The 2nd Amendment

[Tarheeler]

But even that is not what the amendment was for. Its purpose was to insure the country from possible despotism by the "executive power," utilizing the people (as militia). It's about the country, not the people.

"A well-regulated militia" defines the "why" of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Removing the clause effectively removes the sole reason for the amendment's existence. And the way I see it, if this reason is no longer valid then there is no reason to retain the amendment. If the people want the right to buy Pop Tarts then let them petition their Congressmen for it.

I'm suggesting changing the "why".

 

[Reverend Rick]

Equal rights means a 100 pound woman may carry a gun to fend off a 300 pound man.

 

[Ouroboros]

Equal rights means a 100 pound woman may carry a gun to fend off a 300 pound man.

As long as the gun isn't 200 pounds or above.

 

[Apex]

Equal rights means a 100 pound woman may carry a gun to fend off a 300 pound man.

Speaking of such...
Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point - CNN.com

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Speaking of such...
Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point - CNN.com

Did she shoot him with an AR15...?......

 

[Apex]

Did she shoot him with an AR15...?......

Nope, and neither have posters been arguing that as the main reason to keep them legal either. Nice try though.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Nope, and neither have posters been arguing that as the main reason to keep them legal either. Nice try though.

Yea...she should have shot hem dead with her .38. If he was in my house the coroner would be pulling a 9mm slug out of him....but no one is proposing removing these guns from us.....

 

[Apex]

Yea...she should have shot hem dead with her .38. If he was in my house the coroner would be pulling a 9mm slug out of him....but no one is proposing removing these guns from us.....

Are you familiar with the "First they came for the..."?

 

[Skwim]

Speaking of such...
Gun rights groups say Georgia home invasion proves their point - CNN.com

And, one swallow does not a summer make.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Are you familiar with the "First they came for the..."?

Or the Slippery Slope fallacy?

 

[Apex]

Or the Slippery Slope fallacy?

Not in this case. People are clamoring to have the weapons that are responsible for less than 4% of all firearm deaths banned. If they get their way, the other +96% of deaths will still continue. Once they realized that they just banned the firearms responsible for the smallest numbers of deaths, they will then clamor to have the next group of weapons banned. And so on. It is not a very far fetched idea.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Not in this case. People are clamoring to have the weapons that are responsible for less than 4% of all firearm deaths banned. If they get their way, the other +96% of deaths will still continue. Once they realized that they just banned the firearms responsible for the smallest numbers of deaths, they will then clamor to have the next group of weapons banned. And so on. It is not a very far fetched idea.

You do realize that many "clammoring" for firearm reform are firearm owners.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Are you familiar with the "First they came for the..."?

Why....because it sounds like fear mongering. Requiring universal and a more robust comprehensive background checks, limiting high capacity clips and banning combat weapons has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment at all. No one is coming for your guns......

 

[tumbleweed41]

..or your PopTarts.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not in this case. People are clamoring to have the weapons that are responsible for less than 4% of all firearm deaths banned. If they get their way, the other +96% of deaths will still continue. Once they realized that they just banned the firearms responsible for the smallest numbers of deaths, they will then clamor to have the next group of weapons banned. And so on. It is not a very far fetched idea.

It's not far fatched because as a pinko-lefty libral gun toting hunter I find your assertion rediculous and without merit....

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I voted "yes", it's still relevant. I'm not absolutely certain, though.

 

[tumbleweed41]

It's not far fatched because as a pinko-lefty libral gun toting hunter I find your assertion rediculous and without merit....

This :yes:

 

[Reverend Rick]

All this gun control talk is just an emotional response and will not achieve the desired results.

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.

The only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

If certain guns are outlawed, you just created a lucrative black market for them which will make them more accessible to the bad guys.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nonsense. Cautionary tales from the ludicrous-fringe notwithstanding, democratic society is far more threatened by paranoid stormfront militias that wrap themselves in the 2nd amendment and ignore the rest.

"Nonesense" might be diplomatic description of refusal to acknowledge scenarios other than a singular extreme
civil war with WMDs, & labeling us "fringe" types as "stormfront militias". Geeze, let go of the hate, fella.
There is merit to be found on multiple sides of this argument (when one sifts thru the bull sublithic coprolites).
To pick a side shouldn't blind us to the others.

 

[Apex]

Why....because it sounds like fear mongering. Requiring universal and a more robust comprehensive background checks, limiting high capacity clips and banning combat weapons has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment at all. No one is coming for your guns......

The only thing I oppose in your post is the banning of combat weapons. And I happen to own one, so yes, they are coming for my gun.