Has The U.S Government Overstepped its Boundries on Anti-Gun

[Rabopari]

why should we listen to the second amendmant? it was written years before the AR-15 was designed and the AK 47 even the M9. If im honest with you we should update it. and just before anybody says you'll have to re write the constitution which is true, then why don't they? Besides. Some things need reviewing in the US constitution.

[Australian Antarctica]

:clap:
Lighten Up. I am still contributing.

Posting the same shitty picture everytime someone says something you like doesn't contribute anything.

Just please stop. I will stop with the picture.

[Australian Antarctica]

:clap:
Lighten Up. I am still contributing.

Posting the same shitty picture everytime someone says something you like doesn't contribute anything.

Just please stop. I will stop with the picture.

[Enadail]

The argument that "guns don't kill people" and references to "spoons make people fat" is not accurate because guns offer the possibility to kill.

Lots of things offer the possibility to kill. If I was crazy, I could kill with quite a few things. There's the knives in the kitchen, chainsaws in the garage, my car, pharmaceuticals, cleaning chemicals, the fire place, etc., etc. Hell, I'm sure you could even electrically kill a person if you wanted. And then there's all the things you could find outside of your home. You know, the average American could give somebody lethal burns with just a can of hair spray and a lighter from the convenience store. Should we outlaw those as well? I know for a fact though, that spoons could be deadly. I saw somebody turn a spoon into a shank once because they were bored.

You can kill with a number of things. Doing so is always illegal. You can't walk around town just brandishing a knife, pharmaceuticals are controlled, many chemicals, electricity can't simply be carried around, etc.

All these actions are controlled. Just the same as many people want guns to be controlled. There is no movement to ban guns, so I'm not your what your point is.

[Galloism]

why should we listen to the second amendmant? it was written years before the AR-15 was designed and the AK 47 even the M9. If im honest with you we should update it. and just before anybody says you'll have to re write the constitution which is true, then why don't they? Besides. Some things need reviewing in the US constitution.

And that freedom of speech totally didn't envision radio/tv broadcasting and the Internet.

We should probably rewrite it.

[Greater Ilanar]

1. The Constitution says "shall not be infringed". The only legal way to conduct gun control is via constitutional amendment.

If we're going to play literal, it also says to maintain a militia.

Let me tell you exactly what the Constitution says, since we're being literal. "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." It says there is a need for a militia and it also literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Corvus Metallum]

After surfing through YouTube, I finally found a guy who is trying to be rational about gun control

[Greater Ilanar]

All these actions are controlled. Just the same as many people want guns to be controlled. There is no movement to ban guns, so I'm not your what your point is.

Oh, and have you never heard of the Democratic Party?

[Galloism]

All these actions are controlled. Just the same as many people want guns to be controlled. There is no movement to ban guns, so I'm not your what your point is.

Oh, and have you never heard of the Democratic Party?

Good God.

Do you really believe that? Really?

[Rabopari]

why should we listen to the second amendmant? it was written years before the AR-15 was designed and the AK 47 even the M9. If im honest with you we should update it. and just before anybody says you'll have to re write the constitution which is true, then why don't they? Besides. Some things need reviewing in the US constitution.

And that freedom of speech totally didn't envision radio/tv broadcasting and the Internet.

We should probably rewrite it.

exactly what i said Umbssad

[Australian Antarctica]

And that freedom of speech totally didn't envision radio/tv broadcasting and the Internet.

We should probably rewrite it.

exactly what i said Umbssad

So we should get rid of what our founding fathers made? If you do you will be just as bad as the politicians

[Mavorpen]

If we're going to play literal, it also says to maintain a militia.

Let me tell you exactly what the Constitution says, since we're being literal. "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." It says there is a need for a militia and it also literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So what you're saying is, criminals in jail should be given guns.

[Galloism]

Let me tell you exactly what the Constitution says, since we're being literal. "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." It says there is a need for a militia and it also literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So what you're saying is, criminals in jail should be given guns.

I mean, that is the logical outcome of his argument.

[Kouralia]

exactly what i said Umbssad

So we should get rid of what our founding fathers made? If you do you will be just as bad as the politicians

Yeah. Because something some blokes said an age ago isn't automatically gospel just because some blokes an age ago said it. Like the Bible.

[Mavorpen]

exactly what i said Umbssad

So we should get rid of what our founding fathers made? If you do you will be just as bad as the politicians

...And?

[Enadail]

If we're going to play literal, it also says to maintain a militia.

Let me tell you exactly what the Constitution says, since we're being literal. "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." It says there is a need for a militia and it also literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And we do have a militia, its called the National Guard, which has arms and the right to bear them.

Context, it matters.

Regardless, the Supreme Court has determined, numerous times, that the right to bare arms holds, and is not infringed, but can be regulated, just like free speech.

[Enadail]

All these actions are controlled. Just the same as many people want guns to be controlled. There is no movement to ban guns, so I'm not your what your point is.

Oh, and have you never heard of the Democratic Party?

I certainly have, and have never heard or seen a bill banning all guns. Nor I have I seen or heard of any major platform involving banning all guns. In fact, I've only EVER heard that as a fear mongering tactic from Republicans.

[Galloism]

Let me tell you exactly what the Constitution says, since we're being literal. "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." It says there is a need for a militia and it also literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And we do have a militia, its called the National Guard, which has arms and the right to bear them.

Um, actually the militia is all able-bodied males over the age of 18.

Nitpick, but there you go.

[Mavorpen]

So what you're saying is, criminals in jail should be given guns.

I mean, that is the logical outcome of his argument.

I used to be amuse me that people who worship the constitution typically seem to not know the first thing about it, but now it's just plain annoying.

[Farnhamia]

If we're going to play literal, it also says to maintain a militia.

Let me tell you exactly what the Constitution says, since we're being literal. "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." It says there is a need for a militia and it also literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes, it does, in the same sentence. Makes one think that the two are related. If the people who wrote the Second meant it to be only about the right to bear arms, why introduce the statement with a clause about the militia?

[Enadail]

exactly what i said Umbssad

So we should get rid of what our founding fathers made? If you do you will be just as bad as the politicians

I'm not sure why we should consider a set of words written over two centuries ago as divine. I'm failing to see why our laws and values shouldn't reflect our modern society rather then one that barely resembles ours currently.

[Rabopari]

exactly what i said Umbssad

So we should get rid of what our founding fathers made? If you do you will be just as bad as the politicians

well they spy on you when you take a shit so it wont be half as bad as the pervs at the NSA

[Enadail]

And we do have a militia, its called the National Guard, which has arms and the right to bear them.

Um, actually the militia is all able-bodied males over the age of 18.

Nitpick, but there you go.

Fair point.

[Mavorpen]

Let me tell you exactly what the Constitution says, since we're being literal. "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." It says there is a need for a militia and it also literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes, it does, in the same sentence. Makes one think that the two are related. If the people who wrote the Second meant it to be only about the right to bear arms, why introduce the statement with a clause about the militia?

It's to test our faith.

[Galloism]

Let me tell you exactly what the Constitution says, since we're being literal. "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." It says there is a need for a militia and it also literally says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Yes, it does, in the same sentence. Makes one think that the two are related. If the people who wrote the Second meant it to be only about the right to bear arms, why introduce the statement with a clause about the militia?

Purpose clauses are very useful in their own right, expressing justifications or explanation for the reason X is Y.

The core statement of X is Y is unaffected by their justification, aside from the principle that legislative intent is A Thing.