation: 10516
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There, I said it.

In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.

But here we are.

It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.
No. Redo the 1st amendment. Death penalty for all drug offenders. You open a Pandora’s box with your drivel.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 02:29 PM
 
161 posts, read 28,257 times
Reputation: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
There, I said it.

In their defense, they had no idea what that amendment would result in some 200+ years later, no way to know the kind of advanced weaponry that would be invented and fall into hands they don't belong in, no way of knowing how Americans would misuse and abuse the amendment in ways they never intended.

But here we are.

It's time to consider amending the Constitution again.
I don't think they made a mistake. The 2nd amendment was in placed due to American at its founding being weak from internal and external forces of the day. So the need for having an immediate standing militia that is armed was seen as a necessary. 200 years later united states is now a global hegemon. Should we adjust the united states constitution for the 21st century? I smell civil war. The problem is that the founding fathers never saw America as a global power. Founding fathers never knew that the United States would replace parent nation great Britain as a global power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2019, 07:00 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
6,861 posts, read 3,800,037 times
Reputation: 12940
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post

I'll summarize. They wrote a special group of right for individuals which are the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. These are rights, not for agents of the government such as soldiers but for individuals. Had they been about organizing the military, it would not have been included in the rights for individuals - the Bill of Rights.

Don't worry, lots of people know very little about our Constitution.
Including you.
So tell me, dear sir, why was the Bill of Rights (only ten amendments were ratified of the twelve) not included in the Constitution in the first place if the Founding Fathers were so concerned? They were finished writing the Constitution -- it was a wrap, done. Madison saw the amendments more as a cosmetic affectation to make state ratification easier. Some states were dragging their feet. Of the three versions of what became the Second Amendment, all placed first and foremost attention on a "well-regulated militia". The right to bear arms was already in English common law before the Revolution. The amendment tied it to the idea of a militia.
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > Politics and Other Controversies
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