America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better!
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...

I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.

Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.

They have drones now.

eddiec said:

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better!
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...

I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.

Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.

They have drones now.

So your argument is "they have drones, guess we better all surrender" if a tyrannical government tried taking over? Bet there were some saying the same thing about cannons back in the day.

PJPOWER said:

eddiec said:

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better!
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...

I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.

Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.

They have drones now.

So your argument is "they have drones, guess we better all surrender" if a tyrannical government tried taking over? Bet there were some saying the same thing about cannons back in the day.

So should you be able to purchase drones that can drop bombs?

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.

Did you not even watch the video I posted earlier!?!? That was exactly what I was arguing against in the wording of the 2nd. It is about the people having the right to bear arms, not just a well regulated militia. More so if that well regulated militia turned on its people.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.

Did you not even watch the video I posted earlier!?!? That was exactly what I was arguing against in the wording of the 2nd. It is about the people having the right to bear arms, not just a well regulated militia. More so if that well regulated militia turned on its people.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

I've seen that video several times. You do have the right to own guns. But I also think there is a line that needs to be drawn. Why can't you own a nuke? The government has them? You simply do not need an AK-47 to defend yourself. Your cache of hand guns and shot guns is surely enough to keep the bad guys away from your home.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

eddiec said:

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better!
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...

I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.

Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.

They have drones now.

So your argument is "they have drones, guess we better all surrender" if a tyrannical government tried taking over? Bet there were some saying the same thing about cannons back in the day.

His argument is that people should have drones too. And mines, hand grenades, jets, and tanks.

If you are saying you need to be prepared for the impending takeover then be prepared Gawddammit!

Damn you guys assume a lot! I was merely stating that the 2nd was not written for militias to be armed. Based on the way it was written, it does not give any exceptions to any kinds of "arms". I'm sure plenty could argue that the government should not have bombs, drones, etc, etc, etc as it leaves those things wide open for civilian possession as well. If you want to ratify it to say that weapons or war or what not should be included in the definition or arms then that's a completely different conversation. My only point was that it was written in reference to the people bearing arms, not militias. we can discuss all day about what weapons should or shouldn't be in the hands of people and probably never agree, but I hope I'm at least getting my point across that it was written for "the people", not specifically for well regulated militias.

people hide behind the second amendment because they know there is no logical reason to need to own a gun more powerful than a handgun or single shot rifle.

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

Gern Blansten said:

Godfather. said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.

pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.

Godfather.

What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?

When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.

this is a true today as was back then, "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.

again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.

Godfather.

A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard

If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.

Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.

Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias

ridiculous

Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.

HughFreakingDillon said:

people hide behind the second amendment because they know there is no logical reason to need to own a gun more powerful than a handgun or single shot rifle.

I can give you 2 reasons...

1. The zombie apocalypse
2. U.N. troops that Obama sent to take my guns