By your logic, Cars are far, far, FAR, more dangerous than guns. Afterall, drving a car requires all sorts of intensive training, licensing, and registration, and still manages to kill twice as many Americans a year as something that requires no training or licensing?!?
BTW, you are subject to fines and jail time for misuse of a firearm.
"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."
The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Not the right of the Militia or that of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE.
Ladies and Gents, these men knew exactly what they were talking about when they wrote this amendment. It is one of the most important rights we have. All the other rights given to us by the constitution mean nothing if you lack a means to defend those rights from those who wish to take them from you.
As for the argument of a person going up against the government with a pistol. If enough people are willing to fight a tyrannical goverment they could take over in a heartbeat. Look at what the insurgency is doing to us in Iraq. Now think of the millions of gun owners in this country that actually know how to shoot, most better than privates in the army. We have access to a lot of the same gear and technology as our army. It could be done.
what is percentage of car owners to the percentage of gun owners and how does that relate to the statistics of injury?
yet, you can buy a gun and not tell anyone. then you can sell it to someone else and not tell anyone and there is no punishment for it. and we wonder how thousands of guns flood our violent inner-city streets or wind up in the hands of kids having a tough day in high school. maybe cars should be more heavily regulated (they already are far more so than guns). my point is not that we need to regulate cars more becos they're dangerous, as we already keep a tight lid on them. my point is that it is insane how heavily we regulate cars and how freely we let the handguns flow with almost NO regulation. a background check, but ONLY if bought at a store... that's it! so a felon cant buy one. but if his friend doesnt have a record he can buy one and hand it to him and nobody gets in trouble. or a high school kid can decide he's tired of being picked on, not take any classes, not get any sort of evaluation or guidance, just make sure he hasnt been picked up for grafiti and he can have a shotgun to carry into class to get back at the bullies. how is this not a little crazy?
lastly, you dodged the meat of my question. in the interest of us defending ourselves from our government... why can we not buy grenades? plastic explosives? landmines? rocket launchers? fighter jets? i mean, if our government DOES go tyrannical, wouldnt we need those things? they are considered "arms." could it be the drafters of our constitution had NO idea what kind of advancements we would make in our ability to slaughter each other over the next 200 years and you feel that SOME regulation is necessary after all?
Why do people want the government overly involved in their lives? No you cant fucking have my gun...its mine not yours..
you can't control your guns and or emotions..so lots of people are being killed....needlessly. (and I'm not directing this particularly at you). Same reason most laws are made....self regulation doesn't work.
Why do people want the government overly involved in their lives? No you cant fucking have my gun...its mine not yours..
you mean the way your compatriots want the government to decide who i can marry, what kind of contraception is best for me, or listen to any of my phone conversations without any judicial approval or oversight?
you want the government involved in people's lives just as much as anybody else. just in a different way.
lastly, you dodged the meat of my question. in the interest of us defending ourselves from our government... why can we not buy grenades? plastic explosives? landmines? rocket launchers? fighter jets? i mean, if our government DOES go tyrannical, wouldnt we need those things? they are considered "arms." could it be the drafters of our constitution had NO idea what kind of advancements we would make in our ability to slaughter each other over the next 200 years and you feel that SOME regulation is necessary after all?
Even though this is a classic 'straw man' invoked by anti-gunners all the time, I'll take it on for fun.
We already have laws that defined what "arms" are.
Never was the intention of our forefathers for "the people" to bear arms such as crew served weapons (i.e. Atomic Bombs).
It is perfectly legal to purchase an F-16 after it has been de-militarized. You'd need a lot of money and a source of spare parts to keep it flying though.
Never was the intention of our forefathers for "the people" to bear arms such as crew served weapons (i.e. Atomic Bombs).
It is perfectly legal to purchase an F-16 after it has been de-militarized. You'd need a lot of money and a source of spare parts to keep it flying though.
first of all, i am not anti-gun, i dont think they should be outlawed. but i do think we need stricter regulation of them. it is ridiculous how easy it is for any schmuck to buy one without any record of it.
second, i dont see how any of those links answers my questions. in fact, they seem to support my contention. first link discusses regulation of certain weapons and it being held constitutional. my point was that if it is ok to regulate "certain" arms, why not others? gun regulation has long been held to be constitutional, it is simply a matter of degree at this point and i dont think we're doing enough and claiming 2nd amendment violations is not the ironclad defense the NRA likes to think it is. we have regulations in place now, but they are ineffective. if it is already ok and constitutional to regulate guns, why not at least make regulations that are effective and more easily enforced? im not advocting banning guns, just saying that our current method of regulating them is ineffective. it creates a large bureacracy that accomplishes nothing and stops nothing. we need to rethink how we do this.
and you can purchase an f-16, but can you but the missiles to arm it? why not?
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but if they love being in the wilderness why do they need to kill something? It confuses me that they love to be out there so they better kill an animal.
well you know if hunters could they'd probably hunt humans. but apparently it's illegal for some reason.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree
what is percentage of car owners to the percentage of gun owners and how does that relate to the statistics of injury?
yet, you can buy a gun and not tell anyone. then you can sell it to someone else and not tell anyone and there is no punishment for it. and we wonder how thousands of guns flood our violent inner-city streets or wind up in the hands of kids having a tough day in high school. maybe cars should be more heavily regulated (they already are far more so than guns). my point is not that we need to regulate cars more becos they're dangerous, as we already keep a tight lid on them. my point is that it is insane how heavily we regulate cars and how freely we let the handguns flow with almost NO regulation. a background check, but ONLY if bought at a store... that's it! so a felon cant buy one. but if his friend doesnt have a record he can buy one and hand it to him and nobody gets in trouble. or a high school kid can decide he's tired of being picked on, not take any classes, not get any sort of evaluation or guidance, just make sure he hasnt been picked up for grafiti and he can have a shotgun to carry into class to get back at the bullies. how is this not a little crazy?
lastly, you dodged the meat of my question. in the interest of us defending ourselves from our government... why can we not buy grenades? plastic explosives? landmines? rocket launchers? fighter jets? i mean, if our government DOES go tyrannical, wouldnt we need those things? they are considered "arms." could it be the drafters of our constitution had NO idea what kind of advancements we would make in our ability to slaughter each other over the next 200 years and you feel that SOME regulation is necessary after all?
transportation is a need.....carrying a gun to ease insecurities is not.
you mean the way your compatriots want the government to decide who i can marry, what kind of contraception is best for me, or listen to any of my phone conversations without any judicial approval or oversight?
you want the government involved in people's lives just as much as anybody else. just in a different way.
naděje umírá poslední
Even though this is a classic 'straw man' invoked by anti-gunners all the time, I'll take it on for fun.
We already have laws that defined what "arms" are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968
and read up on this one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Never was the intention of our forefathers for "the people" to bear arms such as crew served weapons (i.e. Atomic Bombs).
It is perfectly legal to purchase an F-16 after it has been de-militarized. You'd need a lot of money and a source of spare parts to keep it flying though.
first of all, i am not anti-gun, i dont think they should be outlawed. but i do think we need stricter regulation of them. it is ridiculous how easy it is for any schmuck to buy one without any record of it.
second, i dont see how any of those links answers my questions. in fact, they seem to support my contention. first link discusses regulation of certain weapons and it being held constitutional. my point was that if it is ok to regulate "certain" arms, why not others? gun regulation has long been held to be constitutional, it is simply a matter of degree at this point and i dont think we're doing enough and claiming 2nd amendment violations is not the ironclad defense the NRA likes to think it is. we have regulations in place now, but they are ineffective. if it is already ok and constitutional to regulate guns, why not at least make regulations that are effective and more easily enforced? im not advocting banning guns, just saying that our current method of regulating them is ineffective. it creates a large bureacracy that accomplishes nothing and stops nothing. we need to rethink how we do this.
and you can purchase an f-16, but can you but the missiles to arm it? why not?
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
Rappers do.
Blaming violence on guns is like Rosie O'Donnel blaming her fork because she's fat
well you know if hunters could they'd probably hunt humans. but apparently it's illegal for some reason.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say