The founding fathers didn't write the 2A for hunting

unsung

josevolution wrote:

There is a big difference between a Musket and AK 45 no ...

really? there's a big difference between writing with a quill pen and typing on an ipad, no?

josevolution

unsung wrote:

josevolution wrote:

There is a big difference between a Musket and AK 45 no ...

really? there's a big difference between writing with a quill pen and typing on an ipad, no?

What are you so afraid of, all people wan't is some stricter laws you can keep your hunting guns the machineguns need to go surely you can see that no ...

unsung

Machine guns have been banned from civilian use since 1964.


And again the 2A wasn't written to hunt.

josevolution

unsung wrote:

Machine guns have been banned from civilian use since 1964.


And again the 2A wasn't written to hunt.

You know damn well what i mean again what are you afraid of ?

unsung

Some more Jefferson quotes....

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

unsung

josevolution wrote:

unsung wrote:

Machine guns have been banned from civilian use since 1964.


And again the 2A wasn't written to hunt.

You know damn well what i mean again what are you afraid of ?

Not a damn thing.

josevolution

So you wan't status quo fine why don't you just say so , you wan't nothing changed even after the evnts of the past weekend i can respect you for that stance ...

unsung

I never said that. If you want to have a discussion with me then stop putting words into my mouth.

I do believe there needs to be a ban, a ban on drugs that change the brain so that the person doesn't know reality. ALL ALL ALL of these shooters are mentally screwed up in some fashion. There isn't a logically sane one in the bunch. Everyone here screams ban this type of gun or ban this type of magazine... but very few look towards fixing the source of the problem. Guns don't shoot themselves, we need to get to the bottom of why people feel like they should kill other people.

gimmesometruth27

for fucks sakes, guns are the instrument to kill people. period. it doesn't matter who pulls the trigger. once the trigger is pulled a body is gonna stop that bullet and nothing else.

people keep attacking meds. meds alter the brain chemistry in attempt to get it back to normal. all depression is is is a chemical imbalance and a lack of dopamine or serotonin. the meds help to correct that balance.

josevolution

unsung wrote:

I never said that. If you want to have a discussion with me then stop putting words into my mouth.

I do believe there needs to be a ban, a ban on drugs that change the brain so that the person doesn't know reality. ALL ALL ALL of these shooters are mentally screwed up in some fashion. There isn't a logically sane one in the bunch. Everyone here screams ban this type of gun or ban this type of magazine... but very few look towards fixing the source of the problem. Guns don't shoot themselves, we need to get to the bottom of why people feel like they should kill other people.

That's it ban drugs no banning of any weapons at all even the staunches of conservatives believe we need to at least ban the types of weapons that have been used in the past two mass murder cases , i would def wan't better treatment of the mentally i'll but you have to meet us half way on something no ...`

magga1976

"Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection" - John Howard (former Australian Prime Minister)

unsung

josevolution wrote:

unsung wrote:

I never said that. If you want to have a discussion with me then stop putting words into my mouth.

I do believe there needs to be a ban, a ban on drugs that change the brain so that the person doesn't know reality. ALL ALL ALL of these shooters are mentally screwed up in some fashion. There isn't a logically sane one in the bunch. Everyone here screams ban this type of gun or ban this type of magazine... but very few look towards fixing the source of the problem. Guns don't shoot themselves, we need to get to the bottom of why people feel like they should kill other people.

That's it ban drugs no banning of any weapons at all even the staunches of conservatives believe we need to at least ban the types of weapons that have been used in the past two mass murder cases , i would def wan't better treatment of the mentally i'll but you have to meet us half way on something no ...`

Ugh, have a nice day.

josevolution

You too have a good night ..

Moonpig

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Heard that somewhere recently, seems apt here.

gimmesometruth27

Moonpig wrote:

Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Heard that somewhere recently, seems apt here.

great quote by emerson!

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

Please drop that silly and ridiculous thought from your brains.

You want to know what they intended the 2A for?
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ---Thomas Jefferson

Don't believe it's no longer necessary? I wish I lived in your fantasy world.

...
Then, tell the pro-gun lobby to quit using it as an excuse against gun regulations.
While you're at it... tell them to quit trying to equate gun death with auto accident deaths.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

Please drop that silly and ridiculous thought from your brains.


You want to know what they intended the 2A for?

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ---Thomas Jefferson


Don't believe it's no longer necessary? I wish I lived in your fantasy world.

...
I like this part...
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ---Thomas Jefferson
...
If you want to effect a change... do so by the means that Jefferson gave you... the VOTE.

riotgrl

Just throwing out a philosophical argument here so bear with me. If you read quotes by many of the founding fathers, and other important men of the Revolutionary and Constitutional period, in many instances the term "armed" is used. Now, obviously, we know that for the most part Jefferson, Lee, Henry, Paine, Madison, et al meant guns. But what if they mean something more? What if the underlying meaning is that we should be on guard against tyranny? If we can assume that just toting around a gun is not the entire intent of guarding against tyrannical governments then we can assume that we should also be vigilant against that which would rob of us our life, liberty, property and that what they intended was not as simple as owning a gun but being cautious in protecting ourselves. It's an argument that would assume that the real work of protection is within ourselves and not just at the point of the gun.

Gun control is only part of this equation. If we can agree that some limitations on guns is necessary, or desirable, then we should also examine the mental health component. Personal opinion though is that the root of this entire problem is societal. We can't continue to bury our head in the sand about the socialization of our children and how we are creating narcissistic children devoid of empathy.

Cosmo

riotgrl wrote:

Gun control is only part of this equation. If we can agree that some limitations on guns is necessary, or desirable, then we should also examine the mental health component. Personal opinion though is that the root of this entire problem is societal. We can't continue to bury our head in the sand about the socialization of our children and how we are creating narcissistic children devoid of empathy.

...
There it is. It is not a sigular issue... rather, multi-faceted and complicated because in comes into play with the Constitution and matters of personal rights.
The right for me to easily acquire a weapon with a lot of potential to do great harm to a great number of people... means it is just as easy for someone with an undisclosed mental condition to also have that right. Make it tougher to get that weapon... make me jump through hoops... test me... make me prove to you that I am capable of responsible ownership... I have nothing to hide.
TRY to weed out those who are more likely to use those weapons on our fellow citizens. Doesn't mean the crazy guy cannot participate in America... he just can't legally obtain a fucking gun that can pop off 100 rounds in a couple of minutes, becausee he is a fucking crazy guy.

mickeyrat

unsung wrote:

Please drop that silly and ridiculous thought from your brains.


You want to know what they intended the 2A for?

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ---Thomas Jefferson


Don't believe it's no longer necessary? I wish I lived in your fantasy world.

please define "well regulated militia" being necessary for a "free state".

who does the regulating?
how are we to know who are members of said militia? You know , so we know who we can count on for citizen war.

who is to say whats "well" enough?

Is it the state thats free or just the citizens?

In all seriousness, please enlighten me.

It seems to me that the first section of the amendment gets left by the wayside in the courts and by those who trumpet this particuler amendment.

BTW I am not for banning weapons as a whole, I just believe there needs to be some kind of limits placed on it, much like the limits to speech by the courts.