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.
Do you think someone who would open fire in a theatre, a school, the workplace. a church or any other place these evil mass killers target, would hesitate to fire a missle into anywhere in order to kill the greatest number possible?
I don't think you are thinking this through!!!
No... you are right. You dont think they'd use anything to do it anyway? Like burning down the theater and shutting all doors... or maybe they can just ram a tractor trailer through the theater...or maybe, they can wait till people walk out and run them over with a car.. the truck is essentially a missile - is it not? And believe me, there are many other non-gun items that have much worst results than arms. Guns should be a non topic, but the left is making it just that.... i'm not advocating for everyone to have missiles, but the discussion is about guns...not missiles...
And it should be about criminals, crazies, and the lack of attention your government has paid it, not guns.
America now has two classes of people those who Constitutional guarentees might apply unless they are designated "Enemy Combatents" and Enemy Combatents whom they don't apply regardless of national origin, citizenship or where they are seized by American agents.
If it were legal to have missiles, how many citizens would fire a missile?
Not many people can afford a $70,000+ missile to fire when ever they want. But on the flip side, if the president and congress had to pay for missiles out of their own pockets they would have thought twice before lobbing 200+ of them on Libya 2 years ago.
This is the dodge always brought up by liberals who can't defend their restrictions, gun bans, etc., and who know their schemes are unconstitutional.
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says that:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
Liberals hate that, because it gives citizens power over government. In the liberal view, anything that renders government any less than all-powerful, is unacceptable... though they don't dare say why.
Why translate the 2nd Amendment into "modern language" unless it is to leave out that "well-regulated militia" phrase?
Quote:
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.
No... you are right. You dont think they'd use anything to do it anyway? Like burning down the theater and shutting all doors... or maybe they can just ram a tractor trailer through the theater...or maybe, they can wait till people walk out and run them over with a car.. the truck is essentially a missile - is it not? And believe me, there are many other non-gun items that have much worst results than arms. Guns should be a non topic, but the left is making it just that.... i'm not advocating for everyone to have missiles, but the discussion is about guns...not missiles...
And it should be about criminals, crazies, and the lack of attention your government has paid it, not guns.
Regardless of the alternative methods you come up with to cause massive death or destruction, the point of the matter is, the Federal Government is does NOT fear citizens with cars, trucks, missiles, bombs, matches, cans of gasoline, etc, etc. They do however fear citizens with guns and once they get the guns out of the hands of regular American citizens then they can worry about other methods of destruction.
Furthermore no matter what method or tools used, murder and property damage is still illegal as life and property are also protected under the Constitution. Would you suggest we also repeal those rights with the second amendment? If you really want to know why we have the 2nd amendment then I would direct you to read the Declaration of Independence and see the tyranny our forefathers faced and we are slowly approaching in our modern age.
Why translate the 2nd Amendment into "modern language" unless it is to leave out that "well-regulated militia" phrase?
I already came up with the modern language 2nd Amendment. i dont think any democrat nor any moderate republican would even go this kind of language in the 2nd. it should have read this way in the 1st place.
Quote:
The rights of the people to own, possess, carry and use all weapons suitable for defense of self, family, community and country without regard to operation, capacity, features or style shall not be infringed. All levels of government are prohibited from regulating, licensing or taxing this right, or the weapons and accoutrements.
It's not a dodge. It's a legitimate and important question. What does the word "arms" mean in the context of the second amendment. Why does it mean, as most gun lovers argue, "any and all guns and ammunition"?
If you asked somebody from the 1770s what "arms" meant, they'd probably get around to saying rifles and muskets, but the first thing they'd mention would be swords and knives. I wonder if they'd mention cannons?
BTW, in modern language, the 2nd amendment says that:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
Liberals hate that, because it gives citizens power over government. In the liberal view, anything that renders government any less than all-powerful, is unacceptable... though they don't dare say why.
In Supreme Court language,
" 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
for 10 years they tried to take the culture religion and weapons away from the people of the mideast and failed.
why? assault weapons and local militias.
u know i really dont like all the guns and bibles rhetoric from the white house. sounds too much like fear.
If I had the money I would buy a tank. What good is a hand gun or a rifle if the government brings out heavy artillery on the people?
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.
