Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

by **Jerkmany** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:37 am

I've always been fairly torn on this issue, but I'm starting to wonder if there's a way to have a safe and effective gun policy with the right to bear arms stopping legislation. Should the amendment be changed? Should it be repealed?

Mod Edit: Generalized title

by **Liberty and Linguistics** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:37 am

Perhaps it could be revised and updated to be more modern, but I see no reason to repeal it. Gun rights should be an idea that is held highly in this country.

by **Washington Resistance Army** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:38 am

No it should not be repealed, we just need to fix and better enforce our gun laws.

by **The Sotoan Union** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:39 am

No. It is confusing though, with some people thinking it means the right to create a militia and some people thinking it is the right to own guns as an individual.

by **Azov Battalion** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:40 am

The problem isn't guns.

It's fucktarded people with fucked brains that think they can kill anyone they want.

The absence of a gun is not going to change someone's fucked up brain, their brain is fucked they are fucked they are going to do some fuckery one way or another

by **Insaeldor** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:40 am

No, what kind of fucking question is that? Sure we have a couple dibshits who try to justify their bullshit with the second amendment but the vast majority of people who use the benefit granted to them by the 2nd amendment treat it like it is a responsibility and are responsible with their actions.

by **Kelinfort** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:41 am

No. There need to be prudent regulations. But we should protect the right to own a firearm.

by **Christian State of Mississippi** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:42 am

NO! The Second Amendment is fine as it is! You or the government shall not take my god-given right to own my AR-15.

by **Revin** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:42 am

No, if we repeal it then it won't effect "bad guys" because their already breaking the law so why would they follow it now?

by **Liberty and Linguistics** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:42 am

Christian State of Mississippi wrote:NO! The Second Amendment is fine as it is! You or the government shall not take my god-given right to own my AR-15.

Satire is supposed to be subtle, sweetie.

by **Hladgos** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:43 am

Nah, it should stay there. Crack down on gun dealers and enforce common sense gun laws. People who shoot for sport, fun, or have a firearm for protection and have adequate mental health and a gun locker, as well as understand all the safety aspects of a firearm can have their guns.

by **The 502nd SS** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:44 am

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
Christian State of Mississippi wrote:NO! The Second Amendment is fine as it is! You or the government shall not take my god-given right to own my AR-15.

Satire is supposed to be subtle, sweetie.

Thing is, its not satire

by **Ashmoria** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:44 am

SHOULD is so useless in reality.

of course it should but it certainly will not.

by **The Universal Inter-Dimensional Union** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:45 am

The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when either Native Americans or Brits were liable to be kicking down your door at any given moment, so a simple flintlock musket was a granted form of defence.

By all means, let the 2nd Amendment stay... but only extend as far as the weapons it was intended for: flintlock muskets. You can still 'defend your castle' with it, but you won't be able to slaughter an entire school in ten minutes.

by **Liberty and Linguistics** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:47 am

The 502nd SS wrote:
Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
Satire is supposed to be subtle, sweetie.

Thing is, its not satire

I have reason to doubt that the post that says "god given right to an AR-15" is serious. Because, where in the Bible does it say "Thou shall not take away thou neighbor's AR-15?" Genesis?

by **Urran** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:49 am

It should perhaps be updated to modern standard English. The definition of militia and regulated has changed since it was written. Militia used to be defined as a group of able bodied men and well regulated in the context that it was used in the constitution meant "well trained". So the constitution essentially says you can have a gun if you know how to use it properly.

by **Insaeldor** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:49 am

Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
The 502nd SS wrote:Thing is, its not satire

I have reason to doubt that the post that says "god given right to an AR-15" is serious. Because, where in the Bible does it say "Thou shall not take away thou neighbor's AR-15?" Genesis?

As far as I know the bible doesn't say a thing as far as ones ability to own a weapon of any kind.

by **Oceanic people** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:50 am

...in a word, NO! On the other hand, to be reasonable, I think that the private ownership of nuclear devices should be limited. I mean, seriously, who needs more than one right? But seriously, I would be in favor of of repealing the Second Amendment IF the government issued every adult 16 to 60, an M-16 and 7 magazines with ammo along with the required training to use it effectively so as to enable them to F-ING kill anything and everything out to 800 meters! Issue me a weapon and then I'll agree that you can take away my RIGHT own my own! :clap:

by **The Universal Inter-Dimensional Union** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:50 am

Urran wrote:It should perhaps be updated to modern standard English. The definition of militia and regulated has changed since it was written. Militia used to be defined as a group of able bodied men and well regulated in the context that it was used in the constitution meant "well trained". So the constitution essentially says you can have a gun if you know how to use it properly.

You know what would be better? Properly training and educating police forces.

by **Scomagia** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:51 am

No. It's perfectly fine the way it is.

by **The Dominion Of The Corn** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am

The Second Amendment is fine. The problem is maniacs getting weapons, not the weapons themselves.

by **Urran** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am

Insaeldor wrote:
Liberty and Linguistics wrote:
I have reason to doubt that the post that says "god given right to an AR-15" is serious. Because, where in the Bible does it say "Thou shall not take away thou neighbor's AR-15?" Genesis?

As far as I know the bible doesn't say a thing as far as ones ability to own a weapon of any kind.

Even the disciples of Jesus carried swords, but you are correct in stating that no where does it say that you have a right to a physical sword.

by **Scomagia** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am

The Universal Inter-Dimensional Union wrote:The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when either Native Americans or Brits were liable to be kicking down your door at any given moment, so a simple flintlock musket was a granted form of defence.

By all means, let the 2nd Amendment stay... but only extend as far as the weapons it was intended for: flintlock muskets. You can still 'defend your castle' with it, but you won't be able to slaughter an entire school in ten minutes.

How about no? Take your gun control bullshit elsewhere.

by **Scomagia** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am

The Dominion Of The Corn wrote:The Second Amendment is fine. The problem is maniacs getting weapons, not the weapons themselves.

That actually isn't really a problem.

by **Arlenton** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 8:53 am

Jerkmany wrote:I've always been fairly torn on this issue, but I'm starting to wonder if there's a way to have a safe and effective gun policy with the right to bear arms stopping legislation. Should the amendment be changed? Should it be repealed?

No, and where's the poll? I like polls.

Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

Second Amendment Repeal / Gun Control

Should the Second Amendment be Repealed....

Who is online