Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 9/30/08 07:48 PM, Baalphegor wrote:

At 9/30/08 07:42 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 9/30/08 07:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The 2nd Amendment has little to nothing to do with hunting, hunting is actually only a secondary benefit of the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms only codifies a preexisting right to bear arms for the purpose of defense; personal defense and for militias defending territory.

Kind of amazed people don't know that. That's something I was taught in my high school history classes and civics classes. Are they not teaching these things to the kiddies anymore? That's pretty messed up if they aren't.

Why is it so that you cannot criticize the constitution? Seems like every time someone talks about gun control someone pulls out the 2nd amendment card and it's game over for the discussion. It's over 200 years old, rewrite it to fit into modern day society :P

Btw, I'm not for gun control, but I really think the US should try to do something with its gun culture

Care to elaborate?

The people who make up American "gun culture" are not the people responsible for gun crime and gun violence. I know that due to the propaganda in your country, you have the idea that rural American rednecks are going around shooting people. You've probably seen Michael Moore videos of people buying guns at banks and so forth and you think that these are the people that are causing gun crime, but you're wrong. The majority of the 400,000 gun crimes in the US each year are committed by people who cannot legally own guns, you're talking about people who are already criminals and therefore don't represent mainstream culture. Law-abiding citizens, i.e. legal gun owners who actually are part of mainstream american culture overwhelmingly use their guns responsibly and are using guns defensively against crime quite a bit... 2 million defensive uses each year.

I don't see anything wrong with "gun culture" when every single gun owner I've ever met is a non-violent, responsible, hard-working person. I don't see anything wrong with "gun culture" when it's based on a founding principle of our country that people should be allowed to defend themselves. You may think that guns are inherently evil and therefore "gun culture" is bad, but that would be a pretty intolerant position wouldn't it? Keep it to yourself, k thanks.

---

At 9/30/08 07:48 PM, Baalphegor wrote: Why is it so that you cannot criticize the constitution? Seems like every time someone talks about gun control someone pulls out the 2nd amendment card and it's game over for the discussion. It's over 200 years old, rewrite it to fit into modern day society :P

do you have any idea what the 2nd amendment says about America? it gives the citizens, each and every one of them, the right to defend themselves from danger including the government. in a time when governments controlled the lives of its people the American government said "here, take these weapons to defend yourself from your enemies and us should we ever threaten you freedom". it might be 200 years later but it still says the exact same thing.

---

Didn't really respond to this part:

At 9/30/08 07:48 PM, Baalphegor wrote: Why is it so that you cannot criticize the constitution?

The constitution is the foundation of our country. The constitution CAN be changed and added to, the Bill of Rights itself contains amendments to the constitution including the 2nd Amendment, but there are certain aspects of it that are now considered permanent, or sacred even.

In my opinion, a United States of America that no longer allows free speech or the right to bear arms would no longer be the United States of America. The US would cease to exist in my eyes, the American experiment as we call it would be extinct. We'd essentially lose the rights that make us distinct from - and in my opinion, superior to - other countries.

Seems like every time someone talks about gun control someone pulls out the 2nd amendment card and it's game over for the discussion.

When you're talking about a political position, you have to determine how applicable it is based on our laws. The constitution is the highest law of the land. When people are actually proposing something that can be argued to be unconstitutional, illegal, and a violation of our rights, of course that's going to be the pinnacle of the discussion.

Even if I actually thought that gun bans would reduce crime, which I don't, I still wouldn't support them because personal freedom to me (not just my personal freedom but everyone's personal freedom) is more important than lowering crime and violence. I wish there wasn't gun violence in the US, but I'd much have a violent, free country than a peaceful, oppressed country where people lack the fundamental right to defend themselves.

It's over 200 years old, rewrite it to fit into modern day society :P

The thing is that it DOES fit a modern society. The 2nd Amendment specifically has very practical, modern application our society today. I'd say that the right of people to bear arms, both in defense of themselves and their country is timeless.

You can argue in favor of the 2nd Amendment either based on the fact that removing it would be unconstitutional, and the fact that removing it would be illogical or counterproductive in the issue of reducing crime and gun violence.

---

I do not think that solely because something is in the constitution doesn't mean it's up for debate. However, in the case of the second amendment, i have never seen a single valid argument against gun control, most of the arguments i see disregard certain specific information about gun crime and people who legally own guns.

Another thing to consider is that logically, if the 2nd amendment of the constitution is up for interpretation, so is the first, the fourth [the right against unreasonable search and seizure], the fifth and sixth [trial by jury eminent domain] and the 8th, 9th, and 10th.

interestingly enough, almost all of those ammendments HAVE come under attack already.

There was a time in germany in the 1930's when they said that democracy and freedom of speech were neanderthal concepts, and uncivilized in nature. Why, exactly, aren't we all fascist?

---

I see what you're thinking, but I still disagree. I do not find guns evil, I've served in the army and weren't such a bad shot with a pistol or a rifle. I also come from a country where hunting and sports shooting is very popular, Norway is number 4 on the list of guns per citizen after Switzerland, Yemen and USA. Actually considering getting a permit for a handgun so that I can compete in shooting competitions (when the money allows :( )

What I am criticizing is how every citizen in the states is now almost expected to be armed. Will someone who's badly in need for fast cash (drug addicts etc) avoid doing crime because everyone is armed? No, he will arm himself. The result is that criminals arm themselves to rob people who arm themselves against criminals. What you end up with is an armsrace between citizens and the law vs. the criminals. Ofcourse, it's far too late to just make guns illegal, because that wouldn't affect the criminals much and they'll still have their firearms. I don't have a perfect solution on my hands, but the current trend in the US isn't helping.

Plus with the availability of firearms you'll get more succesful passionkillings and suicides : /
(Note: Succesful not attempted)

---

At 9/30/08 09:55 PM, Baalphegor wrote: I see what you're thinking, but I still disagree. I do not find guns evil

You seem to imply that gun ownership is becoming increasingly popular in Americans, is there any evidence that a greater percentage of people are owning guns than they did in the past? because i feel as if the trend is going in the other dirrection.

---

if obama bans guns criminals can break in to any ones house and because they have guns and you wouldn't so that would make you defensless

---

At 9/30/08 09:59 PM, movi3m4ster wrote: if obama bans guns criminals can break in to any ones house and because they have guns and you wouldn't so that would make you defensless

So buy a gun illegally like the criminal that broke into your house did.

---

At 9/30/08 09:58 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 9/30/08 09:55 PM, Baalphegor wrote: I see what you're thinking, but I still disagree. I do not find guns evil

You seem to imply that gun ownership is becoming increasingly popular in Americans, is there any evidence that a greater percentage of people are owning guns than they did in the past? because i feel as if the trend is going in the other dirrection.

I do not have chart over how
these values might have changed over time, but you can clearly see that with 90 guns per 100 citizens USA has a solid hold on the nr1 spot. The trend has to take a quite drastic dive in the US to even approach nr2. But the problem isn't that people are owning guns, the problem is WHY they are owning guns. USA ranks nr1 on the list firearms related deaths when it comes to developed, industrialized countries. The conditions in for example Brazil is almost 10 times worse then the US, but that's not a reason to why you can't improve it in the states, it only shows that it can get worse.

Btw, I'm feeling like I have the same argument in both this thread and in the one about the texan that shot a 13 year old burglar :P Both have boiled down to the issue of gun control.

---

At 9/30/08 10:04 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 9/30/08 09:59 PM, movi3m4ster wrote: if obama bans guns criminals can break in to any ones house and because they have guns and you wouldn't so that would make you defensless

So buy a gun illegally like the criminal that broke into your house did.

well that would work but if you buy it illegaly from gangs it will be a little expensive but its worth not getting murderd in your sleep

---

At 9/30/08 10:16 PM, movi3m4ster wrote:

At 9/30/08 10:04 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 9/30/08 09:59 PM, movi3m4ster wrote: if obama bans guns criminals can break in to any ones house and because they have guns and you wouldn't so that would make you defensless

So buy a gun illegally like the criminal that broke into your house did.

well that would work but if you buy it illegaly from gangs it will be a little expensive but its worth not getting murderd in your sleep

If you get murdered in your sleep what use is a gun?

Second Ammendment: 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. (House and Senate edition).

Obviously this means that a well regulated Militia, which is needed for the security of people in a state, (?)the right of the people to keep and bear arms, will not be violated.

If the constitution is so goddamned great in this case, why did they put the clause in there so everyone inteprets it differently?

If they wanted to make it for self defence they should have wrote: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, organize into a well regulated militia, which is needed for security of the free state, shall not be infringed.

Cellardoor, you obviously intrepreted my post different than I did, I never said that the constitution only guareentedhunting rights, nor did I imply such; "I actually like people having only hunting rifles and shotguns. I support handgun bans because handguns usually have no use in hunting."

This means that I believe that hunting rifles and shotguns are the only sort of weapon people should possess, because they serve a practical purpose other than self-defence.

At a random time cellardoor6 wrote:

The 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting. I really don't get where people think that the 2nd Amendment only applies to hunting and hunting firearms, this has been disproved so many times, including in an official ruling by the Supreme Court.

I never said that the 2nd Ammendment applied only to hunting. I only said that the weapon in question should have a purpose other than self-defence. Let's face it, handguns are used to kill what? Simple answer: Humans. If you have a gun only to kill humans, keeping it and expecting for a robbery does not seem like a practical use. It'll probably gather dust and stop functioning do to lack or routine cleaning that is required.
However, I suggest that only hunting arms are allowed so at least they have a secondary purpose other than self-defense. Besides, how many shootings have been conducted with a hunting rifle or shotgun? Not nearly as many as handguns.

You can have only certain types of arms to defend yourself with, no constitutional violation.

You mean... complete and blatant violation of the constitution.

If you really believe that then you contradicted yourself in saying:

To bring up the argument that there needs to be some limits by talking about "rocket launchers and IEDs' is entirely ignoring the context. It's pretty well known that the 2nd amendment applied to individual firearms of the day that citizens would use; not heavy cannons, explosives, missiles, rockets etc. Even though assault rifles and handguns as they are now didn't exist back then, they are the modern equivalent of what were typical military-style personal weapons. Advocates of the 2nd Amendment aren't asking for the right to own rocket launchers and IEDs as far as I'm aware, because they know that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to those things.

Well,

I said only certain types of arms. So, if I can't arm myself with the latest assualt rifle, it must be unconstitutional? Because that is what you are implying in your retort to me, certain types of arms have to be banned due to modern guns great destructive power, one man armed with a Colt and a full clip of ammo can dispatch 5-6 people easily, more if he a good shot. A hunting rifle, due to most that either have a bolt and lever action or single shot, would dispatch much less do to the time that is need to chamber the bullet. A shotgun, also a weapon the requires you to chamber a round into the gun, would be equally insufice to assualt multiple people. Having a shotgun or rifle also makes it very hard to conceal.

As second ammendment states quite blatantly; The people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed, does not seem to apply to any particular sort of arm. It does not say only civilian arms can
be used.

And about gangs selling illegal guns? It was going to happen anyways. Boo fucking Hoo.

---

First off, i'm trying to find the link between the topic title, the topic subject and the link provided. I'm hoping American defense is a little more sophisticated than hunting rifles, and I don't see how getting rid of these ads is stripping America of the defense.

Am I missing some subtelty?

At 9/30/08 08:37 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
The thing is that it DOES fit a modern society. The 2nd Amendment specifically has very practical, modern application our society today. I'd say that the right of people to bear arms, both in defense of themselves and their country is timeless.

Well, it's unbelievably vague. I mean, does bearing arms include automatic arms, or or just blunderbuss rifles of the 1700s. Does it include nuclear arms? I mean, where are the limitations? If the 2nd amendment stated that all Americans were entitled to have rifles which required a whopping 10 minute reload time like in the days (yes... i'm exaggerating), i'd be for it. But at some point, shouldn't there be some consensus to what is reasonable? Does Joe Average really need an Ak47?

---

At 9/30/08 10:10 PM, Baalphegor wrote:

Btw, I'm feeling like I have the same argument in both this thread and in the one about the texan that shot a 13 year old burglar :P Both have boiled down to the issue of gun control.

The one problem with that chart is that it doesn't show percentage of people that own guns, it shows the # of guns divided by the # of people. However I'm fairly sure that There are americans that own more than 1 gun, and americans that don't own any guns, which creates a problem when using those statistics. Do 90 americans out of 100 own 1 gun? [90% gun ownership] or do 2 americans own 45 guns out of 100 americans? [2% gun ownership]

It's an extreme example but it shows you how that data can be skewed.

---

At 10/1/08 04:24 PM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: Second Ammendment: 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. (House and Senate edition).

Obviously this means that a well regulated Militia, which is needed for the security of people in a state, (?)the right of the people to keep and bear arms, will not be violated.

Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about it:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved.
Pp. 22-28.

-------------

So not only does the 2nd amendment apply to individuals, but even when you argue the militia argument, historical context shows that when the framers wrote it, they knew that in order for proper militia's to exist, they had to have the rights as separate individuals and not just as a collective group.

If the constitution is so goddamned great in this case, why did they put the clause in there so everyone inteprets it differently?

Because some people are ignorant of the context of the 2nd Amendment, or intentionally distort what it actually means for political purposes.

If they wanted to make it for self defence they should have wrote:

Your words are meaningless, because they DID make it for individual self defense.

Next.

Cellardoor, you obviously intrepreted my post different than I did, I never said that the constitution only guareentedhunting rights

I said "The 2nd Amendment isn't for hunting", not the constitution as a whole.

nor did I imply such; "I actually like people having only hunting rifles and shotguns. I support handgun bans because handguns usually have no use in hunting."

AHAHAH WHAT?

That implies that you either disregard the 2nd Amendment and your opinion is in willful contradiction to it, or you believe it only applies to hunting.

This means that I believe that hunting rifles and shotguns are the only sort of weapon people should possess, because they serve a practical purpose other than self-defence.

You're contradicting yourself.

-You say it's not for individual self defense.
-You say you only think hunting weapons should be allowed.
-Then you deny that you say it's for hunting.
-Then you say you think only hunting weapons should be used because they have non-self defense uses.

I never said that the 2nd Ammendment applied only to hunting.

Except you said it doesn't apply to self defense, and you believe only hunting weapons should be allowed.

Contradiction after contradiction.

I only said that the weapon in question should have a purpose other than self-defence.

Hunting rifles and (most) hunting shotguns are not good self-defense weapons, especially for personal carry. Handguns are.

If the 2nd Amendment is for defense (AND IT IS), not hunting, then there is absolutely ZERO logic, whatsoever, that the guns should be hunting weapons first and foremost.

Next.

Let's face it, handguns are used to kill what? Simple answer: Humans.

The 2nd Amendment is intended to allow people to defend themselves against what? Simple answer: humans.

And as the Supreme Court says (pg 22):

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
"shall not be infringed."

------------

The 2nd Amendment not only specifies the right to bear arms in defense, but it also allows people to CARRY those arms in case of "confrontation". This applies to carrying modern handguns, and that official release by the Supreme Court was for a case a man made against the D.C. handgun ban as being unconstitutional, which he won.

Thus, your entire position is incorrect; your premise of what the 2nd Amendment means, AND your illogical position against certain kinds of guns, both incorrect.

If you have a gun only to kill humans, keeping it and expecting for a robbery does not seem like a practical use.

Defense of yourself, your family, and your home is a practical use.

But you're wrong either way, because handguns do have other practical uses. There are several types of handguns that can be used for hunting, as well as competitive target shooting, and recreation shooting (which is usually to practice marksmanship which will come in handy for defense).

You can have only certain types of arms to defend yourself with, no constitutional violation.

You mean... complete and blatant violation of the constitution.

If you really believe that then you contradicted yourself in saying:

Nope.

It's a complete and blatant violation when "certain types" of guns excludes handguns, which is what you were arguing.

Well,

I said only certain types of arms.

And your opinion of what constitutes acceptable firearms is completely without logic given what the 2nd Amendment actually means.

So, if I can't arm myself with the latest assualt rifle, it must be unconstitutional?

I'd say yes. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own assault rifles.

Because that is what you are implying in your retort to me, certain types of arms have to be banned due to modern guns great destructive power

And that doesn't include assault rifles.

one man armed with a Colt and a full clip of ammo can dispatch 5-6 people easily, more if he a good shot.

And yet assault rifles are used in only a tiny, tiny fraction of firearm crime.

A hunting rifle, due to most that either have a bolt and lever action or single shot, would dispatch much less do to the time that is need to chamber the bullet.

And thus would be ineffective in self defense.

---

At 10/1/08 06:23 PM, Jizzlebang wrote:

At 9/30/08 08:37 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
The thing is that it DOES fit a modern society. The 2nd Amendment specifically has very practical, modern application our society today. I'd say that the right of people to bear arms, both in defense of themselves and their country is timeless.

Well, it's unbelievably vague.

If you understand the context of the Right to Bear Arms, then it's not vague at all because the right predates the constitution. The 2nd Amendment simply codified a preexisting right that allowed people to have military-style personal weapons for defense,of themselves and by themselves, and of their community by a militia.

I mean, does bearing arms include automatic arms, or or just blunderbuss rifles of the 1700s.

It refers to personal use of firearms and of a militia. And in the prudence of the supreme court, they've decided this includes modern defensive weapons, such as handguns.

Does it include nuclear arms?

No.

I mean, where are the limitations?

It is pretty widely considered to limit anything above small arms.

If the 2nd amendment stated that all Americans were entitled to have rifles which required a whopping 10 minute reload time like in the days (yes... i'm exaggerating), i'd be for it.

Those weapons would be equivalent in [relative] capability to assault rifles today.

But at some point, shouldn't there be some consensus to what is reasonable?

There already is. There is a category of weapon that isn't allowed in the US called a destructive device which includes large caliber weapons (like cannons), grenades, rockets, missiles, mortars, artillery, poisons etc... Obviously nukes and tanks and fighter jets are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Does Joe Average really need an Ak47?

Does the average law-abiding citizen have the right to own an AK-47? Absolutely. Is the AK-47 a practical weapon for defense, actually yes.

Is an AK-47 really a the all-powerful tool of death that movies and video games make it out to be? No.

---

For self protection. Not being able to own a gun means only criminals will have access to them...

---

Cellar- if anything needs to be changed about the constitution it's getting rid of the second-amendment.

it just sustains fear. it's all based on fear, that amendment.

yeah we need so much of that.

---

And on that note I think that making guns illegal would strengthen the concept of the second amendment in america's minds.

So on that note I agree with you.

---

GUNS I KEEP EM IN MY BED AT NIGHT GUNS I CLEAN THEM SHINE AND BRIGHT LOAD YOUR AMUNITION BULLETS ARE MY INTUITION! BOOM! YOU DEAD BITCH!

---

At 10/2/08 12:40 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Cellar- if anything needs to be changed about the constitution it's getting rid of the second-amendment.

That would the biggest violation of our rights ever. If the government ever plans on getting rid of the 2nd Amendment then it's time for an overthrow.

it just sustains fear. it's all based on fear, that amendment.

It's based on logic and personal freedom. A country where the people are not allowed to be armed is not a free country.

A country that is disarmed is at the mercy of a government, one that could easily become oppressive and cease to represent the people.

yeah we need so much of that.

Yeah, the thing we need the most is a country where only criminals and the government have guns!

You're totally right! We should totally just abandon one of the most important rights and traditions of our country. A right that predates our constitution and was one of the biggest reasons that we were able to defeat the British and create our country in the first place! We should totally abandon a founding principle of our country just because retarded liberals say so.

At 10/2/08 12:41 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: And on that note I think that making guns illegal would strengthen the concept of the second amendment in america's minds.

WTF are you talking about?

---

At 10/2/08 12:40 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Cellar- if anything needs to be changed about the constitution it's getting rid of the second-amendment.

it just sustains fear. it's all based on fear, that amendment.

(i hope for fucks sake your joking but if not) do you know why the second amendment was passed. to protect us from the fucking goverment. Our government is supposed to serve us not limit us. why don't we get rid of our fist amendment. and our 8th( Oh shit ). the second amendment was made so that the government did not make laws that the people did not approve of. it's for our own protection. if the government took away all of our freedoms and turned every one of us into full time slaves for there own profit what would stop them. The FUCKING SECOND AMENDMENT.

yeah we need so much of that.

damn right

---

At 9/29/08 10:33 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Obama is a socialist who wants to take our country to hell. I will kill anyone who tries to take away my second ammendment rights. and he wants to break taxes down for middle class well how is he going to do that if he wants to implement universal healthcare if you want that you would have to raise taxes.

Obama isn't a socialist. Stop with these crazy assumptions. You're just as bad as the people that say that Bush is a nazi because he didn't veto the PATRIOT Act.

---

At 10/2/08 06:17 AM, ThePretenders wrote:
Obama isn't a socialist. Stop with these crazy assumptions. You're just as bad as the people that say that Bush is a nazi because he didn't veto the PATRIOT Act.

he is for higher taxes and being for higher taxes makes him a socialist. taxes make the economy weak its proven

---

At 10/2/08 11:42 AM, Viper-Studios wrote:

At 10/2/08 06:17 AM, ThePretenders wrote:
Obama isn't a socialist. Stop with these crazy assumptions. You're just as bad as the people that say that Bush is a nazi because he didn't veto the PATRIOT Act.

he is for higher taxes and being for higher taxes makes him a socialist. taxes make the economy weak its proven

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

Does Obama advocate the collective ownership of the means of production? Thought so...

---

yes but what if we need them for something like a whole invasion of ZOMBIES come by and attack us WE NEED AMUNITION TO FIGHT AND SURVIVE! seriously though guns are the WHOLE part of life why else would we have newgrounds here? if we didnt have guns WE WOULDNT BE LIVEING NOW OUR FORE FATHERS GAVE US GUNS TO PORTECT THIS COUNTRY! FOR ALL AND FOR JUSTICE! BWAH! (especialy portect it from evil mutant noobs :P)

---

At 10/2/08 12:14 PM, Contipec wrote:

At 10/2/08 12:39 AM, JonH2O wrote: For self protection. Not being able to own a gun means only criminals will have access to them...

Guns have rarely helped in the protection of people at all.

Try... 2 MILLION times in the US, yearly.

Instead, all that these guns are good for is for causing school shootings.

Yes, that's all they are good for. Never mind people that hunt with guns and use guns to defend themselves, their families, and their homes.

By your logic, all that automobiles are good for is killing people in crashes, specifically... small school children. Yep, let's say that for dramatic effect. All vehicles are good for is killing young school children.

And since way more people are killed in vehicle crashes than in gun violence in the US, and in other western countries... then you should be screaming that we should ban all vehicles.

A kid at school gets mad at something or someone, then grabs his dad's/uncle's/whoever's gun and goes to school and bam! school shooting. If people didn't own guns, school shootings would not happen.

If people didn't drive cars, car crashes wouldn't happen. By your logic, we should ban cars.

Obama 2008

It's funny that you actually think that endorsing Obama after taking such an illogical anti-gun stance is actually doing him a favor.

---

At 9/29/08 09:34 PM, AznWarlord wrote: Despite being pro-guns, I'm tired of hearing the shitty Second Amendment Argument. There are way better arguments (like mine) that can't really be counter argued like the Second Amendment can be.

Actually, the only people who think that the 2nd Amendment argument is weak is displaying an unfamiliarity with history...specifically the history surrounding the writing of the second amendment. Furthermore, the second amendment argument is further buttressed by the recent Supreme Court decision (especially concerning assault rifles).

---

At 9/30/08 02:22 PM, Al6200 wrote:
Isn't it possible that when Obama is supporting a handgun or assault rifle ban, he's not completely opposing the amendment - but just drawing a different line than you are?

Especially with the assault rifle ban he is doing two things:

1) Directly undermining the meaning of this civil right.
2) His ignorance is showing.

The SCOTUS decision was largely based upon the argument that the amendment was NOT created to protect hunting activities but MILITARY activities.

Secondly, if he really knew what he was talking about or trying to emotionally manipulate people...he would not be talking about assault rifles. Rifles as an ENTIRE category inclusive of assault rifles are only used in 1% of ALL (violent and nonviolent) firearm crime. Simply put: assault rifles are NOT used in any significant or meaningful quantity to commit crime. These bans just cost money and take resources away from law enforcement activities that could be better used to reduce crime.

Finally, one of the main reasons assault rifles are not used in crime is because they are ill-suited to crime. They are not concealable nor are they particularly lethal firearms. In close quarters such as a home or convience store they are unwieldy. The ammo they are designed to shoot are often military rounds that are actually designed to wound rather than kill. Look at every rampage that uses a military rifle "clone" such as an AK-47 or AR-15 (M-16)...they are not all that lethal or effective.

Gun control in general is a poor policy but assault rifle bans specifically is just plain wrong and in terms of facts...a policy that has no factual basis.

---

Just stock up on ammunition now.
Take out a loan and buy yourself a container load so that you have enough to last you a lifetime. Do it before the law is passed.

---

Most people forget to realize that the anti-gin movement, the ant-video game movement, the ant-gay rights movement, and all other such movements are all different faces for the same thing, the ant-freedom movement. But, with the recent court ruling for gun rights, I doubt Obama is going to get anything. Even without the court ruling, he probably wouldn't get anything anyway.