Gun ownership should be regulated like car ownership

[lil jahlil]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NFZZrZxYzCs/UBQqAe1WClI/AAAAAAAAAuA/lMuitY8xURU/s1600/guns+and+cars.jpg

[Patrick Chewing]

I still don't see how that prevents people from killing other people.

Remember, I can buy a gun and then give it to someone else.



Nice try.

[Draz]

Animals kill more people than people kill people

[Real Men Wear Green]

I still don't see how that prevents people from killing other people.

Remember, I can buy a gun and then give it to someone else.



Nice try.
The perfect law that would eliminate all violent crime is an unattainable goal. And the idea that that means no deterrent should ever be considered is stupid logic. You can buy a car and let your 10 year-old child drive it around, does that mean there's no reason to require drivers have a license?

[lil jahlil]

I still don't see how that prevents people from killing other people.

Remember, I can buy a gun and then give it to someone else.



Nice try.

And you should be an accessory to murder if you do that.

[lil jahlil]

The perfect law that would eliminate all violent crime is an unattainable goal. And the idea that that means no deterrent should ever be considered is stupid logic. You can buy a car and let your 10 year-old child drive it around, does that mean there's no reason to require drivers have a license?
:applause:

[Patrick Chewing]

The perfect law that would eliminate all violent crime is an unattainable goal. And the idea that that means no deterrent should ever be considered is stupid logic. You can buy a car and let your 10 year-old child drive it around, does that mean there's no reason to require drivers have a license?


Driving a car is not a right. Owning a firearm is.


There really is nothing much more to discuss between the two.

[Patrick Chewing]

And you should be an accessory to murder if you do that.


You sound like the gestapo. We all know how that turned out.


Mind your own business with how people live their lives and the world will be fine in the end.

[imdaman99]

And you should be an accessory to murder if you do that.
Loving that stance :applause:

[Real Men Wear Green]

Driving a car is not a right. Owning a firearm is.


There really is nothing much more to discuss between the two.
This is an extremely lame technicality you're attempting to dodge the issue with. The Bill of Rights was written before we had our horseless carriages and since then there has been no need to amend it to make driving a "right." This is a terrible argument you're trying to make.

Here's what's important:

Gun ownership is regulated. Different states have stronger or weaker laws regulating gun ownership. Machine guns are illegal. And on the flip side, any American 16-21 (minimum age varies depending on state with DC having an extreme position) or older that can pass the written exam and driving test can get a license. So whether one is a "right" or not is completely irrelevant. The important question that this topic is addressing is whether or not guns should be further regulated and if so, "how?" If you have a relevant argument to make feel free to make it but the one you are presenting is just dumb.

[Patrick Chewing]

This is an extremely lame technicality you're attempting to dodge the issue with. The Bill of Rights was written before we had our horseless carriages and since then there has been no need to amend it to make driving a "right." This is a terrible argument you're trying to make.

Here's what's important:

Gun ownership is regulated. Different states have stronger or weaker laws regulating gun ownership. Machine guns are illegal. And on the flip side, any American 16-21 (minimum age varies depending on state with DC having an extreme position) or older that can pass the written exam and driving test can get a license. So whether one is a "right" or not is completely irrelevant. The important question that this topic is addressing is whether or not guns should be further regulated. If you have a relevant argument to make feel free to make it but the one you are presenting is just dumb.


Look up the stats. Do your homework. Guns are regulated enough.

Meanwhile, the crazies are still walking the streets. Still plotting to kill. Meanwhile, criminals are buying guns off the street. Still plotting to kill.

The only acceptable solution to you people is a complete removal of weapons or some kind of system that tracks who owns what and where.

That will never, ever happen. Book it.


Go and debate guns with someone else who doesn't know as much and will actually take your ridiculous stance.

[Real Men Wear Green]

What I probably should do is
Go and debate guns with someoneThat has a lick of sense.

I did give you a chance. Unfortunately you have nothing real to contribute, as usual.

[Bosnian Sajo]

And you should be an accessory to murder if you do that.

This, that was dumb af pat.

[BigNBAfan]

Tax to defend yourself? Seriously... how can you type something like that and keep a straight face.

[bigkingsfan]

Just make the bullets $500 each.

[Patrick Chewing]

What I probably should do isThat has a lick of sense.

I did give you a chance. Unfortunately you have nothing real to contribute, as usual.

You clearly have no idea how the law is written and the enormous amounts of restrictions that are already in place. Anything more and it becomes and infringement on our Constitutional rights.

You're the sad Northeasterner Liberal that came here and got butthurt, so why don't you create a thread where the idiotic masses of ISH who are afraid of guns can congregate and talk about how particularly fresh the flowers smelled today on their walk home from school. God forbid they don't get mugged on the way and shit their skinny jeans.

[NumberSix]

This is an extremely lame technicality you're attempting to dodge the issue with. The Bill of Rights was written before we had our horseless carriages and since then there has been no need to amend it to make driving a "right." This is a terrible argument you're trying to make.

Here's what's important:

Gun ownership is regulated. Different states have stronger or weaker laws regulating gun ownership. Machine guns are illegal. And on the flip side, any American 16-21 (minimum age varies depending on state with DC having an extreme position) or older that can pass the written exam and driving test can get a license. So whether one is a "right" or not is completely irrelevant. The important question that this topic is addressing is whether or not guns should be further regulated and if so, "how?" If you have a relevant argument to make feel free to make it but the one you are presenting is just dumb.its not a "technicality" it's a fact.

[Patrick Chewing]

This, that was dumb af pat.


This mentality is dumb as ****. You guys are living in a fantasy world that does not exist. It is not against the law for me to purchase a firearm and then sell it privately or give it as a gift to a friend or relative. What that person does with it is out of my control at that point. Get that through your thick skulls. Maybe your "taqiyah's" are on too tight.

[NumberSix]

Just make the bullets $500 each.
Feel free to do so. Start your own bullet manufacturing company that prices bullets at $500 each. Your business won't do very well though. Your competitors will offer their product at a significantly lower price.

[BigNBAfan]

This is an extremely lame technicality you're attempting to dodge the issue with. The Bill of Rights was written before we had our horseless carriages and since then there has been no need to amend it to make driving a "right." This is a terrible argument you're trying to make.

Here's what's important:

Gun ownership is regulated. Different states have stronger or weaker laws regulating gun ownership. Machine guns are illegal. And on the flip side, any American 16-21 (minimum age varies depending on state with DC having an extreme position) or older that can pass the written exam and driving test can get a license. So whether one is a "right" or not is completely irrelevant. The important question that this topic is addressing is whether or not guns should be further regulated and if so, "how?" If you have a relevant argument to make feel free to make it but the one you are presenting is just dumb.

So you're trying to break down a right because of its age despite it still being interpreted as-is? We should first consider WHY the law was written, not WHEN. That law was meant to keep the public before the government. The states was founded because of governments dictating the people, which is why the preamble of the constitution is the following:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now my interpretation of the second amendment is that the people can defend itself against a government that does not properly represent them. It's to prevent what had happened in Europe. That risk still is present and forever will be. Historically governments and empires do fall, sometimes at the hands of their own people for a better good. This right was to allow for that to be possible - and that's by preventing a 'police state.'

[NumberSix]

The main purpose of the second amendment is simple. People have the right to take their own safety into their own hands. Unless the government wants to provide citizens with armed security guards, it has no business telling citizens that they can't guard themselves.

[Patrick Chewing]

And let's also clarify that the Amendment states arms as in plural. There should be no restrictions on how many you can purchase or own.

Americans are wise people. They compromise. You cannot purchase automatic weapons for example. Or bazookas. Or grenade launchers. Or cannons.


But the snakes in the grass want more. They want that little snub nose.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You clearly have no idea how the law is written and the enormous amounts of restrictions that are already in place. Anything more and it becomes and infringement on our Constitutional rights. So, one more law and it becomes an infringement? What, "it" wasn't before? You are just making vague statements based on useless talking points.


You're the sad Northeasterner Liberal No, I'm the bored northeastern liberal that is getting tired of arguing with an idiot. You would be the mental baby whose candy I should be ashamed of stealing.
its not a "technicality" it's a fact.It's a technicality used by the mentally lazy and/or stupid to dodge an argument they can't win. The Bill of Rights originally permitted slavery. It's not a perfect, all-encompassing document. It was not written by God. Whether or not we should further regulate gun ownership and if so, how, is an important discussion that deserves better than a stupid response from the mentally lazy.
So you're trying to break down a right because of its age despite it still being interpreted as-is?No, my interest in gun regulation is about public safety, a fact that should be obvious.
We should first consider WHY the law was written, not WHEN. That law was meant to keep the public before the government. The states was founded because of governments dictating the people, which is why the preamble of the constitution is the following:



Now my interpretation of the second amendment is that the people can defend itself against a government that does not properly represent them. It's to prevent what had happened in Europe. That risk still is present and forever will be. Historically governments and empires do fall, sometimes at the hands of their own people for a better good. This right was to allow for that to be possible - and that's by preventing a 'police state.'To touch on something I freely admit I don't care about, the second amendment is actually this:


Right to bear arms

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.


You said, "my interpretation of the second amendment is that the people can defend itself against a government that does not properly represent them." That's a pretty wild interpretation. I would argue that it makes no sense whatsoever. The second amendment, as I interpret it (apparently English must be interpreted to English) does not advocate rebelling against the government. The "free State" that the well regulated Militia is supposed to be securing could be referring to one of the original states or the government, not totally sure. But there is certainly no reference to rebelling against the government. That's something created by some NRA think tank or whatever other right wing source. But it's not anywhere to be seen in the second amendment.

[NumberSix]

It's a technicality used by the mentally lazy and/or stupid to dodge an argument they can't win. The Bill of Rights originally permitted slavery. It's not a perfect, all-encompassing document. It was not written by God. Whether or not we should further regulate gun ownership and if so, how, is an important discussion that deserves better than a stupid response from the mentally lazy.
:wtf:

What do you mean by this?

[Bosnian Sajo]

This mentality is dumb as ****. You guys are living in a fantasy world that does not exist. It is not against the law for me to purchase a firearm and then sell it privately or give it as a gift to a friend or relative. What that person does with it is out of my control at that point. Get that through your thick skulls. Maybe your "taqiyah's" are on too tight.

wtf is a taqiyah :oldlol:

[lil jahlil]

You sound like the gestapo. We all know how that turned out.


Mind your own business with how people live their lives and the world will be fine in the end.

You suggesting that selling guns illegally should have no consequences if that gun is used for murder?

[lil jahlil]

Driving a car is not a right. Owning a firearm is.


There really is nothing much more to discuss between the two.
Only because of a document that was created before cars were. And amendments can change that.

[lil jahlil]

Look up the stats. Do your homework. Guns are regulated enough.

Meanwhile, the crazies are still walking the streets. Still plotting to kill. Meanwhile, criminals are buying guns off the street. Still plotting to kill.

The only acceptable solution to you people is a complete removal of weapons or some kind of system that tracks who owns what and where.

That will never, ever happen. Book it.


Go and debate guns with someone else who doesn't know as much and will actually take your ridiculous stance.

Criminals buy guns off the streets relatively cheaply just because of how easily guns are sold legally. In Australia, guns are heavily regulated and the black market cost for guns went way up, which has led to less criminals with guns on the street. They have also not had severe mass shootings since these rule changes.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The main purpose of the second amendment is simple. People have the right to take their own safety into their own hands. Unless the government wants to provide citizens with armed security guards, it has no business telling citizens that they can't guard themselves.

Funny, I thought the purpose of the 2nd amendment was for ordinary citizens to defend the state in a well-regulated militia.

Where can I get a copy of your fantasy version of the Constitution?

[lil jahlil]

Funny, I thought the purpose of the 2nd amendment was for ordinary citizens to defend the state in a well-regulated militia.

Where can I get a copy of your fantasy version of the Constitution?

And what do you know, people have never needed to defend themselves against the government in that fashion.

[Patrick Chewing]

wtf is a taqiyah :oldlol:


Exposed! Fake Muzzie on the board! I knew it!

[robert de niro]

The perfect law that would eliminate all violent crime is an unattainable goal. And the idea that that means no deterrent should ever be considered is stupid logic. You can buy a car and let your 10 year-old child drive it around, does that mean there's no reason to require drivers have a license?
https://41.media.tumblr.com/6a08e1cd571e766dc1fd8aacacc7771d/tumblr_n691o66yfR1qckp4qo1_540.png

[Patrick Chewing]

You suggesting that selling guns illegally should have no consequences if that gun is used for murder?


What are you talking about? I just told you that selling a gun through private channels is not illegal. Quit making shit up.

[west_tip]

https://41.media.tumblr.com/6a08e1cd571e766dc1fd8aacacc7771d/tumblr_n691o66yfR1qckp4qo1_540.png

:applause:

I used to shoot skeet and trap in the UK and the gun owning set that I encountered actually applauded and supported stringent gun ownership laws. Aside from the obvious public safety concerns ie. you don't want innocent civilians and kids getting killed they considered that the biggest threat to their ownership rights was posed by mass killings and the subsequent calls to ban guns by those on the political left. People don't want to have to give up their hobby because some teenage weirdo who can't get laid decides to shoot up a shopping mall.

Their reasoned and intelligent perspective contrasts sharply with the American gun lobby's mindset which, after a mass killing always tries to deflect on the issue and make it all about mental health as if other western, developed countries don't have mentally ill people in them. The other predictable gambit is to point out that other things (cars and knives) can kill people and ask "should we ban them too?". The American gun lobby have proven themselves completely unreasonable and do not believe they have any responsibility in helping reduce the homicide rate. Their selfishness, narcissism and entitlement in the face of innocent people getting killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is truly astounding.

These are people who championed the war on terror due to the death of 3,000 Americans in a one off terrorist attack but are seemingly unmoved that 30,000 Americans die every year at the hands of fellow Americans due to gun violence.

[iamgine]

Isn't it in the end based on the will of the people? If the vast majority of people want guns to be much more regulated, won't it be done?

[BigNBAfan]

So, one more law and it becomes an infringement? What, "it" wasn't before? You are just making vague statements based on useless talking points.

No, I'm the bored northeastern liberal that is getting tired of arguing with an idiot. You would be the mental baby whose candy I should be ashamed of stealing.It's a technicality used by the mentally lazy and/or stupid to dodge an argument they can't win. The Bill of Rights originally permitted slavery. It's not a perfect, all-encompassing document. It was not written by God. Whether or not we should further regulate gun ownership and if so, how, is an important discussion that deserves better than a stupid response from the mentally lazy.No, my interest in gun regulation is about public safety, a fact that should be obvious. To touch on something I freely admit I don't care about, the second amendment is actually this:


Right to bear arms

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.


You said, "my interpretation of the second amendment is that the people can defend itself against a government that does not properly represent them." That's a pretty wild interpretation. I would argue that it makes no sense whatsoever. The second amendment, as I interpret it (apparently English must be interpreted to English) does not advocate rebelling against the government. The "free State" that the well regulated Militia is supposed to be securing could be referring to one of the original states or the government, not totally sure. But there is certainly no reference to rebelling against the government. That's something created by some NRA think tank or whatever other right wing source. But it's not anywhere to be seen in the second amendment.

Wild interpretation? I think many share that opinion. It's to prevent governments from triumphing the people. It's to maintain a free state, not a police state.

My interpretation of state is their current standing. To maintain a free status. It also permits a RIGHT to a revolution if needed. It's to maintain a right for liberty. By allowing citizens to arm themselves, they give the ability to form a militia for a common cause.

[Rake2204]

:applause:

I used to shoot skeet and trap in the UK and the gun owning set that I encountered actually applauded and supported stringent gun ownership laws. Aside from the obvious public safety concerns ie. you don't want innocent civilians and kids getting killed they considered that the biggest threat to their ownership rights was posed by mass killings and the subsequent calls to ban guns by those on the political left. People don't want to have to give up their hobby because some teenage weirdo who can't get laid decides to shoot up a shopping mall.

Their reasoned and intelligent perspective contrasts sharply with the American gun lobby's mindset which, after a mass killing always tries to deflect on the issue and make it all about mental health as if other western, developed countries don't have mentally ill people in them. The other predictable gambit is to point out that other things (cars and knives) can kill people and ask "should we ban them too?". The American gun lobby have proven themselves completely unreasonable and do not believe they have any responsibility in helping reduce the homicide rate. Their selfishness, narcissism and entitlement in the face of innocent people getting killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is truly astounding.

These are people who championed the war on terror due to the death of 3,000 Americans in a one off terrorist attack but are seemingly unmoved that 30,000 Americans die every year at the hands of fellow Americans due to gun violence.Well stated. It's very difficult to wrap my head around this issue but it's a bummer to see such apparent extremes always getting pushed to the forefront from each side of the debate. It seems like there's a lot of rational people looking for rational answers but depending upon which side one may most lean, they get lumped in with the absolute worst opinions (ex: the "They wanna take all our guns!" crowd and the "No one has any reason to ever own a gun and guns are the only reason violence happens" crowd).

Tempered logic and reason, such as what you displayed, would be nice to see more frequently from leaders and officials.

[UK2K]

:applause:

I used to shoot skeet and trap in the UK and the gun owning set that I encountered actually applauded and supported stringent gun ownership laws. Aside from the obvious public safety concerns ie. you don't want innocent civilians and kids getting killed they considered that the biggest threat to their ownership rights was posed by mass killings and the subsequent calls to ban guns by those on the political left. People don't want to have to give up their hobby because some teenage weirdo who can't get laid decides to shoot up a shopping mall.

Their reasoned and intelligent perspective contrasts sharply with the American gun lobby's mindset which, after a mass killing always tries to deflect on the issue and make it all about mental health as if other western, developed countries don't have mentally ill people in them. The other predictable gambit is to point out that other things (cars and knives) can kill people and ask "should we ban them too?". The American gun lobby have proven themselves completely unreasonable and do not believe they have any responsibility in helping reduce the homicide rate. Their selfishness, narcissism and entitlement in the face of innocent people getting killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time is truly astounding.

These are people who championed the war on terror due to the death of 3,000 Americans in a one off terrorist attack but are seemingly unmoved that 30,000 Americans die every year at the hands of fellow Americans due to gun violence.

The US is, by far, the most heavily medicated country on the planet, at any point in history. To compare the mental health situation in America to 'other countries have mentally ill people' is being disingenuous.

Also, your last sentence is a lie. We discussed this already.

Oh, and its not entitlement. Its a constitutional right. And as far as I know, none of my guns have gone on a killing spree. I don't add to gun violence by owning firearms any more than you add to worldwide diabetes by eating fast food (unless of course, you are already fat).

[west_tip]

The US is, by far, the most heavily medicated country on the planet, at any point in history. To compare the mental health situation in America to 'other countries have mentally ill people' is being disingenuous.

Also, your last sentence is a lie. We discussed this already.

Oh, and its not entitlement. Its a constitutional right. And as far as I know, none of my guns have gone on a killing spree. I don't add to gun violence by owning firearms any more than you add to worldwide diabetes by eating fast food (unless of course, you are already fat).

See, gun rights activists try to deflect from the issue with the mental health red herring but I will humor you. Are people who are medicated prevented from owning a firearm and if not why not? Do people who purchase a firearm have to divulge their medical records and have a psychological evaluation prior to purchase? Again I ask the question, if not why not?

It's all well and good apportioning blame to mentally ill people, well, if that's the case then what precautionary measures are in place to prevent them from obtaining firearms?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Wild interpretation? I think many share that opinion. It's to prevent governments from triumphing the people. It's to maintain a free state, not a police state.

My interpretation of state is their current standing. To maintain a free status. It also permits a RIGHT to a revolution if needed. It's to maintain a right for liberty. By allowing citizens to arm themselves, they give the ability to form a militia for a common cause.
That's all very interesting but words have meanings and the words of the second amendment clearly don't mean what they think you do. If your interpretation had even a slight basis in reality you'd be pointing out how the words do mean what you're saying. Because the argument you have presented in place of that is worthless.

[Patrick Chewing]

That's all very interesting but words have meanings and the words of the second amendment clearly don't mean what they think you do. If your interpretation had even a slight basis in reality you'd be pointing out how the words do mean what you're saying. Because the argument you have presented in place of that is worthless.


I can lie and make shit up as I go too, just like you. But I have a backbone.

I mean, you must be some enlightened individual to see the Constitution completely differently than the rest of us. But how convenient that you see it to fit your agenda.

[9erempiree]

I can lie and make shit up as I go too, just like you. But I have a backbone.

I mean, you must be some enlightened individual to see the Constitution completely differently than the rest of us. But how convenient that you see it to fit your agenda.

..and we're suppose to be the irrational ones here.:oldlol:

[Real Men Wear Green]

I can lie and make shit up as I go too, just like you. But I have a backbone.

I mean, you must be some enlightened individual to see the Constitution completely differently than the rest of us. But how convenient that you see it to fit your agenda.
Ok then: Explain how
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.means:
the people can defend itself against a government that does not properly represent them.Or admit that you're a dumbass that always loses arguments.

[NumberSix]

That's all very interesting but words have meanings and the words of the second amendment clearly don't mean what they think you do. If your interpretation had even a slight basis in reality you'd be pointing out how the words do mean what you're saying. Because the argument you have presented in place of that is worthless.
Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that they mean exactly what he is claiming. I posted this in another thread to address another topic, but the part highlighted in red addresses this specifically.



District of Columbia v. Heller

The Supreme Court held:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

[dkmwise]

Ok then: Explain how means:Or admit that you're a dumbass that always loses arguments.


Hate to go against a fellow Celtics fan. But since the text of the second amendment simply says that people's rights to bear arms shouldn't be infringed on and doesn't go into detail to spell out why, people then look to other writings from the founding fathers to try and determine their motivation for putting this in the Constitution. Many of them wrote about the need to protect against a tyrannical government and even as far as that a period revolution in necessary.
So sure, that doesn't prove one way or the other, but there is some reason to believe that was the motivation.

[dkmwise]

I think a few of the OP's suggestions wouldn't be a bad thing, such as some type of state run training class. However insurance and annual fees and that stuff would just be crazy and increase a black market for guns.

People need to realize, there are over 300 million guns already in circulation in the U.S. You could 100% end gun sales today and there is still a gun for every american out there. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube here. Doesn't mean we can't implement some common sense laws, but trying to push extreme levels of regulation would not help solve any problem.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled that they mean exactly what he is claiming. I posted this in another thread to address another topic, but the part highlighted in red addresses this specifically.
And where in that does it talk about arming themselves against the government?
Hate to go against a fellow Celtics fan. But since the text of the second amendment simply says that people's rights to bear arms shouldn't be infringed on and doesn't go into detail to spell out why, people then look to other writings from the founding fathers to try and determine their motivation for putting this in the Constitution. Many of them wrote about the need to protect against a tyrannical government and even as far as that a period revolution in necessary.
So sure, that doesn't prove one way or the other, but there is some reason to believe that was the motivation.You can't point to something someone said outside of the Bill of Rights to say that is what the scond amendment actually means.

[~primetime~]

I think a few of the OP's suggestions wouldn't be a bad thing, such as some type of state run training class. However insurance and annual fees and that stuff would just be crazy and increase a black market for guns.

People need to realize, there are over 300 million guns already in circulation in the U.S. You could 100% end gun sales today and there is still a gun for every american out there. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube here. Doesn't mean we can't implement some common sense laws, but trying to push extreme levels of regulation would not help solve any problem.
regulating as much as cars is not 'extreme'


and you could 'put the toothpaste back'...it would just take decades

there aren't many guns from the 50s-60s floating around the black market...they do eventually break/get old etc

[9erempiree]

:facepalm

Yea lets go regulate the one thing that the Libs have been trying to regulate and you will see a domino effect with the start of new regulations for many different things.

That is why the 2nd amendment also represent freedom.

I don't expect the simpletons to get it. While they see and think 'guns'....we see it as an infringement on our rights.

[NumberSix]

And where in that does it talk about arming themselves against the government?
If you have another way of interpreting keeping the citizens armed in order to prevent the government from installing its own militia, I'd love to hear it.


You can't point to something someone said outside of the Bill of Rights to say that is what the scond amendment actually means.
of course you can. You can point to what the Supreme Court defines the bill of rights as saying. They have the authority to define what it says. They say it means something, that's what it means. They interpret it, not you.

[NumberSix]

regulating as much as cars is not 'extreme'


and you could 'put the toothpaste back'...it would just take decades

there aren't many guns from the 50s-60s floating around the black market...they do eventually break/get old etc
Actually, the most common gun floating around on the black market are old soviet era ak-47s.

[9erempiree]

If you have another way of interpreting keeping the citizens armed in order to prevent the government from installing its own militia, I'd love to hear it.


of course you can. You can point to what the Supreme Court defines the bill of rights as saying. They have the authority to define what it says. They say it means something, that's what it means. They interpret it, not you.

Our country is about laws and I find it funny that people still try and defy it when it's plain to see.

He sounds like another one of those sovereign citizen group.

[~primetime~]

Actually, the most common gun floating around on the black market are old soviet era ak-47s.
that can't be accurate...I've seen plenty of black market guns, I've even owned them...never seen an AK

[~primetime~]

maybe the AK is the most common black market gun WORLD WIDE...but not in the US

[NumberSix]

that can't be accurate...I've seen plenty of black market guns, I've even owned them...never seen an AK
Why would you? Unless you're in the market for buying or selling black market ak-47s, why would you see them?

[NumberSix]

maybe the AK is the most common black market gun WORLD WIDE...but not in the US
Well, yeah. That's the obvious implication.

[~primetime~]

Why would you? Unless you're in the market for buying or selling black market ak-47s, why would you see them?
because I have been around sellers of black market guns...hand guns out weigh all rifles by a very large margin from what I have seen

Also, in crimes, handguns outweigh AKs like 1,000 to 1....there were 14 deaths last year by "assaut rifle"...it wouldn't be that way if assault rifles were more common than handguns.

[dkmwise]

And where in that does it talk about arming themselves against the government?You can't point to something someone said outside of the Bill of Rights to say that is what the scond amendment actually means.

I didn't think the debate was about what it means, what it means is pretty clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. The debate was about their reasoning for putting it in there and looking at the writers personal opinions absolutely gives a window into their thought process.

[NumberSix]

because I have been around sellers of black market guns...hand guns out weigh all rifles by a very large margin from what I have seen

Also, in crimes, handguns outweigh AKs like 1,000 to 1....there were 14 deaths last year by "assaut rifle"...it wouldn't be that way if assault rifles were more common than handguns.
Well, world wide the majority of black market gun sales are for things like arming rebel groups. Obviously, some 20 year kid in Chicago isn't going to buy a rifle. He's going to buy a handgun he can easily walk around with concealed. We agree. In America, it's mainly a matter of hand guns.

[dkmwise]

regulating as much as cars is not 'extreme'


and you could 'put the toothpaste back'...it would just take decades

there aren't many guns from the 50s-60s floating around the black market...they do eventually break/get old etc

Many states regulation on cars are already extreme and cars are not protected by the constitution.

old guns may not be on the black market but they are still in possession and functioning, they get passed down generation to generation and as long as they are quality firearms and kept in decent shape they will function for many many years.

[~primetime~]

Many states regulation on cars are already extreme and cars are not protected by the constitution.

old guns may not be on the black market but they are still in possession and functioning, they get passed down generation to generation and as long as they are quality firearms and kept in decent shape they will function for many many years.
there aren't many of them though...WW2 era guns are viewed as antiques

I am not for banning guns, but if we did do that, there would be less and less guns on the black market over time...and they would become more and more expensive.

[dkmwise]

there aren't many of them though...WW2 era guns are viewed as antiques

I am not for banning guns, but if we did do that, there would be less and less guns on the black market over time...and they would become more and more expensive.

There would be less and they would be more expensive, for sure. But it would take 50+ years to really start seeing modern guns becoming too old for general use

[NumberSix]

there aren't many of them though...WW2 era guns are viewed as antiques

I am not for banning guns, but if we did do that, there would be less and less guns on the black market over time...and they would become more and more expensive.
But in this era where 3D printers are becoming available, a simple thing like a gun will be very easy to make. The criminals will always have guns.

[~primetime~]

Look, criminals could easily make automatic machine guns if they wanted...but since they are illegal they are extremely rare on the streets and the very expensive.

[Real Men Wear Green]

If you have another way of interpreting keeping the citizens armed in order to prevent the government from installing its own militia, I'd love to hear it. The government can't have it's own militia? What then is the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc? That would also mean that the police should be arresting themselves. You really should rethink this. I am not disputing that the second amendment grants the right to bear arms but this idea that it's so that citizens can take on the government is just strange. The government allows citizens to take on the government with weapos? You really think it works that way? Really?

[Real Men Wear Green]

I didn't think the debate was about what it means, what it means is pretty clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. The debate was about their reasoning for putting it in there and looking at the writers personal opinions absolutely gives a window into their thought process.
So if a citizen doesn't think their opinions are being represented in government they can take up weapons and take on the government? I feel quite sure that's not how it works. Actually, that sounds like a a good way to get shot by the police.

[dkmwise]

So if a citizen doesn't think their opinions are being represented in government they can take up weapons and take on the government? I feel quite sure that's not how it works. Actually, that sounds like a a good way to get shot by the police.

Ah, what ???????

[Real Men Wear Green]

Ah, what ???????
This is how BigNBAFan interpreted the second amendment, sparking this discussion:
the people can defend itself against a government that does not properly represent them.

[dkmwise]

This is how BigNBAFan interpreted the second amendment, sparking this discussion:

I was wondering why you quoted my statement and made that remark. I don't believe I ever typed anything advocating people take up arms against their government over a dispute on policy.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I was wondering why you quoted my statement and made that remark. I don't believe I ever typed anything advocating people take up arms against their government over a dispute on policy.
You didn't. But you should understand that that is what I was replying to if you are going to reply to me.

[dkmwise]

You didn't. But you should understand that that is what I was replying to if you are going to reply to me.



Today 05:36 PM
Real Men Wear Green
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkmwise
I didn't think the debate was about what it means, what it means is pretty clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. The debate was about their reasoning for putting it in there and looking at the writers personal opinions absolutely gives a window into their thought process.

So if a citizen doesn't think their opinions are being represented in government they can take up weapons and take on the government? I feel quite sure that's not how it works. Actually, that sounds like a a good way to get shot by the police.

[BigNBAfan]

So if a citizen doesn't think their opinions are being represented in government they can take up weapons and take on the government? I feel quite sure that's not how it works. Actually, that sounds like a a good way to get shot by the police.

Maybe i should clarify when i meant "represent them" - by them i meant the peoples rights that existed when it was written.


a more perfect union
justice
insure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare
secure the blessings of liberty

[NumberSix]

The government can't have it's own militia? What then is the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc? That would also mean that the police should be arresting themselves. You really should rethink this. I am not disputing that the second amendment grants the right to bear arms but this idea that it's so that citizens can take on the government is just strange. The government allows citizens to take on the government with weapos? You really think it works that way? Really?
Yes.

The United States has an army, but you might have noticed, the army does what it does in other countries, not on US soil. You don't see the United States government unleashing the army against its citizens the way you see in other countries. One of the safe guards against this is an armed population that could form a militia if need be.

Again, I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm telling you how the second amendment has been defined by the Supreme Court.

[9erempiree]

You didn't. But you should understand that that is what I was replying to if you are going to reply to me.
:facepalm

Mr. Semantics

[BigNBAfan]

The government can't have it's own militia? What then is the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, etc? That would also mean that the police should be arresting themselves. You really should rethink this. I am not disputing that the second amendment grants the right to bear arms but this idea that it's so that citizens can take on the government is just strange. The government allows citizens to take on the government with weapos? You really think it works that way? Really?

Yes, that is exactly what it means. It's to prevent a corrupt government that no longer provides what the constitution wants it to do, thus creates a militia - a group of individuals that share a common cause to protect their rights granted by the constitution.

In order to understand the constitution you have to have some empathy. Consider WHAT the founding fathers wanted to do and what they wanted the government to NOT become.

Consider the reasoning on forming their own country and gaining independence from the british rule...

[BigNBAfan]

And i also just want to say that most people have no defense when it comes to criminals. Police are not defenders, last i checked there isn't a police officer at your house to defend you.

There is a difference between defend and protect. By protecting, you are preventing something from occurring, and when it coems to the police... it generally requires their presence as criminals tend to be opportunistic.

Now defense, you're on your own. Do what you want when it comes to defense, a bat, a knife or whatever. But some will choose a firearm and that's their right. How they go about defending themselves should not be dictated by others.

With that said, i'm going to bed.

[longtime lurker]

Yes.

The United States has an army, but you might have noticed, the army does what it does in other countries, not on US soil. You don't see the United States government unleashing the army against its citizens the way you see in other countries. One of the safe guards against this is an armed population that could form a militia if need be.

Again, I'm not giving you my opinion. I'm telling you how the second amendment has been defined by the Supreme Court.

You're a bigger idiot than the guy in your profile picture if you really believe that.

[NumberSix]

You're a bigger idiot than the guy in your profile picture if you really believe that.
Believe what?

[Patrick Chewing]

You're a bigger idiot than the guy in your profile picture if you really believe that.


You truly think that the 300 million Americans and the third of those that are armed are going to willfully sit by and watch their government become tyrannical and totalitarian??

The United States is not 1940's Germany.

[lil jahlil]

What are you talking about? I just told you that selling a gun through private channels is not illegal. Quit making shit up.

The whole point of this thread was that laws need to change. I wasn't talking about the current laws.

[lil jahlil]

I think a few of the OP's suggestions wouldn't be a bad thing, such as some type of state run training class. However insurance and annual fees and that stuff would just be crazy and increase a black market for guns.

People need to realize, there are over 300 million guns already in circulation in the U.S. You could 100% end gun sales today and there is still a gun for every american out there. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube here. Doesn't mean we can't implement some common sense laws, but trying to push extreme levels of regulation would not help solve any problem.

Australia has done it. It is possible.

[dkmwise]

I think a few of the OP's suggestions wouldn't be a bad thing, such as some type of state run training class. However insurance and annual fees and that stuff would just be crazy and increase a black market for guns.

People need to realize, there are over 300 million guns already in circulation in the U.S. You could 100% end gun sales today and there is still a gun for every american out there. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube here. Doesn't mean we can't implement some common sense laws, but trying to push extreme levels of regulation would not help solve any problem.

Australia has done it. It is possible.

But now you are talking about confiscation and destruction of guns. I don't think anyone in the U.S. has ever talked about that. It seems the absolute farthest they would ever even consider going is to stop selling guns completely

[MMM]

See, gun rights activists try to deflect from the issue with the mental health red herring but I will humor you. Are people who are medicated prevented from owning a firearm and if not why not? Do people who purchase a firearm have to divulge their medical records and have a psychological evaluation prior to purchase? Again I ask the question, if not why not?

It's all well and good apportioning blame to mentally ill people, well, if that's the case then what precautionary measures are in place to prevent them from obtaining firearms?

Funny that this post was ignored

[BigNBAfan]

Funny that this post was ignored

It's being ignored because it's a dumb post and the answer can be found in mere seconds. Afterall, this is a discussion is it not? I expect some knowledge on how the transfer/purchase of a firearm works considering that's what's at debate. The ATF paper work has questions in regards to mental conditions, felonies, drugs and citizenship.

As for having a psychological examination done to own a firearm, that is and should be illegal. I do not believe anyone has to PROVE anything to MAINTAIN a right. It's a 'god given' right, but it can be provoked obviously if mentally unstable, criminal background etc.

Any increase in cost outside of DROS and FFT fees should be eliminated. Firearms are for protection. Those that need it for protection tend to live in lower SES areas and statistically have a lower income.

[KNOW1EDGE]

We should leave guns alone and work on being better human beings.

Having a child should be regulated like car ownership

[DonDadda59]

See, gun rights activists try to deflect from the issue with the mental health red herring but I will humor you. Are people who are medicated prevented from owning a firearm and if not why not? Do people who purchase a firearm have to divulge their medical records and have a psychological evaluation prior to purchase? Again I ask the question, if not why not?

It's all well and good apportioning blame to mentally ill people, well, if that's the case then what precautionary measures are in place to prevent them from obtaining firearms?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4

[lil jahlil]

We should leave guns alone and work on being better human beings.

Having a child should be regulated like car ownership
We should have both regulated.

[TheMan]

Regulate bullets.

To be able to buy ammo, you need to go through a battery of pyshcological tests and not be on medications of any kind.

There you have it, nobody would touch guns so your crazy NRA types would STFU because the 2nd Ammendment doesn't mention bullets at all. A bullet and a gun are two seperate entities :confusedshrug:

[warriorfan]

no they shouldn't

[BigNBAfan]

I swear this new generation America is completely spoiled and has no clue what the founding fathers experienced from a tyrannical government. Each year their freedom is stripped by a little. Eventually they'll realize they have none left and wont be able to revolt or flee like the founding fathers did because they let the government take control of them.

[dkmwise]

Forgot going after guns, I say we go straight after freedom of speech. Make it illegal to make a negative remark towards anyone and then these people who get picked on their whole life won't go on a killing spree. If you insult someone, 5 years in jail mandatory. I mean, freedom of speech is really so outdated when you think about it

[NumberSix]

Regulate bullets.

To be able to buy ammo, you need to go through a battery of pyshcological tests and not be on medications of any kind.

There you have it, nobody would touch guns so your crazy NRA types would STFU because the 2nd Ammendment doesn't mention bullets at all. A bullet and a gun are two seperate entities :confusedshrug:
The 2nd amendment mentions "arms." Do you honestly think that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether "arms" includes bullets?

[Goro]

Forgot going after guns, I say we go straight after freedom of speech. Make it illegal to make a negative remark towards anyone and then these people who get picked on their whole life won't go on a killing spree. If you insult someone, 5 years in jail mandatory. I mean, freedom of speech is really so outdated when you think about it

That is extreme, but I do want some limits on freedom of speech.

[Goro]

The 2nd amendment mentions "arms." Do you honestly think that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether "arms" includes bullets?

Obama is trying to take our arms away!

[TheMan]

The 2nd amendment mentions "arms." Do you honestly think that the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether "arms" includes bullets?
I don't know, you tell me...link?

[dkmwise]

That is extreme, but I do want some limits on freedom of speech.

It was sarcasm. I really didn't think anyone would be for limiting speech.

[Goro]

It was sarcasm. I really didn't think anyone would be for limiting speech.
I am, particularly hate speeches.

[BigNBAfan]

I am, particularly hate speeches.

Get the **** outta here

[NumberSix]

I am, particularly hate speeches.
What's hate speech?