Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[ice grillin you]

As far as ATV's point. Well, it's valid, but frankly I don't give a shtein. The amendment was designed to help protect us from an oppressive government. The problem is that over the past century the military technology available to the government has ballooned out of control and now there is no way anyone could ever overthrow the US military through sheer force of arms. This is scary on a certain level, and it also threatens to render the original spirit of the amendment invalid...

BUT, the truth is that around the world we see examples of violent rebellion against entrenched governments all the time. Access to weapons makes this kind of rebellion possible (even if the rebels face long odds) and I would argue that keeping the possibility of rebellion (no matter how futile) alive is the true spirit behind the second amendment. So yeah. There you go.

honestly youre out of your goddamn mind and sound like a cross btwn the unabomber and timmy mcveigh

[rjs246]

Ha. I figured you would say that. I'm not proposing overthrowing the government or bombing goverment buildings to make a political statement. I'm making a point about why the amendment was included in the first place. When a government is broken, it is very unlikely for it to fix itself and the founding fathers understood that.

[rjs246]

You know I'm sitting here trying to come up with a way to better explain my position, but I'm coming up with nothing so I'm sticking by it. The truth is that I think rebellion against an oppressive government is a good thing and I think it's pretty outstanding that the founding fathers actually put an amendment in place to allow for the people to be able to do that.

I resent the comparisons because the Unibomber was just a terrorist who killed civilians, not some sort of political activist trying to force change. But then again, it's you we're talking about so your comparisons don't really hold a lot of water.

[ATV]

If a thug criminal piece of shtein can carry a gun illegally, then I should be able to carry one legally.

Ok, again, using the same logic "If a thug criminal piece of shtein can carry a thermonuclear weapon, then I should be able to carry one legally." Where does it end?

The amendment was designed to help protect us from an oppressive government.

I don't believe this is the case. Do you have any evidence? I think it was in large part so that our government could have some defense versus the British, not against itself.

[rjs246]

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 guess it's open to interpretation. But I'm taking my interpretation from the commonly held interpretation in the history classes that I've taken...

[ATV]

I don't see how repeating the language of the second amendment helps your argument. History is the key, not your interpretation of whetever classes you took. It's all available on the internets. Let's examine it.

[rjs246]

Honestly I think I've talked enough about it today. I understand the arguments against. I think the wording is pretty clear. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The motivation as explained to me was that the people should be armed against oppression, be it internal or external.

I'll let someone else humor you with debate.

[ATV]

I don't see how repeating the language of the second amendment helps your argument. History is the key, not your interpretation of whetever classes you took. It's all available on the internets. Let's examine it.

Honestly, I'm genuinely interested to find what the intention of this language was.

[Diomedes]

Hey this topic has been great...let's talk about abortion now.

Point:  You put the birth date on a grave stone because that's when life began for the dead farg in the dirt.

Counterpoint:  JESUS HATES DIO




Also...speaking of children...what do you people think of Obama's disagreement with the Supreme Court's no-state-murder-as-punishment-for-child-rapists decision?  He seems to take a position that the States ought to be allowed to decide for themselves.  I think he's dead wrong, but I don't think I'm alone in being surprised that he came out against the decision.

[ATV]

The Brady Center argues that the intent of the amendment was to allow for state militias to counter federal power...


The concept of a "well regulated Militia" is somewhat foreign to 20th century America, but it is central to the meaning of the Second Amendment.

At the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" — a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. Most of the adult male population was required by state law to enlist in the militia. The militia was "well regulated" in the sense that its members were subject to various legal requirements. They were, for example, required to report for training several days a year, to supply their own equipment for militia use, including guns and horses, and sometimes to engage in military exercises away from home.

The purpose of the militia was expressed in the Second Amendment — to assure "the security of a free State" — against threats from without (e.g. invasions) and threats from within (e.g. rebellions, riots, etc.).

The "militia" was not, as some gun control opponents have claimed, simply another word for the armed citizenry. It was an organized military force, "well regulated" by the state governments. Noah Webster's Dictionary of 1828 defines "militia" as: "...the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations."

When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, the continued viability of the state militia was a central issue. The new Constitution established a permanent army composed of professional soldiers and controlled by the federal government. The "Anti-Federalists," who sought changes in the newly proposed Constitution, were fearful of the federal standing army authorized by the Constitution. The use of troops by George III as an instrument of oppression was still fresh in their memories.

The Anti-Federalists saw the state militia as an effective counterpoint to the power of the standing army but they were concerned that the federal government had excessive power over the militia. They argued that the Constitution left the arming of the state militia exclusively to the federal government. During the Virginia ratification debates, Patrick Henry asked: "When this power is given to Congress without limits or boundary, how will your militia be armed?"

The Second Amendment was written in response to this Anti-Federalist concern. The Amendment affirms that the keeping and bearing of arms in a "well regulated Militia" of the states is a "right of the people," not dependent on the whim of the federal government. The original intent of the Second Amendment, therefore, was to prevent the federal government from passing laws that would disarm the state militia.


http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/articles/mythandmean.php

[Rome]

A thug criminal can't carry a gun illegally.  See...it's illegal.

Don't play coy with me dude.  You know exactly what I meant, and that I'm right.  The "thugs can carry guns so I can too" argument is false.  They can't carry guns.  It's illegal. 

You shouldn't be carrying a gun either.  You'll end up hurting yourself or someone else, because you are a fool.  Stick with the 100yard measuring tape.

The more you act like a know-it-all douchebag the less I'm convinced you are one.  In fact, I think you're probably a pretty decent guy who's quiet in real life, sorta shy and likable.

That said, I hope you get shot in the face. 

[PhillyPhreak54]

In my opinion it comes down to this;

1. Get stronger in enforcing and punishing those who make straw purchases. That is where a lot of these illegal guns come from. The NRA loves to step in and get pissy, but who in their right mind needs to own 47 guns? You should be allowed to own a gun legally, as the constitution states. But not go buy them, file the serial numbers off, report them lost or stolen, and then sell them on the black market.

2. Ban assault rifles, automatic conversions and armor piercing rounds. Again, the NRA jumps in with this stuff but no one in this country outside of military and law enforcement should be able to own those things. Think back to the kooks in LA who robbed that bank and then lasted seemingly forever in the streets against an entire police force. When the police have to go into a gun store and "borrow" bigger and better guns and rounds to compete with criminals, that should be a major flag to the law makers.

3. Create stricter rules for applying for and being granted permission to buy a gun. It is very easy to do. This does not relinquish the rights of those who legally can own one, but it helps weeds out the ones who do not need to own one.

[Diomedes]

4. Put gun offenders in jail for long, long time.  You pull a gun on someone at all as a threat or in the commission of any other crime...10 years minimum.   You fire it, 20.  You hit someone, 30.  Mandatory minimums should be used for gun criminals, not petty drug addicts.  For real.

[Geowhizzer]

In my opinion it comes down to this;

1. Get stronger in enforcing and punishing those who make straw purchases. That is where a lot of these illegal guns come from. The NRA loves to step in and get pissy, but who in their right mind needs to own 47 guns? You should be allowed to own a gun legally, as the constitution states. But not go buy them, file the serial numbers off, report them lost or stolen, and then sell them on the black market.

2. Ban assault rifles, automatic conversions and armor piercing rounds. Again, the NRA jumps in with this stuff but no one in this country outside of military and law enforcement should be able to own those things. Think back to the kooks in LA who robbed that bank and then lasted seemingly forever in the streets against an entire police force. When the police have to go into a gun store and "borrow" bigger and better guns and rounds to compete with criminals, that should be a major flag to the law makers.

3. Create stricter rules for applying for and being granted permission to buy a gun. It is very easy to do. This does not relinquish the rights of those who legally can own one, but it helps weeds out the ones who do not need to own one.

Yes.

4. Put gun offenders in jail for long, long time.  You pull a gun on someone at all as a threat or in the commission of any other crime...10 years minimum.   You fire it, 20.  You hit someone, 30.  Mandatory minimums should be used for gun criminals, not petty drug addicts.  For real.

Yes.  In fact, Florida actually has something like this:  10-20-LIFE.

[Seabiscuit36]

Thats why im buying as much armor piercing rounds as i can now, never know when the Zombies are coming