Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
no, i think half the country would have voted obama a third term if it was legal.

imo biden would have won as a puppet obama if he ran. the dnc’s biggest mistake was to collude with hillary
 
still doesn’t change the racist beginnings or trends of gun control. the elite do not need guns because they hire bodyguards.

the police have no legal duty to protect so what are these citizens supposed to do?

there were 58 killed in the last 28 days in chicago
Baltimore 58 deaths in 68 days
St. Louis 58 deaths in 70 days
Philadelphia 58 deaths in 105 days
Kansas City, Mo.58 deaths in 117 days
Houston 58 deaths in 118 days
 
…sorry, I was thinking on the argument of “the poor are being targeted,” do the poor buy collector’s items?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…and just imagine if all those killed had a machinegun on them when they were killed, they would have surely prevented their own demise!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
Roseeurekacross:

.
We stopped having gun massacres here after Port Arthur.
Click to expand...
.
WHY would you universalize your experience and apply it to America or anyone else?

.

What about the approximate 250 MILLION people murdered by GOVERNMENTS in the Twentieth Century alone?

.
Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900
By R. J. Rummel
Click to expand...
https://www.amazon.com/Death-Govern...507836736&sr=8-1&keywords=Death+by+Government

.

What if someone else universalizes THAT experience?

Would you affirm Australia made a mistake then?

Or still hold to what you feel to be the right thing because it suited you?

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Last edited:
RobynP:
If the government really wanted to take your guns, your assault rifle would not even slow them down.
Click to expand...
.
I agree with that. And if they want to take away my free speech, they COULD FORCE that on us too.

And if they want to RE-DEFINE Black people as 3/5 of a person again (or some other group of people) they COULD force that down on the country too.

And if they wanted to house soldiers in your homes again, they could force THAT issue too.

Etc. etc. etc.

But I see no compelling reason in what you are saying that because the Government COULD confiscate peoples firearms, that this would invalidate the protections promised to the people from an overarching Government. Protections for the citizen allegedly enshrined in the Constitution.

The reason you give seems to be a better reason for KEEPING the Second Amendment intact. Not destroying it.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
Roseeurekacross:

.

We stopped having gun massacres here after Port Arthur.
Click to expand...
they continued to have massacres just not with guns. they had 14 in the 20 years prior and have had 14 in the 20 years since.

now the outlaw motorcycle gangs are smuggling guns into the country.

a new buyback is going on now.
 
Cathoholic said:
RobynP:

If the government really wanted to take your guns, your assault rifle would not even slow them down.
Click to expand...
like the drugs the government wanted to eliminate.

they don’t even know where the guns are. how are they going to take them?
 
upant said:
like the drugs the government wanted to eliminate.

they don’t even know where the guns are. how are they going to take them?
Click to expand...
I have to say that is one of the more valid points against any sort of massive gun control. What one can actually do must be considered, not just that which would be best.

I think we could see a lot of improvement if we simply took the limitations off government funded research into gun violence and made sure those that chose to arm themselves at least do so knowing the consequences.
 
I support it, but don’t support a badly regulated militia. I’ve read Hamilton’s letters on the subject, which were not and are not law, and I don’t care for Hamilton. I also know that much of Hamilton’s work under Washington was “undone” by Madison. I like Madison in so far as he undid Hamilton.
 
Well, Burr pulled off the ultimate undoing of Hamilton. Hamilton was an outspoken critic of Burr b4 the undoing.

I appreciate how Burr upheld the 2nd.
 
All this limiting the number of firearms a person can own???

A person can only shoot one at a time.
 
more common sense rules:

• We must ban and criminalize the possession of automatic weapons!

essentially done. 1934 and 1986

• We must close loopholes such as buying a weapon at a gun show!

gun dealers must do background checks even at gun shows already

• We must ban the purchase of firearms and ammunition on the internet!

As soon as newspapers and magazines are banned from the internet. Both are constitutionally protected individual rights. Internet purchases go through federally licensed gun dealers just like on sight
Purchases.

• We must increase the waiting period and make background checks more rigorous and effective!

As soon as we increase the waiting period for protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The NICS is already vigorous and, by and large, effective

• We must limit the number of firearms any individual can own!

No reason to. Street thugs with stolen handguns kill far more people than the few though tragic mass shootings. A limit on ownership will not interfere with either.

• We must limit the number of bullets any firearm clip can hold!

I want my wife to have as many rounds as she needs to protect herself from multiple intruders and poor sim due to panic.

• We must ban and criminalize the purchase and possession of armor piercing bullets, and also hollow-tip bullets!

which of the mass shooters used these? Which street thugs use them? Will this impact the criminals?

• We must rethink the “logic” of permitting concealed weapons, especially in places like houses of worship, colleges, bars,
[/quote]

Which mass shootings occurred because the shooter had a CCL.

All of these target the law abiding. Target the criminal first. Start in our big cities where the overwhelming number of gun murders take place.
In 2016, 762 murders took place in Chicago alone.
Virtually none of these would be affected by your list.
Chicago has among the strictest gun laws in America.
New gun laws that target the law abiding will not fix the problem
 
Last edited:
Do most people know that arming themselves increased the likelihood they will die a violent death?
 
A gun is an inanimate object. Follow the rules of gun safety and there is no problem. Otherwise we have a winner for the Darwin Award.
 
What the heck does a violent, racist group have to do with any of this?

Rather, look at the stats of whites who are killed by blacks. Disproportionate - yet the largest single threat to a black man’s life is another black man.

It is all cultural rot, no matter how you view it.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
We must rethink the “logic” of permitting concealed weapons, especially in places like houses of worship, colleges, bars,
Click to expand...
Even that one would fall under the 1st Ammendment. What right should the government have to tell a place of worship to ban guns.

What if a pastor, imam or rabbi wanted to carry in his own church\mosque\synagogue? I think it should be treated like any other private property. If a pastor, imam or rabbi wishes to allow it, fine; if they wish to ban it, that is fine too. But it should be THEIR decision, not the governments.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
Chicago has among the strictest gun laws in America.

New gun laws that target the law abiding will not fix the problem
Click to expand...
Chicago does indeed have very strict gun laws, like my home city of New York. The problem is that neighboring states don’t.

From https://www.chicagocriminallawyerblog.net/2017/09/where-do-all-illegal-guns-from-chicago.html:
Indiana has really lax gun laws. Gun dealers are required to perform a very basic background search while a vendor can sell their “private collection” to anyone at a gun show without any background search whatsoever. So someone can buy an assault rifle at a Crown Point Indiana gun show without any background search, and drive an hour into Chicago, where assault rifles are banned. A 2015 study by the University of Chicago suggested that only 11% of guns involved in crimes in Chicago were purchased through federally licensed gun dealers, which require background searches. In 2014 the Chicago Police reported that roughly 60% of guns used and recovered from crime scenes between 2009 and 2013 were purchased outside of Illinois. Exact figures are hard to pin down but it is clear that the vast majority of guns making their way to the streets of Chicago are coming from outside of Illinois.
Click to expand...
And then we get into straw man purchases.

Chicago’s situation does not prove that gun control laws don’t work. It proves that we need comprehensive gun control legislation on a national level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top