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.
There are already laws against killing people. They should be enforced. And if your neighbor wants to kill you, whether he has one gun, or twenty, or zero, is irrelevant. He's probably going to succeed.
Please tell me you can comprehend this.
haha what???
Of course the laws against killing people are enforced. Did you hear somewhere that people have been given the okay to commit murder????
The problem is, those laws have little use to the person who has already been killed as they are... well, DEAD!
That's why there are preventive measures in place, such as not allowing criminals and the mentally ill from being able to own dangerous weapons like guns. But the thing is because gun laws are so lax it's very easy for these people to acquire these gun anyway!
And it is not irrelevant whether or not someone has a gun. Are you kidding me? If you try to kill me with your bare hands, I highly doubt you'll be anywhere near successful. If you use a gun instead your success rate rises considerably.
By your logic we should let people acquire nuclear bombs if they want to. I mean after all if someone wants to kill someone enough they'll do anyway, might as well let them get nuclear bombs so they can just get it over with and kill them already.
By your logic we should let people acquire nuclear bombs if they want to. I mean after all if someone wants to kill someone enough they'll do anyway, might as well let them get nuclear bombs so they can just get it over with and kill them already.
I should've taken a pool on how many posts it would take before some hysterical gun-grabbing hoplophobe suggested that we want personal ownership of thermonuclear devices or howitzers, simply because we assert our right to own firearms and our resistance to having those rights curtailed.
You had a chance to provide a reason as to why a law abiding citizen would want to acquire multiple assault rifles and as I correctly assumed, you did not provide one.
How about, "because he wanted them"?
It really isn't any of your business, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons that multiple guns might be bought on the same day, or close together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillies2011
That's because there is no logical reason.
That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but by voicing it, you make yourself appear extremely ignorant of guns and the hobby of shooting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillies2011
instruments of death
Your use of that phrase shows your clear and irrational fear of guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillies2011
you're at least nominally mentally unbalanced.
Your irrational fear of an inanimate object shows that you're at least nominally mentally unbalanced.
Is there a right to drive that I've missed somewhere in the Constitution?
How about this...
You can speak freely, but you first have to obtain a "free speech permit." Without it, you can only practice free speech in your own home. Speaking outside your home without a permit will be grounds for your arrest and incarceration.
Freedom of the press? Sure, but every article published must first be approved by the feds.
You can keep your right to privacy, but you must first register each and every one of your papers and personal effects with the government.
You won't be forced to testify against yourself, but your failure to do so will result in an automatic guilty verdict.
How do those sound? Surely you don't mind those "reasonable" restrictions on your rights, right?
ridiculous. there's plenty of proof that shows that second amendment was in no way speaking about giving people the right to own a personal weapon. Most people couldn't even afford their own gun at the time, much less multiple guns!
What is the second amendment about? The second amendment is about securing the the ability for American people to have access to weapons. For communities to be able to form militia and own arms that are THEIRS and not the GOVERNMENTS. The whole point of the second amendment was to ensure the fact that the government would never be able to control the people by owning all of the firepower.
Of course there isn't a right to drive in the constitution. Cars have not yet even been invented yet, the world was a much different place. The constitution is after all centuries old at this point. In its original incarnation the constitutional allowed slavery. We saw the flaw in this though and fixed it for the better. The constitution is not infallible, over time it SHOULD be and HAS been changed many times. The constitution could be changed to outlaw guns if that was what was best for society and that would have nothing to do with outlawing free speech! We got rid of slavery did we not? Did that restrict anyone's ability to free speech or anyone's ability to not testify against themselves? Weakening the second amendments strength does not automatically weaken the strength of our other rights. Your arguments makes no sense.
That being said, I see no flaw in the spirit of the second amendment. I think that the american people should be able to arm themselves independent of their government. I would not want to see the second amendment repealed.
But when our founding father wrote the bill of rights there were no automatic assault rifles, there were not drug cartels or gangs and people being murdered by the thousands. Things have changed and how we honor the second amendment should be changed as well.
If you want to buy a gun you should be forced to submit to a background check. Not a background check that looks into your personal politics or beliefs, but one that shows you are not a criminal and that you are not mentally ill.
If you own a gun you should be responsible. You should be forced to license it and every few years you should be forced to renew that license and prove that you still have the gun and it has not been sold in a straw purchase. If your gun is stolen or it is lost, you should be forced to report it.
None of these restrictions in ANY WAY interfere with a person's ability to own guns. These are simply common sense restrictions on a right that improve society.
The restrictions that I want placed on my second amendment rights and the rights of others are reasonable and in no way prevent the spirit of the right from still being carried out. Just as I believe my first amendment rights should limited so that people cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, I think that my second amendment rights should be limited so that people cannot straw purchase guns for criminals. These are reasonable restrictions that improve are society at large and prevent needless deaths.
Anyone who is a law abiding and responsible adult would be in no way limited in their right to bear arms. Only a criminal should fear these laws.
If they're being enforced, then how is it that people are still being murdered?
because the police cannot see the future and prevent crimes from being committed before they happen? What are you talking about? Do you think the illegality of murder is not being enforced?
I can assure you murder is still very much illegal. That doesn't stop people from doing it. That doesn't mean the law is not enforced. The police simply can't be everywhere at every time.
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 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.
