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.
Most break into homes in the middle of the night. You don't need a gun unless you keep it under your pillow and keep one eye open at all times lol I think the ones who can't get to their guns are more likely to hide and whimper because they have no idea what to do without them. How about relying less on guns to protect you. There are many ways to protect yourself
According to statistics, most home break-ins are in the daytime. 95% according to insurance companies. Nice try, though.
The OP was clear, instating "only in the hands of the military". LE , he believes shouldn't need to be arms , if the 2A were done away with. British thinking. Unarmed citizenry, unarmed cops, and the criminals just love that. At any rate, thats all old hat. The issue, again, is the 2A itself. "Ambiguous wording", is, again, cited. Thing is, its as clear as crystal, to anyone with half a brain. "Well regulated" means equipped, with working equipment, and ready to take the field. Pretty simple. Right of the PEOPLE to, just like all the other rights listed, means just that. The PEOPLE have a RIGHT to personal armament. Kept in their homes, and carried on their persons.
The language of the 2A is hardly ambiguous. It is quite clear. If one wishes to dispute the language, answers are best found in the numerous statements , by the framers, themselves, regarding personal freedom to arms. They clarified it, countless times. The right is established, the wording clear. "Get over it" is not applicable to supporters of the 2A.
Hitler was able to get people to want to follow his ideas through an extensive propaganda campaign, mostly posters. This propaganda was nothing more than non-factual misinformation intended to mislead and persuade the people. Today, this same method is propagated through memes (such as what you posted) and bumper stickers.
Let us look at facts when we formulate opinions. Otherwise, we reduce ourselves to brainwashed victims of propaganda.
Quote:
The Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.
The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.
The current penalty for murder is a lot worse than 10 years or life in prison and people are still murdered daily in this country so that doesn't seem to deter them.
Which is exactly why we have to do something to prevent these undeterred murderers from getting their hands on assault weapons.
Very simple, they have no place in society, except in the hands of the military.
Most would be calling me an ultra liberal for my stand on this issue, but I am just the opposite.
I am a conservative republican.
Perhaps we need to understand the word "conservative" as it applies to some, but not all republicans.
Conservative people tend to want to preserve.
To conserve is to preserve something .
As a staunch defender of disarming the public, I am in fact in favor of preserving human life everywhere.
One way to preserve that life is to rid the country of all guns.
I believe they are nothing but killing machines.
There are many ways to eradicate a human life besides guns, but guns seem to be the predominant weapon of choice, so they must be dealt with first.
As a conservative, I see a problem with society, and it's use of deadly gunfire, and my gut feeling is to lash out at the source.
Look at the problem for what it is, and find the best solution to fix it.
With a tough issue like gun control, one can't please everyone.
Some will have to sacrifice long held beliefs, for the good of all.
As a conservative, do I think the 2nd amendment should be preserved ?
To answer that, it would take the best scholars in the world to interpret just what the founding fathers meant in their ambiguous wording of the amendment.
As it is written, I would re-write it to reflect the world we live in today.
'A well regulated militia, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is as if two different subjects were being discussed at the same time, and both made it into the second amendment, even tho they are completely unrelated, unless of course they looked on a militia as being ordinary citizens who voluntarily took up arms in the time of war.
I feel this is the thinking behind the 2nd amendment.
Taking it at that value, the amendment would only allow for citizens to bare arms in time of war, and that right will not be infringed.
I would preserve that meaning of the amendment, and not let it be clouded by the unfounded desire of the public at large to be armed and protected under the amendment.
As a conservative, I feel it necessary to preserve the rule of law written into the constitution, but only if those laws are clear, and unabated, which obviously the 2ndamendment is not.
Bob.
Just when you think you've reached the limit of complete insanity, something like this comes along and you realize that there are evidently no limits.
You know what, I can't live in fear where someone will enter my home or I will be robbed on the street so I have to justify having a gun. It's just not something I think about in my day to day life.
I think that's great. There are a lot of people that shouldn't own firearms and if you choose not to that's absolutely your choice. My only issue with people like you is when you try to dictate your position to others.
We can drastically reduce gun violence by repealing the 2nd Amendment (or reinterpreting it) and setting about getting ALL handguns out of the hands of people law-abiding or otherwise. Anything short of that is just nonsense and an ineffective band-aid. There is little support for what is really needed, though, so we will get band-aids and feel-good measures and the carnage will go on
If it were not guns it would be bombs, knives, axes, poison, etc. When a person deranged or not makes up his/her mind to kill they will do it one way or the other.
The reason that schools are a common target is that our idiots in charge made them gun free zones. Why attack an armed location when you can attack a place where you know they are not armed?
Absolutely correct. Let's arm school personnel and highly motivated, intelligent students. That will make everyone in the building soooo much safer.
We can drastically reduce gun violence by repealing the 2nd Amendment (or reinterpreting it) and setting about getting ALL handguns out of the hands of people law-abiding or otherwise. Anything short of that is just nonsense and an ineffective band-aid. There is little support for what is really needed, though, so we will get band-aids and feel-good measures and the carnage will go on
No one says that YOU have to own a gun. For those of us who do, I'm sorry that you don't like the law.
We can drastically reduce gun violence by repealing the 2nd Amendment (or reinterpreting it) and setting about getting ALL handguns out of the hands of people law-abiding or otherwise. Anything short of that is just nonsense and an ineffective band-aid. There is little support for what is really needed, though, so we will get band-aids and feel-good measures and the carnage will go on
you dont need to reinterpret the second amendment, the founding fathers were very clear with its wording, and what they intended with their writings. and good luck trying to get the second amendment repealed, you need 2/3rd of each house of congress to pass such an amendment, get the president to sign it, and then get 38 states to ratify it. not going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
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.
