Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

The 2nd Amendment

profile picture
Frank_Spinatra
Posts: 1203 - Karma: 75
"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."

I'm not into the shit-show debates that have been going on regarding "free-thinking" or Darwin so instead i thought we could discuss the Constitution a bit.  Whats your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment??

Personally, I have no problem with people free of a criminal record who were able to make it through screening and background checks to purchase reasonable firearms.  By reasonable I mean rifles/shotguns/hand guns for hunting and home protection.  I have an issue with concealed weapons in public especially without a permit (which are becoming extremely difficult to get) and I think there is absolutely no reason for people to require automatic weapons, assault rifles, .50 sniper rifles, etc.  Some people feel it is their duty to exercise this right (NRA, etc) but I feel it is excessive and often ends up in the wrong hands.  Regulation is a difficult prospect and I don't have a great idea personally for how to go about it.

Summary - Are you Pro or Anti gun.
Aug 25 2009 6:32AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
in the constitution, at the time it was written, it was providing the people the power to hold the weapons present in the army they were fighting.

the way i see it, it's supposed to be providing the people the power to take down an oppressing army, therefore, i think if you really think that the 2nd amendment is worth upholding, it means you think everyone should have the right to army competitive guns.


Aug 25 2009 6:59AM
0 0
profile picture
T.L.
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 3,008
I practiced my 2nd amendment last night.  Went out and got a sick all weather, stainless steel action Ruger 10/22, 2-30 round mags, and a brick of 500 rounds (wont last long).  Get while we still have a constitution suckers!!!

Seriously though I think the whole "an armed society is a polite society" thing is 100% accurate.  I'm all for level headed law, abiding citizens owning firearms.
Aug 25 2009 8:33AM
0 0
profile picture
fence_steeze
Posts: 79 - Karma: 27
I just watched some documentary on kids with firearms....There was this one old guy who had customized a marines sniper rifle so that a 8 year old kid could use it...

It also threw up some pretty interesting facts like apparently in the states there are more gun shops than McDonalds, and on average some one is accidentally killed by a fire arm every 3 hours...

Pretty messed up. But that's coming from a New Zealand perspective were our cops don't even carry guns.
Aug 25 2009 8:44AM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,684
100% behind it.
legalize automatic weapons too.
Aug 25 2009 8:50AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
can i has a tank too?
Aug 25 2009 8:52AM
0 0
profile picture
Hansel.
Posts: 4583 - Karma: 112
im behind it for like home protection, hunting etc. as long as there is a background check. Now what I do not support is that pretty much anyone can pick up a military grade weapon. I believe if you have the need to have one of those you better have been a former or current soldier. I see no reason for the public man who has a "semi automatic" gun. I think there should be a limit on which guns you can buy before needing military training.
Aug 25 2009 8:53AM
0 0
profile picture
Inbred_Redneck
Posts: 2776 - Karma: 28
Target shooting?

Automatics are just fun to shoot. And semi autos are very legal. I hunt, fish, and go shooting with my friends all the time. Shooting is a blast, and I support the 2nd amendment all the way.
Aug 25 2009 9:00AM
0 0
profile picture
Hansel.
Posts: 4583 - Karma: 112
i love target shooting, but as i stated before i just think that before being able to buy military grade weapons they need military training. be it a m16, .50 sniper, or mini uzi. i believe they need proper military training.
Aug 25 2009 9:05AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.O
Posts: 1582 - Karma: 23
Aug 25 2009 9:16AM
0 0
profile picture
SteezyasPie
Posts: 1160 - Karma: 15
i agree 100%
Aug 25 2009 9:27AM
0 0
profile picture
SkierX
Posts: 16253 - Karma: 538
And therein lies the trouble in trying to literally interpret a document that was writing in a totally different generation.
Aug 25 2009 9:38AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
i totally understand and agree with you
Aug 25 2009 10:01AM
0 0
profile picture
SkierX
Posts: 16253 - Karma: 538
And by writing I meant written.

I was without my morning java at that point.

:)
Aug 25 2009 10:08AM
0 0
profile picture
grown-ninja
Posts: 3031 - Karma: 175

ever since Woodrow Wilson adopted a living constitution we started a down hill spiral, straying away from our founding principals, all firearms should be legal, take a look back in history, one of the first things all dictators who have committed human rights atrocities do is take away your right to bear arms

Aug 25 2009 10:15AM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
just a question for the hard core 2nd amendment supporters, how do you feel about citizen owned and operated missiles? obviously they are a serious investment, especially the type that aren't shoulder mounted, but would be absolutely necessary if we're talking about being capable of combating our own army.
Aug 25 2009 10:17AM
0 0
profile picture
sklermang
Posts: 2981 - Karma: 1,954
That has always been my impression of it.
Aug 25 2009 10:18AM
0 0
profile picture
grown-ninja
Posts: 3031 - Karma: 175

People need to be able to defend them selves from every one including the government; missiles and rockets are totally different than automatic weapons

"When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.

For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify."

Aug 25 2009 10:40AM
0 0
profile picture
T.L.
Posts: 4729 - Karma: 3,008
I just did.  Last night.  When I bought my weapon after a mandatory background check.

The people that have no business owning a firearm are the mentally unstable, or felons who have clearly demonstrated they are capable of committing a serious enough crime.
Aug 25 2009 10:45AM
0 0
profile picture
andrew.
Posts: 2349 - Karma: 165
im anti gun. im not a violent person, and i never will be. i dont feel its necessary to own a gun unless you hunt or want a gun somewhere in your house for safety reasons. i guess im really just against concealed weapons. they just dont make that much sense to me.
Aug 25 2009 10:51AM
0 0
profile picture
Frank_Spinatra
Posts: 1203 - Karma: 75
I'm impressed by how well this has gone so far, somewhat surprised by how many people support it literally, and that no one's been like "yeah guns are fuckin sweet lets shoot some shit!" (although it is fun)

My question now is do you think that there is something in our American mentality that makes us less responsible with guns than other countries.  I dont have any stats on gun deaths per capita or anything to say that we do necessarily have a bigger problem with other countries, but it does seem like a lot of American's can be pretty reckless (not everyone, a lot of people I know are very safe gun owners who take a lot of precautions to make sure accidents dont happen).
Aug 25 2009 5:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Kajex
Posts: 1069 - Karma: 178
im pretty sure that the majority of gun related crimes in the united states are committed with weapons that are not registered / sold legally.  taking away the 2nd amendment right wouldn't make it that much more difficult for those people to acquire their illegal arms anyway.
Aug 25 2009 5:51PM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,684
the Taliban is pretty well with out them.
The resistances in WWII did pretty well with out tanks and airplanes.

Large scale weapons are necessary in an open pitched war.

they are not necessary to conduct an insurgency or guerilla war, which is what citizens would turn to if their government oppressed them.
Aug 25 2009 5:56PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61648 - Karma: 123,472
Click for larger image
Aug 25 2009 6:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7875 - Karma: 24,674
Even if you could stockpile tanks in your own home you would get fucked up by the government if they came to take you out. Predator drone to the dome from 35,000 feet. Its pointless, we're all hostages and slaves. Resistance is futile.
Aug 25 2009 6:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Lanceasaurus
Posts: 925 - Karma: 109
I was at Costco and we were getting gas and this dude had a huge pistol attached to his chest is freaked the fuck out of me because it wasn't even concealed or any thing and nobody even cared and I was like WTF seriously people can just walk around with guns out like that and I checked his license plate he wasn't a cop that's for sure.
Aug 25 2009 6:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Smuffy
Posts: 4686 - Karma: 3,408
i am very against guns, simple as that. however, i am ok with them as long as they are used correctly.

simply put, i think guns should be hard to get and easy to lose.
Aug 25 2009 7:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Inbred_Redneck
Posts: 2776 - Karma: 28
I've been raised around guns my whole life and went hunting at the age of 4 for the first time. I've gone through hunters safety and all that jazz and now do all kinds of hunting and shooting. The only thing I believe should happen is background checks when buying weapons as well as being required to attend a shooters safety course (similiar to hunters safety, but without the hunting aspect). Most accidents happen because of ignorance or being wreckless.

That being said my next buy is a Marlin 336, .30-30 lever action. (I love old cowboy guns)
Aug 25 2009 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
Phill.
Posts: 1149 - Karma: 37
funny you say that cause some kids at purdue pulled a prank on another kid, pointing guns at him, turned out one of the guns were loaded... the kid got shot in the throat and died... idiots...

Aug 25 2009 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
if that's the case, and i'll grant it to you,  then why the fuck do we need to spend so much money on our military?

If it's an effective method of protection, i know a country that could save a lot of money, not funding an imperialistic army.
Aug 25 2009 9:50PM
0 0
profile picture
DirtyDan
Posts: 1576 - Karma: 158
I think everyone should get any weapon they want without background checks. It would make things very interesting, almost post apocalyptic -esque like fallout 3.
Aug 25 2009 9:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Nicholas.
Posts: 10905 - Karma: 60
did you know that if you run a state militia (anyone can do it, as long as they are clean obviously) you are automatically granted a class 3 weapons license? automatics, tanks, any fucking thing the military is allowed to use. my friends grandfather runs the vt state militia, its awesome.

very, very few of the people who own these guns are insane, the are average people who enjoy shooting, and like the comfort of being able to defend themselves if, god forbid, something happens. they take gun safety SO seriously, and the accidents that happen are when people are not properly handling them. that said, i think some states are way too easy on concealed carry laws, my brother carries a 9mm everywhere he goes but he had to take no classes or formal training...luckily he is a level headed individual and takes it into his own hands to teach himself concealed carry rules...however,any yahoo in VT right now with a clean record can go right out and get whatever they want without any training.

i fully support the second amendment, but restrictions need to be tighter in some places.
Aug 25 2009 10:06PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
let me pose this. would a sever crackdown on guns effect: A. joe sixpack who wants to own a handgun. or B. tommy gun toting criminal.

o yes, thats right im assuming that by definition criminals dont obey laws..
Aug 25 2009 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Frank_Spinatra
Posts: 1203 - Karma: 75
ok - since i originally posted this thread i'll admit that i have become somewhat convinced of the idea that it is good for responsible Americans to have guns because i dont think we should blindly follow our government, and as a last resort, as it even says in the constitution, we need to be able to overthrow an unjust government.  I do not think that this means every american needs an m16 because with 350 million americans you could do a whole lot with hunting rifles and pistols. I just think that as someone previously said, it should be hard to get guns and easy to take them away.  this does not mean that the government should ever deny someone from a gun who has proven themselves responsible and without a violent record.  We just need to be more careful with them.  And i still think there is no reason to need a concealed weapon in public.
Aug 25 2009 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
skiminnesota
Posts: 9093 - Karma: 429
ill get my hands dirty... do you honestly expect American soldiers to go door to door with AK47s and RPGs? or maybe its that we have discovered much more effective ways to deal with a problem. (i realize Americans do fight door to door)

shit, who really needs that car right? we got along just fine with horses right? same with candles to lightbulbs. 

i would also ask if you are so worked up about the apparent dangers of a big military, are you equally worked up over the other facets of government that may be to large and consequently impeding the freedom of its citizens.. or does this outrage only come out when talking about guns?
Aug 25 2009 11:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Shredneck
Posts: 2051 - Karma: -32
Everyone should have the right to bear arms, EVERYONE
Aug 25 2009 11:07PM
0 0
profile picture
RUSH1329
Posts: 100 - Karma: 15
amen to that brother, i shoot a browning buckmark pistol, .22LR, so cheap to plink and a shit ton of fun...
Aug 25 2009 11:12PM
0 0
profile picture
pmills
Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59
nice job not even paying attention to an argument, making up your own opposing view, and enlightening nobody.

why would i expect the military to go door to door with guns? are you talking about something  the girl scouts do with cookies? (as a further jab, why ak's, i'd go USA ar15 over the soviet Kalashnikov)

here are the two contradictory claims to be resolved; either

a. per 2nd amendment, citizens have the power to protect themselves from oppressive military force and thus could in turn acquire weapons systems rivaling that found in the military -- i'd personally be stoked on an Apache chopper  for myself

or

b. automatic rifles a la. al quaeda are an effective enough tool to provide protection for the homeland and therefore the military we have now is grossly over funded and redundant
Aug 25 2009 11:16PM
0 0
profile picture
saucybiscuits
Posts: 2554 - Karma: 173
if nobody had a gun, nobody would need a gun.
Aug 25 2009 11:20PM
0 0
profile picture
caucasian_chad
Posts: 4078 - Karma: 3,625
well yeah, making gun ownership illegal will just create more criminals and another black market, but thats a whole different story.

so yes, we should be allowed to own guns, but civilians don't need military grade arms.  I don't care what you legalize, there's no way a group of citizens could stand against our military in this day and age.  Technology is too far advanced, its not muskets vs muskets anymore, and soldiers get much better tactiacal training than when the Constitution was written (their not standing in a field shooting at each other anymore).
Aug 25 2009 11:21PM
0 0
profile picture
RUSH1329
Posts: 100 - Karma: 15
dudes u guys need to educate yourselves on somethings. most ammunitions, whether it be the civilian .223/ mil spec 5.56 nato can be used in an assault rifle as well as hunting rifles. the famous m1 garand and m1 carbine use .30-06 ammo which is also VERY popular for deer hunting because of its accuracy. the replacement in the 50's was the .308 because it is more accurate, the .308 is probably one of the most popular hunting rounds ever, it's metric counterpart is the 7.62 which is used in the ak47, same round, different measuring system. ANY AND EVERY military round can be used in hunting rifles, as long as the gun is chamber to allow it. an m1 garand military weapon is no more dangerous than the hunting rifle using the same ammo. is .50 BMG cal rifle round really necessary? sure why not. do u kno how expensive .50 cal ammo is, let alone the weapon? $5 a round in most mom and pop shops. the only way it is cheaper is if you reload yourself. its not the people with registered firearms that cause the problem, its the ones who buy them from the back of a car that cause most problems. most registered gun owners take pride in their firearms and are usually well manored in firearm safety. firearms are very safe when they are treated properly, yes accidents happen but there is absolutely no reason to punish law abiding citizens who enjoy hunting and competion shooting and target shooting, especially when the legal owners are not the real root of the problem. talk smack all you want but i would never give up my second amendment rights
Aug 25 2009 11:38PM
0 0
profile picture
Smuffy
Posts: 4686 - Karma: 3,408
most sensible thing in this thread so far
Aug 26 2009 12:13AM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,684
most people prefer to let others be the ones getting killed.

a guerilla force is useless against an opponent who has little wish of being seen as a legitimate government sometime in the future. So if we had decided to wage war against Afghanistan as a whole, rather then just the Taliban we would be done by the time you read this, and your online while I am posting. The problem is we are trying to win over the population (something a totalitarian government would want to do), and wholesale bombing of villages generally make the population hate you.

For example, stopping japan at the end of WWII, they were going to keep fighting until they all died fighting, we just wanted to stop them from fighting, if we had done an assault of the main islands we would have been unable to maintain any control.
but having a real military we showed that by neglecting to care about the citizens we could kill every one in japan with out losing a single soldier sailor or marine. You can not do that if you only have a guerilla force.
It is very hard to get someone to stop fighting when you only have a guerilla force.

A set of local militias is also very poor at insuring the safety of your citizens oversees or protecting international trade interests.

U.S. citizens can generally be assured fair treatment oversees by other governments, because if the foreign governments made a practice of abusing US citizens they would find themselves with out a country pretty soon. This is generally speculation, because there are not alot of governments stupid enough to do it.

Protecting trade interests is actually the main reason that the United States developed a full size military. Up until the early 1800's the only real military in the United States was local militia and a small navy for protecting costal waters. The result was that Merchant ships flying the U.S. flag had little protection once they lost sight of North America. United States merchant men in the Mediterranean were often attacked by pirates operating out of Africa. British ships were not because the Sultan's did not really want to piss off HMRN. The result was the construction of an actual U.S. navy, which was then sent to the Mediterranean to kick the ass out of the Arab pirates. Which they did, and when their were American navel ships patrolling the sea the pirates stopped attacking the US merchants.
Just a few years later the United States entered the war of 1812 to again protect the rights of American shipping, in regards to how they were being treated by other navies.
In another 100 years the United States went to war with Germany to protect American shipping.
A group of local militias is unable to do any of the above.
Aug 26 2009 12:21AM
0 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7875 - Karma: 24,674

I think it just depends on your exposure growing up. If you are from a rural area, everyone owns a gun, it is a tool. The vast majority use them responsibly and accidents are rare.

If you grow up in a metropolitan area, your exposure to weapons is almost exclusively through violent crime, whether it be first hand or otherwise. Most weapons involved in these crimes are illegally purchased and possessed.

Its not suprising that people would have different viewpoints on guns then.

With that said, people get really worked up about getting their guns taken away in this country and its a false paranoia. In my view, guns are probably the most unrestricted activity that we have. If I want to drive a car, I gotta get insurance, I gotta get a license, I gotta go to the DMV and get tabs, pall all these taxes, fill out a million forms, take a class, take a test, and operate my vehicle within extremely strict parameters for the sake of public safety. If I want to drink beer, I have to have previously gotten a drivers licence, go to the specifically sanctioned store, prove who I am, be a specific age, keep it in the bag, I can't drink it in public, I can't give it to anyone that isn't 21, I can't resell it, I can't drink it in a car, I can't do a million other things. If I want to smoke pot, fuck that you go to jail. But as a non felon I can pretty much go down to my local sporting goods store and get enough semi-automatic rifles and full auto conversion kits off the internet to kill half the town with pretty minimal hassle.

Basically what I'm saying is, for the amount of people that are murdered every year in this country, its not that big of a deal to wait 2 days to get your shit, considering I would gladly wait two days to buy an ounce of weed legally. I would really welcome the day we could live in a serious country where people can have the freedom to make rational decisions about their own lives.

Aug 26 2009 12:36AM
0 0
profile picture
noparking
Posts: 1123 - Karma: 50
You can already buy automatic weapons if you want to spend the money and the time on it. I believe in the right to own guns and exercise that right. When I get around to it I'll take my CCW class. As far as the people in this thread saying if no one owned guns no one would need them. Last time I checked no all crimes were committed by people with guns. I would rather have them and not need to use them, to need them and not have them.
Aug 26 2009 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
masta_LE3B
Posts: 3397 - Karma: 62
i live in alaska, of coarse im pro guns

i think snipers and assault rifles are over the top, since they were designed to kill people at a great range or in succsesion.

but ya, i own a few guns my self, from shotguns, to lil .22 pistols.

a funny thing i herd a lil bit ago was

" If guns are responsible for crime, then pencils are responsible for misspelled word"
Aug 26 2009 12:48AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)