Erm, well my scary black AR-15 is used for hunting. It's a good rifle, and the second amendment calls for the people to be armed in order to form a well regulated militia. How good is a militia if it isn't beyond hunting rifles.
Obama's Newest Gun-Control Executive Orders.
- 主题发起人 darthtaco123
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
- 状态
Militias aren't a main fighting force, in the case a militia was needed it would receive aid, and instruction from the military. A militia is meant to act in it's area of location, it's purely defensive. Militias aren't going to be used to attack entire military bases.
The second amendment was the most stupid idea in the entire creation of the republic. :/
They say they needed personal access to firearms to threaten the government, but there has always been the ability to overthrough a government without them. France, Germany, Russia...etc. :I
Only antiques should be allowed for ownage.
They say they needed personal access to firearms to threaten the government, but there has always been the ability to overthrough a government without them. France, Germany, Russia...etc. :I
Only antiques should be allowed for ownage.
Mage246
They said they needed guns because they needed guns to fight the British, so if the Brits had banned guns back then the colonists would have been ****ed. They didn't envision that there would come a time when guns would be much more effective killing tools that would nevertheless be relatively ineffective for opposing the government.
The biggest mistake in all American legislation is the idea that the founding fathers were psychics and had any idea of the type of **** we'd be getting in our hands in the future. The Bill of Rights was crafted with an 18th-century nation in mind, not the technological ****ing juggernauts we have now. ****ernauts.
Odyseuss 说:
That doesn't mean less violent crimes will be committed, though. Treating symptoms is fine on a small scale, but the entirety of the United States isn't small scale. A real solution can come from treating the source, which is the criminal him/herself. Then you not only have less lives lost, but you also have less attempts at lives being made, which is better for the well-being of everyone.
Seff 说:
It's antiquated. Using the militia argument to defend gun control is rather silly. Any on-the-spot militia in this day and age wouldn't be effective in the least. There's also the fact that the "militia" in the United States is the National Guard, which performs the duties a militia would be expected to perform (emergency policing, disaster relief, etc.) and is an actual militarized entity.
Kobrag 说:
Context. The original bill of rights was written five or six years after the American revolutionary war, where the only remaining means of securing independence from an oppressive government was force. A repeat was a very real possibility to them.
Personally I'm fairly conservative, I believe the constitution was made to be the governing force of the nation. To alter what the founding fathers wrote is to begin dismantling the foundation of the nation. Sure, it might be replaced by new ideas, but then we become something we aren't. We were designed as a constitutional republic, and a constitutional republic we should stay.
Mage246
The Constitution has been repeatedly amended. It doesn't matter if you're conservative or anything else - if the Constitution is wrong, you're supposed to fix it. That's why they created the amendment process.
FrisianDude
Archduke
the founding fathers don't know **** about modern issues and it's patently childish to defer any thoughts as to how the country should be run to the wastebin just because some centuries-dead plonkers might have disagreed with it.
Of course not. So the **** what? I don't know about you but I'd rather have a large amount of injuries over the same amount of deaths. The very possibility that the violent crimes become less lethal is a very reasonable motivation.
Orion 说:
Of course not. So the **** what? I don't know about you but I'd rather have a large amount of injuries over the same amount of deaths. The very possibility that the violent crimes become less lethal is a very reasonable motivation.
Odyseuss 说:
Not to the people who put it on a pedestal. The Bible, ironic as it is to say this, does have some wisdom in the area of not propping up and worshiping idols. Yet here we are with the untouchable Constitution. They weren't geniuses. They weren't visionaries. Our founding fathers were just regular flawed dudes, many of whom didn't even want to break away from Britain, but their hand was forced. They had good ideas, and bad ones, and if I were them I'd be insulted if people treated my ideas like gospel out of a misplaced sense of patriotism.
Odyseuss 说:
Try finding a crime committed with a fully-automatic weapon. They don't happen nearly at all. It's fear-mongering crap to even bring up the idea of a "military style weapon". Christopher Lane was killed by a pistol chambered in .22 LR. More crimes are committed by low powered weapons as to make the idea of banning more powerful weapons a step in the completely wrong direction. We need to instead just get over our obsession with size and decide that all firearms are equally dangerous in the wrong hands. Banning "military surplus" or "assault weapons" (whatever the fear-mongers want to label them) is not even addressing the issue.
Lord Burgess1
Kobrag 说:
26 times I think.
Mage246
Tibertus 说:
No, they're not "equally dangerous in the wrong hands". One is objectively more dangerous than the other, and it's a damned good thing that the more dangerous type isn't used more often in crimes. Let's try to keep it that way by making sure that won't change.
The thing is, every weapon is lethal if it's in the wrong hands. Scissors are at one moment a tool used to cut paper, the next, they're jammed in someone's eye. One moment you're plinking some rounds off with a .22, the next someone is riddled with .22 bullets. Sure, higher caliber firearms possess more powers, but if any weapon is used with efficiency it will be come equally lethal.
FrisianDude
Archduke
No, you can't seriously think that someone being efficient at killing with scissors is even remotely as lethal as someone efficient with firearms.
- 状态
类似的主题
