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.
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.
One of the rare good posts in this forum.
I am all in favor of people being able to have guns for hunting, skeet shooting, and basic home safety. I am not for military/police style weapons.
A majority of Americans do NOT own guns. Guns are not a necessity.
The bad part is do you really believe that abolishing the second will do anything to fix the problem? Its a typical liberal feel good solution. Makes them feel good while doing nothing to address the underlying problem.
What broke in our system that creates these monsters? Is it the breakdown of the family structure? Is it the breakdown of religion? Is it lack of discipline in our schools? Is it too many negative movies and video games? Until you can answer those questions and more, any emotional knee jerk reaction does nothing to fix the problem and is more likely just to punish those who are totally law abiding citizens than those who cause the problem.
Here's my solution: Everyone between 18 and 65 is required to be part of the militia. As part they get annual training and then are REQUIRED to carry a firearm, ready to respond at a moments notice.
The majority of Americans have voted against any such concept by the simple fact that a majority Americans do not own guns.
The 2nd amendment does not mention types of guns because it doesn't need to.
The founding fathers had no way of predicting the advancement in weapons nor could they predict that their intent would be twisted/preverted by modern industries that would profit from these weapons misuse in peace time. To say that all weapons are created without a specific purpose is pure folly. NO private citizen needs military/police style weapons except to play Rambo or soldier.
Just the same as the first amendment doesn't only protect speech from a town square or written on movable block type printing presses.
The 2a gives citizens the ability to ensure they are free to pursue happiness and protect their God given right of life and freedom.
Oh jesus...well, just because it says "god given" doesn't mean that god actually gives these freedoms but if that's what you believe then where is the critical thinking here? There weren't atheists back then? So is this written literally or is there any give at all?
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.
This old argument does not hold water. I am amazed at the people that make gun control their primary mission, and yet actually know so little about the guns themselves.
Are you actually telling me that you think that the right to shoot gun is equivalent to the right to speak?????
The Second Amendment is what protects the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense against petty criminals. It's about holding government accountable to the people.
I am all in favor of people being able to have guns for hunting, skeet shooting, and basic home safety. I am not for military/police style weapons.
A majority of Americans do NOT own guns. Guns are not a necessity.
My dad gave me a Remington 870 as a gift when I was in College, and sold it. I don't need guns, I don't hunt. I just call 911 if I need the police.
Maybe in the 1700s, it made sense. To have a gun to protect your family. Today is not necessary. Our police departments are funded with tax dollars to buy the most modern equipment and guns available in the market to protect us.
This old argument does not hold water. I am amazed at the people that make gun control their primary mission, and yet actually know so little about the guns themselves.
I absolutely support people not having a gun if they dont want one.
What I resist is those that say nobody should have one.
The 2nd amendment is necessary.
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.
