Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

[Shazbotdom]

I'm just sayin', if you can't handle

(Image)

Then

(Image)

welcomes you

And just pray to Goat God that you don't run into

(Image)

If you don't have anything to add to the debate, then why are you posting?

[MERIZoC]

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

Guns. Forever.

"Spoiler that shit" is right. *** Warned for picspam. *** If your images are longer than the actual written content of your post, UR DOIN IT RONG.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Reppy, your bansword picture is longer than your text.

[Rhoderberg]

I'm just sayin', if you can't handle

(Image)

Then

(Image)

welcomes you

And just pray to Goat God that you don't run into

(Image)

Cut it out with the picspam.

[The NAR]

I'm just sayin', if you can't handle

(Image)

Then

(Image)

welcomes you

And just pray to Goat God that you don't run into

(Image)

If you don't have anything to add to the debate, then why are you posting?

Actually I do have something to add, just having some fun.

As an American Gun Owner, I feel that taking away my right to Bear Arms would be a spit in the face of the Founding Fathers. It is our RIGHT to defend ourselves, whether it be against extremist goat fuckers, Ivan, or aliens, I want my damn guns and I ain't letting NOBODY take them from me

[NERVUN]

If you don't have anything to add to the debate, then why are you posting?

Actually I do have something to add, just having some fun.

As an American Gun Owner, I feel that taking away my right to Bear Arms would be a spit in the face of the Founding Fathers. It is our RIGHT to defend ourselves, whether it be against extremist goat fuckers, Ivan, or aliens, I want my damn guns and I ain't letting NOBODY take them from me

*** One day ban for continued pic spam after Moderator warning AND trolling ***

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Actually I do have something to add, just having some fun.

As an American Gun Owner, I feel that taking away my right to Bear Arms would be a spit in the face of the Founding Fathers. It is our RIGHT to defend ourselves, whether it be against extremist goat fuckers, Ivan, or aliens, I want my damn guns and I ain't letting NOBODY take them from me

*** One day ban for continued pic spam after Moderator warning AND trolling ***

Can I fq the exchange in the report thread with links removed?

[Imperializt Russia]

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

Guns. Forever.

I see just two American firearms in there lol. Washington is using a weapon that looks like an aesthetic cross between an RPG-7 and a Panzerfaust 3, so Russian and German, and Reagan is holding an RPG-7 and a HK MP7, so Russian and German again.

Also, the Apollo programme is basically Nazi technology.

America: so awesome it has to live off the Nazis.

[Kernen]

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

Guns. Forever.

I see just two American firearms in there lol. Washington is using a weapon that looks like an aesthetic cross between an RPG-7 and a Panzerfaust 3, so Russian and German, and Reagan is holding an RPG-7 and a HK MP7, so Russian and German again.

Also, the Apollo programme is basically Nazi technology.

America: so awesome it has to live off the Nazis.

Well, you have to admit, the Nazis had so much going for them. Except for the fascism bits. And the hating Jews bit. And the Holocaust. And the Second World War thing. And Hitler. Wait...

[Rhoderberg]

Also, the Apollo programme is basically Nazi technology.

America: so awesome it has to live off the Nazis.

I'm sorry, what was that?

I couldn't hear you over my six moon landings.

[The Neo-Hellenic Republic]

Also, the Apollo programme is basically Nazi technology.

America: so awesome it has to live off the Nazis.

I'm sorry, what was that?

I couldn't hear you over my six moon landings.

I think you were hearing the Columbia shuttle.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm sorry, what was that?

I couldn't hear you over my six moon landings.

I think you were hearing the Columbia shuttle.

That's no tinnitus...

[Tayner]

I'm sorry, what was that?

I couldn't hear you over my six moon landings.

I think you were hearing the Columbia shuttle.

Nah, that was the Internet that we invented.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. In DC v. Heller, they ruled that firearms ownership is an individual right. After all, it does say "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". Everywhere else in the Constitution, "the people" refers to individuals, so why would they use a different meaning for this ONE amendment?

44 states also have the right to bear arms in their state constitutions (for example, CT's state constitution Article 1 Section 15 states: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state).

I realize that state constitutions give clear right to bear arms, but this discussion is about the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights. I realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but I'm here to give my own opinion and interpretation of the Second Amendment. In addition, you quoted the Amendment, putting emphasis on "the right of the people," right? So you're basically disregarding the entire first half of the Amendment and sticking to what supports you. Congratulations, and I hope you give a more logical response next time.

My response was logical. Why would the 2nd Amendment's reference to "the people" mean something different than any other reference in the Constitution to "the people"? Also, my referencing the state constitutions is because of your statement "If we were to follow the second amendment in the way it is written, personal gun ownership is illegal". Even IF the 2nd Amendment were interpreted to protect the right of militias to bear arms, it would still mean that in 44 states, the individual has the right to bear arms protected (the other states would still have the right to bear arms, but it wouldn't be a protected right). Your statement quoted above is wrong.

[Fartsniffage]

I realize that state constitutions give clear right to bear arms, but this discussion is about the Second Amendment in the United States Bill of Rights. I realize that the Supreme Court disagrees with me, but I'm here to give my own opinion and interpretation of the Second Amendment. In addition, you quoted the Amendment, putting emphasis on "the right of the people," right? So you're basically disregarding the entire first half of the Amendment and sticking to what supports you. Congratulations, and I hope you give a more logical response next time.

My response was logical. Why would the 2nd Amendment's reference to "the people" mean something different than any other reference in the Constitution to "the people"? Also, my referencing the state constitutions is because of your statement "If we were to follow the second amendment in the way it is written, personal gun ownership is illegal". Even IF the 2nd Amendment were interpreted to protect the right of militias to bear arms, it would still mean that in 44 states, the individual has the right to bear arms protected (the other states would still have the right to bear arms, but it wouldn't be a protected right). Your statement quoted above is wrong.

Serious question here. Are there any other amendments where a big chunk is considered irrelevant to the meaning of the amendment?

[Gun Manufacturers]

My response was logical. Why would the 2nd Amendment's reference to "the people" mean something different than any other reference in the Constitution to "the people"? Also, my referencing the state constitutions is because of your statement "If we were to follow the second amendment in the way it is written, personal gun ownership is illegal". Even IF the 2nd Amendment were interpreted to protect the right of militias to bear arms, it would still mean that in 44 states, the individual has the right to bear arms protected (the other states would still have the right to bear arms, but it wouldn't be a protected right). Your statement quoted above is wrong.

Serious question here. Are there any other amendments where a big chunk is considered irrelevant to the meaning of the amendment?

It's a prefatory subordinate clause. It is there to explain why the right to bear arms was being protected. And at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the people WERE the militia.

[Occupied Deutschland]

My response was logical. Why would the 2nd Amendment's reference to "the people" mean something different than any other reference in the Constitution to "the people"? Also, my referencing the state constitutions is because of your statement "If we were to follow the second amendment in the way it is written, personal gun ownership is illegal". Even IF the 2nd Amendment were interpreted to protect the right of militias to bear arms, it would still mean that in 44 states, the individual has the right to bear arms protected (the other states would still have the right to bear arms, but it wouldn't be a protected right). Your statement quoted above is wrong.

Serious question here. Are there any other amendments where a big chunk is considered irrelevant to the meaning of the amendment?

The twenty dollar clause of the seventh amendment comes to mind, I don't think anybody really gives it any mind whatsoever when it comes to its effects.

[Fartsniffage]

Serious question here. Are there any other amendments where a big chunk is considered irrelevant to the meaning of the amendment?

It's a prefatory subordinate clause. It is there to explain why the right to bear arms was being protected. And at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the people WERE the militia.

Well that's fine. But do any of the other amendments have a similar prefatory subordinate clause?

The reason I ask is that it seems odd that this one does and the others seem not to. With the others, all the words seem to matter but not this one. I'm curious why.

[Gun Manufacturers]

It's a prefatory subordinate clause. It is there to explain why the right to bear arms was being protected. And at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the people WERE the militia.

Well that's fine. But do any of the other amendments have a similar prefatory subordinate clause?

The reason I ask is that it seems odd that this one does and the others seem not to. With the others, all the words seem to matter but not this one. I'm curious why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... _of_Rights

James Madison's initial proposal regarding arms in the BoR was, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[107]"

The amendment was rearranged by a committee (by putting part of it in front, as a prefatory subordinate clause). It's possible that a committee is the only reason why the 2nd is the only amendment with one.

[Fartsniffage]

Well that's fine. But do any of the other amendments have a similar prefatory subordinate clause?

The reason I ask is that it seems odd that this one does and the others seem not to. With the others, all the words seem to matter but not this one. I'm curious why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ame ... _of_Rights

James Madison's initial proposal regarding arms in the BoR was, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[107]"

The amendment was rearranged by a committee (by putting part of it in front, as a prefatory subordinate clause). It's possible that a committee is the only reason why the 2nd is the only amendment with one.

Okay. But now were just back to talking about other amendments that have language in them that isn't relevant. Are there any?

As far as I can see, the only reason there is language in this amendment that isn't important is that it's convenient for it to be so.

[Kernen]

Okay. But now were just back to talking about other amendments that have language in them that isn't relevant. Are there any?

As far as I can see, the only reason there is language in this amendment that isn't important is that it's convenient for it to be so.

The twenty dollar clause of the seventh amendment comes to mind, I don't think anybody really gives it any mind whatsoever when it comes to its effects.

[Republic of Coldwater]

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

(Image)

Guns. Forever.

"And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air"

[Archegnum]

As a Brit, I find the fact that Americans can just go out and buy a gun a really abstract concept. I can't seem to find a single decent reason for the general public to have guns without a license other than 'it dis encourages violent crime'. Which doesn't seem to work.

Anyone care to explain to me why it's actually a good idea? I would genuinely like to find out the reason(s) behind the lack of restrictive gun laws in the USA when gun restriction in Europe works so well.

[Washington Resistance Army]

As a Brit, I find the fact that Americans can just go out and buy a gun a really abstract concept. I can't seem to find a single decent reason for the general public to have guns without a license other than 'it dis encourages violent crime'. Which doesn't seem to work.

Anyone care to explain to me why it's actually a good idea? I would genuinely like to find out the reason(s) behind the lack of restrictive gun laws in the USA when gun restriction in Europe works so well.

Because it does indeed lower crime (crime overall has also been on the decrease in the US for a while), we value the right to go do that and gun restrictions like you have in Europe would be entirely impossible to implement in the US.

[Kernen]

As a Brit, I find the fact that Americans can just go out and buy a gun a really abstract concept. I can't seem to find a single decent reason for the general public to have guns without a license other than 'it dis encourages violent crime'. Which doesn't seem to work.

Anyone care to explain to me why it's actually a good idea? I would genuinely like to find out the reason(s) behind the lack of restrictive gun laws in the USA when gun restriction in Europe works so well.

Hunting. Target Shooting. Competition shooting. Pest control. Self defense. Collection. Plenty of recreational and practical uses there.

[Sevvania]

As a Brit, I find the fact that Americans can just go out and buy a gun a really abstract concept. I can't seem to find a single decent reason for the general public to have guns without a license other than 'it dis encourages violent crime'. Which doesn't seem to work.

Anyone care to explain to me why it's actually a good idea? I would genuinely like to find out the reason(s) behind the lack of restrictive gun laws in the USA when gun restriction in Europe works so well.

Because it does indeed lower crime (crime overall has also been on the decrease in the US for a while), we value the right to go do that and gun restrictions like you have in Europe would be entirely impossible to implement in the US.

I've not seen much evidence that it actually reduces crime. I've not seen any evidence that it increases it, either. Crime has indeed been on a steady, consistent decline for decades, but it did this before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, it did this during the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and it has continued to do so after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

While you may not see much justification for unlicensed guns, there doesn't seem to be much reason for randomly imposing a mandatory license on anything except perhaps handguns, considering FBI statistics indicate that shotguns and rifles account for fewer deaths (together) than bare hands.