Should people be able to have guns and buy guns to have (GUNCONTROLc)

[comerelaxnow]

Any Gun restriction laws would only really hurt gun owners who are responsible and would never use them in a harmful way towards people. Most gun crimes are done illegally and restrictions would have zero effect on the crime rate. That being said...I understand peoples urge to want SOMETHING to be done. Not sure what that would be, but doing nothing seems illogical at this point

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by comerelaxnow

Any Gun restriction laws would only really hurt gun owners who are responsible and would never use them in a harmful way towards people. Most gun crimes are done illegally and restrictions would have zero effect on the crime rate. That being said...I understand peoples urge to want SOMETHING to be done. Not sure what that would be, but doing nothing seems illogical at this point

Doing nothing seems illogical? Why?

[Typical Monkey]

In reading this thread, I have but one question. OP, why do you capitalize random words throughout your posts?

[seekupchuck]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...74710168_n.jpg

[seekupchuck]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...79080572_n.jpg

[jcc522]

Originally Posted by seekupchuck

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...74710168_n.jpg

Spot on

[RRrider]

Obama in Senate Debate:

"Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."



The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or anything else for that matter.

It is without any doubt all at, to guaranty the ability of THE PEOPLE to overthrow a tyrannical and out of control government should the need arise. Yes, this means killing people, sorry if I burst liberal's rose colored view of our country by yanking their head out of the sand and showing them the truth.

[ExistenceNow]

Originally Posted by RRrider

Obama in Senate Debate:

"Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."



The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or anything else for that matter.

It is without any doubt all at, to guaranty the ability of THE PEOPLE to overthrow a tyrannical and out of control government should the need arise. Yes, this means killing people, sorry if I burst liberal's rose colored view of our country by yanking their head out of the sand and showing them the truth.

If that's it's purpose, it's pretty worthless in this country in this day/age. The government and it's armed forces have tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, smart bombs, nukes (not to mention training) etc...
Fat lot of good our minimally armed "well regulated militia" (lulz) will do.

Personal protection against the crime in our society is a much more relevant and pragmatic argument for the right to bear arms than the laughably antiquated and utterly asinine militia argument.

[stoneje]

Originally Posted by grace2

the guys who want to get guns are gonna get guns no matter if they're illegal or not and the law abiding citizens will be the ones without guns. it's unrealistic to think if we make guns illegal the bad guys will have no way to get their hands on one.

This is true, and I don't think anyone would argue with you there. But restrictions would make it harder to get guns. Not impossible by any stretch, but harder.

In general, I don't like the "well people can get them anyway, so why even try restricting access?" argument - it doesn't hold any water.

[rconverse]

Am I the only one who thinks guns should be easier to get?

[YouNeverKnow25]

Originally Posted by RRrider

Obama in Senate Debate:

"Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban."



The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or anything else for that matter.

It is without any doubt all at, to guaranty the ability of THE PEOPLE to overthrow a tyrannical and out of control government should the need arise. Yes, this means killing people, sorry if I burst liberal's rose colored view of our country by yanking their head out of the sand and showing them the truth.

Nah son

[drop2d]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Am I the only one who thinks guns should be easier to get?

It depends on what state you're in I guess... I think it should be the same everywhere, but here in NH I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a gun in a relatively short amount of time (2 hours was the longest it took at a gun show b/c the state had a shit ton of requests all at once).

[YouNeverKnow25]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

Nah son

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...r-arms/?page=1

[RRrider]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

Nah son

don't think so? Sorry, but you don't have a very good understanding of what the 2nd amendment means.

Here is some help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

[uro55]

Originally Posted by rconverse

Am I the only one who thinks guns should be easier to get?

Sadly probably not

[uro55]

Originally Posted by stoneje

In general, I don't like the "well people can get them anyway, so why even try restricting access?" argument - it doesn't hold any water.

Worst.Argument.Ever

[YouNeverKnow25]

Originally Posted by RRrider

don't think so? Sorry, but you don't have a very good understanding of what the 2nd amendment means.

Here is some help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

You misunderstand what "militia" meant in 1789 versus what it means today. It's okay, you aren't alone.

[RRrider]

Originally Posted by ExistenceNow

If that's it's purpose, it's pretty worthless in this country in this day/age. The government and it's armed forces have tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, smart bombs, nukes (not to mention training) etc...
Fat lot of good our minimally armed "well regulated militia" (lulz) will do.

Personal protection against the crime in our society is a much more relevant and pragmatic argument for the right to bear arms than the laughably antiquated and utterly asinine militia argument.

What it has evolved to thanks to recent US Supreme Court, personal protection, but that is nothing more than an interpretation of the intent of the 2nd amendment.

BUT because of it's orignial intent, the 2nd Amendment is the protection of all other protection of rights that is listed in the Bill of Rights, it is the one single right that protects the rest. That is why I am against any further gun control bills in congress, no I don't believe we should own RPG's, but how could the people protect themselves with bb guns?

[RRrider]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

You misunderstand what "militia" meant in 1789 versus what it means today. It's okay, you aren't alone.

That is why it says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. Did you even watch the video?

[YouNeverKnow25]

I'm sorry for avoiding an HBO show hosted by magicians telling me what the constitution means. You apparently missed the scholarly peer-reviewed article written by a constitutional law professor.

[RRrider]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

I'm sorry for avoiding an HBO show hosted by magicians telling me what the constitution means. You apparently missed the scholarly peer-reviewed article written by a constitutional law professor.

Gave it as much attention.

[YouNeverKnow25]

Yeah, why read any textual knowledge on a topic when you can just watch a youtube clip?

[RRrider]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

Yeah, why read any textual knowledge on a topic when you can just watch a youtube clip?

I can not google at work, but I can show you several scholarly peer-reviewed article written by a constitutional law professor from those saying that I am 100% right......

What's your point?

[TwoStep2888]

Interpreting a text isn't science. Peer reviews and doctorates don't make one interpretation any more or less valid than another.

[YouNeverKnow25]

The one I linked to specifically shows how that professor is wrong, and his group of lackeys method of "peer-review" is to cite only each other's work.....so I guess my point remains the same as it has been: the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with giving anybody the right to overthrow anything.

[YouNeverKnow25]

Originally Posted by TwoStep2888

Interpreting a text isn't science. Peer reviews and doctorates don't make one interpretation any more or less valid than another.

That's fair, but interpretation of a 230+ year old document involves far more than taking the text at its face value.

[TwoStep2888]

Im a doctor me and all my peers say the 2nd Amendment means Murder Yourself With A Gun YouNeverKnow25 oh wow my phd is glowing a deep terrifying red my opinion must be The Objective Truth

[TwoStep2888]

Originally Posted by YouNeverKnow25

That's fair, but interpretation of a 230+ year old document involves far more than taking the text at its face value.

Why does the age of the text affect how it ought to be read?

[YouNeverKnow25]

Source??

[YouNeverKnow25]

Originally Posted by TwoStep2888

Why does the age of the text affect how it ought to be read?

Because language changes over time.