i dont have anything against most Americans, it's the Hypocrites like bush i cant stand
i dont have anything against most Americans, it's the Hypocrites like bush i cant stand
Though this is really another topic for another debate, there is a great struggle in this country on where a citizen's rights really stand. The 2nd amendment is the right to own a gun within a standing militia, which to the best of my knowledge means, that you can own a gun when there is fear of invasion and militias are formed in place of a standing army, not the right to own a gun because one can.
Don't get me wrong, owning a gun is probably always going to be a hot-button topic, and I understand why some people cling to this right, because it's a family tradition and the like, but why does the right to own a gun include handguns or military guns when neither has any purpose but to kill? Rifles, I can live with, so long as they're handled resposibly, but I'll never believe that anyone, ANYONE in the privacy of their own home NEEDS a sawed off shotgun or semi-automatic assualt rifle to feel safe.
In my mind, owning a gun, when you're NOT in a standing militia is a privilege, not really a right.
Take care all.
Guns are made with a specific purpose: To kill or to inflict harm. Computers are also made with a specific purpose: To make things easier for people.Originally Posted by nik0tine
So I can understand wanting to have life made easier, but what I cannot understand is wanting to kill or inflict harm.
Or more specifically my good dear Psychotic, guns make it EASIER to kill or inflict harm.
Take care all.
Gun can be used to kill...food.
Also have computers really made life easier? I can use them but it isn't easy because so many people don't know how to use them.
Both have their uses but it is who you look at as to if it is really a great benifit or not.
I re-iterate. Gun ownership is not, nor ever was, about PERSONAL defence. Guns are supposed to be for civil defence. The one and only function of firearms is meant to make certain that the government doesn't completely screw the people.
The intent was to prevent all the crap that Great Britain did to the American people from happening again by the new American government. We had smart forefathers in this country. I have to admit, it has become something of an anachronism, and you can't fight a tank with anything you could find to buy, but that was the original function. But if (more like when) the police or military try to abuse their powers, I'd be willing to fight back with deadly force. I hope it won't happen, though.
Back when the constitution was written, the term Militia was synonymous with rebel or revolutionary. And if Bush keeps up the current trends, we might just see it become necessary. Yes, I am republican, yes I hate Bush (we should have a minimum IQ law for elected officials), and yes, I own a very lovely .22 rifle that's never been used, except to kill various things that I later ate.
Oh, and one rabid dog. I was glad to have that weapon on hand, because I don't have rabies shots. And at the time, no one who wasn't vaccinated had ever survived exposure to the virus. We still only have one case in history, and that happened a few weeks ago. I'm surprisingly well educated for white trash, ain't I?
What do you call someone in Harlem owning a gun so that they can protect their family from killers/rapist/robbers if not personal defense?
The amendment allows for a well-regulated militia to own guns, but as there are no laws stating that regular citizens cannot own them, then it is technically allowed. They're getting by on a loophole.
By the way, if this actually was by John Cleese, this has increased my opinion of him at least ten-fold. I agree with many of those points, which might explain why I want to move to England some day.
lol signature
"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."
When I read that, it seems loud and clear that guns are allowed only when involved in a militia.
Take care all.
The second amendment is rather poorly worded. Depending on if you use words such as "And" "Or" "If" or "Because" to fill in the grammerical errors, you get entirely different assertions of that right. But it's also clear that any power not given is, by default, a power possessed by the lowest applicable rung. Federal to State to Local to People. And as no specifics are mentioned, that means the lowest applicable rung- the PEOPLE get the individual power over firearms. All I need to is add one little word....
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Aha, therein lieth the problem, methinks.
/me gets out his copy of the constitution...
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
There's no 'and' in there.
But like I said, there's no law saying you CAN'T own a gun, so you get by with a loophole.
lol signature
Guns don't kill people, violent societies caused mostly by violent media do.
.opt
Last edited by Optium; 02-23-2005 at 01:05 AM.
its offensive mainly because no one on the forums relaly fit into the category of "average american".
Oh, I'm sure some do.
Posting Permissions
