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.
Are you actually telling me that you think that the right to shoot gun is equivalent to the right to speak?????
And to vote, and to attend the church of your choice, and not be a slave, and to vote for Senator, and the right to a jury trial, and to avoid the confusion if the President and Vice President are not on the same team, and . . .
Remember, a "Scary looking" gun is a "military style" weapon, regardless of its lack of automatic fire and caliber.
Such guns can scorch "snowflakes" into a puddle.
It was created in the 1700s, then cities and towns didn't have Police Departments or Law Enforcement.
Is the right to own weapons necessary any longer?
I don't believe in a fundamental right to own high-powered assault weapons. Just basic handguns or hunting rifles would be okay, but assault weapons? People are crazy to think there is some fundamental human right to own a weapon that can kill hundreds of people within minutes.
I don't believe in a fundamental right to own high-powered assault weapons. Just basic handguns or hunting rifles would be okay, but assault weapons? People are crazy to think there is some fundamental human right to own a weapon that can kill hundreds of people within minutes.
You don't have a Clue as to what your speaking about. An assault weapon is "FULL AUTO" already outlawed in the USA for Citizens
What the hell is high powered ? What caliber ? Average Hunting Rifle has far more power than an AR-15 or AK 47
You don't have a Clue as to what your speaking about. An assault weapon is "FULL AUTO" already outlawed in the USA for Citizens
What the hell is high powered ? What caliber ? Average Hunting Rifle has far more power than an AR-15 or AK 47
The vast majority of anti gunners are clueless about this. An AR-15/M-16/M-4 has very little knock down power. This was vividly demonstrated in Somalia. The Somalis would get hit time and time again and still be in the fight. Any decent hunting rifle would have put those guys out of action with one hit. A 5.56 mm round is the size of a .22 caliber bullet. The military gave up fire power in favor of a lighter round so more ammo could be carried.
The right to keep and bear arms has more than just the Second Amendment to protect it. By characterizing the right as fundamental and pre-political, the high court accepted the truism that this right is merely a modern extension of the ancient right to self-defense. And the right to defend oneself does not come from the government; it comes from our humanity. It is a natural right.
Most of the "Bill of Rights" shouldn't really be necessary, as these amendments don't grant rights to the people, rather they codify pre-existing natural rights and the circumstances under which the state can violate rights (e.g. 5th amendment).
Yes, and Joe and Bob are not well trained. It's interesting that you keep missing the point.
You mean the original wording:
Notice there is a but.
or the second draft.
hmmmm, it's saying we won't force you to bear arms due to your religious conviction
And the final
You see, there is an evolution here. It wants a person who is well trained in a militia the right to do this; and if they don't want to, due to religious reasons, they don't have to.
And obviously it is not being used responsibly. Furthemore, Amendments change due to changing times.
I expanded the right to vote with both 13th and 19th Amendments. We granted the vote to former slaves in the 15th amendment. We instituted an income tax with the 16th. We abolished and then repealed the alcohol in the 18th and 21st. Laws change. People change. Times change. Laws are not written in stone and when necessary get clarified. Even if the intent of the founders were what some say it was, (and that's debatable), I'm not sure the opinion of men that died 200 years ago is relevant. Not to mention that even amongst living men, they change their mind when new information is brought to them.
Really? People are talking about arming teachers. They are talking about filling schools with heavy security. You damn skippy that it effects me. I have a child in school. It's not how I want her raised. It infringes on MY LIBERTY to raise my child in an environment that is loving and nurturing. Why should she go to school in a lockdown environment because a bunch of adolescent boys like their toys... which is what this really is.
I hear you. Your rights don't extend to overstepping onto my rights. You are stepping on my rights to live in peace and security because if I have to look over my shoulder and worry about the next person who needs to be on meds, who is undiagnosed and was able to buy an AR-15 with a temporary drivers license with a 5 minute identity check... that's an infringement of my right to life and liberty and freedom from fear. PS: They have more restrictions on importing cheese.
What does religion have to do with anything? I'm not the one advocating restricting freedom here; you are.
As I stated, and you seem to have misunderstood, I (and almost all, considering the overall number of crimes committed with an AR15 is a ridiculously small percentage) am a responsible gun owner. Unless or until that changes, you have absolutely no standing to restrict what I can buy or what I can do with it. Of course, should I brandish the weapon, or threaten someone, or shoot someone, I have proven that I cannot be trusted with it.
I'm fine with prohibiting firearms from those who are under the criminal justice system for violent crimes. I'm fine with prohibiting firearms from those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent.
You don't have a right to "feel safe". First of all, there's no way to quantify that. What's safe? Is it the same for you as it is for me? I will be showing my two children proper handling of firearms and how to shoot them when they are ready and with age-appropriate weapons. Who's correct? Circumstances are different in both cases, and I wouldn't begin to tell you how to live your life (despite your clear intention to tell others how to live).
I don't believe in a fundamental right to own high-powered assault weapons. Just basic handguns or hunting rifles would be okay, but assault weapons? People are crazy to think there is some fundamental human right to own a weapon that can kill hundreds of people within minutes.
I don't believe in a fundamental right to own high-powered assault weapons. Just basic handguns or hunting rifles would be okay, but assault weapons? People are crazy to think there is some fundamental human right to own a weapon that can kill hundreds of people within minutes.
I challenge you to look up what the gun mini 14 is https://goo.gl/images/uPKxWC
It does the same thing as an AR does along with MANY other rifles.
They are also not assault rifles. They are civilian sporting rifles, or modern sporting rifles.
And yes. It is a fundamental human right to protect life and liberty.
The founding fathers sure thought so.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
2.3 Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
2.4 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Saying the 2a doesn't apply to guns like an AR15 Is ignorant. The best comparison I can make is that is roughly equivalent to Saying the 1a doesn't apply to the telephone, tv, radio, internet, social media, newspapers, books, and that the only intent of the 1a was for a bunch of old guys in powdered wigs to make speeches in town squares.
Anytime someone wants to talk about guns and the first thing They say is "I don't know anything about guns..but... ________________needs to be banned" I've realized it's an impossible conversation to have about an important issue because the person making the demand has absolutely no idea what they are taking about and basing their entire argument on emotion, feeling and heresay.
I don't believe in a fundamental right to own high-powered assault weapons. Just basic handguns or hunting rifles would be okay, but assault weapons? People are crazy to think there is some fundamental human right to own a weapon that can kill hundreds of people within minutes.
It's not about "fundamental human rights", it's about the rights granted by the Constitution to the citizens of the United States.
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.
The 2nd doesn't GRANT a right, it RECOGNIZES an existing natural right.
